independent economists overwhelmingly side with democrats on economic policy

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...
The Fed has several reasons to want interest rates a bit higher, but in regard to inflation, the mainstream view is that "a little" inflation is a good thing, since rising prices are conducive both to producing more and getting paid more.

The inflation we saw in the 1970s and early 80s was initially because of oil and the price of oil being tied to politics and not markets. It was ended when Carter/Volker and then Reagan/Volker-Greenspan engineered a recession that resulted in 10% unemployment, and OPEC lost political power/interest. In 2008 oil prices went back up to $150 a barrel, but the Great Recession "cured" that.
Crude Oil Prices - 70 Year Historical Chart
 
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.

Seems like there's more support for raising taxes on the rich than there is cutting them.

Yes, idiots support lots of stupid things.

We should probably punish corporations by raising their rates as well.
The best way to get them to stop hoarding cash overseas is to tax more, eh comrade?

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.

Would cutting corporate tax rates increase economic activity?
Would raising corporate tax rates decrease economic activity?

Why?
 
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.

You're clueless when it comes to this topic, Derp! Kindly explain why if there were surpluses from 1998 through 2001 the national debt didn't go down! Naive people like yourself bought into the whole "surplus" thing when all it was is economic double talk given to you by politicians eager to spend more money.
 
Yes, idiots support lots of stupid things.

Well, it's hard for someone to support your position when your position is just a callback to the same trickle-down policies that have failed over and over and over and over and over and over the last 37 years. Are y'all just playing a game of averages? That eventually the policy will work and that no one goes 0-for-infinity? That's a pretty weak way to go about policy; having faith.


We should probably punish corporations by raising their rates as well.The best way to get them to stop hoarding cash overseas is to tax more, eh comrade?

So you work from the assumption and prejudice that taxation is punishment. To that, I would say taxation isn't punishment, and we've already done tax holidays in the past (most recently in 2004), of which none of the lauded benefits ever came to fruition. These corporations are holding money out of the economy for the purpose of greed; buying back stocks doesn't benefit the economy. Neither does hoarding cash overseas or paying it in bonuses to top executives. Conservatives have not been able to explain how cutting the corporate rate will result in businesses bringing their money here. We did that very thing in 2004 with Bush's Repatriation Holiday. It didn't work. It ended up costing us, and the money still stands overseas. So if it didn't work in 2004, why would it magically start working now?


Would cutting corporate tax rates increase economic activity?

No. We cut corporate taxes as part of the repatriation holiday in 2004 and it didn't result in increased economic activity.


Would raising corporate tax rates decrease economic activity?

No. Corporate taxes are on profits, not revenues. Corporations are already holding back their profits from the country, even with repatriation holidays. So if there was no increased economic activity when we tried this in 2004, what makes you think there will be if we do so today?
 
You're clueless when it comes to this topic, Derp! Kindly explain why if there were surpluses from 1998 through 2001 the national debt didn't go down! Naive people like yourself bought into the whole "surplus" thing when all it was is economic double talk given to you by politicians eager to spend more money.

Stop.

Public debt decreased over that period.

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

UST%20Debt%206.9.jpg
 
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.

I think the following does a fair job of explaining my point, Winston...

"Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intragovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intragovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security.

Looking at the makeup of the national debt and the claimed surpluses for the last 4 Clinton fiscal years, we have the following table:

Fiscal
Year
End
Date
Claimed
Surplus
Public
Debt
Intra-gov
Holdings
Total National
Debt

FY1997 09/30/1997 $3.789667T $1.623478T $5.413146T
FY1998 09/30/1998 $69.2B $3.733864T
green_down.gif
$55.8B $1.792328T
red_up.gif
$168.9B $5.526193T
red_up.gif
$113B
FY1999 09/30/1999 $122.7B $3.636104T
green_down.gif
$97.8B $2.020166T
red_up.gif
$227.8B $5.656270T
red_up.gif
$130.1B
FY2000 09/29/2000 $230.0B $3.405303T
green_down.gif
$230.8B $2.268874T
red_up.gif
$248.7B $5.674178T
red_up.gif
$17.9B
FY2001 09/28/2001 $3.339310T
green_down.gif
$66.0B $2.468153T
red_up.gif
$199.3B $5.807463T
red_up.gif
$133.3B


Notice that while the public debt went down in each of those four years, the intragovernmental holdings went up each year by a far greater amount--and, in turn, the total national debt (which is public debt + intragovernmental holdings) went up. Therein lies the discrepancy.

When it is claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt--notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years. But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intragovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security)."

independent economists overwhelmingly side with democrats on economic policy
 
Clinton essentially borrowed money from Social Security to run the government (which was flush with cash because of the Dot Com Boom) which doesn't count against the Public Debt but instead goes into the Intragovernmental Holdings side of the ledger. It's accounting sleight of hand. Borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. You still owe the money...it just doesn't go into the "deficit" side of the ledger!
 
I think the following does a fair job of explaining my point, Winston...

No, it doesn't. You problem is that you jump from intergovernmental debt, to public debt, to total debt. But you never stay within a single context, instead you shift your argument around from type-of-debt to type-of-debt and hope no one notices.

It's a fact that Total Public Debt declined between 1998-2001. That isn't up for dispute. Now, total debt increased, but that increase came from intragovernmental holdings, not public debt.
 
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.
what is it they've done? and why hasn't it helped in 50 years? and why are most all cities in financial need democrat run? i.e., Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, etc.......
 
what is it they've done? and why hasn't it helped in 50 years? and why are most all cities in financial need democrat run? i.e., Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, etc.......

The reason those cities may be in dire financial ruin is because of "white flight". So the white people, with the benefit of their higher average incomes and favorable federal housing policies, left the tax base of the cities to go to the suburbs, yet still work in the cities. So the cities have to provide infrastructure for those businesses and workers, yet the tax base for the cities has shrunk because of the white flight out of cities to the suburbs, which have different tax bases.

That's it. There is no other explanation.
 
I think the following does a fair job of explaining my point, Winston...

No, it doesn't. You problem is that you jump from intergovernmental debt, to public debt, to total debt. But you never stay within a single context, instead you shift your argument around from type-of-debt to type-of-debt and hope no one notices.

It's a fact that Total Public Debt declined between 1998-2001. That isn't up for dispute. Now, total debt increased, but that increase came from intragovernmental holdings, not public debt.
OMG are you dense! Let me see if I can explain this in terms simple enough for even you to grasp.

If in a given year you earn $30,000 ...a friend loans you $5,000 and you spend $32,000, is that a surplus? While you can claim "I received $35,000 and only spent $32,000, thus I have a surplus," that's a pretty weak argument when you know that $2,000 of the money you spent was actually borrowed and has to be paid back later. That's pretty much what happened in 2000.

We still owe that intragovernmental holdings debt...which is why the National Debt increased while the Public debt decreased!
 
what is it they've done? and why hasn't it helped in 50 years? and why are most all cities in financial need democrat run? i.e., Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, etc.......

The reason those cities may be in dire financial ruin is because of "white flight". So the white people, with the benefit of their higher average incomes and favorable federal housing policies, left the tax base of the cities to go to the suburbs, yet still work in the cities. So the cities have to provide infrastructure for those businesses and workers, yet the tax base for the cities has shrunk because of the white flight out of cities to the suburbs, which have different tax bases.

That's it. There is no other explanation.
why was there white flight?
 
I think the following does a fair job of explaining my point, Winston...

No, it doesn't. You problem is that you jump from intergovernmental debt, to public debt, to total debt. But you never stay within a single context, instead you shift your argument around from type-of-debt to type-of-debt and hope no one notices.

It's a fact that Total Public Debt declined between 1998-2001. That isn't up for dispute. Now, total debt increased, but that increase came from intragovernmental holdings, not public debt.

Simple question, Derp...why did the intragovernmental holdings debt increase so much?
 
Clinton essentially borrowed money from Social Security to run the government (which was flush with cash because of the Dot Com Boom) which doesn't count against the Public Debt but instead goes into the Intragovernmental Holdings side of the ledger.

And? Why is this a problem? So Public Debt did shrink, then, and Clinton used funds that weren't subject to the same higher interest rates, thus saving us on interest payments on the debt...and that's a bad thing, why? If SS' Trust is running a surplus, which it has, why shouldn't we transfer the debt burden out of public debt, with its higher interest rates, to intergovernmental debt, with it's lower-to-non existent interest rates? It's like refinancing your house...if you can achieve the lower rate, why not? I'd personally feel more secure that our government owed money to itself than third party creditors, wouldn't you?


t's accounting sleight of hand. Borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. You still owe the money...it just doesn't go into the "deficit" side of the ledger!

You still owe money, yes, but the interest rate you pay on what you owe is lower if it's intergovernmental than if it's straight up Public Debt. So why wouldn't you do that? YHou screech about how much in interest we pay on the debt, well from where do you think that interest comes? From the Public Debt. So if you reduce or eliminate the Public Debt, you no longer pay interest on that Public Debt.
 
If in a given year you earn $30,000 ...a friend loans you $5,000 and you spend $32,000, is that a surplus? While you can claim "I received $35,000 and only spent $32,000, thus I have a surplus," that's a pretty weak argument when you know that $2,000 of the money you spent was actually borrowed and has to be paid back later. That's pretty much what happened in 2000. We still owe that intragovernmental holdings debt...which is why the National Debt increased while the Public debt decreased!

The reason the debt was transferred from Public Debt to Intragovernmental Debt is because the interest rates paid on Public Debt are much higher than those paid on Intragovernmental Debt. So that's why you use SS Trust to reduce Public Debt...that way, you pay less interest on the Public Debt. And isn't paying interest on the debt one of your chief screeching complaints? Well, transferring debt accomplishes the goal of reducing interest payments on Public Debt.

So WTF are you talking about!?
 
Simple question, Derp...why did the intragovernmental holdings debt increase so much?

Because we transferred Public Debt to Intragovernmental Debt and that was done specifically to reduce interest payments on the Public Debt. What is the interest rate we pay on Intragovernmental Debt? Do you even know?
 
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.

Seems like there's more support for raising taxes on the rich than there is cutting them.

Yes, idiots support lots of stupid things.

We should probably punish corporations by raising their rates as well.
The best way to get them to stop hoarding cash overseas is to tax more, eh comrade?

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.

Would cutting corporate tax rates increase economic activity?
Would raising corporate tax rates decrease economic activity?

Why?
US corp cash reserves are at alltime highs
The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation | Cash reserves

and borrowing/interest rates are historically low. And US growth is around 2%. So, to answer your question: There's no logical support for US corporations being able to expand their sales over that growth rate.

The argument for lowering corp rates was that US companies would repatriate some of their foreign earned cash reserves if tax rates here were the same as "over there."
Top 50 U.S. companies hold $1.4 trillion in cash offshore

Thus the reasoning went, we'd be better off taxing a whole lot more profits at lower tax rate because the gummit would take in more revenue over the long haul.

However, if Apple's real corp tax rate is 40%, we'd have to drop the corp rate to very very low, to get corporations to bring back overseas profits.

And, as Paul Ryan has tried to get us to understand, those for countries often have VAT taxes. That is taxes added to the cost of produced items levied directly on the buyer/consumer rather than on the corp, which typically passes the cost onto the consumer.

Trump is right. The corporate rate should be 15%. But it's not that simple

So, those who look at Trump's call for a 15% rate are correct in saying it's just a tax cut for the rich paid for with more debt on our kids. And that is a sad state of affairs, because the country would be a lot better off to make out tax system mirror the real rates (figuring in VAT) that corporations pay elsewhere because then corporations might bring their profits here. And potentially that could both reduce deficits and make it even easier to expand production if we can cut workers taxes too so as let them keep more money to buy stuff
 
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?

Economists paid by democrats, side with them?

Wow, what a find. These people know exactly how to make the economy flourish... flourish for themselves.

20 trillion in debt. What a policy of success! I would rather let Trump win.
 
Economists paid by democrats, side with them?

What Democrats paid these economists and how much did they pay them?

It's not like Conservatives who paid Rogoff and Reinhart to come up with a bullshit justification for austerity.


Wow, what a find. These people know exactly how to make the economy flourish... flourish for themselves.

So...you're saying economists support tax plans because it makes them primarily "flourish"? How so?
 

Forum List

Back
Top