Trickle Down Economics/Debt Deal

#276
#276
bam15 said:
Never fails...
Click to expand...

Vs ALWAYS fails......

campbell.jpg
 
#282
#282
altidore17 said:
I'm proud to say I almost started a riot at the mere mention of liberal economics. I would say this thread was a resounding success haha.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

is utgibbs your dad or something? he starts inane threads regarding liberal economics all the time, declares himself the perpetual winner of the debate, and then takes quotes out of context to back up his already weak positions.
 
#283
#283
I think you can still have liberal politics and reduce spending. Of course the Pelosi's of the world don't see it that way. It's an allocation of resources of sorts.

For instance, I don't want to get rid of the progressive tax any time soon.
 
#284
#284
MG1968 said:
is utgibbs your dad or something? he starts inane threads regarding liberal economics all the time, declares himself the perpetual winner of the debate, and then takes quotes out of context to back up his already weak positions.
Click to expand...

MG, getting hazed since 1968.





















haha
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
#287
#287
Is this some kind of gag to see how frequently some random know-nothing can contradict himself?
 
#289
#289
bam15 said:
We were also pounding sand with Clinton's desire to solely use cruise-missiles. Inaction clearly did nothing to prevent acts of terror.
Click to expand...

Just because we were dropping a few bombs and experienced no major terrorist attacks doesn't mean the bombs were preventing attacks. There's just as much correlation between the president getting sex and a lack of terrorism. And how do you know Clinton's bombing policy didn't lead to 9/11 retaliation?

Clinton also put sanctions on Iraq that starved hundreds of thousands. Osama Bin Laden listed this as one of his grievances for 9/11.
 
#291
#291
Terrorism will continue to thrive as long as we have Muslims who radically mis-interpret the Quran to think that Mohammed just wanted to kill everyone. You can't fix crazy.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#294
#294
I quit reading this thread about a third of the way through. Your explanation of the comparative wealth of our poor is just flat out wrong. Inflation contributes but it's nowhere close to the primary or main reason as you seemed to be insinuating. What you don't seem to understand as that the wealthy don't just sit on their money and have it tied away entirely in savings. They invest it. Their investment increases capital in the economy, and spurs growth and productivity, producing more jobs for the middle and low classes. While their intentions are self-serving in nature, their motives are irrelevant. Their money helps power the country's economy, providing jobs for millions.

That being said, it is also incorrect to assume that indefinitely lowering taxes automatically increases revenue. The Laffer Curve has never really been tested extensively, but it makes sense just based upon basic economic principles. There is a point where you are going to maximize revenue. The problem is that, in the aftermath of a recession and in the midst of meager GDP growth, increasing taxes at any level is more than likely going to hurt the economy.
 
#295
#295
altidore17 said:
Don't work. When will the republicans learn trickle down economics has never and will never work? Instead of cutting taxes for the richest people out there, why not cut them more for the working middle class?
Click to expand...
Yes. Simply put. Supply side economics works. Supply side tax cuts under JFK, Reagan, and Bush all worked to increase employment AND to significantly raise revenues to the Federal gov't. The raw data is out there for you to look at yourself.

What clearly does not work is the "zero sum" approach used by liberals. The VERY BEST THING for the middle class/working class is an economy expanding and adding jobs. That drives wages up.

BTW, we aren't talking about "the richest people out there" anyway. There is a reason that the super rich like Soros and Buffett are more likely to support Dems than Reps. High tax rates don't bother them one iota.... they'll just buy enough influence to get a special tax break. Forty years of Dem control of Congress is a big reason the tax code is thousands of pages long with special breaks for all kinds of special interests. That's why you won't hear a liberal calling for the Fair Tax or a Flat Tax.

The people who actually pay the taxes are small business people and professionals. Just a little more food for thought, where do you think the money comes from when taxes go up on people who provide products and services to the "middle class"? Do you think they take a pay cut and default on their mortgage?

They took a simple thing that was raising the debt ceiling and they held the country hostage for months until they finally got what they wanted.. a lot of us middle class people should be worried with this new deal, its going to cause a lot of people to lose work.
Click to expand...
They didn't get what conservatives wanted. We wanted real cuts... not cuts from a 8% annual increase in spending to 6%. Who is holding the country hostage? How about those who have intentionally made tens of millions of people dependent on gov't to use fear for votes? How about those who are running up debt that cannot be sustained and will eventually drive us into bankruptcy.

And before you flame away atleast give me some evidence to the contrary if you would. I'm really not a fan of either party at the moment for what it's worth haha. The democrats didn't have any good ideas either.
Click to expand...

Go look at revenues to the federal gov't and associate them with the supply side tax cuts of JFK, Reagan, and Bush. Practically the ONLY thing Bush did right on the economy was the tax cuts. Pretty much everything else was indistinguishable from a Dem or liberal policy.

The last piece I hope you will consider is that all jobs or paychecks are NOT equal with regard to the economy. If you pay someone to consume who is not producing or is underproducing then you are HARMING, not HELPING, the economy. Paying a social worker $50K to sign people up on programs does not help the economy. Contrary to Pelosi's idiocy, an unemployment check does not help the economy.

An industrial job helps the economy. A fast food job helps. A truck driving job helps. Those jobs pay people for making a contribution to the economy. Generally an employee in this type of job will make a contribution GREATER than what they take out. That results in profit for a company and a net increase in national wealth.

So the simple question is how do you get the greatest number of those jobs? The simple answer is that you leave capital in the hands of those who create those jobs... those you refer to as "rich".

If we are to get out of this then the private economy MUST grow faster than gov't. The policies you seem to be supporting will prevent that.
 
Last edited:
#296
#296
altidore17 said:
Terrorism will continue to thrive as long as we have Muslims who radically mis-interpret the Quran to think that Mohammed just wanted to kill everyone. You can't fix crazy.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

They aren't the ones "misinterpretting" the Quran. They are taking the literal approach. The more literal the approach... the more likely they are to see violence as a valid means of spreading Islam and the more they will see it as political. The more they "spiritualize" the text... the more likely they are to be peaceful and see the religion as personal.

That is the converse of Christianity. The more literal one takes the NT... the less likely they are to ever use violence and the more likely they are to see it as personal. The less literal or perhaps limited by the Bbile a "Christian" is... the more likely their religion is to be oppressive and political.
 
#297
#297
Vols520 said:
We weren't coming out of the second worst recession in history under Clinton.

Kasich did a great job if reducing the deficit. His policies weren't the reason for job growth.

People have argued they actually prevented in further job growth.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Let's give credit where it is due
 
#298
#298
Gramps said:
Everyone remembers Reagan's 1981 tax cuts. His admirers are less likely to tout the tax hikes he accepted as the 1981 recession and his own tax cuts began to unravel his long-term fiscal picture--a large tax increase on business in 1982, higher payroll taxes enacted in 1983 and higher energy taxes in 1984

The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, then criticized as the largest tax increase in history, scaled back corporate tax breaks, increased unemployment-insurance levies, and raised excise taxes on cigarettes, among other changes.

“The goal is simple and just: to see to it that everyone pays his fair share,” Reagan said in August 1982. He predicted the tax increase would help the economy because it would reduce the deficit, which he said would lead to lower interest rates.

Reagan later signed the Highway Revenue Act of 1982, which temporarily doubled the gasoline tax. Both measures came as millions struggled with the 1981-1982 recession, when the jobless rate was stuck at about 10 percent for almost a year.
Click to expand...

He was duped by Tip in that deal. Please refresh the memory of the audience with how many dollars of spending cuts the dems promised in return for the every dollar of the tax increase.
 
#299
#299
altidore17 said:
Who said I was middle class? The Bush tax cuts are one of the major reasons we're in this predicament in the first place, so ill ask again to please come with facts before you make a nonsensical statement. And considering 90 percent of the US is middle class I think its logical to think they would benefit more from tax cuts than the 4 percent that are the wealthiest.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

The Bush tax cuts came in two phases 2001 and 2003. 9/11 was a major set back to an economy that had started to recover from the Y2K recession. The 2008 revenues to the federal gov't were almost $800 billion more than in 2003 and over $500 billion more than 2001.

To prove your claim, you would have to demonstrate that businesses would have been just as profitable and employed just as many people without the cuts as with them. You would have to prove that it was the tax cuts that caused the housing bubble to burst... though they were two almost completely unrelated things.
 
#300
#300
altidore17 said:
Who said I was middle class? The Bush tax cuts are one of the major reasons we're in this predicament in the first place, so ill ask again to please come with facts before you make a nonsensical statement. And considering 90 percent of the US is middle class I think its logical to think they would benefit more from tax cuts than the 4 percent that are the wealthiest.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Your words make it clear you are middle income.

There are only two people who dont care about taxes: those who make more than a couple million a year and have for a while or those who don't pay taxes.


Trust me if you are pulling in around 600K (which places you in the top bracket along with good ole Bill Gates "same bracket I repeat) and watching a little under $240,000 coming out per year to taxes you feel like you are paying more than enough.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top