Jump to content


challenge for trump supporters


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Well you can (attempt to) structure an economy to mitigate the boom and bust cycle. It doesn't always work as intended and the financial institutions will

 

Parenthetical addition added by me above to make the statement actually realistic.

 

The Fed's stifling of interest rates is another attempt. Hard for me to complain about that one on a personal level as a relatively young-ish homeowner, but one that feels like a bit of a vicious cycle in terms of getting Americans to save for their own sake. I understand that that one's a very touchy, subjective subject that tends to be driven by one's partisan leanings in this country.

Link to comment

9 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

Parenthetical addition added by me above to make the statement actually realistic.

 

The Fed's stifling of interest rates is another attempt. Hard for me to complain about that one on a personal level as a relatively young-ish homeowner, but one that feels like a bit of a vicious cycle in terms of getting Americans to save for their own sake. I understand that that one's a very touchy, subjective subject that tends to be driven by one's partisan leanings in this country.

The statement was realistic as it was. You can structure the economy to mitigate the boom bust cycle. Just because its structured that way doesn't mean it will work, just that it is structured with that intention. Do you in all honesty think our current economy is structured in a way that mitigates boom bust cycles? In my opinion the structure of our economy lends itself to this type of cycle.

  • Plus1 1
  • Fire 1
Link to comment
25 minutes ago, Frott Scost said:

Im not saying its the only cause. Just that its a constant with all the recessions/depressions weve had. 

 

Quote

 

The unpredictable effect of changing income tax rates on the wealthy

Since World War II, the tax rate has changed significantly six times. The effects on the economy were different each time: the tax rate on high income earners has no relationship to economic growth.

 

 

 

LINK

 

Well, this article that comes up when I google "Tax cuts cause recessions" explains that there is no correlation between tax cuts and economic growth....neither up nor down.

 

Which, basically falls in line with my belief that you can't constantly be for tax cuts OR raising taxes....just like you can't constantly be for lower interest rates OR raising interest rates.  The conditions of the times should show economists what needs done.  And...those are constantly changing.

 

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Do you in all honesty think our current economy is structured in a way that mitigates boom bust cycles?

 

I am not arguing in favor of that argument.

 

My genuine response to the topic you've brought up is basically this: If you're subsidizing such an effort through any form of debt (be it from money printing by the Fed via Quantitative Easing or borrowing the money through foreign investment), it tends to result in basically kicking the can down the road toward a bankrupt disaster at some future point. 

 

The assertion by @Frott Scost about corporate tax cuts prior to a recession in my opinion doesn't even cut down into the real heart of the matter of holding the government responsible to its spending. It assumes that if there was just another slice of the tax pie to grab at, Uncle Sam would actually have the capacity to "make things better for the common man." In my own subjective opinion, the U.S. government has proven that hypothesis to be incorrect but I know there will be a hoard of posters chiming in to disagree.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

 

 

LINK

 

Well, this article that comes up when I google "Tax cuts cause recessions" explains that there is no correlation between tax cuts and economic growth....neither up nor down.

 

Which, basically falls in line with my belief that you can't constantly be for tax cuts OR raising taxes....just like you can't constantly be for lower interest rates OR raising interest rates.  The conditions of the times should show economists what needs done.  And...those are constantly changing.

 

 

Like I said, im not saying tax cuts, alone, cause recessions. Tax cuts for rich or trickle down economics, along with other republican policies: deregulations, out of control spending (remember, republicans havent had a balanced budget since Dwight Eisenhower), etc cause recessions. The google search should be were there tax cuts before the great depression. Were there tax cuts before the market crash in 2008. Were there tax cuts before the 80s recession (I could be wrong on this one as I was not born yet and the great depression is more known, but I believe Reagan cut taxes and then raised them the next year or soon after because they didnt work.)

Link to comment

18 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

I am not arguing in favor of that argument.

 

My genuine response to the topic you've brought up is basically this: If you're subsidizing such an effort through any form of debt (be it from money printing by the Fed via Quantitative Easing or borrowing the money through foreign investment), it tends to result in basically kicking the can down the road toward a bankrupt disaster at some future point. 

 

The assertion by @Frott Scost about corporate tax cuts prior to a recession in my opinion doesn't even cut down into the real heart of the matter of holding the government responsible to its spending. It assumes that if there was just another slice of the tax pie to grab at, Uncle Sam would actually have the capacity to "make things better for the common man." In my own subjective opinion, the U.S. government has proven that hypothesis to be incorrect but I know there will be a hoard of posters chiming in to disagree.

I don't think you'll get too much kickback on most of what you've said here. I think at the core of what I'm talking about is true responsibility. Balanced budget, responsible growth and laws in place promoting responsible business. That is just a start and I am not an expert by any means but just logically modeling more stable practices will yeild a more stable economy imo.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Frott Scost said:

Tax cuts for rich or trickle down economics, along with other republican policies: deregulations, out of control spending (remember, republicans havent had a balanced budget since Dwight Eisenhower), etc cause recessions.

 

The article I linked (which is backed by research) flat out says this isn't true.

 

There is no correlation between tax cuts and what happens to economic growth...both good or bad.

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

The article I linked (which is backed by research) flat out says this isn't true.

 

There is no correlation between tax cuts and what happens to economic growth...both good or bad.

 

And the link I posted says it does so I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. 

 

I just read the article you posted which basically states what I claim. Tax cuts do not spur economic growth. It does not even really talk about economic downturn. 

 

Since World War II, the tax rate has changed significantly six times. The effects on the economy were different each time: the tax rate on high income earners has no relationship to economic growth.

 

 

The Congressional Research Service published a paper in 2012 that found no correlation between top tax rates and economic growth. Congressional Republicans protested the findings, and the service briefly withdrew the paper.

Republicans argued that the CRS paper had methodological errors, namely that it didn't account for the long-term benefits of tax rate cuts. The paper looked only at effects on growth within the first year of the cuts.

POLITICO looked at each time the country changed the top income tax rate and the following five years of GDP per capita growth rate. The results are similar to the CRS findings: changing the top income tax rate does not have a predictable effect on economic growth.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Frott Scost said:

 

And the link I posted says it does so I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. 

Well, yours is an op-ed that sort of uses anecdotal evidence to draw a conclusion while mine actually is conduced by economists looking at a large amount of data, analyzing it and having it actually peer reviewed.

 

So...yeah....I'll take my link. You can have yours.

 

FYI....here's the LINK to the research paper.

 

 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Well, yours is an op-ed that sort of uses anecdotal evidence to draw a conclusion while mine actually is conduced by economists looking at a large amount of data, analyzing it and having it actually peer reviewed.

 

So...yeah....I'll take my link. You can have yours.

 

FYI....here's the LINK to the research paper.

 

 

 

I edited my previous post. If you can find anywhere in your article where it says anything about tax cuts do not cause recession, I will eat crow. It doesnt. It claims tax cuts do not cause economic GROWTH. Which is what Ive been claiming this whole time. 

Link to comment

Just now, Frott Scost said:

 

I edited my previous post. If you can find anywhere in your article where it says anything about tax cuts do not cause recession, I will eat crow. It doesnt. It claims tax cuts do not cause economic GROWTH. Which is what Ive been claiming this whole time. 

Wait....

 

Your exact words (from memory) were "One constant is tax cuts for the rich before every recession".  Which, implies that there is a correlation there....which would be that tax cuts for the rich played a major part in the recession.

 

Now....if all you're saying is that tax cuts don't automatically cause growth and there's no correlation between the two....then I would agree.

 

But....then your original post was somewhat misleading.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

Wait....

 

Your exact words (from memory) were "One constant is tax cuts for the rich before every recession".  Which, implies that there is a correlation there....which would be that tax cuts for the rich played a major part in the recession.

 

Now....if all you're saying is that tax cuts don't automatically cause growth and there's no correlation between the two....then I would agree.

 

But....then your original post was somewhat misleading.

 

What I said is a true statement. Before every recession/depression, there was a tax cut. This is a fact. I never claimed it was the sole reason for the recession, just a constant. If we have a recession, a tax cut recently preceded it. Your article states what I am trying to: tax cuts do not stimulate the economy or cause growth, which is what republicans claim they do every single time. 

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, Frott Scost said:

 

What I said is a true statement. Before every recession/depression, there was a tax cut. This is a fact. I never claimed it was the sole reason for the recession, just a constant. If we have a recession, a tax cut recently preceded it. Your article states what I am trying to: tax cuts do not stimulate the economy or cause growth, which is what republicans claim they do every single time. 

 

I actually don't think the bolded is true.  For instance, the economic down turn that Reagan dealt with in 81-82 was not preceded by Carter cutting taxes.  Reagan cut taxes DURING the down turn...but not prior.

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Nebfanatic said:

The statement was realistic as it was. You can structure the economy to mitigate the boom bust cycle. Just because its structured that way doesn't mean it will work, just that it is structured with that intention. Do you in all honesty think our current economy is structured in a way that mitigates boom bust cycles? In my opinion the structure of our economy lends itself to this type of cycle.

 

Post 1929, the economy was structured to ensure that banks behaved like banks, protecting the deposits of customers, maintaining a guaranteed minimum cash:loan reserve, investing in the community, and avoiding the more high risk investments allowed other financial institutions. After awhile, all those regulations got whittled down, allowing traditional banks, insurance companies, and basically anyone holding huge amounts of other people's money to live the high risk/high reward lifestyle of Goldman Sachs, tying the U.S. and world economy to a doomed ponzi scheme those regulations were designed to avoid. 

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...