Republicans are ignorant about the most basic FACTS about welfare in this country

[Gadawg73]

Are you really this stupid? You really think tax cuts pay for themselves? They don't. Less revenue means the government must borrow more money. How do you not understand that? Do I really have to prove this? You people astound me.

Lower the tax rates and the economy grows.
LOL, you really believe raising taxes on the wealthy brings in more tax revenues?

Billy Boy, the wealthy invest in NON TAXABLE ENTITIES when the taxes go up.
TaxFree Municipal Bonds and tax loopholes in the 90,000 Tax Code Democrats fully support NO CHANGE IN.
Or the wealthy LEAVE THE COUNTRY.
Lower taxes and more capital for investment, the life blood of the economy.
Economics 101, take a course and get back to us.

Prove me wrong.
Lower taxes are the more the economy grows.
Fasts sure are a *****

 

[P@triot]

And yet you repubs are too stupid to realize that tax cutting leads to more debt. What is the difference between Bush's tax cuts and Obama's stimulus package when it comes to more debt! NOTHING. In fact, 287 billion of the 787 billion stimulus was a tax cut you ass clown. If it weren't for the stimulus we would be in a Great Depression right now.

Your ignorance astounds me.

Oh and by the way. The auto bail out worked and is paid for.

"Tax cutting leads to more debt"

I don't know what is more fall down hilarious, the grammar or the concept...

Here's the thing junior - debt can be accumulated by one way one way only: spending. I could literally erase all income from the U.S. government - taking all taxes down to 0% and they still would not accumulate debt unless they spent.

If you are unemployed and have $0 income per month, you cannot accumulate debt unless you borrow to spend. If you don't spend, you will not incur debt even with 0 income.

You truly are a special kind of stupid junior....

Are you really this stupid? You really think tax cuts pay for themselves? They don't. Less revenue means the government must borrow more money. How do you not understand that? Do I really have to prove this? You people astound me.

For anyone who is not an idiot (which obviously immediately excludes Dumbocrats) less revenue means you spend less. You cut what you can't afford. You don't keep spending at the same level and accumulate debt.

Everyone in the world (including 6 year olds) understands this except for Dumbocrats.

 

[P@triot]

Oh and by the way. The auto bail out worked and is paid for.

First of all, the bail out was never paid back. You're ignorance on reality really is amazing my friend. What rock do you crawl under all day? Do you ever turn on the news or read a newspaper?

Second, and much more important, the bailout did what Dumbocrat policy always does - it created and ensured more failure.

Had those shitty companies been allowed to fail as they should have in a free market, then those shitty companies would be out of business and the better run companies would be stronger and bigger - giving the former employees of those shitty companies stronger and better companies to work for.

Instead, you ensured that the failed companies get to stay in business and get to keep failing and you set a precedence for the rest of the companies that it's ok to engage in risky and stupid business practices because the federal government will just come along and cover the debt for you. Nice going slick! Really smart! My God are you Dumbocrats so stupid, even canines are laughing at you....

Most all the banks and financial institutions did pay back bail out funds.
With interest.
Without the bailout most social security recipients would not have received their money as well as anyone on an annuity or other retirement fund.
Not a fan of the bailout but Bush had no other choice.

I was mostly referring to the auto bailout GA. But that being said, no, the financial institutions did not really pay back the bail out.

You have to understand - here is what happened:

They took the TARP (Toxic Asset Relief Program) money from Bush and used it to "pay back" the Wall Street bail out by Obama. So all they did was take tax payer money from one account and move it to "repay" tax payer money in another account.

It was nothing but the world's largest shell game....

And yes, Bush did have a choice. He could have chosen to do the right thing and let the free market stand on its own. Instead, he chose to do the idiot liberal Dumbocrat thing and bankroll infinite failure.

 

[Edgetho]

dimocrap scumbags lie.

It's what they do.

Republicans wrote the book on welfare.

"We don't understand..."

What lying scum dimocraps are... ALL of them

 

[kaz]

I have to say the USMB rightwing response so far is pretty weak.

I have to say that your definition of what is truly a subsidy and what is not is substantially weak.

I'm not sure you do. Go ahead. Educate me.

To say subsidies come in the form of tax breaks only is complete bullshit. My source proves that.

You think allowing a business to deduct it's operating expenses is equivalent to government taking money from one citizen and giving it to another.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

First of all, the bail out was never paid back. You're ignorance on reality really is amazing my friend. What rock do you crawl under all day? Do you ever turn on the news or read a newspaper?

Second, and much more important, the bailout did what Dumbocrat policy always does - it created and ensured more failure.

Had those shitty companies been allowed to fail as they should have in a free market, then those shitty companies would be out of business and the better run companies would be stronger and bigger - giving the former employees of those shitty companies stronger and better companies to work for.

Instead, you ensured that the failed companies get to stay in business and get to keep failing and you set a precedence for the rest of the companies that it's ok to engage in risky and stupid business practices because the federal government will just come along and cover the debt for you. Nice going slick! Really smart! My God are you Dumbocrats so stupid, even canines are laughing at you....

Most all the banks and financial institutions did pay back bail out funds.
With interest.
Without the bailout most social security recipients would not have received their money as well as anyone on an annuity or other retirement fund.
Not a fan of the bailout but Bush had no other choice.

I was mostly referring to the auto bailout GA. But that being said, no, the financial institutions did not really pay back the bail out.

You have to understand - here is what happened:

They took the TARP (Toxic Asset Relief Program) money from Bush and used it to "pay back" the Wall Street bail out by Obama. So all they did was take tax payer money from one account and move it to "repay" tax payer money in another account.

It was nothing but the world's largest shell game....

And yes, Bush did have a choice. He could have chosen to do the right thing and let the free market stand on its own. Instead, he chose to do the idiot liberal Dumbocrat thing and bankroll infinite failure.

They took the TARP (Toxic Asset Relief Program) money from Bush and used it to "pay back" the Wall Street bail out by Obama.

Bush lent a chunk of TARP money and so did Obama.
The banks paid back their TARP loans, with a big profit to the Treasury.
GM and Chrysler did not.

 

[Bombur]

Lower the tax rates and the economy grows.
LOL, you really believe raising taxes on the wealthy brings in more tax revenues?

Billy Boy, the wealthy invest in NON TAXABLE ENTITIES when the taxes go up.
TaxFree Municipal Bonds and tax loopholes in the 90,000 Tax Code Democrats fully support NO CHANGE IN.
Or the wealthy LEAVE THE COUNTRY.
Lower taxes and more capital for investment, the life blood of the economy.
Economics 101, take a course and get back to us.

he is right and you are

 

[Bombur]

Lower the tax rates and the economy grows.
LOL, you really believe raising taxes on the wealthy brings in more tax revenues?

Billy Boy, the wealthy invest in NON TAXABLE ENTITIES when the taxes go up.
TaxFree Municipal Bonds and tax loopholes in the 90,000 Tax Code Democrats fully support NO CHANGE IN.
Or the wealthy LEAVE THE COUNTRY.
Lower taxes and more capital for investment, the life blood of the economy.
Economics 101, take a course and get back to us.

Prove me wrong.
Lower taxes are the more the economy grows.
Fasts sure are a *****

Economies grow. That is what they do. Lowering taxes without decreasing spending just means you are changing the way you finance spending. At best you are accidently arguing for government debt financing growth. At worst you are simply delusional.

If you were taught any of this in a college economics course you wasted your money.

 

[Andylusion]

Prove me wrong.
Lower taxes are the more the economy grows.
Fasts sure are a *****

Economies grow. That is what they do. Lowering taxes without decreasing spending just means you are changing the way you finance spending. At best you are accidently arguing for government debt financing growth. At worst you are simply delusional.

If you were taught any of this in a college economics course you wasted your money.

Let me get this straight. He says that lower taxes encourage economic growth.... which is true, with even the most elementary school level logic.

You mock him. He says prove it wrong then.

You then make a blanket unqualified statement that "economies grow. that's what they do".

Italy's sovereign debt explodes as economy shrinks in 2013 | Business News | DW.DE | 03.03.2014

The debt explosion was linked to a drop in Italy's 2013 GDP, which shrank an annual 1.9 percent, ISTAT added, thus continuing the country's deep two-year recession. In 2012, the eurozone's third largest economy had decreased by 2.5 percent, suffering from the fallout of the sovereign debt crisis in the currency area.

I thought "economies grow. that's what they do"

ekathimerini.com | Greek economy shrinks 3.7 pct in 2013

Gross domestic product (GDP) shrank by 3.7 percent in 2013, less than a 4 percent contraction forecast by the government and the country's lenders, the European Union and the International Monetary Fund.

That was Greece's sixth consecutive year of a recession. GDP contracted by 23 percent over 2008-13 and is expected to grow by 0.6 percent this year.

I thought economies grow, that's what they do?

And I could list hundreds of other examples, where apparently "economies do not just grow. it's not what they just do".

Apparently you can have a shrinking economy, if you have bad policies.

Then after your complete crap statement, you then put up a strawman... "Lowering taxes without decreasing spending".... where did he say not to cut spending? You said that, not him.

I have yet to meet a right-wing person who said "I want to cut taxes, but continue spending non-stop!". Most of the people pushing lower taxes, also want lower spending. I sure do.

And of course with a quick verify, I went back a dozen posts, and sure enough, in a prior post, cutting spending was suggested.

Then you claim he is delusional for believing something he never said, and that he needs education on economics.

So I have a few suggestions for you.

First, don't say absolutely retarded unsupportable statements that a 5th grader could see were dumb, thus making yourself look more stupid than a 5th grader.

Second, go back to 5th grade, and join a debate class, where they teach you to debate what someone says, and not whatever straw-man you want to make up, and accuse someone of saying, thus making you look immature and ignorant.

Third, before making a sarcastic reply, make sure you haven't made yourself look ridiculously idiotic with dumb unsupportable statements, and straw-man arguments. Being sarcastic, when you already have shown yourself to be a buffoon, just exaggerates what a buffoon you are.

 

[Bombur]

Prove me wrong.
Lower taxes are the more the economy grows.
Fasts sure are a *****

Economies grow. That is what they do. Lowering taxes without decreasing spending just means you are changing the way you finance spending. At best you are accidently arguing for government debt financing growth. At worst you are simply delusional.

If you were taught any of this in a college economics course you wasted your money.

Let me get this straight. He says that lower taxes encourage economic growth.... which is true, with even the most elementary school level logic.

You mock him. He says prove it wrong then.

You then make a blanket unqualified statement that "economies grow. that's what they do".

Italy's sovereign debt explodes as economy shrinks in 2013 | Business News | DW.DE | 03.03.2014

The debt explosion was linked to a drop in Italy's 2013 GDP, which shrank an annual 1.9 percent, ISTAT added, thus continuing the country's deep two-year recession. In 2012, the eurozone's third largest economy had decreased by 2.5 percent, suffering from the fallout of the sovereign debt crisis in the currency area.

I thought "economies grow. that's what they do"

ekathimerini.com | Greek economy shrinks 3.7 pct in 2013

Gross domestic product (GDP) shrank by 3.7 percent in 2013, less than a 4 percent contraction forecast by the government and the country's lenders, the European Union and the International Monetary Fund.

That was Greece's sixth consecutive year of a recession. GDP contracted by 23 percent over 2008-13 and is expected to grow by 0.6 percent this year.

I thought economies grow, that's what they do?

And I could list hundreds of other examples, where apparently "economies do not just grow. it's not what they just do".

Apparently you can have a shrinking economy, if you have bad policies.

Then after your complete crap statement, you then put up a strawman... "Lowering taxes without decreasing spending".... where did he say not to cut spending? You said that, not him.

I have yet to meet a right-wing person who said "I want to cut taxes, but continue spending non-stop!". Most of the people pushing lower taxes, also want lower spending. I sure do.

And of course with a quick verify, I went back a dozen posts, and sure enough, in a prior post, cutting spending was suggested.

Then you claim he is delusional for believing something he never said, and that he needs education on economics.

So I have a few suggestions for you.

First, don't say absolutely retarded unsupportable statements that a 5th grader could see were dumb, thus making yourself look more stupid than a 5th grader.

Second, go back to 5th grade, and join a debate class, where they teach you to debate what someone says, and not whatever straw-man you want to make up, and accuse someone of saying, thus making you look immature and ignorant.

Third, before making a sarcastic reply, make sure you haven't made yourself look ridiculously idiotic with dumb unsupportable statements, and straw-man arguments. Being sarcastic, when you already have shown yourself to be a buffoon, just exaggerates what a buffoon you are.

LOL

I have never met anyone that could write so much and say so little.

The initial argument, "cutting taxes helps grow an economy" is only one half of the equation. It is not a straw man to point out the incomplete nature of the argument and then proceed to assume various options.

I would also point out that the initial argument I laughed at went well beyond simply saying "cutting taxes helps grow the economy."

I think you missed my point about economies growing. Not a surprise given your low level of understanding of the topic.

 

[regent]

There are a number of factors that make up a nation's economy; tax cuts are only one factor. At one time, a tax cut might be beneficial, depending on all the other economic factors, at another time, and at another time, a tax cut may cause a problem. The cause of the Great Depression involved a number of factors that were not right for prosperity and bingo a crisis that could have changed America's economic and political system fo a long time.
To change one economic factor and believe it will bring prosperity without understanding the whole picture is a lottery. And worse how many of us understand America's whole economic picture much less the worlds?

 

[Andylusion]

There are a number of factors that make up a nation's economy; tax cuts are only one factor. At one time, a tax cut might be beneficial, depending on all the other economic factors, at another time, and at another time, a tax cut may cause a problem. The cause of the Great Depression involved a number of factors that were not right for prosperity and bingo a crisis that could have changed America's economic and political system fo a long time.
To change one economic factor and believe it will bring prosperity without understanding the whole picture is a lottery. And worse how many of us understand America's whole economic picture much less the worlds?

But do we need to grasp every single aspect of the economy, to make logical conclusions?

For example.... would you be more wealthy, or less wealthy, if you had an extra $100 in your pocket?

Seems obvious that you would be more wealthy. What about me? Same deal. What about everyone else, from the lowest paid Whopper Flopper at Burger King, to the highest paid CEO? Obviously they would all, as in everyone in the entire country, would be more wealthy if they had an extra $100 in their pocket.

Last year, I made a whooping $18,000 for the entire year. Of that, I paid a total of $3,000 in taxes. Tell me, if I had $1,000, or $2,000, or all $3,000 of that in my pocket.... would I be more wealthy, or less wealthy? Last month, due to some unexpected expenses, I over drafted my account. Trust me... if I had the extra $1,000, I would be more wealthy.

Wouldn't everyone? And if everyone was more wealthy, wouldn't that boast the economy?

What are you going to do with that extra $100? Spend it? Boasting the economy. Invest it? Boasting the economy. Saving it? Which in the short team, allows banks to lend money boasting the economy, and in the long term, you save up for a larger purchase, which boasts the economy.

Whatever you do with that $100, will boast the economy, just like everyone else, from the whopper flopper, to the CEO.

Now again, you are correct. None of us knows every aspect of the economy. That's true. But we can make logical rational conclusions, from the most basic concepts, to know what is going to be beneficial, or negative to economic growth.

Reverse everything I just said. If you had $100 less, would you be less wealthy? If you had $100 less, there would be less spending, less saving, less investing, from the whopper flopper to the CEO. Would that harm the economy?

It seems obvious to me. What do you think?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Economies grow. That is what they do. Lowering taxes without decreasing spending just means you are changing the way you finance spending. At best you are accidently arguing for government debt financing growth. At worst you are simply delusional.

If you were taught any of this in a college economics course you wasted your money.

Let me get this straight. He says that lower taxes encourage economic growth.... which is true, with even the most elementary school level logic.

You mock him. He says prove it wrong then.

You then make a blanket unqualified statement that "economies grow. that's what they do".

Italy's sovereign debt explodes as economy shrinks in 2013 | Business News | DW.DE | 03.03.2014


I thought "economies grow. that's what they do"

ekathimerini.com | Greek economy shrinks 3.7 pct in 2013

Gross domestic product (GDP) shrank by 3.7 percent in 2013, less than a 4 percent contraction forecast by the government and the country's lenders, the European Union and the International Monetary Fund.

That was Greece's sixth consecutive year of a recession. GDP contracted by 23 percent over 2008-13 and is expected to grow by 0.6 percent this year.

I thought economies grow, that's what they do?

And I could list hundreds of other examples, where apparently "economies do not just grow. it's not what they just do".

Apparently you can have a shrinking economy, if you have bad policies.

Then after your complete crap statement, you then put up a strawman... "Lowering taxes without decreasing spending".... where did he say not to cut spending? You said that, not him.

I have yet to meet a right-wing person who said "I want to cut taxes, but continue spending non-stop!". Most of the people pushing lower taxes, also want lower spending. I sure do.

And of course with a quick verify, I went back a dozen posts, and sure enough, in a prior post, cutting spending was suggested.

Then you claim he is delusional for believing something he never said, and that he needs education on economics.

So I have a few suggestions for you.

First, don't say absolutely retarded unsupportable statements that a 5th grader could see were dumb, thus making yourself look more stupid than a 5th grader.

Second, go back to 5th grade, and join a debate class, where they teach you to debate what someone says, and not whatever straw-man you want to make up, and accuse someone of saying, thus making you look immature and ignorant.

Third, before making a sarcastic reply, make sure you haven't made yourself look ridiculously idiotic with dumb unsupportable statements, and straw-man arguments. Being sarcastic, when you already have shown yourself to be a buffoon, just exaggerates what a buffoon you are.

LOL

I have never met anyone that could write so much and say so little.

The initial argument, "cutting taxes helps grow an economy" is only one half of the equation. It is not a straw man to point out the incomplete nature of the argument and then proceed to assume various options.

I would also point out that the initial argument I laughed at went well beyond simply saying "cutting taxes helps grow the economy."

I think you missed my point about economies growing. Not a surprise given your low level of understanding of the topic.

Actually, the making of those assumptions is the essence of the straw man argument.

He is right; you need to go back to 5th grade debate class.

 

[Bombur]

Let me get this straight. He says that lower taxes encourage economic growth.... which is true, with even the most elementary school level logic.

You mock him. He says prove it wrong then.

You then make a blanket unqualified statement that "economies grow. that's what they do".

Italy's sovereign debt explodes as economy shrinks in 2013 | Business News | DW.DE | 03.03.2014


I thought "economies grow. that's what they do"

ekathimerini.com | Greek economy shrinks 3.7 pct in 2013


I thought economies grow, that's what they do?

And I could list hundreds of other examples, where apparently "economies do not just grow. it's not what they just do".

Apparently you can have a shrinking economy, if you have bad policies.

Then after your complete crap statement, you then put up a strawman... "Lowering taxes without decreasing spending".... where did he say not to cut spending? You said that, not him.

I have yet to meet a right-wing person who said "I want to cut taxes, but continue spending non-stop!". Most of the people pushing lower taxes, also want lower spending. I sure do.

And of course with a quick verify, I went back a dozen posts, and sure enough, in a prior post, cutting spending was suggested.

Then you claim he is delusional for believing something he never said, and that he needs education on economics.

So I have a few suggestions for you.

First, don't say absolutely retarded unsupportable statements that a 5th grader could see were dumb, thus making yourself look more stupid than a 5th grader.

Second, go back to 5th grade, and join a debate class, where they teach you to debate what someone says, and not whatever straw-man you want to make up, and accuse someone of saying, thus making you look immature and ignorant.

Third, before making a sarcastic reply, make sure you haven't made yourself look ridiculously idiotic with dumb unsupportable statements, and straw-man arguments. Being sarcastic, when you already have shown yourself to be a buffoon, just exaggerates what a buffoon you are.

LOL

I have never met anyone that could write so much and say so little.

The initial argument, "cutting taxes helps grow an economy" is only one half of the equation. It is not a straw man to point out the incomplete nature of the argument and then proceed to assume various options.

I would also point out that the initial argument I laughed at went well beyond simply saying "cutting taxes helps grow the economy."

I think you missed my point about economies growing. Not a surprise given your low level of understanding of the topic.

Actually, the making of those assumptions is the essence of the straw man argument.

He is right; you need to go back to 5th grade debate class.

LOL

I could see your 5th grade debate class now.

Step 1. Present horribly stupid and vague argument
Step 2. Repeat vague argument like you clarified something
Step 3. Watch as your opponent argues against every logical completion of your argument
Step 4. Cry straw man

The real problem here is that you morons are so clueless about the topic that you can only repeat talking points and when pressed on any issue you have to resort to deflection and stupidity. I was better off just laughing at stupidity.

 

[FA_Q2]

LOL

I have never met anyone that could write so much and say so little.

The initial argument, "cutting taxes helps grow an economy" is only one half of the equation. It is not a straw man to point out the incomplete nature of the argument and then proceed to assume various options.

I would also point out that the initial argument I laughed at went well beyond simply saying "cutting taxes helps grow the economy."

I think you missed my point about economies growing. Not a surprise given your low level of understanding of the topic.

Actually, the making of those assumptions is the essence of the straw man argument.

He is right; you need to go back to 5th grade debate class.

LOL

I could see your 5th grade debate class now.

Step 1. Present horribly stupid and vague argument
Step 2. Repeat vague argument like you clarified something
Step 3. Watch as your opponent argues against every logical completion of your argument
Step 4. Cry straw man

The real problem here is that you morons are so clueless about the topic that you can only repeat talking points and when pressed on any issue you have to resort to deflection and stupidity. I was better off just laughing at stupidity.

^ Never has someone so dumb and idiotic thought so much of himself.

I think this guy could give RDean a run for his money in the moron category.

 

[Bombur]

Actually, the making of those assumptions is the essence of the straw man argument.

He is right; you need to go back to 5th grade debate class.

LOL

I could see your 5th grade debate class now.

Step 1. Present horribly stupid and vague argument
Step 2. Repeat vague argument like you clarified something
Step 3. Watch as your opponent argues against every logical completion of your argument
Step 4. Cry straw man

The real problem here is that you morons are so clueless about the topic that you can only repeat talking points and when pressed on any issue you have to resort to deflection and stupidity. I was better off just laughing at stupidity.

^ Never has someone so dumb and idiotic thought so much of himself.

I think this guy could give RDean a run for his money in the moron category.

Then make the argument. I will wait.

 

[Gadawg73]

Prove me wrong.
Lower taxes are the more the economy grows.
Fasts sure are a *****

Economies grow. That is what they do. Lowering taxes without decreasing spending just means you are changing the way you finance spending. At best you are accidently arguing for government debt financing growth. At worst you are simply delusional.

If you were taught any of this in a college economics course you wasted your money.

I have a BBA and a MBA.

Lowering taxes GROWS THE ECONOMY.
Increasing taxes LOWERS CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Spending is a function OF GOVERNMENT, not the private sector.
Raising taxes NEVER helps lower spending.
JUST THE OPPOSITE. They always raise it the same or higher than the additional tax revenues, if any, are.
The result is leveraging the debt and the deficits.
Real world, please join us in it.

 

[Bombur]

Prove me wrong.
Lower taxes are the more the economy grows.
Fasts sure are a *****

Economies grow. That is what they do. Lowering taxes without decreasing spending just means you are changing the way you finance spending. At best you are accidently arguing for government debt financing growth. At worst you are simply delusional.

If you were taught any of this in a college economics course you wasted your money.

I have a BBA and a MBA.

Lowering taxes GROWS THE ECONOMY.
Increasing taxes LOWERS CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Spending is a function OF GOVERNMENT, not the private sector.
Raising taxes NEVER helps lower spending.
JUST THE OPPOSITE. They always raise it the same or higher than the additional tax revenues, if any, are.
The result is leveraging the debt and the deficits.
Real world, please join us in it.

Your argument is incomplete without talking about how the government is able to lower taxes.

Taxes are by definition the cost part of the equation. I am not aware of anyone that is arguing otherwise but you seem to think pointing this out is somehow important.

What you seem intent on ignoring is whether or not you are advocating for shifting the cost away from taxation to debt or you are suggesting that we simply cut spending. Without considering those things you really don't establish whether the economy would grow or not.

In the case of debt spending I think there are a fair number of economists that would agree that debt spending during a down period is a good idea. They may not all agree that tax cuts are the best choice but your argument doesn't logically preclude that option.

In the case of spending cuts there is rather clear evidence that spending cuts during a down period hurt economic growth. In the long term and with regards to spending cuts in good times the result depends on the spending in question.

If there is some other option I missed then talk about it.

 

[RKMBrown]

Economies grow. That is what they do. Lowering taxes without decreasing spending just means you are changing the way you finance spending. At best you are accidently arguing for government debt financing growth. At worst you are simply delusional.

If you were taught any of this in a college economics course you wasted your money.

I have a BBA and a MBA.

Lowering taxes GROWS THE ECONOMY.
Increasing taxes LOWERS CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Spending is a function OF GOVERNMENT, not the private sector.
Raising taxes NEVER helps lower spending.
JUST THE OPPOSITE. They always raise it the same or higher than the additional tax revenues, if any, are.
The result is leveraging the debt and the deficits.
Real world, please join us in it.

Your argument is incomplete without talking about how the government is able to lower taxes.

Taxes are by definition the cost part of the equation. I am not aware of anyone that is arguing otherwise but you seem to think pointing this out is somehow important.

What you seem intent on ignoring is whether or not you are advocating for shifting the cost away from taxation to debt or you are suggesting that we simply cut spending. Without considering those things you really don't establish whether the economy would grow or not.

In the case of debt spending I think there are a fair number of economists that would agree that debt spending during a down period is a good idea. They may not all agree that tax cuts are the best choice but your argument doesn't logically preclude that option.

In the case of spending cuts there is rather clear evidence that spending cuts during a down period hurt economic growth. In the long term and with regards to spending cuts in good times the result depends on the spending in question.

If there is some other option I missed then talk about it.

The part you missed is 1) spending cuts are obvious 2) we are in a permanent state of shit based on to much government spending 3) bankrupcies are not the end of the world 4) it's time to bankrupt the failures (including failed government programs) and move on. Your fear of worsening the economic downturn by suddenly using common sense on spending is FUD.

 

[Bombur]

I have a BBA and a MBA.

Lowering taxes GROWS THE ECONOMY.
Increasing taxes LOWERS CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Spending is a function OF GOVERNMENT, not the private sector.
Raising taxes NEVER helps lower spending.
JUST THE OPPOSITE. They always raise it the same or higher than the additional tax revenues, if any, are.
The result is leveraging the debt and the deficits.
Real world, please join us in it.

Your argument is incomplete without talking about how the government is able to lower taxes.

Taxes are by definition the cost part of the equation. I am not aware of anyone that is arguing otherwise but you seem to think pointing this out is somehow important.

What you seem intent on ignoring is whether or not you are advocating for shifting the cost away from taxation to debt or you are suggesting that we simply cut spending. Without considering those things you really don't establish whether the economy would grow or not.

In the case of debt spending I think there are a fair number of economists that would agree that debt spending during a down period is a good idea. They may not all agree that tax cuts are the best choice but your argument doesn't logically preclude that option.

In the case of spending cuts there is rather clear evidence that spending cuts during a down period hurt economic growth. In the long term and with regards to spending cuts in good times the result depends on the spending in question.

If there is some other option I missed then talk about it.

The part you missed is 1) spending cuts are obvious 2) we are in a permanent state of shit based on to much government spending 3) bankrupcies are not the end of the world 4) it's time to bankrupt the failures (including failed government programs) and move on. Your fear of worsening the economic downturn by suddenly using common sense on spending is FUD.

Government spending cuts will hurt the economy in the short run. Especially during a recession. Austerity has only slowed our current recovery.

Depending on what is cut it may or may not hurt the economy in the long run. I think there is plenty of reason to believe we can cut defense spending for example. The military certainly thinks so.

The argument presented did not specify any position on spending cuts. I am not aware of anyone advocating specific spending cuts. Probably because it is easier to blindly assume that the cut makes sense than being specific.