Trickle down voodoo-economics at work....

cawacko said:
Go look at the his proposed budget when he first took office. He tried to cut spending but the U.S. isn't a monarchy where the president can do what he wants and the democratic controlled said essentially told him to F off. But yeah, he's a hypocrite because he's not king. Makes sense
Click to expand...

Oh, *well*, then. That tears it. We should all give President Trump a big pass because he meant well.

What he actually signed off on and accomplished doesn't matter.

He outlined a plan but was unable to achieve it.

But it wasn't his fault.

One question:

How is this supposed to help America be great?

Or maybe we all missed a word in the slogan.

Maybe it was:

Make American *DEBT* great again?
 
Hello Kacper,

Kacper said:
Not defending Trump's budgets, but if the democrats had won, we would still see huge deficits. It would just be for different reasons.
Click to expand...

No, you don't know that.

President Clinton took good care of the budget and reduced the deficit.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Not necessarily. If the economy is strong then reduced spending and paying down public debt won’t necessarily hurt the economy just as when the economy is in decline deficit spending helps the economy grow.
Click to expand...

"Reduced spending" always seems to mean reducing programs that provide income to those at the bottom of the economy, who spend, basically, everything they get. So that reduced spending would reduce consumer spending, ehich would have a ripple effect on jobs and the economy.
 
rjhenn said:
"Reduced spending" always seems to mean reducing programs that provide income to those at the bottom of the economy, who spend, basically, everything they get. So that reduced spending would reduce consumer spending, ehich would have a ripple effect on jobs and the economy.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t have to be the case though and to assume so is a false choice. A crap load of spendtcuts could be supported by better governance without harming the poor.
 
cawacko said:
What you are leaving out of these equations is spending. Contrary to popular belief that Regan slashed spending it grew at a large pace. Just as spending has pretty much since. Reagan's tax cuts ushered in an economic boom in the '80's that went for over a couple of decades.
Click to expand...

The dot com boom spawned an economy that lasted a decade...'91 was a recession.
Try again.
 
cawacko said:
Go look at the his proposed budget when he first took office. He tried to cut spending but the U.S. isn't a monarchy where the president can do what he wants and the democratic controlled said essentially told him to F off. But yeah, he's a hypocrite because he's not king. Makes sense
Click to expand...

LMFAO.
Reagan was great for the Capital gains taxpayers.
He wrecked it for the rest of us for 3 decades plus, you revisonist twit.
 
cawacko said:
Increasing minimum wage = more automation and more unemployment
Click to expand...

Just as not increasing the minimum wage = more automation and more unemployment, because that's coming anyway. But at least with increased min wage, those who spend most of what they earn will stimulate the economy, create demand and thus create jobs.

cawacko said:
So the fact that the top 20% of Americans pay 87% of personal income taxes isn't enough.
Click to expand...

Where did you get that figure? I don't think it is that high.

cawacko said:
So basically your vision of growth is just more income redistribution - nothing to do with expansion of the private sector
Click to expand...

Ridiculous. The vision is that paying workers more allows them to spend more which creates more demand for product and the need for more workers.

Raising the minimum wage thus creates jobs.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Kacper,



No, you don't know that.

President Clinton took good care of the budget and reduced the deficit.
Click to expand...

The deficit was reduced by the first republican controlled congress in more than 4 decades. BJ was dragged along kicking and screaming.
 
Hello Superfreak,

Superfreak said:
Whether you raise or lower taxes is not the relevant point. It is whether or not you outspend your revenue. Bush and Obama proved you can both lower taxes and raise taxes and STILL outspend revenue.

Tax cuts in the short term do not need spending cuts, but in the long term they should be there or it won't be sustainable unless you have long term sustainable growth.

It also depends on the start point. If you cut taxes from a high level, they are going to be more impactful on the economy long term. If you lower them from an already low level, you likely get little economic boost with very likely increasing deficits.

Supply side and Keynesian will both work if implemented properly. The problem is, the idiots in DC can't stop increasing federal spending.
Click to expand...

I agree with much of what you say, but I don't see how supply-side can work in today's economy. There is no reason for supply-side to work. Believing in supply-side in the current economy is as absurd as believing that there is no capitalization available for business expansion and that the only way more can be made available is to slash revenue for the US govt and forget about the alarmingly high US federal debt.

It is like believing that:

a) There is all this demand for new products; but businesses can't meet it because they lack funds for business expansion.

b) Businesses have not already saturated their markets and sold all the product they can.

c) People are sitting on tons of cash they just can't wait to spend, but they can't find enough consumer products to spend it on.

How many people here think that everyone who can afford one doesn't already have a smart phone, a computer, a car, a TV, and a washing machine?

Is economic expansion limited to simply replacing these things with newer versions? And we should turn our deficit into a time bomb so everybody can have newer consumer products as our infrastructure falls into disarray?
 
Rune said:
LMFAO.
Reagan was great for the Capital gains taxpayers.
He wrecked it for the rest of us for 3 decades plus, you revisonist twit.
Click to expand...

No, the U.S. socialist union workers refused to buy products made in the USA by other socialist union workers. The price was too high, and the quality was lacking ... compared to foreign cars and goods. Instead, they bought foreign made goods.

You're old enough to remember the outrage about the influx of foreign goods and cars ... and the useless howls of "Buy American" that were ignored by the American consumer.
 
Hello Mott,

Mott the Hoople said:
That doesn’t have to be the case though and to assume so is a false choice. A crap load of spendtcuts could be supported by better governance without harming the poor.
Click to expand...

Doesn't most government spending support workers either directly or indirectly? Isn't it true that any government spending cuts mean layoffs for somebody?
 
PoliTalker said:
Just as not increasing the minimum wage = more automation and more unemployment, because that's coming anyway. But at least with increased min wage, those who spend most of what they earn will stimulate the economy, create demand and thus create jobs.



Where did you get that figure? I don't think it is that high.



Ridiculous. The vision is that paying workers more allows them to spend more which creates more demand for product and the need for more workers.

Raising the minimum wage thus creates jobs.
Click to expand...

What percentage of U.S. workers are permanently making minimum wage???? Is it 50%, 10%, 5%, or less??? Let's see your stats.
 
Last edited:
PoliTalker said:
Oh, *well*, then. That tears it. We should all give President Trump a big pass because he meant well.

What he actually signed off on and accomplished doesn't matter.

He outlined a plan but was unable to achieve it.

But it wasn't his fault.

One question:

How is this supposed to help America be great?

Or maybe we all missed a word in the slogan.

Maybe it was:

Make American *DEBT* great again?
Click to expand...

Trump? We were talking about Reagan
 
PoliTalker said:
Just as not increasing the minimum wage = more automation and more unemployment, because that's coming anyway. But at least with increased min wage, those who spend most of what they earn will stimulate the economy, create demand and thus create jobs.



Where did you get that figure? I don't think it is that high.



Ridiculous. The vision is that paying workers more allows them to spend more which creates more demand for product and the need for more workers.

Raising the minimum wage thus creates jobs.
Click to expand...

I posted the WSJ article and the podcast with the author of the 20% - 87% article in kens thread. We had big discussion on it.

Multiple reports have done on raising minimum wage costing jobs. The CBO's done and there was the big one about Seattles increase costing jobs
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Kacper,



No, you don't know that.

President Clinton took good care of the budget and reduced the deficit.
Click to expand...

President Clinton happened to be President when the global economy surged ahead due to computers, including in countries that were unaffected by US policy. The debt was already projected to grow by $9T over the next 10 years even if nothing else changed because of social security and medicare obligations, so yes I do know that. Debts don't grow by $9T if there is no deficit.
 
Bigdog said:
What percentage of U.S. workers are permanently making minimum wage???? Is it 50%, 10%, 5%, or less??? Let's see your stats.
Click to expand...


I rather think we all know that worker productivity and worker compensation were divorced from one another back in the very early 1970s, no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top