- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Messages
- 69,456
- Reaction score
- 53,880
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Then you're the crappiest economist that ever walked the earth AND a dishonest one, too.
I am an economist
A hostile congress...but try and ignore that...Trump continues to live in your head rent free.
Huh? So you don't understand how bills become law?A hostile congress...but try and ignore that...Trump continues to live in your head rent free.
It's interesting reading threads like this, but what's more interesting is noticing who, as far as which political faction, starts threads like this one. It's never liberals/progressives who question the debt or the deficit or attempt to place blame for it at a Republican president's feet, that is not until who's truly to blame for the increase and why is made part of the debate. Nonetheless, my assessment is every time this topic comes up it's always a conservative Republican who does it.
I didn't point you out specifically, but if you as a Libertarian take the same criticism of Democrats were the deficit is concerned, then consider yourself lumped into that bunch.OOOH, one flaw in your theory. Im not a conservative Republican.
Its not a feat at all. Spending only goes up. Bidens own proposed budget spends 25 trillion in his 4 years. Thats 6 trillion MORE than during the last President. So long as no one does anything about out of control social spending, which is all mandatory, itll just keep going up.
I didn't point you out specifically, but if you as a Libertarian take the same criticism of Democrats were the deficit is concerned, then consider yourself lumped into that bunch.
Except revenue went up. So taxes have little to do with it.Exploding deficits whenever you cut taxes has been on the wealthy has been the pattern from the Gilded age, to Reagan, to Trump, and most recently Truss. When will conservatives let go of their beloved trickle down economics? Economists have known it doesn’t work for decades now.
Except revenue went up. So taxes have little to do with it.
Why do you keep repeating this objectively false claim? Biden cut the deficit in half.No, but you said these threads are ALWAYS started by conservative Republicans. Which is not relevant in any case. Biden increased the deficit, what are your thoughts on THAT?
No it didn’t.
And, as usual, no trickle down. Just made the wealthy wealthier.
This is all just propaganda propagated by the Koch brothers. Not sure where you’re getting your info from.
you literally made his point lol. See where revenue fell after the tax cuts, and then remained completely flat after? When you cut the rate at which you collect something, you will as a matter of mathematical certainty, collect less of that something because...................math.CBO
Revenue pre tax cuts, 3.3T
Revenue today - 4T
Tax rates up or down, it never moves much. Govt gets about the same amount of income relatively. The deficit is caused by outlays.
View attachment 67420329
Now you made me afraid of the future.2020 -3,132.4
2021 -2,775.3
Biden reduced the deficit. Literally.
You're struggling with the idea of systemic deficit, and you're on the right track distinguishing mandatory spending from discretionary spending.
But you're not looking realistically at the future: the next time Republicans get elected they won't have the tax cut lever to pull (firstly because it never worked that well, secondly because only taxes on the poor remain to be cut) so to stimulate the economy and make some pretense of trying for 3-4% GDP growth instead of 2-3%, they will spend. I don't even care what populist argument they will make for it, but they will likely concentrate on Defense and subsidies for high tech.
Deficit spending is one thing the two parties agree on. Pretending Democrats are qualitatively worse, overlooks that Republicans do lasting damage to revenues, while Democrats only try to do lasting damage to spending.
Trumpists simply don't care. They like tax cuts, they like spending increases, they don't give a damn about deficit. If they ever control the Senate they will abolish the filibuster, and free themselves from the Byrd Rule so they can commission Space Battleships or whatever. I can't even exaggerate on how profligate a Trump Presidency with today's "Republican" party in control of Congress would be. Inconvenient rules like "the validity of the public debt of the United States ... shall not be questioned" will be slight impediment to them buying more votes. And their Supreme Court might just let them get away with it.
A hostile congress...but try and ignore that...Trump continues to live in your head rent free.
Now you made me afraid of the future.
Here I am getting excited about DeSantis becoming more popular and you warn me about Trumpists taking over and building Space Battleships.
Yours is a rather apocalyptic view of the future. I prefer Ronald Reagan's view of the 'shining city on the hill'.
I believe you feel comfortable with Uncle Joe pandering to the Progressive crowd and driving our economy into the ground with needless spending on climate change programs that will do nothing to keep our country strong.
Great screed, UghThe shining city on a hill isn't a great metaphor, when you consider immigration. Hiding America's light might be a smarter strategy.
And even within the US, there are obvious and ever-growing problems of wealth inequality. That's not a new problem of course, but modern media makes it inescapable for the working poor that others who do less work than they do, are filthy stinking rich. So what's a shining city on the hill worth, if you need a wall around it and guards who shoot to kill?
The dubious bliss of 1950's families will never happen again. The US will never be so privileged in trade as it was then, nor will wages be as fair now that the workforce includes so many women. Women will not be biased by low earnings prospects to be housekeepers and child-minders, the only way forward on that front is for men to do their share of the previously unpaid work. I'm not headed off on a tangent there: the far greater supply of labor there is now, compounds the effects of mechanization and foreign labor markets, to keep the working poor of America relatively poor.
The only sense in which I would countenance "going back to the 50's" is in trade tariffs. The US is still exceptional in having the biggest consumer market (middle class with discretionary spending) and reserving this source of wealth for American businesses could perhaps create some jobs and keep some wealth on-shore. But it would not address the main driver of inequality, which is the vast suction of wealth from all other sectors into the financial sector. This can only be addressed with new taxes.
Climate change programs are long term investment. If President Carter had succeeded in commercializing US Navy expertise in nuclear reactors, and building a US photovoltaic solar industry, you wouldn't be squealing like a stuck pig about electric cars. You'd be driving one, with a smug expression on your face when you heard about Europe's problems getting enough oil.
It's a question of long term perspective. Anyone who baulks at investment, will never be successful. And so for the US.
Maybe it's too late to get in the PV solar market, though I think it's still possible to have a share (particularly with tariff protection.) But it's definitely not too late to get into Nuclear. Even India is building more advanced reactors than the US. Underwriting and subsidies have been tried, it's time for the Federal government to step up and just build the damn things.
Great screed, Ugh
Some points right on target. Some points conspiritorial. Like "the far greater supply of labor there is now, compounds the effects of mechanization and foreign labor markets, to keep the working poor of America relatively poor."
Or "modern media makes it inescapable for the working poor that others who do less work than they do, are filthy stinking rich." Do you really believe that?
Is there a conspiracy by rich people to keep the working poor of America relatively poor?
Thanks for that confusing demographic tidbit.Most of the rich people were relatively poor, so that doesnt make sense. 70% of the richest 400 are self made.
Thanks for that confusing demographic tidbit.
Your spelling of 'whats'Whats confusing?
Your spelling of 'whats'
You wrote: "Most of the rich people were relatively poor, so that doesnt make sense. 70% of the richest 400 are self made"You couldnt tell that it was a contraction without the apostrophe? But whats confusing about my demographic tidbit?
You wrote: "Most of the rich people were relatively poor, so that doesnt make sense. 70% of the richest 400 are self made"
Most of which rich people were relatively poor.? Relatively poor compared to which group of rich people?.
How would you know that 70 percent of the richest 400 were self made?
What is 'self made'? They made it on their own? As opposed to inheriting their wealth?
Your demographic data is not supported by anything.
How could you make the conclusions that you made?
You offered a broad opinion about rich people and you expect people to accept it as factual?
A good reporter of important political information should always shows sources.The 2022 Forbes 400 Self-Made Score: From Silver Spooners To Bootstrappers
A guide to just how self-made America’s richest people are.www.forbes.com
You could have just asked in the first place.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?