Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
May 17, 2016 - 03:41pm PT
|
what about austerity, can anyone demonstrate that cutting spending will bring on prosperity?
Hahaha. Lol. No, the only demonstration rational people need is to witness the effects of not cutting spending.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
May 17, 2016 - 04:33pm PT
|
that's super proud, the way he can point at meat. gets my vote.
|
|
tuolumne_tradster
Trad climber
Leading Edge of North American Plate
|
|
|
May 17, 2016 - 04:40pm PT
|
I'd vote for Moose before Trump or Hillary!
|
|
MisterE
Gym climber
Small Town with a Big Back Yard
|
|
|
May 17, 2016 - 05:09pm PT
|
The Bernistas are pissed, and they have a right to be with all the voter & delegate stuff going on -
but it is sad to see them getting violent.
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
May 17, 2016 - 05:18pm PT
|
Hahaha. Lol. No, the only demonstration rational people need is to witness the effects of not cutting spending.
That is a glib and ignorant response. The behavior of individuals in a family cannot be directly compared to the behavior of a government and economy with money in circulation.
When you or I spend money, it is gone from us and we have whatever material good or service we bought, and that is it.
When a government spends money, for example to create jobs as part of rebuilding crumbling infrastructure, then it triggers lots of employment (of people who pay taxes so the govt gets some back here), and it triggers those people to spend money on food, shelter, clothing, and discretionary purchases, so it causes incomes to go up for other industries which also pay taxes to the US Govt.
It boils down to this: if the government is going to directly (through creating jobs or funding industries) or indirectly (through tax cuts or tax credits) inject cash into the economy, should the money go toward rich people or poor people?
The "trickle-down" theory is that by giving to rich people and businesses, they create more jobs and then everyone prospers. But what happens when the rich people say thank-you for the handout and don't actually create jobs? They make even more profits by outsourcing or automating, and the economy goes to sh!t as we have witnessed repeatedly. The consideration here is the circulation of money... rich people can take that extra income (or reduced cost) and just keep it in the bank. It doesn't change their spending behavior because their basic needs are already met, and the money from the government is locked in personal vaults where it does no additional good.
Now, give that same money to a poor person and look what happens. They spend it on food, shelter, clothing, and other stuff. Heck, maybe even drugs! But at least it is circulated to another party who is likely at a low enough level in the economy that they are going to spend the income they made on that transaction. So the money is going to keep moving around, and each legal movement of the money generates sales tax or income tax that benefits the government. The more the money circulates, the better the return on investment for the government of that initial cash outlay.
And there it is- when a government spends money, it is an investment. If you invest in poor people, the money circulates, and it's a good investment. If you invest in rich people, the money is locked up at the first step and it is a bad investment. The only time I would advocate government investment to businesses or industries directly is when those investments are very tightly coupled with behaviors to increase widespread prosperity, e.g. through employment or low interest rate loans, etc.
Even the "Wolf of Wall Street" guy upon whom the movie was modeled, one of the biggest hustlers of the 1980s financial scandals, calls attention to this idea of money circulation and advocates for Bernie Sanders exactly because this is the best way to fix the economy!
What I'm not sure about is this: do most educated Republicans fail to understand these concepts, have a rational basis to disagree with this idea of money circulation, or do they accept it but act disingenuously because they have a short-term personal interest to improve their personal net worth by having more benefits for companies in which they own stock.
If you held a market basket of S&P500 over a period of 10 years, and that was your only investment, you'd probably earn more money with Bernie as President than Hillary or a Republican as President because of the long-term effects of promoting money circulation. Must be heresy to some Republicans, but I think there is a rational and logical foundation for that argument.
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
May 17, 2016 - 05:25pm PT
|
Just another aside on my argument... focusing on the issue of money circulation and return on investment for government spending....
In the days when we had lots of small Mom and Pop shops for everyday purchases, the benefits of government spending to poor people was even greater.
Today, with the growth of monster corporations that suck up most of poor people's income within the first cycle of spending, the ability of the government to spend on poor people to stimulate the economy is reduced. Large corporations are a DIRECT THREAT to the economic viability of our government.
Consider if the government gave a bunch of money to poor people, and where it ends up within two transactions:
1) Walmart
2) MacDonalds, Burger King, Taco Bell, etc.
3) Chase or Citibank credit card interest payments
4) Big pharma or medical insurance companies
I'm guessing here, but I bet that accounts for most of it. So big companies with wealthy share-holders are black-holes for wealth in a circulating economy, and government policies should actively seek to destroy such organizations. While we as consumers tend to like a uniform shopping experience with efficient low prices, we are not just cutting out other middle-men, we are cutting out the long term viability of our government by reducing opportunities for taxation on circulated money.
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
MisterE
Gym climber
Small Town with a Big Back Yard
|
|
|
May 17, 2016 - 06:44pm PT
|
Violent?!!!! I will fuk you up, you broken piton!
The pin may be broken, but eye am still good to clip...
;)
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
May 17, 2016 - 06:58pm PT
|
Nutagain,
When a government spends money, where do they get that money from?
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
|
May 17, 2016 - 07:02pm PT
|
In the 1980’s Ronald Reagan ushered in a new era in American economics as he cut the top tax bracket from 70% down to 50% and then down again to 28%. In order to get support for doing this from the people, and also from politicians, a very crafty set of lies were produced. As David Stockman, then Reagan’s budget director, put it: giving small tax cuts across the board to all brackets was simply a “Trojan Horse” that was used to get approval for the huge top tax bracket cuts. “Trickle-Down” was a term used by Republicans that meant giving tax cuts to the rich. Stockman explains that:
"It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."
"Yes, Stockman conceded, when one stripped away the new rhetoric emphasizing across-the-board cuts, the supply-side theory was really new clothes for the unpopular doctrine of the old Republican orthodoxy."
"…the Reagan coalition prevailed again in the House and Congress passed the tax-cut legislation with a final frenzy of trading and bargaining. Again, Stockman was not exhilarated by the victory. On the contrary, it seemed to leave a bad taste in his mouth, as though the democratic process had finally succeeded in shocking him by its intensity and its greed. Once again, Stockman participated in the trading -- special tax concessions for oil -- lease holders and real-estate tax shelters, and generous loopholes that virtually eliminated the corporate income tax. Stockman sat in the room and saw it happen."
"'Do you realize the greed that came to the forefront?' Stockman asked with wonder. 'The hogs were really feeding. The greed level, the level of opportunism, just got out of control.'"
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 17, 2016 - 07:06pm PT
|
When a government spends money, where do they get that money from?
They get it from themselves.
They print it, distribute it, then tax you to get it back then spend it back to you again in circles.
Unfortunately they print more then they ever have ...... :-)
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Where in the hell is Major Kong?
|
|
|
May 17, 2016 - 08:11pm PT
|
Which side are you on?
|
|
kattz
climber
|
|
|
May 17, 2016 - 09:09pm PT
|
Damn, poor things someone is forcing them to go to Walmart and McDonalds....there're armies preventing them from going to mom and pop shop.
Oh wait...is it because mom and pop shop has NO RETURNS policy and some judgmental service they don't go there??
Now every one can order online....from whatever internet shop opened by whoever and their dog...but no someone is forcing them to buy from Amazon...someone got to be sued for that.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
May 17, 2016 - 09:23pm PT
|
Good ride Bernie...now it's time to mover over and be the guy to help unite the Democratic Party behind Hillary to ward off the Trump nightmare....please don't allow your growing ego to get in the way.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 17, 2016 - 09:29pm PT
|
Less than a hundred delegates to go - it's way, way over.
|
|
MisterE
Gym climber
Small Town with a Big Back Yard
|
|
|
May 17, 2016 - 09:32pm PT
|
thread delete in 5...4...3...2...wait.
what a circus - thanks for the fun.
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
No. Tahoe
|
|
|
May 17, 2016 - 09:33pm PT
|
Well said, Jim. We just have to wait until after CA. Then it's up to him to prove what kind of a team player he is.
Good win by Hillary in Kentucky. She spent a lot of talking to voters, not giving the same applause-line speech to college kids at rallies. Paid off.
|
|
tuolumne_tradster
Trad climber
Leading Edge of North American Plate
|
|
|
May 17, 2016 - 09:40pm PT
|
Good win?...she barely won Kentucky and Bernie won Oregon by a significant margin.
|
|
kattz
climber
|
|
|
May 17, 2016 - 09:41pm PT
|
https://youtu.be/6swm3l19knc?t=17s
"What the f** was that?"
Really? These twits want to "shut down big banks" and dig into some pockets?
Not so soon, Honey. See you in handcuffs (next time you go shoplifting).
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
May 18, 2016 - 06:42am PT
|
Bernie would win with Donald. He would get all Hillary supporters in addition to his.
Guys, for the thousandth time step out of your bubble.
Bernie cannot win a general election.
A left wing self proclaimed socialist is absolutely toxic in this country. By the time the right wing hit squad is done with him he will be viewed as left of Stalin. He will be associated with every fringe leftie group of the last fifty years.
It's nice that he's attracted millennials.
Guess what? Old people vote. Young people don't. And old people are terrified of socialism.
Hillary has treated him with kid gloves to get his voters. The right wing hate machine would crucify him.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!