independent economists overwhelmingly side with democrats on economic policy

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Billy000, Sep 28, 2017.

  1. jc456
    Offline

    jc456 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2013
    Messages:
    43,459
    Thanks Received:
    2,808
    Trophy Points:
    1,815
    Ratings:
    +14,223
    NO IT FUCKING ISN'T.

    sure it is, they send me my statement on what I'm entitled to. but it's mine cause it is based on my money. Think man.

    your SS account now and take money out?
    nope, the social program doesn't allow that. there are ways to get it though due to health. again, why we're opposed. BTW, I had to get to age 59.5 to get at my 401K it's a rule based on age.
     
  2. The Derp
    Offline

    The Derp Silver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2017
    Messages:
    6,736
    Thanks Received:
    456
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Ratings:
    +2,233
    He sure was. His economic record blows all of yours out of the water, dating back alllllllllllll the way to Ike. You'd need to go back to the 1950's when a real Republican was President to have the economic track record of Clinton.


    1. So you once again prefer to argue in hypothetical land. It's just your flawed assumption you're substituting in as fact. Man, you're getting your clock cleaned here!

    2. But it couldn't keep going and was actually popping toward late 2006. That's when all those garbage subprimes you issued in 2004 started entering default. And how would Bush even keep the subprime bubble growing? Well, he'd have to lower lending standards so much that banks could just make garbage loans until the cows came home. Oh wait...that's actually what he did in 2004. So he had nowhere to go. So your hypothetical fantasy is just that, a fantasy.

    So once again, we have a situation where you absolutely refuse to accept reality, choosing instead to live in hypothetical fantasy land because you cannot reconcile that what you believe is utter shit. Your subprime bubble began popping in late 2006.

    [​IMG]



    Man, are you dishonest.

    LOL! So once again, you choose to actively ignore facts so you could lessen the severity of the shittiness of your policies by focusing on % of GDP. Tell me, what is the significance of presenting the deficit in those numbers? Is it because it's the only way your argument doesn't look like shit, and thus, your beliefs look like shit? Because that's the only explanation for ignoring actual numbers to re-contextualize it.

    BTW - what did Bush have to show for all his stupid tax cuts? Nothing. Not one thing. I mean, other than job loss, massive deficits, doubling of the debt, and spiking household debt as a percentage of GDP.

    Oh yeah...if you want to talk in those terms, let's do it.

    Bush sklyrocketed household debt as a percentage of GDP, just like Reagan:

    [​IMG]
     
  3. The Derp
    Offline

    The Derp Silver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2017
    Messages:
    6,736
    Thanks Received:
    456
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Ratings:
    +2,233
    I think what's actually happening here is that all your "conventional" wisdom is being washed away by both Winston and me, and you're desperate to maintain this facade, so you just accuse others of doing the thing you are guilty of doing. I mean, why else would you try to alter and change the context of figures and numbers if you weren't scrambling to plug holes in your argument? I don't have to do that, but you do. So what does that say about your argument? That it sucks.


    In this case, yes. Financial Services produce no tangible product, therefore shouldn't be privileged when it comes to regulating them.


    As I understand it, hardly any of the Dodd-Frank rules are actually in effect and most are tied up in the courts. Not like it matters anyway, as Wells Fargo proved with all the fraud they perpetrated very recently that bank rules mean nothing.


    We shouldn't necessarily add more, we should break them up. Back into regional banks. They're too big to fail right now and dominate too much of the market share.
     
  4. The Derp
    Offline

    The Derp Silver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2017
    Messages:
    6,736
    Thanks Received:
    456
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Ratings:
    +2,233
    For fuck's sake...what they send you is a statement of your projected benefit, and that projection changes depending on your income. But that doesn't mean it's your money. It's not. It's just the benefits you will be entitled to when you become eligible. What you will end up getting out of SS will be more than what you put into it.


    And why not? BECAUSE SOCIAL SECURITY IS PAY-GO. SS revenues collected today are used to pay for SS beneficiaries today. Just like Medicare. That's why you can't take money out of your Social Security benefits before eligibility, because there is no account that holds the money you are entitled to when you become eligible.

    Otherwise, the SS Trust would be exponentially higher than it is today.

    Fucking dumbass.


    You can still take money out of your 401k (depending on what it is), you just pay a penalty for doing so. No such option exists with Social Security, because there is no money in a personalized lock-box. SS is pay go; the people currently on SS are getting their benefits from the revenues of people currently contributing to it.

    Moron.
     
  5. Toddsterpatriot
    Offline

    Toddsterpatriot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    35,030
    Thanks Received:
    4,537
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +16,253

    He sure was

    So why did he create a bubble?
    Forget to manage while Monica was managing him?
    Did he manage Arkansas out of 49th or 50th place, economy-wise? Why not?
    Or do his wonderful management skills only work when Monica is around?

    His economic record blows all of yours out of the water

    Sure, because as soon as Gore invented the Internet, managing a $9 trillion economy is easy! LOL!

    So you once again prefer to argue in hypothetical land.

    Well, yeah, because when I said, "If the real estate bubble had continued........"
    It's a hypothetical you moron.

    But it couldn't keep going

    Who said it could.....or should?
    Bubbles are bad. We should try to minimize them a bit, not enlarge them.

    That's when all those garbage subprimes you issued in 2004 started entering default.

    I didn't issue any mortgages, subprime or otherwise.

    by focusing on % of GDP

    If your point was that the dollar amount of deficits increases over time as the economy grows, as inflation moves along......no fucking kidding. Real deep point there asshole.

    Is it because it's the only way your argument doesn't look like shit

    Do you think my argument was that Bush deficit dollar amounts weren't higher than previous deficit dollar amounts? LOL!

    If you think I made that moronic claim, provide a link to where I said that.

    BTW - what did Bush have to show for all his stupid tax cuts?

    Better GDP growth after they were fully phased in than Obama in any of his 8 years of weakest recovery since WWII.
     
  6. Toddsterpatriot
    Offline

    Toddsterpatriot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    35,030
    Thanks Received:
    4,537
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +16,253

    I think what's actually happening here is that all your "conventional" wisdom is being washed away by both Winston and me

    It's my conventional wisdom that value added isn't only for tangible products? LOL!

    I still love the moronic claim that higher corporate tax rates lead to more investment and lower tax rates lead to less investment.

    Really beautiful argument!! DERP!

    As I understand it, hardly any of the Dodd-Frank rules are actually in effect

    There's more proof of your ignorance of the topic.

    In this case, yes. Financial Services produce no tangible product


    upload_2017-10-5_15-42-38.png

    Gross value added of financial corporate business


    And yet, add nearly $1.5 trillion in value.

    We shouldn't necessarily add more, we should break them up. Back into regional banks. They're too big to fail right now and dominate too much of the market share

    Five $200 billion banks failing would have the same economic impact as a single $1 trillion bank failing.
     
  7. jc456
    Offline

    jc456 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2013
    Messages:
    43,459
    Thanks Received:
    2,808
    Trophy Points:
    1,815
    Ratings:
    +14,223
    your projected benefit,

    my benefit. It has my name on it. I ask when I'm 65.6 and they send me money. hmmmmm how is that not mine? if all the money in the hopper is gone, I don't get it. right? so government keep the fk out of my money.
     
  8. imawhosure
    Offline

    imawhosure Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2015
    Messages:
    4,517
    Thanks Received:
    1,038
    Trophy Points:
    345
    Ratings:
    +4,279

    There was no surplus, and you know it. But, I will admit, Newt Gingrich got us close, but thanks for singing his praises as if he did!
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Winston
    Offline

    Winston VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2016
    Messages:
    1,132
    Thanks Received:
    204
    Trophy Points:
    80
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +597
    Tell me, just exactly what "value" do financial intermediaries add to GDP? The name should give you a hint, they don't.

    Now, to the claim that I have not explained why a 50% corporate tax rate results in more investment than a 20% rate. I have explained it profusely. But don't take my word for it, try the Angry Bear, you know, a group of financial professionals, most with Phd's in Economics.

    Exactly what I have been saying.
     
  10. Winston
    Offline

    Winston VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2016
    Messages:
    1,132
    Thanks Received:
    204
    Trophy Points:
    80
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +597
    Well first of all look at the damn graph of the Laffer curve. Now tell me, just where are products on that graph. You got tax revenue on one side and the marginal tax rate on the other. Nothing in the graph about products. It's not a damn supply and demand line, it's an elasticity curve.

    Damn, what amazes me is why the hell anyone that hasn't even had a basic Econ course, Macro or Micro, would even attempt to debate such matters. But hell, I'll source it for you.

    The Laffer Curve, created by Arthur Laffer, shows the relationship between tax revenue collected by the government and tax rates paid by citizens. The Laffer Curve implies that as tax rates rise, tax revenues will also increase. However, it only increases till a peak and then tax revenues begin to decline

    The Laffer Curve | Intelligent Economist

    Read the whole article. You won't find a damn thing about products sold verses a tax rate. Investopedia sucks ass, at least when it comes to economic concepts. Like free markets are free from government regulation. Anyone that believes that nonsense reveals a total ignorance as to Adam Smith and Economics.
     

Share This Page