independent economists overwhelmingly side with democrats on economic policy

[danielpalos]

Raising taxes will balance the budget, lowering taxes will not.

 

[Oldstyle]

If tax cuts worked as well in real life as they do in right wing fantasy; wouldn't we have, massive budget surpluses and no Debt?

Doesn't that imply, something fundamentally wrong with the, "rest of the plan".

Tax cuts stimulate the economy. Tax cuts coupled with increased spending bring massive debt. Until we rein in spending, debt will continue to explode! Is that too hard for you to grasp, Daniel?

 

[danielpalos]

If tax cuts worked as well in real life as they do in right wing fantasy; wouldn't we have, massive budget surpluses and no Debt?

Doesn't that imply, something fundamentally wrong with the, "rest of the plan".

Tax cuts stimulate the economy. Tax cuts coupled with increased spending bring massive debt. Until we rein in spending, debt will continue to explode! Is that too hard for you to grasp, Daniel?

No; end the drug war to pay for health care, Oldstyle.

 

[TheDude]

I've waited a bit to hit this post, because it's so ignorant and all....But here it goes, one point at a time:

• 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. First off, it depends when and how you do it. The point leaves that out. Additionally, when the wealthy carry Porto Rico's burden, welfare, including healthcare, social security, the infastructure etc. etc, then they are re-distributing wealth. My 30 year old and all his friends earn 70K plus. Heck, one just hit 2.5 million on a business settlement. He's black, BTW. Sounds to me the opportunities exist and the wealthy are paying good wages.

• Only 12% of economists take the view that the costs of the stimulus outweighed the benefits- a view passionately held by nearly all Republicans. For a time I worked for the government, and they managed to do a man-hour's worth of work in 100, and they still did it wrong. Additionally, the point misses the when and how again. So your source is consistent.

• 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. LOL. You mean like Trump seeking to tweak Obamacare and make changes to the tax code, that kind of monetary policy?

• 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. This is fun. Notice they side-stepped revenues remain stable while the GDP increases? Silly economist. Your source is a fraud.

• 94% of economists support taking action to address climate change. So generalized this is felony vague. What the fuck does address mean?

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. Ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Good one, so objective and clear.

This stance on policy issues unsurprisingly translates into which party economists support: Neat. I aced economics and it's not possible. Liberal policy is generally void of balance and critical application. High on emotions. Economics is logical.

Democratic economists outnumber Republican economists by 2.5 to 1. In 2012. This statement contradicts the above. That or they prefer the Republican party in spite of economic policy.

economists felt that President Obama had a better grasp of economics than Mitt Romney by a margin of almost 2-to-1. See the last point for why. This is so stupid.

and that President Obama would grow the economy faster than Mitt Romney by a a margin of 20 points....Shilarious. Who wrote "Obama would grow the economy faster"? Anyone see Idiocracy?

Which Party Is Better for the Economy? The Republicans, but I hate em both.

 

[danielpalos]

If lowering taxes worked, we would not have massive debt.

 

[Billy000]

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?

All irrelevant

If you want to craft economic policy try winning the elections required to achieve that goal rather than whining endlessly

Lol why do you people just assume that because the dems lost, that is somehow MY fault? It’s so stupid.

A) Hillary won the popular vote.

B) I wanted Bernie - not Hillary for the nomination. He would have crushed Trump.

C) Fuck you.

Yeah, the typical non-substance reply I can expect from you, Gramps.

 

[Oldstyle]

If tax cuts worked as well in real life as they do in right wing fantasy; wouldn't we have, massive budget surpluses and no Debt?

Doesn't that imply, something fundamentally wrong with the, "rest of the plan".

Tax cuts stimulate the economy. Tax cuts coupled with increased spending bring massive debt. Until we rein in spending, debt will continue to explode! Is that too hard for you to grasp, Daniel?

No; end the drug war to pay for health care, Oldstyle.

Ending the drug war might make it easier for you to get high, Daniel but it's not going to pay for all of the entitlement programs that we've now obligated ourselves to. Not even close.

 

[Oldstyle]

and it should be punished anyone doing it. that is retiree's money. It's their money not the government, see the mistake, they were stealing from American Workers for their own benefit. and patting themselves on the back. ask Derp.

Retirees' money? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Conservatives completely oppose the concept of Social Security. So your crocodile tears about it rings hollow. Also, SS was never supposed to be the primary source of retirement income...it only became that because businesses ceased the practice of pensions, and only half of all workers can save in a 401k and historically, 401k's have performed worse than pensions.

So if retirees are who you are so concerned about (yeah right), you wouldn't be screeching about borrowing from SS...you'd be calling for SS to be expanded.

But you oppose that, right? So how is your argument not a circle jerk?

What makes you say conservatives oppose Social Security, Derp? I oppose paying into a system that our politicians then raid to pay for their wars and pet social programs! I'd like to see Social Security PROTECTED!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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?

All irrelevant

If you want to craft economic policy try winning the elections required to achieve that goal rather than whining endlessly

Lol why do you people just assume that because the dems lost, that is somehow MY fault? It’s so stupid.

A) Hillary won the popular vote.

B) I wanted Bernie - not Hillary for the nomination. He would have crushed Trump.

C) Fuck you.

Yeah, the typical non-substance reply I can expect from you, Gramps.

I told you the only fact that mattered..

WIN ELECTIONS if you want to control policy.

 

[Mac1958]

One rule that pretty consistently works for me is that economists are very valuable when they stay in their lane. But the minute they allow their political partisan ideology to seep into their work, they become essentially worthless.

The Laffer Curve, the "study" on which most supply-siders base their "theories", was created by a partisan conservative, Art Laffer.

Next.

The same goes for people like Reich and Krugman and Kudlow and Moore.
.

 

[danielpalos]

If tax cuts worked as well in real life as they do in right wing fantasy; wouldn't we have, massive budget surpluses and no Debt?

Doesn't that imply, something fundamentally wrong with the, "rest of the plan".

Tax cuts stimulate the economy. Tax cuts coupled with increased spending bring massive debt. Until we rein in spending, debt will continue to explode! Is that too hard for you to grasp, Daniel?

No; end the drug war to pay for health care, Oldstyle.

Ending the drug war might make it easier for you to get high, Daniel but it's not going to pay for all of the entitlement programs that we've now obligated ourselves to. Not even close.

Lowering our costs makes sense if you want to lower taxes.

 

[JoeNormal]

Dude, pull your head out of your ass, what do you think this means?

The paradox states that an increase in autonomous saving leads to a decrease in aggregate demand and thus a decrease in gross output which will in turn lower total saving. The paradox is, narrowly speaking, that total saving may fall because of individuals' attempts to increase their saving, and, broadly speaking, that increase in saving may be harmful to an economy.[1] Both the narrow and broad claims are paradoxical within the assumption underlying the fallacy of composition, namely that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole. The narrow claim transparently contradicts this assumption, and the broad one does so by implication, because while individual thrift is generally averred to be good for the economy, the paradox of thrift holds that collective thrift may be bad for the economy.

Decrease in gross output. You can consider gross output as "money". Like I said, fundamental economics covered within the first couple weeks of an intro Macro course.

And twenty percent tax rate might yield more investment than a ninety percent rate but most certainly LESS than a fifty percent rate. The Laffer curve is a curve, as I have pointed out time and time again. Again, basic fundamental economics.

what do you think this means?

It doesn't mean that my deposit in a bank "holds money out of the economy".
I'm sure Derp appreciates your attempt to make him look less stupid. Keep trying.

And twenty percent tax rate might yield more investment than a ninety percent rate but most certainly LESS than a fifty percent rate.

Why?

The financial industry is a big ass vampire sucking the blood from the lower and middle class. It is the very reason wages have remained stagnant and, for those in the middle, there has been little to no growth in wealth. Consider the total cost of financial intermediation, that is, what it cost the financial industry to produce loans, stocks, and bonds measured as a percentage of GDP. When they were building the railroads it was less than two percent. When they were financing the expansion of the steel industry it was about two percent, when it came to the automobile and chemical industry, about three percent. The space race, four percent. When Ronald Reagan took office it was at five percent.

Now think about this, information technology has lowered the cost of doing business in almost every category. But for some strange reason, the cost of financial intermediation is now over nine percent. Conservatively, that is sucking a minimum of two percent of GDP right out of the economy. Imagine if that two percent was going into the hand of the workers instead into the pockets of the financial executives. Wages would be higher, the middle and lower classes would have more wealth, and for sure, we would have higher growth. So yes, the financial industry, via interest and fees, sucks "money" right out of the economy.

Graph: How the Financial Sector Consumed America’s Economic Growth

The financial industry is a big ass vampire sucking the blood from the lower and middle class.

They add a lot of value.
Don't like them?
Feel free not to lend or deposit.
Or get in on the action. You can buy financial stocks for less than a $5 commission.

So yes, the financial industry, via interest and fees, sucks "money" right out of the economy.

Because they hide their earnings in a jar in the yard. DERP!

You still didn't explain why a 50% corporate tax rate yields more investment than a 20% tax rate.

Ever heard of Blockchain? With any luck, it'll have financial industry personnel selling Chicklets to the tourists in the future.

Blockchain - Wikipedia

Ever heard of Blockchain?

Yes. Banks will use the useful parts to make money.

With any luck, it'll have financial industry personnel selling Chicklets to the tourists in the future.

Why will it do that?

The reason they and the institutions they serve exist in the first place is to ensure a credible intermediary between transactions. With this technology, there need be no such intermediary. What functions do you think people will want to use the old system for?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

what do you think this means?

It doesn't mean that my deposit in a bank "holds money out of the economy".
I'm sure Derp appreciates your attempt to make him look less stupid. Keep trying.

And twenty percent tax rate might yield more investment than a ninety percent rate but most certainly LESS than a fifty percent rate.

Why?

The financial industry is a big ass vampire sucking the blood from the lower and middle class. It is the very reason wages have remained stagnant and, for those in the middle, there has been little to no growth in wealth. Consider the total cost of financial intermediation, that is, what it cost the financial industry to produce loans, stocks, and bonds measured as a percentage of GDP. When they were building the railroads it was less than two percent. When they were financing the expansion of the steel industry it was about two percent, when it came to the automobile and chemical industry, about three percent. The space race, four percent. When Ronald Reagan took office it was at five percent.

Now think about this, information technology has lowered the cost of doing business in almost every category. But for some strange reason, the cost of financial intermediation is now over nine percent. Conservatively, that is sucking a minimum of two percent of GDP right out of the economy. Imagine if that two percent was going into the hand of the workers instead into the pockets of the financial executives. Wages would be higher, the middle and lower classes would have more wealth, and for sure, we would have higher growth. So yes, the financial industry, via interest and fees, sucks "money" right out of the economy.

Graph: How the Financial Sector Consumed America’s Economic Growth

The financial industry is a big ass vampire sucking the blood from the lower and middle class.

They add a lot of value.
Don't like them?
Feel free not to lend or deposit.
Or get in on the action. You can buy financial stocks for less than a $5 commission.

So yes, the financial industry, via interest and fees, sucks "money" right out of the economy.

Because they hide their earnings in a jar in the yard. DERP!

You still didn't explain why a 50% corporate tax rate yields more investment than a 20% tax rate.

Ever heard of Blockchain? With any luck, it'll have financial industry personnel selling Chicklets to the tourists in the future.

Blockchain - Wikipedia

Ever heard of Blockchain?

Yes. Banks will use the useful parts to make money.

With any luck, it'll have financial industry personnel selling Chicklets to the tourists in the future.

Why will it do that?

The reason they and the institutions they serve exist in the first place is to ensure a credible intermediary between transactions. With this technology, there need be no such intermediary. What functions do you think people will want to use the old system for?

The reason they and the institutions they serve exist in the first place is to ensure a credible intermediary between transactions. With this technology, there need be no such intermediary.

If I need a mortgage, blockchain means I don't have to borrow from a bank?
Or does it mean my purchase of BAC stock doesn't require a broker?

 

[Oldstyle]

If tax cuts worked as well in real life as they do in right wing fantasy; wouldn't we have, massive budget surpluses and no Debt?

Doesn't that imply, something fundamentally wrong with the, "rest of the plan".

Tax cuts stimulate the economy. Tax cuts coupled with increased spending bring massive debt. Until we rein in spending, debt will continue to explode! Is that too hard for you to grasp, Daniel?

No; end the drug war to pay for health care, Oldstyle.

Ending the drug war might make it easier for you to get high, Daniel but it's not going to pay for all of the entitlement programs that we've now obligated ourselves to. Not even close.

Lowering our costs makes sense if you want to lower taxes.

When's the last time you saw government REALLY cut costs, Daniel? It's not how the system works. The more money a government agency has to give out...the more power and influence the people who run that agency have. Funny thing about that too...the more power and influence you have in government...the richer you seem to get! Case in point...the Clinton's.

 

[jc456]

All irrelevant

If you want to craft economic policy try winning the elections required to achieve that goal rather than whining endlessly

Lol why do you people just assume that because the dems lost, that is somehow MY fault? It’s so stupid.

A) Hillary won the popular vote.

B) I wanted Bernie - not Hillary for the nomination. He would have crushed Trump.

C) Fuck you.

Yeah, the typical non-substance reply I can expect from you, Gramps.

I told you the only fact that mattered..

WIN ELECTIONS if you want to control policy.

They did and didn’t

 

[danielpalos]

If tax cuts worked as well in real life as they do in right wing fantasy; wouldn't we have, massive budget surpluses and no Debt?

Doesn't that imply, something fundamentally wrong with the, "rest of the plan".

Tax cuts stimulate the economy. Tax cuts coupled with increased spending bring massive debt. Until we rein in spending, debt will continue to explode! Is that too hard for you to grasp, Daniel?

No; end the drug war to pay for health care, Oldstyle.

Ending the drug war might make it easier for you to get high, Daniel but it's not going to pay for all of the entitlement programs that we've now obligated ourselves to. Not even close.

Lowering our costs makes sense if you want to lower taxes.

When's the last time you saw government REALLY cut costs, Daniel? It's not how the system works. The more money a government agency has to give out...the more power and influence the people who run that agency have. Funny thing about that too...the more power and influence you have in government...the richer you seem to get! Case in point...the Clinton's.

You don't want to cut government but you do want to cut taxes. Is that, right wing logic?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

Obamacare does not benefit the poor.

Raising minimum wage would do not a fucking thing for anyone.

Try again, Buttnugget.

It might help you go to college and improve your foul mouth.
Is this the way you talk normally?
Or just to your maybe high school white boys?

Or maybe you don't have an argument to make and so chose to deflect.

Why don't you find the Moron forum. I am sure you'll fit right in.

 

[danielpalos]

Raising the minimum wage makes it more cost effective for labor to go to work.