Pre-existing conditions coverage

[dnsmith35]

“If you feed enough oats to the horse, some will pass through to feed the sparrows (referring to "trickle down" economics).”
John Kenneth Galbraith.

Quoting the least important "economist" over the last 150 years I see.

Honest economists have know for years that 'trickle down' doesn't work. We already determined that PERSONAL tax cuts for the wealthy does not create jobs.

I agree, that is supply side or commonly called trickle down. So why did JFK reduce the top income tax rates and corporate tax rates? Both are part of the primary Supply side economics theory. As we have proved convincingly, JFK reduced the top rates by a much larger marginal tax rate than he reduced the lower bracket rates. So you are finally saying that you know the JFK tax cuts were primarily supply side with just a smidgen of a marginal rate tax cut for the less wealthy.

It creates DEBT and it creates wealth inequality.

That is not what has caused wealth inequality, period. I am surprised you are stupid enough to say that. Or are you quoting another of your now famous left wing extremist propaganda?

The empirical proof is the last 30 some years since liberals lost power in this nation, and a conservative era took over, including your dogmatic worship of supply side economics that replaced Keynesian economics in America.

1. I don't worship Supply Side economics. Are you so unable to understand what I hate is the propaganda which suggests JFK actually cut taxes such that it was demand side economics. Only the stupid or the dishonest accept his stated label. And I don't so much hate Keynesian economics so much as it just doesn't work. When Keynesian economics is applied and the economy improves, it is proof that the economy simply got better with no proof of causation by Keynesian economic policies. That is because every dollar used to stimulate the economy is taken out of the economy to begin with.

For someone who claims to have schooling in economics, you are a dunce. NOW, the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation is lying to protect Kennedy...

I studied economics and know that what you are passing on in the way of repeated propaganda is the stupid stuff.

Here are your words for the day:
1) brackets
2) marginal

Good words, both of them, since taxes are cut in different rates for the different marginal rates when ever taxes are cut. JFK cut taxes more on the top marginal bracket, and Bush cut them across the board, and in the process all of the still living left wingers who praised JFK for cutting the top bracket, whine and cried about Bush cutting the lower rates. I will quote one of your comments above, " Honest economists have know for years that 'trickle down' doesn't work. We already determined that PERSONAL tax cuts for the wealthy does not create jobs." Yet that is EXACTLY WHAT JFK DID, CUT THE HIGHER TAX BRACKETS MORE THAN THE LOWER BRACKETS. And yes, that did not create jobs, the economy did it in spite of JFK's SUPPLY SIDE TAX CUTS.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

Half right. Without the wealth of the top 50% who pay most of the tax we would not be prosperous enough to help the poor and the needy.

Good charts, both. They break the brackets down much further than the one I put up. I got tired of reformatting so I only used a few, which said the same thing about 1964 tax cuts, clearly showing that JFK reduced the top marginal rates MUCH MORE than he did the bottom marginal rates. As a result of both charts you can see that many more of the less wealth were paying taxes than after the Bush tax cuts which were fairly even across the board except his lowest bracket were 10% instead of 15% and many of the less wealth started getting money back in the form of earned income tax credits effectively giving the lower paid wage earnings a negative income tax. Your propagandists went nuts celebrating the JFK 36% cut in the top marginal tax rate and whined and cried that Bush was giving the rich tax breaks at the expense of the poor. What a bunch of stupid hypocrites. If you can't look at the JFK tax rates and the Bush tax rates, you are more stupid than I thought you were. Have fun, either tell the truth or fall back on eating the shit the left wing propagandists are shoveling at you.

 

[crisismangement]

“If you feed enough oats to the horse, some will pass through to feed the sparrows (referring to "trickle down" economics).”
John Kenneth Galbraith.

Quoting the least important "economist" over the last 150 years I see.

Honest economists have know for years that 'trickle down' doesn't work. We already determined that PERSONAL tax cuts for the wealthy does not create jobs.

I agree, that is supply side or commonly called trickle down. So why did JFK reduce the top income tax rates and corporate tax rates? Both are part of the primary Supply side economics theory. As we have proved convincingly, JFK reduced the top rates by a much larger marginal tax rate than he reduced the lower bracket rates. So you are finally saying that you know the JFK tax cuts were primarily supply side with just a smidgen of a marginal rate tax cut for the less wealthy. That is not what has caused wealth inequality, period. I am surprised you are stupid enough to say that. Or are you quoting another of your now famous left wing extremist propaganda?1. I don't worship Supply Side economics. Are you so unable to understand what I hate is the propaganda which suggests JFK actually cut taxes such that it was demand side economics. Only the stupid or the dishonest accept his stated label. And I don't so much hate Keynesian economics so much as it just doesn't work. When Keynesian economics is applied and the economy improves, it is proof that the economy simply got better with no proof of causation by Keynesian economic policies. That is because every dollar used to stimulate the economy is taken out of the economy to begin with.I studied economics and know that what you are passing on in the way of repeated propaganda is the stupid stuff.Good words, both of them, since taxes are cut in different rates for the different marginal rates when ever taxes are cut. JFK cut taxes more on the top marginal bracket, and Bush cut them across the board, and in the process all of the still living left wingers who praised JFK for cutting the top bracket, whine and cried about Bush cutting the lower rates. I will quote one of your comments above, " Honest economists have know for years that 'trickle down' doesn't work. We already determined that PERSONAL tax cuts for the wealthy does not create jobs." Yet that is EXACTLY WHAT JFK DID, CUT THE HIGHER TAX BRACKETS MORE THAN THE LOWER BRACKETS. And yes, that did not create jobs, the economy did it in spite of JFK's SUPPLY SIDE TAX CUTS.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

Half right. Without the wealth of the top 50% who pay most of the tax we would not be prosperous enough to help the poor and the needy.

Good charts, both. They break the brackets down much further than the one I put up. I got tired of reformatting so I only used a few, which said the same thing about 1964 tax cuts, clearly showing that JFK reduced the top marginal rates MUCH MORE than he did the bottom marginal rates. As a result of both charts you can see that many more of the less wealth were paying taxes than after the Bush tax cuts which were fairly even across the board except his lowest bracket were 10% instead of 15% and many of the less wealth started getting money back in the form of earned income tax credits effectively giving the lower paid wage earnings a negative income tax. Your propagandists went nuts celebrating the JFK 36% cut in the top marginal tax rate and whined and cried that Bush was giving the rich tax breaks at the expense of the poor. What a bunch of stupid hypocrites. If you can't look at the JFK tax rates and the Bush tax rates, you are more stupid than I thought you were. Have fun, either tell the truth or fall back on eating the shit the left wing propagandists are shoveling at you.

I think you need to give up on that BF guy. He states in one post that cutting taxes on the rich more than the poor does not help the economy or the little guy, and that it is trickle-down economics. Since trickle-down is classic supply side economics he actually recognizes that it is bad for the consumer. Then he turns around and says JFK's tax cut for the rich of 36% in 1964, with much smaller rate reductions for the less wealthy, is demand side economics; whereas When Bush comes along and cuts the top marginal rate 4.6%, cuts 5% of the lowest rate, and creates an even smaller 10% bracket, moving most of the people who before his tax cut paid 15% marginal rate to the 10% marginal rate and eliminating several million from the tax rolls altogether. He also enactied many other benefits which benefited the poor much more than his predecessor. Yet BFIdiot salutes JFK's Supply Side tax cut because his left wing sources tell him in their propaganda that it is Demand Side. That dude is to ignorant to live in the real world and he lives in some left wing dream world that does not exist. This BFing idiot is a lost cause.

 

[Bfgrn]

“If you feed enough oats to the horse, some will pass through to feed the sparrows (referring to "trickle down" economics).”
John Kenneth Galbraith.

Quoting the least important "economist" over the last 150 years I see.

Honest economists have know for years that 'trickle down' doesn't work. We already determined that PERSONAL tax cuts for the wealthy does not create jobs.

I agree, that is supply side or commonly called trickle down. So why did JFK reduce the top income tax rates and corporate tax rates? Both are part of the primary Supply side economics theory. As we have proved convincingly, JFK reduced the top rates by a much larger marginal tax rate than he reduced the lower bracket rates. So you are finally saying that you know the JFK tax cuts were primarily supply side with just a smidgen of a marginal rate tax cut for the less wealthy. That is not what has caused wealth inequality, period. I am surprised you are stupid enough to say that. Or are you quoting another of your now famous left wing extremist propaganda?1. I don't worship Supply Side economics. Are you so unable to understand what I hate is the propaganda which suggests JFK actually cut taxes such that it was demand side economics. Only the stupid or the dishonest accept his stated label. And I don't so much hate Keynesian economics so much as it just doesn't work. When Keynesian economics is applied and the economy improves, it is proof that the economy simply got better with no proof of causation by Keynesian economic policies. That is because every dollar used to stimulate the economy is taken out of the economy to begin with.I studied economics and know that what you are passing on in the way of repeated propaganda is the stupid stuff.Good words, both of them, since taxes are cut in different rates for the different marginal rates when ever taxes are cut. JFK cut taxes more on the top marginal bracket, and Bush cut them across the board, and in the process all of the still living left wingers who praised JFK for cutting the top bracket, whine and cried about Bush cutting the lower rates. I will quote one of your comments above, " Honest economists have know for years that 'trickle down' doesn't work. We already determined that PERSONAL tax cuts for the wealthy does not create jobs." Yet that is EXACTLY WHAT JFK DID, CUT THE HIGHER TAX BRACKETS MORE THAN THE LOWER BRACKETS. And yes, that did not create jobs, the economy did it in spite of JFK's SUPPLY SIDE TAX CUTS.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

Half right. Without the wealth of the top 50% who pay most of the tax we would not be prosperous enough to help the poor and the needy.

Good charts, both. They break the brackets down much further than the one I put up. I got tired of reformatting so I only used a few, which said the same thing about 1964 tax cuts, clearly showing that JFK reduced the top marginal rates MUCH MORE than he did the bottom marginal rates. As a result of both charts you can see that many more of the less wealth were paying taxes than after the Bush tax cuts which were fairly even across the board except his lowest bracket were 10% instead of 15% and many of the less wealth started getting money back in the form of earned income tax credits effectively giving the lower paid wage earnings a negative income tax. Your propagandists went nuts celebrating the JFK 36% cut in the top marginal tax rate and whined and cried that Bush was giving the rich tax breaks at the expense of the poor. What a bunch of stupid hypocrites. If you can't look at the JFK tax rates and the Bush tax rates, you are more stupid than I thought you were. Have fun, either tell the truth or fall back on eating the shit the left wing propagandists are shoveling at you.

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

Better take off your shoes so you can do more advanced math Einstein...

So explain HOW personal tax cuts for the wealthy are transferred to the supply side of the economy?

 

[kaz]

So you are right wing fanatic economically and left wing socially. So what?

So just calling me extremely right wing fanatic is idiotic and misleading. The irony of the statement which all you left wing moon bats like to make about me is that it shows your overt greed. You don't care how far left I am socially, and you forgot to mention I'm far left militarily, all you care about is $$$. That's the only issue you measure anyone by because it's the only issue you care about. Someone obsessed with money and nothing else is consumed with ... wait for it ... greed.

As for the statement I'm far right "economically" and far left "socially," and again I'm left militarily, while it's true, it's conceptually a lot clearer to realize that I'm consistently anti-government.

 

[kaz]

Over the years the two main parties in the US have switched sides of the conservative/liberal argument. At one time it was the Democrat party which was the conservative, anti-racial equality, the same traits now plugged by the Democrat Party. I have lived through liberal democrats, liberal republicans, and again liberal democrats, but more to my regret to the point where the Democrat party is led by leftwing extremists.

The Democrats are not liberal and the Republicans are not conservative.

In my opinion, party politics should be abolished and people should run without party backing on their own recognizance. Federal offices such as the Senate and the Presidency should go back to being chosen by the state legislators. The House members represent a small bit of turf so they should be directly elected by the people. Campaign money should only be legally from those in the individuals district. That would eliminate huge party financial support to candidates. Only a limited amount of money should be spent on campaign donations to individuals, solving the billionaire, corporate or other groups buying candidates.

The founding fathers considered banning party affiliation for officeholders. I wish they had. When I was younger, I used to believe in picking the best candidate. But I realized eventually that their party affiliation drove most of their votes, it really didn't matter if you had a good or a poor candidate. You're just voting for their party. And both parties pathetic standing for little and not in any way consistently supporting their own ideology.

Wouldn't it be great if the Democratic "liberals" actually fought for freedom and individual choice instead of authoritarian leftism and the Republicans actually fought for smaller, cheaper government? The irony now is they are the same and they can't agree on anything. If you consider what they claim to stand for, if they both did that, they actually could find common ground as smaller, cheaper government is actuall consistent with freedom and individual choice. Now they are both just fighting for the steering wheel.

 

[crisismangement]

“If you feed enough oats to the horse, some will pass through to feed the sparrows (referring to "trickle down" economics).”
John Kenneth Galbraith.

Everyone generally accepts that.

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

Burke is so right. It is a darn shame you read without reflecting or digesting as a matter of habit.

Better take off your shoes so you can do more advanced math Einstein...

It doesn't take advanced math to understand your hypocrisy.

So explain HOW personal tax cuts for the wealthy are transferred to the supply side of the economy?

It is part of the definition of Supply Side economics. Cut the taxes of the rich and they will invest more, hire more workers and all labor will have wealth trickle down from the rich.

Supply-side economics definition. An economic theory that holds that, by lowering taxes on corporations, government can stimulate investment in industry and thereby raise production, which will, in turn, bring down prices and control inflation.Google

Supply-Side Theory Definition | Investopedia

An economic theory holding that bolstering an economy's ability to supply more goods is the most effective way to stimulate economic growth.

Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomics that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services as well as invest in capital. According to supply-side economics, consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices; furthermore, the investment and expansion of businesses will increase the demand for employees. Typical policy recommendations of supply-side economists are lower marginal tax rates and less regulation.

The Laffer curve embodies a tenet of supply side economics: that government tax revenues from a specific tax are the same (nil) at 100% tax rates as at 0% tax rates respectively. The tax rate that achieves optimum, or highest government revenues is somewhere in between these two values.

The term "supply-side economics" was thought, for some time, to have been coined by journalist Jude Wanniski in 1975, but according to Robert D. Atkinson's Supply-Side Follies, the term "supply side" ("supply-side fiscalists") was first used by Herbert Stein, a former economic adviser to President Nixon, in 1976, and only later that year was this term repeated by Jude Wanniski. Its use connotes the ideas of economists Robert Mundell and Arthur Laffer. Supply-side economics is likened by critics to "trickle-down economics." Wikipedia

As I recall, those passages have been posted before now, and as is quite common, you did not reflect or digest the meaning of them. I see no reason to believe you have gotten any more intellectually capable.. Just as a reminder of what we have categorically proved, JFK's tax cuts were larger %s rates on the top brackets and lower %s rates on the less rich.

Bush's tax cuts, on the other hand were targeted mostly on the lower end of the scale. Kind of bites you in the ass to know that your liberal president was more supply side than our more conservative president.

 

[Bfgrn]

“If you feed enough oats to the horse, some will pass through to feed the sparrows (referring to "trickle down" economics).”
John Kenneth Galbraith.

Everyone generally accepts that.

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

Burke is so right. It is a darn shame you read without reflecting or digesting as a matter of habit.

Better take off your shoes so you can do more advanced math Einstein...

It doesn't take advanced math to understand your hypocrisy.

So explain HOW personal tax cuts for the wealthy are transferred to the supply side of the economy?

It is part of the definition of Supply Side economics. Cut the taxes of the rich and they will invest more, hire more workers and all labor will have wealth trickle down from the rich.

Supply-side economics definition. An economic theory that holds that, by lowering taxes on corporations, government can stimulate investment in industry and thereby raise production, which will, in turn, bring down prices and control inflation.Google

Supply-Side Theory Definition | Investopedia

An economic theory holding that bolstering an economy's ability to supply more goods is the most effective way to stimulate economic growth.

Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomics that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services as well as invest in capital. According to supply-side economics, consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices; furthermore, the investment and expansion of businesses will increase the demand for employees. Typical policy recommendations of supply-side economists are lower marginal tax rates and less regulation.

The Laffer curve embodies a tenet of supply side economics: that government tax revenues from a specific tax are the same (nil) at 100% tax rates as at 0% tax rates respectively. The tax rate that achieves optimum, or highest government revenues is somewhere in between these two values.

The term "supply-side economics" was thought, for some time, to have been coined by journalist Jude Wanniski in 1975, but according to Robert D. Atkinson's Supply-Side Follies, the term "supply side" ("supply-side fiscalists") was first used by Herbert Stein, a former economic adviser to President Nixon, in 1976, and only later that year was this term repeated by Jude Wanniski. Its use connotes the ideas of economists Robert Mundell and Arthur Laffer. Supply-side economics is likened by critics to "trickle-down economics." Wikipedia

As I recall, those passages have been posted before now, and as is quite common, you did not reflect or digest the meaning of them. I see no reason to believe you have gotten any more intellectually capable.. Just as a reminder of what we have categorically proved, JFK's tax cuts were larger %s rates on the top brackets and lower %s rates on the less rich.

Bush's tax cuts, on the other hand were targeted mostly on the lower end of the scale. Kind of bites you in the ass to know that your liberal president was more supply side than our more conservative president.

It is AMAZING how little right wingers like dnsmith and you, who keeps clinging to his leg know about economics...

NO ONE EVER hired a single worker because of PERSONAL tax cuts. The ONLY reason anyone would ever hire someone is DEMAND...period.

Now take your shoes off and do the math...I gave you the brackets....

 

[Listening]

It is AMAZING how little right wingers like dnsmith and you, who keeps clinging to his leg know about economics...

NO ONE EVER hired a single worker because of PERSONAL tax cuts. The ONLY reason anyone would ever hire someone is DEMAND...period.

Now take your shoes off and do the math...I gave you the brackets....

Not that you could ever prove this article of faith of yours.

 

[Bfgrn]

It is AMAZING how little right wingers like dnsmith and you, who keeps clinging to his leg know about economics...

NO ONE EVER hired a single worker because of PERSONAL tax cuts. The ONLY reason anyone would ever hire someone is DEMAND...period.

Now take your shoes off and do the math...I gave you the brackets....

Not that you could ever prove this article of faith of yours.

Yea, let's imagine THAT husband and wife conservation...

H: Hi honey, I just got back my tax returns. I am getting a tax break, so I am going to hire another worker.

W: But do you need another worker?

H: Nah, but what else could I do with it?

W: I could think of a millions things...a new wardrobe for me, a new car, a built in pool, a vacation to Europe...

H: But, don't you understand, it was a SUPPLY side tax cut...

W: It is YOUR PERSONAL income, if you hire another worker, the business MUST demand it. You are not in the charity business...

 

[thereisnospoon]

I am a moderate who leans right. I agree with most of what you say. The guy you are arguing with is way out in right field, as far right wing as our resident left wing fanatic.

Yes, I'm a right winger who is pro-choice, thinks all drugs should be legal as well as prostitution and gambling. I'm against the death penalty. I oppose our military being in the Middle East or overseas in any country permanently or used for any purpose other than the direct defense of the United States.

Good insight there. Here's a cookie. Barney is on in a few minutes...

A right winger who is pro-choice, drugs should be legalized, against the death penalty or military incursions. So you are right wing fanatic economically and left wing socially. So what? Sounds to me like you are a mixed up cookie, but at least you are individualized as opposed to sticking with either right wing or left wing propaganda. Personally I am for the death penalty, legalizing drugs, using our military in an attempt to protect the oppressed anywhere and since I am a man abortion is a non-issue to me.

Kaz is more Libertarian.
Which scares the ever loving shit out of libs.

 

[Bfgrn]

Yes, I'm a right winger who is pro-choice, thinks all drugs should be legal as well as prostitution and gambling. I'm against the death penalty. I oppose our military being in the Middle East or overseas in any country permanently or used for any purpose other than the direct defense of the United States.

Good insight there. Here's a cookie. Barney is on in a few minutes...

A right winger who is pro-choice, drugs should be legalized, against the death penalty or military incursions. So you are right wing fanatic economically and left wing socially. So what? Sounds to me like you are a mixed up cookie, but at least you are individualized as opposed to sticking with either right wing or left wing propaganda. Personally I am for the death penalty, legalizing drugs, using our military in an attempt to protect the oppressed anywhere and since I am a man abortion is a non-issue to me.

Kaz is more Libertarian.
Which scares the ever loving shit out of libs.

It should scare the ever loving shit out of EVERYONE...

The closest twin we have in America today to the communists and Marxists in Russia are the 'Marketists'; conservatives, libertarians and 'free marketeers' who have turned government nonintervention and 'laissez faire' into a religion. It has created 'malaise faire'

Blind Faith

For a country that has prided itself on its resourcefulness, the inability to address our problems suggests something deeper at work. There is something, powerful but insidious, that blinds us to the causes of these problems and undermines our ability to respond. That something is a set of beliefs, comparable to religious beliefs in earlier ages, about the nature of economies and societies. These beliefs imply the impropriety of government intervention either in social contexts (libertarianism) or in economic affairs (laissez faire).

The faithful unquestioningly embrace the credo that the doctrine of nonintervention has generated our most venerated institutions: our democracy, the best possible political system; and our free market economy, the best possible economic system. But despite our devotion to the dogmas that libertarianism and free market economics are the foundation of all that we cherish most deeply, they have failed us and are responsible for our present malaise.

The pieties of libertarianism and free markets sound pretty, but they cannot withstand even a cursory inspection. Libertarianism does not support democracy; taken to an extreme, it entails the law of the jungle. If government never interferes, we could all get away with murder. Alternatively, if the libertarian position is not to be taken to an extreme, where should it stop? What is the difference between no government and minimal government? Attempts to justify libertarianism, even a less than extreme position, have failed. Laissez faire, or free market economics, characterized by minimal or no government intervention, has a history that is long but undistinguished. Just as the negative effects of a high fever do not certify the health benefits of the opposite extreme, hypothermia, the dismal failure of communism, seeking complete government control of the economy, does not certify the economic benefits of the opposite extreme, total economic non-intervention.
Myths Of The Free Market


Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
Edmund Burke

 

[Listening]

It is AMAZING how little right wingers like dnsmith and you, who keeps clinging to his leg know about economics...

NO ONE EVER hired a single worker because of PERSONAL tax cuts. The ONLY reason anyone would ever hire someone is DEMAND...period.

Now take your shoes off and do the math...I gave you the brackets....

Not that you could ever prove this article of faith of yours.

Yea, let's imagine THAT husband and wife conservation...

H: Hi honey, I just got back my tax returns. I am getting a tax break, so I am going to hire another worker.

W: But do you need another worker?

H: Nah, but what else could I do with it?

W: I could think of a millions things...a new wardrobe for me, a new car, a built in pool, a vacation to Europe...

H: But, don't you understand, it was a SUPPLY side tax cut...

W: It is YOUR PERSONAL income, if you hire another worker, the business MUST demand it. You are not in the charity business...

This is really supposed to be an argument ?

And you say others don't understand economics ?

Here is your basic definition of Supply Side Economics:

According to supply-side economics, consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices; furthermore, the investment and expansion of businesses will increase the demand for employees.

***************

To listen to you, Procter and Gamble would never compete for any of Colgate Palmolives marketshare.

Or the local welding shop might not try to cut into a competitors business.

Here is my final post on this topic....

http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/p/supply_side.htm

Once again, you've done your ADD schtick and derailed or hijacked the thread. This is about pre-existing conditions.

 

[Bfgrn]

Not that you could ever prove this article of faith of yours.

Yea, let's imagine THAT husband and wife conservation...

H: Hi honey, I just got back my tax returns. I am getting a tax break, so I am going to hire another worker.

W: But do you need another worker?

H: Nah, but what else could I do with it?

W: I could think of a millions things...a new wardrobe for me, a new car, a built in pool, a vacation to Europe...

H: But, don't you understand, it was a SUPPLY side tax cut...

W: It is YOUR PERSONAL income, if you hire another worker, the business MUST demand it. You are not in the charity business...

This is really supposed to be an argument ?

And you say others don't understand economics ?

Here is your basic definition of Supply Side Economics:

According to supply-side economics, consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices; furthermore, the investment and expansion of businesses will increase the demand for employees.

***************

To listen to you, Procter and Gamble would never compete for any of Colgate Palmolives marketshare.

Or the local welding shop might not try to cut into a competitors business.

Here is my final post on this topic....

Supply-side Economics Definition and Studies that Support Supply-side Economics

Once again, you've done your ADD schtick and derailed or hijacked the thread. This is about pre-existing conditions.

What you have posted is TOTALLY non sequitur...

I completely understand the supply side of the economy. And so did President Kennedy. First, under the Kennedy program, business was given tax breaks, notably the investment tax credit - still in force - and liberalized depreciation rules.

These 1961-62 measures, says Heller, were designed to give businessmen an incentive to invest in new plant and equipment - in short, the supply-side approach.

Not until 1964, Dr. Heller adds - after the supply-side tax cuts had begun their work - were personal income tax cuts (the demand side of the equation) put in place.

NO PERSONAL tax cuts are supply side...NONE.

Businessmen don't hire based on their PERSONAL income. They hire SOLELY based on DEMAND. If their production can't keep up with DEMAND, then there is a need to increase production, thus DEMAND calls for adding to the workforce.

Now, I will return to the topic...pre-existing conditions

The fact that you can't understand even these basic economic truths, proves a pre-existing condition of conservatism is ignorance.

 

[Listening]

Yea, let's imagine THAT husband and wife conservation...

H: Hi honey, I just got back my tax returns. I am getting a tax break, so I am going to hire another worker.

W: But do you need another worker?

H: Nah, but what else could I do with it?

W: I could think of a millions things...a new wardrobe for me, a new car, a built in pool, a vacation to Europe...

H: But, don't you understand, it was a SUPPLY side tax cut...

W: It is YOUR PERSONAL income, if you hire another worker, the business MUST demand it. You are not in the charity business...

This is really supposed to be an argument ?

And you say others don't understand economics ?

Here is your basic definition of Supply Side Economics:

According to supply-side economics, consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices; furthermore, the investment and expansion of businesses will increase the demand for employees.

***************

To listen to you, Procter and Gamble would never compete for any of Colgate Palmolives marketshare.

Or the local welding shop might not try to cut into a competitors business.

Here is my final post on this topic....

Supply-side Economics Definition and Studies that Support Supply-side Economics

Once again, you've done your ADD schtick and derailed or hijacked the thread. This is about pre-existing conditions.

What you have posted is TOTALLY non sequitur...

I completely understand the supply side of the economy. And so did President Kennedy. First, under the Kennedy program, business was given tax breaks, notably the investment tax credit - still in force - and liberalized depreciation rules.

These 1961-62 measures, says Heller, were designed to give businessmen an incentive to invest in new plant and equipment - in short, the supply-side approach.

Not until 1964, Dr. Heller adds - after the supply-side tax cuts had begun their work - were personal income tax cuts (the demand side of the equation) put in place.

NO PERSONAL tax cuts are supply side...NONE.

Businessmen don't hire based on their PERSONAL income. They hire SOLELY based on DEMAND. If their production can't keep up with DEMAND, then there is a need to increase production, thus DEMAND calls for adding to the workforce.

Now, I will return to the topic...pre-existing conditions

The fact that you can't understand even these basic economic truths, proves a pre-existing condition of conservatism is ignorance.

Your pre-existing condition is your head up your ass.

You don't know crap about economics.

You clearly don't understand supply side economics.

 

[Bfgrn]

This is really supposed to be an argument ?

And you say others don't understand economics ?

Here is your basic definition of Supply Side Economics:

According to supply-side economics, consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices; furthermore, the investment and expansion of businesses will increase the demand for employees.

***************

To listen to you, Procter and Gamble would never compete for any of Colgate Palmolives marketshare.

Or the local welding shop might not try to cut into a competitors business.

Here is my final post on this topic....

Supply-side Economics Definition and Studies that Support Supply-side Economics

Once again, you've done your ADD schtick and derailed or hijacked the thread. This is about pre-existing conditions.

What you have posted is TOTALLY non sequitur...

I completely understand the supply side of the economy. And so did President Kennedy. First, under the Kennedy program, business was given tax breaks, notably the investment tax credit - still in force - and liberalized depreciation rules.

These 1961-62 measures, says Heller, were designed to give businessmen an incentive to invest in new plant and equipment - in short, the supply-side approach.

Not until 1964, Dr. Heller adds - after the supply-side tax cuts had begun their work - were personal income tax cuts (the demand side of the equation) put in place.

NO PERSONAL tax cuts are supply side...NONE.

Businessmen don't hire based on their PERSONAL income. They hire SOLELY based on DEMAND. If their production can't keep up with DEMAND, then there is a need to increase production, thus DEMAND calls for adding to the workforce.

Now, I will return to the topic...pre-existing conditions

The fact that you can't understand even these basic economic truths, proves a pre-existing condition of conservatism is ignorance.

Your pre-existing condition is your head up your ass.

You don't know crap about economics.

You clearly don't understand supply side economics.

I have a very clear understanding of 'supply-side economics'.

Your idea of 'supply side' economics is to lick the ass of the opulent, and they will shit dollars your way.

If Procter and Gamble wants to compete for Colgate Palmolive's market share, or a local welding shop wants to cut into a competitor's business, hiring or firing based on anything other than sound business practices and demand would be ignorant.

Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?

 

[crisismangement]

So you are right wing fanatic economically and left wing socially. So what?

So just calling me extremely right wing fanatic is idiotic and misleading. The irony of the statement which all you left wing moon bats like to make about me is that it shows your overt greed. You don't care how far left I am socially, and you forgot to mention I'm far left militarily, all you care about is $$$. That's the only issue you measure anyone by because it's the only issue you care about. Someone obsessed with money and nothing else is consumed with ... wait for it ... greed.

As for the statement I'm far right "economically" and far left "socially," and again I'm left militarily, while it's true, it's conceptually a lot clearer to realize that I'm consistently anti-government.

a. I am conservative and an independent. I judge others RW or LW affinity IAW what they say they believe in. You are all over the place - Right on some issues and left on all. Money has never been a big issue with me, and I have always had more than I needed, not rich, but very comfortable. So it seems your assessment of me is as fanatic, idiotic and misleading as you claim I was of you.

As to being anti-government, that would tend to make you anarchic. Is that they way you intended to come off? Because it is how I read it.

 

[dnsmith35]

Over the years the two main parties in the US have switched sides of the conservative/liberal argument. At one time it was the Democrat party which was the conservative, anti-racial equality, the same traits now plugged by the Democrat Party. I have lived through liberal democrats, liberal republicans, and again liberal democrats, but more to my regret to the point where the Democrat party is led by leftwing extremists.

The Democrats are not liberal and the Republicans are not conservative.

I don't agree. The democrat leadership is left wing extremist; and a major influence in the GOP is RW..

In my opinion, party politics should be abolished and people should run without party backing on their own recognizance. Federal offices such as the Senate and the Presidency should go back to being chosen by the state legislators. The House members represent a small bit of turf so they should be directly elected by the people. Campaign money should only be legally from those in the individuals district. That would eliminate huge party financial support to candidates. Only a limited amount of money should be spent on campaign donations to individuals, solving the billionaire, corporate or other groups buying candidates.

KAZ
The founding fathers considered banning party affiliation for officeholders. I wish they had. When I was younger, I used to believe in picking the best candidate. But I realized eventually that their party affiliation drove most of their votes, it really didn't matter if you had a good or a poor candidate. You're just voting for their party. And both parties pathetic standing for little and not in any way consistently supporting their own ideology.

That is why Reagan who began his life as a democrat chose to vote for JFKs opponent, because of the leadership which controlled the party at that time had left wing tendencies.

Wouldn't it be great if the Democratic "liberals" actually fought for freedom and individual choice instead of authoritarian leftism and the Republicans actually fought for smaller, cheaper government? The irony now is they are the same and they can't agree on anything. If you consider what they claim to stand for, if they both did that, they actually could find common ground as smaller, cheaper government is actually consistent with freedom and individual choice. Now they are both just fighting for the steering wheel.

Power hungry politicians. One can't trust anything they say and very little the media says about them as most media pieces are PR releases from the politician. I hope you saw the 60 Minutes show tonight. A perfect example of corruption of the spirit of the law even if it was legal.

 

[dnsmith35]

This is really supposed to be an argument ?

And you say others don't understand economics ?

Here is your basic definition of Supply Side Economics:

According to supply-side economics, consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices; furthermore, the investment and expansion of businesses will increase the demand for employees.

***************

To listen to you, Procter and Gamble would never compete for any of Colgate Palmolives marketshare.

Or the local welding shop might not try to cut into a competitors business.

Here is my final post on this topic....

Supply-side Economics Definition and Studies that Support Supply-side Economics

Once again, you've done your ADD schtick and derailed or hijacked the thread. This is about pre-existing conditions.

What you have posted is TOTALLY non sequitur...

I completely understand the supply side of the economy. And so did President Kennedy. First, under the Kennedy program, business was given tax breaks, notably the investment tax credit - still in force - and liberalized depreciation rules.

These 1961-62 measures, says Heller, were designed to give businessmen an incentive to invest in new plant and equipment - in short, the supply-side approach.

Not until 1964, Dr. Heller adds - after the supply-side tax cuts had begun their work - were personal income tax cuts (the demand side of the equation) put in place.

NO PERSONAL tax cuts are supply side...NONE.

Businessmen don't hire based on their PERSONAL income. They hire SOLELY based on DEMAND. If their production can't keep up with DEMAND, then there is a need to increase production, thus DEMAND calls for adding to the workforce.

Now, I will return to the topic...pre-existing conditions

The fact that you can't understand even these basic economic truths, proves a pre-existing condition of conservatism is ignorance.

Your pre-existing condition is your head up your ass.

You don't know crap about economics.

You clearly don't understand supply side economics.

It is obvious he has no idea what the definition of Supply Side Economic Theory even after I posted 3 separate definitions which includes the fact that TAX BREAKS TO THE RICH AND THE INDUSTRIALISTS IS CLASSIC SUPPLY SIDE.

 

[dnsmith35]

“If you feed enough oats to the horse, some will pass through to feed the sparrows (referring to "trickle down" economics).”
John Kenneth Galbraith.

Everyone generally accepts that.
Burke is so right. It is a darn shame you read without reflecting or digesting as a matter of habit.
It doesn't take advanced math to understand your hypocrisy.

So explain HOW personal tax cuts for the wealthy are transferred to the supply side of the economy?

It is part of the definition of Supply Side economics. Cut the taxes of the rich and they will invest more, hire more workers and all labor will have wealth trickle down from the rich.

Supply-side economics definition. An economic theory that holds that, by lowering taxes on corporations, government can stimulate investment in industry and thereby raise production, which will, in turn, bring down prices and control inflation.Google

Supply-Side Theory Definition | Investopedia

An economic theory holding that bolstering an economy's ability to supply more goods is the most effective way to stimulate economic growth.

Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomics that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services as well as invest in capital. According to supply-side economics, consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices; furthermore, the investment and expansion of businesses will increase the demand for employees. Typical policy recommendations of supply-side economists are lower marginal tax rates and less regulation.

The Laffer curve embodies a tenet of supply side economics: that government tax revenues from a specific tax are the same (nil) at 100% tax rates as at 0% tax rates respectively. The tax rate that achieves optimum, or highest government revenues is somewhere in between these two values.

The term "supply-side economics" was thought, for some time, to have been coined by journalist Jude Wanniski in 1975, but according to Robert D. Atkinson's Supply-Side Follies, the term "supply side" ("supply-side fiscalists") was first used by Herbert Stein, a former economic adviser to President Nixon, in 1976, and only later that year was this term repeated by Jude Wanniski. Its use connotes the ideas of economists Robert Mundell and Arthur Laffer. Supply-side economics is likened by critics to "trickle-down economics." Wikipedia

As I recall, those passages have been posted before now, and as is quite common, you did not reflect or digest the meaning of them. I see no reason to believe you have gotten any more intellectually capable.. Just as a reminder of what we have categorically proved, JFK's tax cuts were larger %s rates on the top brackets and lower %s rates on the less rich.

Bush's tax cuts, on the other hand were targeted mostly on the lower end of the scale. Kind of bites you in the ass to know that your liberal president was more supply side than our more conservative president.

It is AMAZING how little right wingers like dnsmith and you, who keeps clinging to his leg know about economics...

NO ONE EVER hired a single worker because of PERSONAL tax cuts. The ONLY reason anyone would ever hire someone is DEMAND...period.

Now take your shoes off and do the math...I gave you the brackets....

Oh yeah, you gave us the brackets and you proved you think like a little man, making little money, and lives from pay check to paycheck. So no, if you get a tax break you will probably sit up all night trying to figure out how to spend it, creating demand. Do you think a guy who makes $400,000 thinks like that? If you do you are more of a fool than I thought you were. Even me, making much less than that, when I get a raise in pay not related to the increase in the cost of living I invested it. Rich people invest a huge % of their money. That is why cutting taxes on the rich is Supply Side, BECAUSE THEY INVEST IT INSTEAD OF SPENDING ALL OF IT. Then you have those whose income is mostly long term capital gain, and they consistently invest more. Your argument that, " NO ONE EVER hired a single worker because of PERSONAL tax cuts. The ONLY reason anyone would ever hire someone is DEMAND...period," is a pile of unmitigated bullshit. The point is, you are just too stupid to understand the principle that the less wealthy spend their tax break creating demand, and the rich invest a LOT of their tax break creating Supply Side Economics.

Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomics that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services as well as invest in capital. According to supply-side economics, consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices; furthermore, the investment and expansion of businesses will increase the demand for employees. Typical policy recommendations of supply-side economists are lower marginal tax rates and less regulation.[1]

The Laffer curve embodies a tenet of supply side economics: that government tax revenues from a specific tax are the same (nil) at 100% tax rates as at 0% tax rates respectively. The tax rate that achieves optimum, or highest government revenues is somewhere in between these two values.[2]

The term "supply-side economics" was thought, for some time, to have been coined by journalist Jude Wanniski in 1975, but according to Robert D. Atkinson's Supply-Side Follies,[3] the term "supply side" ("supply-side fiscalists") was first used by Herbert Stein, a former economic adviser to President Nixon, in 1976, and only later that year was this term repeated by Jude Wanniski. Its use connotes the ideas of economists Robert Mundell and Arthur Laffer. Supply-side economics is likened by critics to "trickle-down economics."
Supply-side economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

supply-side economicsDefinition

An economic theory which holds that reducing tax rates, especially for businesses and wealthy individuals, stimulates savings and investment for the benefit of everyone. also called trickle-down economics.
What is Supply-side Economics? definition and meaning​

Like you said earlier in other words, I can lead you to the data and the definitions, but I can't make you read it, understand it, or digest the information such that you understand its application. IOW you don't know crap about economics, you just parrot your left wing propagandists words.

 

[Bfgrn]

Everyone generally accepts that.
Burke is so right. It is a darn shame you read without reflecting or digesting as a matter of habit.
It doesn't take advanced math to understand your hypocrisy. It is part of the definition of Supply Side economics. Cut the taxes of the rich and they will invest more, hire more workers and all labor will have wealth trickle down from the rich.

Supply-side economics definition. An economic theory that holds that, by lowering taxes on corporations, government can stimulate investment in industry and thereby raise production, which will, in turn, bring down prices and control inflation.Google

Supply-Side Theory Definition | Investopedia

An economic theory holding that bolstering an economy's ability to supply more goods is the most effective way to stimulate economic growth.

Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomics that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services as well as invest in capital. According to supply-side economics, consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices; furthermore, the investment and expansion of businesses will increase the demand for employees. Typical policy recommendations of supply-side economists are lower marginal tax rates and less regulation.

The Laffer curve embodies a tenet of supply side economics: that government tax revenues from a specific tax are the same (nil) at 100% tax rates as at 0% tax rates respectively. The tax rate that achieves optimum, or highest government revenues is somewhere in between these two values.

The term "supply-side economics" was thought, for some time, to have been coined by journalist Jude Wanniski in 1975, but according to Robert D. Atkinson's Supply-Side Follies, the term "supply side" ("supply-side fiscalists") was first used by Herbert Stein, a former economic adviser to President Nixon, in 1976, and only later that year was this term repeated by Jude Wanniski. Its use connotes the ideas of economists Robert Mundell and Arthur Laffer. Supply-side economics is likened by critics to "trickle-down economics." Wikipedia

As I recall, those passages have been posted before now, and as is quite common, you did not reflect or digest the meaning of them. I see no reason to believe you have gotten any more intellectually capable.. Just as a reminder of what we have categorically proved, JFK's tax cuts were larger %s rates on the top brackets and lower %s rates on the less rich.

Bush's tax cuts, on the other hand were targeted mostly on the lower end of the scale. Kind of bites you in the ass to know that your liberal president was more supply side than our more conservative president.

It is AMAZING how little right wingers like dnsmith and you, who keeps clinging to his leg know about economics...

NO ONE EVER hired a single worker because of PERSONAL tax cuts. The ONLY reason anyone would ever hire someone is DEMAND...period.

Now take your shoes off and do the math...I gave you the brackets....

Oh yeah, you gave us the brackets and you proved you think like a little man, making little money, and lives from pay check to paycheck. So no, if you get a tax break you will probably sit up all night trying to figure out how to spend it, creating demand. Do you think a guy who makes $400,000 thinks like that? If you do you are more of a fool than I thought you were. Even me, making much less than that, when I get a raise in pay not related to the increase in the cost of living I invested it. Rich people invest a huge % of their money. That is why cutting taxes on the rich is Supply Side, BECAUSE THEY INVEST IT INSTEAD OF SPENDING ALL OF IT. Then you have those whose income is mostly long term capital gain, and they consistently invest more. Your argument that, " NO ONE EVER hired a single worker because of PERSONAL tax cuts. The ONLY reason anyone would ever hire someone is DEMAND...period," is a pile of unmitigated bullshit. The point is, you are just too stupid to understand the principle that the less wealthy spend their tax break creating demand, and the rich invest a LOT of their tax break creating Supply Side Economics.

Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomics that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services as well as invest in capital. According to supply-side economics, consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices; furthermore, the investment and expansion of businesses will increase the demand for employees. Typical policy recommendations of supply-side economists are lower marginal tax rates and less regulation.[1]

The Laffer curve embodies a tenet of supply side economics: that government tax revenues from a specific tax are the same (nil) at 100% tax rates as at 0% tax rates respectively. The tax rate that achieves optimum, or highest government revenues is somewhere in between these two values.[2]

The term "supply-side economics" was thought, for some time, to have been coined by journalist Jude Wanniski in 1975, but according to Robert D. Atkinson's Supply-Side Follies,[3] the term "supply side" ("supply-side fiscalists") was first used by Herbert Stein, a former economic adviser to President Nixon, in 1976, and only later that year was this term repeated by Jude Wanniski. Its use connotes the ideas of economists Robert Mundell and Arthur Laffer. Supply-side economics is likened by critics to "trickle-down economics."
Supply-side economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

supply-side economicsDefinition

An economic theory which holds that reducing tax rates, especially for businesses and wealthy individuals, stimulates savings and investment for the benefit of everyone. also called trickle-down economics.
What is Supply-side Economics? definition and meaning​

Like you said earlier in other words, I can lead you to the data and the definitions, but I can't make you read it, understand it, or digest the information such that you understand its application. IOW you don't know crap about economics, you just parrot your left wing propagandists words.

Again, you show your ignorance.

dnsmith says: An economic theory holding that bolstering an economy's ability to supply more goods is the most effective way to stimulate economic growth.

Oats for the horses...

Now THAT is a pile of unmitigated bullshit. It is the LEAST effective way. As a matter of FACT, only a moron who doesn't understand economics, human nature or the market place would blurt out that kind of UTTER bullshit.

You can supply all the goods you want, without a DEMAND for those goods, those goods are worthless. Just like your lick the ass of the opulent 'trickle down' theory.

Your problem is after you feed the horse's oats, you have the cart before the horse. That explains the brown stuff on your shoes and smell.

Trickle down is the biggest failure in American history. It has not created anything except DEBT and inequality.

What have 30 years of conservative policies brought? A larger gap between the richest and poorest Americans than has existed at almost any other time in our nation’s history. Stagnating wages for all but the wealthiest Americans. Increased hours, decreased benefits and enormous public debt caused by a financial crisis that was the direct product of the radical deregulation of our financial markets.

VOODOO economics...