Want the economy to pick up? Vote Democrat!

[typomaniac]

It's all there in the historical data: if a Democrat takes the White House, the odds are in favor of a better economy.

Fact: Every recession since 1930, except for one, has been during a Republican administration, not a Democratic one.

The one exception occurred under Truman right after World War II. It was not only a predictable (and widely predicted) recession, it was also the shallowest and shortest since the 1930s.

Fact: A "down" market actually benefits the wealthiest investors (who are usually aligned with Republicans) because they can buy companies cheaply and sell off their assets at a profit. True, they also benefit from an "up" market, but it's still more expensive to generate steady cash flow from investments under bull-market conditions.

The historical trends are clear: broad-based, bottom up approaches to wealth creation work.

All this country ever got from "trickle down" was: :pee:

[glockmail]

I'll take a Reagan economy, no sugar or cream. You and Jiminy Carter can have tea and crumpets together.:coffee:

[Abbey Marie]

It's all there in the historical data: if a Democrat takes the White House, the odds are in favor of a better economy.

Fact: Every recession since 1930, except for one, has been during a Republican administration, not a Democratic one.

The one exception occurred under Truman right after World War II. It was not only a predictable (and widely predicted) recession, it was also the shallowest and shortest since the 1930s.

Fact: A "down" market actually benefits the wealthiest investors (who are usually aligned with Republicans) because they can buy companies cheaply and sell off their assets at a profit. True, they also benefit from an "up" market, but it's still more expensive to generate steady cash flow from investments under bull-market conditions.

The historical trends are clear: broad-based, bottom up approaches to wealth creation work.

All this country ever got from "trickle down" was: :pee:


Get your own board to pick up, then we'll talk. :coffee:

[glockmail]

Nicely done Abs. :laugh2:

[typomaniac]

It figures. No facts from the right, not even any lame excuses anymore.

Silence in the face of total failure.

[Yurt]

aren't most of the recessions during republican administrations in the very beginning, e.g., right after the dem left office and then half way through the first term (or less) the recession is gone due to republican economics :poke:

[manu1959]

aren't most of the recessions during republican administrations in the very beginning, e.g., right after the dem left office and then half way through the first term (or less) the recession is gone due to republican economics :poke:

yep...the dems over spend fuck everything up get booted out of office the economy tanks.....the pubs fix it....the dems strat screaming how screwed up everything is......take office fuck everything up again.....

[typomaniac]

aren't most of the recessions during republican administrations in the very beginning, e.g., right after the dem left office and then half way through the first term (or less) the recession is gone due to republican economics :poke:

Dunno: where's your data? :poke: :poke:


yep...the dems over spend fuck everything up...Never mind that the last 3 repubs in the WH overspent more than any president in history. :lol:

[hjmick]

Does anyone else remember those halcion days of Jimmy Carter?

[Yurt]

Dunno: where's your data? :poke: :poke:

Never mind that the last 3 repubs in the WH overspent more than any president in history. :lol:

you're the expert with the facts and you're asking me for my data?

http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Enc/Recessions.html

i'm sure there is more, then again, you created this thread with an allegation and it is interesting you can't back that allegation up.

[typomaniac]

you're the expert with the facts and you're asking me for my data?

http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Enc/Recessions.html

i'm sure there is more, then again, you created this thread with an allegation and it is interesting you can't back that allegation up.
No need: your link saved me the trouble.

What the author calls "sharp" recessions is perfectly consistent with what I said in the OP.

[Hagbard Celine]

No need: your link saved me the trouble.

What the author calls "sharp" recessions is perfectly consistent with what I said in the OP.

They're more than willing to call any Democrat economy a "recession," but what we're experiencing now is just a "slight slow down." Get real.

[Yurt]

No need: your link saved me the trouble.

What the author calls "sharp" recessions is perfectly consistent with what I said in the OP.

so you agree that these recessions come right on the heals of a dem administration and that only a couple of years or less into a repub administration and the recession vanishes....

hag:

i don't think we can yet call it a recession, as far as i know, the economy does not yet fit that definition.

[Hagbard Celine]

so you agree that these recessions come right on the heals of a dem administration and that only a couple of years or less into a repub administration and the recession vanishes....

hag:

i don't think we can yet call it a recession, as far as i know, the economy does not yet fit that definition.

Except that it does and just like everything else that has happened over the last eight years, the Bush Admin is spinning it.

[PostmodernProphet]

Every recession since 1930, except for one, has been during a Republican administration, not a Democratic one

what was thing we had during the Carter administration if it wasn't a recession......you know, that thing with mortgage rates of 21% and double digit inflation?.....

[avatar4321]

what was thing we had during the Carter administration if it wasn't a recession......you know, that thing with mortgage rates of 21% and double digit inflation?.....

a depression

[typomaniac]

what was thing we had during the Carter administration if it wasn't a recession......you know, that thing with mortgage rates of 21% and double digit inflation?.....

A period of high inflation.

I never said that recessions were the only thing that could tank the economy.

[glockmail]

Does anyone else remember those halcion days of Jimmy Carter? Who can forget. It was just as I was starting on my own. I would run to the damn store after I got my check to pick up what I needed for the next two weeks, because if I waited all the prices would go up. It seemed like every supermarket had a full time guy going around with one of those price sticker things, bumping up the prices. You got in the store, located him, and shopped just ahead of him.

[avatar4321]

btw shouldnt the fact the economy has gotten significantly worse since the Democrats took control of Congess refute the original post?

[Kathianne]

A period of high inflation.

I never said that recessions were the only thing that could tank the economy.

The best unemployment rate under Carter was about 8%. Not good.

[Yurt]

btw shouldnt the fact the economy has gotten significantly worse since the Democrats took control of Congess refute the original post?

they still blame bush just like hillary did in one of her debates when questioned about her promise to create X number of jobs...she said that she could have fulfilled her promise if a democratic president had been in office...

[typomaniac]

btw shouldnt the fact the economy has gotten significantly worse since the Democrats took control of Congess refute the original post?Statistically, not at all. There's only one data point in the same time frame. The White House changed hands a lot more often.


The best unemployment rate under Carter was about 8%. Not good.Unemployment is closely tied to recessions, but contracting GDP isn't the only thing that causes unemployment.


they still blame bush just like hillary did in one of her debates when questioned about her promise to create X number of jobs...And of course the occupant of the WH has done so much to try to fix the problems in the economy... :rolleyes:

[Kathianne]

Statistically, not at all. There's only one data point in the same time frame. The White House changed hands a lot more often.

Unemployment is closely tied to recessions, but contracting GDP isn't the only thing that causes unemployment.

And of course the occupant of the WH has done so much to try to fix the problems in the economy... :rolleyes:

To the people included in that 8% and higher unemployment rate, it was a depression.

[red states rule]

They're more than willing to call any Democrat economy a "recession," but what we're experiencing now is just a "slight slow down." Get real.

The point is we are NOT in a recession or did you miss the newsflash

Unemployment is down, interest rates are falling, the dollar is rising, and the econimy did grow

Again, I know this disappoints the hell of tof the left - but the economic sky is NOT falling

[Joe Steel]

I'll take a Reagan economy, no sugar or cream. You and Jiminy Carter can have tea and crumpets together.:coffee:

Average economic performance during the Carter administration was better than average economic performance during the Reagan administration.

[Yurt]

Statistically, not at all. There's only one data point in the same time frame. The White House changed hands a lot more often.

Unemployment is closely tied to recessions, but contracting GDP isn't the only thing that causes unemployment.

And of course the occupant of the WH has done so much to try to fix the problems in the economy... :rolleyes:

so the entire economy rests in the hands of one person, one branch of the government?

[red states rule]

so the entire economy rests in the hands of one person, one branch of the government?

People like Type live to bitch and whine - even as the US economy holds steady and is not falling onto the abyss

However, the Dems can cause the economy to tumble with their insane ideas of higher taxes and more government spending

[red states rule]

Average economic performance during the Carter administration was better than average economic performance during the Reagan administration.

Stop trying to rewrite history son. I lived thru the Peanut Carter years, and it was as bad as I have ever seen things

Double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, and near double digit unemployment.

Ronald Reagan came in and cleaned thing sup. His economic plan gave us the great peace time economi expansion in US history

[glockmail]

Stop trying to rewrite history son. I lived thru the Peanut Carter years, and it was as bad as I have ever seen things

Double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, and near double digit unemployment.

Ronald Reagan came in and cleaned thing sup. His economic plan gave us the great peace time economi expansion in US history No shit- Joe's got to be smoking crack. Or drinking Kool Aide.

[red states rule]

No shit- Joe's got to be smoking crack. Or drinking Kool Aide.

Or both

I asked a liberal buddy of mine to try and expalin to me how bilion in new taxes on oil companies will lower the price of gas at the pump

He went of on a rant about how much CEO's make

Typcial liberal mind set. They never can explain how their polices will work - only express their wealth envy and anti capitalism talking points

[PostmodernProphet]

A period of high inflation.

I never said that recessions were the only thing that could tank the economy.

ah so your point is that Republicans tank the economy with recessions while
Democrats find other ways to tank the economy.....

[stang56k]

I'll take a Reagan economy, no sugar or cream. You and Jiminy Carter can have tea and crumpets together.:coffee:

Lol amen to that.

[red states rule]

I am still waiting for any liberal to explain to me how they can tax America into prosperity

[stang56k]

In all actually to President Bush's defense which i rarely do, He really isn't the reason for the sluggish economy (except for puring hundreds of billions of dollars into a war). Its America being trillions of dollars in debt and the fall of the dollar. Feds lowering interest rates every week is not helping the matter in regards to the dollar, also with more extremely completive currencies out there its even harder to keep a strong dollar. Also learn about the fed and the way it loans our currency to us at interest, which we pay back via income tax, which causes a perpetual increase of debt no matter what we do, its a system of extortion that we have no control over.

Also we need to stop bailing out these inverters and banks that make risky investments....That is not how a free market works....

[red states rule]

In all actually to President Bush's defense which i rarely do, He really isn't the reason for the sluggish economy (except for puring hundreds of billions of dollars into a war). Its America being trillions of dollars in debt and the fall of the dollar. Feds lowering interest rates every week is not helping the matter in regards to the dollar, also with more extremely completive currencies out there its even harder to keep a strong dollar. Also learn about the fed and the way it loans our currency to us at interest, which we pay back via income tax, which causes a perpetual increase of debt no matter what we do, its a system of extortion that we have no control over.

Maybe you are not up on current events

The dollar is rising

The Dow is back over 13,000

Unemployment is now only 5%

and liberals and the liberal media is depressed as hell over the good econmic news

The Bush tax cuts have cause revenue to the government to soar to RECORD levels

[typomaniac]

ah so your point is that Republicans tank the economy with recessions while
Democrats find other ways to tank the economy.....

You and Yurt. Both of you love to put 2 and 2 together and pretend the result is 17......

[red states rule]

You and Yurt. Both of you love to put 2 and 2 together and pretend the result is 17......

am well aware facts confuse and anger liberals and the Bush haters

Here are more facts to gurther drive you up your padded wall

Actually, the unemployment rate both rose and dropped under every administration; but you must be talking about the total change from the time they entered to the time they left.

So of course, you're just looking at two points in time - when the President entered office and when he left - and drawing a conclusion.

If you look at the charts, you'll see that the unemployment rate did indeed drop after Kennedy got taxes cut - dropped like a rock - and then started going up again after Nixon took office. But that only lasted a year, and then it started dropping again. Then when Nixon resigned, it started going up again, quickly, and again within a year headed downward during Ford's administration.

Carter took office, and the rate continued to drop for two years, but then they started rising again, and continued to rise not only for the rest of Carter's administration, but into the first two years of Reagan's.

The first contradiction of what you said: Carter entered office with a dropping unemployment rate at 7.5%; and left office with a rising unemployment rate, also at 7.5%. That's not a drop.

Then the rate dropped again two years after Reagan took office - faster and further than they'd dropped under Kennedy, and continued dropping for the rest of Reagan's administration.

And here we have a second direct contradiction of what you said - as Reagan entered office with a 7.5% unemployment rate, and left office with 5.4%. That's not a rise; it's a drop.

Then GHWBush took office, and the rate increased, but peaked in June of 92 and started dropping again. Then Clinton took office and the rate continued to drop until the tail end of his administration, when it went up from its nadir of 3.9% to 4.2% before GW took office. That trend continued through June of 2003 (peaking at 6.3%), then the rate started dropping again, and continued to drop until March of 2007. Since then it has increased only 0.7% over it's low of 4.4%, and is currently still at only 5.1%.

As for recessions, there were actually two under Truman - one in 1945, and one from 1948 to 1949; and there was also one under Carter in 1980. He's a Democrat.

But hey - don't let the facts confuse you.

[Joe Steel]

Stop trying to rewrite history son. I lived thru the Peanut Carter years, and it was as bad as I have ever seen things

Double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, and near double digit unemployment.

Ronald Reagan came in and cleaned thing sup. His economic plan gave us the great peace time economi expansion in US history

Sorry. It just ain't so.

Average GDP growth during the Reagan ordeal wasn't as good as average GDP growth during any Democratic president's term since WWII. Although GDP growth during Reagan's first term was better than Carter's, growth during the second Reagan term wasn't.

[Sitarro]

Average economic performance during the Carter administration was better than average economic performance during the Reagan administration.

On what planet ace? I lived through it, Carter wasn't hated around the world, he was laughed at, taken advantage of. He was the punch line for thousands of jokes. Gas prices more than doubled. He and his administration was a disaster.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[Joe Steel]

On what planet ace? I lived through it, Carter wasn't hated around the world, he was laughed at, taken advantage of. He was the punch line for thousands of jokes. Gas prices more than doubled. He and his administration was a disaster.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

What part of "average GDP growth" don't you understand?

[red states rule]

What part of "average GDP growth" don't you understand?

Amazing how libs want to heap praise on old washed up failures like Peanut Carter

A failed one term Presdient who was fired big time by the MAerica people, for doing the worst possible job and making lives miserable for four long years

As a reminder Joe, the Amercia people were so happy with Pres Peanuts economy, Ronald Reagan won the election with 489 Electoral votes as to Peanuts 49

[Joe Steel]

Amazing how libs want to heap praise on old washed up failures like Peanut Carter

A failed one term Presdient who was fired big time by the MAerica people, for doing the worst possible job and making lives miserable for four long years

As a reminder Joe, the Amercia people were so happy with Pres Peanuts economy, Ronald Reagan won the election with 489 Electoral votes as to Peanuts 49

Reagan's economic performance was only a bit better than Carter's.

[red states rule]

Reagan's economic performance was only a bit better than Carter's.

A bit?

Is that why the voters reelected Pres Regan with 49 states and 525 Electoral votes - to Mondull's one state and 13 Electoral votes :laugh2:

[typomaniac]

am well aware facts confuse and anger liberals and the Bush haters

Here are more facts to gurther drive you up your padded wall

Actually, the unemployment rate both rose and dropped under every administration; but you must be talking about the total change from the time they entered to the time they left.

So of course, you're just looking at two points in time - when the President entered office and when he left - and drawing a conclusion.

If you look at the charts, you'll see that the unemployment rate did indeed drop after Kennedy got taxes cut - dropped like a rock - and then started going up again after Nixon took office. But that only lasted a year, and then it started dropping again. Then when Nixon resigned, it started going up again, quickly, and again within a year headed downward during Ford's administration.

Carter took office, and the rate continued to drop for two years, but then they started rising again, and continued to rise not only for the rest of Carter's administration, but into the first two years of Reagan's.

The first contradiction of what you said: Carter entered office with a dropping unemployment rate at 7.5%; and left office with a rising unemployment rate, also at 7.5%. That's not a drop.

Then the rate dropped again two years after Reagan took office - faster and further than they'd dropped under Kennedy, and continued dropping for the rest of Reagan's administration.

And here we have a second direct contradiction of what you said - as Reagan entered office with a 7.5% unemployment rate, and left office with 5.4%. That's not a rise; it's a drop.

Then GHWBush took office, and the rate increased, but peaked in June of 92 and started dropping again. Then Clinton took office and the rate continued to drop until the tail end of his administration, when it went up from its nadir of 3.9% to 4.2% before GW took office. That trend continued through June of 2003 (peaking at 6.3%), then the rate started dropping again, and continued to drop until March of 2007. Since then it has increased only 0.7% over it's low of 4.4%, and is currently still at only 5.1%.

As for recessions, there were actually two under Truman - one in 1945, and one from 1948 to 1949; and there was also one under Carter in 1980. He's a Democrat.

But hey - don't let the facts confuse you.
No point discussing any of the above with you.You couldn't tell me what any part of it actually means to save your life.

I thought plagiarism was against the "rules" here. Or do Repug spammers get a lifetime free pass?

[typomaniac]

A bit?

Is that why the voters reelected Pres Regan with 49 states and 525 Electoral votes - to Mondull's one state and 13 Electoral votes :laugh2:

Nope. It's because Fritz made the lethal mistake of being honest about the need to raise taxes. Bonzo just lied about it, raised them anyway, and called it a tax cut. And the voters fell for it. :(
Your own posts do a great job of demonstrating why.

[manu1959]

Dunno: where's your data? :poke: :poke:

Never mind that the last 3 repubs in the WH overspent more than any president in history. :lol:

tell me one good spending program that the dems have started that has helped the economy.....

[typomaniac]

tell me one good spending program that the dems have started that has helped the economy.....
The Tennessee Valley Authority (http://www.tva.gov).

Next.

[Joe Steel]

Nope. It's because Fritz made the lethal mistake of being honest about the need to raise taxes. Bonzo just lied about it, raised them anyway, and called it a tax cut. And the voters fell for it. :(
Your own posts do a great job of demonstrating why.

Exactly. Reagan was a medicine show scammer. He sold snake oil to suckers and they loved it. It made them feel good but they were too stupid to realize it actually made them worse-off.

[Joe Steel]

tell me one good spending program that the dems have started that has helped the economy.....

Any program which taxes affluent taxpayers to subsidize poor taxpayers helps the economy. The poor spend more of each marginal dollar of income than affluent taxpayers. That increases economic acitivity and that's the definition of "helping the economy."

[red states rule]

No point discussing any of the above with you.You couldn't tell me what any part of it actually means to save your life.

I thought plagiarism was against the "rules" here. Or do Repug spammers get a lifetime free pass?

Ok, you got your ass kicked once again so you duck the facts

Nothing new here

[glockmail]

The Tennessee Valley Authority (http://www.tva.gov).

Next. Tennessee is a real economic powerhouse. :laugh2:

[red states rule]

Tennessee is a real economic powerhouse. :laugh2:

They do have Al Gores energy sucking mansions, and the hanger for his private jet

[typomaniac]

Ok, you got your ass kicked once again so you duck the facts

Nothing new here

You ducked my facts, you lying piece of shit. Nothing new in your declaring victory in the midst of humiliating defeat, either.


Tennessee is a real economic powerhouse.
Compared to most of the rest of the south, you bet your ass it is. Care to guess how much money the Nashville music industry pumps in?

[glockmail]

.....


Compared to most of the rest of the south, you bet your ass it is. Care to guess how much money the Nashville music industry pumps in? Like, compared to Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina? :laugh2:

I wasn't aware that the Nashville sound was due to the TVA. Wow.

[red states rule]

Like, compared to Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina? :laugh2:

I wasn't aware that the Nashville sound was due to the TVA. Wow.

Compared to the 50 states, TN is #18 in GDP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_(nominal)

[typomaniac]

So riddle me this, geniuses...

If the TVA hasn't helped the state's economy, why haven't the Republicans scrapped it? They've had 75 years to do it now.

Answer: they have no reason to scrap it, because it's helped the economy. :slap:

[manu1959]

Any program which taxes affluent taxpayers to subsidize poor taxpayers helps the economy. The poor spend more of each marginal dollar of income than affluent taxpayers. That increases economic acitivity and that's the definition of "helping the economy."

you are delusional......if i keep more of my money i hire a gardner, housekeeper, nanny, pool boy, and more people to work in my company.....

if you take it from me you will have to give it all to these people as they will all be out of a job that paid more than your hand outs......

[manu1959]

The Tennessee Valley Authority (http://www.tva.gov).

Next.

even blind squirrels find acorns now and then........

[red states rule]

you are delusional......if i keep more of my money i hire a gardner, housekeeper, nanny, pool boy, and more people to work in my company.....

if you take it from me you will have to give it all to these people as they will all be out of a job that paid more than your hand outs......

When taxes are cut, the amount of revenue to the government goes up as economic growth increases

Obama was caught when he could not counter the fact that everytime the capital gains tax is increased, revenues decrease

[Joe Steel]

you are delusional......if i keep more of my money i hire a gardner, housekeeper, nanny, pool boy, and more people to work in my company.....

You're not likely to spend as much of the redistribution as the poor who would receive it. I'ts called marginal propensity to consume. As far as the economy is concerned, the redistribution does more good where more of it will be spent.


if you take it from me you will have to give it all to these people as they will all be out of a job that paid more than your hand outs......

Maybe, but the poor will spend the money on goods and services someone has to produce so someone will be hired.

[Yurt]

you are delusional......if i keep more of my money i hire a gardner, housekeeper, nanny, pool boy, and more people to work in my company.....

if you take it from me you will have to give it all to these people as they will all be out of a job that paid more than your hand outs......

:lol: i would hire a pool girl who is allowed to only wear floss

[Joe Steel]

When taxes are cut, the amount of revenue to the government goes up as economic growth increases

Obama was caught when he could not counter the fact that everytime the capital gains tax is increased, revenues decrease

Sorry, no.

No one has ever proven revenue increases because of tax cuts.

[Kathianne]

You're not likely to spend as much of the redistribution as the poor who would receive it. I'ts called marginal propensity to consume. As far as the economy is concerned, the redistribution does more good where more of it will be spent.



Maybe, but the poor will spend the money on goods and services someone has to produce so someone will be hired.

I guess what you are saying is that the rich do not spend all of their money, who'd have thought? What do they do with the money they don't 'consume'? Stick it under a mattress? I don't think so.

As for the poor spending their money on goods and services, what do you think they spend it on now? How is getting 'less' from the government, rather than a salary going to increase the employment rate?

You really are bitter, aren't you?

[red states rule]

Sorry, no.

No one has ever proven revenue increases because of tax cuts.

As usual you do not have a clue


The Bush Capital Gains Tax Cut after Four Years: More Growth, More Investment, More Revenues
ncpa.org ^ | 2008

Posted on Saturday, April 19, 2008 9:59:43 PM by doug from upland

NOTE: since Obama doesn't understand the basics of economic theory, maybe a current example would be helpful for him. Subway sandwiches has a special promotion for any footlong sub for $5. In some cases, that saves up to about $1.70 on a footlong sub. What has that done? According to the store where I have bought more sandwiches than usual, the amount of subs they are selling has increased dramatically. A similar paradox for this lowering of price to increase revenue works with taxes. Lowering taxes raises the revenue to the treasury. It is amazing how that works. If Obama doesn't understand that simple economic reality, he has no business holding any elective office, especially the presidency of the United States.


The Bush Capital Gains Tax Cut after Four Years: More Growth, More Investment, More Revenues


Some Effects of the 2003 Capital Gains Tax Rate Cut

How is it that lowering capital gains taxes leads to more revenues? As noted before, the capital gains tax is a voluntary and easily avoided tax. When the tax rate is high, investors simply delay selling assets — stocks, properties, businesses and so forth — to keep the tax collector away from their door. When the capital gains tax is cut, asset holders are inspired to sell. Moreover, because a lower capital gains tax substantially lowers the cost of capital, it encourages risk-taking and causes the economy to grow faster, thus raising all government receipts in the long term. So the torrent of new revenues into government coffers was really no mystery at all; in fact, it was predictable.

“The capital gains tax is voluntary — investors can avoid it by holding on to assets.”

An Increase in Tax Revenues. There are now at least three years of data to test the effect of the capital gains tax on capital gains receipts. Figure I shows that from 2002 through 2005, capital gains receipts nearly doubled (from $55 billion to $100 billion). The latest estimate for receipts in 2006 is $110 billion.7 This is an increase of more than a 100 percent over four years.

These gains in tax receipts were not expected by the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation, which officially score tax changes. Figure I compares capital gains revenues with the forecast made when the tax cut was proposed. Again, a lot of the increase was due to the sizzling stock market over the past three years. But a lower capital gains rate increases the after-tax return on capital, helping create the strong market.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2004177/posts

[typomaniac]

I guess what you are saying is that the rich do not spend all of their money, who'd have thought? What do they do with the money they don't 'consume'? Stick it under a mattress? I don't think so.

They put most of it in securities, commodities, and other financial instruments - which serve the same purpose as the mattress, as far as the economy goes.

If you got a nice fat tax break, would you spend it all on hiring people? I don't think so.

[Kathianne]

They put most of it in securities, commodities, and other financial instruments - which serve the same purpose as the mattress, as far as the economy goes.

If you got a nice fat tax break, would you spend it all on hiring people? I don't think so.

And what do those 'financial instruments' do with that money? BTW, 'rich' people are not overly conservative with their money, which is assumed by your post.

[BoogyMan]

It's all there in the historical data: if a Democrat takes the White House, the odds are in favor of a better economy.

Fact: Every recession since 1930, except for one, has been during a Republican administration, not a Democratic one.

The one exception occurred under Truman right after World War II. It was not only a predictable (and widely predicted) recession, it was also the shallowest and shortest since the 1930s.

Fact: A "down" market actually benefits the wealthiest investors (who are usually aligned with Republicans) because they can buy companies cheaply and sell off their assets at a profit. True, they also benefit from an "up" market, but it's still more expensive to generate steady cash flow from investments under bull-market conditions.

The historical trends are clear: broad-based, bottom up approaches to wealth creation work.

All this country ever got from "trickle down" was: :pee:

If you are going to paraphrase a KOSTard diarist, why don't you at least cite your source? Oh well, I will do it for you. Egads.......

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/24/101018/034

[CockySOB]

It figures. No facts from the right, not even any lame excuses anymore.

Silence in the face of total failure.

More likely you're experiencing the total dismissal of anything and everything you post as being utter partisan balderdash.

[manu1959]

You're not likely to spend as much of the redistribution as the poor who would receive it. I'ts called marginal propensity to consume. As far as the economy is concerned, the redistribution does more good where more of it will be spent.

Maybe, but the poor will spend the money on goods and services someone has to produce so someone will be hired.

uh.....i pay them more than the govt....thus they will spend more working for me than they would spend with govt handouts....

[manu1959]

They put most of it in securities, commodities, and other financial instruments - which serve the same purpose as the mattress, as far as the economy goes.

If you got a nice fat tax break, would you spend it all on hiring people? I don't think so.

and those financial instruments laon that money to build things like companies, buildings, factories etc.....thus create jobs....

[typomaniac]

If you are going to paraphrase a KOSTard diarist, why don't you at least cite your source? Oh well, I will do it for you. Egads.......

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/24/101018/034

"Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then." :laugh2:

[typomaniac]

And what do those 'financial instruments' do with that money? BTW, 'rich' people are not overly conservative with their money, which is assumed by your post.

How do you think they got to be 'rich' in the first place? Not by spending like a Republican president. :slap:

[Kathianne]

How do you think they got to be 'rich' in the first place? Not by spending like a Republican president. :slap:

Correct, by investing and taking risks. It's how money grows. The government creates nothing.

[typomaniac]

Correct, by investing and taking risks. It's how money grows. The government creates nothing.

Wrong: it creates the environment in which investing and risk-taking (among other things) are possible.

[glockmail]

So riddle me this, geniuses...

If the TVA hasn't helped the state's economy, why haven't the Republicans scrapped it? They've had 75 years to do it now.

Answer: they have no reason to scrap it, because it's helped the economy. :slap:

Dumbshit: once the government starts a program it rarely ends it. That's why its best not to start one in the first place.

[Yurt]

Dumbshit: once the government starts a program it rarely ends it. That's why its best not to start one in the first place.

that is a fact. the borg is unwilling to let one of their own go, even if that one is killing the hive, they are borg dammit

[Yurt]

uh.....i pay them more than the govt....thus they will spend more working for me than they would spend with govt handouts....

this is a good point. how do people think the world survived before welfare and government handouts?

[typomaniac]

Dumbshit: once the government starts a program it rarely ends it. That's why its best not to start one in the first place.that is a fact. the borg is unwilling to let one of their own go, even if that one is killing the hive, they are borg dammit

Dumbshits: if that were true we'd still have a WPA.

By the way, you're too old to be playing with Star Trek toys.

[glockmail]

Dumbshits: if that were true we'd still have a WPA.

.....
Dumbshit: The WPA is a rare example.

[jimnyc]

If you are going to paraphrase a KOSTard diarist, why don't you at least cite your source? Oh well, I will do it for you. Egads.......

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/24/101018/034


"Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then." :laugh2:

Not judging, as I really don't care about who wrote what, but I would prefer we ensure to include references when we post someone else's work. Not saying you did it purposely, but either way I can get in some heat if someone reports their data here as "stolen".

Thanks!

[typomaniac]

Not judging, as I really don't care about who wrote what, but I would prefer we ensure to include references when we post someone else's work. Not saying you did it purposely, but either way I can get in some heat if someone reports their data here as "stolen".

Thanks!

Of course. Truth is, I got the information second- or third-hand, and my source didn't cite anyone else. :dunno:

While you're at it, you might want to ask RSR where he got the unattributed info in post #37...

[Joe Steel]

I guess what you are saying is that the rich do not spend all of their money, who'd have thought? What do they do with the money they don't 'consume'? Stick it under a mattress? I don't think so.

The invest it -- in Sri Lanka, China or Indonesia; or in oil and grain futures.

Or maybe they just put it in a CD where banks pay small interest rates on it because no one wants to borrow it to produce things no one can buy.



As for the poor spending their money on goods and services, what do you think they spend it on now? How is getting 'less' from the government, rather than a salary going to increase the employment rate?

You missed the point. The poor don't have enough money. Income redistribution would give them more to spend. And they'd spend it, not put it in the bank where no one will borrow it to invest.

[red states rule]

The invest it -- in Sri Lanka, China or Indonesia; or in oil and grain futures.

Or maybe they just put it in a CD where banks pay small interest rates on it because no one wants to borrow it to produce things no one can buy.




You missed the point. The poor don't have enough money. Income redistribution would give them more to spend. And they'd spend it, not put it in the bank where no one will borrow it to invest.

We have redistributing wealth for over 40 years - to the tune of over $9 trillion and libs say poverty is worse then ever

So MORE money will solve the "problem"?

[Joe Steel]

As usual you do not have a clue

I have more than just a clue. I have the truth:


Cutting capital gains rates reduces revenues over the long run. That’s the conclusion of the federal government’s official revenue-estimating agencies, as well as outside experts and the Bush Administration’s own Treasury Department.

EXPERTS AGREE THAT CAPITAL GAINS TAX CUTS LOSE REVENUE (http://www.cbpp.org/policy-points4-18-08.htm)

[Joe Steel]

We have redistributing wealth for over 40 years - to the tune of over $9 trillion and libs say poverty is worse then ever

So MORE money will solve the "problem"?

Poverty is worse because our government has been seized by consevative crazies. Conservatism destroys lives. Sometimes, only money can fix them.

[red states rule]

I have more than just a clue. I have the truth:

I ahve shown you the numbers that show revenues increase when the tax is lowered, and how the numbers decrease when it it raised

Even Obama fessed up revenues decrease when the capital tax is raised

[Joe Steel]

I ahve shown you the numbers that show revenues increase when the tax is lowered, and how the numbers decrease when it it raised

Even Obama fessed up revenues decrease when the capital tax is raised

It just ain't so. Read the link I provided.

[red states rule]

It just ain't so. Read the link I provided.

So the numbers in post # 64 from the IRS and CBO are wrong, and your "experts" are right?

[typomaniac]

So the numbers in post # 64 from the IRS and CBO are wrong, and your "experts" are right?

Dumbshit: you didn't cite either the IRS or the CBO. Just two wacko right-wing demiblogs with their own charming little spins.

But hey, don't let the facts confuse you.

[red states rule]

Dumbshit: you didn't cite either the IRS or the CBO. Just two wacko right-wing demiblogs with their own charming little spins.

But hey, don't let the facts confuse you.

Check the link twit, the numbers are from those agencies

But you are to busy being a prick to bother checking before you shoot off your big mouth

[Joe Steel]

Dumbshit: you didn't cite either the IRS or the CBO. Just two wacko right-wing demiblogs with their own charming little spins.

But hey, don't let the facts confuse you.

Exactly.

NCPA is rightwing spin tank. The papers they publish aren't really analysis.

[red states rule]

Exactly.

NCPA is rightwing spin tank. The papers they publish aren't really analysis.

2 desperate liars who ignore numbers from the US Dept of the Treasury, CBO Office, and Bureau of Economic Analysis,

[typomaniac]

2 desperate liars who ignore numbers from the US Dept of the Treasury, CBO Office, and Bureau of Economic Analysis,

One desperate twit who won't even post links to the original sources. Probably because those numbers aren't even the real ones.

[red states rule]

One desperate twit who won't even post links to the original sources. Probably because those numbers aren't even the real ones.

Keep lying to yourself asshole. The numbers, graphs, and sources are all in the link

[typomaniac]

Keep lying to yourself asshole. The numbers, graphs, and sources are all in the link

Second-hand sources don't mean squat. If you're so goddamn sure of the numbers, get the original sources and post them. It's your argument, which means that it's your job to prove it.

[red states rule]

Second-hand sources don't mean squat. If you're so goddamn sure of the numbers, get the original sources and post them. It's your argument, which means that it's your job to prove it.

So now government agencies are second hand sources? LOL you are one desperate moonbat. Read the entire link, all you are ranting for are right there

[glockmail]

So now government agencies are second hand sources? LOL you are one desperate moonbat. Read the entire link, all you are ranting for are right there errormaniac is the worst troll here. I suggest that you ignore him and maybe he'll go away.

[red states rule]

errormaniac is the worst troll here. I suggest that you ignore him and maybe he'll go away.

Good suggestion Glock

[glockmail]

Good suggestion Glock I just got a big posi rep by another poster who has been doing the same thing.;)

[red states rule]

I just got a big posi rep by another poster who has been doing the same thing.;)

Ok I owe you triple

[Kathianne]

I have more than just a clue. I have the truth:

Ok, your 'authoritative' source:

http://www.cbpp.org/info.html

and the graph chosen was from the tax policy center, which seems to spend alot of time lately 'analyzing' McCain's proposals:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/

[red states rule]

A perfect example that shows when liberals get their way, the very people they claim to care about suffers

Loss of jobs, loss of tax revenues, and a loss of economic activity is all this accomplishes. But libs can feel good about themselves that they stuck it to a big corporation



‘Nightly News’ Praises ‘Goliath’ Home Depot’s Demise
By Nathan Burchfiel | May 8, 2008 - 12:40 ET

How could job loss for 80 small-town residents be a "great story?" When it means the defeat of a "big box" "Goliath" said NBC.

On May 7, NBC "Nightly News" gleefully reported the closing of a Home Depot in Brattleboro, Vt. The closure is part of the company's plan to close 15 of its roughly 2,200 stores due to underperformance. NBC portrayed it as "David versus Goliath," and praised the little guys' victory over the big bad box store.

"Nightly News" anchor Brian Williams called it a "great story" and reporter Mike Taibbi called it, "in a man bites dog sort of way, an unlikely survivor story." (Maybe they're Jimmie Johnson fans?)

"It's not surprising that long-time residents, like John Morse back at the Ace [Hardware] store, collected thousands of petition signatures opposing Home Depot when it arrived four years ago and are cheering now because it's closing," Taibbi said.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nathan-burchfiel/2008/05/08/nightly-news-praises-goliath-home-depot-s-demise

[typomaniac]

Ok I owe you triple

I thought so. When the rightwads can't get people to fall for their lies, they "cut and run."