westerndecline Posted December 20, 2017 Posted December 20, 2017 (edited) Dems had power for 8 yrs A super majority for two No single payer No living wage No college debt reform No end to me wars No cuts in military spending No massive green infrastructure No high speed rail But when it came time to elect the real Progressive you guys screwed over Bernie Sanders and went with a lying B word ...yet you continue to blame the Republicans who make it well known they are the business class and investment class why aren't you mad at your own party??? Oh yeah u did nothing substantive with immigration... Edited December 20, 2017 by westerndecline
Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted December 20, 2017 Posted December 20, 2017 It's the "Corker Kickback" thing. 1
TH3 Posted December 20, 2017 Posted December 20, 2017 They did not have "power" for 8 years.. AFA your list when the Dem's had two years of a majority - the bulk of their efforts were spent on the ACA, the bail out for the auto and financial industry, and the first stimulus package....you know....rescuing the country from the greatest financial collapse since 1929.... 1
TPS Posted December 20, 2017 Posted December 20, 2017 Liberals supported Bernie. You must be talking about the Wall Street Clinton wing that runs the dnc... 1
Clemfield2622 Posted December 20, 2017 Posted December 20, 2017 Supermajority never happened https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-m-granholm/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869.html 1
GG Posted December 20, 2017 Posted December 20, 2017 What I'm finding humorous is the upper bracket NJ< NY & CT residents realizing that they pay a lot of state & local taxes. I guess that problem didn't exist in 2010, and they would get away with it if it wasn't for that pesky Trump and his kids. 1
jrober38 Posted December 20, 2017 Posted December 20, 2017 If I were an average American, I'd be upset because the rich get richer. Those with money see the biggest breaks, and allowing the rich to stock pile more financial power means they have more power over politics in the future. If they really wanted to stimulate the economy, the majority of the cuts should have gone to the middle class. Those are the people who represent the engine of the economy, because they're the portion of the population who are mass consumers. Instead of giving money to corporations, or the rich, who will likely just invest their money in the stock market to make more money, the majority of the cuts should have gone to the middle class who would have gone out and bought actual goods and services. Trickle down economics doesn't work. If you want to really fire up the economy, you need to give the middle class more money, and IMO Trump's tax reform falls short in that regard. 2
GG Posted December 20, 2017 Posted December 20, 2017 On 12/20/2017 at 4:11 PM, jrober38 said: If I were an average American, I'd be upset because the rich get richer. Those with money see the biggest breaks, and allowing the rich to stock pile more financial power means they have more power over politics in the future. If they really wanted to stimulate the economy, the majority of the cuts should have gone to the middle class. Those are the people who represent the engine of the economy, because they're the portion of the population who are mass consumers. Instead of giving money to corporations, or the rich, who will likely just invest their money in the stock market to make more money, the majority of the cuts should have gone to the middle class who would have gone out and bought actual goods and services. Trickle down economics doesn't work. If you want to really fire up the economy, you need to give the middle class more money, and IMO Trump's tax reform falls short in that regard. Expand The above is an emotional rant that's devoid of facts. 2
Nanker Posted December 20, 2017 Posted December 20, 2017 The super rich have more money than the rich. The rich have more money than the middle class. The middle class has more money than the poor. The water in the ocean is wet. The water in the lakes is wet. The water in the rivers is wet.
Albwan Posted December 20, 2017 Posted December 20, 2017 One word TRUMP Democrats peddle welfare so they hate rich people by definition democrats are the biggest racists...they like to keep their voter base in slavery streaming more and more into the country giving them checks Basically buying voters. On 12/20/2017 at 2:11 PM, westerndecline said: Dems had power for 8 yrs A super majority for two No single payer No living wage No college debt reform No end to me wars No cuts in military spending No massive green infrastructure No high speed rail But when it came time to elect the real Progressive you guys screwed over Bernie Sanders and went with a lying B word ...yet you continue to blame the Republicans who make it well known they are the business class and investment class why aren't you mad at your own party??? Oh yeah u did nothing substantive with immigration... Expand This drips with too much reality, you might explode heads with this much truth. 2
Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted December 20, 2017 Posted December 20, 2017 On 12/20/2017 at 4:32 PM, Albwan said: One word TRUMP Democrats peddle welfare so they hate rich people by definition democrats are the biggest racists...they like to keep their voter base in slavery streaming more and more into the country giving them checks Basically buying voters. This drips with too much reality, you might explode heads with this much truth. Expand Wow, haven't see this type of stupid in awhile. But it really shows how Republicans get votes. Demonize Dems by using the racism in the population. Then the Republicans can enrich their donors. Divide by racism and conquer and enjoy the spoils. Then when the bigots lose their health care the rich GOPers can say it all because of food stamps or Obamacare and the bigots will buy it hook line and sinker. The people who voted for the guy who ran Trump University never learn 1
Magox Posted December 20, 2017 Posted December 20, 2017 Most people will see a tax cut, aside from those in high taxed states. Overall the economy will be better for it over the short to mid term. The questions for me primarily are: A) How much hiring will this spur from corporations? I'm guessing a few hundred K jobs a year B) How much of a stimulus will this provide for taxpayers being able to keep more of their money and better tax returns? I think it will provide an OK stimulus. More demand, maybe 50k jobs more a year C) What impacts will this have on the long-term debt and deficits? It will go up even more, that is almost certain. Question is how much and how much closer does this take us to the limit that bond holders will deem as acceptable. But, as some proponents of MMT would argue which to a point they are correct (for now) Deficits don't matter. As long as the Dollar is king and there is no viable alternative, they don't matter. Of course, that can't last forever. At some point it will come crashing down. 1
westerndecline Posted December 20, 2017 Author Posted December 20, 2017 On 12/20/2017 at 2:28 PM, baskin said: They did not have "power" for 8 years.. AFA your list when the Dem's had two years of a majority - the bulk of their efforts were spent on the ACA, the bail out for the auto and financial industry, and the first stimulus package....you know....rescuing the country from the greatest financial collapse since 1929.... Expand Aca was not single payer lol It was a handout to ins companies The bailout was not long term dem talking pts. Oh they had a super majority for two yrs... On 12/20/2017 at 4:23 PM, GG said: The above is an emotional rant that's devoid of facts. Expand Its also devoid of economic reality... Nobody will invest here with barrys old epa An insane mandate or a corporate tax rate of 35% Also u cant simply give money to ppl lol. 1
westerndecline Posted December 20, 2017 Author Posted December 20, 2017 On 12/20/2017 at 3:14 PM, Clemfield2622 said: Supermajority never happened https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-m-granholm/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869.html Expand Bull !@#$in ****... U guys could have used the nuclear option but were too kitty to do it. As usual... U literally could've passed anything u constantly talk about but never do.... And u wondee why trump was elected On 12/20/2017 at 4:11 PM, jrober38 said: If I were an average American, I'd be upset because the rich get richer. Those with money see the biggest breaks, and allowing the rich to stock pile more financial power means they have more power over politics in the future. If they really wanted to stimulate the economy, the majority of the cuts should have gone to the middle class. Those are the people who represent the engine of the economy, because they're the portion of the population who are mass consumers. Instead of giving money to corporations, or the rich, who will likely just invest their money in the stock market to make more money, the majority of the cuts should have gone to the middle class who would have gone out and bought actual goods and services. Trickle down economics doesn't work. If you want to really fire up the economy, you need to give the middle class more money, and IMO Trump's tax reform falls short in that regard. Expand Why didnt dems pass a living wage then lol
TPS Posted December 20, 2017 Posted December 20, 2017 On 12/20/2017 at 4:52 PM, Magox said: Most people will see a tax cut, aside from those in high taxed states. Overall the economy will be better for it over the short to mid term. The questions for me primarily are: A) How much hiring will this spur from corporations? I'm guessing a few hundred K jobs a year B) How much of a stimulus will this provide for taxpayers being able to keep more of their money and better tax returns? I think it will provide an OK stimulus. More demand, maybe 50k jobs more a year C) What impacts will this have on the long-term debt and deficits? It will go up even more, that is almost certain. Question is how much and how much closer does this take us to the limit that bond holders will deem as acceptable. But, as some proponents of MMT would argue which to a point they are correct (for now) Deficits don't matter. As long as the Dollar is king and there is no viable alternative, they don't matter. Of course, that can't last forever. At some point it will come crashing down. Expand MMT says deficits do matter when government-related claims exceed the economy's ability to supply goods and services. Between the tax cuts and Trump's handouts to the MIC, the deficit will exceed $1 trillion in 2019. With the official U-rate at 4.1%, we are getting very close to a point where deficits trigger inflation pressures. When this happens, the Fed will ramp up its rate hikes, and the economy will come crashing down just in time for the next election...
westerndecline Posted December 20, 2017 Author Posted December 20, 2017 On 12/20/2017 at 4:11 PM, jrober38 said: If I were an average American, I'd be upset because the rich get richer. Those with money see the biggest breaks, and allowing the rich to stock pile more financial power means they have more power over politics in the future. If they really wanted to stimulate the economy, the majority of the cuts should have gone to the middle class. Those are the people who represent the engine of the economy, because they're the portion of the population who are mass consumers. Instead of giving money to corporations, or the rich, who will likely just invest their money in the stock market to make more money, the majority of the cuts should have gone to the middle class who would have gone out and bought actual goods and services. Trickle down economics doesn't work. If you want to really fire up the economy, you need to give the middle class more money, and IMO Trump's tax reform falls short in that regard. Expand Why didnt dems pass a living wage then lol
Magox Posted December 20, 2017 Posted December 20, 2017 On 12/20/2017 at 5:15 PM, TPS said: MMT says deficits do matter when government-related claims exceed the economy's ability to supply goods and services. Between the tax cuts and Trump's handouts to the MIC, the deficit will exceed $1 trillion in 2019. Expand What you are truly saying is that deficits didn't matter when this happened under Obama, but will matter under this administration. Time will tell. 1
GG Posted December 20, 2017 Posted December 20, 2017 On 12/20/2017 at 5:15 PM, TPS said: MMT says deficits do matter when government-related claims exceed the economy's ability to supply goods and services. Between the tax cuts and Trump's handouts to the MIC, the deficit will exceed $1 trillion in 2019. With the official U-rate at 4.1%, we are getting very close to a point where deficits trigger inflation pressures. When this happens, the Fed will ramp up its rate hikes, and the economy will come crashing down just in time for the next election... Expand Why is it an economic benefit when the government redistributes income to less productive members of society, but it's bad when it redistributes income to military personnel?
TPS Posted December 20, 2017 Posted December 20, 2017 On 12/20/2017 at 5:19 PM, Magox said: What you are truly saying is that deficits didn't matter when this happened under Obama, but will matter under this administration. Time will tell. Expand Was it that confusing? Deficits matter less when unemployment is high, and in fact are usually high because of high unemployment. When you change tax policy to increase the deficit when we are near what many considered full employment, it will stoke inflationary pressure. I don't care who is president when these things happen.
westerndecline Posted December 20, 2017 Author Posted December 20, 2017 On 12/20/2017 at 5:24 PM, GG said: Why is it an economic benefit when the government redistributes income to less productive members of society, but it's bad when it redistributes income to military personnel? Expand Exactly I thought dems were pro blue collar Pro working ppl I guess military isnt. Dems are so exposed on their bs On 12/20/2017 at 5:30 PM, TPS said: Was it that confusing? Deficits matter less when unemployment is high, and in fact are usually high because of high unemployment. When you change tax policy to increase the deficit when we are near what many considered full employment, it will stoke inflationary pressure. I don't care who is president when these things happen. Expand So if the deficit is high with high unemployment U acknowledge u can outgrow the deficit with a pro growth policy??
Recommended Posts