Republican Play - Offs

• like_that

  

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1752877 wrote:Personal responsibility is great whenever everyone is competing on a level playing field

  This will never happen unless you (or any other liberal) becomes a deity and has the power to create utopia. I think coming back to reality is a more feasible scenario.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  like_that;1752880 wrote:This will never happen unless you (or any other liberal) becomes a deity and has the power to create utopia. I think coming back to reality is a more feasible scenario.

  Of course it will never happen. That's why we have to address it in other ways, namely tax and healthcare.
• gut

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1752882 wrote:Of course it will never happen. That's why we have to address it in other ways, namely tax and healthcare.

  
  That will never happen, since taxes mostly trickle down (i.e. get passed on to the consumer). But, go ahead, finish off the middle class with ever high taxes.
  
  Nevermind higher taxes and higher government spending are proven to drive slower growth - if everyone can't share in the growth then we just won't grow! derp
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  gut;1752891 wrote:That will never happen, since taxes mostly trickle down (i.e. get passed on to the consumer). But, go ahead, finish off the middle class with ever high taxes.
  
  Nevermind higher taxes and higher government spending are proven to drive slower growth - if everyone can't share in the growth then we just won't grow! derp

  So in your theory, we should have been gaining 800,000 jobs a month instead of losing 800,000 jobs a month under bush. It's that simple right? Just cut taxes right?
• gut

  like_that;1752880 wrote:... the power to create utopia....

  
  Ahhh, yes, utopia! Where the fed printing press is unstoppable and everyone works for the govt taking money from each other to give to someone else.
• gut

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1752892 wrote:So in your theory, we should have been gaining 800,000 jobs a month instead of losing 800,000 jobs a month under bush. It's that simple right? Just cut taxes right?

  Again, lower taxes are PROVEN superior for economic growth to raising taxes. Yes, it's that simple but it's not the only factor.
  
  It's an immutable law of economics that when you transfer assets from more productive resources to less productive ones (i.e. govt and welfare) you make the pie smaller. Oddly enough, one of the few cases govt asset transfers somewhat make sense and somewhat effective at growing the pie is....the scourge of all liberals and many conservatives.....wait for it....CORPORATE WELFARE!!!!
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  Again , lower taxes have proven to slow economic growth too. Again, nothing is proven so stop pointing to anecdotal evidence since it goes both ways.
• gut

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1752895 wrote:Again , lower taxes have proven to slow economic growth too. Again, nothing is proven so stop pointing to anecdotal evidence since it goes both ways.

  They have? According to which Keynesian economist?
  
  Lower taxes don't slow growth, that's asinine (although I suppose in some fairy-tale land where the govt is wise and efficient it's theoretically possible). Taxes aren't the only factor impacting economic growth.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1752911 wrote:They have? According to which Keynesian economist?
  
  Lower taxes don't slow growth, that's asinine (although I suppose in some fairy-tale land where the govt is wise and efficient it's theoretically possible). Taxes aren't the only factor impacting economic growth.

  Marriner Eccles, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve during the 1930's, was just the type of guy you can respect Gut - a millionaire Republican businessman - had this to say in 1938 (only two years after the publication of The General Theory so he cannot properly be called a Keynesian):
  
  

  As a general principle, deficit-spending by the government should only be undertaken in depressed times as a means of offsetting in part or compensating for the lack of private activity. Conversely, when private debt is rapidly expanding, there should be a contraction of public debt as a counterbalancing and stabilizing influence. However, there may be times when national income is at a high and rapidly advancing rate when it would be desirable from every standpoint to increase taxation— for example, by broadening the tax base— in order to maintain a flow of funds to impoverished elements of the population, to the aged and unemployables, whose purchasing power is necessary to sustain production and thus help to preserve existing capital and make possible further profitable expansion of facilities. This, in turn, would provide an outlet for accumulations for savings in the field of private investment. Otherwise, as happened in the late twenties, there may be excessive accumulations of investment capital which, unable to find outlet in productive domestic enterprise, are diverted to unproductive channels and to speculative bidding up of stocks and other equities or put into uncollectable foreign loans.

  I agree that as a general rule of the past we had a scarcity rather than a superabundance of investment capital relative to productive outlets, and that, therefore, recovery from depressions before the last war was almost invariably led by new investment. I seriously question whether this rule, and the economic philosophy based upon it, is valid under present and prospective conditions. The point I wish to make is that it would be to the interest of capital under such conditions to advocate such taxation on a broad income tax base as would, in effect, sustain buying power and thus make for a sustained and expanding production which, in turn, serves not only to protect existing capital investment but also to provide a productive and profitable outlet for accumulated private savings.

  When the supply of savings is insufficient to meet the expanding needs of the country for new capital on a profitable basis, income taxes should be reduced. A condition such as this may develop in the future, for I realize that technical progress opens up indefinite possibilities for production, and education, by causing needs to become more refined and diversified, can increase the requirements of our people indefinitely. But in times when savings are too large relative to productive outlet, government should increase taxes and should apply the proceeds to depressed areas, to public health and educational purposes, to public improvements, conservation and protection of natural resources— to preservation of the resources, human and material, of prosperity and not to competition with private initiative. Higher taxation could well be applied, in these circumstances, to the income groups of, say, between $2,500 and $50,000 (

  $42,862.59 - $857,251.80 in 2015 so basically calling for tax cuts for the working poor under our current code)

  , and to corporations, always, of course, on an ability-to-pay basis. It seems to me that some of the other capitalistic democracies, such as Great Britain and Sweden, have managed this general policy fairly well in net effect upon their economies, and I am inclined to think that it is their greatest economic safeguard in the preservation of democracy. (<--- He's saying prevent fascism and communism)

  
  https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/eccles/077_01_0001.pdf
  
  
  Providing the Poor with more money for consumption with greater marginal utility (i.e food stamps) may not result in a bigger pie than allowing the most well off to consume luxurious watches with low marginal utility and speculate with their excess funds to create asset bubbles which eventually crash but the pie is a smaller fruit pie instead of a bigger cowpie.
• QuakerOats

  Translation: handouts really are the answer.
  
  We have taken trillions from producers and borrowed trillions more from future producers/taxpayers in order to buy generations of dependency, laziness, idle time, and zero productivity. At some point the lack of innovation and productivity from such a large segment of the population will come back to haunt us; we will not have the ability, knowledge, experience, know-how, determination, and perseverance to generate a sustainable growing economy. For the thousandth time, the socialist/marxist/statist models will prove themselves a failure.
• QuakerOats

  gut;1752855 wrote:Are you claiming to have written what you copy/paste from Drudge?

  
  Ouch; 'gut' shot.
• cruiser_96

  

  QuakerOats;1753020 wrote:Translation: handouts really are the answer.
  
  We have taken trillions from producers and borrowed trillions more from future producers/taxpayers in order to buy generations of dependency, laziness, idle time, and zero productivity. At some point the lack of innovation and productivity from such a large segment of the population will come back to haunt us; we will not have the ability, knowledge, experience, know-how, determination, and perseverance to generate a sustainable growing economy. For the thousandth time, the socialist/marxist/statist models will prove themselves a failure.

  Reps
• HitsRus

  

  We've had social programs for the poor for over 50 years, and despite outlays that have increased almost 400% inflation adjusted dollars there has been little or no reduction in poverty. The annual cost of federal and state funds to provide social programs for the poor exceeds $1 trillion a year.
• QuakerOats

  We really do not have much true poverty at all; we have a large and growing dependency class that lives quite comfortably on the backs of the producers. And, all their benefits are tax free.
  
  Again, if the SS trust fund will run dry in another decade or two, I ask when will the welfare trust fund run dry?
• BoatShoes

  QuakerOats;1753020 wrote:Translation: handouts really are the answer.
  
  We have taken trillions from producers and borrowed trillions more from future producers/taxpayers in order to buy generations of dependency, laziness, idle time, and zero productivity. At some point the lack of innovation and productivity from such a large segment of the population will come back to haunt us; we will not have the ability, knowledge, experience, know-how, determination, and perseverance to generate a sustainable growing economy. For the thousandth time, the socialist/marxist/statist models will prove themselves a failure.

  "Handouts" the least well off will create the customer base for the "producers" like Barney Kroger to sell their company's output to. But because since people such as you have so much disdain for your fellow citizens that benefit from these gdp-supporting programs like retired citizens, folks on disability and the unemployed we should have the gubmint appoint a board of experienced entrepreneurs and business men to allocate funds to other entrepreneurs to hire the poor and unemployed in productive endeavors instead.
• BoatShoes

  HitsRus;1753063 wrote:We've had social programs for the poor for over 50 years, and despite outlays that have increased almost 400% inflation adjusted dollars there has been little or no reduction in poverty. The annual cost of federal and state funds to provide social programs for the poor exceeds $1 trillion a year.

  The question was not about poverty but whether in some instances a plausible case could be made wherein higher taxes might generate more growth. If they are offset by subsidization of consumption for the least well off when an economy is in the doldrums with excess savings and ineffective demand - as in our current economy - in can make sense.
  
  As QuakerOats pointed out in another thread the regulated capitalist system in the United States and its demand supporting welfare state has eliminated poverty relative to the rest of the world. Technological and capitalistic progress overtime raise the standard of living for all. If you have air conditioning you have greater luxury than Louis the XIV.
  
  The problem is - as the Millionaire Republican Business man Marriner Eccles pointed out - within capitalist systems when the least of among us are unable to see rising levels of consumption it can cause problems for the whole system when there is ineffective demand for output.
  
  In any case, hiring the poor and eliminating welfare transfers would eliminate all of the conservative moral objections to improving the lives of the poor through government transfers and would eliminate 2/3 of all poverty even at today's minimum wage rates.
• gut

  BoatShoes;1752935 wrote:Marriner Eccles, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve during the 1930's, was just the type of guy you can respect Gut - a millionaire Republican businessman - had this to say in 1938 (only two years after the publication of The General Theory so he cannot properly be called a Keynesian):

  1930's?!? Why not just go all the way back to Adam Smith?
  
  And are you going to link research/studies or just an offhand comment? If you actually understood economics you'd understand the argument you're making is retarded. Granted, it was expected, but today in the real world rich people don't stuff money in mattresses.
  
  And before you respond with a chart that proves my point, you really need to think about and understand what I just said.....as it relates to banking and finance and the economy.
• gut

  BoatShoes;1753107 wrote:The question was not about poverty but whether in some instances a plausible case .

  That's like the closest you've come to being academically honest. Despite, NO, there isn't a plausible case don't let that stop you from knob-jobbing Keynesian economics. Greece needs a new finance minister, after all.
  
  I mean, it's only with liberal econ pseudo-students that we could even be having a debate that one of the tenets of economics has "plausible cases" where it isn't true. Which would mean it's not a tenet, but perhaps I digress...
• cruiser_96

  

  Gut: please refrain from mentioning Greece. They were doing it all wrong. (Although it wasn't "wrong". It is the end result of that system of economics.) What next - you mention what used to be USSR????? What are ya, a jerk!?
• BoatShoes

  gut;1753153 wrote:1930's?!? Why not just go all the way back to Adam Smith?
  
  And are you going to link research/studies or just an offhand comment? If you actually understood economics you'd understand the argument you're making is retarded. Granted, it was expected, but today in the real world rich people don't stuff money in mattresses.
  
  And before you respond with a chart that proves my point, you really need to think about and understand what I just said.....as it relates to banking and finance and the economy.

  I would have linked to a study in the first place but you would have acted similarly dismissive and so I thought I might try a rich Republican first. Here is a link to an IMF study released in June of 2015.
  
  https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf
  
  

  Income distribution matters for growth. Previous IMF studies have found that incomeinequality (as measured by the Gini coefficient, which is 0 when everybody has the same income and1 when one person has all the income) negatively affects growth and its sustainability (Ostry, Berg,and Tsangarides 2014; Berg and Ostry 2011). We build on this analysis by examining howindividuals&#8217; income shares at various points in the distribution matter for growth drawing on a largesample of advanced economies and EMDCs (Table 1).2 A higher net Gini coefficient (a measure ofinequality that nets out taxes and transfers) is associated with lower output growth over the mediumterm, consistent with previous findings. More importantly, we find an inverse relationship betweenthe income share accruing to the rich (top 20 percent) and economic growth. If the income share ofthe top 20 percent increases by 1 percentage point, GDP growth is actually 0.08 percentage pointlower in the following five years, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down. Instead, a similarincrease in the income share of the bottom 20 percent (the poor) is associated with 0.38 percentagepoint higher growth. This positive relationship between disposable income shares and higher growthcontinues to hold for the second and third quintiles (the middle class). This result survives a varietyof robustness checks, and is in line with recent findings for a smaller sample of advanced economies(OECD 2014). In the remainder of this section, we discuss potential channels for why higher incomeshares for the poor and the middle class are growth-enhancing.

  
  With that being said it is you who does not seem to understand that one does not have to stuff money under a mattress to engage in unproductive saving or speculative investment.
  
  In any case let's consider the real give away here - you were posting this at 2:00am on a beautiful early fall Friday evening. I appreciate it but maybe get on Tinder instead?
• BoatShoes

  gut;1753154 wrote:That's like the closest you've come to being academically honest. Despite, NO, there isn't a plausible case don't let that stop you from knob-jobbing Keynesian economics. Greece needs a new finance minister, after all.
  
  I mean, it's only with liberal econ pseudo-students that we could even be having a debate that one of the tenets of economics has "plausible cases" where it isn't true. Which would mean it's not a tenet, but perhaps I digress...

  The staff economists at the IMF, Federal Reserve and World Bank all disagree but we know you are smarter than all of them!
• cruiser_96

  

  I'm curious - how do the staff economists at the IMF, Federal Reserve and World Bank explain Greece and the USSR?
  
  Is there any way possible that their facts, figures, data, and opinion on the matter are wrong?
• jmog

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1752799 wrote:Yeah bc the pope has it right and conservatives are literally blowing their heads at what they're hearing from him.

  So, according to Z4P, it's ok to be a religious politician as long as you agree with Z4P...got it, makes logical sense.
• jmog

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1752877 wrote:Personal responsibility is great whenever everyone is competing on a level playing field

  lol, level playing field? Come on Z4P, you have gone off the deep end.
• jmog

  BoatShoes;1752935 wrote:Marriner Eccles, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve during the 1930's, was just the type of guy you can respect Gut - a millionaire Republican businessman - had this to say in 1938 (only two years after the publication of The General Theory so he cannot properly be called a Keynesian):
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/eccles/077_01_0001.pdf
  
  
  Providing the Poor with more money for consumption with greater marginal utility (i.e food stamps) may not result in a bigger pie than allowing the most well off to consume luxurious watches with low marginal utility and speculate with their excess funds to create asset bubbles which eventually crash but the pie is a smaller fruit pie instead of a bigger cowpie.

  Did you see the point you highlighted about "when national income is at a high and rapidly advancing rate"?
  
  If not, please read again. Can you please point out when, in the last say 8 years, the national income has been at a high and rapidly advancing rate?
  
  If not, then according to the guy you quoted, it doesn't make sense to increase taxes, but yet we have.