independent economists overwhelmingly side with democrats on economic policy

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

  1. danielpalos
    Offline

    danielpalos Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2015
    Messages:
    25,143
    Thanks Received:
    665
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Alta California, federalist.
    Ratings:
    +3,082
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. The Derp
    Offline

    The Derp Silver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2017
    Messages:
    6,950
    Thanks Received:
    467
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Ratings:
    +2,298
    The poverty rate was declining through the 60's and 70's before shooting upward again in the 80's as Reagan and Conservatives started slashing social programs.

    So you slash social programs, which increases the poverty rate, then you complain about the poverty rate.

    So how are you not the cause of the thing you complain about?

    And I thought you all reformed welfare in the 90's, did that reform not accomplish bringing down poverty rates? Because Conservatives promised 20 years ago that their reform would.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. The Derp
    Offline

    The Derp Silver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2017
    Messages:
    6,950
    Thanks Received:
    467
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Ratings:
    +2,298
    Why not a 90% rate on the 1%? It's what we had back when "America was great".
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. The Derp
    Offline

    The Derp Silver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2017
    Messages:
    6,950
    Thanks Received:
    467
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Ratings:
    +2,298
    So let's unpack this for a second;

    1. The deficit Clinton inherited was inflated by the Reagan/Bush the Elder deficit spending in the decade that preceded it. The deficit doubled during Reagan, and the debt tripled.

    2. Clinton passed tax increases in 1993 that sharply reduced the deficit almost immediately, going from a deficit of $290B in 1992 down to $203B by 1994. So right there, Clinton's tax increases alone reduced the deficit by 30% from 1992-4, before Conservatives were sworn in January 1995.

    3. Conservatives passed a tax cut in 1999 that would have erased the nascent surpluses, that Clinton vetoed. That tax cut would eventually pass in 2001 and are referred to as The Bush Tax Cuts.

    4. We had surpluses in this country from 1998-2001. But the Bush Tax Cuts erased those surpluses by 2002 and produced 4 record deficits in 8 years (2003, 2004, 2008, 2009). Additionally, revenue collected was below 2000 levels for 2001-2004. It wasn't until 2005 that revenue reached the same level it was in 2000. So we took 4 steps backward to take one step forward. How many steps does that leave us behind?


    Conservatives didn't want to "spend more" because doing so would have recovered the economy to a greater degree which would have undermined 37 years of Conservative bullshit about spending, deficits, and debt. BTW - not one peep from the right wing as Bush erased a surplus, produced 4 record high deficits in 8 years, lost 460,000 net jobs, and doubled the debt.
     
  5. Oldstyle
    Offline

    Oldstyle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    23,569
    Thanks Received:
    3,526
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Florida
    Ratings:
    +9,984
    The fact that you believe there WAS a surplus, Derp...tells me just how ignorant you are about economics!
     
  6. Oldstyle
    Offline

    Oldstyle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    23,569
    Thanks Received:
    3,526
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Florida
    Ratings:
    +9,984
    Before you make a complete ass of yourself I would suggest a little study on public debt and intragovernmental holdings!
     
  7. The Derp
    Offline

    The Derp Silver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2017
    Messages:
    6,950
    Thanks Received:
    467
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Ratings:
    +2,298
    Look at this chart from the Tax Policy Center, specifically the Surplus/Deficit numbers from 1998-2001 and tell me what you see.

    Also, it's undeniable that Clinton reduced the deficit before Conservatives took control of Congress in January 1995.

    You can argue all you want, but you cannot argue math.

    Deficit by year
    1992 (Bush the Elder's): $290B
    1993 (Bush the Elder's final budget, Clinton tax hike passed): $255B
    1994 (Clinton's first year, tax increases in effect): $203B
    1995 (Clinton's second year budget, prior to GOP taking control): $164B

    So the deficit went from $290B down to $164B before Conservatives had a hand in anything.

    You throw around a lot of accusations about people not knowing economics, yet in 37 years of your bullshit economics in practice, it hasn't delivered on any of the promises you've made of it; that tax cuts would pay for themselves, that jobs would be created, that deficits would be reduced, etc. Not one of the wild claims you've made about your economic policy have come to fruition.
     
  8. The Derp
    Offline

    The Derp Silver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2017
    Messages:
    6,950
    Thanks Received:
    467
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Ratings:
    +2,298
    Before you move the goalposts, you should do a little studying on why it matters how you count the debt.
     
  9. The Derp
    Offline

    The Derp Silver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2017
    Messages:
    6,950
    Thanks Received:
    467
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Ratings:
    +2,298
    I thought "debt was debt"? Wasn't that your talking point? How much of the current $20T debt is intragovernmental and/or public debt?
     
  10. The Derp
    Offline

    The Derp Silver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2017
    Messages:
    6,950
    Thanks Received:
    467
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Ratings:
    +2,298
    Explain to me what you guys erasing surpluses has to do with "economics" (a broad catch-all term you loosely throw around to make yourself seem smarter than you actually are).
     

Share This Page