independent economists overwhelmingly side with democrats on economic policy

[The Derp]

for blacks to become violent at their neighborhood? yep one time, the whites said, we don't want that.

Isn't it possible that white racists stoked fears among other whites that blacks were being violent, even if they weren't, in an effort to continue racist policies that oppress minorities? Nixon was famous for doing this.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

How come the Democrats have 100% of the Ghettos?

 

[jc456]

for blacks to become violent at their neighborhood? yep one time, the whites said, we don't want that.

Isn't it possible that white racists stoked fears among other whites that blacks were being violent, even if they weren't, in an effort to continue racist policies that oppress minorities? Nixon was famous for doing this.

there is no evidence of that. no. what there is is evidence that blacks do violence in their neighborhoods. It's why a movie called chiraq was made by Spike Lee. You think that has any influence at all?

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The Corrupt Democrats caused the Great Recession with their mortgage policies and then blamed it on Bush

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

for blacks to become violent at their neighborhood? yep one time, the whites said, we don't want that.

Isn't it possible that white racists stoked fears among other whites that blacks were being violent, even if they weren't, in an effort to continue racist policies that oppress minorities? Nixon was famous for doing this.

What racist policies?
BTW, no time traveling permitted

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Where were these economic geniuses the past 8 years when Obama couldn't sniff an annual GDP of 3%? LOL. GTFO!

Obama had the same annual GDP growth rate Bush did: 1.76%.

The difference is that Obama reduced the deficit by 2/3 and created over 11,000,000 net private sector jobs. Bush erased a surplus and produced 4 record deficits and lost 460,000 net private sector jobs.

Obama had the same annual GDP growth rate Bush did: 1.76%.

The difference is that Obama reduced the deficit by 2/3

The difference is, Bush added $4.9 trillion to the debt, Obama added $9.3 trillion to the debt.

 

[Staidhup]

What is an independent economist? As an economist I find that title rather interesting.

 

[The Derp]

there is no evidence of that.

What kind of evidence would satisfy you that it did happen that way?

no. what there is is evidence that blacks do violence in their neighborhoods.

What evidence is that? Were there not violent white people too? You seem to want to say that only black people can be violent, but that's not true, is it?

It's why a movie called chiraq was made by Spike Lee. You think that has any influence at all?

Do you even fucking know what that movie is about!? Chi-raq is a movie about the black women of Chicago refusing to have sex with soldiers so long as they were going to war. It's based on The Lysistrata. Which I doubt you've ever read, either, because -let's face it- you're a fucking ignorant, illiterate, lying shitbag, hillbilly nobody..

 

[The Derp]

What racist policies?

Redlining.

BTW, no time traveling permitted

Fuck. You.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Lol. Theyre not even paying on it, just billions on the interest.

But when is the debt due? Personal debts come due at the time of the borrower's death. So since government isn't a person and doesn't "die", when does the debt have to be paid off?

And if your concern is really about the interest on the debt, why wouldn't you support moving the debt from Public Debt (where it incurs higher interest rates) to Intragovernmental Debt (where it incurs much lower interest rates because it's borrowing from ourselves)? Wouldn't that make sense to do if it resulted in less interest payments?

Govt collects taxes from the public to pay off debt, that same debt that is accrued through our tacit approval from who we elect. You're just shuffling chairs on the titanic.

 

[The Derp]

The difference is, Bush added $4.9 trillion to the debt, Obama added $9.3 trillion to the debt.

Sophistry alert!

Of course, this particular right-wing poster is fully aware that those numbers, on their own, are not indicative of anything. But when placed within the proper context, we see that Bush adding $5.1T to the debt of $4.5T was more than doubling it, whereas Obama adding $9.3T to a debt of $10.6T was less than doubling it.

I want to know why you felt the need to exercise sophistry to distort the debt numbers without placing them in proper context.

And..Reagan added about $2T to the debt that was $977B when he took office.

So Reagan tripled the debt. But that's OK by you because the debt was smaller back then(?)...your argument makes no fucking sense.

 

[The Derp]

Govt collects taxes from the public to pay off debt.

NO IT DOESN'T. Government collects revenues to fund government and entitlements.

, that same debt that is accrued through our tacit approval from who we elect. You're just shuffling chairs on the titanic.

You don't know what the holy fuck you're talking about.

So are you just "rearranging the deck chairs" when you refinance your home? Or are you reducing the amount of interest you pay when you refinance?

Fucking idiots. No wonder Conservatives have never, ever been able to balance a budget on their own.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

What racist policies?

Redlining.

BTW, no time traveling permitted

Fuck. You.

A swing and a miss LOL

 

[Oldstyle]

The Derp only tried to run that up the flag pole when he figured out that he was 100% wrong about there being a Clinton "surplus", Todd! It was a rather pathetic attempt to shift the narrative to something he wouldn't look completely idiotic in.

Sigh...there was definitely a budget surplus during Clinton and it definitely went to pay down the Public Debt. If there wasn't, and Clinton was simply borrowing from SS to pay down debt, why didn't he just exhaust the SS Trust Fund all in one shot? Because in 1998, the SS Trust Fund was at about $1T and total Public Debt was at about $3.5T. So then if what you're saying is true, why didn't Clinton use all of the SS Trust to pay down as much of the debt as he could? Because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

You really aren't that bright...are you, Derp? The ONLY reason that Clinton was able to pay down the Public Debt was because he increased Intragovernmental debt by an even larger amount! That isn't a real surplus...it's budget "sleight of hand"! The only people who think there was a REAL surplus during the Clinton years are people who can't do simple eighth grade math.

 

[Oldstyle]

Where were these economic geniuses the past 8 years when Obama couldn't sniff an annual GDP of 3%? LOL. GTFO!

Obama had the same annual GDP growth rate Bush did: 1.76%.

The difference is that Obama reduced the deficit by 2/3 and created over 11,000,000 net private sector jobs. Bush erased a surplus and produced 4 record deficits and lost 460,000 net private sector jobs.

Obama reduced the deficit? Really? How much did he reduce it before the GOP took over Congress? Job creation? What program of Barry's created jobs? His signature program was the ACA and that cost jobs. He was pushing Cap & Trade before the Democrats got thrashed in the 2010 midterms...another policy that would have cost far more jobs! His stimulus? That created so few jobs they had to use "Jobs created or saved" to hide how few were created after spending all that money!

 

[Oldstyle]

Govt collects taxes from the public to pay off debt.

NO IT DOESN'T. Government collects revenues to fund government and entitlements.

, that same debt that is accrued through our tacit approval from who we elect. You're just shuffling chairs on the titanic.

You don't know what the holy fuck you're talking about.

So are you just "rearranging the deck chairs" when you refinance your home? Or are you reducing the amount of interest you pay when you refinance?

Fucking idiots. No wonder Conservatives have never, ever been able to balance a budget on their own.

Conservatives have been balancing budgets at the State level for a long time, Derp...it's why the people overwhelmingly elect Republicans to run their local governments! Show me a State run by Democrats for a long time and I'll show you a bankrupt, corrupt as hell mess!

 

[Winston]

You'll be sure to win if you only raise rates high enough.

Seems like there's more support for raising taxes on the rich than there is cutting them. There are more arguments for raising taxes on the rich than there are for cutting them. I haven't heard a good argument for cutting taxes, other than the repeated lie that they'll pay for themselves in increased economic activity.

Seems like there's more support for raising taxes on the rich than there is cutting them.

Yes, idiots support lots of stupid things.

We should probably punish corporations by raising their rates as well.
The best way to get them to stop hoarding cash overseas is to tax more, eh comrade?

I haven't heard a good argument for cutting taxes, other than the repeated lie that they'll pay for themselves in increased economic activity.

Would cutting corporate tax rates increase economic activity?
Would raising corporate tax rates decrease economic activity?

Why?

Would cutting corporate tax rates increase economic activity?

NO. First, remember, any expenses that a company spends on expanding comes from before tax income. The reality is that the weighted average cost of capital is INVERSELY related to the tax rate. What that means is that as the tax rate declines the actual COST OF CAPITAL increases. The end result is the pool of acceptable investment, those that have a sufficient internal rate of return, shrinks as the tax rate declines. Decreasing tax rates actually cause economic activity to decline.

The classic example, a poker table. If the "rake" on the table is low one would be more conservative with their bets, while if the "rake" on the table is high one would bet more aggressively. Remember, corporations are more concerned with the return OF their money than the return ON their money. When tax rates are high they get more of their money back if the investment does not pay off.

Would cutting corporate tax rates increase economic activity?

NO. First, remember, any expenses that a company spends on expanding comes from before tax income.

A company makes $1 billion in 2016 before taxes. Pays a 35% tax rate on these profits.
A company makes $1 billion in 2016 before taxes. Pays a 20% tax rate on these profits.

Which company has more money left over to invest in 2017?

What that means is that as the tax rate declines the actual COST OF CAPITAL increases. The end result is the pool of acceptable investment, those that have a sufficient internal rate of return, shrinks as the tax rate declines.

Why doesn't the higher after tax rate of return come into play here? Did you forget about that?

Decreasing tax rates actually cause economic activity to decline.

LOL! And increasing tax rates actually causes economic activity to increase? LOL!

When tax rates are high they get more of their money back if the investment does not pay off.

When tax rates are high they get less of their money back if the investment does pay off.

A company makes $1 billion in 2016 before taxes. Pays a 35% tax rate on these profits.
A company makes $1 billion in 2016 before taxes. Pays a 20% tax rate on these profits.

Which company has more money left over to invest in 2017?

See. right there is the problem. If either company would have invested IN THE COMPANY, it would have been with BEFORE TAX MONEY. So the question is not which company has more money left over to invest, the question is which company has more money to distribute to stockholders, to buyback stock, or to hold in cash. Or, perhaps the critical question, which company has more money to "invest" in RENT SEEKING activities.

Why doesn't the higher after tax rate of return come into play here? Did you forget about that?

The after tax rate of return is not a part of typical Monte Carlo stimulation of potential "RETURNS" in capital budget analysis. What is important is the marginal tax rate. The lower the rate the more the company is on the hook for a loss. Remember what I said, companies are more concerned with the return OF their capital investment than the return ON their capital investment. That is what the Monte Carlo stimulation measures. Besides, as Warren Buffet has often said, he has never seen a company walk away from a profitable investment because of the tax rate. They make the money first, then they worry about the taxes. Or as I like to say, nobody has ever refused to cash in a winning lottery ticket because of the taxes that would come due. Amazing how most Republican supporters lack even a basic understanding of how businesses work. And yes, most economists, except those from George Mason university, do not support supply side economics, especially in current market conditions.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What is an independent economist? As an economist I find that title rather interesting.

What is an independent economist?

A liberal economist who is pretending to not be liberal.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The difference is, Bush added $4.9 trillion to the debt, Obama added $9.3 trillion to the debt.

Sophistry alert!

Of course, this particular right-wing poster is fully aware that those numbers, on their own, are not indicative of anything. But when placed within the proper context, we see that Bush adding $5.1T to the debt of $4.5T was more than doubling it, whereas Obama adding $9.3T to a debt of $10.6T was less than doubling it.

I want to know why you felt the need to exercise sophistry to distort the debt numbers without placing them in proper context.

And..Reagan added about $2T to the debt that was $977B when he took office.

So Reagan tripled the debt. But that's OK by you because the debt was smaller back then(?)...your argument makes no fucking sense.

Of course, this particular right-wing poster is fully aware that those numbers, on their own, are not indicative of anything. But when placed within the proper context, we see that Bush adding $5.1T to the debt of $4.5T was more than doubling it, whereas Obama adding $9.3T to a debt of $10.6T was less than doubling it.

Bush adding $4.9 trillion to $5.7 trillion was less than doubling it.
Obama adding $9.3 trillion to $10.6 trillion was less than doubling it.

So Reagan tripled the debt.

Yup. Reagan adding $2 trillion to the debt to win the Cold War was awful!
Bush adding $4.9 trillion was worse, Obama adding $9.3 trillion.....no big deal,
because he read a decent teleprompter.

I want to know why you felt the need to exercise sophistry to distort the debt numbers without placing them in proper context.

I want to know why $4.9 trillion in 2009 was equivalent to $9.3 trillion in 2017?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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?

All irrelevant

If you want to craft economic policy try winning the elections required to achieve that goal rather than whining endlessly