What you economic illiterates don't comprehend!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by healthmyths, Nov 10, 2017.

  1. JoeB131
    Offline

    JoeB131 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    90,372
    Thanks Received:
    7,653
    Trophy Points:
    1,815
    Location:
    Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
    Ratings:
    +18,798
    You guys have been singing that song since the 1980s. The thing is, there isn't all that much that can be cut, unless you want to give up being a major military power or shred the social safety net.
     
  2. NightFox
    Offline

    NightFox Wildling

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2013
    Messages:
    6,610
    Thanks Received:
    1,357
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    North beyond the Wall
    Ratings:
    +5,601
    Whose "you guys"? Are you referring to those of us that believe that the federal government needs to spend within its means and not soak the citizenry with excessive taxation? I guess that would make your ilk the completely fiscally irresponsible crowd that wants to tax, borrow, print and spend the nation into the poor house, you geniuses are doing a GREAT job of that so far, unfortunately for you the road is running out for this recklessness.

    The GAO disagrees with you, last time around (2017) they found over $270 billion in overlap, duplication and fragmentation, only half of which have been addressed.

    If you thinking cutting military spending is "giving up being a major military power" you're living in a fantasyland, we spend nearly as much as the rest of the world combined on defense and unless you're definition of "major military power" means going to war with the entirety of the rest of the globe we don't need to spend nearly that much.

    As far as "shredding the social safety net" apparently you're not aware that the vast majority of what gets spent on subsidies doesn't go to any "social safety net" (i.e. the "poor"), it goes to individuals and organizations that are NOT poor, end the subsidies for those above the poverty line and you can not only cut spending you can provide a MUCH better "social safety net" for people that are actually POOR and need the help.

    Everything else (i.e. all the remaining executive departments) can be squeezed for waste and fraud just by FREEZING their budgets at current levels, that'll get you another 4-5% of total spending every year that it remains frozen.

    In the meantime eliminating corporate income tax will result in higher returns for investors, higher wages for workers, lower prices for consumers and increased CAPEX, not to mention saving billions of man hours that are wasted every year by corporate bean counters on income taxes, all of which will stimulate economic growth.
     
  3. JoeB131
    Offline

    JoeB131 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    90,372
    Thanks Received:
    7,653
    Trophy Points:
    1,815
    Location:
    Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
    Ratings:
    +18,798
    Except that you guys do it ass-backwards. Look, the thing is, Bill Clinton balanced the budget by making the rich pay their fair share. Obama went form Bush's Trillion Dollar deficits to cutting them to less than 300B a year by - again- making the rich pay their fair share.

    Unlike Reagan and the Bush Crime Family who spent, spent spent while giving the tax cuts to the rich.

    And Trump is following that script.

    NOw here's the thing. I'm all for balanced budgets, but the problem with you guys is that you cut taxes, you really don't cut spending and you cause recessions to boot, but in the process, you make government MORE popular. We get all this stuff, and we don't have to pay for any of it. THAT'S AWESOME.

    Really want to make government smaller. Tax enough to cover the deficits and pay back the national debt.

    The rest of your post is the usual "fantasy land' shit you guys say all the time when you aren't in power and do nothing about when you are.
     
  4. Flash
    Offline

    Flash Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2014
    Messages:
    9,994
    Thanks Received:
    2,574
    Trophy Points:
    390
    Location:
    Florida
    Ratings:
    +21,439

    Moon Bats are not exactly known for understanding basic economics.

    Hell, most of the dumbshits don't even know they are the ones paying the corporate tax when they buy goods and services made by corporations. they think somebody else pays it.
     
  5. bendog
    Offline

    bendog Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2013
    Messages:
    22,170
    Thanks Received:
    2,342
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Dog House in back yard
    Ratings:
    +8,219
    Sooo, economic genius, a corporation is a rich person. Here's to you, Bud Lt man of genius. LOL
     
  6. Natural Citizen
    Offline

    Natural Citizen Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2016
    Messages:
    579
    Thanks Received:
    170
    Trophy Points:
    180
    Ratings:
    +506
    Pairing federal spending and debt with tax cuts does more harm than good. A couple of trillion dollars added to the debt isn't very smart. On top of that, the Federal Reserve will just turn around and monetize that debt. Then the poor, middle class, and senior citizens get hit with another inflation tax.

    The GOP tax plan also includes a consumer index price stealth tax which will allow them to further lie about inflation.
     
  7. healthmyths
    Offline

    healthmyths Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Messages:
    17,304
    Thanks Received:
    2,380
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +5,144

    A) Clinton didn't balance the budget!

    It was Contract with America-era Republicans that established the rhetorical framework within which the aforementioned budget fights occurred.Here’s liberal columnist E.J. Dionne assessing the Clinton presidency in an exchange with Robert Kuttner:"[D]uring the mid-1990s, Clinton himself tacked further to the right than the situation required. He embraced a Republican view of welfare reform. He went along with a brutal immigration bill and assaults on civil liberty in the name of crime control. He accepted the idea of a balanced budget—and then when an economic boom pushed the budget into surplus, he declared that he would pay off the entire national debt."

    Clinton's declaration in favor of paying off the national debt was indeed a fiscally conservative position. But it wasn't a capitulation to conservatives -- it was a direct repudiation. Republicans proposed to dissipate the surplus through tax cuts. Clinton insisted on saving the surplus, vetoing their plan, though Republicans ultimately succeeded when Clinton left office and was replaced by a Republican who shared their tax cuts uber alles ideology. Republicans deserve approximately the same share of credit for preserving the 1990s surpluses as the America First Committee does for winning World War II.

    Second,

    And here’s the Clinton White House’s own website, boasting of a rather important piece of legislation conveniently unmentioned in narratives of deficit reduction that stop at 1993:"[H]e signed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, a major bipartisan agreement to eliminate the national budget deficit, create the conditions for economic growth, and invest in the education and health of our people."
    I understand why the Clinton administration likes to claim the 1997 Balanced Budget Act as an achievement.
    But it did nothing to reduce the deficit. By 1997, the deficit was dwindling away to nothing. The role of the "Balanced Budget Act" was to take credit for something that was about to happen anyway. The cuts same in the form of lower discretionary spending caps which were never implemented. It did reduce Medicare spending, but devoted all the savings to a children's health insurance program and a capital gains tax cut. Budget experts I've spoken with believe deficit would have been lower if the Act had never passed into law.

    Third, Galupo dismisses the 1990s surpluses as mere projections:

    It’s critical to remember, too, that ’90s-era surpluses were never cold cash under the federal mattress, but, rather, projections that evaporated with the NASDAQ meltdown, 9/11, and, yes, the Bush tax cuts of 2001.

    Who Created The 1990s Surplus, Clinton Or The GOP?


    B) Obama increased the National debt more than the 5 previous Presidents! Unlike you HERE is the Federal Reserve results!!!
    NOTE: Obama increased by over $9 Trillion which INCLUDED TARP payback that had a profit total payback over $713B on the $625B counted against Bush's budget!

    natldebtpresidentsObama.png
     
  8. g5000
    Offline

    g5000 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2011
    Messages:
    67,829
    Thanks Received:
    11,061
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +33,187
    Oh, the irony!

    Lowering the corporate tax rate to 20 percent without eliminating the tax expenditures which caused the tax rate to be 35 percent in the first place is fucking economic illiteracy which will ADD TO OUR DEBT, dumb shit.
     
  9. g5000
    Offline

    g5000 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2011
    Messages:
    67,829
    Thanks Received:
    11,061
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +33,187
    And yet you refuse to condemn a tax plan which will add even more to our debt.

    The stench of hypocrisy and innumeracy is all over you, tard.
     
  10. NightFox
    Offline

    NightFox Wildling

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2013
    Messages:
    6,610
    Thanks Received:
    1,357
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    North beyond the Wall
    Ratings:
    +5,601
    ONCE AGAIN... .who's "You guys" ????

    LOL, you're foolish, the only thing that balanced the budget (if you can call what Congress does a budget and accounting) was the dot-com bubble and the attendant increase in economic activity and that "fair share" meme is just nonsense, if the rich were paying their "fair share" they'd be paying A LOT less since they utilize far less in federal government services than they pay for.

    YAWN... more parroted DNC talking points bullshit, get back to me when the DNC releases your brain from captivity and you're capable of carrying out some original thought, preferably some that contains at least a hint of critical analysis.

    I don't care about Reagan, the Bushes, Clinton, Obama or Trump they're all components of the same reckless and corrupt system that has created the mess that YOU are now defending.

    It's because of brainless hyper partisan droids like you that the criminals in Washington have been allowed to place the economic future of the nation in such dire risk in the first place and instead of doing some homework and critical analysis your lazy ass just regurgitates vapid slogans and talking points.
     

Share This Page