Trickle Down Economics/Debt Deal

[droski]

They make up the majority of the country, so if you can make more jobs (which no party can seem to figure out how to do) the middle class will have money, spend the money, and boost the economy. I've been having to answer so many different angles its hard to remember what I have and haven't said haha.

You raised a good point though, where does that money come from? I think if the politicians figure that out that we can get out of this bad recession. I'm not expert so I don't know where it comes from.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Anyone here arguing against the middle class having more jobs?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[utvolpj]

not sure that stat helps much. Would be that gross consumer spending is up over 2005, regardless of who is spending it, so we get the same money multiplier either way.

It's just a bad argument that consumer spending would be the fix.

so if consumer spending was the fix then taking a shot at 1/3 of that wouldn't hurt? Not sure I understand but ok

 

[golfballs]

No I am just a believer in that you need the lower and middle class to spend more money to jumpstart the economy. I just don't see how giving the rich more money helps anything. Idk that's just me though.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

One of the problems is how leveraged we are as a nation. We need to de-leverage. Even if that's where savings go from tax cuts, that would help start to clean up balance sheets and get us going in the right direction.

 

[BigPapaVol]

so if consumer spending was the fix then taking a shot at 1/3 of that wouldn't hurt? Not sure I understand but ok

My point is that I don't believe taking it away to have someone else spend it would appreciably impact gross consumer spending. It just doesn't matter who creates the demand. The modern liberal argument would be that the wealthy would horde more, leaving less to cycle through the economy, but that silliness ignores I.

 

[n_huffhines]

for the time being.

Not anymore

While I agree Obama has great potential to surpass him, he's got a long way to go, IMO. I am against the wars just as much as I am against irresponsible fiscal policy (which in this instant the wars are fiscally irresponsible IMO). Obama may surpass him in fiscal infamy, but not so sure on foreign policy.

 

[bam15]

This thread is going in circles.

 

[altidore17]

so if consumer spending was the fix then taking a shot at 1/3 of that wouldn't hurt? Not sure I understand but ok

Its 1/3 now because the middle class is afraid to spend because of the lack of money. As soon as the government can find a way to create more jobs for the middle class then they can cut the taxes for the rich. But I think until that happens taxing them can't hurt. Just my train of thought though its been awhile since I took an Econ class lol.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[n_huffhines]

That's it. We'll make more jobs.

Pull the lever.

 

[droski]

My point is that I don't believe taking it away to have someone else spend it would appreciably impact gross consumer spending. It just doesn't matter who creates the demand. The modern liberal argument would be that the wealthy would horde more, leaving less to cycle through the economy, but that silliness ignores I.

The middle class probably spends a greater %, but im not convinced buying a flatscreen is better for the economy than buying an ipo or hiring one more employee.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[BigPapaVol]

While I agree Obama has great potential to surpass him, he's got a long way to go, IMO. I am against the wars just as much as I am against irresponsible fiscal policy (which in this instant the wars are fiscally irresponsible IMO). Obama may surpass him in fiscal infamy, but not so sure on foreign policy.

given your penchant, I'm sure you agree with Obama on a complete lack of foreign policy.

 

[Vols520]

Andthe iraq war contracotrs didn't hire people who spent it on goods? Either way no one is arguing war spending is efficient only that it doesn't hurt the economy.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I was kidding.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[golfballs]

While I agree Obama has great potential to surpass him, he's got a long way to go, IMO. I am against the wars just as much as I am against irresponsible fiscal policy (which in this instant the wars are fiscally irresponsible IMO). Obama may surpass him in fiscal infamy, but not so sure on foreign policy.

The lasting effects of Obamacare will, in time, dwarf the "fiscally irresponsible" wars

 

[altidore17]

While I agree Obama has great potential to surpass him, he's got a long way to go, IMO. I am against the wars just as much as I am against irresponsible fiscal policy (which in this instant the wars are fiscally irresponsible IMO). Obama may surpass him in fiscal infamy, but not so sure on foreign policy.

Ill be the first to admit I was a supporter of Obama when he ran and first became president. Since then though I've been dissapointed by his leadership and decision making skills. He is very articulate and a good speech giver but it seems like he's too much of a pushover.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[droski]

Its 1/3 now because the middle class is afraid to spend because of the lack of money. As soon as the government can find a way to create more jobs for the middle class then they can cut the taxes for the rich. But I think until that happens taxing them can't hurt. Just my train of thought though its been awhile since I took an Econ class lol.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I see. Now taxing them can't hurt. It doesn't help? Me confused
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[BigPapaVol]

The middle class probably spends a greater %, but im not convinced buying a flatscreen is better for the economy than buying an ipo or hiring one more employee.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I think that's true and is a valid point, but it totally ignores I in the macro equations and every respectable economist on earth will tell you that I is where future jobs and GDP growth starts.

 

[BigPapaVol]

The lasting effects of Obamacare will, in time, dwarf the "fiscally irresponsible" wars

If we get Obamacare, he's the hands down winner forever.

 

[n_huffhines]

given your penchant, I'm sure you agree with Obama on a complete lack of foreign policy.

No, I hate his foreign policy. He promised to bring the troops home and close Gitmo. His foreign policy reflects none of that and we've become involved in Libya now too. He has a horrible foreign policy, but not nearly as bad as Bush. Just my opinion.

 

[droski]

Ill be the first to admit I was a supporter of Obama when he ran and first became president. Since then though I've been dissapointed by his leadership and decision making skills. He is very articulate and a good speech giver but it seems like he's too much of a pushover.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Got it. He's not liberal enough.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[BigPapaVol]

No, I hate his foreign policy. He promised to bring the troops home and close Gitmo. His foreign policy reflects none of that and we've become involved in Libya now too. He has a horrible foreign policy, but not nearly as bad as Bush. Just my opinion.

Both generally suck, but Afghanistan was the right move and Iraq was a long-term strategic move. Who knows how or when it plays out, but a toehold in the ME was the ultimate reasoning.

 

[n_huffhines]

The lasting effects of Obamacare will, in time, dwarf the "fiscally irresponsible" wars

Just like entitlements our propensity to wage foreign conflict is never-ending. The slippery slope ensures more war in the future which will continue to be very costly.

 

[altidore17]

I see. Now taxing them can't hurt. It doesn't help? Me confused
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I think it would be a good thing at this point, yes. But once there are more jobs available I think it would be wise to cut them. Just me though I'm also confused about what's been said and don't feel like sifting through 15 pages of bickering.

To hell with them all everybody's policies suck haha
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[golfballs]

The middle class probably spends a greater %, but im not convinced buying a flatscreen is better for the economy than buying an ipo or hiring one more employee.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

maybe a chevy volt will?

 

[BigPapaVol]

Just like entitlements our propensity to wage foreign conflict is never-ending. The slippery slope ensures more war in the future which will continue to be very costly.

Explain the slippery slope? If it exists, presumable the Revolutionary War is the culprit, rather than greedy man.

For my money, greedy man is the root of the problem and it isn't ever going to be solved.

 

[n_huffhines]

Both generally suck, but Afghanistan was the right move and Iraq was a long-term strategic move. Who knows how or when it plays out, but a toehold in the ME was the ultimate reasoning.

I understand all that, but I disagree with it. We've had it out over this in the past. I don't think we can stop terrorists because of the nature of terror, and I don't think we improve our own national security by positioning soldiers all over the world because I don't think another country is likely to attack us at all. When was the last time a country as large and wealthy as the US was invaded?

 

[altidore17]

Got it. He's not liberal enough.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Man you're just hoping to God that I'm a liberal aren't you? There's more to be a liberal than thinking raising taxes on the rich is ok. Haha chill guy maybe the economy would benefit from the Braves winning the world series? That's my view
Posted via VolNation Mobile