Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

[Uncensored2008]

Why are you even bring up Apple. If they hadn't borrowed something over 100 billion dollars from Bill Gates, they wouldn't even exist. And the only reason Bill Gates did that was to stave off any possible breakup of Microsoft like what happened with Standard Oil.

Jobs was a marketing genius. Compaq and then HP who absorbed them had the iPhone tech for 5 years before Apple copied it. Yet HP could not sell their devices. Jobs created the demand for smart phones through clever marketing that made them "cool" to the millennials.

Apple was spoken of because the story illustrates Says law in practical terms.

 

[danielpalos]

On top of tax breaks for the wealthy, now Trump wants to cut food stamps. Things just keep getting worse and worse with that dickwad.

Another leftist fascist who doesn't grasp the concept of "baseline budgeting."

Tell me comrade Brown Shirt, are you stating that the amount of money spent on food stamps (SNAP) for 2018 will be LESS than what was appropriated for 2017?

I am claiming we should end the drug war instead of, "hate on the poor".

 

[danielpalos]

Why are you even bring up Apple. If they hadn't borrowed something over 100 billion dollars from Bill Gates, they wouldn't even exist. And the only reason Bill Gates did that was to stave off any possible breakup of Microsoft like what happened with Standard Oil.

Jobs was a marketing genius. Compaq and then HP who absorbed them had the iPhone tech for 5 years before Apple copied it. Yet HP could not sell their devices. Jobs created the demand for smart phones through clever marketing that made them "cool" to the millennials.

Apple was spoken of because the story illustrates Says law in practical terms.

Or, "guys with gold" can "shape public policy"?

 

[danielpalos]

Why are you even bring up Apple. If they hadn't borrowed something over 100 billion dollars from Bill Gates, they wouldn't even exist. And the only reason Bill Gates did that was to stave off any possible breakup of Microsoft like what happened with Standard Oil.

Jobs was a marketing genius. Compaq and then HP who absorbed them had the iPhone tech for 5 years before Apple copied it. Yet HP could not sell their devices. Jobs created the demand for smart phones through clever marketing that made them "cool" to the millennials.

Apple was spoken of because the story illustrates Says law in practical terms.

It depends more on the "gold". Knights with "gold", demanded horses that could carry them, their armor, and their "gold". Supply met that demand; in both cases, both parties had "gold" and merely, created demand with that capital wealth. Wealth is what makes supply side work. The US has a printing press at an official Mint; management is the problem.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
I am claiming we should end the drug war instead of, "hate on the poor".

Who cares?

A cut to the proposed INCREASE in spending is not a cut, it is a fucking increase. Funding for food stamps (SNAP) will increase in 2018, just not as much as the democrats wanted. The lying press turns around and calls it "cuts."

 

[The Derp]

A cut to the proposed INCREASE in spending is not a cut, it is a fucking increase. Funding for food stamps (SNAP) will increase in 2018, just not as much as the democrats wanted. The lying press turns around and calls it "cuts."

Does the increase exceed inflation? Does it run the same? How will the cut to the increase in SNAP affect the 1.4 million veterans who are currently enrolled in the program?

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
It depends more on the "gold". Knights with "gold", demanded horses that could carry them, their armor, and their "gold". Supply met that demand; in both cases, both parties had "gold" and merely, created demand with that capital wealth. Wealth is what makes supply side work. The US has a printing press at an official Mint; management is the problem.

So sparky, what you are saying is that the supply of gold gave rise to the demand for horses to carry the gold?

Supply side in action - though not what you intended.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Does the increase exceed inflation? Does it run the same? How will the cut to the increase in SNAP affect the 1.4 million veterans who are currently enrolled in the program?

Yes, the increase exceeds inflation, which is virtually flat.

{"Baseline budgeting" is one of those Washington terms that sounds very dry and boring. In reality, baseline budgeting is one of the most sinister ways that politicians claim to cut spending when they are actually increasing spending. The Congressional Budget Office defines the baseline as a benchmark for measuring the budgetary effects of proposed changes in federal revenue or spending, with the assumption that current budgetary policies or current services are continued without change. The baseline includes automatic adjustments for inflation and anticipated increases in program participation. Baseline, or current services, budgeting, therefore builds automatic, future spending increases into Congress's budgetary forecasts.}

Baseline Budgeting | Citizens Against Government Waste

 

[The Derp]

Yes, the increase exceeds inflation, which is virtually flat.

SNAP itself seeing less enrollment as the economy improves. Was the cut to the increase equal to the drop in enrollment on a per-beneficiary basis?

 

[The Derp]

Economics are not conservative not liberal. You highlight the the flaw in ignorant partisanship. You substitute partisan goals for fact.

But your economic ideology depends on the faith that the drop in government spending will be made up for by an increase in private sector spending. When it comes down to it, you are relying on faith, are you not? What happens if the private sector does not make up for the drop in government demand? Why, the economy contracts.

We went through this before, back in 2010 and 2011, when you all argued for austerity amid the worst recession in 80 years. Your argument was that we had to cut government spending because it was causing a deficit which was increasing debt, which was negatively affecting the economy. To support this wild claim, Conservatives trotted out this paper called "Growth in the Time of Debt" by Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart. In this paper, they argued that once debt reaches 90% of GDP the economy "falls off a cliff". This paper became the standard by which all Conservatives made the case for austerity and the subsequent Sequestration that followed. But guess what? The thing the paper supposedly proved turned out to be a big fat lie. Why? Because Rogoff and Reinhart deliberately omitted data and had multiple "spreadsheet errors" that when corrected, showed the opposite to actually be the case. So it was another instance of Conservative "faith" losing out to facts. The faith was that the economy would slam on its brakes once government debt reached a certain level. And much like the faith you put into trickle-down, it was misplaced.

As for removing a trillion of government spending, you ignorantly have fallen into the one sided transaction trap. Before government can spend a trillion, it must first remove several trillion from the economy

LOL! Again, you are working from the assumption that the wealthy and businesses are taking the extra cash they are getting and putting it into the economy! They aren't. They haven't. And they never will. Because relying on the faith that they will do so is misguided and naive. As we saw during the Bush Tax Cuts, the wealthy increased their savings, not their spending. Bush lost net 460,000 jobs after 8 years of his tax cuts. If cutting taxes results in more "investment" as you like to pretend it does, shouldn't there have been positive job growth after 8 years of Bush? He even lost net private sector jobs after 4 years! So if there was no job growth, what were all those businesses and rich people doing with their money that they got from the tax cut? Not putting it into the economy, that's for fuckin' sure.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes, the increase exceeds inflation, which is virtually flat.

SNAP itself seeing less enrollment as the economy improves. Was the cut to the increase equal to the drop in enrollment on a per-beneficiary basis?

All entitlements are participant based.

Answer a simple question, will the grant to a recipient go down, or will it in fact go up?

We both already know the answer. There is no cut, never was one.

 

[The Derp]

Answer a simple question, will the grant to a recipient go down, or will it in fact go up?

You didn't answer that question. It was my question that I asked you, and you just parroted it back to me. I don't know what the per-recipient is now vs. what it will be next year. That's why I asked you. You don't seem to know either.

 

[The Derp]

There is no cut, never was one.

Show your work.

SNAP budget/number of enrolled for 2017 vs. SNAP budget/number enrolled for 2018

 

[Uncensored2008]

Economics are not conservative not liberal. You highlight the the flaw in ignorant partisanship. You substitute partisan goals for fact.

But your economic ideology depends on the faith that the drop in government spending will be made up for by an increase in private sector spending. When it comes down to it, you are relying on faith, are you not? What happens if the private sector does not make up for the drop in government demand? Why, the economy contracts.

We went through this before, back in 2010 and 2011, when you all argued for austerity amid the worst recession in 80 years. Your argument was that we had to cut government spending because it was causing a deficit which was increasing debt, which was negatively affecting the economy. To support this wild claim, Conservatives trotted out this paper called "Growth in the Time of Debt" by Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart. In this paper, they argued that once debt reaches 90% of GDP the economy "falls off a cliff". This paper became the standard by which all Conservatives made the case for austerity and the subsequent Sequestration that followed. But guess what? The thing the paper supposedly proved turned out to be a big fat lie. Why? Because Rogoff and Reinhart deliberately omitted data and had multiple "spreadsheet errors" that when corrected, showed the opposite to actually be the case. So it was another instance of Conservative "faith" losing out to facts. The faith was that the economy would slam on its brakes once government debt reached a certain level. And much like the faith you put into trickle-down, it was misplaced.

As for removing a trillion of government spending, you ignorantly have fallen into the one sided transaction trap. Before government can spend a trillion, it must first remove several trillion from the economy

LOL! Again, you are working from the assumption that the wealthy and businesses are taking the extra cash they are getting and putting it into the economy! They aren't. They haven't. And they never will. Because relying on the faith that they will do so is misguided and naive. As we saw during the Bush Tax Cuts, the wealthy increased their savings, not their spending. Bush lost net 460,000 jobs after 8 years of his tax cuts. If cutting taxes results in more "investment" as you like to pretend it does, shouldn't there have been positive job growth after 8 years of Bush? He even lost net private sector jobs after 4 years! So if there was no job growth, what were all those businesses and rich people doing with their money that they got from the tax cut? Not putting it into the economy, that's for fuckin' sure.

Of course. Another genius who thinks "the rich" fill swimming pools with gold coins.

I'll give you a hint, people don't get or stay rich by letting capital sit idle.

 

[The Derp]

"Trickle down" is a foolish term used by those who fail to grasp basic economics. It was a disparaging epithet applied to Arthur Laffers ideas. There is not, nor has there ever been anything such as "trickle down economics." The moment a person uses the term you can be assured that they have no grasp of basic economics and are pursuing a partisan agenda.

When someone gets all screechy they tend to make a semantic argument as you are making here.

Call it whatever you want; voodoo economics, trickle-down, supply side, teabaganomics...it's all the same stupid shit.

You can put different shades of polish on a turd, but it's still a turd.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Answer a simple question, will the grant to a recipient go down, or will it in fact go up?

You didn't answer that question. It was my question that I asked you, and you just parroted it back to me. I don't know what the per-recipient is now vs. what it will be next year. That's why I asked you. You don't seem to know either.

I did indeed answer it, all entitlements are participation based. A decline in recipients will decrease the capital outlay.

Is your complaint that the record number of new people on the welfare roles that Obama fostered is coming to an end?

Oh, and the SNAP benefits are widely published, it is no secret.

Eligibility | Food and Nutrition Service

 

[The Derp]

Of course. Another genius who thinks "the rich" fill swimming pools with gold coins. I'll give you a hint, people don't get or stay rich by letting capital sit idle.

And yet, that is exactly what has happened since the Bush Tax Cuts. So again, you are working from a place of faith-based reasoning. The faith that the rich will "invest" or businesses will "expand" if their after-tax profits are increased as a result of cutting taxes. It simply does not happen. They don't use that tax cut money to grow the economy at all. They haven't and they never will.

If what you are saying is true, then how do you account for the private sector job loss during Bush's 8 years? Wouldn't the opposite have been the case? That the wealthy would have taken their newly-found money they got as a result of their tax cut and use that to invest or grow businesses (which means jobs)? That didn't happen, did it? They didn't do that during Bush, did they? So what did they do with their tax cut? They saved it. And when they "saved it" did the banks take that money and invest it in new companies or expand already existing ones? Nope. How do I know this? Because I can look at employment numbers and see for myself!

The employment numbers would indicate that when given a tax cut, the wealthy and by extension the banks do not invest that tax cut back into the economy. At least, not our economy. Maybe a third world economy, or maybe they just gamble with it in the secondary and tertiary mortgage markets (which seems to be what they did during the Bush Housing Bubble), but definitely not in the consumer economy where it would create jobs and growth.

 

[The Derp]

I did indeed answer it, all entitlements are participation based. A decline in recipients will decrease the capital outlay.

No, you didn't answer it. It was a very simple question:

What is the benefit now vs. what will it be next year?

Show your work.

 

[Uncensored2008]

When someone gets all screechy they tend to make a semantic argument as you are making here.

Call it whatever you want; voodoo economics, trickle-down, supply side, teabaganomics...it's all the same stupid shit.

You can put different shades of polish on a turd, but it's still a turd.

Epithets are rarely sufficient for scholarly study, though they do form the basis of the partisan argument.

For fun, explain how you think "Supply Side Economics" works? Do you even grasp the difference between Keynesian, Chicago, and Classical economics?

 

[The Derp]

Epithets are rarely sufficient for scholarly study, though they do form the basis of the partisan argument.

No, in some cases an epithet is most appropriate. For instance, the Conservative idea that we need austerity during or in the aftermath of a recession is a stupid fucking idea full of bullshit and supported by nothing other than outright lies.

For fun, explain how you think "Supply Side Economics" works?

"If you build it, they will come"

That is supply-side economics. Unfortunately, it only works in the movies.