Good Riddance to Democrat House Spending

[Stinger]

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........

I'm right with exactly what I said. The poor do best under supply-side economics, the most people do the most good and stop calling in the phony name the left tries to attach to it because they can't show where THEIR trickle up polices ever work.

 

[Stinger]

Sorry, intended to say... what would be the economic reasoning to double government spending?

I asking about you economic reasoning

Sure I have, you guys advocate for less spending (no matter how characterized) that results in a smaller GDP number.

This is econ 101 stuff, not sure why it is taking you so long to pick it up.

If less spending means less GDP wouldn't more mean more GDP. If we are going to drive GDP by government spending then let's double government spending and just imagine how great the economy would be...................................or would it?

 

[Stinger]

It's so funny you still don't know how bills become law

Please explain what I am missing here then

How Bush should have and could have vetoed the 2009 budget with it's $1,400B deficit you blame on him.

The fact is you can't even though that is your claim.

 

[rahl]

I'm right with exactly what I said. The poor do best under supply-side economics, the most people do the most good and stop calling in the phony name the left tries to attach to it because they can't show where THEIR trickle up polices ever work.

supply side economics has failed every single time it's been tried. We have 4 decades of data showing this. All it does is transfer wealth to the top 1%, and EXPLODE the deficit and debt.

 

[Stinger]

Much less spending harms gdp

So much more spending would be great for the economy?

 

[rahl]

Please explain what I am missing here then

How Bush should have and could have vetoed the 2009 budget with it's $1,400B deficit you blame on him.

The fact is you can't even though that is your claim.

It's so funny watching you still not know how bills become law.

 

[vegas giants]

So much more spending would be great for the economy?

Too much of an increase leads to inflation like we have now

 

[Stinger]

supply side economics has failed every single time it's been tried. We have 4 decades of data showing this. All it does is transfer wealth to the top 1%, and EXPLODE the deficit and debt.

Then show your four decades of data or are you just blowing smoke again and can't back up your assertions?

 

[Stinger]

Too much of an increase leads to inflation like we have now

Yes government spending is inflationary so less of it would ease inflation and that would be good for the economy and the GDP.

 

[rahl]

Then show your four decades of data or are you just blowing smoke again and can't back up your assertions?

Good Riddance to Democrat House Spending

Supply side economics works when capital is left in the market to be invested rather than redistributed through government taxation. "Trickle up" is a liberal misnomer for supply-side. Supply side grows the economy long term increasing employment and raising incomes which increases tax revenues...

debatepolitics.com

 

[vegas giants]

Yes government spending is inflationary so less of it would ease inflation and that would be good for the economy and the GDP.

No. Big rapid changes in either direction will wreck the economy

 

[Fearandloathing]

By my math, democrats passed an additional 4 trillion in additional spending and debt above and beyond regular spending, which was already a trillion over revenue. In addition, most of the continuing resolutions and omnibus bills were passed without bipartisan majorities, so they get a lot of blame for those as well. Here's the breakdown.

Major Democrat Debt Bills:
3/21 H.R.1319 - American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 - 1.9T
11/21 - HR 3684 - "Infrastructure" Investment and Jobs Act 1.2T
8/22 - HR5376 Inflation "Reduction" Act - 750bn

Debt has risen from 27trillion to 32 trillion since democrats took over congress. Now its time to start holding House Republicans accountable, as well as democrats who vote with them on new spending debt.

So?

You wouldn't even notice if you weren't glue to Fox snooze and the new 'republican lie'....for some reason the budget must come down! At a time when the economy is surging; at a time when more Americans are homeless than the population of Canada?

No, no, no, no. We are still recovering from Covid, there is a war not of our making but one which could end the world as we know it, and the nation is staring down the barrel of some horrific spending...needed for 20 toi 30 years as well as the shit neglected in the MAGA years.

You don't rebuild your farm after a tornado by cutting spending.

100% ideological, as in it makes no ****ing sense. Dogma is well named. No thinking necessary. Blow a Republican note and the whole band starts to play the same old song, but off key.

 

[Nickyjo]

No it didn't. Spending did. Reducing taxes doesn't reduce government revenues. This has been proven time and again. The health of the economy is what gains or loses government revenues.

Their is a reason that theory was called the Laffer Curve, though misspelled, and also Voodoo Economics.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Good Riddance to Democrat House Spending

Supply side economics works when capital is left in the market to be invested rather than redistributed through government taxation. "Trickle up" is a liberal misnomer for supply-side. Supply side grows the economy long term increasing employment and raising incomes which increases tax revenues...

debatepolitics.com

Supply side as in Reaganomics is a proven failure.

Ronnie could ride a horse, crack a joke but deep economic reasoning escaped him and the Bush's to come. It was a long time suffering through "trickle down', all that floating up to the 2% kind of obscured the alleged benefits.

****ing republicans. Always lying.

 

[Nickyjo]

Gotta buy votes. Republicans spend on the military and democrats do favors for their friends.

And of course, spending on the military also does favors for friends...

 

[Nickyjo]

Supply side economics works when capital is left in the market to be invested rather than redistributed through government taxation. "Trickle up" is a liberal misnomer for supply-side. Supply side grows the economy long term increasing employment and raising incomes which increases tax revenues. Works every time.

Strange, those who tend to represent the wealthier in our society suggest supply side formulas. Those who tend to represent the not-so-wealthy in our society suggest demand side formulas. Both theories are defensible. But if the first formula fails, at least their folks get more. If the latter formula fails, ditto. No big mystery here.

 

[iguanaman]

We need tax reform so that they are raised on the ones not paying enough (the bottom 90%) and lower compliance costs, but we need spending cuts even more.

LOL What do you think will happen to the economy if you take money away from those that spend all their income in the economy? We need to take money from those that sock away most of their income instead.

 

[iguanaman]

Supply side economics works when capital is left in the market to be invested rather than redistributed through government taxation. "Trickle up" is a liberal misnomer for supply-side. Supply side grows the economy long term increasing employment and raising incomes which increases tax revenues. Works every time.

The problem is the huge amount of excess capital is being invested in hedge funds that bid up commodities we all need. How is that increasing employment or raising incomes?

 

[iguanaman]

Strange, those who tend to represent the wealthier in our society suggest supply side formulas. Those who tend to represent the not-so-wealthy in our society suggest demand side formulas. Both theories are defensible. But if the first formula fails, at least their folks get more. If the latter formula fails, ditto. No big mystery here.

In a country where consumer spending is 75% of GDP it does not take a genius to figure out that without consumer demand the economy will fail. Putting more money in those that spend a tiny % of their income is self-defeating and is the cause of the slower and slower growth of our GDP.

 

[Nickyjo]

In a country where consumer spending is 75% of GDP it does not take a genius to figure out that without consumer demand the economy will fail. Putting more money in those that spend a tiny % of their income is self-defeating and is the cause of the slower and slower growth of our GDP.

I agree, but still feel that - though faulty - the notion that those on the top will use their increased wealth from tax cuts in ways that grow the economy is defensible. But you are right that ours is a consumer-driven economy.

 

[Indydave]

I'm right with exactly what I said. The poor do best under supply-side economics, the most people do the most good and stop calling in the phony name the left tries to attach to it because they can't show where THEIR trickle up polices ever work.

if that were the reality it we would have perpetual supply side economical prosperity......if that were the case we would have np poor and needy people......we would have no need for welfare programs.......and voters would be satisfied to vote supply side politicians into office

 

[Indydave]

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.

agree ......it amazes me how people can read a history book and reach conclusions that are the exact opposite of what actually happened.....

 

[Indydave]

I agree, but still feel that - though faulty - the notion that those on the top will use their increased wealth from tax cuts in ways that grow the economy is defensible. But you are right that ours is a consumer-driven economy.

it may be 'defensible' but it's pie in the sky utopian fantasy.......it never has worked and never will work......that's not to say that when a Henry Ford or a Bill Gates comes along with a new invention that changes our lives that it does not change our realities......of course they do......

 

[upsideguy]

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.

...and what was WWII but a stimulus on steroids?.... which suggests that FDR did not do enough stimulus in the early 1930's....(a stimulus is government spending designed to "stimulate" the economy to encourage consumers to spend and businesses to invest).

more over, I think you are referring to fiscal policy, not monetary policy. The latter is generally under the control of Fed deals mostly with interest rates and money supply, while the former is generally policy of the White House and Congress.

I would also like to hear how FDR, the Governor of New York at the time, caused the Great Depression.

Finally, the government is the only entity that large enough and risk adverse enough to actually impact the American economy. In a recession, business tuck tail and sit on the sidelines until they see signs of the economy firming up. If we expected business to pull us out of a recession, we would be waiting a long, long time.

So much wrong with your two sentences. Maybe economics is not your thing.

I'm right with exactly what I said. The poor do best under supply-side economics, the most people do the most good and stop calling in the phony name the left tries to attach to it because they can't show where THEIR trickle up polices ever work.

No evidence of such that I am aware of, perhaps you would like to share some? Most of what I have read about supply-side economics is that it leads to wealth and income disparity, which serves to help the poor stay poor.

5 Reasons Why Supply-Side Economics Does Not Work

Tax cuts, deregulation, and fiscal austerity aren’t necessarily a recipe for economic growth. Here’s why some economists disagree.

www.investopedia.com

Neither history nor research supports supply-side economics - Equitable Growth

Arthur Laffer—father of the Laffer Curve and the godfather of supply-side economics—received the Medal of Freedom last month. However, evidence is not on the side of supply-side economics.

equitablegrowth.org

 

[Kushinator]

Didn't say FDR did it alone

You said:

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.

That's literally the most shortsighted thing posted in this thread.