independent economists overwhelmingly side with democrats on economic policy

[The Derp]

You'll have to cut and paste the part that said savings "holds money out of the economy".

What do you think a "4% increase in [the] savings rate" means, dumbass?!

It should be right there in your link.

It is. Maybe you should grow some balls and actually open a link and read it instead of pretending it doesn't exist so you don't have to admit you're full of shit.

And then post your definition of debt. It looks like you forgot.

How about you post your definition of debt, and I can see if it makes sense.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, the rate was cut to 70%.
So provide the quote when he discussed reducing taxes.

Actually, it's on you to provide the quote where he said continual tax cuts are the answer. Because what you're doing is being a sophist; you are saying that because Kennedy proposed cutting taxes down to 70% for the top bracket, that means his universal fiscal policy is to cut taxes. And that just ain't fuckin' true, and is something you need to prove, not me. So why don't you post proof of that, and please, don't just lop off parts of sentences and quotes to distort what they said. You guys have a habit of doing that.

Well, he was dead, so yeah.

Yeah, and you know what else? He died before the tax rate was cut. So you invoke JFK's tax cut without even knowing (!) that the tax cut happened in 1964. Also, spending from 1961-1969 grew by 50%...that came from Medicare/Medicaid becoming law, and it came from the money poured into the Space Race. You try to credit the growth from the tax cuts, but that's a correlation-is-causation argument. What isn't a correlation-is-causation argument is that spending increases led to growth. So you're already trying to swim upstream, and you've tied a big, heavy, rhetorical anchor around your neck.

If you have any rates that went up from 1982 to 1983, post them.
If he mostly stopped additional planned cuts from happening, just say that.

I'll leave that to Winston since he's got a firmer grasp on what exactly those tax packages were all about. Or we can just go to Politifact, here.

In 1982, The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year, and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by $3.3 billion.

In 1983, Reagan signed off on legislation to raise payroll taxes and tax Social Security benefits for some higher earners.

In 1984, the Deficit Reduction Act included increases in taxes on estates and distilled spirits and ended some business tax breaks, to the tune of $18 billion per year.

In 1985, Reagan signed legislation making permanent a 16-cent federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes, then worth about $2.4 billion a year.

In 1986, the Tax Reform Act lowered the top income tax bracket from 50 percent to 28 percent. To pay for the reductions, however, the legislation closed a number of tax loopholes.

In 1987, Reagan signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act that extended the telephone excise tax and eliminated a real estate tax deduction loophole.​

Yeah, that was awful, just terrible!
So what was the rate reduction for income taxes and what was the rate increase for payroll taxes?

it is awful because you have nothing to show for it. 8 years of Reaganomics produced the S&L Bubble that required the largest taxpayer bailout of the time, and nothing else other than a debt that tripled in size and a deficit that doubled.

Actually, it's on you to provide the quote where he said continual tax cuts are the answer.

I didn't say he said that. Did he?
Why not just post what he actually said?

Maybe it will back your claims?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I cut a state expense, college funding and shifted that money back into the pocket of the taxpayers.

And in doing so you increased out-of-pocket expenses on the taxpayers. So you didn't eliminate the expense, you just shifted its burden. And in doing so, you didn't even balance the budget. That's how fucking stupid your shit is.

And in doing so you increased out-of-pocket expenses on the taxpayers.

Some taxpayers, college students and their families, saw an expense increase.
All taxpayers saw taxes paid decrease.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You'll have to cut and paste the part that said savings "holds money out of the economy".

What do you think a "4% increase in [the] savings rate" means, dumbass?!

It should be right there in your link.

It is. Maybe you should grow some balls and actually open a link and read it instead of pretending it doesn't exist so you don't have to admit you're full of shit.

And then post your definition of debt. It looks like you forgot.

How about you post your definition of debt, and I can see if it makes sense.

What do you think a "4% increase in [the] savings rate" means, dumbass?!

It means people saved more. It doesn't mean, "money was held out of the economy" Moron.

It is.

So post it. It should say, "savings is money held out of the economy", or some variation of your claim.

How about you post your definition of debt

You're the one confused about debt. I'll be happy to dispel your confusion. At least this tiny portion of it.

 

[The Derp]

You'll have to cut and paste the part that said savings "holds money out of the economy".

From the link you were too chickenshit to open:

When the first Bush tax cuts were signed into law in June 2001, pushing the top rate down to 35 percent, the wealthy boosted savings. The saving rate climbed to 2.8 percent in the first quarter of 2002 from minus 2 percent in the second quarter of 2001. The increased savings coincided with a 1.1 percent decline in the S&P 500 index. ​

Furthermore, the link goes on to talk about how it's not the tax rate but rather the market that spurs spending:

“I would tend to wonder how much the tax cut actually influences spending behavior,” said Chris Cornell, an economist who mined government reports back to 1989 for West Chester, Pennsylvania-based Moody’s Analytics. “Spending by the top 5 percent of households seems much more closely tied to business- cycle issues than it does to tax-cut issues.” ​

So you spun a false bill of goods. Even the folks at Moody's think you're full of shit.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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?

Unfortunately the ACTUAL truth lies in the fact that Liberal Democrat politicians, whenever they seek to criticize how a democrat or republican policy will have an effect on the economy, will look to economists who SHARE in their ideological view when politicizing an argument on who is better on handling economic issues. It’s the same as when CNN heavily leaned polls in sampling more democrats when they needed a National majority to favor Hillary Clinton to win the presidency. Obviously we know from prior experience, just how reliable liberal poll data actually is in painting a true picture of how a nation views an issue. Where polls stops and reality sets in, begins with an actual discussion on how Democrats believe they can encourage businesses to establish and want to expand their corporation in THIS country as opposed to breaking ground at another nation overseas. I have never found a liberal democrat who can answer that question, by providing a thought out plan as to what their liberal party and government can do to encourage businesses to WANT to build and expand here in the United States and not elsewhere.

 

[imawhosure]

You'll have to cut and paste the part that said savings "holds money out of the economy".

What do you think a "4% increase in [the] savings rate" means, dumbass?!

It should be right there in your link.

It is. Maybe you should grow some balls and actually open a link and read it instead of pretending it doesn't exist so you don't have to admit you're full of shit.

And then post your definition of debt. It looks like you forgot.

How about you post your definition of debt, and I can see if it makes sense.

What do you think a "4% increase in [the] savings rate" means, dumbass?!

It means people saved more. It doesn't mean, "money was held out of the economy" Moron.

It is.

So post it. It should say, "savings is money held out of the economy", or some variation of your claim.

How about you post your definition of debt

You're the one confused about debt. I'll be happy to dispel your confusion. At least this tiny portion of it.

The Derp has no idea what he is talking about. He is using handpicked numbers to dispel prosperity. The BOTTOM LINE IS------------> From Coolidge to GW, there has NEVER been a tax cut that did NOT INCREASE revenue to the treasury!

His whole deficit argument is just a smokescreen. He knows as well as we do that------> deficits are just as easily created on the SPENDING side as the revenue side. If revenue rose, that means the government spent more!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You'll have to cut and paste the part that said savings "holds money out of the economy".

From the link you were too chickenshit to open:

When the first Bush tax cuts were signed into law in June 2001, pushing the top rate down to 35 percent, the wealthy boosted savings. The saving rate climbed to 2.8 percent in the first quarter of 2002 from minus 2 percent in the second quarter of 2001. The increased savings coincided with a 1.1 percent decline in the S&P 500 index. ​

Furthermore, the link goes on to talk about how it's not the tax rate but rather the market that spurs spending:

“I would tend to wonder how much the tax cut actually influences spending behavior,” said Chris Cornell, an economist who mined government reports back to 1989 for West Chester, Pennsylvania-based Moody’s Analytics. “Spending by the top 5 percent of households seems much more closely tied to business- cycle issues than it does to tax-cut issues.” ​

So you spun a false bill of goods. Even the folks at Moody's think you're full of shit.

Thanks for the passages.

Which one(s) said "savings holds money out of the economy"?

 

[The Derp]

Some taxpayers, college students and their families, saw an expense increase. All taxpayers saw taxes paid decrease.

Ahhh but it wasn't just education that got cut. Health care did as well. So the state cuts health care because of deficits that came from poor fiscal policy, which forces co-pays, premiums, coinsurance, and prescription drug costs up for patients.

When all is said and done, the state cuts funding from every program at every level to make the budget balanced, from things as germane as fees for driver's licenses, to boat licenses, tolls on roads, user fees, etc....so whether you want to believe it or not, you're paying more when taxes are cut one way or another. So if education doesn't affect you because you have no kids, health care would. Automobile taxes would. Driver's license fees would. If you have a boat, that would be affected. Property taxes would go up to cover the drop in state funding for schools. Tolls. Basically, anywhere the state can increase its fees, it will. That's what happened in Massachusetts after Romney proudly cut taxes. He cut taxes, but then jacked up state fees on everything from tuition, to driver's licenses, to tolls on the Mass Pike, to co-pays for MassHealth, etc.

But the one thing no one has seen from a tax cut? Economic growth.

 

[imawhosure]

You'll have to cut and paste the part that said savings "holds money out of the economy".

What do you think a "4% increase in [the] savings rate" means, dumbass?!

It should be right there in your link.

It is. Maybe you should grow some balls and actually open a link and read it instead of pretending it doesn't exist so you don't have to admit you're full of shit.

And then post your definition of debt. It looks like you forgot.

How about you post your definition of debt, and I can see if it makes sense.

What do you think a "4% increase in [the] savings rate" means, dumbass?!

It means people saved more. It doesn't mean, "money was held out of the economy" Moron.

It is.

So post it. It should say, "savings is money held out of the economy", or some variation of your claim.

How about you post your definition of debt

You're the one confused about debt. I'll be happy to dispel your confusion. At least this tiny portion of it.

The Derp has no idea what he is talking about. He is using handpicked numbers to dispel prosperity. The BOTTOM LINE IS------------> From Coolidge to GW, there has NEVER been a tax cut that did NOT INCREASE revenue to the treasury!

His whole deficit argument is just a smokescreen. He knows as well as we do that------> deficits are just as easily created on the SPENDING side as the revenue side. If revenue rose, that means the government spent more!

I urge you consider------> that during the Clinton years, the % of government spending of GDP was 20%. At the end of the Obama years, it was between 24 and 25%! Now any logical person will tell you once taxes are removed from the debate----------->the government is spending MORE as a %, no matter what the tax rate is, meaning the government is growing larger, and larger, eating up more of our national wealth.

The logical solution would be-------->to shrink the size of government, and no taxes or spending above 20% of GDP...........unless you are a lib. You see, your money is NOT your money, it is their money to give away. If you put a hard cap on the % they can spend, how are they going to transfer wealth, and buy votes!

 

[The Derp]

It means people saved more. It doesn't mean, "money was held out of the economy" Moron

So if people are saving, then what are they not doing? Spending. And what grows the economy? Spending.

So post it. It should say, "savings is money held out of the economy", or some variation of your claim.

What do you fucking think going from a negative savings rate to a positive savings rate means!?!?!?!?!?! So unless something is written for you in exactly those terms, your brain cannot comprehend it? Are you telling me that you are completely incapable of critical thinking? Because that's all that is required here.

When they say that the savings rate went from -2% to 2%, what do you think that means?!?!?!?!

You're the one confused about debt. I'll be happy to dispel your confusion. At least this tiny portion of it.

Your definition of debt seems to change post-to-post, depending on how shitty your argument is faring.

 

[boedicca]

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?

As most of these "economists" likely work at universities, Big Banks or leftwing think tanks, one can hardly call them "independent".

 

[The Derp]

Which one(s) said "savings holds money out of the economy"?

Going from a -2% spending rate to a 2% spending rate means the money is being held out of the economy.

But I see exactly why you are demanding those exact words; your pea brain is just not developed enough to exercise critical thinking skills.

So when you read that the savings rate went from -2% to 2%, you simply have no idea what that means, right? I mean, you clearly don't. Because if you go from negative savings rate to a positive savings rate, what does that mean? Use your words.

 

[The Derp]

The logical solution would be-------->to shrink the size of government, and no taxes or spending above 20% of GDP...........unless you are a lib. You see, your money is NOT your money, it is their money to give away. If you put a hard cap on the % they can spend, how are they going to transfer wealth, and buy votes!

Why do you have a threshold of 20%? What is the significance of that number? It seems like something you just randomly pulled off the top of your head.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Some taxpayers, college students and their families, saw an expense increase. All taxpayers saw taxes paid decrease.

Ahhh but it wasn't just education that got cut. Health care did as well. So the state cuts health care because of deficits that came from poor fiscal policy, which forces co-pays, premiums, coinsurance, and prescription drug costs up for patients.

When all is said and done, the state cuts funding from every program at every level to make the budget balanced, from things as germane as fees for driver's licenses, to boat licenses, tolls on roads, user fees, etc....so whether you want to believe it or not, you're paying more when taxes are cut one way or another. So if education doesn't affect you because you have no kids, health care would. Automobile taxes would. Driver's license fees would. If you have a boat, that would be affected. Property taxes would go up to cover the drop in state funding for schools. Tolls. Basically, anywhere the state can increase its fees, it will. That's what happened in Massachusetts after Romney proudly cut taxes. He cut taxes, but then jacked up state fees on everything from tuition, to driver's licenses, to tolls on the Mass Pike, to co-pays for MassHealth, etc.

But the one thing no one has seen from a tax cut? Economic growth.

Ahhh but it wasn't just education that got cut.

Ahhh, where did I claim that was the only cut?

When all is said and done, the state cuts funding from every program at every level to make the budget balanced

How did the spending cuts compare to the tax cuts?

So if education doesn't affect you because you have no kids, health care would. Automobile taxes would. Driver's license fees would. If you have a boat, that would be affected.

Yup.

But the one thing no one has seen from a tax cut? Economic growth.

Except for Coolidge, JFK, Reagan, Bush......

 

[imawhosure]

The logical solution would be-------->to shrink the size of government, and no taxes or spending above 20% of GDP...........unless you are a lib. You see, your money is NOT your money, it is their money to give away. If you put a hard cap on the % they can spend, how are they going to transfer wealth, and buy votes!

Why do you have a threshold of 20%? What is the significance of that number? It seems like something you just randomly pulled off the top of your head.

Because if it was so good during Clinton, why not go back to that threshold? Sounds good to me, doesn't it to you!

 

[The Derp]

Why not? Are you saying a rate that high wouldn't spur tons of investment?

Nope. I'm saying you're being hyperbolic because you simply cannot have an honest conversation about this because your position is steeped in lies and bullshit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It means people saved more. It doesn't mean, "money was held out of the economy" Moron

So if people are saving, then what are they not doing? Spending. And what grows the economy? Spending.

So post it. It should say, "savings is money held out of the economy", or some variation of your claim.

What do you fucking think going from a negative savings rate to a positive savings rate means!?!?!?!?!?! So unless something is written for you in exactly those terms, your brain cannot comprehend it? Are you telling me that you are completely incapable of critical thinking? Because that's all that is required here.

When they say that the savings rate went from -2% to 2%, what do you think that means?!?!?!?!

You're the one confused about debt. I'll be happy to dispel your confusion. At least this tiny portion of it.

Your definition of debt seems to change post-to-post, depending on how shitty your argument is faring.

So if people are saving, then what are they not doing? Spending. And what grows the economy? Spending.

If I put $1000 in the bank, why the fuck do you believe my money is "held out of the economy"?

What do banks do with deposits?

What do you fucking think going from a negative savings rate to a positive savings rate means!?!?!?!?!?!

It means that people who were spending more than they were earning began earning more than they were spending.

Your definition of debt seems to change post-to-post

Still waiting for you to post your definition.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why not? Are you saying a rate that high wouldn't spur tons of investment?

Nope. I'm saying you're being hyperbolic because you simply cannot have an honest conversation about this because your position is steeped in lies and bullshit.

Nope.

Why wouldn't a 99% corporate tax rate spur investment?
What about a 95% rate?

 

[imawhosure]

Why not? Are you saying a rate that high wouldn't spur tons of investment?

Nope. I'm saying you're being hyperbolic because you simply cannot have an honest conversation about this because your position is steeped in lies and bullshit.

Nope.

Why wouldn't a 99% corporate tax rate spur investment?
What about a 95% rate?

It is obvious to me that people like Derp can't create wealth of their own to buy votes with, therefore, they need steal ours to purchase them, lol!