When Did Trump Make You A Keynesian?

[Jerico]

We've all heard the pseudocon Rube Herd parrot the meme that "tax cuts increase revenues". They get this meme from their propagandists and then repeat it unthinkingly.

Maybe to you.

First, I want to apologize that I cannot yet post links. I had to remove them. Instead I gave hints on what to search for. Just please note that I did actually source my statements. This forum just doesn't trust me yet as I'm new.

Let's talk about Keynes for a minute. As one will surmise, I speak of Keynesian economics negatively, but not because his economics is abjectly terrible, but because like the term "liberal" today, it has been bastardized into something precisely the opposite of that which it is meant to be.

Keynesian economics is about using an invisible hand to stabilize markets which are already under invisible influence. Most of K's work revolved around speculative trading which could produce wealth without value, thus creating spikes in the natural cycle of economic recessions and progressions. To that end, he proposed the use of financial tools as buffers to help smooth out these anomalous shifts.


His philosophy was built upon the errors of the Great Depression. It was caused by abstract wealth being used to influence value. People bought and sold stocks on margins. It became this huge thing to trade on mathematical whim rather than cold hard cash or material value. Unfortunately, there were consequences to fucking with nature. Gravity eventually caught up with that make believe dream bubble of wealth .

He realized that abstract wealth was dangerous, but unavoidable. Rather than try to eliminate it, he sought to counter it. Since Abstract wealth isn't "capitalistic" he wasn't concerned with countering it capitalistically. He was absolutely pro capitalism though. His economic policies were never meant to be used heavy handed, then again, he never intended for abstract wealth to become the majority of wealth either.

The Keynesian's of today are just socialists. They consider more spending to be more production. This is NOT what Keynesian economics is all about. He was a capitalist.
(look up the definition of Keynesian economics) His entire angle was on that of optimizations, not public control. His aim was to utilize policy to promote (not falsify) free market demand. In other words, he was merely a proponent of tweaking the pure Laissez-faire of the time.

(wikipedia laisses-faire)

I think the reason the left has wet dreams about him is because a) They think he is a socialist just because modern day proponents totally bastardized his theories, and b) because he was gay.

I can totally see b considering the extreme virtue signalling going on today, but a is trickier. I think having so many administrations (Democrat and Republican) use Keynesian ideas as a scapegoat for their carte blanche economic fuckery is why people no longer realize the original intent behind it.

There are two key facts which expose the lie hidden in that meme. First, the obvious fact is that if you lower tax rates all the way to zero, you have zero revenues. So at some point, tax cuts fail to increase revenues.

By that logic, reducing spending to zero would no longer increase debt to begin with. Which is superior as an extreme?

Reducing revenue does not increase debt. Only spending does.

The second fact is one which their propagandists deliberately keep from the rubes. This is a deliberate omission, and therefore a deliberately crafted lie. And that fact is that revenues have also increased after a tax INCREASE.

This whole line of approach is a straw man, but I can hardly doubt you for doing it because the Republicans are so good at setting themselves up for strawman arguments- Trump often as well.

What is wrong about what you say, though, is that you're looking at this from the government perspective only. You have an unstated premise which is that government spending is good and indicates a healthy economy. This is a non sequitur.

Government revenue will only go up from a tax decrease if the aggregate wealth generated goes up disproportionately to the reduction in revenue. Likewise, it will only go up after a tax raise if the reduction in aggregate free market wealth doesn't fall equally so. In either case, it is not an all or nothing phenomena. Different industries are affected in different ways.

What you cannot argue, however, is that wealth is shifting away from the government and back into the hands of the people. Only a tax cut will do that. This is an absolute boon if you are anything but a bureaucrat.

See for yourself. Here is a history of tax rates

Notice how tax rates increased under Bill Clinton in 1993. The top marginal rate increased from 31 percent to 39.6 percent, and stayed that way until 2001.

Now here is a history of federal revenues:

Again, what is the point of this? Are you trying to suggest that government revenue is good? How about they spend money more efficiently? Why is money goin into the government so important, but the money going out inconsequential? Debt is built from spending, not revenue. A government that makes zero dollars and spends zero dollars generates no debt. Spending is entirely the source of debt.

Notice how tax revenues INCREASED after the tax rates went UP a whopping 8.6 points:


FY 1991 - $1.05 trillion.
FY 1992 - $1.09 trillion.
FY 1993 - $1.15 trillion.
FY 1994 - $1.26 trillion.
FY 1995 - $1.35 trillion.
FY 1996 - $1.45 trillion.
FY 1997 - $1.58 trillion.
FY 1998 - $1.72 trillion.
FY 1999 - $1.82 trillion.
FY 2000 - $2.03 trillion

Yeah, and meanwhile the middle class was raped to death for it. The last 40 years has been an economic red wedding for low income and middle income earners.

Just a few years after Clinton's tax increase, federal revenues had DOUBLED!!!

And after the Bush tax cut expired on the top marginal rate in 2013, federal revenues continued to increase:

FY 2012 - $2.45 trillion.
FY 2013 - $2.77 trillion.
FY 2014 - $3.02 trillion.
FY 2015 - $3.25 trillion.
FY 2016 - $3.27 trillion.
FY 2017 - $3.32 trillion.

By the way, job growth exploded during the higher tax Clinton years. 30 million jobs in 8 years, with less than 5 percent unemployment.

So the next time you are crowing about the current tax rate increasing revenues, you should know your propagandists are counting on you not looking beyond the carefully framed numbers they present to your dumb ass.

Jobs are nebulous without context. Clinton created a lot of jobs by expanding on government work force. He did this as a concession to the fact that he cut welfare. Rather than just handing people money, he simply umbrella'd them under the government's wing. So basically he put welfare artists to work instead of being on welfare ( a good first step actually) and raised taxes. Together this gave quite an illusion of rapid financial development, but again, it was Illusory (except for getting people off of welfare).


Let's get one thing straight. Clinton's short term tactics for political points looked good on paper, but they are also directly attributed to the economic recession of 2008 that people like to incorrectly credit Bush for. His democrat congress gave us the toxic loan standards which precipitated the housing crash.

Wiki subprime mortgage crisis.

Clinton wasn't a terrible Head of State in managerial matters, but he knew that he was playing hot potato with the economy on housing. He totally fucked the banks and used Keynesian principles as his scapegoat. Turns out giving free houses away works right up until the loans come due and can't be paid. Then the whole country burns to the ground. Who would have thought?

Obama used the same playbook. His entire presidency was about spending shit tons of cash under the guise of Keynesian policy to make the GDP have the appearance of growth. Where it failed, he simply blamed his predecessor, and where Trump succeeds, he tries to take credit. Really though, if you want to buy into that delayed economy garbage, that means Clinton's economy belongs to Reagan and Bush Jr and any Blunders Bush could accurately be accused of would fall under Clinton. Pick whichever you want, but please, be consistent.

The reason why we can accurately blame Clinton for what happened at the end of Bush's two terms is because we can actually trace back to policy. Timing is a bitch, it turns out. Obama did nothing though that he could take credit for under Trump. His last few years were almost completely ignorant of the economy itself. Neither the media, nor his constituents in congress put any attention on the terrible state of the economy.



By modern day "Keynesian" standards, Bush was the (2nd)best president ever. He spent money like it was going out of style. Only Obama was a better Keynesian (or is it Kenyan? ) than him. Surely to a Keynesian, debt is gold so don't be so quick to throw Bush under the bus. It's also somewhat strange that you would credit Clinton, considering that much of what he did wasn't "Keynesian" in nature. In fact, only his serious financial blunders were so and even then, they are just the modern day bastardization of it.

Because while your pseudocon propagandists are crowing about revenues, they are counting on you not noticing that despite increased revenues, your party and your President are EXPLODING our deficits!

This is such a straw man. Who is it that has so much clout as to speak for all conservatives about the virtues of lower taxes begetting more revenue? Who said conservatives care about government revenue? Many I know are ready for the government to be abolished let alone pissing on about it's revenue. It's spending we all care about because spending is the problem- not revenue. You can double what the government takes in, they'll still find a way to go over budget.

If you're so worried about debt, let's reduce government spending to zero. Something tells me you were totally quiet while Obama doubled our debt in just 8 years.

It's called misdirection. A classic magician's trick to fool the rubes.

No, it's called a straw man. Liberals are very good at creating them.

Trump is on track to blow Obama's debt record wide open. And after whining and whining and whining and whining non-stop for eight years about Obama's spending, your propagandists have gone dark.

And so have you.

The stench of hypocrisy is all over you.

Pot calling the kettle black. I've seen no conservatives who are happy with current spending. I also don't see why you're so upset about it considering you love the idea of more government revenue and more government spending. By your own logic, Trump should be your favorite president if what you say is true!

Trump may be spending a lot, but he's also making sure that the citizens are regaining the wealth that has been robbed from them for 30 + years. He's doing his best to reduce spending, but you either don't know that or you just don't care. It's all about bashing Trump because he's orange or something.

If you want to give Obama credit for Trump's economy, you have to admit it is Obama's government still, and that means it's Obama's spending. Be consistent ffs.

Seriously, you people should drink your own medicine. Hopefully Republicans dominate the midterms. Once the obstructionist democrats have no more power, maybe we can fix this spending issue finally. As it stands, there's a barely visible majority of Republicans, and some of them are just closet democrats anyways. If you care so much about spending, you should be helping us get rid of the democrats so we can actually achieve what you claim to want. Atleast, what I think that you want. I can't tell. You gush over increased government revenue, which is only useful if spent, yet you criticize Trump for spending as much as Obama? Make up your mind!

That's a good post, Jerico. And good form in recognizing modern Keynesians. Followers of Keynes, to be clear. That's something I often fail to acknowledge myself, as it's often just assumed by anyone who has studied economic theory and monetary policy. We shouldn't really blame Maynard himself as much as we should focus more on his modern followers. Or trustees, I should call em.

Thank you. Too often the meaning of things gets changed to suit political ideology. It becomes a disservice to the intent behind the original meaning.

Well we could look up all the historically significant economists, but taking them out of the economy they were subjected and opined on would be taking their doctrines out of context

America was quite the different country economically in Keynes day, for that matter Adam Smith opined from a agricutual stance, and extra credit for anyone who actually translated Friedman or Greenspan

~S~

Succinct and accurate. Whether one would support Keynesian economics in whole, or in part, or as it is modernly prescribed, it is important to realize that all things must be evaluated in their natural context. Such is true for economics of yesterday and today. For example, we can talk all day long about the immorality of slavery, and most if not all of us would agree to its immorality, but there was such a time were the morality of slavery was not so questionable. To judge the past by the morals of the present is folly no matter which way we look at it. The same must be said about Keynes.

That is why, I think, based on the OP's claim, it helps to know what Keynesian economics aimed to fix, and how it was intended to be implemented. It was NOT a broad stroke advocacy for socialism, which at the time, was just as well known for its failures as it is today. Modern "economists" like Paul Krugman, are reasons why Keynesian economics is both so politically charged and completely contrary to its original intent. It is akin to thinking if one requires medicine to get well, then more medicine will help them get well faster. It is a non sequitur. His theories were a treatment to an endemic problem that was fairly new at the time. They were not a solution to the underlying problem, just a treatment.

Economic theories are not all or nothing. They are often specific measures for specific problems to be used at the right time and in the right way. They are techniques to achieve a goal. If those techniques are abused, misrepresented, or not understood, the application of them can deal great damage or have unknown consequences. Economics isn't man made. it's natural, like math. We can devise tricks, methods and techniques to manipulate it, but we cannot violate its fundamental rules. OP and others would do well to understand the models they advocate.

 

[g5000]

What is wrong about what you say, though, is that you're looking at this from the government perspective only. You have an unstated premise which is that government spending is good and indicates a healthy economy. This is a non sequitur.

Wrong! Wrong wrong wrong wrong. I'm a fiscal conservative, dipshit.

You wasted an hour typing a wall of words and completely missed my point entirely.

Amazing.

Now go back and read all of my posts in this topic again. I will wait for your apology.

 

[Jerico]

What is wrong about what you say, though, is that you're looking at this from the government perspective only. You have an unstated premise which is that government spending is good and indicates a healthy economy. This is a non sequitur.

Wrong! Wrong wrong wrong wrong. I'm a fiscal conservative, dipshit.

You wasted an hour typing a wall of words and completely missed my point entirely.

Amazing.

Now go back and read all of my posts in this topic again. I will wait for your apology.

Nothing to apologize about. Maybe you should clarify your position rather than vaguely claim that I'm wrong. I said you were wrong, but I explained why.

Forgive me if I don't just believe you're a conservative because you say that you are. Nothing in your OP suggested otherwise. If you have a history on this board of being facetious or otherwise sarcastic, I wouldn't know so why would I apologize if I did, in fact take your OP at face value?

A fiscal conservative would know that spending,not a reduction in revenue, leads to debt. They'd also know that the previous (two most recent in particular) administrations created the debt spiral, and the current one, absent a willing congress, can't do shit about it until congressional reform happens.

A conservative would realize that relating revenue to taxes is a moot issue because at the end of the day, up or down, the government will always outspend revenue so long as it can do so with zero accountability. If we gave them an extra trillion in new tax hikes, we'll be talking about this same topic next tax year and they'll be wanting another tax hike and another and another.

A conservative would also realize that taxes are effectively friction forces on an economy. They do not, in any way, generate wealth for the economy, they can only remove wealth from the system. Keynes understood this which is why he advocated for the government to hold onto surpluses so that, at the end of any given economic cycle, the net effect by the government was zero. They could only spend what they had saved using the tax revenue they saved during the previous economic upswing to counter whatever recession was present.

Noting that the economy may go up during high tax eras and down during low tax eras is merely a correlation, not a causation. It is a side effect of the economic forces at the time. Drawing the conclusion that you do is unsubstantiated

Taxes drain wealth from the economy and give it to the government. If the government then goes and spends that money, it doesn't add an excess to the pool. Taking $20 out of a $100 GDP in tax, then adding it back in doesn't make the GDP go to $120. It doesn't even make it go back to $100. Taxes, like friction in physics is not a conserved force.

Since you like hypothetical logic tests. If everyone worked for the government, who pays the taxes that are used pay the employees of the government? I think we both can agree that, over time, what will happen is that the government will run out of money and the employees won't get paid. Congratulations, this is socialism. It's like a perpetual energy machine in physics, or a perfectly efficient engine, or a refrigerator that cools your house when its door is open. Take whatever analogy you want. Just know the reason these types of perpetual loop systems don't work in physics or economics is due to friction and entropy.

So, is your headline ironic or not? Are you advocating for Keynesian economics, or sarcastically wondering ( falsely so) why Trump supporters are advocating it?

If you're trying to come across as conservative, you're not doing a good job, but that's just my opinion. The only thing we seem to agree on is that our debt situation is terrible and should be the absolute top priority for both Congress and the Trump administration.

 

[danielpalos]

What is wrong about what you say, though, is that you're looking at this from the government perspective only. You have an unstated premise which is that government spending is good and indicates a healthy economy. This is a non sequitur.

Wrong! Wrong wrong wrong wrong. I'm a fiscal conservative, dipshit.

You wasted an hour typing a wall of words and completely missed my point entirely.

Amazing.

Now go back and read all of my posts in this topic again. I will wait for your apology.

Nothing to apologize about. Maybe you should clarify your position rather than vaguely claim that I'm wrong. I said you were wrong, but I explained why.

Forgive me if I don't just believe you're a conservative because you say that you are. Nothing in your OP suggested otherwise. If you have a history on this board of being facetious or otherwise sarcastic, I wouldn't know so why would I apologize if I did, in fact take your OP at face value?

A fiscal conservative would know that spending,not a reduction in revenue, leads to debt. They'd also know that the previous (two most recent in particular) administrations created the debt spiral, and the current one, absent a willing congress, can't do shit about it until congressional reform happens.

A conservative would realize that relating revenue to taxes is a moot issue because at the end of the day, up or down, the government will always outspend revenue so long as it can do so with zero accountability. If we gave them an extra trillion in new tax hikes, we'll be talking about this same topic next tax year and they'll be wanting another tax hike and another and another.

A conservative would also realize that taxes are effectively friction forces on an economy. They do not, in any way, generate wealth for the economy, they can only remove wealth from the system. Noting that the economy may go up during high tax eras and down during low tax eras is merely a correlation, not a causation. It is a side effect of the economic forces at the time. Drawing the conclusion that you do is unsubstantiated

Taxes drain wealth from the economy and give it to the government. If the government then goes and spends that money, it doesn't add an excess to the pool. Taking $20 out of a $100 GDP in tax, then adding it back in doesn't make the GDP go to $120. It doesn't even make it go back to $100. Taxes, like friction in physics is not a conserved force.

So, is your headline ironic or not? Are you advocating for Keynesian economics, or sarcastically wondering ( falsely so) why Trump supporters are advocating it?

If you're trying to come across as conservative, you're not doing a good job, but that's just my opinion.

In other words, spending is a problem. The right wing seems more cognitively dissonant by special pleading that taxes, revenue, and spending are not correlated. Taxes drain our economy to a certain extent; government spending, does the opposite. Lowering taxes and increasing spending, is what the right wing does.

 

[Jerico]

What is wrong about what you say, though, is that you're looking at this from the government perspective only. You have an unstated premise which is that government spending is good and indicates a healthy economy. This is a non sequitur.

Wrong! Wrong wrong wrong wrong. I'm a fiscal conservative, dipshit.

You wasted an hour typing a wall of words and completely missed my point entirely.

Amazing.

Now go back and read all of my posts in this topic again. I will wait for your apology.

Nothing to apologize about. Maybe you should clarify your position rather than vaguely claim that I'm wrong. I said you were wrong, but I explained why.

Forgive me if I don't just believe you're a conservative because you say that you are. Nothing in your OP suggested otherwise. If you have a history on this board of being facetious or otherwise sarcastic, I wouldn't know so why would I apologize if I did, in fact take your OP at face value?

A fiscal conservative would know that spending,not a reduction in revenue, leads to debt. They'd also know that the previous (two most recent in particular) administrations created the debt spiral, and the current one, absent a willing congress, can't do shit about it until congressional reform happens.

A conservative would realize that relating revenue to taxes is a moot issue because at the end of the day, up or down, the government will always outspend revenue so long as it can do so with zero accountability. If we gave them an extra trillion in new tax hikes, we'll be talking about this same topic next tax year and they'll be wanting another tax hike and another and another.

A conservative would also realize that taxes are effectively friction forces on an economy. They do not, in any way, generate wealth for the economy, they can only remove wealth from the system. Noting that the economy may go up during high tax eras and down during low tax eras is merely a correlation, not a causation. It is a side effect of the economic forces at the time. Drawing the conclusion that you do is unsubstantiated

Taxes drain wealth from the economy and give it to the government. If the government then goes and spends that money, it doesn't add an excess to the pool. Taking $20 out of a $100 GDP in tax, then adding it back in doesn't make the GDP go to $120. It doesn't even make it go back to $100. Taxes, like friction in physics is not a conserved force.

So, is your headline ironic or not? Are you advocating for Keynesian economics, or sarcastically wondering ( falsely so) why Trump supporters are advocating it?

If you're trying to come across as conservative, you're not doing a good job, but that's just my opinion.

In other words, spending is a problem.

On that we agree.

The right wing seems more cognitively dissonant by special pleading that taxes, revenue, and spending are not correlated. Taxes drain our economy to a certain extent; government spending, does the opposite. Lowering taxes and increasing spending, is what the right wing does.

they are related in the sense that Debt=Spending - Revenue where spending exceeds revenue. The notion, however, that the government, as a reward for spending more than it was given, is some how owed more money to cover even more spending is absurd.

I don't even disagree with your assessment that the right wing is complicit here. This fiscal irresponsibility has occurred on both sides.

What I will disagree about, though, is that Trump is just another neocon administration. He's not, and anybody that spends any time actually listening to what he says and seeing what he does would know this.

Trump does not get to decide the budget. He can either veto the one he's given, or he can just bitch and moan about it on Twitter. Vetoing is symbolic, but doesn't actually do anything. Congress can counter his veto and cram the budget through either way.

As it stands, he's doing everything that he can. If people here really cared about debt, they'd be voting in the people Trump is backing for the midterms because that's the only way we're going to fix this issue. The government absolutely does not deserve MORE money just because they can't manage it. That's ridiculous. They shouldn't get another dime until serious fiscal reform happens.

Also, government spending does NOT boost the economy. The money they spend was already factored in as a tax. To consider government spending as economic mobility is to count the tax twice but from separate accounting perspectives. This is what the government wants you to think about taxes, but it's not how it works. Very little of what a government spends has a meaningful impact on the economy. They're basically giving back a fraction of what they took in the first place. It would be better for the economy to just not have taken it to begin with.

 

[danielpalos]

What is wrong about what you say, though, is that you're looking at this from the government perspective only. You have an unstated premise which is that government spending is good and indicates a healthy economy. This is a non sequitur.

Wrong! Wrong wrong wrong wrong. I'm a fiscal conservative, dipshit.

You wasted an hour typing a wall of words and completely missed my point entirely.

Amazing.

Now go back and read all of my posts in this topic again. I will wait for your apology.

Nothing to apologize about. Maybe you should clarify your position rather than vaguely claim that I'm wrong. I said you were wrong, but I explained why.

Forgive me if I don't just believe you're a conservative because you say that you are. Nothing in your OP suggested otherwise. If you have a history on this board of being facetious or otherwise sarcastic, I wouldn't know so why would I apologize if I did, in fact take your OP at face value?

A fiscal conservative would know that spending,not a reduction in revenue, leads to debt. They'd also know that the previous (two most recent in particular) administrations created the debt spiral, and the current one, absent a willing congress, can't do shit about it until congressional reform happens.

A conservative would realize that relating revenue to taxes is a moot issue because at the end of the day, up or down, the government will always outspend revenue so long as it can do so with zero accountability. If we gave them an extra trillion in new tax hikes, we'll be talking about this same topic next tax year and they'll be wanting another tax hike and another and another.

A conservative would also realize that taxes are effectively friction forces on an economy. They do not, in any way, generate wealth for the economy, they can only remove wealth from the system. Noting that the economy may go up during high tax eras and down during low tax eras is merely a correlation, not a causation. It is a side effect of the economic forces at the time. Drawing the conclusion that you do is unsubstantiated

Taxes drain wealth from the economy and give it to the government. If the government then goes and spends that money, it doesn't add an excess to the pool. Taking $20 out of a $100 GDP in tax, then adding it back in doesn't make the GDP go to $120. It doesn't even make it go back to $100. Taxes, like friction in physics is not a conserved force.

So, is your headline ironic or not? Are you advocating for Keynesian economics, or sarcastically wondering ( falsely so) why Trump supporters are advocating it?

If you're trying to come across as conservative, you're not doing a good job, but that's just my opinion.

In other words, spending is a problem.

On that we agree.

The right wing seems more cognitively dissonant by special pleading that taxes, revenue, and spending are not correlated. Taxes drain our economy to a certain extent; government spending, does the opposite. Lowering taxes and increasing spending, is what the right wing does.

they are related in the sense that Debt=Spending - Revenue where spending exceeds revenue. The notion, however, that the government, as a reward for spending more than it was given, is some how owed more money to cover even more spending is absurd.

I don't even disagree with your assessment that the right wing is complicit here. This fiscal irresponsibility has occurred on both sides.

What I will disagree about, though, is that Trump is just another neocon administration. He's not, and anybody that spends any time actually listening to what he says and seeing what he does would know this.

Trump does not get to decide the budget. He can either veto the one he's given, or he can just bitch and moan about it on Twitter. Vetoing is symbolic, but doesn't actually do anything. Congress can counter his veto and cram the budget through either way.

As it stands, he's doing everything that he can. If people here really cared about debt, they'd be voting in the people Trump is backing for the midterms because that's the only way we're going to fix this issue. The government absolutely does not deserve MORE money just because they can't manage it. That's ridiculous. They shouldn't get another dime until serious fiscal reform happens.

Also, government spending does NOT boost the economy. The money they spend was already factored in as a tax. To consider government spending as economic mobility is to count the tax twice but from separate accounting perspectives. This is what the government wants you to think about taxes, but it's not how it works. Very little of what a government spends has a meaningful impact on the economy. They're basically giving back a fraction of what they took in the first place. It would be better for the economy to just not have taken it to begin with.

Trump ran on a platform of tax cut economics. The right wing voted for that; and, they allege they are for fiscal forms of responsibility. Cutting social services for the poor, is all they want to do to cut spending. Why should anyone take the right wing seriously if they can't even cut the drug war, which no party claims to want.

Fundamentals matter under capitalism; how sustainable is current policy? The right wing, is still willing to cut taxes again.

Only lousy capitalists lose money on public policy.

 

[DustyInfinity]

So far, you are pro drugs, pro illegal aliens, and think people should be paid indefinitely for not working. I'm sure that would all work beautifully. The best part is that you think the government's horrible record with taxpayer money gives it the right to raise taxes an unlimited amount even though it will do nothing to dent the debt. I bet you never saw a tax you did not like. The breathing tax, the socks tax. You act like unlimited tax hikes has no affect on the American worker. What school of economics teaches that.

 

[DustyInfinity]

It is clear the OP and the others who support unlimited tax increases don't care about the debt. Their push for squeezing revenue out of people does nothing to solve the spending problem. They don't care about the debt or spending, they are just upset that republican's are spending on things they do not like such as defense and border security. I bet if the debt doubled in a year for social programs, you guys would forget all about the debt and give lawmakers a standing ovation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So far, you are pro drugs, pro illegal aliens, and think people should be paid indefinitely for not working. I'm sure that would all work beautifully. The best part is that you think the government's horrible record with taxpayer money gives it the right to raise taxes an unlimited amount even though it will do nothing to dent the debt. I bet you never saw a tax you did not like. The breathing tax, the socks tax. You act like unlimited tax hikes has no affect on the American worker. What school of economics teaches that.

He smokes a lot of weed. It's best to just ignore his ramblings.

 

[Jerico]

What is wrong about what you say, though, is that you're looking at this from the government perspective only. You have an unstated premise which is that government spending is good and indicates a healthy economy. This is a non sequitur.

Wrong! Wrong wrong wrong wrong. I'm a fiscal conservative, dipshit.

You wasted an hour typing a wall of words and completely missed my point entirely.

Amazing.

Now go back and read all of my posts in this topic again. I will wait for your apology.

Nothing to apologize about. Maybe you should clarify your position rather than vaguely claim that I'm wrong. I said you were wrong, but I explained why.

Forgive me if I don't just believe you're a conservative because you say that you are. Nothing in your OP suggested otherwise. If you have a history on this board of being facetious or otherwise sarcastic, I wouldn't know so why would I apologize if I did, in fact take your OP at face value?

A fiscal conservative would know that spending,not a reduction in revenue, leads to debt. They'd also know that the previous (two most recent in particular) administrations created the debt spiral, and the current one, absent a willing congress, can't do shit about it until congressional reform happens.

A conservative would realize that relating revenue to taxes is a moot issue because at the end of the day, up or down, the government will always outspend revenue so long as it can do so with zero accountability. If we gave them an extra trillion in new tax hikes, we'll be talking about this same topic next tax year and they'll be wanting another tax hike and another and another.

A conservative would also realize that taxes are effectively friction forces on an economy. They do not, in any way, generate wealth for the economy, they can only remove wealth from the system. Noting that the economy may go up during high tax eras and down during low tax eras is merely a correlation, not a causation. It is a side effect of the economic forces at the time. Drawing the conclusion that you do is unsubstantiated

Taxes drain wealth from the economy and give it to the government. If the government then goes and spends that money, it doesn't add an excess to the pool. Taking $20 out of a $100 GDP in tax, then adding it back in doesn't make the GDP go to $120. It doesn't even make it go back to $100. Taxes, like friction in physics is not a conserved force.

So, is your headline ironic or not? Are you advocating for Keynesian economics, or sarcastically wondering ( falsely so) why Trump supporters are advocating it?

If you're trying to come across as conservative, you're not doing a good job, but that's just my opinion.

In other words, spending is a problem.

On that we agree.

The right wing seems more cognitively dissonant by special pleading that taxes, revenue, and spending are not correlated. Taxes drain our economy to a certain extent; government spending, does the opposite. Lowering taxes and increasing spending, is what the right wing does.

they are related in the sense that Debt=Spending - Revenue where spending exceeds revenue. The notion, however, that the government, as a reward for spending more than it was given, is some how owed more money to cover even more spending is absurd.

I don't even disagree with your assessment that the right wing is complicit here. This fiscal irresponsibility has occurred on both sides.

What I will disagree about, though, is that Trump is just another neocon administration. He's not, and anybody that spends any time actually listening to what he says and seeing what he does would know this.

Trump does not get to decide the budget. He can either veto the one he's given, or he can just bitch and moan about it on Twitter. Vetoing is symbolic, but doesn't actually do anything. Congress can counter his veto and cram the budget through either way.

As it stands, he's doing everything that he can. If people here really cared about debt, they'd be voting in the people Trump is backing for the midterms because that's the only way we're going to fix this issue. The government absolutely does not deserve MORE money just because they can't manage it. That's ridiculous. They shouldn't get another dime until serious fiscal reform happens.

Also, government spending does NOT boost the economy. The money they spend was already factored in as a tax. To consider government spending as economic mobility is to count the tax twice but from separate accounting perspectives. This is what the government wants you to think about taxes, but it's not how it works. Very little of what a government spends has a meaningful impact on the economy. They're basically giving back a fraction of what they took in the first place. It would be better for the economy to just not have taken it to begin with.

Trump ran on a platform of tax cut economics.

Tax Cut economics isn't a thing. Just like trickle down economics isn't a thing.

The virtues of tax cuts have been stated to death. If you don't get it by now, you just may never will. No demographic was left out of the tax cuts except those who do not work at all. Nobody, I repeat, nobody was screwed except for the ultra wealthy. Any further argument of that fact is a deceitful spread of fake news.

Tax cuts put more power into the hands of the people and take it from the government. Any true "Liberal", as in someone who advocates for liberty, should see lower taxes as a great boon.

Trump won just for that reason. Lower taxes. That's what people wanted, and he delivered in spades. I don't think he went far enough, but we'll see. Maybe after Republicans get a veto proof super majority this November he can finish what he started.

The right wing voted for that; and, they allege they are for fiscal forms of responsibility. Cutting social services for the poor, is all they want to do to cut spending. Why should anyone take the right wing seriously if they can't even cut the drug war, which no party claims to want.

Your idea of Trump is literally a caricature of the neocons of yesterday.Trump and Sessions (his AG), have stated that they are perfectly fine with easing the drug war, but Congress has to do it because Congress writes the laws. Sessions stated that if a law exists, he will enforce it. If we want to end the drug war, we have to elect congress leaders who will do it, and almost every pro Trump candidate I've seen is for legalization of certain things like pot and the like. Trump has reformed the Republican party. It's no longer the straw man you make it out to be.

Right now Congress can't pass anything. No democrats will support anything Republicans put forward. The Dems are so obstructionist they choose to set themselves on fire in protest and completely ruin their reputation in the process rather than side with Republicans. What makes you think Dems would support drug war reform?

For the record, I too dislike the drug war. Making these substances illegal has given way too much power to the cartels, who have utterly destroyed Mexico. However, like with the debt issue, Trump doesn't write the laws. He just enforces them. He could do what Obama did and ignore select laws he doesn't like, but that would be unconstitutional, and Trump actually respects democracy so he enforces the laws that exist.

If you want the drug war to end, go tell your local senators to deregulate it. Top down policy making is very bad. These cultural changes need to happen from the grass on up.

Each state should be able to choose for itself what drug policy it wants. Forcing states to adopt top down federal regulation like Obama did is an anathema to the Constitution.

Trump is abiding by the Constitution, and you are holding against him something that, Constitutionally, shouldn't be his problem. If the states want to deregulate drug laws, let them, but Trump refuses to force, on all states, the same drug policy because some states don't want de regulation and they shouldn't be forced to do it.

Fundamentals matter under capitalism; how sustainable is current policy? The right wing, is still willing to cut taxes again.

Thank god for that too! They should cut taxes in half from where they are now, then make it permanent. The world of good that would do for the next generation can't be over stated. Not only would families keep more money to invest in their own pursuits, but it would make sure the next generation doesnt' end up as welfare babies who feel entitled to other people's wealth.

Far more sustainable than your idea. Taxes can only go to 100%. Your idea of just raising taxes has an upper ceiling. The higher you raise taxes, the more diminishing returns kick and the worse the economy would function. Lowering taxes has a floor, 0% is also not necessarily ideal. The government needs some money, atl east, to do basic things, but that line is very blurred and, quite frankly, I'd take 0% over what we have now.

A flat tax rate of 10 to 15 % for ALL demographics would suffice. Then forbid the government from borrowing money unless in a National Emergency. Something more flexible could be devised, that's just off the cuff. The point being, no more tax hikes until the government is totally reformed and has some very clear financial constraints placed upon it.

Constitutionally, the current tax culture in this country is nothing short of an aberration. There never was intent in the constitution for perpetual taxation. The further we get from the constitutional mandate, the worse off things seem to get.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Trump's $1.5 trillion debt bomb he called a "tax reform" was supposed to stimulate the economy. Remember how wages were going to explode?

It turns out all those corporations who received a big cash windfall from their tax cuts used that money to do stock buybacks instead of trickling it down to their workers.

Tax cut triggers $437 billion explosion of stock buybacks

Not only is that most ever, it nearly doubles the previous record of $242.1 billion, which was set during the first three months of the year.

.

Don't care about debt

All I care about is keeping as much of my own money as possible

That's honest, and despicable.

No what's despicable is the malfeasance committed by our politicians

You're an absolute idiot if you think giving politicians more of your money is going to do a god damned thing besides making you poorer.

In re your first paragraph: Nonfeasance is exactly what McConnell did when he did not bring forth Judge Garland before the Senate as part of the due dillgence in support of the spirit in COTUS.

In paragraph #2, your claim I'm an idiot for something I may or may not believe. The only thing that will make me poorer is the Faux Tax Reform Bill signed by Trump, which punishes CA citizens.

You are not a citizen of CA. You are a resident of CA.

And I don't know how many times I have to tell you that bringing up a particular politician is a waste of time. I am not, never have been and never will be a member of any political party.

And the new tax laws were a boon to millions of small business owners and self employed people even those in CA

 

[danielpalos]

So far, you are pro drugs, pro illegal aliens, and think people should be paid indefinitely for not working. I'm sure that would all work beautifully. The best part is that you think the government's horrible record with taxpayer money gives it the right to raise taxes an unlimited amount even though it will do nothing to dent the debt. I bet you never saw a tax you did not like. The breathing tax, the socks tax. You act like unlimited tax hikes has no affect on the American worker. What school of economics teaches that.

lol. We allege to subscribe to Capitalism.

Only lousy capitalists lose money on public polices. Only the right wing, never gets it. Not enough socialism on a national basis?

 

[danielpalos]

It is clear the OP and the others who support unlimited tax increases don't care about the debt. Their push for squeezing revenue out of people does nothing to solve the spending problem. They don't care about the debt or spending, they are just upset that republican's are spending on things they do not like such as defense and border security. I bet if the debt doubled in a year for social programs, you guys would forget all about the debt and give lawmakers a standing ovation.

it is clear, the right wing prefers to eschew, applied capitalism at every opportunity.

 

[danielpalos]

So far, you are pro drugs, pro illegal aliens, and think people should be paid indefinitely for not working. I'm sure that would all work beautifully. The best part is that you think the government's horrible record with taxpayer money gives it the right to raise taxes an unlimited amount even though it will do nothing to dent the debt. I bet you never saw a tax you did not like. The breathing tax, the socks tax. You act like unlimited tax hikes has no affect on the American worker. What school of economics teaches that.

He smokes a lot of weed. It's best to just ignore his ramblings.

I smoke two joints, and then I smoke to two more; and the right wing, still has nothing but fallacy instead of valid arguments.

 

[danielpalos]

Wrong! Wrong wrong wrong wrong. I'm a fiscal conservative, dipshit.

You wasted an hour typing a wall of words and completely missed my point entirely.

Amazing.

Now go back and read all of my posts in this topic again. I will wait for your apology.

Nothing to apologize about. Maybe you should clarify your position rather than vaguely claim that I'm wrong. I said you were wrong, but I explained why.

Forgive me if I don't just believe you're a conservative because you say that you are. Nothing in your OP suggested otherwise. If you have a history on this board of being facetious or otherwise sarcastic, I wouldn't know so why would I apologize if I did, in fact take your OP at face value?

A fiscal conservative would know that spending,not a reduction in revenue, leads to debt. They'd also know that the previous (two most recent in particular) administrations created the debt spiral, and the current one, absent a willing congress, can't do shit about it until congressional reform happens.

A conservative would realize that relating revenue to taxes is a moot issue because at the end of the day, up or down, the government will always outspend revenue so long as it can do so with zero accountability. If we gave them an extra trillion in new tax hikes, we'll be talking about this same topic next tax year and they'll be wanting another tax hike and another and another.

A conservative would also realize that taxes are effectively friction forces on an economy. They do not, in any way, generate wealth for the economy, they can only remove wealth from the system. Noting that the economy may go up during high tax eras and down during low tax eras is merely a correlation, not a causation. It is a side effect of the economic forces at the time. Drawing the conclusion that you do is unsubstantiated

Taxes drain wealth from the economy and give it to the government. If the government then goes and spends that money, it doesn't add an excess to the pool. Taking $20 out of a $100 GDP in tax, then adding it back in doesn't make the GDP go to $120. It doesn't even make it go back to $100. Taxes, like friction in physics is not a conserved force.

So, is your headline ironic or not? Are you advocating for Keynesian economics, or sarcastically wondering ( falsely so) why Trump supporters are advocating it?

If you're trying to come across as conservative, you're not doing a good job, but that's just my opinion.

In other words, spending is a problem.

On that we agree.

The right wing seems more cognitively dissonant by special pleading that taxes, revenue, and spending are not correlated. Taxes drain our economy to a certain extent; government spending, does the opposite. Lowering taxes and increasing spending, is what the right wing does.

they are related in the sense that Debt=Spending - Revenue where spending exceeds revenue. The notion, however, that the government, as a reward for spending more than it was given, is some how owed more money to cover even more spending is absurd.

I don't even disagree with your assessment that the right wing is complicit here. This fiscal irresponsibility has occurred on both sides.

What I will disagree about, though, is that Trump is just another neocon administration. He's not, and anybody that spends any time actually listening to what he says and seeing what he does would know this.

Trump does not get to decide the budget. He can either veto the one he's given, or he can just bitch and moan about it on Twitter. Vetoing is symbolic, but doesn't actually do anything. Congress can counter his veto and cram the budget through either way.

As it stands, he's doing everything that he can. If people here really cared about debt, they'd be voting in the people Trump is backing for the midterms because that's the only way we're going to fix this issue. The government absolutely does not deserve MORE money just because they can't manage it. That's ridiculous. They shouldn't get another dime until serious fiscal reform happens.

Also, government spending does NOT boost the economy. The money they spend was already factored in as a tax. To consider government spending as economic mobility is to count the tax twice but from separate accounting perspectives. This is what the government wants you to think about taxes, but it's not how it works. Very little of what a government spends has a meaningful impact on the economy. They're basically giving back a fraction of what they took in the first place. It would be better for the economy to just not have taken it to begin with.

Trump ran on a platform of tax cut economics.

Tax Cut economics isn't a thing. Just like trickle down economics isn't a thing.

The virtues of tax cuts have been stated to death. If you don't get it by now, you just may never will. No demographic was left out of the tax cuts except those who do not work at all. Nobody, I repeat, nobody was screwed except for the ultra wealthy. Any further argument of that fact is a deceitful spread of fake news.

Tax cuts put more power into the hands of the people and take it from the government. Any true "Liberal", as in someone who advocates for liberty, should see lower taxes as a great boon.

Trump won just for that reason. Lower taxes. That's what people wanted, and he delivered in spades. I don't think he went far enough, but we'll see. Maybe after Republicans get a veto proof super majority this November he can finish what he started.

The right wing voted for that; and, they allege they are for fiscal forms of responsibility. Cutting social services for the poor, is all they want to do to cut spending. Why should anyone take the right wing seriously if they can't even cut the drug war, which no party claims to want.

Your idea of Trump is literally a caricature of the neocons of yesterday.Trump and Sessions (his AG), have stated that they are perfectly fine with easing the drug war, but Congress has to do it because Congress writes the laws. Sessions stated that if a law exists, he will enforce it. If we want to end the drug war, we have to elect congress leaders who will do it, and almost every pro Trump candidate I've seen is for legalization of certain things like pot and the like. Trump has reformed the Republican party. It's no longer the straw man you make it out to be.

Right now Congress can't pass anything. No democrats will support anything Republicans put forward. The Dems are so obstructionist they choose to set themselves on fire in protest and completely ruin their reputation in the process rather than side with Republicans. What makes you think Dems would support drug war reform?

For the record, I too dislike the drug war. Making these substances illegal has given way too much power to the cartels, who have utterly destroyed Mexico. However, like with the debt issue, Trump doesn't write the laws. He just enforces them. He could do what Obama did and ignore select laws he doesn't like, but that would be unconstitutional, and Trump actually respects democracy so he enforces the laws that exist.

If you want the drug war to end, go tell your local senators to deregulate it. Top down policy making is very bad. These cultural changes need to happen from the grass on up.

Each state should be able to choose for itself what drug policy it wants. Forcing states to adopt top down federal regulation like Obama did is an anathema to the Constitution.

Trump is abiding by the Constitution, and you are holding against him something that, Constitutionally, shouldn't be his problem. If the states want to deregulate drug laws, let them, but Trump refuses to force, on all states, the same drug policy because some states don't want de regulation and they shouldn't be forced to do it.

Fundamentals matter under capitalism; how sustainable is current policy? The right wing, is still willing to cut taxes again.

Thank god for that too! They should cut taxes in half from where they are now, then make it permanent. The world of good that would do for the next generation can't be over stated. Not only would families keep more money to invest in their own pursuits, but it would make sure the next generation doesnt' end up as welfare babies who feel entitled to other people's wealth.

Far more sustainable than your idea. Taxes can only go to 100%. Your idea of just raising taxes has an upper ceiling. The higher you raise taxes, the more diminishing returns kick and the worse the economy would function. Lowering taxes has a floor, 0% is also not necessarily ideal. The government needs some money, atl east, to do basic things, but that line is very blurred and, quite frankly, I'd take 0% over what we have now.

A flat tax rate of 10 to 15 % for ALL demographics would suffice. Then forbid the government from borrowing money unless in a National Emergency. Something more flexible could be devised, that's just off the cuff. The point being, no more tax hikes until the government is totally reformed and has some very clear financial constraints placed upon it.

Constitutionally, the current tax culture in this country is nothing short of an aberration. There never was intent in the constitution for perpetual taxation. The further we get from the constitutional mandate, the worse off things seem to get.

Tax cut economics is public policy. Yes, it is a Thing. There is no virtue to tax cuts if you don't cut spending as well. Only the right wing is that cognitively dissonant, and expect to be taken seriously. And, the rich got richer faster, how did they get "screwed over"?

I would agree with you on tax cut economics, if it resulted in lowering spending. The right wing had a majority to pass tax cuts and spending cuts; which One happened, right wingers. Only the already Rich, got richer faster. The right is considering spending cuts to social services, not the drug war.

Undirected tax cut economics are Worthless. You need a plan to cut spending. The right wing refuses to Pay taxes for our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; they should go first.

 

[P@triot]

Our federal form of government is left wing, not right wing.

Uh...the U.S. Constitution is “right-wing”, sparky. Which is why you progressives hate it so much. Sure, you fascists have violated it and grown the federal government far beyond what it is legally permitted to be. But we still have a healthy portion of “right-wing” federal government (which is what has permitted the U.S. to survive - and even thrive at times - despite your failed left-wing policies).

 

[P@triot]

I smoke two joints, and then I smoke to two more;

That explains everything. It’s a fact that marijuana kills brain cells. And most stoners are illiterate (which explains your inability to understand the U.S. Constitution).

 

[P@triot]

The right is considering spending cuts to social services,

As they should. Federal “social services” are 100% unconstitutional. And despite your deepest desires otherwise, you don’t have a constitutional right to mooch off of the rest of us.

 

[P@triot]

I would agree with you on tax cut economics, if it resulted in lowering spending. The right wing had a majority to pass tax cuts and spending cuts; which One happened, right wingers.

Once again we see stoner lying. Both happened. Congress (constitutionally) passed tax cuts, President Trump (constitutionally) cut spending.

House Republicans serve up Trump’s spending cuts

By the Numbers: President Trump’s 10 Biggest Proposed Cuts to U.S. Education, Ranked

 

[g5000]

What is wrong about what you say, though, is that you're looking at this from the government perspective only. You have an unstated premise which is that government spending is good and indicates a healthy economy. This is a non sequitur.

Wrong! Wrong wrong wrong wrong. I'm a fiscal conservative, dipshit.

You wasted an hour typing a wall of words and completely missed my point entirely.

Amazing.

Now go back and read all of my posts in this topic again. I will wait for your apology.

Nothing to apologize about. Maybe you should clarify your position rather than vaguely claim that I'm wrong. I said you were wrong, but I explained why.

No, you made up a lie. You made an ASSUMPTION without having read my posts, and then in your pointy head you decided your fantasy must be true.

"You have an unstated premise". Wow. You may have well have said, "I'm going to make up a story about you."

You are as wrong as an idiot can be. You built your little sand castle on a false dichotomy. I am embarrassed for you.

I have a very long record on this forum, since I have arrived here, of being against big government and big spending. I have made very specific suggestions over the years how to shrink the government and balance the government. Unlike most of the dolts on this forum whose intellectual capacity is limited to "Freedom!" when it comes to the details of solving our nation's problems.

If you had bothered to actually read this topic, you would see I am all about reducing spending, balancing the budget, and reducing our debt. Moron.

You, sir, are an idiot. Back to the drawing board for you.