Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LOL you're not even attempting to tell the truth anymore.
when Obama took over in January of 2009 the U.S. economy was in a free-fall
It probably took another year, or two, before the "recovery" took hold at all, and it wasn't until the last few years of his presidency that it really hit its stride.
GDP in 2010 grew 2.5% which is almost his PEAK year.. The economy "after" the stimulus bill was passed actually fell to 1.6% growth, the following year.
Government must REMOVE money from the economy to spend it..
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
it looks to me like conservatives care, considering how much y'all complain about public debt.
Money overseas is meaningless in regards to public debt because it doesnt attribute to it at ALL..
They will pay down debt by transferring it to the national debt with this 1.5 trillion red ink tax cut.
LIE.. The money is OVERSEAS and is not attributing to national debt one bit. Its NOT BEING TAXED RIGHT NOW..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa
]In other words, taxpayers in future years, and middle class working people right away, will pick up the tab for private corporations. We should be paying down our national debt first or at least not adding to it to pay the bills the private sector has run up.
Ahh right.. Republicans are in office, now national debt is a HUGE priority to the left..
Supply side economics is not simply reduction of the top marginal or corporate tax rates.
Correct. But it's the one facet that the GOP donors have latched onto, because it serves them very well indeed. Hey, a fancy-sounding economic theory that backs the one thing we wish for more than anything else - more money to us? Let's get behind that.
Quote:
And not one person has ever espoused an economic theory along the lines of the caricature that supply side economics is turned into when leveled as some sort of criticism by people on the left.
Again correct - but the GOP donors aren't issuing directives to their tame congresspeople out of some sort of coherent economic theory. They invoke supply-side because it involves low taxes for rich people and they really, really want that. It's naked self-interest.
And so the bills being put forward as some sort of supply-side economic measure are, in fact, implementations of the parody version you so decry. The left simply points that out.
Says every demand-side theorist who went full Keynesian in their 20s, not knowing that Keynes himself grossly misquoted/misstated what classical economists had taught on production leading demand for damn near a century before he began plagiarizing Malthus (who also grossly oversimplified the classicists into strawman caricatures).
Supply side economics is not simply reduction of the top marginal or corporate tax rates. It is an entire macroeconomic theory about the entire production side of the supply/demand laws, and includes tax rates, the regulatory state, international supply & demand, monetary policy and consumer confidence.
And not one person has ever espoused an economic theory along the lines of the caricature that supply side economics is turned into when leveled as some sort of criticism by people on the left.
The whole babble of the left is if you remove money from the economy, through taxes, you somehow encourage people to spend more, but if you leave money in, they will spend less.
The very notion that the economy grew under Clinton more after he cut taxes, to the point he almost balanced the budget, than after he raised them, is foreign to them along with the facts that the GDP actually grew less after Obama "stimulated it", and the unemployment percentage rose is something they hate to admit.
Government can not "stimulate" without first removing money from the economy, and if you remove money from the economy, it contracts because people have less to spend.
The whole idea that you can remove $1 from person A and give it to the government to spend, somehow is better than just leaving the $1 in the economy to begin with is beyond stupid..
Correct. But it's the one facet that the GOP donors have latched onto, because it serves them very well indeed. Hey, a fancy-sounding economic theory that backs the one thing we wish for more than anything else - more money to us? Let's get behind that.
Again correct - but the GOP donors aren't issuing directives to their tame congresspeople out of some sort of coherent economic theory. They invoke supply-side because it involves low taxes for rich people and they really, really want that. It's naked self-interest.
And so the bills being put forward as some sort of supply-side economic measure are, in fact, implementations of the parody version you so decry. The left simply points that out.
They say "Nobody has ever advocated for trickle-down economics."
Technically that's true. It's also true that there is no such thing as Obamacare, and no one has ever advocated for Obamacare. (It is the Patient Protection Act) There's also no Death tax, and there never was. (It is the inheritance tax.)
"Trickle Down Economics" is just a slang term for supply-side econ. There is no difference in concept or execution, they are 100% identical.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
