independent economists overwhelmingly side with democrats on economic policy

[Oldstyle]

Before you make a complete ass of yourself I would suggest a little study on public debt and intragovernmental holdings!

Before you move the goalposts, you should do a little studying on why it matters how you count the debt.

Where's your surplus, Derp? Anyone with even a cursory knowledge about intergovermental holdings knows that there was no surplus! The national debt went up each and every year of the Clinton Administration and in the last year of Slick Willie's second term the deficit went up substantially!

 

[Oldstyle]

For liberals to claim that it was George W. Bush that cratered the economy is laughable because the recession Bush inherited was well on it's way in the last years of the Clinton Administration as the Dot Com Boom fizzled out!

 

[The Derp]

Where's your surplus, Derp?

I provided you info from the Tax Policy Center, which got the data directly from the OMB as of 2/14/17, just like the source on the page says. You have yet to prove your assertion that surpluses didn't exist. You only insist it. So we're left with one side (mine) providing infor and your side providing unearned insistence.

Anyone with even a cursory knowledge about intergovermental holdings knows that there was no surplus! The national debt went up each and every year of the Clinton Administration and in the last year of Slick Willie's second term the deficit went up substantially!

If there was no surplus, then how come Gingrich was trying to take credit for it? How come Bush said in his SOTU in 2001 that "surpluses mean we're overtaxed". Conservatives like to move the bar on things as their argument wades into dangerous waters. So you cling to semantics on the one hand, while trying to take credit for the very thing you refuse to acknowledge on the other.

If you don't believe there were surpluses from 1998-2001, I don't know what more to say to you other than the fact that you're full of shit.

 

[The Derp]

For liberals to claim that it was George W. Bush that cratered the economy is laughable because the recession Bush inherited was well on it's way in the last years of the Clinton Administration as the Dot Com Boom fizzled out!

BULL-fucking-SHIT.

GDP growth for 2001, even with 9/11 and the doctom bubble burst, was still positive. So there's no excuse for the deficits appearing.

Secondly, the dotcom bubble was caused by the Capital Gains Tax Cut you shitheads passed in 1997. So the tax cut ended up causing the dotcom bubble to burst which you then use as an excuse for the next 8 years of Bush's shitty economy.

No, the dotcom bubble or 9/11 weren't the reason why Bush created deficits and had shitty growth; his Conservative policies are the reason why we had deficits and shit growth. Bush's economy relied entirely on debt, specifically the debt of people using their homes as ATMs. That's why Bush doubled the debt in 8 years and produced four record deficits. Without Mortgage Equity Withdrawals, Bush's economy looks like shit (and even with MEW's it looks like shit):

 

[Winston]

Before you make a complete ass of yourself I would suggest a little study on public debt and intragovernmental holdings!

Before you move the goalposts, you should do a little studying on why it matters how you count the debt.

Where's your surplus, Derp? Anyone with even a cursory knowledge about intergovermental holdings knows that there was no surplus! The national debt went up each and every year of the Clinton Administration and in the last year of Slick Willie's second term the deficit went up substantially!

The national debt did go up during the Clinton administration. But the PUBLIC DEBT went down. Now impress us with your "economic knowledge" and explain the difference.

 

[The Derp]

The national debt did go up during the Clinton administration. But the PUBLIC DEBT went down. Now impress us with your "economic knowledge" and explain the difference.

Don't expect a thoughtful, intelligent reply. Just more of the "take my word for it" approach to debate.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You should push for a 90% tax rate for the Dem platform in 2020.

Why not a 90% rate on the 1%? It's what we had back when "America was great".

You should get that in the 2020 Dem platform.

 

[bendog]

The truth of the matter is that republicans in office only care about their own financial interests, so they will only formulate policy for that reason. Actual educated economists, however, do not.

This quote from an article below sums up the statistics:

Opinions of economists
There are many different ways to assess the consensus of economists on policy issues. Much of the public believes that economists tend to be libertarian and to favor laissez faire economic policy. That idea- that economic wisdom favors leaving all things to the free market- is actually dead wrong. Economists generally tend to support policies at least as liberal as the policies the Democratic Party supports. Some examples:

• 71% of economists favor using government to redistribute wealth and only 8% strongly oppose it. In fact, the concept of the diminishing marginal utility of wealth is a very well established and non-controversial economic principle. Even Adam Smith expressed the view that the government should redistribute wealth.

• Only 12% of economists take the view that the costs of the stimulus outweighed the benefits- a view passionately held by nearly all Republicans.

• 75% of economists favor government tuning the economy with monetary policy- an idea often vehemently rejected by the Republican Party- while only 4% of economists strongly oppose it.

• Zero percent- not a single economist in the entire sample- of economists agree with the central tenant of Republican fiscal policy that cutting tax rates would boost the economy enough to cause revenues to increase.

• 94% of economists support taking action to address climate change.

In terms of specific policies, economists appear to consistently and overwhelmingly either support the Democrats' policies or to be to the left of the Democrats. This stance on policy issues unsurprisingly translates into which party economists support: Democratic economists outnumber Republican economists by 2.5 to 1. In 2012, economists felt that President Obama had a better grasp of economics than Mitt Romney by a margin of almost 2-to-1 and that President Obama would grow the economy faster than Mitt Romney by a a margin of 20 points

Which Party Is Better for the Economy?

Does either party take deficits seriously?

 

[The Derp]

You should get that in the 2020 Dem platform.

Maybe we should!

But hold on a second, though...Conservatives want to "make America great again". When was this idealized time when America was "great"?

 

[bendog]

The national debt did go up during the Clinton administration. But the PUBLIC DEBT went down. Now impress us with your "economic knowledge" and explain the difference.

Don't expect a thoughtful, intelligent reply. Just more of the "take my word for it" approach to debate.

The difference was that had not W expanded the private debt, then we could have better afforded to "pay back" the public debt (i.e. social sec for boomers) by issuing new private debt.

 

[The Derp]

Does either party take deficits seriously?

I'd argue that seriousness over the deficit is unwarranted. Particularly when it was Obama who reduced it by 2/3 and Clinton erased it while Reagan doubled it and Bush the Dumber erased surpluses and produced 4 record deficits.

I don't see why the deficit is something that should be taken seriously at all. It just seems like a red herring Trojan Horse that Conservatives use to attack social programs they are ideologically opposed to, yet lack the courage and/or support to repeal through conventional legislation.

 

[bendog]

Does either party take deficits seriously?

I'd argue that seriousness over the deficit is unwarranted. Particularly when it was Obama who reduced it by 2/3 and Clinton erased it while Reagan doubled it and Bush the Dumber erased surpluses and produced 4 record deficits.

I don't see why the deficit is something that should be taken seriously at all. It just seems like a red herring Trojan Horse that Conservatives use to attack social programs they are ideologically opposed to, yet lack the courage and/or support to repeal through conventional legislation.

I disagree at to the effect of debt, but thank you for the response.

 

[The Derp]

The difference was that had not W expanded the private debt, then we could have better afforded to "pay back" the public debt (i.e. social sec for boomers) by issuing new private debt.

Problem is that private debt was the only thing sustaining Bush the Dumber's economy because his fiscal policies didn't deliver on the promises made of them. I love this chart because it shows entirely how Bush grew his economy; with debt:

 

[The Derp]

I disagree at to the effect of debt, but thank you for the response.

I would say that unlike individual debt, there is no risk of the government "dying" and thus, not repaying what is owed (mostly to taxpayers). We've carried a debt load since the 1840's, as have most western democracies. Debt could affect borrowing rates, but it hasn't since Obama. In fact, the only entity trying to raise rates is the Fed, and I'm not entirely clear why. It's not like we're going through a high inflationary period...

 

[bendog]

The difference was that had not W expanded the private debt, then we could have better afforded to "pay back" the public debt (i.e. social sec for boomers) by issuing new private debt.

Problem is that private debt was the only thing sustaining Bush the Dumber's economy because his fiscal policies didn't deliver on the promises made of them. I love this chart because it shows entirely how Bush grew his economy; with debt:

Basically, I agree. W's tax cuts were not economically supply side justified. They were not even based on Thatcherism or Reaganomics. They were fiscal stimulus designed to perpetuate bubble markets in equities and real estate so the crash didn't occur on his watch. He was a terrible president. I regret my vote in 2000

 

[The Derp]

Basically, I agree. W's tax cuts were not economically supply side justified. They were not even based on Thatcherism or Reaganomics. They were fiscal stimulus designed to perpetuate bubble markets in equities and real estate so the crash didn't occur on his watch. He was a terrible president. I regret my vote in 2000

It takes a lot of courage to admit this, so thank you for being reasonable and self-aware.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The truth of the matter is that republicans in office only care about their own financial interests, so they will only formulate policy for that reason.

Yeah, Democrats never do that.

Salisbury News: Dianne Feinstein’s Husband Wins Near-Billion Dollar California ‘High Speed Rail’ Contract

Democrats make actual policy that benefits the poor and middle class even if some of them are self-serving assholes.

Lol. No they don't. They hate the poor and it shows through the legislation they pass through.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You should get that in the 2020 Dem platform.

Maybe we should!

But hold on a second, though...Conservatives want to "make America great again". When was this idealized time when America was "great"?

You'll be sure to win if you only raise rates high enough.

 

[The Derp]

You'll be sure to win if you only raise rates high enough.

Seems like there's more support for raising taxes on the rich than there is cutting them. There are more arguments for raising taxes on the rich than there are for cutting them. I haven't heard a good argument for cutting taxes, other than the repeated lie that they'll pay for themselves in increased economic activity.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

The truth of the matter is that republicans in office only care about their own financial interests, so they will only formulate policy for that reason.

Yeah, Democrats never do that.

Salisbury News: Dianne Feinstein’s Husband Wins Near-Billion Dollar California ‘High Speed Rail’ Contract

Democrats make actual policy that benefits the poor and middle class even if some of them are self-serving assholes.

Sure they do. That's why the poverty rate in this country is exactly the same as it was 50 years ago when they started "helping" everyone

See, I love this crap. On the hand you say the government should never interfere in the economy, but here you are complaining about dems doing nothing for the poor or middle class.

The truth is that many democrat policies either do, or would benefit the poor had republicans allowed them to pass. ACA gave health insurance to 20 million more people. Raising the minimum wage wouid help the poor. I can name more examples if you'd like.

The government should never interfere in the economy. We're not complaining that the left does nothing, we're pointing out that the billions in taxpayer dollars they've spent on "Helping the poor" has accomplished absolutely nothing. The amount of money the left has wasted has not only NOT decreased the poverty rate, but is also enough to have bought every poor person in America a house.

No, that's the truth as you perceive it, according to what you've been told BY the people BUILDING those policies in the first place. the truth is that since the 1950s, not one single leftist policy has ACTUALLY helped a poor person ANYWHERE. The TRUTH is that the poor people don't need handouts. If the left TRULY wanted to help the poor, they'd be creating programs to get them jobs, not programs to get them reliant on government handouts.If the Leftist policies were helping the poor, we'd be seeing results.

No, the ACA forced 20 million people to buy healthcare that was vastly inferior to what they already had, and what they'd get were healthcare fully privatized. People are now paying more for healthcare than ever before.

Raising the minimum wage doesn't help anyone, it only causes prices to rise with it. Less than 5% ACTUALLY make minimum wage.