americans are screwed no matter who wins, obama or mccain, they both suck.
hooray for "democracy"!
americans are screwed no matter who wins, obama or mccain, they both suck.
hooray for "democracy"!
So now Factcheck.org is a democrat website with a democrat spin? Wow... a little far off on that comment too.Doesnt change the facts at all. This website is the same worthless democrat spin.
What is insulting about 'everything you believe in' about Obama? Can you list them? Or are you just using blanket statements?
"Did you know that statistics show that usa's economy ALWAYS run better during democrat governments?"
oh? prove it
traditional republican economic strategy has shown to be far more efficient throughout the 20th century, or have you not heard of ronald reagan?
Prove it METALLICA. You want him to prove it then you state a fact that you now need to prove.
Regan and Trickle down economics has now been proven to not work.
Supply-side economics is an arguably heterodox school of macroeconomic thought that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created using incentives for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as adjusting income tax and capital gains tax rates. Supply-side economics is often conflated with trickle-down economics, now a term given to right-leaning economists' views.[1] The term supply-side economics was coined by journalist Jude Wanniski in 1975, and popularized the ideas of economists Robert Mundell and Arthur Laffer.
The typical policy recommendation of supply-side economics is to achieve the proper level of marginal tax rates, which, by virtue of the high rate of taxes in general, equates with cutting of taxes.[2] Maximum benefits are achieved by optimizing the marginal tax rates of those with high-incomes and capital who are deemed as most likely to increase supply and thus spur growth.[3] Mainstream Keynesian macroeconomics, by contrast, contends that tax cuts should be used to increase demand, not supply, and thus should be targeted at cash-strapped, lower-income households, who are more likely to spend additional income.[4][5]
Many early proponents argued that the size of the economic growth would be significant enough that the increased government revenue from a faster growing economy would be sufficient to completely compensate for the short-term costs of a tax cut, and that tax cuts could, in fact, cause overall revenue to increase.[6] Some assert this was borne out during the 1980s, when many supply-siders claim tax cuts ultimately led to an overall increase in governmental revenue due to stronger economic growth, although many economists doubt this claim.[7][8] To date many economists do not see supply-side economics as a respectable school of thought, with Alan Blinder, calling it an "ill-fated" and perhaps, "silly" school on the pages of a 2006 MIT textbook;[4] Bush advisor Greg Mankiw offered similarly sharp critisim of the school in the early editions of his introductory economics textbook.[9] In a 1992 article for the Harvard International Review James Tobin wrote, "[The] idea that tax cuts would actually increase revenues turned out to deserve the ridicule…"[10] But while few modern economists claim that tax cuts will completely pay for themselves, some empirical and theoretical research suggests that tax cuts do help to pay for themselves through increased economic growth, though the end result, even conservative economists contend, will be a significant reduction in revenues.[3] The Reagan administration was the first to implement supply-side policies and call them that. Some maintain that they failed to deliver the promised benefits.[11]
“ The extreme promises of supply-side economics did not materialize. President Reagan argued that because of the effect depicted in the Laffer curve, the government could maintain expenditures, cut tax rates, and balance the budget. This was not the case. Government revenues fell sharply from levels that would have been realized without the tax cuts.
- Karl Case & Ray Fair, Principles of Economics (2007), p. 695.[11]
”
Supply side proponents Trabandt and Uhlig argue that "static scoring overestimates the revenue loss for labor and capital tax cuts",[12] and that instead "dynamic scoring" is a better predictor for the effects of tax cuts.
Historical origins
Supply-side economics developed during the 1970s in response to the Keynesian dominance of economic policy, and in particular the alleged failure of demand management to stabilize Western economies during the stagflation of the 1970s, in the wake of the oil crisis in 1973.[13] It drew on a range of non-Keynesian economic thought, particularly Austrian school thinking on entrepreneurship and New classical macroeconomics.
As in classical economics, supply-side economics proposed that production or supply is the key to economic prosperity and that consumption or demand is merely a secondary consequence. Early on this idea had been summarized in Say's Law of economics, which states: "A product is no sooner created, than it, from that instant, affords a market for other products to the full extent of its own value." John Maynard Keynes, the founder of Keynesianism, summarized Say's Law as "supply creates its own demand." He turned Say's Law on its head in the 1930s by declaring that demand creates its own supply. [14] However, Say's Law does not state that production creates a demand for the product itself, but rather a demand for "other products to the full extent of its own value." A better formulation of the law is that the supply of one good constitutes demand for one or more other goods.[15]
In 1978 Jude Wanniski published The Way the World Works in which he laid out the central thesis of supply-side economics and detailed the failure of high tax-rate progressive income tax systems and U.S. monetary policy under Nixon in the 1970s. Wanniski advocated lower tax rates and a return to some kind of gold standard, similar to the 1944-1971 Bretton Woods System that Nixon abandoned.
In 1983, economist Victor Canto, a disciple of Arthur Laffer, published The Foundations of Supply-Side Economics. This theory focuses on the effects of marginal tax rates on the incentive to work and save, which affect the growth of the "supply side" or what Keynesians call potential output. While the latter focus on changes in the rate of supply-side growth in the long run, the "new" supply-siders often promised short-term results.
The supply-siders were influenced strongly by the idea of the Laffer curve, which states that tax rates and tax revenues were distinct -- that tax rates too high or too low will not maximize tax revenues. Supply-siders felt that in a high tax rate environment, lowering taxes to the right level can raise revenue by causing faster economic growth. They pointed to the tax cuts of the Kennedy administration and the high rates of the Hoover and Nixon administrations in justification.[citation needed]
This led the supply-siders to advocate large reductions in marginal income and capital gains tax rates to encourage allocation of assets to investment, which would produce more supply. Jude Wanniski and many others advocate a zero capital gains rate.[16][not in citation given] The increased aggregate supply would result in increased aggregate demand, hence the term "Supply-Side Economics".
Furthermore, in response to inflation, supply-siders called for indexed marginal income tax rates, as monetary inflation had pushed wage earners into higher marginal income tax brackets that remained static; that is, as wages increased to maintain purchasing power with prices, income tax brackets were not adjusted accordingly and thus wage earners were pushed into higher income tax brackets than tax policy had intended. [13]
Supply-side economics has been criticized as essentially politically conservative. Supply-side advocates claim that they are not following an ideology, but are reinstating classical economics. Yet, supply-siders such as Jude Wanniski have argued for lower tax rates to increase tax revenues, and that redistribution of income through taxation was essential to the health of the polity -- a fact which is anathema to traditional conservatives.
Some economists see similarities between supply-side proposals and Keynesian economics. If the result of changes to the tax structure is a fiscal deficit then the 'supply-side' policy is effectively stimulating demand through the Keynesian multiplier effect. Supply-side proponents would point out, in response, that the level of taxation and spending is important for economic incentives, not just the size of the deficit.
The Reagan administration justified such changes in socioeconomic terms with the argument that "a rising tide lifts all boats".
merry christmas, from wikipedia
the only reason why supply-side economics hasnt seen as much success as it is theoretically supposed to, is because of limitations and restraints by the government
if this country had a true free market economy, the benefits would have been seen more clearly
That was your claim. Not all that you posted above. What you posted does not prove your statement."Did you know that statistics show that usa's economy ALWAYS run better during democrat governments?"
I'll give you a quick link that covers the last 20 years.
http://www.academycomputerservice.co...ics/charts.htm
Just a quick repost that I think covers it all rather well.
* When Republicans get power they tend to emphazise helping the rich rather than the middle class or the poor. They cut taxes for the rich, provide subsidies for the rich and increase spending for military purposes. As much as they might like to, they cannot lower greatly the governmental expenditures for helping the middle class and the poor, because they then would not be able to stay in power in a pseudo-democracy such as the U.S. Thus, deficits increase, which leaves less funds for investment in the economy and the economy suffers. Also, the obvious lack of interest in the welfare of the workers who produce the goods lowers the morale and causes productivity increase to slow down. When the economy gets bad enough the Democrats get voted into power.
* When Democrats get power they tend to increase taxes for the rich and cut military spending, which allows deficits to decrease, and perhaps even surpluses to occur, and therefore leaves more money to invest in the economy and the economy grows. They emphasize the welfare of the workers who produce the goods and the productivity increases faster.
* After the economy is rolling along well, more citizens tend to think they are going to be wealthy and they want the tax cuts for the rich that the Republicans always promise. So Republicans get elected again and the cycle begins with Republican power again.
actually, that WAS NOT my claim, it was a claim i was disputing from earlier in this thread
what i was also saying, is that TRADITIONAL republican economics has great potential, it just hasn't been carried out very well, due to the fact that the u.s. has a poor economic foundation for such strategies
the changes needed are rather simple, but with modern political approaches, they will never be made
and the above post describes the political tug of war that brings this country steadily down the stagnant steps of economic failure
neither side can fix it, but even if they could, they would never get enough time to
welcome to the world of today
Ahhh... sorry. My mistake. I apologize for attributing that to you.actually, that WAS NOT my claim, it was a claim i was disputing from earlier in this thread
anyways, i was saying that republican theory is better than republican practice
better than democratic theory
"Can you people seriously consider voting for McCain? I've been waiting, and waiting, and waiting for the Republicans to tell me ANYTHING specific."
well the people of the US have been waiting to hear something, anything from Obama besides "change".
please I know more people who want to vote for him based on his speech skills and McCains possible overaffiliation with Bush that I know people who would vote for him on his policies.
I believe that METALLICA is on the right track, if u watch the stock market, it reacted negatively to Obama winning debates.
It also reacted negatively to the stimules package that was stressed to be passed (before the Friday that passed a week before the bill was even passed) otherwise the stock market would crash.
Then Obviously you haven't been listening.well the people of the US have been waiting to hear something, anything from Obama besides "change"
Funny how you all have been trying to Blame economic woes on Obama before he's even had a chance to effect the economy. lol. hillarious.
well lets hope this is a sign that obama is going to lose!
I wasn't personally accussing Obama of anything, it is common knowlodge that the market reacts positivly to a republican(moreover a conservative) nominee in the lead than a democrat. However Obama's proposal of a law to give $3k tax cuts/refunds to companies for each employee they have is a farce. most definitly if it targets small businesses. In the first place $3k won't do diddly squat; the average worker making 30k raw income annually that is insured by the company costs the company roughly 50-54k depending on the job. How does 3k help a small or local business? Let me answer because I work under one and plan on inheriting it, the money doesn't help because how is this going to be paid for, taxes, which means that the majority of that 3k goes back to the government through taxes paidfor by paychecks. not to mention that Obama is going to raise business taxes in the first place, thus creating a loop where the government makes money and they can't be blamed for unemployment because of a wopping 3,000 dollar incentive.
and I was more or less wanting to know about Obama's personal background not his overstated policies. I want to know his character changing experiences, why he feels he is the one to lead, not about his modest upbringings. come on I grew up at my Grandmothers to because my single mother worked a 12 hour day to feed the three of us, I only learned how to have fun, not how to lead. I want to know about his ties with Ayers, Wright, ACORN, not McCain's media exaggerated overaffiliation with Bush. How did he sit through a sermon in the country he wanted to lead, that said more negative things about that country than any enemy we have ever faced. How could he visit other countries about this election as if they were votiong, but not visit our SERVICE men and women, not once. I want to know the reasons for his flops on issues like Ayers, and Wright, and ACORN(and find out that it was just because of politics because it most definitly was).
Obama turned away from Wright when he generated to much heat, and until last week his very campaign website stated that he "Had NO affiliation with ACORN", now that message is removed. when we find out that he does have affiliation with this group currently under investigation for voter registration fraud, he doesn't confess his conection, he says it was only a legal representation, when there was money(800 thousand dollars) changing hands and HE personally held classes on how to "GRASP POWER" that sounds a little socialist to me.
I want to know if my possible future president had ties to a local terrorist or not because it matters to the way he will lead, and the desisions he will make.
and if all you can say is I haven't been listening instead of giving a counter point on the matter then maybe I hit a soft spot!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote