Why does supply side economics get any credence in today's debate?

[Matt1970]

Just wait till the the government decides to tax you higher because your job requires less hard work than the guy who lives next door to you and earns the same amount of money.

 

[dank69]

Lets address what you said Thumbs up for good points, thumbs down for bad ones

1.) Let's shrink government, throw millions of people off their jobs - This will not improve the economy. :thumbsup:
2.) increase tax cuts for the wealthy - How will this hurt the economy exactly?:thumbsdown:
3.) shred regulations left and right -This probably will help the economy :thumbsdown:
4.) Dismantle the EPA - Almost certainly help the economy :thumbsdown:
5.) Defund public education - in the long run bad :thumbsup:
6.) Defund planned parenthood - has nothing to do with the economy :thumbsdown:
7.) Defund NASA - Nasa has not been important for say 30-40 years :thumbsdown:

So lets count from your points

5 :thumbsdown: 2:thumbsup:

And that is why people vote Republican.

Look out everyone, nehalem has blessed us with his opinions on major policies. Debate over.

 

[nehalem256]

I thnk as the economy worsens people realize and adapt to what they really "need" to survive and get by. Thus demand for "stuff" goes down as its not a necessity. So trying to supply "stuff" to people, no matter the cost, that have deemed it not worthy any longer do to financial reasons dont buy it.

Thus supply side economics is fail. Supply things that are in demand.

Trying to discredit supple side economics in all possible contexts is impossible and irrelevant.

All that needs to be shown is that in today's economy it is clearly out of place. Everything I have read in any economic article says that the problem is a lack of demand.

 

[nehalem256]

Look out everyone, nehalem has blessed us with his opinions on major policies. Debate over.

Oh, so you wish to disagree with me?

Perhaps you could explain how defunding planned parenthood is an economic issue?

Or why if defunding NASA is so bad for the economy (and a Republican idea) than why is Barack Obama doing it?

 

[dank69]

Oh, so you wish to disagree with me?

Perhaps you could explain how defunding planned parenthood is an economic issue?

Because it gives poor people the tools they need to stop breeding?

Or why if defunding NASA is so bad for the economy (and a Republican idea) than why is Barack Obama doing it?

Defunding NASA isn't bad for the economy today but it most certainly bad for the economy of the future if it allows other countries to overtake us in scientific research. Unfortunately for Obama, he is being hammered for the state of the economy today by short-sighted Independent fools and intellectually dishonest Republican tools forcing his hand to make cuts he does not want to make.

 

[nehalem256]

Because it gives poor people the tools they need to stop breeding?

Population growth increases economic growth.

 

[dank69]

Population growth increases economic growth.

Really now? More mouths on the government dole increase economic growth? That's an interesting theory.

 

[nehalem256]

Really now? More mouths on the government dole increase economic growth? That's an interesting theory.

It increases it until the government runs out of money.

And of course we all know that liberal support for planned parenthood has nothing to do with growing the economy. But on transferring money from men to women just like every other liberal social program.

 

[dank69]

It increases it until the government runs out of money.

And of course we all know that liberal support for planned parenthood has nothing to do with growing the economy. But on transferring money from men to women just like every other liberal social program.

I'm sorry that my simple, concise rebuttal of your theory has caused you to go off the rails again. :\

 

[Pens1566]

Lets address what you said Thumbs up for good points, thumbs down for bad ones

1.) Let's shrink government, throw millions of people off their jobs - This will not improve the economy. :thumbsup:
2.) increase tax cuts for the wealthy - How will this hurt the economy exactly?:thumbsdown:
3.) shred regulations left and right -This probably will help the economy :thumbsdown:
4.) Dismantle the EPA - Almost certainly help the economy :thumbsdown:
5.) Defund public education - in the long run bad :thumbsup:
6.) Defund planned parenthood - has nothing to do with the economy :thumbsdown:
7.) Defund NASA - Nasa has not been important for say 30-40 years :thumbsdown:

So lets count from your points

5 :thumbsdown: 2:thumbsup:

And that is why people vote Republican.

So much stupid in one post.

 

[soulcougher73]

Trying to discredit supple side economics in all possible contexts is impossible and irrelevant.

All that needs to be shown is that in today's economy it is clearly out of place. Everything I have read in any economic article says that the problem is a lack of demand.

That is what i was trying to say. Sounds like we are agreeing. Supply side sucks. Demand side is what should drive an economy.

 

[nehalem256]

I'm sorry that my simple, concise rebuttal of your theory has caused you to go off the rails again. :\

1.) Liberals have been calling for government stimulus to fix the economy. It seems you are saying they are wrong.

2.) You seem to be assuming that people are incapable of buying their own condoms 🙄 If you truly think so low of such people you should be calling for sterilization not BC.

 

[nehalem256]

That is what i was trying to say. Sounds like we are agreeing. Supply side sucks. Demand side is what should drive an economy.

Well the difference is I am saying that there might be other economic situations where supply side makes. Although obviously the current situation is not one of those.

This seems like an easier and more practical argument. For one it avoid pissing off more moderate supply siders, but avoiding calling them morons.

 

[dank69]

1.) Liberals have been calling for government stimulus to fix the economy. It seems you are saying they are wrong.

The stimulus is supposed to create jobs, which is suppoed to help more people earn money, which in turn should create a boost in demand. This is something both you and I advocate. A fifteen year old girl having a child of her own when her mother is already on welfare is going to be a drag on the economy. Before you go off the deep end, please note that this does not mean I advocate forced abortions like you do.

2.) You seem to be assuming that people are incapable of buying their own condoms 🙄 If you truly think so low of such people you should be calling for sterilization not BC.

Please explain why you don't think there are people out there who can't afford condoms. Please also explain why you think that means I "think so low of such people." After you are done with that, please explain why you think sterilization is a better option than providing free condoms.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Why don't you guys just ignore it? Or at least quit hanging out by it's bridge it's trolling under and quoting the crap that it says...

 

[nehalem256]

The stimulus is supposed to create jobs, which is suppoed to help more people earn money, which in turn should create a boost in demand. This is something both you and I advocate. A fifteen year old girl having a child of her own when her mother is already on welfare is going to be a drag on the economy. Before you go off the deep end, please note that this does not mean I advocate forced abortions like you do.

And by giving her welfare she will spend that money in the economy. Its called stimulus.

Although interesting. By your own argument opposing forced abortions leads to less economic growth. Why do you hate the economy?

Please explain why you don't think there are people out there who can't afford condoms. Please also explain why you think that means I "think so low of such people." After you are done with that, please explain why you think sterilization is a better option than providing free condoms.

Condoms cost what 25 cents. You can find that laying in the street.

If a person is incapable of taking care and being responsible for themselves then clearly they should not be allowed to have children.

 

[dank69]

And by giving her welfare she will spend that money in the economy. Its called stimulus.

Although interesting. By your own argument opposing forced abortions leads to less economic growth. Why do you hate the economy?



Condoms cost what 25 cents. You can find that laying in the street.

If a person is incapable of taking care and being responsible for themselves then clearly they should not be allowed to have children.

Why am I not surprised you haven't gotten laid in a while? :hmm:

Maybe it's because you can't understand that no person or organization should be able to dictate when someone should or should not be allowed to have kids. Chicks tend to view that as a turn off. The good news for you is that you can move to China where they share your beliefs. :thumbsup:

 

[thraashman]

Lets address what you said Thumbs up for good points, thumbs down for bad ones

1.) Let's shrink government, throw millions of people off their jobs - This will not improve the economy. :thumbsup:
2.) increase tax cuts for the wealthy - How will this hurt the economy exactly?:thumbsdown:
3.) shred regulations left and right -This probably will help the economy :thumbsdown:
4.) Dismantle the EPA - Almost certainly help the economy :thumbsdown:
5.) Defund public education - in the long run bad :thumbsup:
6.) Defund planned parenthood - has nothing to do with the economy :thumbsdown:
7.) Defund NASA - Nasa has not been important for say 30-40 years :thumbsdown:

So lets count from your points

5 :thumbsdown: 2:thumbsup:

And that is why people vote Republican.

I'm gonna take this point by point. Note, I overall disagree with you but not 100% on everything.
1) I agree that shrinking government right now hurts as there's not enough private sector demand to cover the loss in government jobs. This could potentially have a cascading effect and in fact likely already has as the size of government has shrunk since Obama took office.
2) This actually will and does hurt the economy. The wealthy, unlike the poor, when they get more money don't need to spend it. In fact for the most part it barely even affects them. They put it into investments which mostly just keeps the money concentrated in the top 1-2%. This takes money out of most parts of the economy. Giving tax breaks to the middle class, adding money to social programs, or paying down the debt would all be significantly better uses of the money as far as fixing the economy. Tax cuts to the rich is literally the worst idea of all ideas outside of burning the money.
3) Shredding regulations could potentially give a short term boost in some sectors, but the long term destruction that a lack of regulations causes or a lack of enforcement of regulations causes (Deepwater Horizon, 2008 economic collapse, etc) would cost significantly more overall and not be worth the damage.
4) Dismantle the EPA - The EPA is not there to make money, the EPA is there to keep companies whose job it is to make money from completely fucking up the planet while doing it. This is similar to the one above where short term gains would be outweighed by long term damage to the environment.
5) Defund public education - The only people I hear in favor of this tend to be the Paulbots. Defunding public education is one of the worst ideas ever. We need to work on ways to improve is and perhaps the next generation won't fuck things up as much as the current ones have.
6) Defund planned parenthood - Agree that this really has very little to do with the economy, but not nothing. The rate of abortions in the general population is actually higher than the rate of abortions by Planned Parenthood patients. Planned Parenthood does far more than just provide abortion services and in fact does much to provide for the better health of a mostly female patient group. This actually does work to keep the general health of women better and keep medical debt down which does actually affect the economy.
7) Defund NASA - To say NASA has been irrelevant for 30-40 years is just highly innacurate. While there hasn't been anything quite the equivalent to the space race, government funded NASA research has actually done a ton for the general public in things created or discovered.

So, that's why people SHOULDN'T vote Republican.

 

[Hugo Drax]

Tax rate of 0% will not bring jobs here. Taxes are not the issue, is Wage/Laborlaw/environmental law arbitrage is the problem.

If you can hire someone in china for 1 dollar a day, with no pesky environmental and labor laws to deal with, even a 0% tax rate would not be incentive to bring back jobs.

If you can hire 20 16 year old kids in a Foxconn labor camp to build your expensive iToys for pennies, no tax cut in the world will bring those jobs back in the USA.


This small video pretty much sums it up. Tax cuts, yeah right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-ZRa3lqAFA

 

[blankslate]

Really? The Roaring Twenties arguably our greatest decade ever saw a top marginal rate of 25% yet it was raised to 63% in 1932. I wonder why our depression lasted till 1940.....

The roaring twenties were the greatest period of over extended credit false prosperity in history, until we got the ownership society flimflam.

What this low tax hawk is failing to mention is that the initial events that started the Great Depression started on October 29 1929. Right when the tax rates were at a very low 25% for the top tax rates.

He doesn't mention that who raised the tax in 1932 either.


Additionally when the tax rates were higher the recessions after the great depression tended to be shorter. This was probably thanks to Glass-Steagall in large part but the higher taxes and shorter recessions is an interesting detail that needs to be explored.

This current recession didn't occur until after the Bush Tax Cuts passed in two stages and the effects of the repeal of Glass-Steagall had time to work on the economy.

And it has lasted much longer than the recession after the 90's. Before President Bush enacted his tax cuts and before the repeal of Glass-Steagall with was unfortunately signed by President Clinton had time to fully change how banks behaved.

 

[nehalem256]

What this low tax hawk is failing to mention is that the initial events that started the Great Depression started on October 29 1929. Right when the tax rates were at a very low 25% for the top tax rates.

He doesn't mention that who raised the tax in 1932 either.


Additionally when the tax rates were higher the recessions after the great depression tended to be shorter. This was probably thanks to Glass-Steagall in large part but the higher taxes and shorter recessions is an interesting detail that needs to be explored.

This current recession didn't occur until after the Bush Tax Cuts passed in two stages and the effects of the repeal of Glass-Steagall had time to work on the economy.

And it has lasted much longer than the recession after the 90's. Before President Bush enacted his tax cuts and before the repeal of Glass-Steagall with was unfortunately signed by President Clinton had time to fully change how banks behaved.

The recession was the result of a Housing bubble that began under clinton.

Please do explain how tax cuts resulted in the housing bubble? 😕

 

[Raghu]

Abstinence is still a free way to planned parenthood, right?

 

[dank69]

Abstinence is still a free way to planned parenthood, right?

It is if you are ugly enough that nobody would agree to have sex with you.

 

[Atreus21]

What's funny is that you ignore reality and the fact that almost all of our economic booms were under far higher tax rates. If tax cuts, especially to the wealthy, really helped at all, then why don't we have an economy that's kicking ass?

We'll take the easy way out; that is, the same way out Keynesians take.

If tax cuts don't work, you're not using enough.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

We'll take the easy way out; that is, the same way out Keynesians take.

If tax cuts don't work, you're not using enough.

The notion that tax cuts create jobs is a fraudulent proposition.