THE BEAUTIFUL BUDGET
I don't think it's very beautiful, from what I've heard about it.
No need to increase the military budget, let alone a la
according to politico, Senate republicans have many differences with house republicans (and contradictory ones among them), there are groups of 4+ senators (enough to tank the bill if no democrat comes to save the bill, which looks very unlikely) both because it cuts spending too much and because it cuts spending too little
Anxiously awaiting babas hot take on the party of fiscal responsibility.
You probably forgot that the surplus happened under Clinton, but when cognress went from democratic in both chambers , to republican in both chambers. It was Gingrich that spearheaded a "no compromise" mandate to fix the deficit at all costs, with Clinton only agreeing after 2 very dramatic government shutdowns forced by republicans over the issue.Clinton couldn't do it with co
This is blatantly false. I remember all of this very well.
The reason there was a budget surplus was BECAUSE of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, which was voted on in 93', and w/ ZERO republican support.
This budget RAISED taxes on the wealthy AND included spending restraint. It's because of the additional revenue over the next few years, that there was a budget surplus in the following years.
You said ONE true thing in your entire alternate reality take, I'm sure which was yanked from some right-wing re-imagining of history. And that is the Gingrich shut down the government, and that once Republicans took the house and senate, they were pushing hard for social safety net spending cuts.... like they always do, and always have.
Do you care about truth at all, or just constantly trying to prove a narrative in your head? Confirmation bias is strong w/ you.
On the core part of this budget... I'm posting an open-ended question to chatgpt w/ it's full response. We should all consider the following if we want to get closer to truth imho -
Q: Do tax cuts in America create more jobs, or more debt? Is it a larger positive on the economy to increase taxes on the wealthy, and cut taxes for the middle class and working poor, or to give massive tax breaks to the top 1%+ in hopes they create more jobs?
What Happens When You Cut Taxes for the Wealthy?
Claim: The rich will invest more, start businesses, and create jobs.
Reality:
Most of their tax savings go into financial assets, not new businesses or jobs. That means more stock buybacks, real estate, offshore accounts, and speculative investments—not hiring or wage increases.
The marginal propensity to consume (how much of an extra dollar is spent) is low for the wealthy. They don’t need more money to meet their needs, so the money tends to accumulate rather than circulate.
�� Evidence:
The 2017 Trump tax cuts overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy and corporations. Corporate stock buybacks surged to record highs in 2018, but wage growth and job creation remained tepid.
A 2012 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report found no correlation between top tax rate cuts and economic growth since World War II—but strong correlation with rising inequality. (The report was briefly withdrawn due to political pressure.)
�� What Happens When You Cut Taxes for the Middle Class and Poor?
Claim: The working class will spend more, boosting demand and jobs.
Reality:
Working- and middle-class people spend nearly every dollar they get—on housing, food, healthcare, transportation. That spending creates demand, which in turn creates jobs.
Increased demand leads to more hiring, which leads to more consumer spending, in a virtuous economic cycle.
�� Evidence:
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), a targeted tax cut for the working poor, has a high multiplier effect—each dollar returns about $1.50 to $1.80 to the economy.
Studies by the IMF and OECD show that income inequality hampers long-term growth, and redistributive policies can boost GDP without hurting productivity.
�� Do Tax Cuts Create Jobs or Debt?
Tax cuts don’t pay for themselves. This is a myth repeated since the Reagan era.
Reagan, Bush, and Trump all enacted major tax cuts. Each time, the result was:
Higher deficits and national debt
No sustained boom in job creation or GDP growth
The 2017 tax cuts added nearly $2 trillion to the debt with no permanent economic surge to show for it.
�� Historical Comparison: Clinton vs. Bush vs. Obama vs. Trump
✅ What Works Best for the Economy?
Best Approach:
Raise taxes on the wealthy and large corporations (restore pre-1980 levels or close loopholes)
Cut or maintain low taxes for the working and middle class
Invest in infrastructure, education, and healthcare, which has a higher economic return than tax cuts
This model stimulates real economic activity, not speculative asset bubbles.
�� Final Takeaway
Giving tax breaks to the rich doesn’t create jobs. Giving money to the working class does, because they spend it.
The evidence, from postwar history to modern fiscal studies, overwhelmingly supports demand-side economics. If your goal is job creation, economic growth, and fiscal sustainability, target tax cuts to those who need and will use them, and invest publicly where private markets won’t.
--- The currently proposed Republican budget does almost the exact opposite of everything listed above.
Do we want truth, or partisanship?
Being saying it for years …
Trickle down economy just push finanicial asset higher and stocks going higher doesn’t increase gdp at all .
Biggest nonsense ever created under Reagan/tatcher .
Breaking news: Luciom is a lying piece of ****
Traffic and weather at the 20s
If there is one constant on this forum its that Luciom is a pathetic lying piece of **** who will say anything in the moment because thats what he does and that is who he is
If there is one constant on this forum its that Luciom is a pathetic lying piece of **** who will say anything in the moment because thats what he does and that is who he is
You guys disagreeing with me doesn't make what i say a lie.
Freakdaddy radical leftist takes on what happened in the past, and what should happen in general, being opposite to mine doesn't make me a liar.
You guys disagreeing with me doesn't make what i say a lie.
Freakdaddy radical leftist takes on what happened in the past, and what should happen in general, being opposite to mine doesn't make me a liar.
Hey, if Coordi says you're a liar, then you are a liar.
Or at least I think that's the protocol in this Forum.
Every poster on this forum has called luciom a liar because that is who he is and what he does.
He believes some of the toxic **** he spews but he constantly lies to radicalize others. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was on someone’s payroll for the **** he posts.
I’m not the only person who has said this or thinks this. It’s actually the common point of view here
I've caught him out recently spewing the same bullshit that had already been debunked about the joke of a "study" he posted relating to chat bots having a left wing bias, and when I called him on it he claimed he was referring to a completely different study, and when I called him on that he stopped responding on the subject. Before that I thought he was a lot of things, but I didn't think he was a liar.
Every poster on this forum has called luciom a liar because that is who he is and what he does.
Pretty sure you are lying right now, since I have not myself ever called Luciom a liar that I can recall.
He believes some of the toxic **** he spews but he constantly lies to radicalize others. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was on someone’s payroll for the **** he posts.
So, Luciom might be on "someone's payroll" to post on a low-traffic Politics Forum on a Poker website?
Luciom even smarter than I thought he was.
I’m not the only person who has said this or thinks this. It’s actually the common point of view here
I won't dispute that it is a "common point of view." Of course, that is independent of whether or not the claim is valid.
Every poster on this forum has called luciom a liar because that is who he is and what he does.
He believes some of the toxic **** he spews but he constantly lies to radicalize others. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was on someone’s payroll for the **** he posts.
I’m not the only person who has said this or thinks this. It’s actually the common point of view here
I haven’t called him a liar either only Uke
I don’t agree with some of the things he posts
Don't know about Luciom being a liar, but we have proven that Coordi is a liar.
You and me have not called Luciom a liar.
Anybody else wanna chime in and confess they have never called Luciom a liar?
Should be fun!
On the core part of this budget... I'm posting an open-ended question to chatgpt w/ it's full response. We should all consider the following if we want to get closer to truth imho - Q: Do tax cuts in America create more jobs, or more debt? Is it a larger positive on the economy to increase taxes on the wealthy, and cut taxes for the middle class and working poor, or to give mas
Anyone writing their argument using a pattern matching model prone to hallucinations has lost the thread from the start. There’s a reason lawyers keep losing their licenses when caught using ChatGPT, it makes too many obvious errors.
First, trying to make useful economic regression studies about the historical effects of changing one input in economy, driven by dozens of inputs is extremely dubious. The amount of government spending as a percentage of GDP soared in 1940, was substantially reduced post war, then steadily grew through the 50s and 60s before roughly leveling off until end of the 90s, then has skyrocketed since and is at maybe it’s highest levels ever now. That’s just one input that has to be adjusted for, now add tax rates on work, on business profits, on investment, and on savings, that’s four more! And I haven’t even begun to get started.
And while tax rates were much higher before Reagan‘s tax cuts, loopholes, and deductions were much larger as well, making the effective tax rates roughly similar. What Reagan did is make the tax system fairer among higher income individuals, who started paying more similar rates and instead of the widely different rates, they could be stuck with before.
Demand driven economics is a complete misunderstanding of how the economy works. No one has money to spend unless there is savings and investment, so that factories and farms can maintain and add productive tooling, businesses can invest in research and development to improve products, etc. That’s how everyone gets jobs to spend that money in the “demand driven economy”.
And any blanket statement that says tax cuts don’t increase revenues is too simplistic to be true. First, it’s Ben demonstrated many times that the response to tax cuts is dynamic, not static. What this means is typically if you cut an income tax rate in half, it will still generate significantly more than half the prior receipts.
Laffer may have been massively over optimistic that Reagan‘s cuts could still generate the same amount of revenues, but critics who predicted massive reductions in tax receipts, were also proven wrong. Tax receipts were lower after both of the Reagan and Trump tax cuts, but not as much as predicted and and reached new record levels within three or four years after.
This is because greater investment led to greater output, more jobs, and more tax revenues. But it doesn’t happen overnight, many new investments spurred by tax cuts take years to pay off.
Lastly, if you think that equality of income distribution should be a primary goal, I’d ask you to move to India. Has far fewer super rich and far fewer wealthy people, and a much “fairer” distribution of income. It also has far far more poor people in a far, far, lower standard of living and far less wealth in general.
I’m not gonna tell anyone that Elon Musk isn’t an annoying know it all, and that his political support for Trump wasn’t terrible. But him or Jeff Bezos having $200 billion doesn’t make anyone in the US poorer, in fact it does the opposite. It makes many Americans significantly better off.
Neither Jeff or Elon stole their fortunes, they gain them by creating new things that were super valuable to our economy. Whether it’s overnight delivery of almost anything you want at rock bottom prices, saving everyone in America, significant amounts of money and time. Or making the first mainstream, successful EV’s or reducing the cost of space access by over 95% in bringing high speed Internet to parts of the world that never had it before. The value of Amazon, Tesla, and SpaceX to investors is trillions and the two men most responsible got to keep a little over 10% of that. But their value to our economy in lower costs, greater capabilities and jobs is trillions more than the investors got.
So focus should be less on how much the one percent makes and more on how much everyone else makes.
Anyone writing their argument using a pattern matching model prone to hallucinations has lost the thread from the start. There's a reason lawyers keep losing their licenses when caught using ChatGPT, it makes too many obvious errors.First, trying to make useful economic regression studies about the historical effects of changing one input in economy, driven by dozens of inputs
Your post here is an amazing Economics lesson!
Thanks for that!
Anyone writing their argument using a pattern matching model prone to hallucinations has lost the thread from the start. There's a reason lawyers keep losing their licenses when caught using ChatGPT, it makes too many obvious errors.First, trying to make useful economic regression studies about the historical effects of changing one input in economy, driven by dozens of inputs
So u believe trickle down economy is a working theory ?
Not a failure?
For the bolded part ,
yup and the US debt exploded to tens of trillions too…
I mean its pretty simple actually :
Regan came in and benefited with the lowest debt to gdp .
Middle class was fine, could raise famillly on one salary in many instance .
Ceo were doing around 40 times American median wages and was fine.
Tax cut created massive amount of debts, the return didn’t accomplished its goal .
And since 90% of the stock market and financials are own by the top 10% , the only thing left for the vast majority of people to get Income is through wages.
But since u totally killed the currency ( which obviously killed wages too) with massive amount of debts and exporting millions of jobs to lower cost, you get what we have today.
But yeah , financials assets love when government print money and its great when you have tax cut on top of it .
Sadly not many hold those.
And those that only have wages today gets killed for it and u end up election individual like trump hoping a miracle …
Note well that there is no such thing as "trickle down economics." That was a term of derision used by Supply Side detractors.
What are u talking about ….
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tri....
The trickle-down theory states that tax breaks and benefits for corporations and the wealthy will trickle down to everyone else.
Trickle-down economics involves less regulation and tax cuts for those in high-income tax brackets as well as corporations.
Critics argue that the added benefits the wealthy receive add to the growing income inequality in the country.
What are u talking about ….
This is what I'm talking about:
Excerpt:
Trickle-down economics, also known as the horse-and-sparrow theory,[1][2] is a pejorative term for government economic policies that disproportionately favor the upper tier of the economic spectrum (wealthy individuals and large corporations). The term has been used broadly by critics of supply-side economics to refer to taxing and spending policies by governments that, intentionally or not, result in widening income inequality; it has also been used in critical references to neoliberalism.[3] These critics reject the notion that spending by this elite group would "trickle down" to those who are less fortunate and lead to economic growth that will eventually benefit the economy as a whole.[4]
Montreal trickle down is a second order hypothesis about what happens to the economy if rich people are taxed less.
What desert cat said when he said trillions in benefits are accrued by americans because amazon and musk companies exist is an uncontroversial truth about the real economy , not an hypothesis.
Let's do amazon which is simpler to understand. Every single time anyone uses amazon to buy a product, that means that among all the possible uses in the economy of his money, he deemed that the best possible one. That means that he is gaining something we call "consumer surplus", ie he pays X for something from amazon, but he gets more than X back in utility for himself.
That surplus, summed up though the billions of transactions per year, easily surpasses a trllion cumulatively, and can be easily in the hundreds of billions per year.
Every year, american amazon customers benefit of hundreds of billions of quality of life improvement from using amazon, more than bezos net worth. That's not "trickle down", it doesn't require bezos to do anything special with his net worth.
So even if you never tax Bezos a single dollar again for the rest of his life (directly or indirectly), he is already contributing welfare to the population more than almost any other human being ever could or did in human history. That's the basic idea.
Succesful enterpreneurs already make the country a better place to live in even if they weren't taxed at all. They are already the biggest benefactors in society. They are the most moral people as well, if you think making other people lives better is a moral act. You should celebrate them as heroes.
Trickle down instead would be Venice (Italy) getting money spent by Bezos because of his lavish marriage. That's very minor compared to what people in venice get , every year, by using amazon.
Note well that there is no such thing as "trickle down economics." That was a term of derision used by Supply Side detractors.
Over 30 years ago I wrote a paper (which was never published) called, "Origin of the Specious." In it, I discussed the origin of Evolutionism and how it predated Darwin by over 2,000 years.
Maybe you should give him your arbitrary list of which terms of derision are acceptable.
Note well that there is no such thing as "trickle down economics." That was a term of derision used by Supply Side detractors.
Business doesn't really need much help because business always finds a way. The whole idea it does need help is just silly.
Drugs? You can't even touch it or you're going to jail/Prohibition is basically All the regs. Zillion dollar business lol
Lock people in gulags--boom black market economy the kgb can't stop lol
etcetc.
Let's tariff the gen pop and give tax cuts to the guys who moved their companies offshore. We're punishing the wrong people. But they'll be called 'patriots' if/when they come back. And that's absurd.
Maybe you should give him your arbitrary list of which terms of derision are acceptable.
Excerpt:
Evolutionism is a term used (often derogatorily) to denote the theory of evolution. Its exact meaning has changed over time as the study of evolution has progressed.
I am using the term Evolutionism descriptively, not derogatorily.
That said, I sometimes do use derogatory expressions sometimes when referencing Evolution, to wit:
"From the goo to the zoo to you"
"Particles to People Evolution"
"Survival of the Fittest, Baby!"
Fun stuff!
Montreal trickle down is a second order hypothesis about what happens to the economy if rich people are taxed less.What desert cat said when he said trillions in benefits are accrued by americans because amazon and musk companies exist is an uncontroversial truth about the real economy , not an hypothesis.Let's do amazon which is simpler to understand. Every single time anyone
That’s true as long u still have a job to Earn income….
You know how many jobs Americans lost to overseas , jobs that Amazon exploits to have lower prices in the US ?
Losing a jobs to Amazon to have a lower prices on kleenex isn’t a great trade for them unless those that gained all that productivity gains (top 10% ) would be force to redistribute in some part .
Finanicializing an economy is great but it got limits…
The real economy, which the majority get there wages from, is getting weaker in the US while a minority (stocks holder) get the majority of profits AND massive tax cut….
AND u making massive amount of debts , devaluing the dollars which of course devaluing even more wages and pushing higher even more finanicial assets.
No wonder its going bad shrug.
Against, pushing financial assets higher do not contribute to gdp…
Doesnt help the real economy.
Doesnt helps « regular people ».
