• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Good Riddance to Democrat House Spending

Where is the evidence that this is what we want to happen?

We've been through that, you do not get to hide behind "we just want less spending" and pretend there is no other impact.
 
We've been through that, you do not get to hide behind "we just want less spending" and pretend there is no other impact.

I made no such limited argument. All I responded to was your rhetorical question "why do you guys want to harm GDP?" We dont, but youve persisted as if you beleive that, so Im still waiting for you to provide some evidence of our motives. Or just admit it was rhetorical. In which case, why do you like strawman arguments?
 
I made no such limited argument. All I responded to was your rhetorical question "why do you guys want to harm GDP?" We dont, but youve persisted as if you beleive that, so Im still waiting for you to provide some evidence of our motives. Or just admit it was rhetorical. In which case, why do you like strawman arguments?
Do you want to seriously reduce spending?
 
I made no such limited argument. All I responded to was your rhetorical question "why do you guys want to harm GDP?" We dont, but youve persisted as if you beleive that, so Im still waiting for you to provide some evidence of our motives. Or just admit it was rhetorical. In which case, why do you like strawman arguments?

You can keep repeating the same thing all you would like, find a new buzzword if if helps you, but you harm GDP by going after spending absent any other change. Pure numerical indisputable fact.
 
You can keep repeating the same thing all you would like, find a new buzzword if if helps you, but you harm GDP by going after spending absent any other change. Pure numerical indisputable fact.
I understand thats your opinion, but that has nothing to do with my motives, which is what I replied to. You said us guys WANT to harm GDP. Where is the evidence that this is what we want to happen?
 
I understand thats your opinion, but that has nothing to do with my motives, which is what I replied to. You said us guys WANT to harm GDP. Where is the evidence that this is what we want to happen?

You do not get to separate your motives from the only plausible impact just because you dislike the characterization.
 
You can keep repeating the same thing all you would like, find a new buzzword if if helps you, but you harm GDP by going after spending absent any other change. Pure numerical indisputable fact.

That is an oversimplified argument, since congress critters continuously pumping $1T borrowed (or printed) funds into the economy annually also has negative consequences. The problem is that federal “budgeting” is no longer about establishing spending priorities (aka making choices) before the beginning of next new fiscal year, it’s simply keeping every existing federal department, agency and program ‘fully funded’ via some massive pork laden ‘must pass’ omnibus spending bills at the last possible minute.
 
Using your theory, if we just eliminated all taxes our economy would soar to unprecedented heights.

Well the economy would but the country wouldn't last very long would it? But on the opposite end if we just taxed at 100% would the economy soar to unprecedented heights?
 
Supply side economics (another name for "consumer spending") only works IF you don't have any disruptions to the economy. You can use "the multiplier affect" (taxing the greater volume of consumer spenders which generally equates to taxing working- and middle-class Americans) to great affect and, thus, leave the wealth-class alone since they have the greater share of disposable income AND tend to be the larger instruments of business creation and free market investments. But all that is assuming there is no disruption to the economy. If such a disruption does occur, i.e., the housing bubble, the banking collapse, a global pandemic, a significant reduction in global oil supply, a major war, etc., etc., where corporate America (i.e., the "wealth-class") can't inject money into the (investment) free market, banks can't lend, consumers lose their jobs and, thus, have no income to buy things using cash nor credit, what keeps our economy moving?

Think about it...

Supply-side economics is not "comsumer spending" that would be the Keynesian model. Supply side is about keeping the supply of capital in the markets to be invested in growth. And when such policies are used the incomes and opportunities for the working class increase along with their standard of living.
 
Tax rates and federal revenue. If tax cuts raised tax revenue then there should have been a huge jump during the Reagan years.

View attachment 67432994

And often Republicans claim that tax cut raise gdp. Again there should have been huge growth during Reagan's term.

Only things I see from cutting taxes is increasing the wealth of the wealthy and exponential growth in the federal debt to pay for it.

View attachment 67432995
Try comparing effective rates and actual revenues.
 
so all the gazillionaires (you know those guys that have all the money) are not considered to have capital....are they not the ones that Reagan promised us would trickle that money down and keep the nation out of a need for government intervention to help the less fortunate......however I can agree in some respect......but what supply siders and trickle downers fail to acknowledge is the reality of our democracy......and that reality is the masses of people....people who vote.... people who in the final analysis are the government.....if you look back at our history since 1900 we have progressed only when the government stepped in to help......FDR and the Congress of the Great Depression era saw exactly what was happening and what the future of the nation would be if economic prosperity was not trickled down to the masses......and they saw also that leaving it to those with capital, the rich, it would never happen fast enough to avoid revolution at the ballot box.....so they put the government into the business of trickling down.....this is where we are and where we will remain until the capitalists decide they have a responsibility to the masses
FDR and the government monetary policy caused the Great Depression and it took WW2 to get us out of it. We have done best with the least government interference where we are all able to make our own economic decisions.
 
Any reasoning behind the number or are you throwing darts at a board?

Any reasoning behind your claim we can't cut government spending because it would cut GDP? By that reasoning why not double government spending and really boost GDP?
 
You of course are very much aware I have posted the data in the many years I have refuted your silly claims Bluesy

I am very much aware you never respond to my questions to you nor support your arguments while fallacious claiming to have refuted anything posted.

Again explain how Bush should have and could have vetoed the 2009 budget with it's $1,400B deficit you blame on him.
 
Any reasoning behind your claim we can't cut government spending because it would cut GDP? By that reasoning why not double government spending and really boost GDP?

What would be the economic reasoning to double GDP?
 
I am very much aware you never respond to my questions to you nor support your arguments while fallacious claiming to have refuted anything posted.

Again explain how Bush should have and could have vetoed the 2009 budget with it's $1,400B deficit you blame on him.
It's so funny you still don't know how bills become law
 
Any reasoning behind your claim we can't cut government spending because it would cut GDP? By that reasoning why not double government spending and really boost GDP?
What would be the economic reasoning to double GDP?

Sorry, intended to say... what would be the economic reasoning to double government spending?
 
That is an oversimplified argument, since congress critters continuously pumping $1T borrowed (or printed) funds into the economy annually also has negative consequences.
The negative consequences would be crowding out private investment... but we don't see any evidence this has occurred or is about to occur.

None!

That's why people who make these types of cut spending comments shouldn't be taken seriously.

The OP for example posts the same garbage in a most obsessive manner. Check their post history! It's literally the same shit every single time.
 
That is an oversimplified argument, since congress critters continuously pumping $1T borrowed (or printed) funds into the economy annually also has negative consequences. The problem is that federal “budgeting” is no longer about establishing spending priorities (aka making choices) before the beginning of next new fiscal year, it’s simply keeping every existing federal department, agency and program ‘fully funded’ via some massive pork laden ‘must pass’ omnibus spending bills at the last possible minute.

If you want to have a discussion on federal spending for economic reasons, we are already dead in the water as the politics of federal spending rarely if ever lines up to the economics of federal spending. Regardless, there is a section of the GDP math that is government spending no matter how they got to that number.

If someone disagrees with the level of federal spending, or level of deficit or debt, then the question becomes what is cut, why, and to what impact.

Regardless, you cut spending doing nothing else (taxation, or some other potential impact to the economy) and the GS part of the GDP math falls. It is that simple. All that "port" or any other spending you or I may disagree with still ends up in the GDP math.

It is difficult to take these "good riddance to Democrat House spending" threads seriously when no one can really articulate what exactly is cut from prior agreed to spending. What line item (items) is (are) removed and to what end? But more importantly, to what economic end?

Congressional dysfunction with spending bills & fiscal matters is a discussion to have but that comes down to political paralysis, political motivations or fears, and what I would refer to as political laziness. But I would be the one looking at taxation and spending, not just complain about spending... or deficits... or the next debt ceiling... or total debt.

Tell me how you are harmed by these things?
 
FDR and the government monetary policy caused the Great Depression and it took WW2 to get us out of it. We have done best with the least government interference where we are all able to make our own economic decisions.
if it were a perfect world; if every human was responsible and did the right thing you would be right.......if the poor did not exist you would be right.......if trickle down actually worked you would be right......and most importantly if the poor and needy just did not have the right to vote you would be right........
 
FDR and the government monetary policy caused the Great Depression
Ummm... the Great Depression was well under way long before Hoover lost the election. He had followed the advice of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon:

Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate. It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people

What a nightmare! By the time FDR came into office, the unemployment rate was approaching 25%.

You literally don't know what you're talking about. By all means... continue on, as your presence is detrimental to your agenda.
 
FDR and the government monetary policy caused the Great Depression and it took WW2 to get us out of it. We have done best with the least government interference where we are all able to make our own economic decisions.

Wow

Guess you forgot about those Hoover days.

Democrats always have to clean up the financial messes of the Republicans.

If you are not in the upper 10% of earners in America you are a fool to vote republican. The republican party and right wing media does a great job of distracting America's white working class with class warfare while their real reason for existence is defending/increasing the wealth of the wealthy.
 
Wow

Guess you forgot about those Hoover days.

Democrats always have to clean up the financial messes of the Republicans.

If you are not in the upper 10% of earners in America you are a fool to vote republican. The republican party and right wing media does a great job of distracting America's white working class with class warfare while their real reason for existence is defending/increasing the wealth of the wealthy.

Your invective does not refute the facts.
 
Ummm... the Great Depression was well under way long before Hoover lost the election. He had followed the advice of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon:

Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate. It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people

What a nightmare! By the time FDR came into office, the unemployment rate was approaching 25%.

You literally don't know what you're talking about. By all means... continue on, as your presence is detrimental to your agenda.

Didn't say FDR did it alone
 
Back
Top Bottom