Trickle down voodoo-economics at work....

Cypress said:
I have told him repeatedly that he is on my permanent thread ban list of known racists, trolls, libelers, and dunces. But he apparently cannot stay away from my threads, and I think the mods have some explanation of how he is willfully able to evade thread bans.

On the topic of the thread, I never cease to amaze that no matter how many times trickle down, voodoo economics fails to deliver on its predictions and promises, and generally ends up resulting in fiscal and budgetary disaster, the rightwing clings to it like an article of faith. Which leads to another interesting question....is this weird rightwing fealty to voodoo economics an article of faith? Is it borne of immutable emotional investment? Are there deep roots of dishonesty that compel them to support it? Or are the other reasons they support the failures of voodoo economics, but are unwilling to articulate? I have my theories about it....
Click to expand...
What drives me batty is that if, like I do, support a combination of Keynesian and Monetarist economic policy that somehow makes you a socialist. Do these folk even know what socialism is?

But before we get bogged down wonkish debates about Supply Side economics is that the reality is most Republicans don't believe in it either. Hell it was a Republican President that first labeled it as Voodoo Economics. Most Republicans could care less about Supply Side theory and probably know little about it. They just use is a a rationalization to cut top marginal tax rates.
 
Kacper said:
I don't disagree, particularly with so many baby boomers still masturbating with public policy to make sure they get theirs even if it screws everybody who came and come behind them
Click to expand...
I actually care that you get yours as well, I have children and grandchildren, I opposed for many years the raiding of the SS funds. I paid into the insurance since I started working at 14.
 
Phantasmal said:
I actually care that you get yours as well, I have children and grandchildren, I opposed for many years the raiding of the SS funds. I paid into the insurance since I started working at 14.
Click to expand...
Meh SS is an easy fix. Conservatives for years have been trying to undermine the public faith in SS so they can privatize it. Anytime you hear it even mentioned it you can hear to hogs squealing at the trough ready for a feeding frenzy.

The fundamental question here is who do you trust more with supplemental retirement insurance, the Government or Wall St? Well I don't trust either but I trust Wall Street far, far less than government.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Meh SS is an easy fix. Conservatives for years have been trying to undermine the public faith in SS so they can privatize it. Anytime you hear it even mentioned it you can hear to hogs squealing at the trough ready for a feeding frenzy.

The fundamental question here is who do you trust more with supplemental retirement insurance, the Government or Wall St. Well I don't trust either but I trust Wall Street far, far less than government.
Click to expand...
Amen
 
Cypress said:
Obama saved us from a Second Great Republican Depression.
Obama the relentless Kenyesian? Once the GOP took over, they blocked almost all of Obama's infrastructure and public works proposals. The argument could be made they actually intentionally tried to crash the economy, with their relentless threats to default on the national deft.

I do not think you remember that Reagan's 1981 tax cut was actually followed by the worst post-World War 2 recession this nation ever had -- until 2008. It is a dubious proposition to claim the economic expansion that began in the mid-80s was due to the disasterous 1981 tax cut....because Reagan began a massive expansion the military (aka, government spending), and he also took many steps to raise taxes and revenue after 1983. Some argue that Reagan was the biggest tax increaser in modern history.

The 1980s was the beginning of the hallowing out of the middle class. The demise of the middle class began in earnest under Reagan. The investor class did very well.
Click to expand...

If growing the military brought over 5% GDP growth our military would be 10X the size it is today. The private sector roared back in the '80's. Entrepreneurship was unleased.

A bigger downturn creates an opportunity for larger growth during the recovery. Yet even with that we never had 3% GDP growth in a single year over the past eight years. Obama got a stimulus, health care overhaul (1/6th of the economy) and passed Dodd-Frank. How much more legislation did he need? It wasn't coincidence the poor performance of the private sector occurred under his watch and attitude.

We had helicopter Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen keep rates at zero with QE trying to create a wealth effect which 1) didn't occur and 2) just boosted inequality. When you try to create asset bubbles who do we think is going to benefit?

The numbers speak for themselves. Look at our growth rate in the '80's. Look at the eight years under Obama.
 
Phantasmal said:
I actually care that you get yours as well, I have children and grandchildren, I opposed for many years the raiding of the SS funds. I paid into the insurance since I started working at 14.
Click to expand...

SS funds were raided the year after the program was created. It's been going on since essentially day one.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Meh SS is an easy fix. Conservatives for years have been trying to undermine the public faith in SS so they can privatize it. Anytime you hear it even mentioned it you can hear to hogs squealing at the trough ready for a feeding frenzy.

The fundamental question here is who do you trust more with supplemental retirement insurance, the Government or Wall St? Well I don't trust either but I trust Wall Street far, far less than government.
Click to expand...

That's false Mott and as you like to say a straw man. The numbers are the numbers and changes are going to have to be made to S.S. or else it's not going to be able to pay out its promised benefits. It's much easier to ignore that reality and claim people who speak about its reality have bad intentions.
 
Kacper said:
I don't disagree, particularly with so many baby boomers still masturbating with public policy to make sure they get theirs even if it screws everybody who came and come behind them
Click to expand...

so I pay into all may life and then you want me to do what ?
 
Cypress said:
Obama saved us from a Second Great Republican Depression.
Obama the relentless Kenyesian? Once the GOP took over, they blocked almost all of Obama's infrastructure and public works proposals. The argument could be made they actually intentionally tried to crash the economy, with their relentless threats to default on the national deft.

I do not think you remember that Reagan's 1981 tax cut was actually followed by the worst post-World War 2 recession this nation ever had -- until 2008. It is a dubious proposition to claim the economic expansion that began in the mid-80s was due to the disasterous 1981 tax cut....because Reagan began a massive expansion the military (aka, government spending), and he also took many steps to raise taxes and revenue after 1983. Some argue that Reagan was the biggest tax increaser in modern history.

The 1980s was the beginning of the hallowing out of the middle class. The demise of the middle class began in earnest under Reagan. The investor class did very well.
Click to expand...

and the new push to cheat in elections ( the consent decree was forced on them in 1982)


and the USE OF RACISM
 
"Meh SS is an easy fix. Conservatives for years have been trying to undermine the public faith in SS so they can privatize it." MH #184
Click to expand...
Please enlighten us all.
If the U.S. Social Security Ponzi scam is such a bargain, why must it be administered at gunpoint? PLEASE do not waste our time denying it. "Gunpoint !!"
"Anytime you hear it even mentioned it you can hear to hogs squealing at the trough ready for a feeding frenzy." MH
Click to expand...
Those at the trough are those wedded at the mouth to the government teat.

It is conservatives that advocate a CHOICE !!

If you want to wallow away your life in insecure financial meritocracy, GO AHEAD! Social Security is the ideal vehicle for it.

But if instead you would prefer the manifold advantages of the private sector, conservatives like me advocate that option.

And it was never a binary. If you want a 90 : 10 split, go ahead.
50 : 50 more to your liking? No problemo!

But under the current gunpoint plan, you're stuck with whatever congress is willing to "give" you. And please do not lose sight of this one most fundamental CONSERVATIVE reality !!
Government cannot give ANYthing that it has not first taken.
Click to expand...
"The fundamental question here is who do you trust more with supplemental retirement insurance, the Government or Wall St. Well I don't trust either but I trust Wall Street far, far less than government." MH
Click to expand...
And therefore you have the right to impose your groundless preference on hundreds of millions of our countrymen ?!

Either you're aware there's an opposite preference, or not.
Either way, would you have THEIR private sector, FDIC insured preference bind on YOU? I genuinely don't know what the mental defect is with you dictatorialists. But the principles you usurp include the Creator endowed Constitutionally enumerated, unalienable right of Liberty, among others.

You're barbarians.
 
cawacko said:
That's false Mott and as you like to say a straw man. The numbers are the numbers and changes are going to have to be made to S.S. or else it's not going to be able to pay out its promised benefits. It's much easier to ignore that reality and claim people who speak about its reality have bad intentions.
Click to expand...
I would argue then that your views on SS are based on a false premise or you have a incorrect understanding on how SS works. SS is not an investment program where one pays SS tax and earns returns that provides for a set benefit when you retire. SS is a direct redistribution of tax dollars. Workers paying SS tax now, pay the benefits for current retirees. That's the way SS works now and that's the way SS has always worked. The SS "Trust Fund" was created by tax payers paying more in SS taxes than what has been spent on retirees. So the SS Trust fund is really a measure of how much workers are over taxed for SS and a measure of their productivity. In other words it's a rainy day fund and has nothing to do with SS's viability because SS isn't predicated on having a sufficient surplus. It's based on a direct transfer of tax payers money based on national productivity.

That's where your views on SS are based on a false premise. The ratio of taxpayers to retirees does not determine SS viability because SS isn't based on this ratio. SS is based on the productivity of our workers. Just because you have less workers and more retirees does not mean that SS is kaput. Less workers and more retirees can be compensated for by greater productivity and/or sharing more of our productivity with workers. Even if that weren't to happen as long as productivity doesn't completely crash, shortfalls can be corrected by either increasing taxes and/or decreasing benefits and more than likely those corrections wouldn't be anything radical.

So my question to you is what evidence do you see of a massive decline in our national productivity that would be required to truly threaten the viability of SS?
 
Last edited:
Quote Originally Posted by evince

so I pay into all may life and then you want me to do what ?
Click to expand...
Spare future generations of the same ruthless, devastating exploitation you have been forced into.

Make Social Security participation V O L U N T A R Y ! ! !
 
MH #194

It's a pyramid scheme. Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored ~ attributed to Aldous Huxley
Ponzi scheme (pòn´zê skêm) noun
An investment swindle in which high profits are promised from fictitious sources and early investors are paid off with funds raised from later ones.

[After Charles Ponzi (1882?-1949), Italian-born speculator who organized such a scheme (1919-1920).]

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.
Click to expand...
SS viability isn't dependent on a surplus.
Click to expand...
"SS viability isn't dependent on a surplus" as long as our government printing presses don't run out of ink.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
No...the SS surplus has been raided and SS viability isn't dependent on a surplus. It's nice to have one but it's not dependent on one.
Click to expand...

Yes it was raised from the start. I'll give you the book if you want to read the history of it. You need to understand what the intent of the program was when it was created to understand how and why changes throughout its history have been made and people argue the positions they do.
 
sear said:
MH #194

It's a pyramid scheme. Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored ~ attributed to Aldous Huxley


"SS viability isn't dependent on a surplus" as long as our government printing presses don't run out of ink.
Click to expand...

That last sentence is spot on
 
cawacko said:
Yes it was raised from the start. I'll give you the book if you want to read the history of it. You need to understand what the intent of the program was when it was created to understand how and why changes throughout its history have been made and people argue the positions they do.
Click to expand...

OK....but I don't understand what that has to do with the points that I made. Nor did you address my question which I will repeat, what evidence do you see of a massive decline in our national productivity that would be required to truly threaten the viability of SS?
 
hello Cypress,

Cypress said:
I never cease to amaze that no matter how many times trickle down, voodoo economics fails to deliver on its predictions and promises, and generally ends up resulting in fiscal and budgetary disaster, the rightwing clings to it like an article of faith. Which leads to another interesting question....is this weird rightwing fealty to voodoo economics an article of faith? Is it borne of immutable emotional investment? Are there deep roots of dishonesty that compel them to support it? Or are the other reasons they support the failures of voodoo economics, but are unwilling to articulate? I have my theories about it....
Click to expand...

I know, right? Isn't is amazing how quickly they shut up when the subject is brought up of Gov Brownback's great test of tax cutting to stimulate economic growth, which fell flat on it's face? I mean there they were. Republicans had total control in Kansas. Brownback was the Koch brothers little puppet, bought and sold. He did exactly what he was bought and paid to do. Big tax cuts for the wealthy and no taxes on business. And that was supposed to spur all this economic growth, new jobs, new revenue, and more than make up for the lost revenue. Except it didn't turn out that way.

The rich took the money and ran.

No new jobs were created.

Revenue never picked up. Their surplus became a deficit. Social services and schools were cut. Still the State ran short. Finally, after they ignored it too long, the State's credit rating was cut. Eventually the State had to raise taxes and now there's no money for anything.

And the 'Great Experiment In Tax Cutting?'

Brownback never talked about that again. Not a peep.

What a disaster.

You would think with such a plain and simple example that people would learn.

Nope!

Instead, Republicans want to take that disaster nation-wide.

Pathetic.

Republicans should not be allowed anywhere near a budget.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top