To Conservatives: What drives the economy?

[Politico]

Money movement drives the economy. 11 page fail 101.

No shit sherlock. The money spent by the consumers drives the economy.

So we agree 'Sherlock'.

 

[The Rabbi]

Money movement drives the economy. 11 page fail 101.

No shit sherlock. The money spent by the consumers drives the economy.

So we agree 'Sherlock'.

You agree. But you're both wrong.

 

[Dad2three]

The French Revolution comes to mind, the only problem is that someone like him is stupid enough to only go after the Republicans during his massacre because the Democrats aren't responsible for any of those stats that he posts. They're only trying to help the 'little guy', they're not in league with 'the rich' at all. Partisans are not only stupid enough to believe the lies their masters feed them, but they also don't realize how incredibly stupid it makes them look.

Yeah, it's the Dems fighting ANY tax increase on 'job creators', new regulations, Dubya's regulator failure, etc

CONSERVATIVE POLICY NEVER WORKS ANYWHERE IT'S EVER TRIED, EXCEPT FOR THE 1%ERS. EVER!

When "Dubya" was leaning fiscally conservative in 2003 it worked quite well. Then when he won in 2004 the "compassionate" stuff kicked in hard and the rest is history.

"When "Dubya" was leaning fiscally conservative in 2003 it worked quite well."

Oh you mean AFTER he gutted taxes and created 2 UNFUNDED wars and had 2 UNFUNDED tax cuts AND created UNFUNDED Medicare expansion AND put ALL OF IT ON THE CREDIT CARD?


THAT was considered 'fiscally conservative'? lol

 

[Dad2three]

Hell rabbit, as far as we know, you are still denying that consumer spending drives about 70% of the economy.

You still denying that fact? Makes you a weak sister when it comes to understanding economics.

Where do consumers get the money to spend? What incentivizes businesses to expand, invest, and hire more employees?

Where does the government get its money?

If you have a truthful answer to those questions, you will understand why supply side economics is the ONLY system that has ever worked.

"If you have a truthful answer to those questions, you will understand why supply side economics is the ONLY system that has ever worked"

lol, Oh wait YOU are serious?

Supply-side economics

In 2003, Alan Murray, who at the time was Washington bureau chief for CNBC and a co-host of the television program Capital Report, declared the debate over supply-side economics to have ended "with a whimper" after extensive modeling performed by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicted that the revenue generating effects of the specific tax cuts examined would be, in his words, "relatively small."

Murray also suggested that Dan Crippen may have lost his chance at reappointment as head of the CBO over the dynamic scoring issue.

Dynamic Deja Vu on Tax Policy | The Concord Coalition

The Death of Supply-Side Economics

For years, advocates of supply-side economics have justified repeated calls for tax cuts for high earners by arguing the cuts will pay for themselves by dramatically boosting economic growth and thus tax revenues. They have just as adamantly insisted that if only Capitol Hill's official arbiter of the budgets, the Congressional Budget Office, would evaluate tax cuts through the prism of "dynamic scoring" -- which projects the macroeconomic impact of tax cuts as well as the lost revenues they produce -- their point of view would be vindicated.

Well, CBO has done just that with President Bush's budget, and guess what? In a report prepared under the supervision of a supply-side economist handpicked by the White House and published last week, CBO concluded the president's budget would make long-term budget deficits worse rather than better.

It's taking a while to sink in, but that CBO document pretty much pronounced the death of the supply-side economics.

In an irony as rich as any tax-cut beneficiary, the first publication to really explain the report's significance was the Wall Street Journal, whose editorial page has long been the Pravda of supply-siders, and the source of dozens of columns and editorials demanding dynamic scoring to reflect the "true" impact of big tax cuts

The Death of Supply-Side Economics (printable version)

 

[Dad2three]

Hell rabbit, as far as we know, you are still denying that consumer spending drives about 70% of the economy.

You still denying that fact? Makes you a weak sister when it comes to understanding economics.

Where do consumers get the money to spend? What incentivizes businesses to expand, invest, and hire more employees?

Where does the government get its money?

If you have a truthful answer to those questions, you will understand why supply side economics is the ONLY system that has ever worked.

Middle Class Series: The Failure of Supply-Side Economics
Three Decades of Empirical Economic Data Shows That Supply-Side Economics Doesn’t Work



Adherents of the economic theory known as supply-side economics contend that by cutting taxes on the rich we will unleash an avalanche of new investment that will spur economic growth, and boost job creation, leading to economic improvements for everyone. For most of the past 30 years this idea has dominated the economic debate, resulting in two sustained eras of tax cuts aimed at the wealthy, separated by a brief respite in the 1990s.

Now, as our economy struggles to emerge from the deepest recession in generations—and as we argue over what to do with the expiring Bush-era tax cuts—it is more important than ever to understand one simple fact: When put to the test in the real world, supply-side policies did not deliver as promised. In fact, by every important measure, our nation’s economic performance after the tax increases of 1993 significantly outpaced that of the periods following the tax cuts of the early 1980s and the early 2000s.


The Failure of Supply-Side Economics | Center for American Progress

Supply-side’s abject failure



This supply-side snake oil is peddled on the premise that when the wealthy do well, income gains trickle down to the middle class and everyone benefits from a growing economy. But that hasn’t happened—real median income has sharply decoupled from productivity gains in recent decades (particularly since 2000) and income gains have been incredibly concentrated at the top of the earnings distribution.


Supply-side?s abject failure | Economic Policy Institute

 

[The Rabbi]

Hell rabbit, as far as we know, you are still denying that consumer spending drives about 70% of the economy.

You still denying that fact? Makes you a weak sister when it comes to understanding economics.

Where do consumers get the money to spend? What incentivizes businesses to expand, invest, and hire more employees?

Where does the government get its money?

If you have a truthful answer to those questions, you will understand why supply side economics is the ONLY system that has ever worked.

Middle Class Series: The Failure of Supply-Side Economics
Three Decades of Empirical Economic Data Shows That Supply-Side Economics Doesn’t Work



l]

Center for American Progress is gay, s0n.

 

[Dad2three]

Where do consumers get the money to spend? What incentivizes businesses to expand, invest, and hire more employees?

Where does the government get its money?

If you have a truthful answer to those questions, you will understand why supply side economics is the ONLY system that has ever worked.

Middle Class Series: The Failure of Supply-Side Economics
Three Decades of Empirical Economic Data Shows That Supply-Side Economics Doesn’t Work



l]

Center for American Progress is gay, s0n.

Three Decades of Empirical Economic Data



CBO: Bush Tax Cuts Responsible For Almost A Third Of Deficit In Last 10 Years (2001-2010)


The fortunate 400

400 tax returns reporting the highest incomes in 2009.

Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each.
another 110 families paid 15 percent or less in federal income taxes.
The fortunate 400: David Cay Johnston | Reuters

The 400 richest Americans used to pay 30% of their income on the average to Uncle Sam(but 55% in 1955).




Federal debt as a percentage of G.D.P. fell steadily from the end of World War II until 1980.

But indebtedness began rising under Reagan; it fell again in the Clinton years, but resumed its rise under the Bush administration, leaving us ill prepared for the emergency now upon us.

The increase in public debt was, however, dwarfed by the rise in private debt, made possible by financial deregulation.


The change in America’s financial rules was Reagan’s biggest legacy.

And it’s the gift that keeps on taking.

Ronald Reagan - FreeThoughtPedia




A 2011 study by the CBO found that the top earning 1 percent of households gained about 275% after federal taxes and income transfers over a period between 1979 and 2007



The share of income going to higher-income households rose, while the share going to lower-income households fell.

The top fifth of the population saw a 10-percentage-point increase in their share of after-tax income.

Most of that growth went to the top 1 percent of the population.
All other groups saw their shares decline by 2 to 3 percentage points.


Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007 - CBO

 

[The Rabbi]

Reagan was the best president we've ever had. The economy experienced growth that people today couldnt fathom.
Obama has been a disaster. His policies have brought poverty and dependence to millions. Only the 1% have gotten richer under Obama.
And simps like you fall for it. It's Obama, Warren Buffet and you in a room with aplate of cookies. Buffet eats 11 of the 12 and Obama tell you "watch out, Buffet's going to eat your cookie.
You fall for that shit every time. get off the crack pipe.

 

[Dad2three]

Reagan was the best president we've ever had. The economy experienced growth that people today couldnt fathom.
Obama has been a disaster. His policies have brought poverty and dependence to millions. Only the 1% have gotten richer under Obama.
And simps like you fall for it. It's Obama, Warren Buffet and you in a room with aplate of cookies. Buffet eats 11 of the 12 and Obama tell you "watch out, Buffet's going to eat your cookie.
You fall for that shit every time. get off the crack pipe.

Get off the crack pipe

The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan

A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans.

This was before the Hollywood-style re-write of Reagan’s presidency that created the fictional character portrayed during Reagan’s 100th birthday celebration. The campaign was led by Grover Norquist and his “Ronald Reagan Legacy Project,” along with corporate-funded propaganda mills like Heritage and American Enterprise Institute that underwrote hundreds of flattering books to create a mythic hero and perpetual tax-cutter.


Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

OP: Why is this question only addressed to conservatives? If you had cited over-taxation and corruption as economic drivers, then I could see that.

 

[auditor0007]

Well, having a tax code that offers advantages to move overseas is not exactly a positive. You can't have spending without jobs from investment. But don't try to tell the community organizer in chief that.

Obama (like all democrats) believes in punitive taxation.

Of course you believe that because you believe all taxation is punitive.

 

[FA_Q2]

A 10% flat tax without exemptions means the poor are paying taxes and that takes more from heir income than the current tax code.

Meanwhile, back at Marblehead, champagne corks are dimpling the frescos on the ceiling as their tax rate was suddenly reduced from a top rate of 34% to 10%! Pity the minority rich. Drop off some canned gods for the minority poor.

The left is apparently losing track of their stories. I thought that Warren Buffet’s secretary paid a higher tax rate than he did. Remember that story line?

What happened to Romney’s tax rate being below 15%? Why are those numbers suddenly absent from your statements? Is it because you are using whatever fallacy happens to support your position?

A flat tax rate would help the poor by substantially DECREASING their tax burden and actually put the taxes that they are paying out in the open so that they would see the money that is being taken from them (hint: the taxes that affect the poor’s income are almost entirely hidden).

It certainly would not help the rich considering that they utilize so many tax breaks that the rate is utterly meaningless.

What's wrong with letting everyone keep more of their own money?

Lower the income tax to a flat 10% for all income
Lower the corporate tax to the same percentage.

I don't think that drastically lowering the taxes on the minority rich while drastically increasing the taxes on the majority poor is a fair sensible course of action.

See above.

If that is what you think a flat tax rate accomplishes then you simply do not understand what a flat tax rate is. 10 percent is likely far too low with the nation’s current expenditures but you are sorely mistaken if you think a simplified tax code benefits the rich. There is a reason that it has never been seriously considered or even proposed. The rich don’t want it.

 

[FA_Q2]

Conservative policy NEVER works as promised, ANYWHERE it's ever tried. Weird you don't know that

He doesn’t know that because it is flatly and completely false. The funny thing is that absurd absolutes are rarely true and even more so when taking something as expansive as conservative policy. The statement is completely absurd and really shows the rest of us that you are not interested in any debate at all – just partisan hackery. This is reinforced by the fact that you keep repeating it as though there is meaning in it.

They said Bush/Reagan tax cuts would boom the economy and create 'jobs, jobs, jobs' and Clinton increasing taxes would lead to a recession, lol

This is interesting because this often touted fallacy is mired with inconstancies. There is simply no reasonable way to equate the 2008 recession with tax cuts. The very concept is asinine. I notice that you can’t even be consistent in that claim through this thread.

The Bush years were actually VERY economically successful until the housing crash. Employment was essentially at an ideal for much of it. Considering that Bush took over at the very end of the dot com bubble, his tax policies apparently worked quite well. The 2008 crash certainly was not a result of the tax code but another problem entirely.

So where were the jobs? Right in front of you. Unfortunately, they were wiped out by a collapsing economy from other problems. You do realize that tax policy is not the sole influence on the economy, right?

 

[FA_Q2]

if your plan is to fix the tax code, great. Remember, it was written mostly by the democrats who have controlled congress for most of the last 80 years.

That does not preclude the need for massive tax reform. If we could get the politics and the special interests out of the process, I'm sure there could be bi-partisan support for tax reform.

The process is one of argument compromise and agreement. Are the House Republicans up for some actual governance? Or are they simply the Party of No!?

They are no more up for governance than the president or the senate democrats. This idea that the house is the sole arbiter of no is absolutely asinine. The president is the unifier here anyway – it is his job to lead his party and get the other party to the table. When you have a CIC going around demanding that elections have consequences, I won, I've got a pen and I've got a phone and other tripe like that then this is what you get – a government that becomes completely unable to operate. The sheer idiocy to give Obama a pass on the broken government is astounding. Did we have this asshattery with Clinton? No, he got shit done – period. Even with a hostile congress that was willing to shut the government down he was able to bring the parties together.

I’ll give you that Bush started this asinine division with the ‘you’re with us or against us’ and ‘if you are against us you are helping the terrorists’ rhetoric but Obama has simply taken it to the next level. That is utterly inexcusable in a president as he is supposed to lead the nation.

 

[FA_Q2]

I'm not the one who thinks "supply and demand" is a wild liberal theory and who believes jobs are created by the "job CREATORS".

Yes you are. I don’t know if there is anyone on this board more dishonest. You don’t believe in SUPPLY and demand – you only believe in supply. Your posts suggest that you think supply is some magical process that simply happens on its own. It does not and government policy affects it and rarely in a positive manner.

 

[rdean]

Are Republicans happy so many jobs moved to China under Bush and so many factories closed?

 

[Rikurzhen]

Are Republicans happy so many jobs moved to China under Bush and so many factories closed?

Probably as happy as liberals are for having abandoned the fight on poverty and instead refocused on importing 20 million poor, illiterate peasants from Latin America.

 

[The Rabbi]

Are Republicans happy so many jobs moved to China under Bush and so many factories closed?

Jobs have been moving and factories have been closing since Gerald Ford was president, brainiac. The answer is if people are not happy with that then they are not paying attention. Every job moved off shore creates 3 more jobs here.
Libs dont know what "comparative advantage" means. Or any other term in economics.

 

[Politico]

No shit sherlock. The money spent by the consumers drives the economy.

So we agree 'Sherlock'.

You agree. But you're both wrong.

No money movement drives the economy. 'Sherlock'.

 

[zeke]

Are Republicans happy so many jobs moved to China under Bush and so many factories closed?

Jobs have been moving and factories have been closing since Gerald Ford was president, brainiac. The answer is if people are not happy with that then they are not paying attention. Every job moved off shore creates 3 more jobs here.
Libs dont know what "comparative advantage" means. Or any other term in economics.[/QUOTE

******* rabbit. SO all we have to do is move ALL the jobs offshore and we will have 0% unemployment.

Well actually we would have better than 0% unemployment because all of us would have multiple jobs.

Because rabbit says moving ONE job out of the USA creates THREE jobs in the USA.

How does that math work rabbit? How could we move, lets say 10 millions jobs out of the USA and end up with 30 million jobs?

Move 50 millions jobs out and get 150 million jobs back.

Move ALL the jobs out of the USA and end up with what rabbit?

Are you sure of your math there rabbit?