This GOP Economy- Austerity and Paralysis is ruinous...

[rdean]

In fact, I started a thread on "Infrastructure".

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...icans-the-need-for-modern-infrastructure.html

Seems Republicans don't know what that is.

in·fra·struc·ture (nfr-strkchr)
n.
1. An underlying base or foundation especially for an organization or system.
2. The basic facilities, services, and installations needed for the functioning of a community or society, such as transportation and communications systems, water and power lines, and public institutions including schools, post offices, and prisons.
3. the basic structure of an organization, system, etc.
4. (Economics) the stock of fixed capital equipment in a country, including factories, roads, schools, etc., considered as a determinant of economic growth

infrastructure - definition of infrastructure by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Please (sigh) explain to USMB lib/dems the need to stop spending money we ain't got.

We had it before we invaded Iraq.

Then Republicans spend hundreds of billions to rebuild Iraq.

What about this country? Why do Republican think Iraq is better than the United States? Actions speak louder than words.

 

[Rshermr]

And please, someone, explain how you believe that the republican platform, based on three concepts, will help this economy;
1, Decrease Taxes
2. Stop government Spending
3. Eliminate regulation

I know of no instance where this has worked. Makes no logical sense, is against the belief of almost all economists, and has no history of working.

 

[francoHFW]

How can you give sole responsibility to the economical melt down too the Republicans When:
1. the democrats controlled congress when the recession began.
2.The recession ended in 2009 and things are still bad even with obama economical policy in full control
3. Since 1946 the government has been in control of the democrats in part or whole for 70 + years
Now with what I just typed tell me how you can justify giving all the blame to the Republicans?

1. Irrelevant- damage was done from 2003-7- the real estate bubble- Pub/Wall St cronyism...
2. Only with a year GDP of stimulus!! The whole world is STILL screwed. We need DEMAND. IE Jobs bills Pubs have blocked for 2 years.
3. See 1)

 

[francoHFW]

Glass-Steagel was also a great Pub idea...the reason this could happen...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How can you give sole responsibility to the economical melt down too the Republicans When:
1. the democrats controlled congress when the recession began.
2.The recession ended in 2009 and things are still bad even with obama economical policy in full control
3. Since 1946 the government has been in control of the democrats in part or whole for 70 + years
Now with what I just typed tell me how you can justify giving all the blame to the Republicans?

1. Irrelevant- damage was done from 2003-7- the real estate bubble- Pub/Wall St cronyism...
2. Only with a year GDP of stimulus!! The whole world is STILL screwed. We need DEMAND. IE Jobs bills Pubs have blocked for 2 years.
3. See 1)

You are as bad if not worse than what you call the republicans if that is your answer. Which makes anything you say irrelevant

 

[francoHFW]

Any actual facts, blowhard dupe?

 

[rdean]

How can you give sole responsibility to the economical melt down too the Republicans When:
1. the democrats controlled congress when the recession began.
2.The recession ended in 2009 and things are still bad even with obama economical policy in full control
3. Since 1946 the government has been in control of the democrats in part or whole for 70 + years
Now with what I just typed tell me how you can justify giving all the blame to the Republicans?

1. Irrelevant- damage was done from 2003-7- the real estate bubble- Pub/Wall St cronyism...
2. Only with a year GDP of stimulus!! The whole world is STILL screwed. We need DEMAND. IE Jobs bills Pubs have blocked for 2 years.
3. See 1)

Well that's easy. During the Bush years, Democrats were browbeaten with such phrases as "you are with us or with the terrorists". Ugly and dirty politics at it's worst.

Then, in the years the Republicans held both houses and the presidency, they passed, using that "awful and unAmerican" reconciliation (remember how Republicans screamed when Democrats used reconciliation?) to pass the Bush tax cuts (Obama was blackmailed into extending them as was explained by the Christian Science Monitor, not a liberal rag, because Republicans threatened to cut unemployment benefits for the millions of Americans whose jobs had been moved to China. I wonder how much the Bush tax cuts funded moving those jobs to China? Don't you wonder?)
Then there was the "drugs for votes" bill that cost trillions.
Then the Iraqi war that is expected to cost three trillion and wasn't even added to the books until Obama became president. Not to mention the tens of thousands maimed for life in Iraq that will cost this country trillions over the next 50 years.

When you start adding up the cost of every Republican bad decision, fiasco, disaster and catastrophe, suddenly it all becomes clear. The only Responsibility Republicans want to take is getting Bin Laden. And that was someone they actually let go.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Any actual facts, blowhard dupe?

Actual facts
1. the democrats controlled congress when the recession began.
2.The recession ended in 2009 and things are still bad even with obama economical policy in full control
3. Since 1946 the government has been in control of the democrats in part or whole for 70 + years
Now with what I just typed tell me how you can justify giving all the blame to the Republicans?

 

[Darkwind]

And please, someone, explain how you believe that the republican platform, based on three concepts, will help this economy;
1, Decrease Taxes
2. Stop government Spending
3. Eliminate regulation

I know of no instance where this has worked. Makes no logical sense, is against the belief of almost all economists, and has no history of working.

1. Provides impetus to the economy in the form of incentive to invest in new business models. Allows for the real engine (the entrepreneur) to start new business without a crushing tax burden that will kill their business before it even gets off the launch pad. Gives relief to the citizen to pay bills, save for tangible items like education, homes, retirement, stimulates the economy by increasing the discretionary pool of money each family has.

2. Government spending is a sap and drain on energy and investment. In order for government to spend money, it must take it out of the economy or from citizen or business. This reduces the stimulus of the economy, hampers growth and stifles creativity. For every dollar of spending and debt the government has, at least 2 dollars of growth is removed from the system.

3. No regulations have been reduced in this country for over a hundred years. However, reductions in regulations remove the blinders from business and promote risk taking that is the very fuel that drives an open and free economy. Without vision, creativity and risk, we would have an economic engine that would grow at less than a percent and the American family would exist at a substantially reduced standard of living.

I know of no instance in which this has not worked.

 

[francoHFW]

And please, someone, explain how you believe that the republican platform, based on three concepts, will help this economy;
1, Decrease Taxes
2. Stop government Spending
3. Eliminate regulation

I know of no instance where this has worked. Makes no logical sense, is against the belief of almost all economists, and has no history of working.

1. Provides impetus to the economy in the form of incentive to invest in new business models. Allows for the real engine (the entrepreneur) to start new business without a crushing tax burden that will kill their business before it even gets off the launch pad. Gives relief to the citizen to pay bills, save for tangible items like education, homes, retirement, stimulates the economy by increasing the discretionary pool of money each family has.

2. Government spending is a sap and drain on energy and investment. In order for government to spend money, it must take it out of the economy or from citizen or business. This reduces the stimulus of the economy, hampers growth and stifles creativity. For every dollar of spending and debt the government has, at least 2 dollars of growth is removed from the system.

3. No regulations have been reduced in this country for over a hundred years. However, reductions in regulations remove the blinders from business and promote risk taking that is the very fuel that drives an open and free economy. Without vision, creativity and risk, we would have an economic engine that would grow at less than a percent and the American family would exist at a substantially reduced standard of living.

I know of no instance in which this has not worked.

Unfortunately for the same old theory, Romney wants to cut taxes on the bloated rich, who aloneamongst us ALREADY have money coming out of their ears.


He wants to RAISE spending on defense, work on the debt startingin 2035.

All this new regulation is a figment.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Austerity and Paralysis

I'm pretty sure that's the definition of "conservatism".

Yeah and its all GREEK to the Rs.

(Green cuz its the color of money)

 

[Wiseacre]

And please, someone, explain how you believe that the republican platform, based on three concepts, will help this economy;
1, Decrease Taxes
2. Stop government Spending
3. Eliminate regulation

I know of no instance where this has worked. Makes no logical sense, is against the belief of almost all economists, and has no history of working.

Sweden. They cut taxes and cut spending. It worked well for them.

" In 1970, Swedish high earners paid marginal tax rates of 70 percent, rising to 85 percent by 1980. Marginal tax rates on dividends and capital gains were only slightly lower, if at all. Sweden’s entitlement state featured universal benefits replacing 90 percent or more of lost income, a state monopoly of social services, and a union-inspired ‘solidarity wage” that featured (as the Swede’s scornfully put it) “equal pay for all work.” Sweden’s distribution of income was as equal as the communist countries of Eastern Europe. Government spending rose to 60-70 percent of GDP versus the 45 to 50 percent in the rest of Europe at the time. Fifty percent more Swedes were “tax financed” than worked in the private sector.

According to Diamond and Saez, Sweden’s tax revenues should have grown faster than the rest of Europe as it raised its tax rates to nprecedented heights. In fact, Sweden’s growth of government revenues was one quarter less than the OECD average. We have plenty of anecdotes to explain why. More than half of Sweden’s billionaires live abroad according to Forbes. ABBA joined tennis star Bjorn Borg, film maker Ingmar Bergman, and many other Swedish notables abroad when the Swedish government took 85 percent of their earnings. The Swedes voted with their feet. We do not know how many, but each departure lowered tax revenues.

Diamond and Saez should note that Sweden’s high marginal tax rates (and the associated Swedish welfare system) had a disastrous effect on economic growth. From 1850 to 1950, Swedish productivity growth was the fastest in the world. Sweden’s stellar economic performance made it the fourth richest OECD economy in 1970. By 1995, Sweden had fallen to sixteenth place – the most dramatic relative decline of any affluent country in history. Notably, Swedish firms operating outside of Sweden remained competitive. They were not the problem.

The Swedish model was. "
.
.
" Sweden began to reverse course in the early 1980s, and its per capita income ranking has since risen to eighth in the OECD. Sweden’s relative recovery was aided by the fact that a number of its European neighbors moved towards the Swedish model as Sweden abandoned it. Sweden’s
reversal has been constrained by the fact that the vast majority of its people depend on the statefor employment and benefits rather than on the private sector. The situation must have been direto convince such an electorate to reverse course.

The Swedish model also reveals one of the closest-held secrets of the Obama administration: Taxing the 1% will not pay for the welfare state. Swedish workers were saddled with marginal tax rates in the fifty percent range. They responded by working less, having more subsidized spells of unemployment, taking subsidized parental , permanent disability, or early retirement, or otherwise gaming the system. Swedish employees averaged a month of fully-paid sick days per year in addition to a month or more of paid vacation. "

Look To Sweden! Obama's High-Tax Gurus - Forbes

 

[Luddly Neddite]

And don't forget that Russia is our biggest enemy.

Mitt the Idiot will have us at war within months. And, not with little Iran. Oh hell no, he'll go up against Putin and Putin will chew him up and spit out tiny pieces.

As much as I hate the constant LIE about Obama apologizing for the US, I would hate another never-ending REPUBLICAN war a lot more.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

And please, someone, explain how you believe that the republican platform, based on three concepts, will help this economy;
1, Decrease Taxes
2. Stop government Spending
3. Eliminate regulation

I know of no instance where this has worked. Makes no logical sense, is against the belief of almost all economists, and has no history of working.

I know of no Republican who has proposed stopping government spending or eliminating regulation.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And don't forget that Russia is our biggest enemy.

Mitt the Idiot will have us at war within months. And, not with little Iran. Oh hell no, he'll go up against Putin and Putin will chew him up and spit out tiny pieces.

As much as I hate the constant LIE about Obama apologizing for the US, I would hate another never-ending REPUBLICAN war a lot more.

Compared to obama's "After My Election I Have More Flexibility" moment nothing you think Romney might do can compare to what obama has said he will do.

 

[Rshermr]

And please, someone, explain how you believe that the republican platform, based on three concepts, will help this economy;
1, Decrease Taxes
2. Stop government Spending
3. Eliminate regulation

I know of no instance where this has worked. Makes no logical sense, is against the belief of almost all economists, and has no history of working.

I know of no Republican who has proposed stopping government spending or eliminating regulation.

Of course not completely eliminate ALL regulation, just decrease it greatly. and no, not COMPLETELY stop government spending, just stop it as much as possible.

 

[Rshermr]

And please, someone, explain how you believe that the republican platform, based on three concepts, will help this economy;
1, Decrease Taxes
2. Stop government Spending
3. Eliminate regulation

I know of no instance where this has worked. Makes no logical sense, is against the belief of almost all economists, and has no history of working.

1. Provides impetus to the economy in the form of incentive to invest in new business models. Allows for the real engine (the entrepreneur) to start new business without a crushing tax burden that will kill their business before it even gets off the launch pad. Gives relief to the citizen to pay bills, save for tangible items like education, homes, retirement, stimulates the economy by increasing the discretionary pool of money each family has.

2. Government spending is a sap and drain on energy and investment. In order for government to spend money, it must take it out of the economy or from citizen or business. This reduces the stimulus of the economy, hampers growth and stifles creativity. For every dollar of spending and debt the government has, at least 2 dollars of growth is removed from the system.

3. No regulations have been reduced in this country for over a hundred years. However, reductions in regulations remove the blinders from business and promote risk taking that is the very fuel that drives an open and free economy. Without vision, creativity and risk, we would have an economic engine that would grow at less than a percent and the American family would exist at a substantially reduced standard of living.

I know of no instance in which this has not worked.

1. Problem is, since there is little demand, companies do not invest in production. Remember, we are talking about 4% or so in increased taxes, so middle income folks don't see much. Some stimulus, but not much at all. The concept that taxes being low will stimulate the economy is hard to make if you look at the 50.s and 60's with 90% and 70% highest marginal tax rates. Not much happened when they were cut in half. And crushing tax rates?? The economy during the Clinton administration was pretty good, at the same tax rates as proposed with the sunseting of the Bush era tax cuts.

2. Wow. Get me the source for this gem. A 2 to 1 "growth removal". I would put big
Bucks on their being either no source for this statement, or it is a quote from a nut case.
If that were true, how come Hoover watched the unemployment rate grow from under 5% to over 25% in just about 3 years, following the policy of no government spending?

3. No regulations reduced for the past hundred years? What rock are you living under.
There have been hundreds, many small, some huge. Consider Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 which completely deregulated much of what financial institutions could do, and the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 that led to the S and L mess. Just google corporate deregulation and see what you get.

I asked for a case in which these policies worked. You say you "know of no instance in which this has not worked". I think you are simply quoting dogma, and know of no time that it has worked. If I am wrong, just name the time and we can discuss the timeline of what happened.

 

[itfitzme]

Anyways I'm out, donbe feeding the Troll, have fun making him look stupid... as if he does not do that enough to himself.

I read your stuff, you sound like an idiot. Lot's of opinions with no presented facts. And as that typically means the poster has none, you just come off as another idiot.

 

[itfitzme]

And please, someone, explain how you believe that the republican platform, based on three concepts, will help this economy;
1, Decrease Taxes
2. Stop government Spending
3. Eliminate regulation

I know of no instance where this has worked. Makes no logical sense, is against the belief of almost all economists, and has no history of working.

1. Provides impetus to the economy in the form of incentive to invest in new business models. Allows for the real engine (the entrepreneur) to start new business without a crushing tax burden that will kill their business before it even gets off the launch pad. Gives relief to the citizen to pay bills, save for tangible items like education, homes, retirement, stimulates the economy by increasing the discretionary pool of money each family has.

2. Government spending is a sap and drain on energy and investment. In order for government to spend money, it must take it out of the economy or from citizen or business. This reduces the stimulus of the economy, hampers growth and stifles creativity. For every dollar of spending and debt the government has, at least 2 dollars of growth is removed from the system.

3. No regulations have been reduced in this country for over a hundred years. However, reductions in regulations remove the blinders from business and promote risk taking that is the very fuel that drives an open and free economy. Without vision, creativity and risk, we would have an economic engine that would grow at less than a percent and the American family would exist at a substantially reduced standard of living.

I know of no instance in which this has not worked.

1. Problem is, since there is little demand, companies do not invest in production. Remember, we are talking about 4% or so in increased taxes, so middle income folks don't see much. Some stimulus, but not much at all. The concept that taxes being low will stimulate the economy is hard to make if you look at the 50.s and 60's with 90% and 70% highest marginal tax rates. Not much happened when they were cut in half. And crushing tax rates?? The economy during the Clinton administration was pretty good, at the same tax rates as proposed with the sunseting of the Bush era tax cuts.

2. Wow. Get me the source for this gem. A 2 to 1 "growth removal". I would put big
Bucks on their being either no source for this statement, or it is a quote from a nut case.
If that were true, how come Hoover watched the unemployment rate grow from under 5% to over 25% in just about 3 years, following the policy of no government spending?

3. No regulations reduced for the past hundred years? What rock are you living under.
There have been hundreds, many small, some huge. Consider Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 which completely deregulated much of what financial institutions could do, and the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 that led to the S and L mess. Just google corporate deregulation and see what you get.

I asked for a case in which these policies worked. You say you "know of no instance in which this has not worked". I think you are simply quoting dogma, and know of no time that it has worked. If I am wrong, just name the time and we can discuss the timeline of what happened.

# 1 is even simpler. The problem is the concept of "crushing tax burden that will kill their business". Taxes are on a percentage of earning. Profits are after taxes. Taxes cannot be a crushing burden because they are always after salaries and expenses. If the company makes no earnings, not excess revenues after expenses and salaries, they pay no taxes. The only way the company is going to get crushed is if 1) they are stupid enough to price below costs or 2) no one wants there product. If they price at costs, they pay no taxes because they have no earnings before taxes. If they price above cost and make sales, then they have profits regardless of the taxes. Taxes are not 100%.

The problem is, they can't do the math. They can't do business accounting.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. Taxes cannot be a crushing burden

most businesses are pass through entities so the tax comes right out of the owners profits and salary. The higher the tax the less he has to grow his business and increase employment












because they are always after salaries and expenses. If the company makes no earnings, not excess revenues after expenses and salaries, they pay no taxes. The only way the company is going to get crushed is if 1) they are stupid enough to price below costs or 2) no one wants there product. If they price at costs, they pay no taxes because they have no earnings before taxes. If they price above cost and make sales, then they have profits regardless of the taxes. Taxes are not 100%.

The problem is, they can't do the math. They can't do business accounting.[/QUOTE]