Republicans have a poor understanding of economics. They should have no place in making policy

[Dad2three]

The same is true in Ireland. The corporation tax rate was cut drastically and a 12.5% rate was phased in up to 2003. The 10-year period of GDP growth since has been the worst in the history of the state. Yet it is still widely claimed that a low rate of corporation tax determines Irish prosperity. This claim is evidently false.

The strongest ever year of Irish growth was in 1997. This was not a part of what has become known as the ‘Celtic Tiger’ period and was six years before the 12.5% tax rate was fully phased in.

Unite s Notes On The Front Low Corporation Tax Rates for Do Not Boost Growth


OOPS

The strongest ever year of Irish growth was in 1997. This was not a part of what has become known as the ‘Celtic Tiger’ period and was six years before the 12.5% tax rate was fully phased in.
The growth before the cuts were fully phased in don't count? Why not?

36% Corp tax rate in 1997???

lol

OECD Corporate Income Tax Rates 1981-2013 Tax Foundation

36% Corp tax rate in 1997???

Is 36% too high? Tell Obama.

Weird, Obama wants to lower to 28% and close loopholes (using money to rebuild infrastructure) , instead the GOP holds onto the 35% and the EFFECTIVE rates, the ones Corps actually pay, is 12%. But isn't it up to Congress?

Thanks for agreeing having a 36% Corp tax rate in Ireland DIDN'T stop their growth though!

I agree that cutting your rate every year will give you tremendous growth.

Well you'd be wrong, as usual, lol

LOVE how you skipped right over Dragon's explanation to your narrow little brain


HERE FROM HER:

"
Toddster asked for other reasons for the Celtic Tiger growth other than tax cuts. Being a true conservative with his blinders firmly in place, he can't see anything other than low corporate tax rates.

First off, the EU invested 17 Billion Euros in Ireland's infrastructure from 1973 forward. The money was spent on education of the population, and infrastructure - thing the US resists investing in. Education made the work force more attractive to high tech firms. Improved infrastructure is essential to modern business. I say this because US infrastructure is crumbling and conservatives resist spending the money to upgrade and improve it

Membership in the EU opened up new trading markets for Irish goods. Previously, Great Britain had been Irelands largest trading partner. Wages in Ireland were lower than any other major EU country, and Irish workers speak English, which for American based companies, made communication easier.

Last but certainly not least, in the 1990's, Ireland was giving all sorts of cheap capital loans and grants, and tax incentives to companies to relocate to Ireland. Canada tried this for a while, but found that the corporations don't stay, and often don't stay long enough for the government to recoup their investment in luring them to Canada in the first place. Some other jurisdiction makes them a better offer and they leave. This sounds like a good part of why so many of these companies left. Cheaper labour elsewhere.

So to say that lowering the corporation tax rate is the sole reason for Ireland's success is to be willfully blind to the overall picture. Investment in infrastructure, and education, which Republicans have staunchly resisted, created an attractive environment for business. Relocation grants and tax breaks, sweetened the pot.

Notice how I can discuss valid reasons for the Celtic Tiger phenomenon without once mentioning the reduction of the overall corporate tax rate."

Republicans have a poor understanding of economics. They should have no place in making policy Page 57 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Dad2three]

I read some here proselytizing for demand-side economics, and others bemoaning corporate tax breaks.

These positions, simply, reveal their ignorance about how our economic system works. They are more interested in planting an ego-driven stake in the ground than in determining the correct answers. One at a time ....

1) Demand-side economics ... a slavish commitment to demand-side economics is a commitment to economic ruin. The definition of demand-side economics is ...

"Demand-side economics is first and foremost a means of ridding an economy of a recession and stimulating economic growth while preventing inflation. It is meant as a control on both expansion and retraction, to keep an economy in a stable zone. The idea is that to stimulate growth, a government should lower taxes on the middle and working class, and increase government spending. To combat rising inflation in an expanding economy, a government should raise taxes and reduce spending." What Is Demand-Side Economics with pictures

While that sounds good, nobody notices the dichotomy of "lower taxes on middle and working class, and increase government spending. To combat rising inflation in an expanding economy, a government should raise taxes and reduce spending.". Essentially, in order to accomplish its goals, the government must lower taxes on the "middle and working class", and increase taxes on the non-"middle and working class". In theory, this allows the government to assume more control of the economy, take operating capital from the rich, and lower the tax burden on the middle class which, in turn, gives them more money to spend. In practice, however, demand-side economics increases the price of items, driving the cost of living up.

By definition, the price increase must exceed the tax break. Thus, while there is a temporary increase in standard of living, it is quickly devoured by the price increases. In the end, the poor and middle class are harmed by the price increases more than the tax break can ever provide. The resultant need to expend a larger percentage of their income in order to maintain their lifestyle - at whatever level - means there is less money for investment and research, thus driving the cost of production even higher. Add THAT ripple to the price increase, and the whole economy begins to slide backward.

2) Supply-side economics - a slavish commitment to supply-side economics is a commitment to economic ruin. The definition of supply-side economics is ...

"Supply-side economics is one expression of macroeconomics that focuses on the stimulation of economic growth by encouraging greater production of goods and services. Essentially, this removes the issue of demand from the economic task, as the concept of supply-side economics takes the stand that demand will follow if there are goods available for purchase. Often, proponents of this approach will use the extension of incentives to stimulate interest or demand for the goods and services produced.


One of the more common incentives used with a supply-side economics model is to provide tax breaks. Lowering the taxes owed by manufacturers of finished goods is thought to make it practical for producers to create more products. In turn, more products mean more choices for consumers, who will respond accordingly.

Along with a reduction in taxes for the producer, supply-side economics also sometimes takes the form of lowering personal income taxes as they relate to the consumer. With this application of the method, consumers have more disposable income, since the amount of income tax that is deducted from gross pay is reduced. With more money in their pockets, consumers are more likely to feel good about the general state of the economy. This increase confidence leads to additional purchases, which in turn justifies the increased production of manufacturers." What is Supply-Side Economics with picture

The goal of supply-side economics is to increase demand by decreasing the price. This is done by creating a greater supply, thru lowered production costs (most often by cutting taxes), which in turn, will drive the price down thru competition. This will make the current earned dollar more efficient.

It must be remembered that supply and demand are the opposite sides of the economic cycle. The question becomes which should be stimulated in order to produce the desired effect. Demand-side stimulation provides temporary relief focused on raising the production through increased demand, which drives the item price up. Supply-side stimulation provides longer term relief, though still temporary, through increased demand by increased production, which lowers the price.

Which one is right? The answer is both - depending on the economic condition. The problem we have today is that we have political entities that are married to a single answer - and neither of them are right.

The Vienna and Chicago schools have foisted a load of baloney on the market that, when made into policy, has led to every major recession, not to mention the Great Depression, since the establishment of economics as a field.

We have to decide which kind of capitalism we want- plutocratic capitalism where all the money is concentrated in the hands of 1% of the population, leaving the rest in debt or poverty, or democratic capitalism, where economic growth is created by as much of the population as possible

The conservatives have favored plutocratic capitalism, the belief in supply side economics, that the rich are the job creators but those jobs have to pay the smallest wages possible with no benefits in order to increase profits at the top end, that they should receive favorable treatment like low taxation and little oversight and regulation

Liberals favor democratic capitalism, where the profits are created by a consumer middle class who are paid wages that are sufficient, that the wealth of capitalism is spread and passed from hand to hand, that a welfare state is created for the working force so when there is an economic downturn or a personal disaster or emergency that member of the workforce is not expendable and their families will survive, and in their elder years they will have a pension and healthcare, alleviating that burden on their younger family members in the work force

In the last thirty years the conservative view came back into vogue and the results have been a huge jump in the wealth of a few with the deterioration of the middle class

As usual, you take what COULD be a valid position, and lead it all the way to absurd. In short, you are patently wrong ... and your last statement is laughably wrong.

Good rebuttal, so detailed and really not to lengthy on where ANY of my posits were wrong, and WHY? lol

Given the depth of your demonstrated knowledge, I figured that was as deep as I dare go. You know ... keep it simple, for the simple.

So no, the usual right wing crap, you can't defend conservative policy either!

 

[Dad2three]

One need only look at the economies of Chile, Brazil and several other South American countries in the 70's - 90's to see what happens when the economic principles of the Chicago School of Economics are applied: the rich get richer, wages are suppressed, and poverty increases. Not unlike what has happened in the US since many of the Chicago School ideas were put into play by Reagan and successive US Presidents.

One need only look at the economies of Chile, Brazil and several other South American countries in the 70's - 90's to see what happens when the economic principles of the Chicago School of Economics are applied:

You should compare those economies to the left wing variety, like Venezuela and Argentina, and get back to us.

Which 'left wing' schools of economics do they use? PLEASE be specific? lol

A Critique of the Chicago School of Economics:

CHILE: THE LABORATORY TEST

Many people have often wondered what it would be like to create a nation based solely on their political and economic beliefs. Imagine: no opposition, no political rivals, no compromise of morals. Only a "benevolent dictator," if you will, setting up society according to your ideals.

The Chicago School of Economics got that chance for 16 years in Chile, under near-laboratory conditions. Between 1973 and 1989, a government team of economists trained at the University of Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as was humanly possible. Their program included privatizing welfare and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution and laws. And they did all this in the absence of the far-right's most hated institution: democracy.

The results were exactly what liberals predicted. Chile's economy became more unstable than any other in Latin America, alternately experiencing deep plunges and soaring growth. Once all this erratic behavior was averaged out, however, Chile's growth during this 16-year period was one of the slowest of any Latin American country. Worse, income inequality grew severe. The majority of workers actually earned less in 1989 than in 1973 (after adjusting for inflation), while the incomes of the rich skyrocketed. In the absence of market regulations, Chile also became one of the most polluted countries in Latin America. And Chile's lack of democracy was only possible by suppressing political opposition and labor unions under a reign of terror and widespread human rights abuses.
Chile the laboratory test

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

.


Weird that they didn't have huge growth until they started cutting taxes.

Yeah, it was tax cuts that started it *Shaking head*

What was their growth the 10 years before the cuts started?
The 10 years after?
If you have a different reason for their huge growth, spell it out.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

AVG was less than $15,000 PER YEAR PER FAMILY

Moron, your link shows AGI per return, not income.

Do I need to explain the difference. I'm not confident you'll understand.

AGI PER FAMILY was little more than $14,000 for the bottom 50% of US. We know the poor have LOTS of deductions right? lol

I could explain personal exemptions and standard deductions, but you wouldn't understand. LOL!

 

[Clementine]

The biggest enemy is crony capitalism, which both parties are guilty of doing. That is not how we are supposed to work, but the wealthiest people own government and we all know it. The flap from the left is meaningless when it comes to the whole 1% bullshit. The left is as much a part of that as anyone.

As far as the right way to move forward, there are big differences. First, the people need to insist that government separate itself from the banks and the wealthiest people that pull the strings. Without that, there is no hope.

As far as the people who don't condone crony capitalism, there are still big differences. The right likes a free market with fair rules. That means government has a limited but important role. The principles of our founding fathers are lost on those who don't appreciate working hard to reach a goal.

What the far left wants is socialism. That means government plays a huge role in everything. To that end, they shamelessly lie, rewrite history and make unrealistic promises to the unsophisticated to further their agenda.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The strongest ever year of Irish growth was in 1997. This was not a part of what has become known as the ‘Celtic Tiger’ period and was six years before the 12.5% tax rate was fully phased in.
The growth before the cuts were fully phased in don't count? Why not?

36% Corp tax rate in 1997???

lol

OECD Corporate Income Tax Rates 1981-2013 Tax Foundation

36% Corp tax rate in 1997???

Is 36% too high? Tell Obama.

Weird, Obama wants to lower to 28% and close loopholes (using money to rebuild infrastructure) , instead the GOP holds onto the 35% and the EFFECTIVE rates, the ones Corps actually pay, is 12%. But isn't it up to Congress?

Thanks for agreeing having a 36% Corp tax rate in Ireland DIDN'T stop their growth though!

I agree that cutting your rate every year will give you tremendous growth.

Well you'd be wrong, as usual, lol

LOVE how you skipped right over Dragon's explanation to your narrow little brain


HERE FROM HER:

"
Toddster asked for other reasons for the Celtic Tiger growth other than tax cuts. Being a true conservative with his blinders firmly in place, he can't see anything other than low corporate tax rates.

First off, the EU invested 17 Billion Euros in Ireland's infrastructure from 1973 forward. The money was spent on education of the population, and infrastructure - thing the US resists investing in. Education made the work force more attractive to high tech firms. Improved infrastructure is essential to modern business. I say this because US infrastructure is crumbling and conservatives resist spending the money to upgrade and improve it

Membership in the EU opened up new trading markets for Irish goods. Previously, Great Britain had been Irelands largest trading partner. Wages in Ireland were lower than any other major EU country, and Irish workers speak English, which for American based companies, made communication easier.

Last but certainly not least, in the 1990's, Ireland was giving all sorts of cheap capital loans and grants, and tax incentives to companies to relocate to Ireland. Canada tried this for a while, but found that the corporations don't stay, and often don't stay long enough for the government to recoup their investment in luring them to Canada in the first place. Some other jurisdiction makes them a better offer and they leave. This sounds like a good part of why so many of these companies left. Cheaper labour elsewhere.

So to say that lowering the corporation tax rate is the sole reason for Ireland's success is to be willfully blind to the overall picture. Investment in infrastructure, and education, which Republicans have staunchly resisted, created an attractive environment for business. Relocation grants and tax breaks, sweetened the pot.

Notice how I can discuss valid reasons for the Celtic Tiger phenomenon without once mentioning the reduction of the overall corporate tax rate."

Republicans have a poor understanding of economics. They should have no place in making policy Page 57 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

That does

The strongest ever year of Irish growth was in 1997. This was not a part of what has become known as the ‘Celtic Tiger’ period and was six years before the 12.5% tax rate was fully phased in.
The growth before the cuts were fully phased in don't count? Why not?

36% Corp tax rate in 1997???

lol

OECD Corporate Income Tax Rates 1981-2013 Tax Foundation

36% Corp tax rate in 1997???

Is 36% too high? Tell Obama.

Weird, Obama wants to lower to 28% and close loopholes (using money to rebuild infrastructure) , instead the GOP holds onto the 35% and the EFFECTIVE rates, the ones Corps actually pay, is 12%. But isn't it up to Congress?

Thanks for agreeing having a 36% Corp tax rate in Ireland DIDN'T stop their growth though!

I agree that cutting your rate every year will give you tremendous growth.

Well you'd be wrong, as usual, lol

LOVE how you skipped right over Dragon's explanation to your narrow little brain


HERE FROM HER:

"
Toddster asked for other reasons for the Celtic Tiger growth other than tax cuts. Being a true conservative with his blinders firmly in place, he can't see anything other than low corporate tax rates.

First off, the EU invested 17 Billion Euros in Ireland's infrastructure from 1973 forward. The money was spent on education of the population, and infrastructure - thing the US resists investing in. Education made the work force more attractive to high tech firms. Improved infrastructure is essential to modern business. I say this because US infrastructure is crumbling and conservatives resist spending the money to upgrade and improve it

Membership in the EU opened up new trading markets for Irish goods. Previously, Great Britain had been Irelands largest trading partner. Wages in Ireland were lower than any other major EU country, and Irish workers speak English, which for American based companies, made communication easier.

Last but certainly not least, in the 1990's, Ireland was giving all sorts of cheap capital loans and grants, and tax incentives to companies to relocate to Ireland. Canada tried this for a while, but found that the corporations don't stay, and often don't stay long enough for the government to recoup their investment in luring them to Canada in the first place. Some other jurisdiction makes them a better offer and they leave. This sounds like a good part of why so many of these companies left. Cheaper labour elsewhere.

So to say that lowering the corporation tax rate is the sole reason for Ireland's success is to be willfully blind to the overall picture. Investment in infrastructure, and education, which Republicans have staunchly resisted, created an attractive environment for business. Relocation grants and tax breaks, sweetened the pot.

Notice how I can discuss valid reasons for the Celtic Tiger phenomenon without once mentioning the reduction of the overall corporate tax rate."

Republicans have a poor understanding of economics. They should have no place in making policy Page 57 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

First off, the EU invested 17 Billion Euros in Ireland's infrastructure from 1973 forward. The money was spent on education of the population, and infrastructure - thing the US resists investing in.

The EU must have even bigger growth rates than Ireland, because they're such good investors. LOL!

 

[Dad2three]

.


Weird that they didn't have huge growth until they started cutting taxes.

Yeah, it was tax cuts that started it *Shaking head*

What was their growth the 10 years before the cuts started?
The 10 years after?
If you have a different reason for their huge growth, spell it out.

I have several times, starting with the TECH BOOM and low wage workers in an ENGLISH SPEAKING Eurpoen nation. Dragon did a more thorough explanation low informed one


I POSTED IT HERE

Republicans have a poor understanding of economics. They should have no place in making policy Page 59 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Dad2three]

AVG was less than $15,000 PER YEAR PER FAMILY

Moron, your link shows AGI per return, not income.

Do I need to explain the difference. I'm not confident you'll understand.

AGI PER FAMILY was little more than $14,000 for the bottom 50% of US. We know the poor have LOTS of deductions right? lol

I could explain personal exemptions and standard deductions, but you wouldn't understand. LOL!

PERSONAL EXEMPTIONS? lol


Gross income is reduced by certain items to arrive at adjusted gross income. These include:

• Expenses of carrying on a trade or business including most rental activities (other than as an employee)

• Certain business expenses of teachers, reservists, performing artists, and fee-basis government officials,

• Health savings account deductions,

• Certain moving expenses

• One-half of self-employment tax,

• Allowable contributions to certain retirement arrangements (SEP IRA, SIMPLE IRA, and qualified plans) and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs),

• Penalties imposed by financial institutions and others on early withdrawal of savings,

• Alimony paid (which the recipient must include in gross income),

• College tuition, fees, and student loan interest (with limitations and exceptions),

• Jury duty pay remitted to the juror's employer,

• Domestic production activities deduction, and

• Certain other items of limited applicability.

Adjusted gross income - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


HOW MANY ON THE BOTTOM HALF OF US TOUCH THOSE EXEMPTIONS BUBBA?

THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE ON A TAX FORM DUMMY

2.) Deduct the following items:

IRA contributions:
Student loan interest:
Moving expenses:
One-half of self-employment tax:
Self-employed health insurance contribution:
Contributions to SEP, SIMPLE and qualified plans for yourself:
Other:**

** Include as "other" any alimony paid, deductions for Archer Medical Savings Accounts, and penalties paid on early withdrawal of savings.

AGI-Adjusted Gross Income Calculator


KEEP DIGGING THE HOLE RIGHT WINGER!!!

 

[Dad2three]

The biggest enemy is crony capitalism, which both parties are guilty of doing. That is not how we are supposed to work, but the wealthiest people own government and we all know it. The flap from the left is meaningless when it comes to the whole 1% bullshit. The left is as much a part of that as anyone.

As far as the right way to move forward, there are big differences. First, the people need to insist that government separate itself from the banks and the wealthiest people that pull the strings. Without that, there is no hope.

As far as the people who don't condone crony capitalism, there are still big differences. The right likes a free market with fair rules. That means government has a limited but important role. The principles of our founding fathers are lost on those who don't appreciate working hard to reach a goal.

What the far left wants is socialism. That means government plays a huge role in everything. To that end, they shamelessly lie, rewrite history and make unrealistic promises to the unsophisticated to further their agenda.

More right wing noise fromm the low info side. Shocking


Stop projecting about the 'left' GIVE ME ONE FUKKING POLICY CONSERVATIVES HAVE EVER BEEN ON THE CORRECT SIDE OF HISTORY ON IN THE USA?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

One need only look at the economies of Chile, Brazil and several other South American countries in the 70's - 90's to see what happens when the economic principles of the Chicago School of Economics are applied: the rich get richer, wages are suppressed, and poverty increases. Not unlike what has happened in the US since many of the Chicago School ideas were put into play by Reagan and successive US Presidents.

One need only look at the economies of Chile, Brazil and several other South American countries in the 70's - 90's to see what happens when the economic principles of the Chicago School of Economics are applied:

You should compare those economies to the left wing variety, like Venezuela and Argentina, and get back to us.

Which 'left wing' schools of economics do they use? PLEASE be specific? lol

A Critique of the Chicago School of Economics:

CHILE: THE LABORATORY TEST

Many people have often wondered what it would be like to create a nation based solely on their political and economic beliefs. Imagine: no opposition, no political rivals, no compromise of morals. Only a "benevolent dictator," if you will, setting up society according to your ideals.

The Chicago School of Economics got that chance for 16 years in Chile, under near-laboratory conditions. Between 1973 and 1989, a government team of economists trained at the University of Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as was humanly possible. Their program included privatizing welfare and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution and laws. And they did all this in the absence of the far-right's most hated institution: democracy.

The results were exactly what liberals predicted. Chile's economy became more unstable than any other in Latin America, alternately experiencing deep plunges and soaring growth. Once all this erratic behavior was averaged out, however, Chile's growth during this 16-year period was one of the slowest of any Latin American country. Worse, income inequality grew severe. The majority of workers actually earned less in 1989 than in 1973 (after adjusting for inflation), while the incomes of the rich skyrocketed. In the absence of market regulations, Chile also became one of the most polluted countries in Latin America. And Chile's lack of democracy was only possible by suppressing political opposition and labor unions under a reign of terror and widespread human rights abuses.
Chile the laboratory test

Which 'left wing' schools of economics do they use? PLEASE be specific? lol

Chaveznomics.

Not everyone in Venezuela is shouting in the streets about crime, inflation and the country's continuing slide toward authoritarian rule. In working-class neighborhoods, the crowds are standing in line at the state-owned grocery store, clutching their new electronic identification cards.
The cards aren't like the plastic tags familiar to Americans, who use them to claim discounts or earn points toward a future bonus. Venezuela's fingerprint ID system monitors purchases and alerts the government when a shopper tries to buy too many of the same item.

Venezuela Much crime not enough toilet paper - Chicago Tribune

 

[Dragonlady]

The biggest enemy is crony capitalism, which both parties are guilty of doing. That is not how we are supposed to work, but the wealthiest people own government and we all know it. The flap from the left is meaningless when it comes to the whole 1% bullshit. The left is as much a part of that as anyone.

As far as the right way to move forward, there are big differences. First, the people need to insist that government separate itself from the banks and the wealthiest people that pull the strings. Without that, there is no hope.

As far as the people who don't condone crony capitalism, there are still big differences. The right likes a free market with fair rules. That means government has a limited but important role. The principles of our founding fathers are lost on those who don't appreciate working hard to reach a goal.

What the far left wants is socialism. That means government plays a huge role in everything. To that end, they shamelessly lie, rewrite history and make unrealistic promises to the unsophisticated to further their agenda.

Crony capitalism is not the problem. It's not a simple as that. There are numerous issues that need to be addressed:

1. The stagnation of wages for working class Americans. American workers have exhausted their savings and gone deeply into debt, not to get luxury goods, but to keep what they have as each year the cost of goods and services goes up more than their paychecks. In the meantime, executive income has gone up 270%.

Every first world country has a decent minimum wage, mandatory vacation, maternity leave, and single payer health systems. Many have quality child care for working families. Americans talk about freedom, but that seems to mean the freedom to treat employees badly. Where are the freedoms for your workers?

2. It's time to bring back anti-trust legislation. Large mega-corporations have too much power. Walmart has gotten so large that it now dictates prices to suppliers and wages to both suppliers and the entire retail sector. The Waltons don't need any more money. Any corporation which structures itself to use Medicaid and food stamps to supplement poverty wages for its employees, while reaping the largest profits in its history is not a good corporate citizen.

Monsanto is destroying traditional agriculture, killing bees and bankrupting farmers with it's genetically modified crops. For good reason, it's been banned from numerous countries. Why is Congress protecting this vulture corporation?

3. Every child in America should be receiving a quality education. Politics and religion should not be dictating course material. American students are falling behind students in Asia and Europe in science mainly of religious schools and their "conservative" curriculum. Conservatives need to accept that the earth is not 6000 years old, and climate change is real so that the next generation has the education and skills to deal with these issues. Otherwise the US will lose out on the next wave of manufacturing and scientific advancement.

4. Funding for elections is corrupting your political system. As long as PAC's can take in as much money as they want, and corporations can contribute limitless funds, the politicians will be beholding to them. Time or meaningful campaign finance reform.

Liberals don't want socialism, they want a level playing field. One where everyone has a fair chance, provided they are willing to work hard and be responsible. But we also want society to acknowledge and accept that in a capitalistic system, there are ups and downs the average person has no control over, and so there needs to be a strong social safety net to help people out when times are tough.

 

[Dad2three]

One need only look at the economies of Chile, Brazil and several other South American countries in the 70's - 90's to see what happens when the economic principles of the Chicago School of Economics are applied: the rich get richer, wages are suppressed, and poverty increases. Not unlike what has happened in the US since many of the Chicago School ideas were put into play by Reagan and successive US Presidents.

One need only look at the economies of Chile, Brazil and several other South American countries in the 70's - 90's to see what happens when the economic principles of the Chicago School of Economics are applied:

You should compare those economies to the left wing variety, like Venezuela and Argentina, and get back to us.

Which 'left wing' schools of economics do they use? PLEASE be specific? lol

A Critique of the Chicago School of Economics:

CHILE: THE LABORATORY TEST

Many people have often wondered what it would be like to create a nation based solely on their political and economic beliefs. Imagine: no opposition, no political rivals, no compromise of morals. Only a "benevolent dictator," if you will, setting up society according to your ideals.

The Chicago School of Economics got that chance for 16 years in Chile, under near-laboratory conditions. Between 1973 and 1989, a government team of economists trained at the University of Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as was humanly possible. Their program included privatizing welfare and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution and laws. And they did all this in the absence of the far-right's most hated institution: democracy.

The results were exactly what liberals predicted. Chile's economy became more unstable than any other in Latin America, alternately experiencing deep plunges and soaring growth. Once all this erratic behavior was averaged out, however, Chile's growth during this 16-year period was one of the slowest of any Latin American country. Worse, income inequality grew severe. The majority of workers actually earned less in 1989 than in 1973 (after adjusting for inflation), while the incomes of the rich skyrocketed. In the absence of market regulations, Chile also became one of the most polluted countries in Latin America. And Chile's lack of democracy was only possible by suppressing political opposition and labor unions under a reign of terror and widespread human rights abuses.
Chile the laboratory test

Which 'left wing' schools of economics do they use? PLEASE be specific? lol

Chaveznomics.

Not everyone in Venezuela is shouting in the streets about crime, inflation and the country's continuing slide toward authoritarian rule. In working-class neighborhoods, the crowds are standing in line at the state-owned grocery store, clutching their new electronic identification cards.
The cards aren't like the plastic tags familiar to Americans, who use them to claim discounts or earn points toward a future bonus. Venezuela's fingerprint ID system monitors purchases and alerts the government when a shopper tries to buy too many of the same item.

Venezuela Much crime not enough toilet paper - Chicago Tribune

lol, At least you have humor, if NOT a 'left wing' economic plan they followed..

 

[Spare_change]

I read some here proselytizing for demand-side economics, and others bemoaning corporate tax breaks.

These positions, simply, reveal their ignorance about how our economic system works. They are more interested in planting an ego-driven stake in the ground than in determining the correct answers. One at a time ....

1) Demand-side economics ... a slavish commitment to demand-side economics is a commitment to economic ruin. The definition of demand-side economics is ...

"Demand-side economics is first and foremost a means of ridding an economy of a recession and stimulating economic growth while preventing inflation. It is meant as a control on both expansion and retraction, to keep an economy in a stable zone. The idea is that to stimulate growth, a government should lower taxes on the middle and working class, and increase government spending. To combat rising inflation in an expanding economy, a government should raise taxes and reduce spending." What Is Demand-Side Economics with pictures

While that sounds good, nobody notices the dichotomy of "lower taxes on middle and working class, and increase government spending. To combat rising inflation in an expanding economy, a government should raise taxes and reduce spending.". Essentially, in order to accomplish its goals, the government must lower taxes on the "middle and working class", and increase taxes on the non-"middle and working class". In theory, this allows the government to assume more control of the economy, take operating capital from the rich, and lower the tax burden on the middle class which, in turn, gives them more money to spend. In practice, however, demand-side economics increases the price of items, driving the cost of living up.

By definition, the price increase must exceed the tax break. Thus, while there is a temporary increase in standard of living, it is quickly devoured by the price increases. In the end, the poor and middle class are harmed by the price increases more than the tax break can ever provide. The resultant need to expend a larger percentage of their income in order to maintain their lifestyle - at whatever level - means there is less money for investment and research, thus driving the cost of production even higher. Add THAT ripple to the price increase, and the whole economy begins to slide backward.

2) Supply-side economics - a slavish commitment to supply-side economics is a commitment to economic ruin. The definition of supply-side economics is ...

"Supply-side economics is one expression of macroeconomics that focuses on the stimulation of economic growth by encouraging greater production of goods and services. Essentially, this removes the issue of demand from the economic task, as the concept of supply-side economics takes the stand that demand will follow if there are goods available for purchase. Often, proponents of this approach will use the extension of incentives to stimulate interest or demand for the goods and services produced.


One of the more common incentives used with a supply-side economics model is to provide tax breaks. Lowering the taxes owed by manufacturers of finished goods is thought to make it practical for producers to create more products. In turn, more products mean more choices for consumers, who will respond accordingly.

Along with a reduction in taxes for the producer, supply-side economics also sometimes takes the form of lowering personal income taxes as they relate to the consumer. With this application of the method, consumers have more disposable income, since the amount of income tax that is deducted from gross pay is reduced. With more money in their pockets, consumers are more likely to feel good about the general state of the economy. This increase confidence leads to additional purchases, which in turn justifies the increased production of manufacturers." What is Supply-Side Economics with picture

The goal of supply-side economics is to increase demand by decreasing the price. This is done by creating a greater supply, thru lowered production costs (most often by cutting taxes), which in turn, will drive the price down thru competition. This will make the current earned dollar more efficient.

It must be remembered that supply and demand are the opposite sides of the economic cycle. The question becomes which should be stimulated in order to produce the desired effect. Demand-side stimulation provides temporary relief focused on raising the production through increased demand, which drives the item price up. Supply-side stimulation provides longer term relief, though still temporary, through increased demand by increased production, which lowers the price.

Which one is right? The answer is both - depending on the economic condition. The problem we have today is that we have political entities that are married to a single answer - and neither of them are right.

The Vienna and Chicago schools have foisted a load of baloney on the market that, when made into policy, has led to every major recession, not to mention the Great Depression, since the establishment of economics as a field.

We have to decide which kind of capitalism we want- plutocratic capitalism where all the money is concentrated in the hands of 1% of the population, leaving the rest in debt or poverty, or democratic capitalism, where economic growth is created by as much of the population as possible

The conservatives have favored plutocratic capitalism, the belief in supply side economics, that the rich are the job creators but those jobs have to pay the smallest wages possible with no benefits in order to increase profits at the top end, that they should receive favorable treatment like low taxation and little oversight and regulation

Liberals favor democratic capitalism, where the profits are created by a consumer middle class who are paid wages that are sufficient, that the wealth of capitalism is spread and passed from hand to hand, that a welfare state is created for the working force so when there is an economic downturn or a personal disaster or emergency that member of the workforce is not expendable and their families will survive, and in their elder years they will have a pension and healthcare, alleviating that burden on their younger family members in the work force

In the last thirty years the conservative view came back into vogue and the results have been a huge jump in the wealth of a few with the deterioration of the middle class

As usual, you take what COULD be a valid position, and lead it all the way to absurd. In short, you are patently wrong ... and your last statement is laughably wrong.

Good rebuttal, so detailed and really not to lengthy on where ANY of my posits were wrong, and WHY? lol

Given the depth of your demonstrated knowledge, I figured that was as deep as I dare go. You know ... keep it simple, for the simple.

So no, the usual right wing crap, you can't defend conservative policy either!

I can defend it ... you wouldn't understand it. You've demonstrated your ignorance quite ably.

 

[Spare_change]

AVG was less than $15,000 PER YEAR PER FAMILY

Moron, your link shows AGI per return, not income.

Do I need to explain the difference. I'm not confident you'll understand.

AGI PER FAMILY was little more than $14,000 for the bottom 50% of US. We know the poor have LOTS of deductions right? lol

I could explain personal exemptions and standard deductions, but you wouldn't understand. LOL!

I would ... so, go ahead. I'll check your work.

 

[Spare_change]

The biggest enemy is crony capitalism, which both parties are guilty of doing. That is not how we are supposed to work, but the wealthiest people own government and we all know it. The flap from the left is meaningless when it comes to the whole 1% bullshit. The left is as much a part of that as anyone.

As far as the right way to move forward, there are big differences. First, the people need to insist that government separate itself from the banks and the wealthiest people that pull the strings. Without that, there is no hope.

As far as the people who don't condone crony capitalism, there are still big differences. The right likes a free market with fair rules. That means government has a limited but important role. The principles of our founding fathers are lost on those who don't appreciate working hard to reach a goal.

What the far left wants is socialism. That means government plays a huge role in everything. To that end, they shamelessly lie, rewrite history and make unrealistic promises to the unsophisticated to further their agenda.

Crony capitalism is not the problem. It's not a simple as that. There are numerous issues that need to be addressed:

1. The stagnation of wages for working class Americans. American workers have exhausted their savings and gone deeply into debt, not to get luxury goods, but to keep what they have as each year the cost of goods and services goes up more than their paychecks. In the meantime, executive income has gone up 270%.

Every first world country has a decent minimum wage, mandatory vacation, maternity leave, and single payer health systems. Many have quality child care for working families. Americans talk about freedom, but that seems to mean the freedom to treat employees badly. Where are the freedoms for your workers?

2. It's time to bring back anti-trust legislation. Large mega-corporations have too much power. Walmart has gotten so large that it now dictates prices to suppliers and wages to both suppliers and the entire retail sector. The Waltons don't need any more money. Any corporation which structures itself to use Medicaid and food stamps to supplement poverty wages for its employees, while reaping the largest profits in its history is not a good corporate citizen.

Monsanto is destroying traditional agriculture, killing bees and bankrupting farmers with it's genetically modified crops. For good reason, it's been banned from numerous countries. Why is Congress protecting this vulture corporation?

3. Every child in America should be receiving a quality education. Politics and religion should not be dictating course material. American students are falling behind students in Asia and Europe in science mainly of religious schools and their "conservative" curriculum. Conservatives need to accept that the earth is not 6000 years old, and climate change is real so that the next generation has the education and skills to deal with these issues. Otherwise the US will lose out on the next wave of manufacturing and scientific advancement.

4. Funding for elections is corrupting your political system. As long as PAC's can take in as much money as they want, and corporations can contribute limitless funds, the politicians will be beholding to them. Time or meaningful campaign finance reform.

Liberals don't want socialism, they want a level playing field. One where everyone has a fair chance, provided they are willing to work hard and be responsible. But we also want society to acknowledge and accept that in a capitalistic system, there are ups and downs the average person has no control over, and so there needs to be a strong social safety net to help people out when times are tough.

You missed the most critical one ... the price of hockey pucks is going up. Cuz, that makes about as much sense as what you just wrote.

 

[Dragonlady]

I least I was able to contribute a well thought out post. That trumps your smart-ass remark which contributed nothing to the discussion.

 

[Oldstyle]

Barack Obama raised the Federal tax on cigarettes by 170%...that tax affected lower income individuals far greater than the wealthy because far more low income people smoke than higher income people.

LIAR. Nearly double. NOT 170%. You mean he PROPOSED a higher tax that CONGRESS gets to decide on? AND what's wrong with limiting bad behavior that costs ALL of US down the road?

Public health groups back Obama’s 94-cent cigarette tax hike

Public health groups back Obama s 94-cent cigarette tax hike TheHill

That would the SECOND tax increase on cigarettes during Obama's time in office, Dad...the first was from 39 cents to $1.01 back in 2009. Now he wants to raise it ANOTHER 94 cents. So you do the math...when you take the Federal tax from 39 cents to $1.95 how much of an increase is that?

You meant Congress increased it once and Obama wants them to do it again. Good

So the way it works in "Dad Fantasy Land" is whenever legislation is proposed by a GOP President and passed by a Democratically controlled Congress...if it doesn't work out well it's the fault of the Republican President? But if Barack Obama proposes legislation and it's passed by a Democratically controlled Congress...it's the fault of Congress?

Do you have any idea how stupid you are with some of this shit?

Weird, care to point to MY positing ANYTHING like that?

I guess Dubya's UNFUNDED Tax cuts were the Dems fault?
Dubya's UNFUNDED war on false premise
Dubya's REGULATOR failure AFTER he ran his 'home ownership' society with the backing of the GOP Congress?
Dubya's Medicare part D UNFUNDED of course

Any of these on the Dems? (Hint 60% of Dems in Congress voted against Dubya's war of choice)


BUT WHY NOT FAVOR A MORE PROGRESSIVE TAX SYSTEM, IF YOU ARE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE POOR TAX BURDEN??? lol

What I'm "concerned" about is a tax system where a large percentage of the people have no "skin in the game", Dad! Why am I concerned? It's simple...if someone doesn't pay Federal income taxes then why would they care about how much money the Federal government spends or what the tax rates are for those who do pay Federal income taxes? If you don't pay Federal income taxes you're going to vote for whoever promises you the most "free stuff" (all paid for by those who do!).

Once we reach that tipping point it will be a quick journey to the slag heap of history for the US. If you had the first clue about economics you'd see that.

 

[Ernie S.]

Not at all. I am for a system that doesn't punish the producers and reward laziness.

Punish? lol

THOSE DAMN LAZY 50% ERS WORKING 2-3 JOBS TO SURVIVE RIGHT? They should've hit the DNA lottery like Mittens or Dubya right?

Or gotten an education rather than make babies and smoke crack.

They are working 2 or 3 jobs to survive because they aren't worth enough to an employer to get by on one job.

 

[Ernie S.]

Dad likes to blame Reagan and Conservatives for the shrinking middle class when the income ceiling under which you're considered impoverished is roughly 3 times as large.