{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Comptonburger:
1/27/2016 7:41:19 AM
35
The trickle down economics that you advocate are a farce invented by Reagan. Tax breaks for the rich are responsible for the explosion of our national debt, extreme income inequality, and death of the middle class. When you give tax breaks to the rich, they do not hire more employees, they do not pay their employees better - they save that money, invest it, do share buybacks, all while laying off employees.
This is all easily proven. No actual economist would ever advocate trickle down economics.
You need only look at the picture I have provided. The explosion in our national debt begins during Reagan's presidency in the early 80s when several of the top tax brackets were eliminated. There's no debating this.
English
-
Actually many economists advocate for trickle down economics. Tell me, if lowering taxes does help with jobs, how would taxing them help? I'm honestly curious as to how that would compute for you.
-
That's right. I said no [i]actual[/i] economist would advocate it. And taxing computes to better jobs and a strong middle class because the government turns around and spends those taxes on infrastructure and social welfare programs. In other words, the government actually uses the money - unlike the extremely wealthy, who save far more on average per dollar earned.
-
1) Ah so the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, huh? 2) Yeah, in a perfect world. But guess what? That's not the truth. Our government is practically throwing away taxpayers' money. Who says they're going to spend it on infrastructure? There's no guarantee. And lowering taxes on companies would bring them back. Why do you think so many companies are moving their factories? Because the taxes are too low? No. It's cheaper to move them elsewhere. And spreading the wealth from the bottom up doesn't work. Just to let you know.
-
Sorry I do not see the causal link in your statement. Corporate tax and personal income tax are different and wealthy individuals will simply sit on every extra dollar they earn.
-
I might add, where do you think all of the interest payments on our debt have been coming from? ... That's right, education! The government has been cutting back on education spending in order to finance our debt, all in the name of tax cuts for the wealthy and subsidies for big corporations.
-
1. Well, I'd love to see your theoretical list of economists. But, regardless, we both know that the economic theory of the time was Keynesian. Tell me then, if supply side economics is legit, why did it originate from the Reagan administration (a politician and an actor) rather than an economist? 2. You're absolutely right. They are throwing it away in the form of huge subsidies and tax cuts for the largest corporations, even as those corporations cut jobs and move overseas. So tell me, if lowering taxes on companies would "bring them back", why is it that some of the largest companies here pay an effective tax rate of 0% and still cut American jobs? What would actually bring them back is strong consumer spending and inflation. With inflation companies know that they can invest in new projects now and reap larger profits later. But with our current system killing the middle class there is no way that this will happen.
-
Edited by ThisMahSwamp: 1/27/2016 9:38:45 PM[quote]When you give tax breaks to the rich, they do not hire more employees, they do not pay their employees better - they save that money, invest it, do share buybacks, all while laying off employees.[/quote] I'll just leave this here. You are looking at a pretty basic unemployment graph. Note that there was a worldwide recession creeping up during the late 1970s.
-
Not sure what your point is. The recession ended; the tax cuts and the debt didn't. And tax cuts to the wealthy won't do much to spur growth since the wealthy will simply save that money instead of putting it back into the economy.
-
I'm a strong believer in trickle up economics
-
they invest it which creates more jobs and lowers unemployment without pushing workers out of the job market. Reagan's problem was that he didn't cut spending, in fact he increased it. When you cut taxes and increase spending that does create a problem. I do find it funny that liberals only care about the national debt when a republican is in office.
-
Wrong. They invest in assets, resulting in inflated asset values, even as consumer goods and services are experiencing deflation as a result of the dying middle class. Did you know that home ownership is at 60 year lows, even though house prices have returned to pre-recession heights? Because the Federal Reserve with its low interest rates and quantitative easing program orcestrated an even further shift of wealth to the top 1%,.
-
I'll agree with everything you said about the fed (end the fed!) but to say all wealthy people invest the same way is narrow minded. People invest their money in various ways. Even if they invest in bonds (an asset) that's lending money to companies to grow which creates jobs.
-
Not in this environment. In this environment major corporations are very averse to capital investment. Consumer goods are experiencing deflation because of the dying middle class; as a result, corporations are unwilling to invest in new projects, because the goods that they will eventually produce will be worth less than the investment. Once the inequality reaches this point, the only source of yield that the wealthy can chase is speculation on assets.
-
We always care. We slam Obama constantly for the non-stop prison and military spending. Did you for-profit prisons had lobbyists set quotas so even if some cells aren't filled, the gov't pays them for those non-existent inmates?
-
If your looking for the silver bullet of our national debt research Medicare part D enacted by good ol George W. Bush. If that one part of medicare was reformed it could save us around 300 billion a year. Further Reading: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/medicare-part-d-republican-budget-busting/?_r=0
-
Happy to see other signs of inteligence in this thread
-
That explosion in debt was caused by severely over-the-top military spending, one of the very few gripes I have with Reagan's presidency. It's funny how you use national debt to argue against Reagan, yet ignore national debt when it comes to Obama who has nearly tripled our national debt and, get this, accumulated more debt in his 7 years in office than EVERY other president combined from George Washington to George W. Bush. A consensus of economists agree that Sanders would only add to our current debt. So be consistent, if you're gonna knock Reagan for debt you gotta knock Obama and Sanders too
-
No statement about military spending is going to make the graph I provided go away. Our debt growth began right when Reagan eliminated those tax brackets. Obviously the deficit is a result of both spending and taxation issues. Your statements about Obama and Sanders are irrelevant because I took no position on them. I do not believe Obama achieved anything, but likewise I do not believe he was responsible for anything. The largest deficit took place in his first year when we were still in a Bush budget, and was a result of the financial crisis that began before Obama took office. So he was not responsible for those issues. But at the same time he failed to legislate any meaningful change to prevent the extreme income inequality that is currently devastating our middle class. On the other hand, Reagan actually did legislate a lot of change, negative change. He is entirely responsible for the problems that he created. And since then Republicans have only taken his views even further to the extreme. Likewise Bush and the Republicans were largely responsible for the 2008 crisis because they were the ones pushing to give everyone a mortgage.
-
I do love a sassy cartoon. Also a fair point, I am not an Obama fan because he completely wasted his first 2 years in office trying to make the republican minority like him where he should have rush bills through like George W. loved to do. Though he did open up Iran and Cuba so I give him credit for some very difficult bridge building.
-
Obama bailed out all the failing car company's Don't forget... why is the government investing the "people's" money into privately owned businesses?
-
Like when Bush bailed out the banks right before leaving office, then Obama had to add more to the pot in 08'.
-
You are logically inconsistent, you use national debt as a measuring stick to knock one President. And you totally ignore national debt as a measuring stick when it comes to our current president and presidential candidate. National debt is literally the ONE factor you cite in knocking Reagan, yet you totally ignore national debt in regards to Sanders and Obama. You are inconsistent and biased
-
Croat Sanders has not been president yet. Also common knowledge republicans love to spend money as much as democrats. They just spend it on their corporate backers. Though the democrats are slipping down slop lately so I think we need a third option.
-
Sanders is not President yet, but as Senator he has done nothing to balance our budget whether it was voting for legislation that cuts spending or proposing budgetary restraint of his own. Also, according to many impartial fiscal policy reviews, his policies would add to our national debt at a considerable rate.
-
Might I inquire which surely impartial group did this review?
