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

[Dad2three]

Republicans don't understand that to grow the economy, you have to "make stuff" and sell it to people who have the money to buy that stuff. Lots of people spending money. Not a "few" who trickle down. It's so obvious it's weird they can't seem to grasp that simple concept. Tax cuts may be a good idea but if the super wealthy get billions in tax cuts and they just bank it, it does nothing to help the economy. In fact, it hurts the economy by removing that money from the economy.
And this idea that if you throw money at the "job creators" and no one else has money to buy anything, the job creators won't create jobs because no one can buy what the make. It's so ******* obvious. How come they don't understand something so simple and obvious.
But they don't. If USMB Republicans are any indication, and they are, Republicans don't understand even the basics.

Deanie? You are a perfect example of why progressives CAN'T grow the economy and CAN'T create jobs. You don't have the faintest idea how economies function.

Yea, because trickle down really is a sound economy policy.
Tax Cuts for the wealthy really do create jobs.
Deregulation is good for the economy.

All that was proven beyond doubt by George W. Bush and the Republican congress.

Except

that

for some strange reason

Bush wasn't welcome at the last two GOP presidential conventions. You would think that after all that success.......

I've only told you about a THOUSAND times, R-Derp that "trickle down" only exists in the minds of you economically challenged progressives.

Profits don't trickle down...they trickle UP!

Funny how even an arch conservative like JFK (eye-roll) understood that tax cuts DO create jobs!

"Funny how even an arch conservative like JFK (eye-roll) understood that tax cuts DO create jobs!["

JFK lowered taxes, but supply-siders wrongly claim he's their patron saint.

So, was Kennedy really a forerunner to Reagan and Bush? Or are supply-siders just cynically appropriating his aura? The Republicans are right, up to a point. Kennedy did push tax cuts, and his plan, which passed in February 1964, three months after his death, did help spur economic growth. But they're wrong to see the tax reduction as a supply-side cut, like Reagan's and Bush's; it was a demand-side cut. "The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.

This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.

When Kennedy ran for president in 1960 amid a sluggish economy, he vowed to "get the country moving again." After his election, his advisers, led by chief economist Walter Heller, urged a classically Keynesian solution: running a deficit to stimulate growth. (The $10 billion deficit Heller recommended, bold at the time, seems laughably small by today's standards.) In Keynesian theory, a tax cut aimed at consumers would have a "multiplier" effect, since each dollar that a taxpayer spent would go to another taxpayer, who would in effect spend it again—meaning the deficit would be short-lived.



..."The tax cut is good for long-run growth," said James Tobin, another economist on JFK's team, "only in the general sense that prosperity is good for investment." The immediate boost to the economy was the main goal. In fact, Nixon's economic adviser Herb Stein noted that the 1964 plan led to a diminished output-per-person-employed—a fact that could argue against the supply-side tenet that lower marginal rates would unleash the productivity of workers deterred from working harder because of overtaxation.



...Many liberals disliked Kennedy's plan on grounds of equity. Leon Keyserling, an economist who had served Harry Truman, lamented that the richest 12 percent of Americans would get 45 percent of the benefits. Michael Harrington, the scholar of poverty, called the plan "reactionary Keynesianism." The AFL-CIO came out against it.

JFK the demand-side tax cutter.

 

[Dad2three]

you don't seem to want to discuss JFK's advocating for tax cuts when HE wanted to stimulate the US economy back in the 60's.

J: Bush's 2003 supply side tax cuts produced biggest revenue gains for government in American History. When Charlie Gibson ask BO why he wanted to raise the Cap. gains tax when it always resulted in less revenue, BO said it had to with appearance, not revenue. A liberal lacks the intelligence to think clearly.

Stephen Moore: "from 2004 to 2007 federal tax cuts increased revenue by an enormous 785 billion., the largest increase in American History


individual and corporate tax were up 40% capital gains and dividend 71% in capital gains and 41% in dividends

NYTIMES: "An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy ids driving down the deficit this year"

" the latest IRS data through 2006 show a more than 120 billion increase in tax payments by the wealthy after the 2003 Bush tax cuts through 2006

If you want to really stick it to the rich, put in lower capital gains taxes. They will end up paying far more with lower rates than they did with higher rates.

lol

Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."

Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

 

[Dad2three]

Economists don't agree to anything of those things you claim ... those are politicians.

Now, as for the rest of this ....

"If the profits aren't re-invested in the economy where they're earned, then idle profits are taking money out of the economy. Right now, corporations are sitting on massive amounts of cash. They're not re-investing in the US economy"

Pure nonsense .... it is the movement of corporate money that has generated the movement in the stock market. They have released their money to pay off debts, internal upgrades, and create more professional production.

You fail to ask yourself about WHY they were setting on that money ... it was because of the volatility created by the Obama administration. Businesses had no idea whether there were going to be tax increases, onerous regulations, or suffocating healthcare costs. The only thing business hates more than new taxes is uncertainty. They couldn't invest a million dollars today only to find out they were going to have to sell off in order to pay repressive healthcare costs. So, they sat on it ...

But, what did they do with that money? They put it in bank accounts, safe investments, etc. And, what happens to that money? It is loaned out to borrowers .... why do you think the interest rate on houses, cars, etc., went down so significantly? Because there was more money available to be loaned out. That left you more money to spend on the economy.

The money they invested, or saved, makes them a stronger company, more resilient. Since YOUR 401(k), or your IRA, own some of those shares, it increased your net worth. And, you have the audacity to complain??

"Walmart used a chunk of their profits in 2013 to buy back shares. That did nothing to help the economy."

What does that mean? Walmart paid off debts ... money that can be used by the lenders to re-invest in the economy. That is what shares are .... YOUR 401(k) sold its shares back to the company, which, in turn, allows YOUR 401(k) to reinvest. And, if your 401(k) didn't sell back its shares, you are now the proud part owner of more valuable and stronger stock. Why in the world would you complain about that?

Study 'velocity of money' ... you most assuredly need it.

Walmart isn't re-investing in the economy. They're leeching cash out of to pass on to the Walton Family. They're destroying downtown business districts and good paying jobs, gutting the business tax base. And using taxpayer money to subsidize it all. When even Forbes is criticizing a corporation's business practices, you have to know they're beyond predatory.

It's an interesting concept when you view the taking of profits by the owners of a company as "leeching cash". While it's true that the Walton Family owns a majority share of Walmart...many other Americans also own stock in the company and partake in that profit as well.

I also noticed that you don't seem to want to discuss JFK's advocating for tax cuts when HE wanted to stimulate the US economy back in the 60's. Don't tell me that they didn't cover that in your Political Science classes comprehensive primer on economics!

That boom came after Kennedy got Congress to try to stimulate the economy by passing a "liberal" agenda that included:

• Increasing the minimum wage.
• Expanding unemployment benefits.
• Boosting Social Security benefits to encourage workers to retire earlier.
• Spending more for highway construction.

But Kennedy also did something that conservatives have been praising ever since: He pushed for much lower tax rates.

But liberals say conservatives' interpretation is misleading because conditions were so different in the early 1960s, when the top marginal tax rate was 91 percent. The Kennedy-backed tax cuts took down that rate to 70 percent.


..Shreve says there's another factor conservatives overlook: Kennedy's biggest tax cuts were aimed at average wage earners in hopes they would spend more. Boosting the demand side of the economy "gave us the widest prosperity and longest unbroken run of growth in history" up to then.

In contrast, conservatives focus on "supply-side" cuts, which target the marginal tax rates for wealthier individuals. The goal is to encourage them to invest more and expand output.
JFK s Lasting Economic Legacy Lower Tax Rates NPR



The 1964 tax cut has been embraced by supply-siders as a supply-side cut, and JFK even sold it that way to big business in a 1962 speech that supply-siders love to quote. But in fact Kennedy, and his chief economist Walter Heller, saw the tax cut as a demand-side cut aimed at creating old-fashioned Keynesian stimulus in a sluggish economy. Indeed, what Kennedy really wanted was to stimulate the economy through government spending, but he didn’t have the votes in Congress for that. So he went with the tax cut instead. The giveaway that Kennedy's wasn’t really a supply-side tax cut was that the cuts were greater in the middle and at the bottom than at the top. If you want to stimulate consumer purchasing, you’re better off concentrating income-tax cuts in the middle and at the bottom. If you want to stimulate investment, you’re better off concentrating income-tax cuts at the top—or, if that’s politically impossible, you make the cuts the same across the board. Ronald Reagan’s tax cut in 1981 was pretty obviously a supply-side cut because it lowered the top tax rate more than it did rates at the middle or the bottom. After it passed, White House budget chief David Stockman got in a lot of trouble for admitting what was obvious to anyone paying the slightest attention: The only cuts Reagan cared about were those at the top. "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,'" Stockman blurted out to William Greider in the Atlantic, "so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."

Here s Why Ryan Is No JFK The New Republic

 

[Dad2three]

you don't seem to want to discuss JFK's advocating for tax cuts when HE wanted to stimulate the US economy back in the 60's.

J: Bush's 2003 supply side tax cuts produced biggest revenue gains for government in American History. When Charlie Gibson ask BO why he wanted to raise the Cap. gains tax when it always resulted in less revenue, BO said it had to with appearance, not revenue. A liberal lacks the intelligence to think clearly.

Stephen Moore: "from 2004 to 2007 federal tax cuts increased revenue by an enormous 785 billion., the largest increase in American History


individual and corporate tax were up 40% capital gains and dividend 71% in capital gains and 41% in dividends

NYTIMES: "An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy ids driving down the deficit this year"

" the latest IRS data through 2006 show a more than 120 billion increase in tax payments by the wealthy after the 2003 Bush tax cuts through 2006

There is a difference between cutting taxes from a 90% rate, and cutting taxes as Reagan and Bush did. Both tax cuts cost jobs, increased poverty and resulted in the transfer of wealth to the rich.

It wasn't Bush Jr.'s tax cut which increased federal revenues - it was his proflifigate spending. Both Reagan and Bush Jr. spent like drunken sailors after cutting taxes. With the government pouring that much money into the economy, huge amounts of it came back as taxes. Bush Jr. spent more than any other President who came before him. You'd have to be a perfect idiot not to figure that one out. Con

Eddie, Babycakes! Conservatives lie to one another all of the time about the effect of their economic policies, because the numbers just tell the truth. Only a conservsative is dumb enough to believe your horseshit. If Fox or Rush, or Hannity tell them stuff, they accept it without question. Liberals question everything, doubt everything, and always ask for proof.

Show me the numbers Eddie, and prove that it came from the tax cuts and not from the spending.

So was JFK a "perfect idiot" for advocating tax cuts? You keep dodging the question, Dragonlady! Don't you think that's telling?

The Myth of JFK as Supply Side Tax Cutter
Kennedy was a Keynesian, not a a Reagan forerunner.

Kennedy has been correctly called the first Keynesian president (of which more in a moment). Reagan was the first chief executive disciple of supply-side economics, the tax-cut monomania that now dominates the GOP. Over the years, however, a strange connection has grown up between the two men, at least in the minds of some on the right. Because JFK advocated a tax cut to stimulate the economy, conservatives have adopted him as an early prophet of the supply-side religion.

The notion of Kennedy as supply-side forerunner is a powerful myth, but it is a myth. Context is key. Conservatives love to quote a speech Kennedy gave at the Economic Club of New York in December 1962. Here's one quote—I've italicized the crucial part often left out: "Our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking." JFK was not expounding an implacable economic philosophy; he was speaking about a very specific circumstance. The top marginal tax rate was 91 percent, which JFK wanted reduced to a "more sensible" 65 percent. Compare that with today's 35 percent top rate, and ask: If supply-siders are so enamored of JFK's tax policies, would they advocate a return to a "more sensible" 65 percent top rate? Applying Kennedy's tax talk to the current structure, JFK biographer Robert Dallek says, is like comparing "apples and watermelons."

Another important piece of context is the thinking behind the tax cuts. Kennedy's economic policies were rooted in a Keynesian belief in the stimulative effects of budget deficits. While FDR and his aides had embraced countercyclical deficits as necessary in times of recession or depression, Kennedy was the first to advocate planned deficits in a time of neither war nor economic emergency. The aim was for the tax cuts to stimulate demand, driving the economy from the bottom up.

The Myth of JFK as Supply Side Tax Cutter - US News

 

[Oldstyle]

You simply make my case for me that Kennedy saw tax cuts as a way to stimulate the economy...that remains the truth whether you call them "supply side cuts" or "demand side cuts", which is nothing more than semantics.

 

[Darksider]

Not sure if Democrats are any better. That's why I vote 3rd party (even though they virtually have no chance of being elected to a position of any real power).

 

[Dad2three]

You simply make my case for me that Kennedy saw tax cuts as a way to stimulate the economy...that remains the truth whether you call them "supply side cuts" or "demand side cuts", which is nothing more than semantics.

So you don't understand the difference with supply (trickle down) versus demand (Keynesian). Shocking

 

[Listening]

I keep telling you...he's nothing but a spammer.

 

[Dad2three]

I keep telling you...he's nothing but a spammer.

In right wing speak, that mean conservative bullshit is exposed with credible sources/links.

 

[Spare_change]

You simply make my case for me that Kennedy saw tax cuts as a way to stimulate the economy...that remains the truth whether you call them "supply side cuts" or "demand side cuts", which is nothing more than semantics.

So you don't understand the difference with supply (trickle down) versus demand (Keynesian). Shocking

Do you? Would you care to explain the difference to us?

I'm betting you ain't got a clue .... prove me wrong.

 

[Oldstyle]

You simply make my case for me that Kennedy saw tax cuts as a way to stimulate the economy...that remains the truth whether you call them "supply side cuts" or "demand side cuts", which is nothing more than semantics.

So you don't understand the difference with supply (trickle down) versus demand (Keynesian). Shocking

Supply side economics is not "trickle down" economics. Since you can't even get that straight it's obvious that having a discussion with you about it is going to be a waste of time. Anyone who starts ranting about "trickle down" has simply exposed themselves as economically ignorant.

 

[The Rabbi]

you don't seem to want to discuss JFK's advocating for tax cuts when HE wanted to stimulate the US economy back in the 60's.

J: Bush's 2003 supply side tax cuts produced biggest revenue gains for government in American History. When Charlie Gibson ask BO why he wanted to raise the Cap. gains tax when it always resulted in less revenue, BO said it had to with appearance, not revenue. A liberal lacks the intelligence to think clearly.

Stephen Moore: "from 2004 to 2007 federal tax cuts increased revenue by an enormous 785 billion., the largest increase in American History


individual and corporate tax were up 40% capital gains and dividend 71% in capital gains and 41% in dividends

NYTIMES: "An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy ids driving down the deficit this year"

" the latest IRS data through 2006 show a more than 120 billion increase in tax payments by the wealthy after the 2003 Bush tax cuts through 2006

There is a difference between cutting taxes from a 90% rate, and cutting taxes as Reagan and Bush did. Both tax cuts cost jobs, increased poverty and resulted in the transfer of wealth to the rich.

It wasn't Bush Jr.'s tax cut which increased federal revenues - it was his proflifigate spending. Both Reagan and Bush Jr. spent like drunken sailors after cutting taxes. With the government pouring that much money into the economy, huge amounts of it came back as taxes. Bush Jr. spent more than any other President who came before him. You'd have to be a perfect idiot not to figure that one out. Con

.

Yet more crap.
Bush and Reagan's unemployment numbers look far better than Obama's.
How does increased spending increase revenue? It makes no sense. Idiots who never took Econ 101 make crap up as they go.

 

[The Rabbi]

And I'd LOVE to hear how it is that tax cuts "...cost jobs, increased poverty and resulted in the transfer of wealth to the rich."! Do you not grasp the concept that tax cuts allow the public to spend money instead of the government spending it? How exactly is it that allowing more wealth to stay in the hands of the public increases poverty?

Please. Dont go there with this crap. "More money in the hands of consumers" is nonsense. The tax cuts help where they do because they encourage people to work more and earn more. That is why supply side policies work but demand side policies dont.

 

[Dad2three]

You simply make my case for me that Kennedy saw tax cuts as a way to stimulate the economy...that remains the truth whether you call them "supply side cuts" or "demand side cuts", which is nothing more than semantics.

So you don't understand the difference with supply (trickle down) versus demand (Keynesian). Shocking

Supply side economics is not "trickle down" economics. Since you can't even get that straight it's obvious that having a discussion with you about it is going to be a waste of time. Anyone who starts ranting about "trickle down" has simply exposed themselves as economically ignorant.

Ronald Reagan’s tax cut in 1981 was pretty obviously a supply-side cut because it lowered the top tax rate more than it did rates at the middle or the bottom. After it passed, White House budget chief David Stockman got in a lot of trouble for admitting what was obvious to anyone paying the slightest attention: The only cuts Reagan cared about were those at the top. "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,'" Stockman blurted out to William Greider in the Atlantic, "so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."

Here s Why Ryan Is No JFK The New Republic

 

[zeke]

You simply make my case for me that Kennedy saw tax cuts as a way to stimulate the economy...that remains the truth whether you call them "supply side cuts" or "demand side cuts", which is nothing more than semantics.

Tell you what dude. Lets run the top rates back up to 90% and cut it back down to 70% (all this for the very top top earners) and then we will see if you are correct. You good with that?

 

[zeke]

. "More money in the hands of consumers" is nonsense.

Rabbit, do you not EVER get tired of being both stupid and wrong?

 

[Dad2three]

You simply make my case for me that Kennedy saw tax cuts as a way to stimulate the economy...that remains the truth whether you call them "supply side cuts" or "demand side cuts", which is nothing more than semantics.

So you don't understand the difference with supply (trickle down) versus demand (Keynesian). Shocking

Do you? Would you care to explain the difference to us?

I'm betting you ain't got a clue .... prove me wrong.

Sure


A demand side cut is a Keynesian economic theory that public consumption spurs growth. Government temporarily places money in the hands of consumers so that they will spend, thus, spurring the economy.

Conversely, supply-side economics focuses on business investment and wealthy individuals to invest. This investment would, in theory, spur economic growth for all Americans.

Supply-Side Economics Sounds Good But It Hasn t Worked Byron Williams



Supply side economics is an economics theory built around the idea that by giving the rich enough money, tax breaks and deregulation, they will be freed from the constraints that allegedly prevent them from expanding their businesses and hiring more people. In turn, by expanding their businesses and employee pools, they will expand and fortify the nation's economic strength. According to John Kenneth Galbraith, the theory dates back to the 1890s when it was called horse and sparrow theory -- i.e., if you feed horses enough oats, it will pass through their digestive systems and their droppings will provide enough leftover oats to feed the sparrows. Regrettably, it's a pretty inefficient way to feed sparrows.


During the 1980 Presidential campaign, supply side economics — also called "trickle down" economics by its supporters, or "voodoo" economics by its detractors, and sometimes "Reaganomics" by those wishing to deify Ronald Reagan — was reintroduced to the American political debate and, to the great surprise (not to mention horror) of many responsible economists, was actually implemented by the Reagan Administration. This particular incarnation was based on the Laffer curves, and excites fiscal conservatives more than sex.


Supply side economics - RationalWiki

 

[zeke]

The tax cuts help where they do because they encourage people to work more and earn more.

Hell rabbit. YOU claim 47% or some number of tax payers don't pay any tax now.
How is cutting taxes for almost 1/2 the working population going to do anything? They already don't pay taxes. They get to keep all their earning. (according to you)

You'll have to explain your convoluted logic in giving those that pay no taxes a tax break.

And rabbit, being the middle class person that I am, my taxes are already low. About 15% actual. If you gave me another tax cut, it wouldn't make any difference in the amount I spend.

You are full of shit rabbit.

 

[zeke]

According to John Kenneth Galbraith, the theory dates back to the 1890s when it was called horse and sparrow theory -- i.e., if you feed horses enough oats, it will pass through their digestive systems and their droppings will provide enough leftover oats to feed the sparrows. Regrettably, it's a pretty inefficient way to feed sparrows.

Really? The economic theory that Republicans LOVE is based on HORSESHIT?
Why am I not surprised. LMAO.

 

[Dad2three]

"Trickle-down economics" and the "trickle-down theory" are terms in United States politics to refer to the idea that tax breaks or other economic benefits provided to businesses and upper income levels will benefit poorer members of society by improving the economy as a whole.

History and usage of the term


In 1896, Democratic Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan made reference to trickle-down theory in his famous "Cross of Gold" speech:

There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary notes that the first known use of trickle-down as an adjective meaning "relating to or working on the principle of trickle-down theory" was in 1944, while the first known use of trickle-down theory was in 1954.


After leaving the Presidency, Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat, alleged "Republicans [...] simply don't know how to manage the economy. They're so busy operating the trickle-down theory, giving the richest corporations the biggest break, that the whole thing goes to hell in a handbasket."


Trickle-down economics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia