independent economists overwhelmingly side with democrats on economic policy

[The Derp]

No, you admit you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You try and equate deficits with lack of revenue.

That's precisely why they appear. In fact, here's the budget from earlier this year in Kansas, showing the effects on the budget before and after repeal of the tax cuts (SB 30):

What is it that you see there? Because I see that the repeal of the tax cuts (SB 30) turned a $436M deficit into a $155M surplus. That was entirely, 100% because of the repeal of the tax cuts, proving once again that deficits primarily come from a drop in revenue.

So please explain to us again how spending and not revenue reduction creates deficits.

We can also look at revenue numbers for the Federal Government before and after the Bush Tax Cuts. You'll notice in this link that revenue in 2000 was higher than revenue for 2001-4. Why is that? Because Bush and the Conservatives cut taxes:

Receipts in current dollars (in billions):
2000: $2,025.2
2001 (Bush Tax Cuts passed): $1,991.1
2002 (Second year of Bush Tax Cuts): $1,853.1
2003 (Bush Tax Cuts accelerated): $1,782.3
2004: $1,880.1

So what is it you see from those numbers there? Because I see them all lower than they were in 2000. 2003 and 2004 were also record deficit highs at the time. Those records would be blown out of the water by Bush's 2008 and 2009 deficits, which were also record highs. Bush's last FY budget (09) was the largest deficit of all time.

So you took four steps back to take one step forward...how many steps does that leave you behind?

 

[The Derp]

Lets just go back when the Clinton years were doing well, and incorporate that tax rate, that rate of regulation, and that capital gains tax rate and cap all taxes at 20% of GDP, after which the government can tax no more.

Why did you settle on that 20% number? Why do you think what was true in 1999 is true today? BTW - the Capital Gains Tax Cut is what caused the dotcom bubble. You fixate on spending-as-a-percent-of-GDP, and I'm not sure why. It's got no economic impact on anything. It's got no fiscal impact on anything. It seems like you just pulled that 20% number right out of your fat ass.

What is wrong with that? It was under a Democrat, times were good, why not, and if not, explain-)

First of all, the 1997 Capital Gains Tax Cut created the dotcom bubble. Secondly, why are you so consumed with capping spending at 20% of GDP? What is the economic benefit of that? And what happens in the event that a major hurricane comes and floods all of South Florida, or Puerto Rico, or Texas, or New York City/New Jersey, or New Orleans again, requiring more disaster aid which would push the spending above a 20% cap? Do those places just not get any disaster relief in that scenario?

That's why capping is a fucking stupid idea devised by clueless morons who don't know anything.

 

[jc456]

You blithering moron, he was only able to increase intragovernmental debt because he had a budget surplus. And if he was using the SS surplus to pay down the debt, why didn't he just exhaust the Trust right away and pay off a large chunk of the debt in one shot, if what you're saying is true? Why did he wait until 1998 before doing that? Why didn't he start doing it in 1993, when he took office?

And there was most definitely a budget surplus...even without SS, the government ran a surplus in 1999 and 2000.

You. Know. Nothing. Just what you glean off other message board posters. You don't actually think for yourself.

Are you brain damaged? There never was a "surplus"! Borrowing from a flush Social Security Fund (pumped up from the Dot Com Boom) to run the government instead of running a deficit doesn't mean you had a surplus! It simply means you transferred the debt to a different place. Social Security isn't revenue...it's money that's owed.

Let me put it this way. If you were given a thousand dollars to hold for your friend until next year and you spent half of that money to pay your rent instead of taking it out of your checking account...that doesn't mean you have a "surplus"! You still owe your friend the thousand dollars.

You have a surplus when you bring in more money than you send out. Social Security taxes are taxes. The government brings them in. We ran a surplus because we took more money in than we sent out. Or do you believe like Al Gore, that Social Security taxes go in some lockbox.

Social Security isn't revenue, Winston! It's money that the government owes...not money that it's taken in as revenue. The fact that you two can't seem to grasp this concept BAFFLES me!

You conservatives are a hypocritical bunch aren't you. You count Social Security taxes as revenue when it serves your purpose. And you count it as a liability when it serves your purpose. You might want to remember that it was Ronald Reagan that started the practice of raiding Social Security receipts. And it was also Ronald Reagan that significantly expanded both the amount of income subject to the Social Security tax and the rates collected. In fact, the income subject to Social Security taxes will go up again next year thanks to Ronald Reagan.

The difference is simple. The government can borrow money on the public market, that is called Treasury bonds. Or the government can borrow money from itself. As I have explained already, it is like the difference in borrowing money from a bank or borrowing money from your life insurance policy.

I've NEVER counted the Social Security Fund as "revenue", Winston and anyone who does is a raving IDIOT!!! For the last time...you can't consider money that you owe as a surplus...it simply isn't!

and it should be punished anyone doing it. that is retiree's money. It's their money not the government, see the mistake, they were stealing from American Workers for their own benefit. and patting themselves on the back. ask Derp.

 

[The Derp]

and it should be punished anyone doing it. that is retiree's money. It's their money not the government, see the mistake, they were stealing from American Workers for their own benefit. and patting themselves on the back. ask Derp.

Retirees' money? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Conservatives completely oppose the concept of Social Security. So your crocodile tears about it rings hollow. Also, SS was never supposed to be the primary source of retirement income...it only became that because businesses ceased the practice of pensions, and only half of all workers can save in a 401k and historically, 401k's have performed worse than pensions.

So if retirees are who you are so concerned about (yeah right), you wouldn't be screeching about borrowing from SS...you'd be calling for SS to be expanded.

But you oppose that, right? So how is your argument not a circle jerk?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If tax cuts worked as well in real life as they do in right wing fantasy; wouldn't we have, massive budget surpluses and no Debt?

Doesn't that imply, something fundamentally wrong with the, "rest of the plan".

If high taxes worked as well in real life as they do in left wing fantasy; wouldn't we have, massive budget surpluses and no Debt?

 

[The Derp]

If high taxes worked as well in real life as they do in left wing fantasy; wouldn't we have, massive budget surpluses and no Debt?

We don't have high taxes, and we did have a surplus...one you erased with your Bush Tax Cuts. That surplus in 2000 was a record high.

 

[jc456]

and it should be punished anyone doing it. that is retiree's money. It's their money not the government, see the mistake, they were stealing from American Workers for their own benefit. and patting themselves on the back. ask Derp.

Retirees' money? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Conservatives completely oppose the concept of Social Security. So your crocodile tears about it rings hollow. Also, SS was never supposed to be the primary source of retirement income...it only became that because businesses ceased the practice of pensions, and only half of all workers can save in a 401k and historically, 401k's have performed worse than pensions.

So if retirees are who you are so concerned about (yeah right), you wouldn't be screeching about borrowing from SS...you'd be calling for SS to be expanded.

But you oppose that, right? So how is your argument not a circle jerk?

son, it doesn't matter what I oppose, the account exists and it is individual workers money. The fact that the government stuck it's fking fingers in it is exactly why we fking oppose it. you stupid fk.

 

[The Derp]

son, it doesn't matter what I oppose, the account exists and it is individual workers money.

No. It's not. SS is pay-go. Your SS benefit isn't put in an individual lockbox, it's a benefit you qualify for depending on how much you actually earned. The people currently on SS are getting more than what they put in, just by virtue of inflation and COLA...and even then, it's still too little. Who can live on $1,100/month, realistically, when that's close to what rent costs for a 2 bedroom in most states? We cut taxes for the rich, but we don't increase the SS benefit. It's fucking stupid.

 

[jc456]

son, it doesn't matter what I oppose, the account exists and it is individual workers money.

No. It's not. SS is pay-go. Your SS benefit isn't put in an individual lockbox, it's a benefit you qualify for depending on how much you actually earned. The people currently on SS are getting more than what they put in, just by virtue of inflation and COLA...and even then, it's still too little. Who can live on $1,100/month, realistically, when that's close to what rent costs for a 2 bedroom in most states? We cut taxes for the rich, but we don't increase the SS benefit. It's fucking stupid.

again, the stupid you display is amazing. again, that is why the conservatives oppose it moron for that exact reason. it isn't an individual account. fk I hate stupid.

Now, I have an account, I have a report that says what my monthly amount will be at age 65.6, it says what it is if I defer until 70. It's still my fking money asswipe. that amount is based on what I paid into the plan. It isn't for paying down the national debt. hly fk.

 

[The Derp]

again, the stupid you display is amazing. again, that is why the conservatives oppose it moron for that exact reason. it isn't an individual account. fk I hate stupid.

Yeah, because it's Social Security. Key word being "Social". Individuals have their 401k's (which under-perform consistently) and pensions (which don't). SS wasn't meant to be the primary source of retirement income, but it is now because the cherished and beloved private sector couldn't manage to find a way to provide adequate retirement benefits.

Now, I have an account, I have a report that says what my monthly amount will be at age 65.6, it says what it is if I defer until 70. It's still my fking money asswipe. that amount is based on what I paid into the plan. It isn't for paying down the national debt. hly fk.

Sigh...it's not an actual account...it's the benefit you would qualify for if you continued earning what you earn. You can't collect SS until you qualify for it; to qualify for it you have to be of retirement age, and you have to had paid into it. The SS revenues you pay in taxes now go to pay for the SS benefit for people currently on the program. That's why it's pay-go. It's Social insurance.

 

[jc456]

again, the stupid you display is amazing. again, that is why the conservatives oppose it moron for that exact reason. it isn't an individual account. fk I hate stupid.

Yeah, because it's Social Security. Key word being "Social". Individuals have their 401k's (which under-perform consistently) and pensions (which don't). SS wasn't meant to be the primary source of retirement income, but it is now because the cherished and beloved private sector couldn't manage to find a way to provide adequate retirement benefits.

Now, I have an account, I have a report that says what my monthly amount will be at age 65.6, it says what it is if I defer until 70. It's still my fking money asswipe. that amount is based on what I paid into the plan. It isn't for paying down the national debt. hly fk.

Sigh...it's not an actual account...it's the benefit you would qualify for if you continued earning what you earn. You can't collect SS until you qualify for it; to qualify for it you have to be of retirement age, and you have to had paid into it. The SS revenues you pay in taxes now go to pay for the SS benefit for people currently on the program. That's why it's pay-go. It's Social insurance.

again, why conservatives oppose it? duh stupid fk

 

[jc456]

again, the stupid you display is amazing. again, that is why the conservatives oppose it moron for that exact reason. it isn't an individual account. fk I hate stupid.

Yeah, because it's Social Security. Key word being "Social". Individuals have their 401k's (which under-perform consistently) and pensions (which don't). SS wasn't meant to be the primary source of retirement income, but it is now because the cherished and beloved private sector couldn't manage to find a way to provide adequate retirement benefits.

Now, I have an account, I have a report that says what my monthly amount will be at age 65.6, it says what it is if I defer until 70. It's still my fking money asswipe. that amount is based on what I paid into the plan. It isn't for paying down the national debt. hly fk.

Sigh...it's not an actual account...it's the benefit you would qualify for if you continued earning what you earn. You can't collect SS until you qualify for it; to qualify for it you have to be of retirement age, and you have to had paid into it. The SS revenues you pay in taxes now go to pay for the SS benefit for people currently on the program. That's why it's pay-go. It's Social insurance.

it's my account, it's based on, wait for it, my SS number. my SS number is my fking account you stupid fk. And my payout is based on my money I contributed to it. Duh!!!!! And using that money to pay down the debt is using individuals money. no matter how you wish to split your hair.

 

[The Derp]

again, why conservatives oppose it? duh stupid fk

Well, they chiefly oppose it because it was proposed by a Democrat (FDR). That's their primary reason for hating it. The other reason they hate it is because it's the government distributing earned benefits that are paid by not only the workers, but their employers. Conservatives don't think employers should have to pay for anything, not even decent wages. In fact, if Conservatives had it their way, they'd make slavery legal again. Because a business not having to pay labor means sky-high profits.

 

[The Derp]

it's my account, it's based on, wait for it, my SS number..

NO IT FUCKING ISN'T.

The people currently on SS are having their benefits paid by the people currently working (hence, pay-go). If those collecting SS benefits now got back exactly what they paid in, their monthly benefit would be a shitload less than it is now simply because of inflation and COLA.

imy SS number is my fking account you stupid fk. And my payout is based on my money I contributed to it. Duh!!!!! And using that money to pay down the debt is using individuals money. no matter how you wish to split your hair.

So tell me, can you go into your SS account now and take money out?

 

[ph3iron]

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?

Anyone who believes big unlimited government is how society should be ruled, as most Ds and Keynesian economists do, can't be too smart. The most deadly and unjust force in all of human history, is unlimited government. Only fools don't know this fundamental truth. Of course, the ruling class really loves big unlimited government, because the benefit so handsomely.

It will be interesting to see if Marc Levinson is right
Since the mid 70's average growth is 2 %
Lefties, thatcher, everything's been tried, doesn't matter, world economy

 

[Winston]

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"?

Todd, it is called the "Paradox of thrift", and as I said, it is a very basic economic concept that has been accepted theory for seventy five years, although I am pretty sure Xenophon touched on it 1600 years ago. The fact that you are not familiar with such a basic economic concept is quite telling. I would suggest you learn the fundamentals before attempting to debate economic policy.

Paradox of thrift - Wikipedia

Oh, and by the way, I asked hours ago rather purchasing stock from the stock exchange was savings or investment. No one answered, it is savings, not investing.

Todd, it is called the "Paradox of thrift",

The Paradox of thrift said savings "holds money out of the economy"?

The fact that you are not familiar with such a basic economic concept is quite telling.

When you can show that it backs up Derp's claim, let me know.

I would suggest you learn the fundamentals before attempting to debate economic policy.

Coming from a guy who thinks a 90% tax rate leads to more investment than a 20% rate, that's hilarious!!!!

Dude, pull your head out of your ass, what do you think this means?

The paradox states that an increase in autonomous saving leads to a decrease in aggregate demand and thus a decrease in gross output which will in turn lower total saving. The paradox is, narrowly speaking, that total saving may fall because of individuals' attempts to increase their saving, and, broadly speaking, that increase in saving may be harmful to an economy.[1] Both the narrow and broad claims are paradoxical within the assumption underlying the fallacy of composition, namely that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole. The narrow claim transparently contradicts this assumption, and the broad one does so by implication, because while individual thrift is generally averred to be good for the economy, the paradox of thrift holds that collective thrift may be bad for the economy.

Decrease in gross output. You can consider gross output as "money". Like I said, fundamental economics covered within the first couple weeks of an intro Macro course.

And twenty percent tax rate might yield more investment than a ninety percent rate but most certainly LESS than a fifty percent rate. The Laffer curve is a curve, as I have pointed out time and time again. Again, basic fundamental economics.

what do you think this means?

It doesn't mean that my deposit in a bank "holds money out of the economy".
I'm sure Derp appreciates your attempt to make him look less stupid. Keep trying.

And twenty percent tax rate might yield more investment than a ninety percent rate but most certainly LESS than a fifty percent rate.

Why?

The financial industry is a big ass vampire sucking the blood from the lower and middle class. It is the very reason wages have remained stagnant and, for those in the middle, there has been little to no growth in wealth. Consider the total cost of financial intermediation, that is, what it cost the financial industry to produce loans, stocks, and bonds measured as a percentage of GDP. When they were building the railroads it was less than two percent. When they were financing the expansion of the steel industry it was about two percent, when it came to the automobile and chemical industry, about three percent. The space race, four percent. When Ronald Reagan took office it was at five percent.

Now think about this, information technology has lowered the cost of doing business in almost every category. But for some strange reason, the cost of financial intermediation is now over nine percent. Conservatively, that is sucking a minimum of two percent of GDP right out of the economy. Imagine if that two percent was going into the hand of the workers instead into the pockets of the financial executives. Wages would be higher, the middle and lower classes would have more wealth, and for sure, we would have higher growth. So yes, the financial industry, via interest and fees, sucks "money" right out of the economy.

Graph: How the Financial Sector Consumed America’s Economic Growth

 

[HenryBHough]

Could it be that those economists are "independent" because they're so fuckin' dumb nobody will hire them?

 

[Winston]

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"?

Todd, it is called the "Paradox of thrift", and as I said, it is a very basic economic concept that has been accepted theory for seventy five years, although I am pretty sure Xenophon touched on it 1600 years ago. The fact that you are not familiar with such a basic economic concept is quite telling. I would suggest you learn the fundamentals before attempting to debate economic policy.

Paradox of thrift - Wikipedia

Oh, and by the way, I asked hours ago rather purchasing stock from the stock exchange was savings or investment. No one answered, it is savings, not investing.

Todd, it is called the "Paradox of thrift",

The Paradox of thrift said savings "holds money out of the economy"?

The fact that you are not familiar with such a basic economic concept is quite telling.

When you can show that it backs up Derp's claim, let me know.

I would suggest you learn the fundamentals before attempting to debate economic policy.

Coming from a guy who thinks a 90% tax rate leads to more investment than a 20% rate, that's hilarious!!!!

Dude, pull your head out of your ass, what do you think this means?

The paradox states that an increase in autonomous saving leads to a decrease in aggregate demand and thus a decrease in gross output which will in turn lower total saving. The paradox is, narrowly speaking, that total saving may fall because of individuals' attempts to increase their saving, and, broadly speaking, that increase in saving may be harmful to an economy.[1] Both the narrow and broad claims are paradoxical within the assumption underlying the fallacy of composition, namely that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole. The narrow claim transparently contradicts this assumption, and the broad one does so by implication, because while individual thrift is generally averred to be good for the economy, the paradox of thrift holds that collective thrift may be bad for the economy.

Decrease in gross output. You can consider gross output as "money". Like I said, fundamental economics covered within the first couple weeks of an intro Macro course.

And twenty percent tax rate might yield more investment than a ninety percent rate but most certainly LESS than a fifty percent rate. The Laffer curve is a curve, as I have pointed out time and time again. Again, basic fundamental economics.

The Laffer curve is a curve, as I have pointed out time and time again. Again, basic fundamental economics.

The curve is used to illustrate Laffer's main premise that the more an activity such as production is taxed, the less of it is generated.

Laffer Curve

Besides supporting my claim, what did you mean to do by bringing up Laffer?

LMAO. Investopedia, what a freakin joke. Like their definition of free markets, it's sheer propaganda with no bearing on reality. Damn Laffer never even mentioned that whole more an activity is tax the less of it that is produced. The Laffer curve is about the relationship between tax rates and government revenue measuring something called taxable income elasticity. Laffer didn't even come up with it. Again, like most economic concepts it has been around for at least seven hundred years. So try again, and don't ever quote me that stupid ass Investopedia.

 

[Winston]

If tax cuts worked as well in real life as they do in right wing fantasy; wouldn't we have, massive budget surpluses and no Debt?

Doesn't that imply, something fundamentally wrong with the, "rest of the plan".

If high taxes worked as well in real life as they do in left wing fantasy; wouldn't we have, massive budget surpluses and no Debt?

Because our taxes are CHEAP AS SHIT dumbass. In 2009 they were lower than at anytime in the last FIFTY YEARS. And don't get me started on corporations, which has been the primary topic of our conversation. They are not paying jackshit compared to the historical record. They need a tax cut like they need a hole in the head.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If high taxes worked as well in real life as they do in left wing fantasy; wouldn't we have, massive budget surpluses and no Debt?

We don't have high taxes, and we did have a surplus...one you erased with your Bush Tax Cuts. That surplus in 2000 was a record high.

Yeah, the Internet Bubble was cool.
If the Real Estate bubble had continued 2 more years, we'd have had another surplus.
So what?