Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Coleman2010, Sep 17, 2012.
Will Republicans finally give up this old canard?
I haven't seen the studies he's talking about, but they sound similar to the research I am familiar with.
I thought this was already common knowledge?
"Study: Pouring water on grass makes it greener."
People with common sense have known this for a long time. Unfortunately, a lot of people in this country lack this common sense, and a lot of them like to completely ignore the facts because they don't support their twisted beliefs.
It should be obvious to anyone who's lived the past 50 years.
GOP response" "We weren't pure enough in our Trickle Down attempts, let us try again but double (triple, quadruple, etc) down on it, THIS time it'll work! We promise"
Supply Side/Trickle down has always simply been turning over economic power to corporations through the politicians they help bankroll.
Remember, St. Ronnie lived in a fully paid for fully GE furnished home before he was ever in office
And doubling down on deficit spending doesn't work either. How about this? Let's go back to the Clinton tax cuts for everybody and cut spending so we can balance the budget. Opposite of what both parties want but would help the middle class.
I wonder what the GOP and Libertarians have to say to this....
Godwined at Post No. 7.
Any comments/reactions to the OP?
No, since it's premised upon a partisan editorial piece/web site, and we've been taught here not to feed such trolls.
But thanks for asking.
I'm sure looking back through your posts no one would ever see links to partisan sites.
Which doesn't exactly answer, what do you think about supply side economics? What's your take on why it hasn't worked in 30+ years? Did we just not try hard enough?
A link to the study pdf that hasn't be touched by that icky liburel web site.
Now will you believe it?
If you don't like the message. Discredit the messenger.
Quoted it straight out of the PDF. I'm intrigued to see what kavika411 has to say now that we have taken any media bias out of the equation.
I'm giving the pdf a read, but what exactly does the second part mean? You're not referring to your participation in this thread before I asked a follow up are you?
Also, I'm only through the summary, but it states pretty clearly that lowering tax rates on the rich doesn't spur economic activity on its own. Was that the point you were trying to make?
I'm going to continue reading in the meantime.
EDIT: I thought for some reason Kavika posted that pdf, may apologies for the confusion Kavika
Knock yourself out. Let me know what you find.
I took a semester of micro-economics and a semester of macro-economics in college. (Supply side economics, as you know, falls into the macro side.) I still believe barriers to market entry - whether they be taxation, regulation, or "red tape" for starting a business. Hurt the economy. I look at Sarbanes-Oxley as a classic example of swatting a fly with a sledgehammer. It decimated IPO's in the US and, had it been in effect at the time, wouldn't have stopped Enron et al.
But - and this is a big "but" - for supply side to work you have to have tough and willing state and federal prosecutors, and a strong criminal code, that harshly punishes those who actually break the law in their zeal to get rich. Lax bankruptcy laws also usurp the model.
Those are my thoughts. Thanks for asking. What did you think about supply side economics when you studied it?
I'm not a capitalist, so you probably will say my views are unfounded anyway.
Dude. Everyone knows plants crave electrolytes.
My comment was in response to kavika411 saying I linked to a partisan website.
Oh. So you were just being rhetorical in asking. Again.
Anyway, let me know if you ever care to answer your own rhetorical questions.
My "capitalist" ass has to get back to work. Enjoy the internets.
I'm not scheduled today, so I will enjoy my reading time before my classes.
Remember, only conservatives work. They're not sure what the rest of us do, but they just know we must not have jobs or own businesses.
Out of curiosity, what prompted two semesters of this? Those are very broad topics in general. Were they loosely related to your major or just out of interest? I don't see taxation as such a huge barrier in every circumstance given how many costs can be pushed off the table. It could be annoying with a gross receipts basis combined with a low margin / high volume kind of industry. This happens sometimes at a city level, but the percentages can be industry specific.
You're saying it works on paper. Personally I view pushing infrastructure out of the country as problematic. We won't ever see a strengthened criminal code in this regard. Beyond the lengths corporations can go to bury things to a point where no US agency has the resources to conduct a functional audit, these corporations make huge political donations. It's important to look at what we have rather than what seems like it might work in theory without any backing from real world data.
I kind of agree with you about the criminal code, but unfortunately what we need won't ever be made law. We need to make criminal laws apply to corporations, and where a corporation commits a crime, its majority shareholders and large minority shareholders should be forced to serve the sentence and pay all fines (not joint and severally, but each should do the time and serve the time). That would do more than anything to put shareholder pressure on corporations to do the right thing.
(As an aside, the Fox radio station was bemoaning the IRS paying a whistleblower because he was a snitch and he was helping the IRS take money from corporations where it could do some good.)
Supply side economics are upside down and backwards. The rich are at the bottom, money is oil, and no matter how much you put in the hands of the poor/middle class, it always works its way back down into the hands of the wealthy. Taxes (and many other things) act to stimulate the economy by circulating money throughout the economy. The net effect is to increase the efficiency of the economy and drive creation of new wealth and economic growth.
Trickle down, supply side economics was wrong when GHWB said so the first time, and is still wrong.
The longer I live the more I realize knowledge isn't all that common. Gullibility and hatred, however....