EPTLiberal Internet? - Page 13
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Sadist
United States7166 Posts
| ||
|
ixi.genocide
United States981 Posts
On July 06 2010 11:25 Djzapz wrote: PS: The 8.5 trillion figure isn't all money that's actually going to go out!! That's why it's not a good figure to bring up. PS: The economy wouldn't fix itself very well, whether you believe it or not. You need to understand what all of those things are and to say it's all useless is ridiculous. EVERYONE knows that it's not 100% BS. You go by the assumption that all of it is bad. I think that most of it is good and most of it won't ever be spent. Surely you know about politics and "commited" money. While idc about your little post argument with angelw/e I am going to point out that the economy will fix itself. Letting the weak businesses die and the strong ones replace them is a great way to start the recovery. The economy will fail with government handing out handicaps such as cafe standards and then bailing out business's like chrysler (to whom all of the equity goes to the unions). | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 06 2010 11:39 Sadist wrote: ...... 85 for Mississippi damn ;\ I used to flaunt that chart around because it amused me and I figured it looked true (really does look real doesn't it) but the sources are kind of shady and my not be good, so I would be skeptical, even if it's hilarious  | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 06 2010 11:40 ixi.genocide wrote: While idc about your little post argument with angelw/e I am going to point out that the economy will fix itself. Letting the weak businesses die and the strong ones replace them is a great way to start the recovery. The economy will fail with government handing out handicaps such as cafe standards and then bailing out business's like chrysler (to whom all of the equity goes to the unions). Economies crash HARD if they're not handled properly though so it's important to be careful when they're dropping. | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On July 06 2010 11:43 Djzapz wrote:Economies crash HARD if they're not handled properly though so it's important to be careful when they're dropping. That might well be true, but the thing is - nobody knows what it means to "handle an economy properly". Keynesian economics is just as likely to make things worse as it is to make things better, and many would argue it never makes anything better, it just delays the inevitable and makes it worse when it hits. If we could handle economies, sure, but we have no idea what we're doing. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 06 2010 11:45 kzn wrote: That might well be true, but the thing is - nobody knows what it means to "handle an economy properly". Keynesian economics is just as likely to make things worse as it is to make things better, and many would argue it never makes anything better, it just delays the inevitable and makes it worse when it hits. If we could handle economies, sure, but we have no idea what we're doing. We know a bit more than "nothing" and the Keynesians are the least wacky ![[image loading]](http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//12-16-09bud-rev6-28-10-f1.jpg) | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On July 06 2010 11:47 Djzapz wrote: We know a bit more than "nothing" and the Keynesians are the least wacky That image doesn't support a single thing you claimed. Its based on models that are themselves controversial and not completely supported. Keynesian economics today isn't even something Keynes himself would have supported, and Friedman pretty conclusively proved that most of the time governments have intervened to "fix" an economy they've either done nothing or made it worse. [edit] Not to mention the Bush tax cuts were pure Keynesian economics as well. [edit2] Why on earth are the images different, wtf. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 06 2010 11:50 kzn wrote: That image doesn't support a single thing you claimed. Its based on models that are themselves controversial and not completely supported. Keynesian economics today isn't even something Keynes himself would have supported, and Friedman pretty conclusively proved that most of the time governments have intervened to "fix" an economy they've either done nothing or made it worse. [edit] Not to mention the Bush tax cuts were pure Keynesian economics as well. [edit2] Why on earth are the images different, wtf. Bush's tax cuts might've been badly applied keynesian economics O_O I never learned "lower the rich's taxes when the economy is doing good", that'd be retarded. | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On July 06 2010 11:55 Djzapz wrote:Bush's tax cuts might've been badly applied keynesian economics O_O I never learned "lower the rich's taxes when the economy is doing good", that'd be retarded. It actually wouldn't, for one. Secondly, Keynesian economics now means running deficit budgets to stimulate economies in recession. Tax cuts accomplish this just as well (arguably better) than government spending programs, and tax cuts are much easier to get rid of later, which proper Keynesianism would require. Bush's tax cuts actually worked too, although I'd argue they just pushed the recession back and it combined with the financial meltdown into the monster we ended up with. [edit] Hell, compared with lowering taxes across the board or disproportionately in favor of poor people, cutting taxes at the highest rates is flat out better economically. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
| ||
|
Subversion
South Africa3627 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
It actually wouldn't, for one. Secondly, Keynesian economics now means running deficit budgets to stimulate economies in recession. Tax cuts accomplish this just as well (arguably better) than government spending programs, and tax cuts are much easier to get rid of later, which proper Keynesianism would require. Bush's tax cuts actually worked too, although I'd argue they just pushed the recession back and it combined with the financial meltdown into the monster we ended up with. [edit] Hell, compared with lowering taxes across the board or disproportionately in favor of poor people, cutting taxes at the highest rates is flat out better economically. Keynesian economics doesn't say you should run your deficit ridiculously high by LOWERING taxes WAY too much. Saying that Bush's tax cuts worked is ridiculous. They accomplished something but the backfire was significantly greater than the gains. Also: "Tax cuts accomplish this just as well (arguably better) than government spending programs" Find me someone who said that and isn't a die-hard republican. It's flat out not true. Even Reagan realized that and had to raise taxes after seeing how bad it was to slash taxes so much for the rich. On July 06 2010 12:01 Yurebis wrote: cutting taxes period is better economically since people aren't robbed of their economical choices You're saying cutting taxes because it SEEMS better for individuals. Tax cuts, bam you have an additional $200. Looks fun but your country suffers. You suffer too, you just don't realize it. If you cut taxes too much, your country gets messed up. | ||
|
CrimsonLotus
Colombia1123 Posts
The answer to the OP is so obvious, young people tend to be liberal because, well, they are young. They don't have old values, beliefs and prejudice to affect their judgement so they tend to be more open to new ideas. And because of that same reason there are more young people on the Internet and therefore a higher liberal presence. | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On July 06 2010 12:04 Djzapz wrote:You're saying cutting taxes because it SEEMS better for individuals. Tax cuts, bam you have an additional $200. Looks fun but your country suffers. You suffer too, you just don't realize it. If you cut taxes too much, your country gets messed up. This is identically true for spending programs. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
Like the military except that doesn't come back in any form 99% of the time, right? There are plenty of spending programs that are awful and maybe we could cut some taxes and get rid of those or at least spend significantly less on those. It's hard to make cuts though when the taxes are already made so low given the amount of services there have been for a LONG time - hard to get rid of all of it over night even if you don't like it. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On July 06 2010 12:04 Djzapz wrote: You're saying cutting taxes because it SEEMS better for individuals. Tax cuts, bam you have an additional $200. Looks fun but your country suffers. You suffer too, you just don't realize it. If you cut taxes too much, your country gets messed up. Is the country not just an aggregation of many individuals? Then what bad can come out of something other than? By the country suffers, surely you mean "that group of individuals who support stealing from others to get what they want" On July 06 2010 12:07 CrimsonLotus wrote: As expected, this subject will soon brings us a lot of bans. I will stop, been banned more often than i'd like. Tight regulation here... | ||
|
Sabu113
United States11035 Posts
On July 06 2010 11:57 kzn wrote: It actually wouldn't, for one. Secondly, Keynesian economics now means running deficit budgets to stimulate economies in recession. Tax cuts accomplish this just as well (arguably better) than government spending programs, and tax cuts are much easier to get rid of later, which proper Keynesianism would require. That's just simply factually false. Tax cuts are THE WORST, THE WORST tool of a stimulus program. The multiplier is almost 1 for tax cuts. Romer detailed this in her reports to congress or hell find another non-chicago economist if you want to find support for my claim. The stimulus works because it is guaranteed demand. Tax cuts for the wealthy do not necessarily result increased demand. edit: Christ I hope you guys get some stuff sourced from the literature rather than gop.org or Fox News. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On July 06 2010 11:50 kzn wrote: [edit] Not to mention the Bush tax cuts were pure Keynesian economics as well. what is this I don't even | ||
|
Sabu113
United States11035 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
Is the country not just an aggregation of many individuals? Then what bad can come out of something other than? By the country suffers, surely you mean "that group of individuals who support stealing from others to get what they want" The country is an aggregation of many individuals who oftentimes cooperate in order to get what they want. You pay the government, the government makes you roads. Rich people pay more taxes than the poor, this allows the poor to buy the rich's products. Without the US supporting you, you most likely wouldn't be as comfortable. Progressive taxes are key to making an economical country, economical countries sustain their citizen. Some people can't work. Arguably they steal a tiny percentage of your money, get a disability check. Because of you, a disabled person can live an OK life. In other countries, this isn't as true. Luckily, like all of the other first world countries, you have a progressive tax system. A powerful economical country has never been seen without this system. Some people abuse the system but this happens in all systems. Unfortunately some people sit on their hands and collect welfare. A great many of those are single mothers who make good use of this service. Personally I'm glad that a tiny percentage of my taxes goes to help single mothers. It's sad that there are people who benefit from it but are just lazy. I think it's sad that an extremely big portion of all of your paychecks goes to fund multiple wars in an extremely inefficient way... Alone, you're nothing. Keep in mind, the US gave you everything you got. The US is the workframe which gave you the opportunity to become rich or at the very least live an above-average comfortable life. If you were born in Sierra-Leone, you would need to be significantly better of a person to be as successful as your regular american. You're lucky to have been raised in the US. You're lucky that people, in the past, have paid taxes in order to build a decent infrastructure. | ||
| ||
