Fenxis 99 Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 I love how Trump's "Presidency" is totally ebola and other than the SC pick has been completely dogshit/sellout of the issues that got him elected but hey, let's argue about some random review of some shitty restaurant. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 92 months to go. What do you guys think the excuse will be when the Dems lose the Georgia race? They out spent almost 20:1, willing media, Samuel L Jackson radio ads. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 I love how Trump's "Presidency" is totally ebola and other than the SC pick has been completely dogshit/sellout of the issues that got him elected but hey, let's argue about some random review of some shitty restaurant. Maybe, but the SC pick is looking really good. Link to post Share on other sites
Scrim 115 Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 What do you guys think the excuse will be when the Dems lose the Georgia race? They only have two excuses for everything. Racism or Oppression. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 Sexism, don't forget sexism. Although that won't work in the Georgia race since they through up a young white guy and the republicans got a woman running against him now. I was so looking forward to the dems crowing about this being the turning point, that finally America had woke up and realized they needed the liberals to save them from Trump. That this one election was proof that America hated Trump and wanted progressives to run things. Sure they've lost over 1,000 elected seats in the last 8 year, but this one seat would be the turning point that brings them back into relevance. Instead they are stuck waiting a long time, and the only hope they have is the 'protest' like Berkeley demanding to see Trump's tax returns. Because that will wake up everyone that Trump something something Hitler. Well maybe not Berkley, since Trump supporters decided to teach young anti free speech fascist that two can play. he fact that they've adopted the look of Isis tells me we voted in the right guy. Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,312 Posted April 19, 2017 Author Share Posted April 19, 2017 5 Takeaways From The Georgia 6 Special Election Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,312 Posted April 19, 2017 Author Share Posted April 19, 2017 Really really good article from Martin Wolf of the Financial Times on trade. It explains what trade deficits are and why they happen and how different policies will effect things. https://www.ft.com/content/fca7e9a4-2366-11e7-a34a-538b4cb30025 Link to post Share on other sites
Fenxis 99 Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 That this one election was proof that America hated Trump and wanted progressives to run things. It's always dangerous to read too much into these by-elections. But if party that normally is elected by a landslide isn't then that's a huge warning flag. Ah you are going to pull out that make believe 20x spending figure so even if the Dems do win one of these it won't be financially sustainable. Sure they've lost over 1,000 elected seats in the last 8 year, but this one seat would be the turning point that brings them back into relevance. People generally like the status quo except for occasionally there's momentum for "change". With a Republican in the WH it will shift the other way. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 That is the conventional wisdom. Just like hillary was supposed to win Link to post Share on other sites
Fenxis 99 Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 That is the conventional wisdom. Just like hillary was supposed to win Oh that tired meme again. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 Yes, the conventional wisdom being turned over in a national election for the first time in living memory being brought up again within a few months of it happening...tired. Pretending liberals have a political future....wired Welcome to fantasy land, population you Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,312 Posted April 21, 2017 Author Share Posted April 21, 2017 Really really good article from Martin Wolf of the Financial Times on trade. It explains what trade deficits are and why they happen and how different policies will effect things. https://www.ft.com/c...4a-538b4cb30025 Will Economic Illiteracy Trigger a Trade War? Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,312 Posted April 21, 2017 Author Share Posted April 21, 2017 Will Economic Illiteracy Trigger a Trade War? Chad P. Bown @ChadBown New trade barriers do raise US steel prices, increase costs & hurt jobs at US metal-using companies | By @AnaSwanson http://wapo.st/2pH7v15?tid=ss_tw … Link to post Share on other sites
Scrim 115 Posted April 21, 2017 Share Posted April 21, 2017 Will Economic Illiteracy Trigger a Trade War? Are you old enough to have ready much academia on the various 'Trickle Down Economics' theories that were all the rage but have since disproven with the passage of time? Those too were littered with rhetoric that made a lot of use of phrases like "Every first year econ student knows..." Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,312 Posted April 21, 2017 Author Share Posted April 21, 2017 Are you old enough to have ready much academia on the various 'Trickle Down Economics' theories that were all the rage but have since disproven with the passage of time? Those too were littered with rhetoric that made a lot of use of phrases like "Every first year econ student knows..." I was studying Commerce and Finance at the U of Toronto in the 80's which was a program very heavy on Economics. Trickle down was never taken seriously by serious Economists. Things like the Laffer Curve were laughed at. We did look at Supply Side Economics which was much more of a political theory than one that was shown to work the way it's supporters claimed it did. Trickle down was viewed then the same way as dynamic scoring is today as being Voodoo Economics. Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,312 Posted April 21, 2017 Author Share Posted April 21, 2017 Mankiw is an excellent Economist and it's too bad the current administration won't listen to him. There is frequent confusion on the meaning of the term 'supply-side economics', between the related ideas of the existence of the Laffer Curve and the belief that decreasing tax rates can increase tax revenues. But many supply-side economists doubt the latter claim, while still supporting the general policy of tax cuts. Economist Gregory Mankiw used the term "fad economics" to describe the notion of tax rate cuts increasing revenue in the third edition of his Principles of Macroeconomics textbook in a section entitled "Charlatans and Cranks": An example of fad economics occurred in 1980, when a small group of economists advised Presidential candidate, Ronald Reagan, that an across-the-board cut in income tax rates would raise tax revenue. They argued that if people could keep a higher fraction of their income, people would work harder to earn more income. Even though tax rates would be lower, income would rise by so much, they claimed, that tax revenues would rise. Almost all professional economists, including most of those who supported Reagan's proposal to cut taxes, viewed this outcome as far too optimistic. Lower tax rates might encourage people to work harder and this extra effort would offset the direct effects of lower tax rates to some extent, but there was no credible evidence that work effort would rise by enough to cause tax revenues to rise in the face of lower tax rates. … People on fad diets put their health at risk but rarely achieve the permanent weight loss they desire. Similarly, when politicians rely on the advice of charlatans and cranks, they rarely get the desirable results they anticipate. After Reagan's election, Congress passed the cut in tax rates that Reagan advocated, but the tax cut did not cause tax revenues to rise.[45][46] When vying for the Republican party presidential nomination for the 1980 election, George H.W. Bush derided Reagan's supply-side policies as "voodoo economics". However, later he seemed to give lip service to these policies to secure the Republican nomination in 1988, and is speculated by some to have lost in his re-election bid in 1992 by allowing tax increases. (See: "Read my lips: No new taxes".) Link to post Share on other sites
Fenxis 99 Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 Swamp totally drained guyz /s Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 All hat, no cattle Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 Mankiw is an excellent Economist and it's too bad the current administration won't listen to him. There is frequent confusion on the meaning of the term 'supply-side economics', between the related ideas of the existence of the Laffer Curve and the belief that decreasing tax rates can increase tax revenues. But many supply-side economists doubt the latter claim, while still supporting the general policy of tax cuts. Economist Gregory Mankiw used the term "fad economics" to describe the notion of tax rate cuts increasing revenue in the third edition of his Principles of Macroeconomics textbook in a section entitled "Charlatans and Cranks": An example of fad economics occurred in 1980, when a small group of economists advised Presidential candidate, Ronald Reagan, that an across-the-board cut in income tax rates would raise tax revenue. They argued that if people could keep a higher fraction of their income, people would work harder to earn more income. Even though tax rates would be lower, income would rise by so much, they claimed, that tax revenues would rise. Almost all professional economists, including most of those who supported Reagan's proposal to cut taxes, viewed this outcome as far too optimistic. Lower tax rates might encourage people to work harder and this extra effort would offset the direct effects of lower tax rates to some extent, but there was no credible evidence that work effort would rise by enough to cause tax revenues to rise in the face of lower tax rates. … People on fad diets put their health at risk but rarely achieve the permanent weight loss they desire. Similarly, when politicians rely on the advice of charlatans and cranks, they rarely get the desirable results they anticipate. After Reagan's election, Congress passed the cut in tax rates that Reagan advocated, but the tax cut did not cause tax revenues to rise.[45][46] When vying for the Republican party presidential nomination for the 1980 election, George H.W. Bush derided Reagan's supply-side policies as "voodoo economics". However, later he seemed to give lip service to these policies to secure the Republican nomination in 1988, and is speculated by some to have lost in his re-election bid in 1992 by allowing tax increases. (See: "Read my lips: No new taxes".) Baloney There is a sweet spot for tax levels, too high and you stifle growth, too low and you can't pay for services That sweet spot is in flux, based on many factors. Saying that Reagan's tax cuts were to motivate people to work harder is like saying a football team runs the ball to score yardage. Yes, that also works, but there are other results such as freeing up more capital for business expansion, giving more discretionary funds for purchasing big ticket items. Those things result in more taxes being collected via movement of capital. The simplistic strawman this guy is describing, then pointing out why it's wrong tells me he;s another; "Let me tell you what really just happened" economist, and not a "Let me tell you what is going to happen" economist. Those kind are a dime a dozen and have less value than weathermen. I read it the other day: I spend within my means, to afford the taxes I pay to a government that spends outside it's means. The government is confiscating money with force of imprisonment and has no accountability for their actions. Which is why the second amendment is so important. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 https://twitter.com/...212805506703361 Former front runner for democrats, former head of DNC, former governor Howard Dean doesn't understand the 1st Amendment. Reason #132 why the dems are irrelevant in today's political world Reason #133: Your news sources are fake Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,312 Posted April 22, 2017 Author Share Posted April 22, 2017 https://twitter.com/...212805506703361 Former front runner for democrats, former head of DNC, former governor Howard Dean doesn't understand the 1st Amendment. Reason #132 why the dems are irrelevant in today's political world Dean doesn't understand the 1st Amendment and neither do Trump's lawyers. http://lawnewz.com/uncategorized/trumps-lawyers-prove-they-have-no-idea-how-the-first-amendment-works/ Link to post Share on other sites
Scrim 115 Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 Trickle down was never taken seriously by serious Economists. Things like the Laffer Curve were laughed at. Hindsight revisionism. ****tons of very 'serious economists' were all on board with that theory. I mean... https://en.wikipedia.../Alan_Greenspan I can't wait to see what Mark Blyth says about the pending FREXIT. Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,312 Posted April 22, 2017 Author Share Posted April 22, 2017 Republicans playing the long game here. Lead exposure decreases intelligence and the more stupid people there are the more Republican voters. Hundreds more lead hotspots are identified as Trump prepares to gut programs Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,312 Posted April 22, 2017 Author Share Posted April 22, 2017 Hindsight revisionism. ****tons of very 'serious economists' were all on board with that theory. I mean... https://en.wikipedia.../Alan_Greenspan I can't wait to see what Mark Blyth says about the pending FREXIT. Greenspan wasn't a supply sider. During most of his career he was against big tax cuts because they would increase the deficit. He did change his tune in 2001 when the budget was in surplus and he thought that tax cuts were affordable. He is a Republican so he's for the lowest tax rates that make sense. Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,312 Posted April 22, 2017 Author Share Posted April 22, 2017 Hey BG What do you think would create more economic growth and job creation, 1. $200 Billion in tax cuts that mostly go to the highest earners. 2. $200 Billion in combined payroll tax cuts and an increase in the Earned Income Tax Credit ? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now