Supply Side Economics

[qazplm]

uh yes they have

compared to where we were in the great recession (which is over by the way).

By almost every possible measure things are better under Obama economically.

 

[Purdue85]

B-S.

Either he's a leader, or he's not. (He's not.)

Either he has genuine ideas which will lead us out of the economic woes, or he doesn't. (He doesn't.)

Obama is incompetent. He has no real world experience which would lead any reasonable, rational, thinking human being to conclude that he's someone to be followed. Unless, of course, you're a left-wing ideologue.

In reality, he's a loser who has been propped up by his willing accomplices in the media, and his cheerleading sycophants.

He is, as he has always been ... an empty suit.

 

[Purdue85]

Re: my opinion?

Originally posted by qazplm:
I have direct evidence that two separate tax increase (three actually if you count the multiple times Reagan did it) were followed by periods of improved economic activity.

So yes, tax increases CAN lead to economic advances, PARTICULARLY as part of a package to deal with deficits, and targeted...because, they actually have.

Of course, the idiotic presentation you attempt to make is that all tax increases of any kind always lead to economic advances.
I.E. the flip side of "tax cuts pay for themselves."

Sometimes tax cuts are necessary depending on the situation, and sometimes tax increases are necessary depending on the situation. Individual income taxes right now are lower than the vast majority of where taxes were during American history since we started the income tax. Lower than the 40s, or 50s, or 60s, or 70s, or almost half the 80s.

Tax cuts generate revenue. Tax increases PUNISH tax generators. PERIOD.

Simple issue is, Reagan's tax cuts generated unprecedented economic activity.

If you have NO fiscal responsibility (as per that era's Democrat congress), it's all for naught.

Clinton's tax increases didn't do it. Obama has no clue! It's all about controlling spending, which is foreign to politicians today.

 

[Purdue85]

Re: uh yes they have

Originally posted by qazplm:
compared to where we were in the great recession (which is over by the way).

By almost every possible measure things are better under Obama economically.

You're living a fantasy!

Where are real wages?

there are numerous economic indicators that show why Obama is in the mess he's in!

 

[Purdue85]

Re: sigh

Originally posted by qazplm:


If taxes were 100 percent, I'd propose cutting them. Liberal economists would propose cutting them. That does not make us all "supply side economists" simply because we recognize a pretty obvious fact that at some point taxes are too high.
A policy that encourages investment is not, by itself, make one a supply side economist. You extremely oversimplify.

You're full of crap.

So, only when taxes are 100% you're in favor of LOWERING them??

That's sheer stupidity.

There's the economic issue, and there's the moral issue. When business owners (and others) are paying in excess of 50% of THEIR EARNINGS to the government, THAT. IS. IMMORAL.

Period.

What's more, they CANNOT pay more to the ... "middle class" ... to satisfy the leftists call for a ... "living wage".

The two are interconnected, and until the economically ignorant socialists on the left understand that, the "middle class" will continue to be pawns ... which is what the left wants.

 

[threeeputtt]

Re: uh yes they have

Originally posted by qazplm:
compared to where we were in the great recession (which is over by the way).

By almost every possible measure things are better under Obama economically.

A good number of experts are screaming the gulf between the rich and poor has accelerated. So, that is progress? The UE figures are meaningless anymore when those that have given up are not counted anymore. Minority employment is horrible. I sound like a liberal? LOL

 

[qazplm]

you know

better and perfect or heck better and even good or great...

are not synonyms.

So citing the fact that the income gap has increased in rebuttal doesn't make much sense. It sure has increased. One party wants to do things like increase the minimum wage and do other things to increase the gap, and have been talking about the gap for a long time now.

The other JUST this year started actually admitting that the gap is remotely an issue...before it was basically, so what, stop hating.

 

[qazplm]

of course

I never remotely said raising taxes always raises revenue.

 

[atmafola]

Re: there was a fact in there?

individuals are not nations. What's good advice for the individual is bad advice for the big economy. Family economics is not nation economics. Microeconomics is not macroeconomics. Savings and thrift may be good for the individual facing a downturn, it would be disastrous is similarly applied to the nation during a downturn. So this analogy you keep repeating is vastly irrelevant!

Originally posted by Boiler20:
You missed the point, and I guess that's my fault.

The point is that, be it an individual or a country, one cannot spend "future money" to oblivion. I guarantee you can't do it. In small, tactical situations, yes. However, as a strategy, which is what you are implying we should do, and which you claim is working, it cannot now or ever be the solution.

I asked if you'd give that advice to a loved one, and you haven't responded yet.

Just because the economic fall-out is yet to come ashore, doesn't mean a tsunami is not coming.

 

[atmafola]

Arguments pointing out future liabilities and counting them up to bazillion trillions have little merit. Those liabilities are not set in stone, we can always adjust them as needed should the need ever arise. There's no point killing yourself before the executioner arrives, an executioner that you only project could come. There's a lot that can happen between now and the long run that we don't anticipate. Crippling today's economy due to the chance that some day might come in the future that we won't be able to make our debt payment is not sound macroeconomics no matter how moralistic it sounds. Again, this is one of those advice that's perhaps good for the individual but not necessarily for the whole economy.

As for the actual debts, not the projected liabilities, I am pretty sure no modern american President touches Regan in blowing up our debts. I know it like trippled under his watch. Sure in absolute dollar terms Obama has him beat but in relative terms, he is so far out on his own, it's not even funny. But people love Regan.

Bottom line, I have always found that arguments about national debt boils down to people trying to cut spending now in areas they don't like government being spent and then bringing up some future debt scare to justify it.

 

[atmafola]

Re: uh yes they have

Originally posted by threeeputtt:

Originally posted by qazplm:
compared to where we were in the great recession (which is over by the way).

By almost every possible measure things are better under Obama economically.

A good number of experts are screaming the gulf between the rich and poor has accelerated. So, that is progress? The UE figures are meaningless anymore when those that have given up are not counted anymore. Minority employment is horrible. I sound like a liberal? LOL

This is another argument I find disingenuous. Somehow in the last year or so (probably since the economy stopped being something they can bash Obama with explicity), politicians from the other side have suddenly become concerned about the rich - poor gap. The funny thing is almost every single policy they have ever stood for widens that gap. So why the concern now? for political gain? or just to find another to bash Obama with?

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: uh yes they have

Until we legislate away consumerism, the gulf between rich and poor will continue to grow. It has little to do with politics. For the most part, one group makes compounding interest/gains work for them; the other is constantly fighting against it.

 

[atmafola]

Re: uh yes they have

Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:
Until we legislate away consumerism, the gulf between rich and poor will continue to grow. It has little to do with politics. For the most part, one group makes compounding interest/gains work for them; the other is constantly fighting against it.

chief, i almost will agree with you except, we do have laws and policies in place that do exacerbate the rich-poor gap particularly at local and state levels. Most ways of raising revenues at the state land local levels are horribly regressive with the poor and working poor paying a far higher percentage of their incomes than the middle class. The rich don't pay squat. Millionaires and billionaires business on the other hand gets tax-free status for "bringing jobs", or in the get the rest of us to build them stadiums to operate their sports clubs. Bottom line, the widening gap is not as inevitable or incorrectable as it initially seems.