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

[regent]

Both political parties have their role to play in our economic system. The Republicans take office and soon a recession/depression starts, Democrats are then elected to rid America of the recession/depression and get the economy moving again. Then we elect Republicans and the whole schmear starts again.

That's such an idiotic statement it amazes me that someone would embarrass themselves by making it.

Democrats get rid of recessions and depressions? You really believe that? Republicans are responsible for creating them? You really believe that?

Just going by our history.

 

[Dragonlady]

I've considered the possibility that greed is at the root of conservatives love of tax cuts. What I find most puzzling is the conservatives' stated aversion to deficit spending, while incurring huge deficits to fund tax cuts, and unfunded wars. I've noted that they're pissed that Obama didn't send troops into the Ukraine, Syria, and now against ISIS. Do they think that wars pay for themselves?

I also note that they resent monies spent for the VA, but have no trouble putting troops in harm's way. To my way of thinking, the veterans are OWED, big time. I am appalled that the Wounded Warriors Project goes on TV begging for funds to assist seriously injured veterans. Why isn't the VA taking proper care of these vets?

 

[Spare_change]

Wow, irony on steroids here.
A troll thread from Billy Three-Zip, whose name represents all he knows.
Hey, Billy. Remind us how government spending creates a mulitplier but spending by private companies doesn.t

I can't believe I have to explain this to you again. Stimuluating supply doesn't do jack shit do stimuluate demand which is how our economy works. The economy thrives on consumer spending. Stimulating supply would make sense if demand was stimulated just as much but republicans don't do that. They are morons like you.

The unemployed have no money to spend over time. Benefits gives them money. Consumer spending creates economic growth. Every dollar spent on businesses gives them profit. This isn't hard to figure out. This is capitalism 101.

Also, every dollar lost in revenue is replaced by 1.64 in growth. Bush's tax cuts only created .59 cents in growth for every dollar lost in revenue

Your economic theory is, in a word, naive. Oh wait .. another word ... wrong. I suggest you do two things: Go to Khan Academy and take their course on Macroeconomics, and then read Thomas Piketty's book, "Capital in the 21st Century."

 

[Spare_change]

I've considered the possibility that greed is at the root of conservatives love of tax cuts. What I find most puzzling is the conservatives' stated aversion to deficit spending, while incurring huge deficits to fund tax cuts, and unfunded wars. I've noted that they're pissed that Obama didn't send troops into the Ukraine, Syria, and now against ISIS. Do they think that wars pay for themselves?

I also note that they resent monies spent for the VA, but have no trouble putting troops in harm's way. To my way of thinking, the veterans are OWED, big time. I am appalled that the Wounded Warriors Project goes on TV begging for funds to assist seriously injured veterans. Why isn't the VA taking proper care of these vets?

"I also note that they resent monies spent for the VA, but have no trouble putting troops in harm's way. To my way of thinking, the veterans are OWED, big time. I am appalled that the Wounded Warriors Project goes on TV begging for funds to assist seriously injured veterans. Why isn't the VA taking proper care of these vets?"

You, of course, are going to provide us proof of this, right?

 

[Spare_change]

Republicans only econonic crises are deregulation and cutting taxes for corporations/the wealthy. Both of these methods do next to nothing to help the overall economy.

Regulations cost GDP 2% every year. Now even if you were irresponsible and stupid enough to undo ALL regulations for the sake of growth, you would only be boosting 2%. The growth of that is not nearly worth the chaos that would ensue.

Cutting taxes for corporations does jack shit for the economy in general. Stimuluating supply means dick if you don't stimuluate demand. The extra supply that is created does not meet any increase in demand. This means there is no increase in business just because a company has more to sell. Not only that, but cutting taxes only makes the government borrow more which means more debt. The proposed republican tax cuts would add 440 billion to our national debt.

The recent "experiment" failure in Kansas' economy and the pathetic job growth under Bush proves this.

See the republicans you people elect know this. They say they want to help you but in reality they only care about keeping the wealthy happy.

The reality is that the best way to stimulate economic growth is by stimulating the middle class. That is the driving force of our consumption based economy. Republicans have barely done anything for the middle class since Reagan.

Obama's stimulus created close to 3 million jobs. Why? Because it gave the middle class the biggest middle class tax cut since Reagan. It also extended unemployment benefits for the millions who lost their jobs against their will. This allowed them to spend money they wouldn't have otherwise spent because they were unemployed.

This is what you call demand-side economics.

Whoa, whoa, whoa!!!

Regulations cost GDP 2% every year?

Given that we are currently averaging about 2.7% growth in GDP annually, doesn't that mean that our growth would actually double without regulations? And, you wonder why our economy is stagnant? You don't see the connection?

 

[Billy000]

Republicans only econonic crises are deregulation and cutting taxes for corporations/the wealthy. Both of these methods do next to nothing to help the overall economy.

Regulations cost GDP 2% every year. Now even if you were irresponsible and stupid enough to undo ALL regulations for the sake of growth, you would only be boosting 2%. The growth of that is not nearly worth the chaos that would ensue.

Cutting taxes for corporations does jack shit for the economy in general. Stimuluating supply means dick if you don't stimuluate demand. The extra supply that is created does not meet any increase in demand. This means there is no increase in business just because a company has more to sell. Not only that, but cutting taxes only makes the government borrow more which means more debt. The proposed republican tax cuts would add 440 billion to our national debt.

The recent "experiment" failure in Kansas' economy and the pathetic job growth under Bush proves this.

See the republicans you people elect know this. They say they want to help you but in reality they only care about keeping the wealthy happy.

The reality is that the best way to stimulate economic growth is by stimulating the middle class. That is the driving force of our consumption based economy. Republicans have barely done anything for the middle class since Reagan.

Obama's stimulus created close to 3 million jobs. Why? Because it gave the middle class the biggest middle class tax cut since Reagan. It also extended unemployment benefits for the millions who lost their jobs against their will. This allowed them to spend money they wouldn't have otherwise spent because they were unemployed.

This is what you call demand-side economics.

Whoa, whoa, whoa!!!

Regulations cost GDP 2% every year?

Given that we are currently averaging about 2.7% growth in GDP annually, doesn't that mean that our growth would actually double without regulations? And, you wonder why our economy is stagnant? You don't see the connection?

 

[Billy000]

Republicans only econonic crises are deregulation and cutting taxes for corporations/the wealthy. Both of these methods do next to nothing to help the overall economy.

Regulations cost GDP 2% every year. Now even if you were irresponsible and stupid enough to undo ALL regulations for the sake of growth, you would only be boosting 2%. The growth of that is not nearly worth the chaos that would ensue.

Cutting taxes for corporations does jack shit for the economy in general. Stimuluating supply means dick if you don't stimuluate demand. The extra supply that is created does not meet any increase in demand. This means there is no increase in business just because a company has more to sell. Not only that, but cutting taxes only makes the government borrow more which means more debt. The proposed republican tax cuts would add 440 billion to our national debt.

The recent "experiment" failure in Kansas' economy and the pathetic job growth under Bush proves this.

See the republicans you people elect know this. They say they want to help you but in reality they only care about keeping the wealthy happy.

The reality is that the best way to stimulate economic growth is by stimulating the middle class. That is the driving force of our consumption based economy. Republicans have barely done anything for the middle class since Reagan.

Obama's stimulus created close to 3 million jobs. Why? Because it gave the middle class the biggest middle class tax cut since Reagan. It also extended unemployment benefits for the millions who lost their jobs against their will. This allowed them to spend money they wouldn't have otherwise spent because they were unemployed.

This is what you call demand-side economics.

Whoa, whoa, whoa!!!

Regulations cost GDP 2% every year?

Given that we are currently averaging about 2.7% growth in GDP annually, doesn't that mean that our growth would actually double without regulations? And, you wonder why our economy is stagnant? You don't see the connection?

If both of our figures are correct I'll admit you have a point. However, actual job creation is hardly affected by regulations. The BLS statistics prove that.

Also none of this changes the fact that it would be very irresponsible and reckless to deregulate the market altogether.

 

[Billy000]

Wow, irony on steroids here.
A troll thread from Billy Three-Zip, whose name represents all he knows.
Hey, Billy. Remind us how government spending creates a mulitplier but spending by private companies doesn.t

I can't believe I have to explain this to you again. Stimuluating supply doesn't do jack shit do stimuluate demand which is how our economy works. The economy thrives on consumer spending. Stimulating supply would make sense if demand was stimulated just as much but republicans don't do that. They are morons like you.

The unemployed have no money to spend over time. Benefits gives them money. Consumer spending creates economic growth. Every dollar spent on businesses gives them profit. This isn't hard to figure out. This is capitalism 101.

Also, every dollar lost in revenue is replaced by 1.64 in growth. Bush's tax cuts only created .59 cents in growth for every dollar lost in revenue

Your economic theory is, in a word, naive. Oh wait .. another word ... wrong. I suggest you do two things: Go to Khan Academy and take their course on Macroeconomics, and then read Thomas Piketty's book, "Capital in the 21st Century."

Just admit you have no argument against it and move on.

 

[Spare_change]

Republicans only econonic crises are deregulation and cutting taxes for corporations/the wealthy. Both of these methods do next to nothing to help the overall economy.

Regulations cost GDP 2% every year. Now even if you were irresponsible and stupid enough to undo ALL regulations for the sake of growth, you would only be boosting 2%. The growth of that is not nearly worth the chaos that would ensue.

Cutting taxes for corporations does jack shit for the economy in general. Stimuluating supply means dick if you don't stimuluate demand. The extra supply that is created does not meet any increase in demand. This means there is no increase in business just because a company has more to sell. Not only that, but cutting taxes only makes the government borrow more which means more debt. The proposed republican tax cuts would add 440 billion to our national debt.

The recent "experiment" failure in Kansas' economy and the pathetic job growth under Bush proves this.

See the republicans you people elect know this. They say they want to help you but in reality they only care about keeping the wealthy happy.

The reality is that the best way to stimulate economic growth is by stimulating the middle class. That is the driving force of our consumption based economy. Republicans have barely done anything for the middle class since Reagan.

Obama's stimulus created close to 3 million jobs. Why? Because it gave the middle class the biggest middle class tax cut since Reagan. It also extended unemployment benefits for the millions who lost their jobs against their will. This allowed them to spend money they wouldn't have otherwise spent because they were unemployed.

This is what you call demand-side economics.

Whoa, whoa, whoa!!!

Regulations cost GDP 2% every year?

Given that we are currently averaging about 2.7% growth in GDP annually, doesn't that mean that our growth would actually double without regulations? And, you wonder why our economy is stagnant? You don't see the connection?

Now, you want to change the subject???? Interesting .... if you want to talk about the impact of the Stimulus, or talk about wealth inequity, I'm ready. You, on the other hand are not qualified to discuss either. You are demonstrating an exceedingly elementary understanding of economics. I can think of no reason to waste time trying to educate you.

Go learn ... come back ... we'll talk.

 

[Spare_change]

Wow, irony on steroids here.
A troll thread from Billy Three-Zip, whose name represents all he knows.
Hey, Billy. Remind us how government spending creates a mulitplier but spending by private companies doesn.t

I can't believe I have to explain this to you again. Stimuluating supply doesn't do jack shit do stimuluate demand which is how our economy works. The economy thrives on consumer spending. Stimulating supply would make sense if demand was stimulated just as much but republicans don't do that. They are morons like you.

The unemployed have no money to spend over time. Benefits gives them money. Consumer spending creates economic growth. Every dollar spent on businesses gives them profit. This isn't hard to figure out. This is capitalism 101.

Also, every dollar lost in revenue is replaced by 1.64 in growth. Bush's tax cuts only created .59 cents in growth for every dollar lost in revenue

Your economic theory is, in a word, naive. Oh wait .. another word ... wrong. I suggest you do two things: Go to Khan Academy and take their course on Macroeconomics, and then read Thomas Piketty's book, "Capital in the 21st Century."

Just admit you have no argument against it and move on.

Oh, believe me, I have an argument ... you just wouldn't understand it.

If I explained where you were wrong, you would be faced with the choice of doing the research to prove I was right and then coming back and admitting your error, or, much more likely, simply spout the same erroneous opinions louder and louder and louder.

If you want the first, we can talk ... if you want the second, don't waste my time.

 

[Billy000]

Wow, irony on steroids here.
A troll thread from Billy Three-Zip, whose name represents all he knows.
Hey, Billy. Remind us how government spending creates a mulitplier but spending by private companies doesn.t

I can't believe I have to explain this to you again. Stimuluating supply doesn't do jack shit do stimuluate demand which is how our economy works. The economy thrives on consumer spending. Stimulating supply would make sense if demand was stimulated just as much but republicans don't do that. They are morons like you.

The unemployed have no money to spend over time. Benefits gives them money. Consumer spending creates economic growth. Every dollar spent on businesses gives them profit. This isn't hard to figure out. This is capitalism 101.

Also, every dollar lost in revenue is replaced by 1.64 in growth. Bush's tax cuts only created .59 cents in growth for every dollar lost in revenue

Your economic theory is, in a word, naive. Oh wait .. another word ... wrong. I suggest you do two things: Go to Khan Academy and take their course on Macroeconomics, and then read Thomas Piketty's book, "Capital in the 21st Century."

Just admit you have no argument against it and move on.

Oh, believe me, I have an argument ... you just wouldn't understand it.

If I explained where you were wrong, you would be faced with the choice of doing the research to prove I was right and then coming back and admitting your error, or, much more likely, simply spout the same erroneous opinions louder and louder and louder.

If you want the first, we can talk ... if you want the second, don't waste my time.

Lol is that so? Well how about you just explain it and show me up? Obviously I would like a fool if I ignored you.

 

[Dad2three]

loll Sure, that's why they crashed HARD. I guess with 20% of your GDP being ONLY based on money flowing through your nation and right wing economics ALWAYS failing, You wouldn't understand what happened with their bubble and bust either!

Sure, that's why they crashed HARD.

They crashed hard because they lowered their tax rates and had a jobs boom years earlier?
I guess you can show the highest rate countries didn't crash hard?

Sure they did, NOTHING to do with a WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST. All related to lowering Corp taxes *shaking head*, lol

Got ANYTHING (I'll accept Heritage bullshit, I'll then rip apart), showing correlation/causation? lol

You want to see the correlation between Ireland lowering rates and the Irish boom?

No, reread it. CORRELATION/CAUSATION. Of course Ireland boomed like DOZENS of nations when the Banksters ran a ponzi scheme on the world! I want the LINK t o causation of a 12% tax rate (like the effective one the US actually has) and their boom!

From 1995 to 2000, GDP growth rate ranged between 7.8 and 11.5%; it then slowed to between 4.4 and 6.5% from 2001 to 2007.[18] During that period, the Irish GDP per capita rose dramatically to equal, then eventually surpass, that of all but one state in Western Europe.

So NO YOU WILL NOT TRY TO LINK TO ANYTHING PROVING YOUR POSIT. LOL

Tax Cuts did not create the Celtic Tige

“The promotion of the myth that low taxes created the Irish economic ‘miracle’ is part of a wider, conservative political agenda which, in essence, seeks to limit the role
of the state and maintain the benefits reaped by a small minority, during the Celtic Tiger years. For them, Ireland is a low-tax economy and self-interest dictates that it
should remain so.”

http://www.ictu.ie/download/pdf/tax_cuts_did_not_create_celtic_tiger.pdf

For nearly two decades, Ireland has been hailed as an example to the rest of the world for what can be achieved by a small country in terms of economic growth. The prosperity enjoyed by the “Celtic Tiger,” it was claimed, benefited the Irish population as a whole.


...The Celtic Tiger changed over time, mostly due to foreign companies looking toward Eastern Europe for even cheaper labor. When foreign investment started to dry up, Ireland’s economic profile shifted. Joining the Eurozone in 2002, Ireland was awash in money, as low interest rates in Europe made easy credit available. This had a twofold effect.


On the other, a “housing bubble” emerged that became the driving force of the Irish economy. This asset-price bubble became an important source of employment, since the construction, real estate, and mortgage broker industries exploded. It was estimated that the housing boom was responsible for one-fifth of all the jobs on the island, and state revenues relied heavily on property taxes.

IRELAND Slaying the Celtic Tiger Solidarity

In September 2008, Ireland became the first eurozone country to officially enter recession

 

[Dad2three]

I'm amused by Dad's whining that the poor pay more in local and State taxes than the wealthy do. Liberals LOVE to increase taxes on "sin" items like cigarettes, alcohol and lottery winnings...which are all things that low income people spend money on at a far greater rate than the wealthy do. The wealthy are brighter than the poor...hence they don't tend to smoke, drink alcohol or buy lottery tickets at a rate even CLOSE to that which the poor do.

You want the poor to pay less in taxes? Stop raising them on the things that they buy more of...Duh?

Got it, you are an ignorant tool who can't follow the context of the posts

No, the wealthy don't tend to smoke or drink *shaking head*

 

[Dad2three]

I've considered the possibility that greed is at the root of conservatives love of tax cuts. What I find most puzzling is the conservatives' stated aversion to deficit spending, while incurring huge deficits to fund tax cuts, and unfunded wars. I've noted that they're pissed that Obama didn't send troops into the Ukraine, Syria, and now against ISIS. Do they think that wars pay for themselves?

I also note that they resent monies spent for the VA, but have no trouble putting troops in harm's way. To my way of thinking, the veterans are OWED, big time. I am appalled that the Wounded Warriors Project goes on TV begging for funds to assist seriously injured veterans. Why isn't the VA taking proper care of these vets?

"I also note that they resent monies spent for the VA, but have no trouble putting troops in harm's way. To my way of thinking, the veterans are OWED, big time. I am appalled that the Wounded Warriors Project goes on TV begging for funds to assist seriously injured veterans. Why isn't the VA taking proper care of these vets?"

You, of course, are going to provide us proof of this, right?

It's called history the last 30+ years Bubba?

 

[Dad2three]

Wow, irony on steroids here.
A troll thread from Billy Three-Zip, whose name represents all he knows.
Hey, Billy. Remind us how government spending creates a mulitplier but spending by private companies doesn.t

I can't believe I have to explain this to you again. Stimuluating supply doesn't do jack shit do stimuluate demand which is how our economy works. The economy thrives on consumer spending. Stimulating supply would make sense if demand was stimulated just as much but republicans don't do that. They are morons like you.

The unemployed have no money to spend over time. Benefits gives them money. Consumer spending creates economic growth. Every dollar spent on businesses gives them profit. This isn't hard to figure out. This is capitalism 101.

Also, every dollar lost in revenue is replaced by 1.64 in growth. Bush's tax cuts only created .59 cents in growth for every dollar lost in revenue

Your economic theory is, in a word, naive. Oh wait .. another word ... wrong. I suggest you do two things: Go to Khan Academy and take their course on Macroeconomics, and then read Thomas Piketty's book, "Capital in the 21st Century."

Just admit you have no argument against it and move on.

Oh, believe me, I have an argument ... you just wouldn't understand it.

If I explained where you were wrong, you would be faced with the choice of doing the research to prove I was right and then coming back and admitting your error, or, much more likely, simply spout the same erroneous opinions louder and louder and louder.

If you want the first, we can talk ... if you want the second, don't waste my time.

More right wing nonsense. Shocking

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm amused by Dad's whining that the poor pay more in local and State taxes than the wealthy do. Liberals LOVE to increase taxes on "sin" items like cigarettes, alcohol and lottery winnings...which are all things that low income people spend money on at a far greater rate than the wealthy do. The wealthy are brighter than the poor...hence they don't tend to smoke, drink alcohol or buy lottery tickets at a rate even CLOSE to that which the poor do.

You want the poor to pay less in taxes? Stop raising them on the things that they buy more of...Duh?

Got it, you are an ignorant tool who can't follow the context of the posts

No, the wealthy don't tend to smoke or drink *shaking head*

Reading comprehension isn't your "thing"...is it, Dad? My point was that low income people spend much more of their disposable income on cigarettes, booze and lottery tickets than wealthy people do...so when you impose "sin taxes" on such items then you are going to disproportionally tax lower income people.

 

[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.

 

[Dad2three]

I'm amused by Dad's whining that the poor pay more in local and State taxes than the wealthy do. Liberals LOVE to increase taxes on "sin" items like cigarettes, alcohol and lottery winnings...which are all things that low income people spend money on at a far greater rate than the wealthy do. The wealthy are brighter than the poor...hence they don't tend to smoke, drink alcohol or buy lottery tickets at a rate even CLOSE to that which the poor do.

You want the poor to pay less in taxes? Stop raising them on the things that they buy more of...Duh?

Got it, you are an ignorant tool who can't follow the context of the posts

No, the wealthy don't tend to smoke or drink *shaking head*

Reading comprehension isn't your "thing"...is it, Dad? My point was that low income people spend much more of their disposable income on cigarettes, booze and lottery tickets than wealthy people do...so when you impose "sin taxes" on such items then you are going to disproportionally tax lower income people.

Yes, and cut costs of things like cancer or drinking costs

Yes, consumption taxes hit the poor harder. AND? THAT wasn't the posit of my post, nor what you responded too BUT CIGARETTE TAXES AND ALCOHOL TAXES ARE A VERY SMALL PART OF THEIR TAX BURDENS, LOL

I ASSUME YOU SUPPORT MAKING THE OVERALL TAX SYSTEM MORE PROGRESSIVE RIGHT? lol

 

[Dad2three]

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

 

[Dad2three]

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.

The CDC also notes that, "However, because low-income groups are more responsive to price increases, increasing the real price of cigarettes can reduce cigarette consumption among low-income smokers by a greater percentage than among higher-income smokers, and thereby diminish socioeconomic smoking disparities. Further, lower-income communities also suffer from tobacco-related illnesses at a disproportionately higher rater than their higher-income counterparts.



Cigarette taxes in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia