Obama was terrible for economic growth

The so-called sequester under Obama was the last time the deficit was lower than the prior year, if I recall. I mean, if we could just get to even, the debt will work itself out. We do make payments, that are part of the budget, after all. The problem is, an entire side of the political spectrum stopped caring about the deficits. They literally think they don't matter.

I think at this point, we should use our natural resources to pay it down. If global warming is as bad as we are told, the lifestyle of Eskimos in Alaska will be ruined anyway so, we may as well get drilling up in ANWAR.

 

Destroy the world quicker so we can reduce our debt?
If the world is destroyed, who cares what our debt is?

 

How is NOT drilling in ANWAR lowering the use of fossil fuels, in your mind?

 

UMM WHAT?
Where'd you come up with something unrelated to anything that was said?

 

Then what did you mean when you say this:

How does us drilling for oil cause more oil to be used? Increased supply, while lowering the cost, does not increase demand. This is Economics 101.

 

Having ties to foreign governments is not a disqualifier on it's face. Flynn is in trouble because he lied when he was being investigated by the FBI to renew his security clearance.

Care to get back on topic here now?

 

Bluesguy said: ↑
So what didn't work about supply side?

Well that is pretty broad and baseless. Can you be specific, what didn't work after the supply-side tax rate cuts in 1996 and then the ones in 2004?
There was solid GDP growth, rising incomes, huge increases in income tax revenues and in the former balanced budgets with surpluses and the latter a rapidly falling deficit to a platry $161B and then the Democrats took control and started with their demand side policies shooting the deficit to a whopping $1,400B in just two years and creating economic misery for the next 8 years,

 

Well that is pretty broad and baseless. That is your complaint about my post, yet what did you post: You wrote a post that is pretty broad and baseless.
The bottom line there is no transmission mechanism between supply-side socialism and economic growth. Supply-side socialism has a track record
of undermining economic growth, ballooning governmental debt, increasing income inequality, increasing unemployment, undermining the democratic
process, and undermining capital investment.

True back then:


True today:


Reagan Campaigns for Truman in 1948 - YouTube

Even Reagan got before going to the dark side.

 

No that IS the economy I don't know where you go the idea that economies are not dynamic processes that just run along smoothly and consistently without ups and downs and major changes. What is at issue here is government policies and the effects of such policies. What we see historically is that supply side policies are not only better for the economy but better for the workers and investors.

 

The Republican sequester. When was the budget balanced or close to it?

 

I'm discussing supply-side capitalism as in the late 1990's and early mid 2000's, try to focus. Both spurred economic growth and soaring tax revenues as a result. What didn't work especially as compare to the demand side policies of the Democrats 2008-2015?

 

The only guaranty to a pension is if the company still exist and there is enough money in the fund to pay you your pension. And you are free to move your 401k money into safe investments like US T Bills when you need it most. About the best guaranty you can get. That some choose to not participate is their choice and they certainly should not have a claim to my 401k money because they choose not to participate.

 

I said nothing about supply or demand.
You said lets drill in ANWAR since AGW is going to destroy the planet anyway. As a way to pay down debt.

So I said you want to destroy the world to relieve our debt. If the world is destroyed, who cares what our debt is?

 

The topic is dead. And has been proven over and over and over and over.

 

Ups and downs, ebbs and flows.
A bit different from booms to busts.
They had to create booms to avoid the inevitable busts. But you can never stop a bust, but the booms could be halted. But who can stop a drunken sailor, right?

 

Topic is wide open inspite of attempts to derail it.

For instance still waiting

↑

The Republican sequester. When was the last time the budget was balanced or close to it?

 

I said as long as the company is viable.
And if needed, the gov't can rewrite the tax code and take a good chunk of 401K.
Any investment into the future carries risk.
The best guarantee at this time is SS. That will remain viable as long as there is a US gov't.

 

No derail. All you have to do is read the thread. It's dead.

I can't answer the R sequester. I haven't seen the data. But spending did drop under obama while president.

 

Yes and Trump has been just fabulous for economic growth. His rube supporters think so, anyway. But they'll figure out otherwise, soon enough. Although it will take years....

 

Clearly, you understand that Clinton was president in the late '90's and Bush was president when the Great Republican Recession happened. I am waiting for
supply-side socialists, like Commie Donnie, to explain how economic growth occurs while redistributing wealth from the middle class and poor to the rich. Demand
drives the economy, contrary to the beliefs of Marx and Reagan, who both argue that supply drives the economy.

 

.7 % GDP during his frist Quarter?

wow, Trump is sooo great!!!

 

And you do understand that the Republicans took the Congress in 1996 and forced Clinton to sign tax rate cuts, supply side tax rate cuts, and welfare reform. You do understand that the Bush supply side tax rates also fueled a huge economic expansion with 52 months of full employment and soaring tax revenues increasing over 15% one year which allowed the deficit to fall dramatically. You do understand that the Democrats took control of the Congress in 2007 and passed their 9% spending increase for FY2008 and then their 18% spending increase for FY2009 taking the last Republican deficit of a paltry $161B for FY2009 after the supply side tax rate cuts exploded tax revenues to their whopping $1,400B in just those two years. And I'm still waiting for some demand side liberal to explain how and where money was redistributed from the lower incomes to the upper incomes.

 

Because of the Republican sequester, he and his Democrats never passed a budget let alone cut spending. What did happen is that he and his fellow Democrats in Congress increased spending 9% in 2008 and 18% in 2009 increasing the deficit to their WHOPPING $1,400B and they kept it over $1,000B for the next four years.

 

And companies don't remain viable on a regular basis.

Well that's just conjecture on your part they can also rewrite the tax code and take a good chunk of pensions.

Without a viable stockmarket their won't be a US or a US Government. And there is no more guaranty with SS we already see proposal to means test it or change benefits it is just as if not more so subject to rewrites and unless it is reformed drastically it will not survive.

 

So apparently you are under the impression the economy is like a light switch: Supply-side socialists control Congress late in Clinton's term in office and
the supply-side socialists lose control of Congress late in Bush's term, and therefore you arrive at some machinations that is what caused Clinton to have a good economy, after the economy was already booming, and again, after the fact, the economy was tanking before the Democrats took over Congress during Bush's term in office. WOW...that is a whole lotta of crazy.

Low wages socializes business costs. Low wages make employees eligible for governmental assistance, again socializes business costs. In some cases,
like Walmart and Target, low wage employees buy goods and services from their own employer. Again, because of low wages, these employees look to
the government, instead of the employer, for health care services.

Businesses look to the government for special privileges, ie, becoming governmental created entities known as corporations to limit their liabilities.

Corporations get especially created tax breaks as a means of having taxpayers socialize their business costs. The mantra of the business world:
privatize wealth and socialize costs.