Consumers create jobs.

[Rshermr]

He claims to understand Keynesian economic theory yet wants to raise taxes in an economic downturn and lower them in an economic upturn which is the exact opposite of what Keynes proposed to minimize wild swings in the economy.

You are back to "understanding" keynsian economics. Which I do. But do not believe in in many cases. Keynsian economics ran into issues that it did not work well with. Stagflation, for example. And the resultant modifications to Keynsian economics, like New Keynsian Economics, Neo Keynsian Economics, Post Keynsian Economics. Fact is, anyone who clings to an economic theory in all cases over the years and with new evidence, is a fool. Or is simply following a policy that helps some group that he believes in helping. As you would be, oldstyle, if you believed in supply side economics and refusing to look at why it has failed in many cases.

I hate to point out the obvious but the use of supply side economics was brought about BECAUSE of the failure of Keynesian economic theory to deal with stagflation. Are you contending that Reagan's use of supply side economics DIDN'T work to counter stagflation? New Keynesian...Neo Keynesian...Post Keynesian...I don't see where ANY of those economic schools of thought advocate the raising of taxes in a recession to stimulate the economy. Which one of them does that?

If you believe that increasing unemployment from just over 7% to 10.8%, then great. It worked, made unemployment much worse. But then, we have been all through this before. I provided proof, you provided none. Then you went away. If you are saying that raising interest rates helped get stagflation under control, then I agree that it did. But as I proved to you before, with gov numbers, raising interest rates had been going on well before Reagan took office. And Supply Side Economics did not address increasing interest rates as anything new, simply the same rules as had been followed before.

None of the newer types of Keynsian economics advocate tax increases specifically. What they do advocate is gov deficit spending in such an economy in order to stimulate that economy. And, how do you finance it? None of these theories tried to determine which. So, you borrow, or you tax. And since we would like to keep the deficit down, now the obvious choice is to tax. Simple as that.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

CONSUMERS CREATE JOBS.

]

I'd say Edison or Jobs or Gates create/supply jobs while consumers merely buy their products.

A society that incents consumers over supply siders is obviously being stupid and liberal.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You are back to "understanding" keynsian economics. Which I do.

You do?? then explain how it can stimulate rather than depress an economy or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so!

 

[Rshermr]

You just criticized dubya's tax plan, but advocate stimulus during an expansion.

Bush 2's tax plan does not need me criticizing it. The outcome of the Bush plan was bad enough to not need my criticism. But, I believe you would have to admit that the economy had reached a bad point, unemployment had crept up. The tax decrease did not help. But probably did not hurt much either. That economy had other causes to create the problem that we ran into in 1997 - 98.

If tax decreases didn't help or hurt...then why are you advocating tax increases which I assume wouldn't help or hurt either? Or does the manipulation of taxes only work going one way in your strange economic universe?

Oldstyle says: If tax decreases didn't help or hurt...then why are you advocating tax increases which I assume wouldn't help or hurt either? Or does the manipulation of taxes only work going one way in your strange economic universe?

Rshermr says: Completely different situations. You had very strong demand for securities with the term .com after them. Stocks of the .com type went up wildly, ipo's were going strong in the tech field. And the net was that the intrinsic value of these entities was far less than the market bid them up to. So, oldstyle, who are you gonna tax??? Where are you going to decrease taxes??? The problem was that the market did not work well, and prices got too high, then we saw the bubble burst.
So, what do you believe that has to do with today's number one issue, unemployment??? Here you CAN nave an effect. You can stimulate the economy. Simple enough if you are not just trying to disprove something.
N

 

[Rshermr]

You are back to "understanding" keynsian economics. Which I do.

You do?? then explain how it can stimulate rather than depress an economy or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so!

It is totally impossible to explain anything to a con tool like you, ed, me boy.

Here. Read this: The right's stupidity spreads, enabled by a too-polite left | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You are back to "understanding" keynsian economics. Which I do.

You do?? then explain how it can stimulate rather than depress an economy or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so!

It is totally impossible to explain anything to a con tool like you, ed, me boy.

translation: whenever I try to debate a con I get killed so I try to change the subject and hope no one will notice how stupid I am.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You can stimulate the economy.

of course if we could most economic problems would all be solved.

From the stone age to here economic problems have been solved by capitalist supply siders, not government induced stimulative boom and bust cycles.

A liberal will lack the IQ to understand these basics

 

[Oldstyle]

You are back to "understanding" keynsian economics. Which I do. But do not believe in in many cases. Keynsian economics ran into issues that it did not work well with. Stagflation, for example. And the resultant modifications to Keynsian economics, like New Keynsian Economics, Neo Keynsian Economics, Post Keynsian Economics. Fact is, anyone who clings to an economic theory in all cases over the years and with new evidence, is a fool. Or is simply following a policy that helps some group that he believes in helping. As you would be, oldstyle, if you believed in supply side economics and refusing to look at why it has failed in many cases.

I hate to point out the obvious but the use of supply side economics was brought about BECAUSE of the failure of Keynesian economic theory to deal with stagflation. Are you contending that Reagan's use of supply side economics DIDN'T work to counter stagflation? New Keynesian...Neo Keynesian...Post Keynesian...I don't see where ANY of those economic schools of thought advocate the raising of taxes in a recession to stimulate the economy. Which one of them does that?

If you believe that increasing unemployment from just over 7% to 10.8%, then great. It worked, made unemployment much worse. But then, we have been all through this before. I provided proof, you provided none. Then you went away. If you are saying that raising interest rates helped get stagflation under control, then I agree that it did. But as I proved to you before, with gov numbers, raising interest rates had been going on well before Reagan took office. And Supply Side Economics did not address increasing interest rates as anything new, simply the same rules as had been followed before.

None of the newer types of Keynsian economics advocate tax increases specifically. What they do advocate is gov deficit spending in such an economy in order to stimulate that economy. And, how do you finance it? None of these theories tried to determine which. So, you borrow, or you tax. And since we would like to keep the deficit down, now the obvious choice is to tax. Simple as that.

Simple? How do you figure? If we raise taxes then that slows the economy. All of your Keynesian models advocate government deficit spending but do any of them advocate the raising of taxes in a slowed economy to pay for that deficit spending? I'd like to see where you're getting that notion from.

The truth is that we can't borrow anymore because we've already borrowed way too much and the interest payments on our debt is eating us alive. All that money that Obama frittered away on nonsense like Solyndra and shovel ready jobs that didn't exist could have been immediately injected into the economy in the form of payroll tax cuts but that would have meant that Barry, Harry and Nancy wouldn't have been able to reward their supporters with OUR money. We also can't raise taxes because the economic recovery is still too fragile. Barack Obama understood that concept when he chose to extend the Bush tax cuts. But you come here calling for tax increases, touting the Clinton years as the example of why that's going to make the economy boom again yet you can't show me the corresponding Dot Com Boom or Peace Dividend that's going to increase revenues and make that happen.

 

[Rshermr]

I hate to point out the obvious but the use of supply side economics was brought about BECAUSE of the failure of Keynesian economic theory to deal with stagflation. Are you contending that Reagan's use of supply side economics DIDN'T work to counter stagflation? New Keynesian...Neo Keynesian...Post Keynesian...I don't see where ANY of those economic schools of thought advocate the raising of taxes in a recession to stimulate the economy. Which one of them does that?

If you believe that increasing unemployment from just over 7% to 10.8%, then great. It worked, made unemployment much worse. But then, we have been all through this before. I provided proof, you provided none. Then you went away. If you are saying that raising interest rates helped get stagflation under control, then I agree that it did. But as I proved to you before, with gov numbers, raising interest rates had been going on well before Reagan took office. And Supply Side Economics did not address increasing interest rates as anything new, simply the same rules as had been followed before.

None of the newer types of Keynsian economics advocate tax increases specifically. What they do advocate is gov deficit spending in such an economy in order to stimulate that economy. And, how do you finance it? None of these theories tried to determine which. So, you borrow, or you tax. And since we would like to keep the deficit down, now the obvious choice is to tax. Simple as that.

Simple? How do you figure? If we raise taxes then that slows the economy. All of your Keynesian models advocate government deficit spending but do any of them advocate the raising of taxes in a slowed economy to pay for that deficit spending? I'd like to see where you're getting that notion from.Yeah, that deficit spending issue. We can borrow more. Or raise taxes. Or, we can try cutting taxes, which seems to be what you are suggesting. So, lets do that. It worked so well for Reagan. Economy went in the tube, but this time it will be better, right?? And, of course, you can do as reagan did when the unemployment rate went to 10.8%, and borrow, and tax and deficit spend just as he did to get thing back under control. Sure, it will be great.. Have you noticed that taxes were lowered during bush 2's term. Worked great then, except for the largest recession ever since the great depression. But what the hell. Things will work out better next time. This whole stimulus did not work, of course. The CBO said it did, but you tell me it did not. Damn, who should I believe?? And the whole idea that raising taxes slows the economy, sure seemed to be that way during the Clinton admin. Oh, hold it. We had a great economy and a budget deficit at the end of his term. Unemployment back under control. But you say it will slow the economy. Any examples, oldstyle, where raising taxes during a bad unemployment economy HURT unemployment??

The truth is that we can't borrow anymore because we've already borrowed way too much and the interest payments on our debt is eating us alive. Oh, but you can indeed borrow more. Question is, should we. Answer is, only if you can not pay for the stimulus with tax increases. All that money that Obama frittered away on nonsense like Solyndra and shovel ready jobs that didn't exist could have been immediately injected into the economy in the form of payroll tax cuts but that would have meant that Barry, Harry and Nancy wouldn't have been able to reward their supporters with OUR money. Wow, that was a tortured sentence, oldstyle. Three subjects in one sentence, all wrong. According to the CBO, again, the stimulus produced jobs. Here is a recent quote from the CBO, should you be at all interested:
"In a survey conducted by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, 80 percent of economic experts agreed that, because of the stimulus, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been otherwise.

“Only 4 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed,” CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf told the House Budget Committee. “That,” he added, “is a distinct minority.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...nds-stimulus/2012/06/06/gJQAnFnjJV_story.html
Then there is that whole solyndra thing. I know you believe in drill baby drill. And the us using 23% of the worlds oil while having only about 3%. Solyndra was, of course, only about 5% of the cost of the program to find new energy sources. But then you don't care about that. Let those other countries do that stuff. You know, like China, Germaiy, etc. Why do anything lnew?? And providing tax cuts to the workers? Obama has done that. And the plan by is to sunset a tax decrease for the wealthy that has been in place for a long time, now. Much longer than it was set to last when Bush 2 got it through congress. We also can't raise taxes because the economic recovery is still too fragile. Barack Obama understood that concept when he chose to extend the Bush tax cuts. And to keep the tax cuts for the middle class. That IS what you wanted, right?? Oh, come now. I know you know better than that. That statement does not even come close to passing the giggle test. Obama traded an extension for unemployment extensions. But you come here calling for tax increases, touting the Clinton years as the example of why that's going to make the economy boom again yet you can't show me the corresponding Dot Com Boom or Peace Dividend that's going to increase revenues and make that happen.There are none that I am aware of. How about you, econ expert. But then, it does not take a boom to make the policy work. So what is your plan?? Decrease taxes? Decrease spending? Decrease regulations? I know I have asked before for examples of when these ideas worked in a bad unemployment economy. And you failed miserably last time. Try, try again.

 

[antagon]

Oddly enough, I do not like being miquoted. Which is something that oldstyle does continually,
I said "Yes, indeed. During an expansion, you may indeed want to drop rates."
But Oldstyle says I said: "yet he wants to drop tax rates to cool down an expansion".o
See the difference?? Do you notice that Oldstyle added some words, like to cool down an expansion Since I did not say these words, perhaps I did not intend them to be used in my statement. What is true and seems obvious is that you would not want to stimulate an expansion that is creating excessive inflation. But you WOULD like to stimulate an expansion otherwise. Unless, of course, you do not want the economy to continue to expand. Pretty simple, really.

You just criticized dubya's tax plan, but advocate stimulus during an expansion.

Bush 2's tax plan does not need me criticizing it. The outcome of the Bush plan was bad enough to not need my criticism. But, I believe you would have to admit that the economy had reached a bad point, unemployment had crept up. The tax decrease did not help. But probably did not hurt much either. That economy had other causes to create the problem that we ran into in 1997 - 98.

I criticize it. Maybe I was projecting. Neo-keynes mode, I see stimulus when the economy is roasting as malpractice along with neglecting a window of opportunity to cover debts incurred bailing out the prior contraction.

 

[antagon]

You just criticized dubya's tax plan, but advocate stimulus during an expansion.

He claims to understand Keynesian economic theory yet wants to raise taxes in an economic downturn and lower them in an economic upturn which is the exact opposite of what Keynes proposed to minimize wild swings in the economy.

You are back to "understanding" keynsian economics. Which I do. But do not believe in in many cases. Keynsian economics ran into issues that it did not work well with. Stagflation, for example. And the resultant modifications to Keynsian economics, like New Keynsian Economics, Neo Keynsian Economics, Post Keynsian Economics. Fact is, anyone who clings to an economic theory in all cases over the years and with new evidence, is a fool. Or is simply following a policy that helps some group that he believes in helping. As you would be, oldstyle, if you believed in supply side economics and refusing to look at why it has failed in many cases.

Yeah, I was pointing out that one of the implications with an empirical case is the 'adhesion' of employment to the expansion. With Clinton, under tax rises, I argue that it was sticky. It can be contrasted against Reagan and dubya who cut taxes into the expansion phase... hence "jobless recovery" - coined looking at trickledown expansions.

My impetus is in the microeconomics of it all: tax cuts on the overall rate, particularly on capital gains will illicit profittaking. This is spent on yachts. In an expansion, it's spent on bigger yachts. Because tax liabilities are challenged with deductions before businesses pay the government, businesses respond to tax increases with deductible expenditures, including the some of the costs of hiring and burdening employees. They'll still buy the yacht.

They normally snatch their money out while the government's cutting taxes in the next crash.

 

[Oldstyle]

If you believe that increasing unemployment from just over 7% to 10.8%, then great. It worked, made unemployment much worse. But then, we have been all through this before. I provided proof, you provided none. Then you went away. If you are saying that raising interest rates helped get stagflation under control, then I agree that it did. But as I proved to you before, with gov numbers, raising interest rates had been going on well before Reagan took office. And Supply Side Economics did not address increasing interest rates as anything new, simply the same rules as had been followed before.

None of the newer types of Keynsian economics advocate tax increases specifically. What they do advocate is gov deficit spending in such an economy in order to stimulate that economy. And, how do you finance it? None of these theories tried to determine which. So, you borrow, or you tax. And since we would like to keep the deficit down, now the obvious choice is to tax. Simple as that.

Simple? How do you figure? If we raise taxes then that slows the economy. All of your Keynesian models advocate government deficit spending but do any of them advocate the raising of taxes in a slowed economy to pay for that deficit spending? I'd like to see where you're getting that notion from.Yeah, that deficit spending issue. We can borrow more. Or raise taxes. Or, we can try cutting taxes, which seems to be what you are suggesting. So, lets do that. It worked so well for Reagan. Economy went in the tube, but this time it will be better, right?? And, of course, you can do as reagan did when the unemployment rate went to 10.8%, and borrow, and tax and deficit spend just as he did to get thing back under control. Sure, it will be great.. Have you noticed that taxes were lowered during bush 2's term. Worked great then, except for the largest recession ever since the great depression. But what the hell. Things will work out better next time. This whole stimulus did not work, of course. The CBO said it did, but you tell me it did not. Damn, who should I believe?? And the whole idea that raising taxes slows the economy, sure seemed to be that way during the Clinton admin. Oh, hold it. We had a great economy and a budget deficit at the end of his term. Unemployment back under control. But you say it will slow the economy. Any examples, oldstyle, where raising taxes during a bad unemployment economy HURT unemployment??

The truth is that we can't borrow anymore because we've already borrowed way too much and the interest payments on our debt is eating us alive. Oh, but you can indeed borrow more. Question is, should we. Answer is, only if you can not pay for the stimulus with tax increases. All that money that Obama frittered away on nonsense like Solyndra and shovel ready jobs that didn't exist could have been immediately injected into the economy in the form of payroll tax cuts but that would have meant that Barry, Harry and Nancy wouldn't have been able to reward their supporters with OUR money. Wow, that was a tortured sentence, oldstyle. Three subjects in one sentence, all wrong. According to the CBO, again, the stimulus produced jobs. Here is a recent quote from the CBO, should you be at all interested:
"In a survey conducted by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, 80 percent of economic experts agreed that, because of the stimulus, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been otherwise.

“Only 4 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed,” CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf told the House Budget Committee. “That,” he added, “is a distinct minority.”
Congressional Budget Office defends stimulus - The Washington Post
Then there is that whole solyndra thing. I know you believe in drill baby drill. And the us using 23% of the worlds oil while having only about 3%. Solyndra was, of course, only about 5% of the cost of the program to find new energy sources. But then you don't care about that. Let those other countries do that stuff. You know, like China, Germaiy, etc. Why do anything lnew?? And providing tax cuts to the workers? Obama has done that. And the plan by is to sunset a tax decrease for the wealthy that has been in place for a long time, now. Much longer than it was set to last when Bush 2 got it through congress. We also can't raise taxes because the economic recovery is still too fragile. Barack Obama understood that concept when he chose to extend the Bush tax cuts. And to keep the tax cuts for the middle class. That IS what you wanted, right?? Oh, come now. I know you know better than that. That statement does not even come close to passing the giggle test. Obama traded an extension for unemployment extensions. But you come here calling for tax increases, touting the Clinton years as the example of why that's going to make the economy boom again yet you can't show me the corresponding Dot Com Boom or Peace Dividend that's going to increase revenues and make that happen.There are none that I am aware of. How about you, econ expert. But then, it does not take a boom to make the policy work. So what is your plan?? Decrease taxes? Decrease spending? Decrease regulations? I know I have asked before for examples of when these ideas worked in a bad unemployment economy. And you failed miserably last time. Try, try again.

You find it remarkable that by spending almost a trillion dollars we produced some jobs? Really? Divide up what we SPENT by the number of jobs that we managed to create and it doesn't look so remarkable anymore. Do that and not only doesn't it look remarkable...it looks obscene.

Economists agree that the stimulus helped lower the unemployment rate? Amazing!!! Of course spending that amount of money would help lower the unemployment rate but the better question to ask those same economists is whether that stimulus money could have been better spent to lower the unemployment rate. I've always been amused at the studies that compare what the unemployment rate would have been without stimulus to what it was with stimulus...as if the ONLY choices on how to spend that money were the ones that Barry, Harry and Nancy decided were right for us. We wasted billions of dollars on Solyndra because the people who controlled that company were in Barry's good graces after bundling millions of dollars for him in campaign contributions. While millions of Americans were languishing out of work we wasted time on shovel ready jobs that didn't exist.

It doesn't take a boom to make raising taxes during Clinton's Presidency work? Really? How the hell do you get revenues like they did back then WITHOUT a Dot Com boom? By raising taxes on the wealthy? Crunch the numbers, Einstein...you can't come close to matching the increased revenues the Dot Com boom brought in with just increases to taxes unless you were to substantially increase taxes on everyone, not just those that make over $250,000.

As for my plan? I wouldn't raise or lower taxes. I would cut spending. I would cut government spending with across the board cuts like they enacted in Canada. Why across the board cuts? Because, first of all I believe that our entire government is so rife with waste that if forced they could cut 20% out of their budgets and still provide the same level of services they do now...and secondly because i don't believe Congress has the intestinal fortitude to make tough cuts without someone taking control of who and what gets cut away from them. We got downgraded by S&P because our politicians refuse to deal with our runaway costs and our growing debt...instead promising new entitlements to placate voters while they kick the cost down the road ten, twenty or more years.

 

[Rshermr]

You find it remarkable that by spending almost a trillion And that number came from where? Out of your ass does not work, oldstyle. The ARRA totaled $815K. And of this, about 1/3 was in tax decreases, demanded by repubs. that leaves about $545K that was spent. See the difference if you are actually honest, oldstyle?? Dipshit. dollars we produced some jobs? Really? Divide up what we SPENT by the number of jobs that we managed to create and it doesn't look so remarkablrle anymore. Do that and not only doesn't it look remarkable...it looks obscene. Wow. Right out of the right wing dogma. Where do you do your research (since you NEVER provide a link to it!!! I am so shocked you would say what you just said, without any proof of your statement. It's you, or the CBO. And you, of course, loose again./

Economists agree that the stimulus helped lower the unemployment rate? Amazing!!! Of course spending that amount of money would help lower the unemployment rate but the better question to ask those same economists is whether that stimulus money could have been better spent to lower the unemployment rate. Actually, I gave you a link to the CBO info. They DID say what worked well, and what worked not as well. On the bottom of the list, as in worked nearly not at all, was tax decreases for the wealthy. Which is what I have been telling you all along. If you would JUST LISTEN. I've always been amused Stupid people are easily amused.at the studies that compare what the unemployment rate would have been without stimulus to what it was with stimulus...as if the ONLY choices on how to spend that money were the ones that Barry, Harry and Nancy Wow, barry, harry and nancy. Do we assume that Oldstyle is a con, and unable to be honest?? decided were right for us. We wasted billions of dollars on Solyndra because the people who controlled that company were in Barry's good graces after bundling millions of dollars for him in campaign contributions. While millions of Americans were languishing out of work we wasted time on shovel ready jobs that didn't exist. And of course, your research is nonexistent. What a surprise. STOP WASTING MY TIME!!!

It doesn't take a boom to make raising taxes during Clinton's Presidency work? Really? How the hell do you get revenues like they did back then WITHOUT a Dot Com boom? By raising taxes on the wealthy? Crunch the numbers, Einstein...Yes, I suppose that compared to you I am something like einstein. you can't come close to matching the increased revenues the Dot Com boom brought in with just increases to taxes unless you were to substantially increase taxes on everyone, not just those that make over $250,000. And your research is nonexistent. What a surprise.. STOP WASTING MY TIME!!!

As for my plan? I wouldn't raise or lower taxes. I would cut spending. I would cut government spending with across the board cuts like they enacted in Canada. Why across the board cuts? Because, first of all I believe that our entire government is so rife with waste that if forced they could cut 20% out of their budgets and still provide the same level of services they do now...and secondly because i don't believe Congress has the intestinal fortitude to make tough cuts without someone taking control of who and what gets cut away from them. We got downgraded by S&P because our politicians refuse to deal with our runaway costs and our growing debt...instead promising new entitlements to placate voters while they kick the cost down the road ten, twenty or more years. Great plan, oldstyle. And that has worked when??? And your research is where??? STOP WASTING MY TIME!!!
Keep trying, oldstyle. Try, try again. But you did just waste 10 minutes of my time with your drivel that I will never get back. You need some proof of your statements, because:
1. Without proof, what you say is simply opinion.
2. Opinion is like an asshole. Everyone has one.
3. Your opinion, repeated as it is, and always in perfect allignment with the con dogma, makes you look like what I have found you to be: IGNORANT!!!

 

[Oldstyle]

You find it remarkable that by spending almost a trillion And that number came from where? Out of your ass does not work, oldstyle. The ARRA totaled $815K. And of this, about 1/3 was in tax decreases, demanded by repubs. that leaves about $545K that was spent. See the difference if you are actually honest, oldstyle?? Dipshit. dollars we produced some jobs? Really? Divide up what we SPENT by the number of jobs that we managed to create and it doesn't look so remarkablrle anymore. Do that and not only doesn't it look remarkable...it looks obscene. Wow. Right out of the right wing dogma. Where do you do your research (since you NEVER provide a link to it!!! I am so shocked you would say what you just said, without any proof of your statement. It's you, or the CBO. And you, of course, loose again./

Economists agree that the stimulus helped lower the unemployment rate? Amazing!!! Of course spending that amount of money would help lower the unemployment rate but the better question to ask those same economists is whether that stimulus money could have been better spent to lower the unemployment rate. Actually, I gave you a link to the CBO info. They DID say what worked well, and what worked not as well. On the bottom of the list, as in worked nearly not at all, was tax decreases for the wealthy. Which is what I have been telling you all along. If you would JUST LISTEN. I've always been amused Stupid people are easily amused.at the studies that compare what the unemployment rate would have been without stimulus to what it was with stimulus...as if the ONLY choices on how to spend that money were the ones that Barry, Harry and Nancy Wow, barry, harry and nancy. Do we assume that Oldstyle is a con, and unable to be honest?? decided were right for us. We wasted billions of dollars on Solyndra because the people who controlled that company were in Barry's good graces after bundling millions of dollars for him in campaign contributions. While millions of Americans were languishing out of work we wasted time on shovel ready jobs that didn't exist. And of course, your research is nonexistent. What a surprise. STOP WASTING MY TIME!!!

It doesn't take a boom to make raising taxes during Clinton's Presidency work? Really? How the hell do you get revenues like they did back then WITHOUT a Dot Com boom? By raising taxes on the wealthy? Crunch the numbers, Einstein...Yes, I suppose that compared to you I am something like einstein. you can't come close to matching the increased revenues the Dot Com boom brought in with just increases to taxes unless you were to substantially increase taxes on everyone, not just those that make over $250,000. And your research is nonexistent. What a surprise.. STOP WASTING MY TIME!!!

As for my plan? I wouldn't raise or lower taxes. I would cut spending. I would cut government spending with across the board cuts like they enacted in Canada. Why across the board cuts? Because, first of all I believe that our entire government is so rife with waste that if forced they could cut 20% out of their budgets and still provide the same level of services they do now...and secondly because i don't believe Congress has the intestinal fortitude to make tough cuts without someone taking control of who and what gets cut away from them. We got downgraded by S&P because our politicians refuse to deal with our runaway costs and our growing debt...instead promising new entitlements to placate voters while they kick the cost down the road ten, twenty or more years. Great plan, oldstyle. And that has worked when??? And your research is where??? STOP WASTING MY TIME!!!
Keep trying, oldstyle. Try, try again. But you did just waste 10 minutes of my time with your drivel that I will never get back. You need some proof of your statements, because:
1. Without proof, what you say is simply opinion.
2. Opinion is like an asshole. Everyone has one.
3. Your opinion, repeated as it is, and always in perfect allignment with the con dogma, makes you look like what I have found you to be: IGNORANT!!!

You asked for "my plan". So I gave you my plan but you refuse to address that plan because it's an "opinion"? Wow!

Whenever someone says something to you that you disagree with but don't have an intelligent rebuttal for...you fall back on calling it "dogma" or "opinion" and declare that it isn't worth your time.

Since you demand proof ( I guess my using Canada as an example doesn't constitute proof to you?) I suppose I can find some if that makes you happy.

http://www.learnliberty.org/content/when-governments-cut-spending

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

On the bottom of the list, as in worked nearly not at all, was tax decreases for the wealthy. Which is what I have been telling you all along. If you would JUST LISTEN.

1) tax breaks must go to the wealthy since they pay all the taxes

2) tax and spend creates bubble jobs unless you want more and more always leeching off the rich

3) the economy grew from the stone to here as Republican supply siders created new products and jobs. Taxing venture capital from them to create liberal make work jobs will obviously recess an economy.

A liberal will lack the IQ to understand basic economics

 

[Rshermr]

You find it remarkable that by spending almost a trillion And that number came from where? Out of your ass does not work, oldstyle. The ARRA totaled $815K. And of this, about 1/3 was in tax decreases, demanded by repubs. that leaves about $545K that was spent. See the difference if you are actually honest, oldstyle?? Dipshit. dollars we produced some jobs? Really? Divide up what we SPENT by the number of jobs that we managed to create and it doesn't look so remarkablrle anymore. Do that and not only doesn't it look remarkable...it looks obscene. Wow. Right out of the right wing dogma. Where do you do your research (since you NEVER provide a link to it!!! I am so shocked you would say what you just said, without any proof of your statement. It's you, or the CBO. And you, of course, loose again./

Economists agree that the stimulus helped lower the unemployment rate? Amazing!!! Of course spending that amount of money would help lower the unemployment rate but the better question to ask those same economists is whether that stimulus money could have been better spent to lower the unemployment rate. Actually, I gave you a link to the CBO info. They DID say what worked well, and what worked not as well. On the bottom of the list, as in worked nearly not at all, was tax decreases for the wealthy. Which is what I have been telling you all along. If you would JUST LISTEN. I've always been amused Stupid people are easily amused.at the studies that compare what the unemployment rate would have been without stimulus to what it was with stimulus...as if the ONLY choices on how to spend that money were the ones that Barry, Harry and Nancy Wow, barry, harry and nancy. Do we assume that Oldstyle is a con, and unable to be honest?? decided were right for us. We wasted billions of dollars on Solyndra because the people who controlled that company were in Barry's good graces after bundling millions of dollars for him in campaign contributions. While millions of Americans were languishing out of work we wasted time on shovel ready jobs that didn't exist. And of course, your research is nonexistent. What a surprise. STOP WASTING MY TIME!!!

It doesn't take a boom to make raising taxes during Clinton's Presidency work? Really? How the hell do you get revenues like they did back then WITHOUT a Dot Com boom? By raising taxes on the wealthy? Crunch the numbers, Einstein...Yes, I suppose that compared to you I am something like einstein. you can't come close to matching the increased revenues the Dot Com boom brought in with just increases to taxes unless you were to substantially increase taxes on everyone, not just those that make over $250,000. And your research is nonexistent. What a surprise.. STOP WASTING MY TIME!!!

As for my plan? I wouldn't raise or lower taxes. I would cut spending. I would cut government spending with across the board cuts like they enacted in Canada. Why across the board cuts? Because, first of all I believe that our entire government is so rife with waste that if forced they could cut 20% out of their budgets and still provide the same level of services they do now...and secondly because i don't believe Congress has the intestinal fortitude to make tough cuts without someone taking control of who and what gets cut away from them. We got downgraded by S&P because our politicians refuse to deal with our runaway costs and our growing debt...instead promising new entitlements to placate voters while they kick the cost down the road ten, twenty or more years. Great plan, oldstyle. And that has worked when??? And your research is where??? STOP WASTING MY TIME!!!
Keep trying, oldstyle. Try, try again. But you did just waste 10 minutes of my time with your drivel that I will never get back. You need some proof of your statements, because:
1. Without proof, what you say is simply opinion.
2. Opinion is like an asshole. Everyone has one.
3. Your opinion, repeated as it is, and always in perfect allignment with the con dogma, makes you look like what I have found you to be: IGNORANT!!!

You asked for "my plan". So I gave you my plan but you refuse to address that plan because it's an "opinion"? Wow!

Whenever someone says something to you that you disagree with but don't have an intelligent rebuttal for...you fall back on calling it "dogma" or "opinion" and declare that it isn't worth your time.

Since you demand proof ( I guess my using Canada as an example doesn't constitute proof to you?) I suppose I can find some if that makes you happy. Well, since we are talking about the US, I just expected that you might find an example in the US. As Canada is a totally different and much smaller economy, most would see it as a totally different case. But in your case, it is like a huge effort at something like proof.
When Governments Cut Spending | LearnLiberty

So I go to this link you provided and find a piece by some medical doctor from England, talking about things that happened in Canada and other countries. Not sure why you think this is relevant, but at least you tried. The reason that I call what you do dogma is that you will go to any length to prove some right wing effort to make a point, but which always proves to be wrong. That is dogma, opinions without proof said over and over again with the belief that if you say it enough, people will believe it. The Canada example is a version of going off the path to something that is in the same basic area, but based on wholly different conditions, Someone interested in international econ may find it interesting, but I do not. Nor am I interested in getting that far off the path. Maybe you can find someone else who would be. Best of luck with that, oldstyle.

 

[Oldstyle]

You find it remarkable that by spending almost a trillion And that number came from where? Out of your ass does not work, oldstyle. The ARRA totaled $815K. And of this, about 1/3 was in tax decreases, demanded by repubs. that leaves about $545K that was spent. See the difference if you are actually honest, oldstyle?? Dipshit. dollars we produced some jobs? Really? Divide up what we SPENT by the number of jobs that we managed to create and it doesn't look so remarkablrle anymore. Do that and not only doesn't it look remarkable...it looks obscene. Wow. Right out of the right wing dogma. Where do you do your research (since you NEVER provide a link to it!!! I am so shocked you would say what you just said, without any proof of your statement. It's you, or the CBO. And you, of course, loose again./

Economists agree that the stimulus helped lower the unemployment rate? Amazing!!! Of course spending that amount of money would help lower the unemployment rate but the better question to ask those same economists is whether that stimulus money could have been better spent to lower the unemployment rate. Actually, I gave you a link to the CBO info. They DID say what worked well, and what worked not as well. On the bottom of the list, as in worked nearly not at all, was tax decreases for the wealthy. Which is what I have been telling you all along. If you would JUST LISTEN. I've always been amused Stupid people are easily amused.at the studies that compare what the unemployment rate would have been without stimulus to what it was with stimulus...as if the ONLY choices on how to spend that money were the ones that Barry, Harry and Nancy Wow, barry, harry and nancy. Do we assume that Oldstyle is a con, and unable to be honest?? decided were right for us. We wasted billions of dollars on Solyndra because the people who controlled that company were in Barry's good graces after bundling millions of dollars for him in campaign contributions. While millions of Americans were languishing out of work we wasted time on shovel ready jobs that didn't exist. And of course, your research is nonexistent. What a surprise. STOP WASTING MY TIME!!!

It doesn't take a boom to make raising taxes during Clinton's Presidency work? Really? How the hell do you get revenues like they did back then WITHOUT a Dot Com boom? By raising taxes on the wealthy? Crunch the numbers, Einstein...Yes, I suppose that compared to you I am something like einstein. you can't come close to matching the increased revenues the Dot Com boom brought in with just increases to taxes unless you were to substantially increase taxes on everyone, not just those that make over $250,000. And your research is nonexistent. What a surprise.. STOP WASTING MY TIME!!!

As for my plan? I wouldn't raise or lower taxes. I would cut spending. I would cut government spending with across the board cuts like they enacted in Canada. Why across the board cuts? Because, first of all I believe that our entire government is so rife with waste that if forced they could cut 20% out of their budgets and still provide the same level of services they do now...and secondly because i don't believe Congress has the intestinal fortitude to make tough cuts without someone taking control of who and what gets cut away from them. We got downgraded by S&P because our politicians refuse to deal with our runaway costs and our growing debt...instead promising new entitlements to placate voters while they kick the cost down the road ten, twenty or more years. Great plan, oldstyle. And that has worked when??? And your research is where??? STOP WASTING MY TIME!!!
Keep trying, oldstyle. Try, try again. But you did just waste 10 minutes of my time with your drivel that I will never get back. You need some proof of your statements, because:
1. Without proof, what you say is simply opinion.
2. Opinion is like an asshole. Everyone has one.
3. Your opinion, repeated as it is, and always in perfect allignment with the con dogma, makes you look like what I have found you to be: IGNORANT!!!

You asked for "my plan". So I gave you my plan but you refuse to address that plan because it's an "opinion"? Wow!

Whenever someone says something to you that you disagree with but don't have an intelligent rebuttal for...you fall back on calling it "dogma" or "opinion" and declare that it isn't worth your time.

Since you demand proof ( I guess my using Canada as an example doesn't constitute proof to you?) I suppose I can find some if that makes you happy. Well, since we are talking about the US, I just expected that you might find an example in the US. As Canada is a totally different and much smaller economy, most would see it as a totally different case. But in your case, it is like a huge effort at something like proof.
When Governments Cut Spending | LearnLiberty

So I go to this link you provided and find a piece by some medical doctor from England, talking about things that happened in Canada and other countries. Not sure why you think this is relevant, but at least you tried. The reason that I call what you do dogma is that you will go to any length to prove some right wing effort to make a point, but which always proves to be wrong. That is dogma, opinions without proof said over and over again with the belief that if you say it enough, people will believe it. The Canada example is a version of going off the path to something that is in the same basic area, but based on wholly different conditions, Someone interested in international econ may find it interesting, but I do not. Nor am I interested in getting that far off the path. Maybe you can find someone else who would be. Best of luck with that, oldstyle.

You're so full of shit at this point it's laughable. You asked me to provide an example of where across the board spending cuts like I proposed in "my plan" had worked to improve an economy and I used Canada as an example. You then pooh poohed that because you said I didn't provide "proof" of that happening, so I went and got proof showing that Canada's economy is in much better shape than ours because of their imposing across the board cuts to government and you claim that I've "gone off the path" because it's "international econ" and not something that was done in the US? What difference does it make that it was done in Canada and not the US? The point was to show that cutting government spending stimulates an economy and if we had gone that route we would be in much better shape than we now are. Dr. Davis is not a medical doctor, you moron...he has a PhD in history.

As for your demand that I show you an example of across the board cuts working in the US instead of Canada? I can't do that, Einstein...because we've never DONE across the board cuts like they did in Canada. My point was that they DID and it worked better for them then what we did. Canada just moved past the US in the net worth of it's citizens...the average Canadian is now worth $40,000 more than the average American. That's something that's occurred since the recession.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

.

cutting government spending stimulates an economy

It would have to unless you believe that liberal bureaucrats create more new patents, goods, services, and efficiencies than private sector Republican entrepreneurs.

Imagine if they tried to get ahead in the stone age by creating a big liberal government and then taxing all the future would-be entrepreneurs more and more so they'd have less money with which to be entrepreneurial.

Imagine if we try to get ahead today by taxing venture capital, for example, so there is less of it to invest in companies like Google Intel Cisco Apple and Instagram.

It is beyond absurd but perfectly liberal.

 

[Rshermr]

Oldstyle Said:
You're so full of shit at this point it's laughable. I so respect your opinion, I will keep your words close to my heart.You asked me to provide an example of where across the board spending cuts like I proposed in "my plan" had worked to improve an economy and I used Canada as an example. You then pooh poohed that because you said I didn't provide "proof" of that happening, so I went and got proof showing that Canada's economy is in much better shape than ours because of their imposing across the board cuts to government and you claim that I've "gone off the path" because it's "international econ" and not something that was done in the US? OK. Then I would suggest using Somalia, where a complete lack of gov spending has created a Libertarian dream. Or we could talk about Germany, which has a really good economy, and where the gov required decreasing the number of hours worked per week and compensating the workers with gov money to keep their earnings the same as before the reduction?? What difference does it make that it was done in Canada and not the US? The point was to show that cutting government spending stimulates an economy and if we had gone that route we would be in much better shape than we now are. Dr. Davis is not a medical doctor, you moron...he has a PhD in history. My mistake, his primary job is working for a medical organization. So my error. And, of course, a doctorate in History does make one so much mo re prepared to discuss economics than a medical doctorate. I am sure you would believe that.

As for your demand that I show you an example of across the board cuts working in the US instead of Canada? Really. I did not know that I could demand anything from you. I can't do that, Einstein...because we've never DONE across the board cuts like they did in Canada. My point was that they DID and it worked better for them then what we did. Actually, than what we did not do. What repubs in congress have stopped us from doing. Which is Stimulus Spend. In the US. Not Canada. Which has worked in case after case. Canada just moved past the US in the net worth of it's citizens...the average Canadian is now worth $40,000 more than the average American. That's something that's occurred since the recession.
\So what you fail to understand is that cutting spending is pretty much the same as decreasing taxes, as decreasing taxes requires that you lay off gov employees. Like Reagan did when he drove the unemployment rate to 10.8%. Or like Bush 2 did when we saw the resultant largest economic downturn since the great depression.

I am sure it is just a coincidence, but since you provide no real analytical example, I just wonder (just a little) if you are not living in the con doga bubble again. Like the one being pushed HARD relative to canada by CATO (you know, the self described Libertarian organization founded and run by Charles Koch?). Because, if you look out on the web, you will see a lot of research saying that Canada is not in such a great economic situation as we. And you will see a lot of research saying that the wealth of canadians is due to a lot of things OTHER than the spending reductions you have referenced.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle Said:
You're so full of shit at this point it's laughable. I so respect your opinion, I will keep your words close to my heart.You asked me to provide an example of where across the board spending cuts like I proposed in "my plan" had worked to improve an economy and I used Canada as an example. You then pooh poohed that because you said I didn't provide "proof" of that happening, so I went and got proof showing that Canada's economy is in much better shape than ours because of their imposing across the board cuts to government and you claim that I've "gone off the path" because it's "international econ" and not something that was done in the US? OK. Then I would suggest using Somalia, where a complete lack of gov spending has created a Libertarian dream. Or we could talk about Germany, which has a really good economy, and where the gov required decreasing the number of hours worked per week and compensating the workers with gov money to keep their earnings the same as before the reduction?? What difference does it make that it was done in Canada and not the US? The point was to show that cutting government spending stimulates an economy and if we had gone that route we would be in much better shape than we now are. Dr. Davis is not a medical doctor, you moron...he has a PhD in history. My mistake, his primary job is working for a medical organization. So my error. And, of course, a doctorate in History does make one so much mo re prepared to discuss economics than a medical doctorate. I am sure you would believe that.

As for your demand that I show you an example of across the board cuts working in the US instead of Canada? Really. I did not know that I could demand anything from you. I can't do that, Einstein...because we've never DONE across the board cuts like they did in Canada. My point was that they DID and it worked better for them then what we did. Actually, than what we did not do. What repubs in congress have stopped us from doing. Which is Stimulus Spend. In the US. Not Canada. Which has worked in case after case. Canada just moved past the US in the net worth of it's citizens...the average Canadian is now worth $40,000 more than the average American. That's something that's occurred since the recession.
\So what you fail to understand is that cutting spending is pretty much the same as decreasing taxes, as decreasing taxes requires that you lay off gov employees. Like Reagan did when he drove the unemployment rate to 10.8%. Or like Bush 2 did when we saw the resultant largest economic downturn since the great depression.

I am sure it is just a coincidence, but since you provide no real analytical example, I just wonder (just a little) if you are not living in the con doga bubble again. Like the one being pushed HARD relative to canada by CATO (you know, the self described Libertarian organization founded and run by Charles Koch?). Because, if you look out on the web, you will see a lot of research saying that Canada is not in such a great economic situation as we. And you will see a lot of research saying that the wealth of canadians is due to a lot of things OTHER than the spending reductions you have referenced.

First of all, Dr. Davis does not work for a "medical organization"...he is the Education Director at the Institute for Economic Affairs, a British think tank on economic issues since the 1950's, where his research is in comparative economic history. As such he would seem the PERFECT person to compare the economic history of differing countries.

Let me see if I've got this straight...you tell me that Canada isn't a good comparison to the US because it's economy is smaller than the US but then go on to tell me that I should compare Somalia to the US? Gee, which economy is bigger...Canada or Somalia? Hmmmmm...are you REALLY that stupid?

As for cutting spending being the same as cutting taxes? They are two completely separate things. The reason Bush's tax cuts failed was that he didn't couple tax cuts with spending cuts. Instead, he cut taxes and increased spending which grew the deficit. Increasing taxes while increasing spending, which is what you're calling for, doesn't work either because tax raises slow down economic growth which stunts revenues while increased spending leads to inflation which is what we're starting to see now. The reason that Canada's economy is in much better shape than ours is that they reacted to the recession by implementing across the board cuts to government spending whereas we reacted by spending trillions of dollars for stimulus that we had to borrow elsewhere.

And I would LOVE for you to show me the economic "experts" that are saying Canada isn't in as good economic shape as we are! That's a hoot!!! The reason Canadians are now worth more than Americans isn't because their economy is in the shitter like ours is...it's because compared to ours...their economy is flourishing.