independent economists overwhelmingly side with democrats on economic policy

[Oldstyle]

The truth of the matter is that republicans in office only care about their own financial interests, so they will only formulate policy for that reason. Actual educated economists, however, do not.

This quote from an article below sums up the statistics:

Opinions of economists
There are many different ways to assess the consensus of economists on policy issues. Much of the public believes that economists tend to be libertarian and to favor laissez faire economic policy. That idea- that economic wisdom favors leaving all things to the free market- is actually dead wrong. Economists generally tend to support policies at least as liberal as the policies the Democratic Party supports. Some examples:

• 71% of economists favor using government to redistribute wealth and only 8% strongly oppose it. In fact, the concept of the diminishing marginal utility of wealth is a very well established and non-controversial economic principle. Even Adam Smith expressed the view that the government should redistribute wealth.

• Only 12% of economists take the view that the costs of the stimulus outweighed the benefits- a view passionately held by nearly all Republicans.

• 75% of economists favor government tuning the economy with monetary policy- an idea often vehemently rejected by the Republican Party- while only 4% of economists strongly oppose it.

• Zero percent- not a single economist in the entire sample- of economists agree with the central tenant of Republican fiscal policy that cutting tax rates would boost the economy enough to cause revenues to increase.

• 94% of economists support taking action to address climate change.

In terms of specific policies, economists appear to consistently and overwhelmingly either support the Democrats' policies or to be to the left of the Democrats. This stance on policy issues unsurprisingly translates into which party economists support: Democratic economists outnumber Republican economists by 2.5 to 1. In 2012, economists felt that President Obama had a better grasp of economics than Mitt Romney by a margin of almost 2-to-1 and that President Obama would grow the economy faster than Mitt Romney by a a margin of 20 points

Which Party Is Better for the Economy?

trickle down economics is a proven fail... hence normal educated people not agreeing with it.

Educated people understand that there is no such thing as "trickle down economics", Jillian! Profit "trickles" up...it always has...it always will! The only people who believe in trickle down economic theory are liberals who never took economics in college!

Trickle down has Always meant, bailout the rich and then let it trickle down, to the left.

Only to those on the left who are clueless about economics and business. You invoke "trickle down" and you might as well wave a flag above your head announcing that you know nothing about economics!

 

[Oldstyle]

And by the way, Derp...I never said Kennedy passed tax cuts...I said he called for them! Your word comprehension is about as good as your understanding of economics!

 

[The Derp]

Spoken like someone who's never owned a business!

Stop. You've never owned a fucking business in your life. If you did, you'd know that taxes are on profits, not revenue. And a higher tax rate encourages the business to invest and expand because if it doesn't, then the profits get taxed. The higher the tax rate, the greater the return of investment for the business. You say *I've* never run a business, but you're here making shit up as you go while insisting you have this experience but are strangely unable to provide proof you have the experience you claim. So stop. Just stop.

If I start a business...I pay a contractor to do the build out...I pay purveyors for inventory...I pay my staff...I pay for insurance and whatever licensing fees government can gouge out of me...and only after I've done all THAT...if there is a profit left over from the goods or services I've sold...only THEN do I possibly derive profit.

For fuck's sake...you're leaving out a massive part of the whole process; using the pre-tax profits to expand the business, thus investing in the company and creating jobs. The higher the tax rate, the more encouragement there is for a business to expand and re-invest in the company. Otherwise, as Winston pointed out, you're not generating a larger pie, you're just taking a larger share of the pie that already exists. And taking money out of consumer's hands to put in the business' pocket doesn't grow the pie...in fact, it shrinks it.

I can't stiff the contractor...he wants at least half of his money up front and the rest when the job is done, LONG before I've made a dime! I may get 45 days to pay my purveyors if I've got great credit and they work with new businesses. I've got to have insurance and licenses before I'm allowed to open the doors! I've got to hire and train employees and pay them whether I ever make a profit. I also have to pay my share of their FICA tax. Profits DO trickle up and anyone who's EVER owned a business will tell you the same thing! The fact that you can't grasp that concept tells me you've probably never worked at a real job!

Your gobbledegook answer belies your lack of experience when it comes to running a business. I think you just claimed to have run a business because you know your shit argument is shit, but you are desperate for credibility...so to make your shit argument credible, you invent personal circumstances that justify it. But that's bullshit. And you know it's bullshit.

As for what I believe cutting taxes does? Investment is stimulated by the anticipation of profit.

NO IT FUCKING ISN'T. Investment in the business is stimulated by increased demand. No business expands "just because". Businesses only expand when there is demand that has to be filled. This is why every Conservative fails when it comes to managing an economy, and why people like Trump enter bankruptcy half a dozen times; Conservatives are simply too stupid to know how to run a business.

If I look at a business opportunity and I'm told I'll be able to keep $65 of every $100 in profit that I've made after taxes in location A and I'll be able to keep only $35 of every $100 in profit I've made after taxes in location B...which location am I more likely to invest my capital to start a new business? The fact that you can't grasp THAT concept either lets me know you've never run a business or invested in one!

I've never heard any real business owner say they don't want to make a profit because it will be taxed.

 

[The Derp]

And by the way, Derp...I never said Kennedy passed tax cuts...I said he called for them! Your word comprehension is about as good as your understanding of economics!

He called for them...so what? So what if he did? He called for them, alright...he called for the top tax rate to be 70%. If that's what you want, I'm all for it. Let's do it. Let's get the top rate to 70% because that's what Kennedy called for 57 years ago.

 

[The Derp]

Only to those on the left who are clueless about economics and business. You invoke "trickle down" and you might as well wave a flag above your head announcing that you know nothing about economics!

Call it whatever the fuck you want; "supply-side", "trickle-down", "voodoo economics"...it's all the same stupid shit with no proof of success, and the best defense you can muster is invoking Kennedy calling for tax cuts 57 years ago. Funny enough, the tax cuts Kennedy called for was to lower the top rate to 70%. So, I'm all for that tax rate. Let's do it! Kennedy called for a 70% top tax rate 57 years ago, so we should abide by that today. I'm down. Count me in.

 

[Oldstyle]

Spoken like someone who's never owned a business!

Stop. You've never owned a fucking business in your life. If you did, you'd know that taxes are on profits, not revenue. And a higher tax rate encourages the business to invest and expand because if it doesn't, then the profits get taxed. The higher the tax rate, the greater the return of investment for the business. You say *I've* never run a business, but you're here making shit up as you go while insisting you have this experience but are strangely unable to provide proof you have the experience you claim. So stop. Just stop.

If I start a business...I pay a contractor to do the build out...I pay purveyors for inventory...I pay my staff...I pay for insurance and whatever licensing fees government can gouge out of me...and only after I've done all THAT...if there is a profit left over from the goods or services I've sold...only THEN do I possibly derive profit.

For fuck's sake...you're leaving out a massive part of the whole process; using the pre-tax profits to expand the business, thus investing in the company and creating jobs. The higher the tax rate, the more encouragement there is for a business to expand and re-invest in the company. Otherwise, as Winston pointed out, you're not generating a larger pie, you're just taking a larger share of the pie that already exists. And taking money out of consumer's hands to put in the business' pocket doesn't grow the pie...in fact, it shrinks it.

I can't stiff the contractor...he wants at least half of his money up front and the rest when the job is done, LONG before I've made a dime! I may get 45 days to pay my purveyors if I've got great credit and they work with new businesses. I've got to have insurance and licenses before I'm allowed to open the doors! I've got to hire and train employees and pay them whether I ever make a profit. I also have to pay my share of their FICA tax. Profits DO trickle up and anyone who's EVER owned a business will tell you the same thing! The fact that you can't grasp that concept tells me you've probably never worked at a real job!

Your gobbledegook answer belies your lack of experience when it comes to running a business. I think you just claimed to have run a business because you know your shit argument is shit, but you are desperate for credibility...so to make your shit argument credible, you invent personal circumstances that justify it. But that's bullshit. And you know it's bullshit.

As for what I believe cutting taxes does? Investment is stimulated by the anticipation of profit.

NO IT FUCKING ISN'T. Investment in the business is stimulated by increased demand. No business expands "just because". Businesses only expand when there is demand that has to be filled. This is why every Conservative fails when it comes to managing an economy, and why people like Trump enter bankruptcy half a dozen times; Conservatives are simply too stupid to know how to run a business.

If I look at a business opportunity and I'm told I'll be able to keep $65 of every $100 in profit that I've made after taxes in location A and I'll be able to keep only $35 of every $100 in profit I've made after taxes in location B...which location am I more likely to invest my capital to start a new business? The fact that you can't grasp THAT concept either lets me know you've never run a business or invested in one!

I've never heard any real business owner say they don't want to make a profit because it will be taxed.

You know so little about the business world it's almost scary. You honestly believe that the higher the tax rate the more encouragement there is for a business to expand? How could anyone be that stupid? I mean seriously...what's your educational background?

 

[Oldstyle]

And by the way, Derp...I never said Kennedy passed tax cuts...I said he called for them! Your word comprehension is about as good as your understanding of economics!

He called for them...so what? So what if he did? He called for them, alright...he called for the top tax rate to be 70%. If that's what you want, I'm all for it. Let's do it. Let's get the top rate to 70% because that's what Kennedy called for 57 years ago.

He called for the top rate to be lowered. Are you "down" for that now? Or do you still think high taxes stimulate growth? Because if that's the case...you're well on the way to proving that you're one of the more clueless posters on this board!

 

[The Derp]

I don't need to do a Google search to know that Kennedy asked Congress for tax cuts because I studied both economics and history in college.

I don't believe for a second you studied history or economics. In fact, because you're qualifying your post that way, I don't think you went to college at all. If you did, you'd know Kennedy asked for the top tax rate to be 70%. So if you want a 70% top tax rate, I'm all for it.

I know what Kennedy asked for off the top of my head. You on the other hand are a functional idiot if you can't Google!

Yeah, he asked for a 70% top rate on the rich. Is that what you think we should have? If you're glorifying Kennedy's call for tax cuts, why are you stopping before getting to what are the actual rates he wanted? Because leaving that part out of your argument makes your argument about the broad concept of "tax cuts" and not the intricacies of the tax rates. Kennedy didn't call for taxes to keep being cut. Only to be cut to 70% for the top. So let's do it. 70% it is! Glad we all agree.

 

[The Derp]

You know so little about the business world it's almost scary.

You are pretending you're something you're not. Because you have to qualify everything you say, it immediately throws everything you say into question. You proclaim you know about business, yet I've seen no indication that's the case. You haven't provided any proof that you're educated on this topic. In fact, your posts seem to be a mish-mash attempt at plagiarism based on what you've gleaned from the work that others have done.

Conservatives have never been able to grow an economy or balance a budget. All they can do is hamper growth and create debt. There exists no record of positives from Conservative economics. They universally fail. Every time. That's because of people like you, inventing credits and experience, insisting your fake experiences give your argument credibility. They don't.

You honestly believe that the higher the tax rate the more encouragement there is for a business to expand?

Yes you fucking goofball...because to avoid the higher tax rate, a business would use the pre-tax revenue to expand to make the business even bigger and take in even more revenues. Winston just went through it, step-by-step in this thread. Businesses don't make riskier investments which lead to bigger payoffs if the tax rate is low because they have no incentive to do so. A higher tax rate incentivizes them to put the money back into their business in order to avoid paying taxes on it. Any business owner knows this, so that's why I don't believe you when you say you've owned and/or run a business.

 

[Oldstyle]

I don't need to do a Google search to know that Kennedy asked Congress for tax cuts because I studied both economics and history in college.

I don't believe for a second you studied history or economics. In fact, because you're qualifying your post that way, I don't think you went to college at all. If you did, you'd know Kennedy asked for the top tax rate to be 70%. So if you want a 70% top tax rate, I'm all for it.

I know what Kennedy asked for off the top of my head. You on the other hand are a functional idiot if you can't Google!

Yeah, he asked for a 70% top rate on the rich. Is that what you think we should have? If you're glorifying Kennedy's call for tax cuts, why are you stopping before getting to what are the actual rates he wanted? Because leaving that part out of your argument makes your argument about the broad concept of "tax cuts" and not the intricacies of the tax rates. Kennedy didn't call for taxes to keep being cut. Only to be cut to 70% for the top. So let's do it. 70% it is! Glad we all agree.

Did Kennedy call for a higher rate...or a lower rate? Why would he have called for a lower rate if...as you claim...higher tax rates increase growth?

I have a degree in History from the University of Massachusetts and an MBA from Boston University. What's your educational background? Some Political Science classes at the local community college?

 

[Oldstyle]

You know so little about the business world it's almost scary.

You are pretending you're something you're not. Because you have to qualify everything you say, it immediately throws everything you say into question. You proclaim you know about business, yet I've seen no indication that's the case. You haven't provided any proof that you're educated on this topic. In fact, your posts seem to be a mish-mash attempt at plagiarism based on what you've gleaned from the work that others have done.

Conservatives have never been able to grow an economy or balance a budget. All they can do is hamper growth and create debt. There exists no record of positives from Conservative economics. They universally fail. Every time. That's because of people like you, inventing credits and experience, insisting your fake experiences give your argument credibility. They don't.

You honestly believe that the higher the tax rate the more encouragement there is for a business to expand?

Yes you fucking goofball...because to avoid the higher tax rate, a business would use the pre-tax revenue to expand to make the business even bigger and take in even more revenues. Winston just went through it, step-by-step in this thread. Businesses don't make riskier investments which lead to bigger payoffs if the tax rate is low because they have no incentive to do so. A higher tax rate incentivizes them to put the money back into their business in order to avoid paying taxes on it. Any business owner knows this, so that's why I don't believe you when you say you've owned and/or run a business.

Wow...so let me get this straight! You think that when you raise taxes on a business that they will respond by investing more capital to get bigger to make up the difference? Why would I invest more capital in THAT locale when I could simply expand my business in another locale that lets me keep more of my profits?

 

[The Derp]

Did Kennedy call for a higher rate...or a lower rate? Why would he have called for a lower rate if...as you claim...higher tax rates increase growth?

He called for a 70% rate, but he also called to increase spending which is what LBJ did...LBJ/JFK grew spending by more than 50% from 1961-69. He didn't just stop at "cut taxes". He continued the thought; cut taxes...to 70% for the top. And 70% is in the range most economists think the rate should be today.

I have a degree in History from the University of Massachusetts and an MBA from Boston University. What's your educational background? Some Political Science classes at the local community college?

I don't believe anything you claim about yourself and I think you're just making this up to lend your argument credibility it doesn't otherwise have. Because even you recognize that without inflated, exaggerated, or invented credentials, nothing you say has any credibility or support. So you paper over that credibility gap by inventing personal circumstances. You guys do it all the time; whether you pretend to be "small business owners" so that your shit views on small businesses have credibility; whether you pretend to be "MBA's" or "educated" so that your shit views on economics have credibility; whether you pretend to be a veteran so your shit views on military and defense policy have credibility; whether you pretend to be an "Obamacare victim" so your shit views on health policy have credibility; whether you pretend to be "married to a (insert minority here)" or "have (insert minority here) friends" so your shit views on race have credibility. I mean the posturing goes on and on and on with you guys.

That's all intentional, BTW. It's so transparent you could wrap it around half a snadwich to put in the fridge for later.

 

[The Derp]

Wow...so let me get this straight! You think that when you raise taxes on a business that they will respond by investing more capital to get bigger to make up the difference?

Not to make up the difference, but to make their revenues higher. And yes, that is precisely what happens. Businesses don't expand because of a tax cut. Businesses expand because demand calls for it. You don't increase consumer demand by cutting taxes on the supply side. That's never worked out. Demand has never grown as a result of cutting taxes for suppliers.

Why would I invest more capital in THAT locale when I could simply expand my business in another locale that lets me keep more of my profits?

Keep more of your profits to serve what end? Not to grow the business. Businesses don't grow based on profits, they grow based on revenue.

 

[Oldstyle]

Wow...so let me get this straight! You think that when you raise taxes on a business that they will respond by investing more capital to get bigger to make up the difference?

Not to make up the difference, but to make their revenues higher. And yes, that is precisely what happens. Businesses don't expand because of a tax cut. Businesses expand because demand calls for it. You don't increase consumer demand by cutting taxes on the supply side. That's never worked out. Demand has never grown as a result of cutting taxes for suppliers.

Why would I invest more capital in THAT locale when I could simply expand my business in another locale that lets me keep more of my profits?

Keep more of your profits to serve what end? Not to grow the business. Businesses don't grow based on profits, they grow based on revenue.

Demand is only one component of what makes a business expand you buffoon! There is huge "demand" for a Corvette that only costs ten grand. So why doesn't Chevrolet make and sell Corvettes for ten grand? Because they wouldn't make a profit!!!! You can have huge amounts of demand for something but if producing it doesn't provide a profit THEN IT'S NOT GOING TO BE PRODUCED!!!

Do you not understand that profit is what drives the free enterprise system? You can have all the "revenue" in the world but if your costs are too high you aren't going to make a profit and you WILL go out of business!

Did you really just ask me what keeping more of my profits would do?

 

[Oldstyle]

Did Kennedy call for a higher rate...or a lower rate? Why would he have called for a lower rate if...as you claim...higher tax rates increase growth?

He called for a 70% rate, but he also called to increase spending which is what LBJ did...LBJ/JFK grew spending by more than 50% from 1961-69. He didn't just stop at "cut taxes". He continued the thought; cut taxes...to 70% for the top. And 70% is in the range most economists think the rate should be today.

I have a degree in History from the University of Massachusetts and an MBA from Boston University. What's your educational background? Some Political Science classes at the local community college?

I don't believe anything you claim about yourself and I think you're just making this up to lend your argument credibility it doesn't otherwise have. Because even you recognize that without inflated, exaggerated, or invented credentials, nothing you say has any credibility or support. So you paper over that credibility gap by inventing personal circumstances. You guys do it all the time; whether you pretend to be "small business owners" so that your shit views on small businesses have credibility; whether you pretend to be "MBA's" or "educated" so that your shit views on economics have credibility; whether you pretend to be a veteran so your shit views on military and defense policy have credibility; whether you pretend to be an "Obamacare victim" so your shit views on health policy have credibility; whether you pretend to be "married to a (insert minority here)" or "have (insert minority here) friends" so your shit views on race have credibility. I mean the posturing goes on and on and on with you guys.

That's all intentional, BTW. It's so transparent you could wrap it around half a snadwich to put in the fridge for later.

I've been managing or owning night clubs since my Junior year in college, Derp Over the past thirty five years I've run them in Boston, in Aspen, in Las Vegas and in Wilmington, NC. I understand business because it's been my life's work. What is yours? It's OBVIOUSLY not running businesses because you don't have the faintest idea of how they work or what motivates the people that run them!

 

[Oldstyle]

Did Kennedy call for a higher rate...or a lower rate? Why would he have called for a lower rate if...as you claim...higher tax rates increase growth?

He called for a 70% rate, but he also called to increase spending which is what LBJ did...LBJ/JFK grew spending by more than 50% from 1961-69. He didn't just stop at "cut taxes". He continued the thought; cut taxes...to 70% for the top. And 70% is in the range most economists think the rate should be today.

I have a degree in History from the University of Massachusetts and an MBA from Boston University. What's your educational background? Some Political Science classes at the local community college?

I don't believe anything you claim about yourself and I think you're just making this up to lend your argument credibility it doesn't otherwise have. Because even you recognize that without inflated, exaggerated, or invented credentials, nothing you say has any credibility or support. So you paper over that credibility gap by inventing personal circumstances. You guys do it all the time; whether you pretend to be "small business owners" so that your shit views on small businesses have credibility; whether you pretend to be "MBA's" or "educated" so that your shit views on economics have credibility; whether you pretend to be a veteran so your shit views on military and defense policy have credibility; whether you pretend to be an "Obamacare victim" so your shit views on health policy have credibility; whether you pretend to be "married to a (insert minority here)" or "have (insert minority here) friends" so your shit views on race have credibility. I mean the posturing goes on and on and on with you guys.

That's all intentional, BTW. It's so transparent you could wrap it around half a snadwich to put in the fridge for later.

Please show me all of the economists that are calling for an increase of the top tax rate to 70%.

 

[The Derp]

Demand is only one component of what makes a business expand you buffoon!

It's the only component. There's no need for a business to expand if the demand for what they produce doesn't increase as well. No business expands just because they feel like it. Otherwise, you're expanding a business to meet demand that isn't there.

There is huge "demand" for a Corvette that only costs ten grand. So why doesn't Chevrolet make and sell Corvettes for ten grand? Because they wouldn't make a profit!!!! You can have huge amounts of demand for something but if producing it doesn't provide a profit THEN IT'S NOT GOING TO BE PRODUCED!!!

You sure about that? What demand is there for corvettes? You need to prove that demand exists before you can assert that it does. That's how debate works because I'm not taking your word for it.

Do you not understand that profit is what drives the free enterprise system?

Do you!? Explain to me exactly how taxing profits results in a business refusing to expand to meet increased demand for their product. I've never heard a business owner, other than the pretend ones on this board, who would say "no thanks, I've made all the money I want to make".

You can have all the "revenue" in the world but if your costs are too high you aren't going to make a profit and you WILL go out of business!

Taxation isn't the reason a company does or doesn't make a profit. The taxes we are talking about only happen on profit. So unless the tax rate is 100% -which it's not, nor is anyone proposing that- the business still makes a profit if it's paying an income tax. No business I've ever heard of decides to close up shop early because they made all the money they want to make this FY. And if a business does do that, then it's not a very well-run business.

Did you really just ask me what keeping more of my profits would do?

Putting money back into the company to expand happens before the profits are taxed you goddamned blithering idiot.

This is why I don't believe you when you say you have business experience.

 

[The Derp]

I've been managing or owning night clubs since my Junior year in college, Derp

I. Do. Not. Believe. You. This isn't even something you can prove on a message board unless you're willing to risk your own identity, which I doubt you are. Look how much you are insisting you have this experience, yet that experience doesn't bear out in your argument. You just insist things are true, then bristle at any question or attempt to get you to explain them. That's why you fall back on these exaggerated/fabricated/anecdotal nonsense to support your shitty argument. You're saying because you have an MBA, your shit argument has credibility. Well, I challenge the premise you even have an MBA since it's not something you have the appetite to prove on a message board.

To think you're so insecure you have to make shit up about yourself to be credible is pathetic. Just pathetic.

Over the past thirty five years I've run them in Boston, in Aspen, in Las Vegas and in Wilmington, NC. I understand business because it's been my life's work. What is yours? It's OBVIOUSLY not running businesses because you don't have the faintest idea of how they work or what motivates the people that run them!

I don't believe you've done any of that. I think you're just making it all up so your argument has credibility it doesn't otherwise have on the facts. Until you prove any of this shit, it remains shit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What is a "trickle-down tax cut"?

Call it whatever you want;; "supply side economics", "voodoo economics", "trickle-down"...it's all the same. The idea that cutting taxes for the wealthy will somehow lead to increased investment and growth. It's never happened ever when put in practice, yet you still adhere to it. That's what makes you a zealot.

How does it differ from a regular tax cut?

You're not arguing for regular tax cuts, you're here arguing for tax cuts for the rich becuase you think that if they get a tax cut, they will take that tax cut and spend it in the consumer market or "invest" (generalized, vague term) it.

Why doesn't the "trickle-down tax cut" lead to growth?

Because when you cut taxes, you produce deficits, then those deficits have to be closed and they're closed by cutting spending to things like education and health care. When you cut education and health care spending, you increase the out of pocket expenses which forces people to spend less in the consumer economy, where most of the jobs are created and represents 70% of our entire economy, and more on things like health care and education. All trickle down tax cuts do is shift the burden of paying for essential services on to the middle and lower classes.

It's precisely what happened in Kansas. Brownback and your fellow zealots cut taxes for the rich, promised the moon and the stars, produced only deficits, debt, and poor growth; then those deficits were closed by raiding the welfare block grant (meaning Kansas used welfare to pay for trickle-down) and cutting funding for things like the KS State University System; which forced the KS Board of Regents to raise tuition, which forced students and their families to borrow more to cover increased tuition costs, which increased their debt load.

All while producing growth below the national average. So your trickle down tax cutting policy in Kansas was a drag on Obama's economy. Proving once again that Conservatives will stoop to no low in order to tarnish Obama's legacy because his mere presence reminds them why he won in the first place; Conservative policy during the Bush Era produced nothing but failures, and you are unable to reconcile your belief system's responsibility for it.

The idea that cutting taxes for the wealthy will somehow lead to increased investment and growth. It's never happened ever when put in practice, yet you still adhere to it.

It works every time it is done.
It worked for JFK, it worked for Reagan and it worked for Bush.

That's what makes you a zealot.

It's what makes me right.

You're not arguing for regular tax cuts, you're here arguing for tax cuts for the rich becuase you think that if they get a tax cut, they will take that tax cut and spend it in the consumer market or "invest" (generalized, vague term) it.

When the rich get a tax cut, what are their choices when it comes to that extra money they keep?
Post a list.

Because when you cut taxes, you produce deficits

I thought deficits create growth?
Didn't Krugman push for even larger deficits with that reasoning?

When you cut education and health care spending, you increase the out of pocket expenses which forces people to spend less in the consumer economy, where most of the jobs are created and represents 70% of our entire economy,

If the government cut funds to your college by $1 million and cut taxes for the people in your area by $1 million, what is the net effect on the consumer economy?

in order to tarnish Obama's legacy because his mere presence reminds them why he won in the first place;

He won because he was a non-threatening black guy who read a good teleprompter and the people blamed Republicans for the economy. And McCain was an old joke.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Spoken like someone who's never owned a business!

Stop. You've never owned a fucking business in your life. If you did, you'd know that taxes are on profits, not revenue. And a higher tax rate encourages the business to invest and expand because if it doesn't, then the profits get taxed. The higher the tax rate, the greater the return of investment for the business. You say *I've* never run a business, but you're here making shit up as you go while insisting you have this experience but are strangely unable to provide proof you have the experience you claim. So stop. Just stop.

If I start a business...I pay a contractor to do the build out...I pay purveyors for inventory...I pay my staff...I pay for insurance and whatever licensing fees government can gouge out of me...and only after I've done all THAT...if there is a profit left over from the goods or services I've sold...only THEN do I possibly derive profit.

For fuck's sake...you're leaving out a massive part of the whole process; using the pre-tax profits to expand the business, thus investing in the company and creating jobs. The higher the tax rate, the more encouragement there is for a business to expand and re-invest in the company. Otherwise, as Winston pointed out, you're not generating a larger pie, you're just taking a larger share of the pie that already exists. And taking money out of consumer's hands to put in the business' pocket doesn't grow the pie...in fact, it shrinks it.

I can't stiff the contractor...he wants at least half of his money up front and the rest when the job is done, LONG before I've made a dime! I may get 45 days to pay my purveyors if I've got great credit and they work with new businesses. I've got to have insurance and licenses before I'm allowed to open the doors! I've got to hire and train employees and pay them whether I ever make a profit. I also have to pay my share of their FICA tax. Profits DO trickle up and anyone who's EVER owned a business will tell you the same thing! The fact that you can't grasp that concept tells me you've probably never worked at a real job!

Your gobbledegook answer belies your lack of experience when it comes to running a business. I think you just claimed to have run a business because you know your shit argument is shit, but you are desperate for credibility...so to make your shit argument credible, you invent personal circumstances that justify it. But that's bullshit. And you know it's bullshit.

As for what I believe cutting taxes does? Investment is stimulated by the anticipation of profit.

NO IT FUCKING ISN'T. Investment in the business is stimulated by increased demand. No business expands "just because". Businesses only expand when there is demand that has to be filled. This is why every Conservative fails when it comes to managing an economy, and why people like Trump enter bankruptcy half a dozen times; Conservatives are simply too stupid to know how to run a business.

If I look at a business opportunity and I'm told I'll be able to keep $65 of every $100 in profit that I've made after taxes in location A and I'll be able to keep only $35 of every $100 in profit I've made after taxes in location B...which location am I more likely to invest my capital to start a new business? The fact that you can't grasp THAT concept either lets me know you've never run a business or invested in one!

I've never heard any real business owner say they don't want to make a profit because it will be taxed.

And a higher tax rate encourages the business to invest and expand because if it doesn't, then the profits get taxed.

Yeah, tax corporations at 99%, if you want them to invest and expand. Fucking moron!