You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Will we ever have a President who is FOR supply-side economics and freedom?
- Thread starter Jay T
- Start date
Like Ron Paul?
No, Regan, Bush, and Obama have all used Keynesian economics.
"trickle down" and "trickle up" economics is false. Their is no such thing.
Obama is using keynesian economics.
Strange how Ron Paul is for supply-side economics and predicted the housing collapse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRek-0vjMtA
No, Regan, Bush, and Obama have all used Keynesian economics.
"trickle down" and "trickle up" economics is false. Their is no such thing.
Obama is using keynesian economics.
Strange how Ron Paul is for supply-side economics and predicted the housing collapse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRek-0vjMtA
Sorry, but both Reagan and Bush II were supply-side economic fans.
It's a neat theory. Reagan argued that it even makes sense for the government to cut taxes to below current spending and take on debt because in the long run, the economy would grow back so that eventually the tax cut would pay for itself. This approach is called "supply-side" because the stimulus (the tax cut) are applied to the suppliers of goods and services (the business sector).
The common objection to supply-side economics is that there's absolutely no guarantee that if you cut taxes on the wealthy, then they will use that money to invest in new business. In fact, since these tax cuts happen in bad economic times, investors might decide that their money is safer if they save it rather than invest it. Going back to the restaurant example, if the restaurant owner decides to just stuff that tax refund into a savings account, or just keep it in her mattress, then no job growth occurs.
Also, if the government did what Reagan (and George W. Bush) recommended and went into deficits to finance one of these tax cuts, and no economic growth occurs, then the government is in a really bad spot. They have to raise taxes back to sustainable levels, and then raise taxes again in order to get the money to pay for the debt, and then raise taxes even higher to pay for the interest on the debt. Or, they can do what Reagan did, and just roll the debt over by issuing more debt. This is sort of like paying off the Master Card bill with the Visa. It works great as long as you can always get another credit card to lend you more money. When the last credit card company decides not to give you a card, then you are in trouble.
It's a neat theory. Reagan argued that it even makes sense for the government to cut taxes to below current spending and take on debt because in the long run, the economy would grow back so that eventually the tax cut would pay for itself. This approach is called "supply-side" because the stimulus (the tax cut) are applied to the suppliers of goods and services (the business sector).
The common objection to supply-side economics is that there's absolutely no guarantee that if you cut taxes on the wealthy, then they will use that money to invest in new business. In fact, since these tax cuts happen in bad economic times, investors might decide that their money is safer if they save it rather than invest it. Going back to the restaurant example, if the restaurant owner decides to just stuff that tax refund into a savings account, or just keep it in her mattress, then no job growth occurs.
Also, if the government did what Reagan (and George W. Bush) recommended and went into deficits to finance one of these tax cuts, and no economic growth occurs, then the government is in a really bad spot. They have to raise taxes back to sustainable levels, and then raise taxes again in order to get the money to pay for the debt, and then raise taxes even higher to pay for the interest on the debt. Or, they can do what Reagan did, and just roll the debt over by issuing more debt. This is sort of like paying off the Master Card bill with the Visa. It works great as long as you can always get another credit card to lend you more money. When the last credit card company decides not to give you a card, then you are in trouble.
Sorry, but both Reagan and Bush II were supply-side economic fans.
It's a neat theory. Reagan argued that it even makes sense for the government to cut taxes to below current spending and take on debt because in the long run, the economy would grow back so that eventually the tax cut would pay for itself. This approach is called "supply-side" because the stimulus (the tax cut) are applied to the suppliers of goods and services (the business sector).
The common objection to supply-side economics is that there's absolutely no guarantee that if you cut taxes on the wealthy, then they will use that money to invest in new business. In fact, since these tax cuts happen in bad economic times, investors might decide that their money is safer if they save it rather than invest it. Going back to the restaurant example, if the restaurant owner decides to just stuff that tax refund into a savings account, or just keep it in her mattress, then no job growth occurs.
Also, if the government did what Reagan (and George W. Bush) recommended and went into deficits to finance one of these tax cuts, and no economic growth occurs, then the government is in a really bad spot. They have to raise taxes back to sustainable levels, and then raise taxes again in order to get the money to pay for the debt, and then raise taxes even higher to pay for the interest on the debt. Or, they can do what Reagan did, and just roll the debt over by issuing more debt. This is sort of like paying off the Master Card bill with the Visa. It works great as long as you can always get another credit card to lend you more money. When the last credit card company decides not to give you a card, then you are in trouble.
It's a neat theory. Reagan argued that it even makes sense for the government to cut taxes to below current spending and take on debt because in the long run, the economy would grow back so that eventually the tax cut would pay for itself. This approach is called "supply-side" because the stimulus (the tax cut) are applied to the suppliers of goods and services (the business sector).
The common objection to supply-side economics is that there's absolutely no guarantee that if you cut taxes on the wealthy, then they will use that money to invest in new business. In fact, since these tax cuts happen in bad economic times, investors might decide that their money is safer if they save it rather than invest it. Going back to the restaurant example, if the restaurant owner decides to just stuff that tax refund into a savings account, or just keep it in her mattress, then no job growth occurs.
Also, if the government did what Reagan (and George W. Bush) recommended and went into deficits to finance one of these tax cuts, and no economic growth occurs, then the government is in a really bad spot. They have to raise taxes back to sustainable levels, and then raise taxes again in order to get the money to pay for the debt, and then raise taxes even higher to pay for the interest on the debt. Or, they can do what Reagan did, and just roll the debt over by issuing more debt. This is sort of like paying off the Master Card bill with the Visa. It works great as long as you can always get another credit card to lend you more money. When the last credit card company decides not to give you a card, then you are in trouble.
N
Nicolae Carpathia
Guest
You won't. The socialists are in complete control of the US and are dragging it down to soviet levels. The only solution left is for people to vote with their feet.
If you are young, healthy, college educated, skilled, or just overall capable of getting things done, move to another country and let the US collapse.
Nobody has the right to force you to subsidize others. That's slavery, and it's prohibited by the 13th amendment. If you're willing to take the risk and work hard for what you want, you owe it to yourself to move to a free country, drop all that dead weight behind you, and give yourself an honest chance.
Someday when politicians realize they have a duty to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare, and not the other way around, the US might be a desirable place to live again.
If you are young, healthy, college educated, skilled, or just overall capable of getting things done, move to another country and let the US collapse.
Nobody has the right to force you to subsidize others. That's slavery, and it's prohibited by the 13th amendment. If you're willing to take the risk and work hard for what you want, you owe it to yourself to move to a free country, drop all that dead weight behind you, and give yourself an honest chance.
Someday when politicians realize they have a duty to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare, and not the other way around, the US might be a desirable place to live again.
Jack Fessender
New member
I totally agree.
Nothing says freedom like making our poor and middle class dependent upon the glorious wealthy folks. FACT.
Nothing says freedom like making our poor and middle class dependent upon the glorious wealthy folks. FACT.
L
Liberal Warrior
Guest
stop biching
Smug Liberal
New member
God help us if we ever do, supply side economics doesn't work.
Prince of Madness
New member
I hope not. What you call 'supply side economics and freedom' I call 'Unhindered corporate abuse.'