[QUOTE=Uberman77883;29515504]That's not how it works at all.
You reduce taxes and give them money so that they will EXPAND THEIR BUSINESS. Not "lower their prices" or "use the goodness of their heart"
If you realized that the tax breaks don't apply to people but to the actual corporate entity you would realize this.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, expand their business right over into the cheapest labor market, which is usually not America.
[QUOTE=An Armed Bear;29515293]Didn't Herbert Hoover try trickle down economics?[/QUOTE]
Naw Laissez-faire
[editline]29th April 2011[/editline]
french for I don't wanna get in your way mr businessman
[QUOTE=Tyrannosaur;29511800]This is most likely because Democrats don't know anything about economics.[/QUOTE]
I have yet to receive my trickle. Is it coming in the mail or am I supposed to go outside with a cup? Also Why do people say liberals suck at economics? Conservatives are why we spend half are taxes on war.
[QUOTE=archangel125;29515557]Okay, the smartest of the lot expand their businesses to other countries and get richer. Where does this leave the average American citizen, and how does it benefit them?[/QUOTE]
Cheaper products. You do realize that the average chinese worker works for 80 cents an hour.
You like your iPhone? You like how it was only 100-200$?
If Americans built the iPhone, it would cost over 1200$.
[editline]29th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29517035]I have yet to receive my tickle. Is it coming in the mail or am I supposed to go outside with a cup? Also Why do people say liberals suck at economics? Conservatives are why we spend half are taxes on war.[/QUOTE]
And Democrats are why we spend all our taxes on increasing debt. Keynesian economics, ftw.
[QUOTE=Uberman77883;29517764]And Democrats are why we spend all our taxes on increasing debt. Keynesian economics, ftw.[/QUOTE]
Explain. They both spend a lot the only difference is that one is for helpful stuff and the other is for war. I mean it would at least make sense if war stimulated are economy like it did before that thats no longer the case.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29517035]I have yet to receive my tickle. Is it coming in the mail or am I supposed to go outside with a cup? Also Why do people say liberals suck at economics? Conservatives are why we spend half are taxes on war.[/QUOTE]
Tickle Down Economics FTW!!!
[img]http://www.ticklehell.com/videos/pictures/th3901b.JPG[/img]
[QUOTE=Uberman77883;29517764]Cheaper products. You do realize that the average chinese worker works for 80 cents an hour.
You like your iPhone? You like how it was only 100-200$?
If Americans built the iPhone, it would cost over 1200$.
[editline]29th April 2011[/editline]
And Democrats are why we spend all our taxes on increasing debt. Keynesian economics, ftw.[/QUOTE]
Uh... no. Conservatives create the debt. Democrats don't add to it much at all by comparison. But this administration hasn't done much to reduce it either.
So you didn't rebut my cheaper consumer products argument, that means you accept it.
Also if conservatives create debt and economic disparity then why did Reagan's administration see some of the largest economic growth since 1950s. Under which was another Republican president Eisenhower.
wow reading this thread... just wow
has it occurred to any of you that some people might NOT share your viewpoint?
[QUOTE=Mon;29519797]wow reading this thread... just wow
has it occurred to any of you that some people might NOT share your viewpoint?[/QUOTE]
Yea and thats why we post in this thread.
[QUOTE=Uberman77883;29519346]So you didn't rebut my cheaper consumer products argument, that means you accept it.
Also if conservatives create debt and economic disparity then why did Reagan's administration see some of the largest economic growth since 1950s. Under which was another Republican president Eisenhower.[/QUOTE]
What is with you people and assuming that if it happened under x presidency that it was entirely the orchestration of x president in x year? It's retarded, because growth and recession compile over long periods of time, somewhere between 20-50 years.
The essential question is:
"Low taxes, or low regulation?"
High taxes and high regulation works in the same way that low taxes and no regulation works, in theory. In theory, it would benefit to have Wal-Mart to pay higher taxes and have more regulation. However, most of the money from taxes has nothing to do with the million-dollar salaries of CEOs, rather it takes from the paychecks of workers and raises prices.
In theory, to have low taxes and low regulation would benefit businesses. However, most of the money saved from lower taxes goes into CEO paychecks. Low amounts of regulation allows this to happen to an extreme, and can cause unsafe working conditions.
The conclusion to be made is either high taxes and low regulation or low taxes and high regulation.
While both look good on paper, the best solution in recession low taxes and high regulation.
That way, the government controls which way the money saved from low taxes goes to. That money then goes back to the employees, and stimulates economic growth with more money being circulated.
Now, high taxes and low regulation is best in inflation. Since companies have to pay more to the government, less money is being circulated. Low regulation still gives companies the breathing room they need, even under high tax rates.
There are a few holes in my thoughts here, since it's entirely circumstantial.
But, the point I'm trying to prove is that to lean entirely to one side doesn't help that much. Moderates work with what they have best, since their bias is at least smaller. They have no problems with making compromises, and their pride usually isn't at stake.
The sad reality though, is that moderates are rarely elected, as the herpderp american voting system allows people to blindly vote for one party despite the real credentials or beliefs of said candidate.
For example, Donald Trump had usually been a left-leaning moderate, favored by Democrats. However, he's made his shift to republicanism because Americans particularly favor the GOP on budget fixes. Trump has the plans laid out, it's just that his only hope of winning is to lean toward one side- and what side to lean on other than the uninformed and particularly stupid GOP-supportive citizens?
[QUOTE=archangel125;29519086]Uh... no. Conservatives create the debt. Democrats don't add to it much at all by comparison. But this administration hasn't done much to reduce it either.[/QUOTE]
The Democrats are more likely to propose new spending. They typically create more debt than Republicans. But Republicans are also very bad in that although they try to act as though they aren't spending a ton, most still create a ton of debt. Welfare programs are big debt creators. Your claim that Democrats don't add much debt needs a lot of backing. I can assume you are going to bring up the war, but that appears to be a bipartisan issue.
[QUOTE=Mon;29519797]wow reading this thread... just wow
has it occurred to any of you that some people might NOT share your viewpoint?[/QUOTE]
This must be your first time visiting In The News.
[QUOTE=joes33431;29520142]What is with you people and assuming that if it happened under x presidency that it was entirely the orchestration of x president in x year? It's retarded, because growth and recession compile over long periods of time, somewhere between 20-50 years.
The essential question is:
"Low taxes, or low regulation?"
High taxes and high regulation works in the same way that low taxes and no regulation works, in theory. In theory, it would benefit to have Wal-Mart to pay higher taxes and have more regulation. However, most of the money from taxes has nothing to do with the million-dollar salaries of CEOs, rather it takes from the paychecks of workers and raises prices.
In theory, to have low taxes and low regulation would benefit businesses. However, most of the money saved from lower taxes goes into CEO paychecks. Low amounts of regulation allows this to happen to an extreme, and can cause unsafe working conditions.
The conclusion to be made is either high taxes and low regulation or low taxes and high regulation.
While both look good on paper, the best solution in recession low taxes and high regulation.
That way, the government controls which way the money saved from low taxes goes to. That money then goes back to the employees, and stimulates economic growth with more money being circulated.
Now, high taxes and low regulation is best in inflation. Since companies have to pay more to the government, less money is being circulated. Low regulation still gives companies the breathing room they need, even under high tax rates.
There are a few holes in my thoughts here, since it's entirely circumstantial.
But, the point I'm trying to prove is that to lean entirely to one side doesn't help that much. Moderates work with what they have best, since their bias is at least smaller. They have no problems with making compromises, and their pride usually isn't at stake.
The sad reality though, is that moderates are rarely elected, as the herpderp american voting system allows people to blindly vote for one party despite the real credentials or beliefs of said candidate.
For example, Donald Trump had usually been a left-leaning moderate, favored by Democrats. However, he's made his shift to republicanism because Americans particularly favor the GOP on budget fixes. Trump has the plans laid out, it's just that his only hope of winning is to lean toward one side- and what side to lean on other than the uninformed and particularly stupid GOP-supportive citizens?[/QUOTE]
Reagan came into power under a severe recession. A recession that built up since Nixon. Inflation built up to over 9% while interest rates rose to 14%. Reagan came in and by his second term it was back to normal, and business was growing.
However it was not all for good, as since businesses were growing so much thousands of kids went into college thinking "I should major in business", then shit went downhill.
[QUOTE=Mon;29519797]wow reading this thread... just wow
has it occurred to any of you that some people might NOT share your viewpoint?[/QUOTE]
Welcome to the concept of debate.
Have a seat. Stay awhile.
[QUOTE=Uberman77883;29519346]So you didn't rebut my cheaper consumer products argument, that means you accept it.
[/QUOTE]
Lack of acknowledgement does not imply agreement. Get over yourself.
[QUOTE=Uberman77883;29520384]Reagan came into power under a severe recession. A recession that built up since Nixon. Inflation built up to over 9% while interest rates rose to 14%. Reagan came in and by his second term it was back to normal, and business was growing.
However it was not all for good, as since businesses were growing so much thousands of kids went into college thinking "I should major in business", then shit went downhill.[/QUOTE]
When I refer to "inflation", I mean an economic period when too much money is in circulation. The opposite of recession, if you will.
And, the problem with Reagan was that he provided temporary solutions. He cleaned up our economy, but did it in a way that would eventually build up and cause problems for future generations.
Many people accuse Obama of doing nothing, when in reality he is providing long-term solutions, instead of quick-fixes such as those provided by the Reagan administration.
What we must do is invest in the future, by building infrastructure, improving cities and towns, as well as investing into research of alternative fuels and other such scientific breakthroughs.
We must also cut some military spending. We can save billions by replacing cold-war relic vehicles with modern-age war vehicles (replacing F-35s and aircraft carriers), as well as shortening foreign presence (we're stretched too thin, and it costs too much money) and making cuts to missile programs.
Progressive taxation is still essential. If you have worked to gain much money, you should feel obliged to do a service to your countrymen (being the more experienced, more privileged of citizens) by paying higher taxes.
[img_thumb]http://lh6.ggpht.com/_zYQEgS6UqUw/SqmjTGLA9UI/AAAAAAAAJkw/NuOXWx2k2Hc/Natl_Debt_Chart.jpg[/img_thumb]
That's all I have to say about that.
[QUOTE=archangel125;29520590]Lack of acknowledgement does not imply agreement. Get over yourself.[/QUOTE]
Ah, but its true. If you can't see through your blind party fanaticism then a sensible argument isn't possible.
[QUOTE=amute;29512115]Which is why the Republicans have failed on the economy literally every single time they had office, right?[/QUOTE]
The democrats had both houses since 2006.
[QUOTE=froztshock;29520897][img_thumb]http://lh6.ggpht.com/_zYQEgS6UqUw/SqmjTGLA9UI/AAAAAAAAJkw/NuOXWx2k2Hc/Natl_Debt_Chart.jpg[/img_thumb]
That's all I have to say about that.[/QUOTE]
[img_thumb]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5847979/graph.png[/img_thumb]
just my thoughts on that graph
its nice but really does a good job of adding some spin
[QUOTE=joes33431;29520837]We must also cut some military spending. We can save billions by replacing cold-war relic vehicles with modern-age war vehicles (replacing F-35s and aircraft carriers), as well as shortening foreign presence (we're stretched too thin, and it costs too much money) and making cuts to missile programs.[/QUOTE]
The F-35 is not a Cold War relic, but it is hideously expensive. On the other hand, the US military-industrial complex will seek to suck every dollar out of the US government when they get the contract to build these "modern-age war vehicles".
As for carriers, the fewer of them the US Navy has, the lesser the tendency to have needless foreign adventures. It's amazing how you can redefine "vital national interests" when you can't do anything about them.
[QUOTE=Tyrannosaur;29511800]This is most likely because Democrats don't know anything about economics.[/QUOTE]
You don't know anything about economics. The only way to get out of debt is to spend your way out. It was proven with the New Deal in 1933 and Germany proved it in 1934 with their massive production spending. Sure, both countries went trillions more into debt, but they had a surplus in which to pay off the debt later on.
[QUOTE=Evilan;29522037]You don't know anything about economics. The only way to get out of debt is to spend your way out. It was proven with the New Deal in 1933 and Germany proved it in 1934 with their massive production spending. Sure, both countries went trillions more into debt, but they had a surplus in which to pay off the debt later on.[/QUOTE]
clinton would like a world with you
[QUOTE=Mon;29521796][img_thumb]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5847979/graph.png[/img_thumb]
just my thoughts on that graph
its nice but really does a good job of adding some spin[/QUOTE]
And who's to blame (in part) for the increased tensions and (mostly in full) for going to war in the gulf? The presidents.
[QUOTE=Mon;29521796][img_thumb]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5847979/graph.png[/img_thumb]
just my thoughts on that graph
its nice but really does a good job of adding some spin[/QUOTE]
Would edit the W. Bush section with "Tax cuts during multiple Middle East conflicts, economically retarded"
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;29522056]And who's to blame (in part) for the increased tensions and (mostly in full) for going to war in the gulf? The presidents.[/QUOTE]
the president has to go through tonnes of processes to get things started
trust me, you can't pin a war entirely on the president
[QUOTE=Uberman77883;29519346]So you didn't rebut my cheaper consumer products argument, that means you accept it.
Also if conservatives create debt and economic disparity then why did Reagan's administration see some of the largest economic growth since 1950s. Under which was another Republican president Eisenhower.[/QUOTE]
Reagan did raise the national debt to 2.85 trillion dollars
[QUOTE=Mon;29522159]the president has to go through tonnes of processes to get things started
trust me, you can't pin a war entirely on the president[/QUOTE]
No, but you can't detach it from him and explain away budget problems by saying "oh well there was a war"
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
