What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[islandman]

That's not what I'm saying. Not at all.

By all means, clarify.

 

[mercury14]

By all means, clarify.

The notion of wealth redistribution is mishandled. It's never simply redistribution since the wealth is given to individuals who quickly spend essentially 100% of it.

People and corporations are taxed. The money then goes to things like...

- Health care - A medical subsidy is given which then fuels demand for a whole range of industries: pharm, providers, insurers, device manufacturers, etc. Manyof these companies then fund research and create new products that consumers want.

- The military - Military contractors are enriched and expand, military families get paychecks and spend it on XBoxes, Fords, and baby formula.

- Welfare - Someone gets a $200 SNAP benefit and then spends every penny of it at Wal-Mart, creating wealth for the Walton kids and fueling job expansion.


Wealth creation and wealth redistribution are inextricably linked. And there's also an economic benefit to the redistribution aspect. Investment and savings are certainly beneficial but the fact is that consumer spending/demand drives most of the economy. If demand stagnates the economy does as well (though profits may still rise for a time); when demand is increasing the economy and GDP will follow. So if tax policy puts a heavier emphasis on hitting savings and accumulated wealth it can be redistributed to where it will be spent again, thus increasing demand and growing the economy. Investors pay a price but when their investments increase in value in an expanding market environment they will be compensated at least in part.

Getting back to the government workers bit, nobody is suggesting that the government should hire workers it doesn't need, therefore the government should not employ too many people.

 

[Beco]

He took the coward's way out.

Maybe suicide is next?

Not a coward, just a good use of time.....

Time management, works.....you haven't called anyone a "gay", today....

You're slacking, get on da stick!

Besides, there are other geniuses here on Lit....that think they have a clue about the economy.....hit them up

 

[Beco]

Gott-damn it, Dick...give the guy some friggin' time to Google search yet another pessimistic projection article to C&P on the state of the economy and things of ominous portent which sound depressive that hasn't happened yet but just maybe sorta kinda might happen!

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mc1ir8OXDU1r8nyzfo1_400.gif

you are indeed the most creative guy on this board.....kudos

Denzel rocks

 

[Busybody]

CBO Predicts Another Trillion-Plus Deficit In FY 2013, 5th Year In A Row Over $1 Trillion…

I can’t be the only one who doubts this country can sustain another four years of Obamanomics.


Lib Radio Host: It’s Racist To Criticize Job Growth Under Obama…

Via Radio Equalizer:

STEPHANIE MILLER (Dec 07 2012): This is how we live in two realities, I’m driving in, hear Bill Press reporting the facts like what I just said double what was expected great of unemployment numbers 7.7. I turn to the right wing station they’re like how many jobs do we have, not many it’s not much.

JIM WARD: 146,000!

STEPHANIE MILLER: How were you reporting it when George Bush was losing 800,000 a month [Lie -ed.]?

CHRIS LAVOIE: We’re not losing much. It’s spectacular.

JIM WARD: It’s all the same. They’re all the same.

STEPHANIE MILLER: In their universe that not that good.

JIM WARD: Not good enough.

STEPHANIE MILLER: Not good enough ever cause the black guys still in the White House.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

The father of supply-side economics says he was wrong - the economy needs more stimulus, not more tax cuts »

current:

Bruce Bartlett has served in various functions under a number of conservative leaders, including Congressman Ron Paul, President Ronald Reagan, and President George H. W. Bush. Barlett wrote “Reaganomics: Supply-Side Economics in Action” and co-edited “The Supply-Side Solution.” He served on the House banking committee and wrote for the National Center for Policy Analysis, the Cato Institute, and the Heritage Foundation. And he now admits he was wrong: while supply-side economics may have made sense in the ’70s and ’80s, it has no place in America’s modern economic policy.

Bartlett spoke with “Viewpoint” host Eliot Spitzer about how he came to realize that stimulus is the key to reviving a struggling economy — not lower tax rates.

Bartlett said he came to this conclusion while working on a book about the Great Depression: “I convinced myself John Maynard Keynes was right.” He argues that what the economy needed during the 2008 financial crisis was “an easy money policy. … I think our problem is we didn’t get enough.”

Most Republicans still believe lowering tax rates, not increasing spending, is the way to go because “they only listen to people on their own side,” Barlett says. “They never ever reach out to anybody who’s not part of the clan.”

Watch the full interview here, and tune in to ‘Viewpoint’ Monday-Thursday @ 8E/5P on Current TV.

http://current.tumblr.com/post/37430400356/the-father-of-supply-side-economics-says-he-was-wrong

Even the people who invented this shit say it’s a bad idea now.

 

[Busybody]

since you NIGGERZ said he was WRONG then

he must be wrong now!

so if he says MORE stim is needed, not lower taxes, then the opposite is true

right, MONKEY BOI?

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

The father of supply-side economics says he was wrong - the economy needs more stimulus, not more tax cuts »

current:

Bruce Bartlett has served in various functions under a number of conservative leaders, including Congressman Ron Paul, President Ronald Reagan, and President George H. W. Bush. Barlett wrote “Reaganomics: Supply-Side Economics in Action” and co-edited “The Supply-Side Solution.” He served on the House banking committee and wrote for the National Center for Policy Analysis, the Cato Institute, and the Heritage Foundation. And he now admits he was wrong: while supply-side economics may have made sense in the ’70s and ’80s, it has no place in America’s modern economic policy.

Bartlett spoke with “Viewpoint” host Eliot Spitzer about how he came to realize that stimulus is the key to reviving a struggling economy — not lower tax rates.

Bartlett said he came to this conclusion while working on a book about the Great Depression: “I convinced myself John Maynard Keynes was right.” He argues that what the economy needed during the 2008 financial crisis was “an easy money policy. … I think our problem is we didn’t get enough.”

Most Republicans still believe lowering tax rates, not increasing spending, is the way to go because “they only listen to people on their own side,” Barlett says. “They never ever reach out to anybody who’s not part of the clan.”

Watch the full interview here, and tune in to ‘Viewpoint’ Monday-Thursday @ 8E/5P on Current TV.

http://current.tumblr.com/post/37430400356/the-father-of-supply-side-economics-says-he-was-wrong

Even the people who invented this shit say it’s a bad idea now.

NOW he thinks supply side is wrong.
Rats off a sinking (sunken) ship.
It didn't work then, it won't work now.
It will never work.

 

[Busybody]

^^^nigger:d

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Still wasting your time Dizzybooby.

 

[Busybody]

^^^nigger

 

[Balcor44]

.....

 

[JohnnySavage]

That's one big pile of stupid. You completely ignore the losses due to govt agencies taking their cut before redistributing. You also assume those getting the funds will spend them as wisely as those it was taken from...causing distortions in the market. What if someone doesn't spend all that money? You do know that capital comes from savings right?

What gives anyone the right to enforce slavery on some and give the fruits of their labors to others? Just more socialist drivel.

You just outed yourself as a wage-slave. Which means you live under private socialism, rather than government socialism. Either way, you have someone telling you what to where, where to go, when to be there, and how to get there - upon penalty of poverty.

 

[Busybody]

AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Washington Post Co. will pay its 2013 dividends before the end of this year to try to spare investors from anticipated tax increases.

The media and education company said Friday that its dividend of $9.80 per share is payable Dec. 27 to shareholders of record as of Dec. 17. The payout is instead of regular quarterly dividends next year.

Washington Post is the latest company to move up its quarterly payout or issue a special end-of-year payment to protect

investors from potentially having to pay higher taxes on dividend income starting in January.

Since 2003 investors have paid a maximum 15 percent on dividend income. But that historically low rate will expire in January unless Congress and President Barack Obama reach a compromise on taxes and government spending. As it stands, dividends will be taxed as ordinary income in 2013, the same as wages, so rates will go up depending on which income bracket a taxpayer is in. For the highest earners, the dividend rate would jump to 43.4 percent.

Hmmm.

For anyone who really cannot guess who the Washington Post endorsed for president, it was OBAMA

And there’s icing on Marie Antoinette’s cake:

The Washington Post’s dividend payment also stands to benefit those with a significant stake in the company, such as Warren Buffett’s firm Berkshire Hathaway. Berkshire is its largest shareholder with an estimated 1.7 million shares, which means it could get a roughly $17 million dividend payment.

Of course it could. The oligarchy takes care of its own.

Buffet owes the IRS $1 billion and is fighting them in court

FOR 10 YRS

 

[Exquisition]

^^^^^^ Inbred cretin

 

[IrezumiKiss]

^^^^^^ Inbred cretin

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/184j5yy8j421kgif/original.gif

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mefbulJ0QP1r3gdf8.gif

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_meofu4lDcX1qcniog.gif

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mdc4zxoTS31riiw1do1_250.gif

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_md3ukoOYpm1qa6g1m.gif

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcsr85THQb1qe4pwo.gif

 

[Busybody]

Hiya, Go-Rilla Boi.....How can you type with dem dare fingers?http://photos3.pix.ie/B7/D2/B7D2907E302843518B68B8D280D5A85E-500.jpg

 

[Busybody]

^^^^^^ Inbred cretin

Indeed I am

Now answer

1-Dial a log with who and what about

2-Show me the PROOF of 100 dead

 

[Exquisition]

Hiya, Go-Rilla Boi.....How can you type with dem dare fingers?http://photos3.pix.ie/B7/D2/B7D2907E302843518B68B8D280D5A85E-500.jpg

He not only types, he types accurately, without spelling and grammatical errors and is a persuasive writer putting forward supported viewpoints.

Completely eloquent. I take his posts seriously.

You could learn a lot from a black man BusyB.

 

[Busybody]

He not only types, he types accurately, without spelling and grammatical errors and is a persuasive writer putting forward supported viewpoints.

Completely eloquent. I take his posts seriously.

You could learn a lot from a black man BusyB.

yes, all true

now answer the questions

I'll wait

 

[mercury14]

That's one big pile of stupid. You completely ignore the losses due to govt agencies taking their cut before redistributing. You also assume those getting the funds will spend them as wisely as those it was taken from...causing distortions in the market. What if someone doesn't spend all that money? You do know that capital comes from savings right?

What gives anyone the right to enforce slavery on some and give the fruits of their labors to others? Just more socialist drivel.

- Not sure what you mean by government agencies taking their cut. What cut and where does the money go when the cut is taken?

- Your bit about people getting the funds spending them wisely doesn't hold water. The folks getting the funds (SNAP/Medicare/Medicaid/housing subsidy recipients/VA recipients/service members) are spending the funds on the same stuff everyone does: food, clothing, rent/mortgage, and durable goods. If you want to talk about market distortion then you need to take a look at the impact of the concentration of unspent wealth in the top 2%. That's a new phenomenon and it's depressing the hell out of consumer demand and job growth.

- Everyone who receives government benefits spends every penny. It's absurd to think that people are hoarding unspent Medicaid or that people are getting food stamps and not using them. And if they somehow are, well those benefits end up not being distributed.

- You lost me on that bit about slavery. By definition slaves are forced to work for free. Are you saying that people who get government benefits are forced to work for free?

 

[Exquisition]

The father of supply-side economics says he was wrong - the economy needs more stimulus, not more tax cuts »

current:

Bruce Bartlett has served in various functions under a number of conservative leaders, including Congressman Ron Paul, President Ronald Reagan, and President George H. W. Bush. Barlett wrote “Reaganomics: Supply-Side Economics in Action” and co-edited “The Supply-Side Solution.” He served on the House banking committee and wrote for the National Center for Policy Analysis, the Cato Institute, and the Heritage Foundation. And he now admits he was wrong: while supply-side economics may have made sense in the ’70s and ’80s, it has no place in America’s modern economic policy.

Bartlett spoke with “Viewpoint” host Eliot Spitzer about how he came to realize that stimulus is the key to reviving a struggling economy — not lower tax rates.

Bartlett said he came to this conclusion while working on a book about the Great Depression: “I convinced myself John Maynard Keynes was right.” He argues that what the economy needed during the 2008 financial crisis was “an easy money policy. … I think our problem is we didn’t get enough.”

Most Republicans still believe lowering tax rates, not increasing spending, is the way to go because “they only listen to people on their own side,” Barlett says. “They never ever reach out to anybody who’s not part of the clan.”

Watch the full interview here, and tune in to ‘Viewpoint’ Monday-Thursday @ 8E/5P on Current TV.

http://current.tumblr.com/post/37430400356/the-father-of-supply-side-economics-says-he-was-wrong

Even the people who invented this shit say it’s a bad idea now.

I'm curious - did the US have any kind of fiscal stimulus policy 2008-now? Quantitative Easing?

 

[mercury14]

I'm curious - did the US have any kind of fiscal stimulus policy 2008-now? Quantitative Easing?

Yeah why?

 

[mercury14]

The father of supply-side economics says he was wrong - the economy needs more stimulus, not more tax cuts »

current:

Bruce Bartlett has served in various functions under a number of conservative leaders, including Congressman Ron Paul, President Ronald Reagan, and President George H. W. Bush. Barlett wrote “Reaganomics: Supply-Side Economics in Action” and co-edited “The Supply-Side Solution.” He served on the House banking committee and wrote for the National Center for Policy Analysis, the Cato Institute, and the Heritage Foundation. And he now admits he was wrong: while supply-side economics may have made sense in the ’70s and ’80s, it has no place in America’s modern economic policy.

Bartlett spoke with “Viewpoint” host Eliot Spitzer about how he came to realize that stimulus is the key to reviving a struggling economy — not lower tax rates.

Bartlett said he came to this conclusion while working on a book about the Great Depression: “I convinced myself John Maynard Keynes was right.” He argues that what the economy needed during the 2008 financial crisis was “an easy money policy. … I think our problem is we didn’t get enough.”

Most Republicans still believe lowering tax rates, not increasing spending, is the way to go because “they only listen to people on their own side,” Barlett says. “They never ever reach out to anybody who’s not part of the clan.”

Watch the full interview here, and tune in to ‘Viewpoint’ Monday-Thursday @ 8E/5P on Current TV.

http://current.tumblr.com/post/37430400356/the-father-of-supply-side-economics-says-he-was-wrong

Even the people who invented this shit say it’s a bad idea now.

And you just ruined the whole weekend for AJ. I hope you're happy.

 

[Exquisition]

Yeah why?

Trying to understand where that post is coming from. So Reaganite Fiscal policy was wrong and he had the balls to admit he was wrong - fiscal stimulus is where it's at.

According to you the US treasury 'printed money' - so they've had some fiscal stimulus.

Was there a point to the post?