• Debt would swell under Republican candidates' tax plans: study
    66 replies, posted
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34842178] Keynesian economics (Most liberal economists are part of this school of thought) say that the best way to to get out of a recession or promote economic growth is to hire all the unemployed on government jobs, spend money on infrastructure, and bail out the failing companies. [/QUOTE] that's a terrible explanation.
If I am being fucked over, I'd rather it be from my state, than the federal govt. I can move states pretty easily, countries, not so much.
[QUOTE=thisispain;34842228]that's a terrible explanation.[/QUOTE] Okay then give a better one instead of being a smartass
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34842178]It depends on your school of thought: Keynesian economics (Most liberal economists are part of this school of thought) say that the best way to to get out of a recession or promote economic growth is to hire all the unemployed on government jobs, spend money on infrastructure, and bail out the failing companies. Supply-side economics (Most conservative economists are part of this school of thought) say that the best way to promote economic growth is to lower the barriers preventing people from producing their goods and services, and promote as much spending as possible. This is typically done by optimizing regulations and lowering taxes. They cite the Laffer Curve and the Rahn Curve as proof that lower taxes and government spending can boost the economy and actually produce greater governmental revenue.[/QUOTE] This is a fancy way of stating that Democrats believe it makes sense to have your consumers regain buying power vs having companies regain production capabilities. Now which makes sense. A) You make a bunch of money and then give it to the people so they can buy shit. Thereby jumpstarting your economy with new cash flow, lower unemployment, and the overall appearance of health. B) You tax companies less (identical to making a bunch of money economically because you still have debts to pay) and then hope that they hire people and don't just laugh at you, take your cash, and then look at their factories that they setup in Asia the instant your economy faltered.
[QUOTE=GunFox;34842316]This is a fancy way of stating that Democrats believe it makes sense to have your consumers regain buying power vs having companies regain production capabilities. Now which makes sense. A) You make a bunch of money and then give it to the people so they can buy shit. Thereby jumpstarting your economy with new cash flow, lower unemployment, and the overall appearance of health. B) You tax companies less (identical to making a bunch of money economically because you still have debts to pay) and then hope that they hire people and don't just laugh at you, take your cash, and then look at their factories that they setup in Asia the instant your economy faltered.[/QUOTE] Except in Supply Side economics you don't have to only lower taxes on companies. Plus Supply Side economics have the benefit of not racking up a shitload of debt from the all the money you borrow to give to people
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34842296]Okay then give a better one instead of being a smartass[/QUOTE] Keynesian Economics is basically advocating a mixed economy which means responding to the private sector with fiscal and monetary policy.
May any kind sir really explain to me what the Republicans' tax plans are, and what they will do, exactly? Everyone I ask just goes: "OH, YOU KNOW, IT WILL BE TERRIBLE LALALALA". This is also true when I ask conservatives about Democrat tax plans.
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34842336]Except in Supply Side economics you don't have to only lower taxes on companies. Plus Supply Side economics have the benefit of not racking up a shitload of debt from the all the money you borrow to give to people[/QUOTE] Instead you rack up a shitload of debt from all the debt you accrue by not collecting taxes. One method allows the construction of major highway networks and super projects like the hoover dam. The government employs many people and can slowly lay them off as the market picks up again. This, regardless of party, will likely occur because neither party wants to employ that many people for that long. ON THE OTHER HAND we have lowering the taxes on the people. For the people affected the most in an economic failure, namely the jobless and underemployed, this doesn't directly actually help them much at all. In fact it doesn't help a huge percentage of the US because they are taxed at a reasonable rate already, or not taxed at all. This method helps the richest segment of the US, but fails to produce reliable results. No guarantees that they will use the additional money to benefit the American economy (whereas the overwhelming majority of money entering the pocket of an average citizen will likely find its way right back into the US economy). This has the added problem of being fucking hard to get rid of. Corporations and rich folks benefit the most, and also influence our politics the greatest, so as we have seen with super PAC's and the like, they tend to vote in a fashion that will allow them to retain their tax cuts at great cost to the economic stability of the country. [editline]23rd February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Repulsion;34842475]May any kind sir really explain to me what the Republicans' tax plans are, and what they will do, exactly? Everyone I ask just goes: "OH, YOU KNOW, IT WILL BE TERRIBLE LALALALA". This is also true when I ask conservatives about Democrat tax plans.[/QUOTE] The common theme among the Republican candidates is "Don't raise taxes. Ever." Which is economically nonviable. Well, except for Ron Paul's plan, he is actually crazy enough to desire cuts to major services in order to balance the budget with its current income. His might function economically, but the US would be a 3rd world country.
Ron Paul 2012
[QUOTE=Nikota;34840759]And the fact that state rights is a fucking terrible concept and would screw this country over for generations.[/QUOTE] er yeah fuck the constitution woo!
The wealth will trickle down guys, i know it's true because jesus Reagan said it!
People still take supply side economics seriously?
Apparently so.
[QUOTE=Stick it in her pooper;34840693][/QUOTE] [quote]The debt trajectory under Paul's plan is actually similar to that of President Barack Obama's fiscal 2013 budget plan as analyzed under a separate report by the group.[/quote] Stick it in her pooper quotes only one part. When the end part pointed out that Ron Paul's plan is just as good as Obamas. I believe that's a ZING.
So basically, if you want the debt reduced, you could either vote for the lunatic who wants to raze the country to the ground or you could vote for Obama.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;34846264]So basically, if you want the debt reduced, you could either vote for the lunatic who wants to raze the country to the ground or you could vote for Obama.[/QUOTE] [republican] What's the difference? [/republican]
Pretty much.
[QUOTE=Shiftyze;34840741]Ron Paul doesn't want to go to war. Ron Paul makes a lot of sense. The only thing I disagree with him is his views on creationism and that controversy with him about gays going back to being a closet homosexual.[/QUOTE] Yeah, he's a great guy if you're white, straight, male, rich and Christian. Otherwise, not so much [editline]24th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Swilly;34846254]Stick it in her pooper quotes only one part. When the end part pointed out that Ron Paul's plan is just as good as Obamas. I believe that's a ZING.[/QUOTE] It might be great for the economy and rich people, but it's pretty shit for everyone else.
My point was, Obama's plan gets the same thing done. And we don't lose all that social structure.
[QUOTE=Swilly;34846254]When the end part pointed out that Ron Paul's plan is just as good as Obamas.[/QUOTE] Which is fantastic because then your options are 3 variants on maxing your credit cards every month and only paying the minimum payment until bankruptcy, the guy who never paid attention in a US history course long enough to know what happened the last time we tried to bend over backwards for the states, or the guy who doesn't think it's a particularly good idea to completely cripple a majority of social programs and regulatory bodies. This'll be an interesting election.
I like the last option :v:
[QUOTE=sp00ks;34846362]Yeah, he's a great guy if you're white, straight, male, rich and Christian. Otherwise, not so much[/QUOTE] Care to explain?
[QUOTE=Ridge;34846676]Care to explain?[/QUOTE] Because his system only benefits those already in power.
[QUOTE=Penultimate;34840643]Personally, I think of taxes as pie. Say someone has a HUGE pie, someone has a normal sized pie, and someone has a really, really tiny pie. 30% of the huge pie will give you quite a bit of pie, while the normal sized pie and really, really tiny pie will give you barely anything. Besides, even if you take a crazy amount like 50-70% of the huge pie, they'll still be left with a lot of pie, while comparing that to the other two sizes, they'll have only tiny bits of pie left (and probably just crumbs for the really, really tiny pie). I don't understand why people can't understand this concept.[/QUOTE] ok so all people eat slices of pie to live and all people work hard in order to bake fatter pies. pie is made through a oven (business) . there are also many different types of pies that vary in nutrition and flavor. everyone works for a nice huge stack of pies so they and their family can get fat and happy. the majority of people specialize in the production of an ingredient. ingredients are not nutritious enough to sate hunger. they contribute to the creation of pie in return for a piece of the pie proportional to the value of the ingredient. higher value ingredients are hard to understand how to be extracted and require years and years to study of pie making and/or experience in extracting ingredients. lower valuable ingredients are easier to understand how to be extracted and require little to no years of study and experience to be retrieved. People also trade their pie stacks for their preferred type of pie pie bakers own ovens. the oven collect ingredients and produces a unique pie. the pie baker risks his stack of pies on a oven he thinks will produce a good pie. he hires people for their ingredient's and pays them by splitting the baked pie. in order to feed himself he takes whats left. the ratio of the produced pie compared to pies spent is the profit or loss margin. if he profits he is able to take in more pie, rewards his workers, and make his oven bigger. if at a loss, the baker must choose to reduce his pay, his workers pay, or simply fire them. a group of people can risk their pie stacks to own their own part of a oven proportional to the amount payed (stock holder). the more invested in a oven, the more they risk losing pies or gaining pies. everyone gets to vote on government which decides how much they get to tax to and how its spent for things like pie crust (military, police), pie taste and toxicity (regulations), pie crumbs (welfare, pensions), pie recipes (research), bill-pye-the-science-guy (education) and pie-on-the-fly (transportation, roads). most recently added piaed (healthcare). every one pays a percentage of their pie stacks for the same amount of services. Now on the pielitical spectrum, most people to the left want more taxes on the fattest pieacieans because they feel the skinnier pieatites aren't fed enough and starving. they also feel that too many fatties are payed too much and are exploiting them. so they want public ovens to protect their interests and increase the wage they are payed. they want to make it easier for people to have the opportunity to study different recipes, ingredients, or start their own oven. many think the right are just piecists and pietards. Now to the right of the spectrum, pieriades feel like they are taxed too damn much. they claim that fatties hard earned pies are being stolen and they pay a lot more in taxes for the same amount of services. they also feel that taxes take away from upper pieple who make good pie stacks from investing in, or running successful ovens, which then in turn hurts the ovens ability to hire works and loses competition to other pielands. they call this crumble-down economics. they would also prefer government be ran more by private ovens, because public ovens are inefficient because they don't have to compete. many think the left are just socialists and they are enpietled to too much.
[QUOTE=riceninja;34847481]ok so all people eat slices of pie to live and all people work hard in order to bake fatter pies. pie is made through a oven (business) . there are also many different types of pies that vary in nutrition and flavor. everyone works for a nice huge stack of pies so they and their family can get fat and happy. the majority of people specialize in the production of an ingredient. ingredients are not nutritious enough to sate hunger. they contribute to the creation of pie in return for a piece of the pie proportional to the value of the ingredient. higher value ingredients are hard to understand how to be extracted and require years and years to study of pie making and/or experience in extracting ingredients. lower valuable ingredients are easier to understand how to be extracted and require little to no years of study and experience to be retrieved. People also trade their pie stacks for their preferred type of pie pie bakers own ovens. the oven collect ingredients and produces a unique pie. the pie baker risks his stack of pies on a oven he thinks will produce a good pie. he hires people for their ingredient's and pays them by splitting the baked pie. in order to feed himself he takes whats left. the ratio of the produced pie compared to pies spent is the profit or loss margin. if he profits he is able to take in more pie, rewards his workers, and make his oven bigger. if at a loss, the baker must choose to reduce his pay, his workers pay, or simply fire them. a group of people can risk their pie stacks to own their own part of a oven proportional to the amount payed (stock holder). the more invested in a oven, the more they risk losing pies or gaining pies. everyone gets to vote on government which decides how much they get to tax to and how its spent for things like pie crust (military, police), pie taste and toxicity (regulations), pie crumbs (welfare, pensions), pie recipes (research), bill-pye-the-science-guy (education) and pie-on-the-fly (transportation, roads). most recently added piaed (healthcare). every one pays a percentage of their pie stacks for the same amount of services. Now on the pielitical spectrum, most people to the left want more taxes on the fattest pieacieans because they feel the skinnier pieatites aren't fed enough and starving. they also feel that too many fatties are payed too much and are exploiting them. so they want public ovens to protect their interests and increase the wage they are payed. they want to make it easier for people to have the opportunity to study different recipes, ingredients, or start their own oven. many think the right are just piecists and pietards. Now to the right of the spectrum, pieriades feel like they are taxed too damn much. they claim that fatties hard earned pies are being stolen and they pay a lot more in taxes for the same amount of services. they also feel that taxes take away from upper pieple who make good pie stacks from investing in, or running successful ovens, which then in turn hurts the ovens ability to hire works and loses competition to other pielands. they call this crumble-down economics. they would also prefer government be ran more by private ovens, because public ovens are inefficient because they don't have to compete. many think the left are just socialists and they are enpietled to too much.[/QUOTE] I don't want to sound harsh but I didn't understand a word of that
[QUOTE=GunFox;34842489]Instead you rack up a shitload of debt from all the debt you accrue by not collecting taxes. [/QUOTE] This is actually what happened when Bush Jr lowered taxes. I am reading a book by Bruce Bartlett (the domestic policy adviser under Reagan, former staff member for Ron Paul, now seemingly liberal) and he brings up how our huge surplus from the Clinton years was demolished by Bush, who campaigned that if the feds keep it Congress will spend it, so you best give it back to businesses by reducing taxes thus being forced to spend your surplus,
[QUOTE=The Baconator;34851282]This is actually what happened when Bush Jr lowered taxes. I am reading a book by Bruce Bartlett (the domestic policy adviser under Reagan, did some other crap) and he brings up how our huge surplus from the Clinton years was demolished by Bush, who campaigned that if the feds keep it Congress will spend it, so you best give it back to businesses by reducing taxes thus being forced to spend your surplus,[/QUOTE] I was just watching the daily show episode where they interview the author of that book. He seemed like a really intelligent guy.
Here's a video of his two days ago on the Daily show with Jon Stewart, he doesn't bring up the Bush part but makes some really good points: [url]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-22-2012/bruce-bartlett?xrs=share_copy[/url] [editline]24th February 2012[/editline] The book is brought up if anyone is interested
I love the fact that he brings up that most Republicans now and days would hate Reagan.
[QUOTE=sp00ks;34846362]Yeah, he's a great guy if you're white, straight, male, rich and Christian. Otherwise, not so much[/QUOTE] So basically the people in a position of advantage by default will continue to be fine without government-mandated civil rights and equality? Colour me surprised!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.