Bidenflation and Shortage thread

[SeattleGriz]

Hence why you can even form that thought that butterflies flapping their wings back in 1986 caused the inflation we saw back in 2021, 35 years later, rather than the elephant standing in the room of some of the biggest government surges in spending we've ever seen to an economy that was already speeding up without them. I mean, it's not true in any shape or form, but you can float it out there.

Don't go all in on your economist's opinion until you've heard from your astrologer.

God dammit. Where is StOnge when you need a voice of reason on economics?

[kalm]

Hence why you can even form that thought that butterflies flapping their wings back in 1986 caused the inflation we saw back in 2021, 35 years later, rather than the elephant standing in the room of some of the biggest government surges in spending we've ever seen to an economy that was already speeding up without them. I mean, it's not true in any shape or form, but you can float it out there.

Or the $8,000,000,000,000 growth in the deficit during the 4 years before 2021.

Take away the Bush and Trump tax cuts and the ARP would have been more affordable.

[UNI88]

Or the $8,000,000,000,000 growth in the deficit during the 4 years before 2021.

Take away the Bush and Trump tax cuts and the ARP would have been more affordable.

So? Take away the ARP and the trump tax cuts would have been more affordable and I’m not a fan of the trump tax cuts (except limiting SALT deductions). We’d be better off without either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

Just think how lucky we would be if Ronald could come back to life and give our national evil clown Biden a talking too

Best President of my lifetime yet Ronald would be called a RINO in today's Republican Party.

And Bill Clinton couldn’t get elected today running on the on the 1992 democrat platform.

[BDKJMU]

Or the $8,000,000,000,000 growth in the deficit during the 4 years before 2021.

Take away the Bush and Trump tax cuts and the ARP would have been more affordable.

So one idiot posts something that isn’t true amd another one nods to it.

Apparently neither one of you geniuses know the difference between the national DEFICT and the national DEBT. And FTR the debt went up 7.8 trillion under Trump, not 8 trillion.

Regarding the Nat Debt the previous 4 POTUSes are all about the same percentage wise
-Bush: 5.7 to 10.6 trillion (86% in 8 years, 8+% a year)
-Obama:  10.6 to 19.9 trillion (88% in 8 years, 8+% a year)
-Trump 19.9 to 27.7 trillion (39% in 4 years, 8+% a year).
-Biden 27.7 trillion to 34.5+ trillion (25% in 3 years, <8% a year)..

3.2+ trillion of Trumps, 41% of his total, was Covid bills.
1.9 trillion of Bidens, 28% of his total, was his Covid bill.

[UNI88]

Best President of my lifetime yet Ronald would be called a RINO in today's Republican Party.

And Bill Clinton couldn’t get elected today running on the on the 1992 democrat platform.

True as well. Both parties have strayed and are worse for it.

[Caribbean Hen]

Just think how lucky we would be if Ronald could come back to life and give our national evil clown Biden a talking too

Best President of my lifetime yet Ronald would be called a RINO in today's Republican Party.

Call Ronald whatever you want but let their be no doubt that Jojo needs a talkin too

[kalm]

Take away the Bush and Trump tax cuts and the ARP would have been more affordable.

So? Take away the ARP and the trump tax cuts would have been more affordable and I’m not a fan of the trump tax cuts (except limiting SALT deductions). We’d be better off without either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So… it’s all just a choice. We prioritize tax cuts and a massive military budget over fiscal responsibility.

[kalm]

Take away the Bush and Trump tax cuts and the ARP would have been more affordable.

So one idiot posts something that isn’t true amd another one nods to it.

Apparently neither one of you geniuses know the difference between the national DEFICT and the national DEBT. And FTR the debt went up 7.8 trillion under Trump, not 8 trillion.

Regarding the Nat Debt the previous 4 POTUSes are all about the same percentage wise
-Bush: 5.7 to 10.6 trillion (86% in 8 years, 8+% a year)
-Obama:  10.6 to 19.9 trillion (88% in 8 years, 8+% a year)
-Trump 19.9 to 27.7 trillion (39% in 4 years, 8+% a year).
-Biden 27.7 trillion to 34.5+ trillion (25% in 3 years, <8% a year)..

3.2+ trillion of Trumps, 41% of his total, was Covid bills.
1.9 trillion of Bidens, 28% of his total, was his Covid bill.

So the effects of fiscal policies end the day a president leaves office? 40 years of low corporate and top marginal tax rates don’t add up?

Thank you for helping me. I’m only 390 pages into this book. I still have much to learn.

[kalm]

Best President of my lifetime yet Ronald would be called a RINO in today's Republican Party.

Call Ronald whatever you want but let their be no doubt that Jojo needs a talkin too

This is still aging well.

[Caribbean Hen]

Call Ronald whatever you want but let their be no doubt that Jojo needs a talkin too

This is still aging well.

Bring Ronny back and he might even win Minnesota vs our national stooge Joey Rotten

Regardless, would be a landslide over Clueless Jojo

[UNI88]

So? Take away the ARP and the trump tax cuts would have been more affordable and I’m not a fan of the trump tax cuts (except limiting SALT deductions). We’d be better off without either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So… it’s all just a choice. We prioritize tax cuts and a massive military budget over fiscal responsibility.

We also prioritize a massive social welfare budget over fiscal responsibility. I'm ok with cutting the military budget, are you ok with cutting the social welfare budget?

[kalm]

So… it’s all just a choice. We prioritize tax cuts and a massive military budget over fiscal responsibility.

We also prioritize a massive social welfare budget over fiscal responsibility. I'm ok with cutting the military budget, are you ok with cutting the social welfare budget?

Of course! Every program should be analyzed for cuts and efficiency gains. Although we are below the OECD average when it comes to social spending.

Are you willing to raise high end taxes?

[Caribbean Hen]

We also prioritize a massive social welfare budget over fiscal responsibility. I'm ok with cutting the military budget, are you ok with cutting the social welfare budget?

Of course! Every program should be analyzed for cuts and efficiency gains. Although we are below the OECD average when it comes to social spending.

Are you willing to raise high end taxes?

Good luck cutting SNAP cards, remember Jo Bozo is busy enabling as many losers as he can to be hooked on the “lifestyle’ and all for votes.

[kalm]

Of course! Every program should be analyzed for cuts and efficiency gains. Although we are below the OECD average when it comes to social spending.

Are you willing to raise high end taxes?

Good luck cutting SNAP cards, remember Jo Bozo is busy enabling as many losers as he can to be hooked on the “lifestyle’ and all for votes.

Yeah! Look at all those losers in need of food assistance!

[UNI88]

We also prioritize a massive social welfare budget over fiscal responsibility. I'm ok with cutting the military budget, are you ok with cutting the social welfare budget?

Of course! Every program should be analyzed for cuts and efficiency gains. Although we are below the OECD average when it comes to social spending.

Are you willing to raise high end taxes?

How many of those OECD countries rely on us to help with their defense? Is our defense spending subsidizing their social spending? Are they smaller, more homogenous countries able to utilize proceeds from robust capitalist economies to fund social programs? Where our government is constantly tripping over itself trying to regulate businesses. Do their unions partner with employers and government to focus on success where are unions focus on employing more people regardless of it's impact on employer success or government expenses.

I'm willing to go back to the pre-trump tax cut rates but keep the limits on SALT deductions. Rather than raising high-end taxes, we should be cutting loopholes.

[BDKJMU]

We also prioritize a massive social welfare budget over fiscal responsibility. I'm ok with cutting the military budget, are you ok with cutting the social welfare budget?

Of course! Every program should be analyzed for cuts and efficiency gains. Although we are below the OECD average when it comes to social spending.

Are you willing to raise high end taxes?

They spend more on social welfare because the US taxpayers are subsidizing it (NATO countries) by paying for the bulk of their defense.

[kalm]

Of course! Every program should be analyzed for cuts and efficiency gains. Although we are below the OECD average when it comes to social spending.

Are you willing to raise high end taxes?

They spend more on social welfare because the US taxpayers are subsidizing it (NATO countries) by paying for the bulk of their defense.

Our role in NATO is beneficial to the U.S. And yes, all members should pay their fair share. As should US corporations who also benefit from that spending.

Raising taxes shouldn’t be a third rail of politics. The wealthy thank you for your support.

[UNI88]

They spend more on social welfare because the US taxpayers are subsidizing it (NATO countries) by paying for the bulk of their defense.

Our role in NATO is beneficial to the U.S. And yes, all members should pay their fair share. As should US corporations who also benefit from that spending.

Raising taxes shouldn’t be a third rail of politics. The wealthy thank you for your support.

Asking how big our federal government should be, what programs and at what level we should offer shouldn’t be a third rail either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Caribbean Hen]

Good luck cutting SNAP cards, remember Jo Bozo is busy enabling as many losers as he can to be hooked on the “lifestyle’ and all for votes.

Yeah! Look at all those losers in need of food assistance!

I hope you’re not really so naive

I’m talking about the millions who abuse the system, Puerto Rico is the King of the lifestyle…. You would have to see it to believe it

[kalm]

Our role in NATO is beneficial to the U.S. And yes, all members should pay their fair share. As should US corporations who also benefit from that spending.

Raising taxes shouldn’t be a third rail of politics. The wealthy thank you for your support.

Asking how big our federal government should be, what programs and at what level we should offer shouldn’t be a third rail either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Absolutely fair. My beef is the system that’s entrenched wealth and power. Both Democracy and capitalism thrive from competition and true freedom.

[kalm]

Speaking of tax cuts and the Gipper…

Tax cuts for the wealthy have long drawn support from conservative lawmakers and economists who argue that such measures will "trickle down" and eventually boost jobs and incomes for everyone else. But a new study from the London School of Economics says 50 years of such tax cuts have only helped one group — the rich.

The new paper, by David Hope of the London School of Economics and Julian Limberg of King's College London, examines 18 developed countries — from Australia to the United States — over a 50-year period from 1965 to 2015. The study compared countries that passed tax cuts in a specific year, such as the U.S. in 1982 when President Ronald Reagan slashed taxes on the wealthy, with those that didn't, and then examined their economic outcomes.

Per capita gross domestic product and unemployment rates were nearly identical after five years in countries that slashed taxes on the rich and in those that didn't, the study found.

But the analysis discovered one major change: The incomes of the rich grew much faster in countries where tax rates were lowered. Instead of trickling down to the middle class, tax cuts for the rich may not accomplish much more than help the rich keep more of their riches and exacerbate income inequality, the research indicates.

"Based on our research, we would argue that the economic rationale for keeping taxes on the rich low is weak," Julian Limberg, a co-author of the study and a lecturer in public policy at King's College London, said in an email to CBS MoneyWatch. "In fact, if we look back into history, the period with the highest taxes on the rich — the postwar period — was also a period with high economic growth and low unemployment."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tax-cuts-r ... ckle-down/

[UNI88]

Speaking of tax cuts and the Gipper…

Tax cuts for the wealthy have long drawn support from conservative lawmakers and economists who argue that such measures will "trickle down" and eventually boost jobs and incomes for everyone else. But a new study from the London School of Economics says 50 years of such tax cuts have only helped one group — the rich.

The new paper, by David Hope of the London School of Economics and Julian Limberg of King's College London, examines 18 developed countries — from Australia to the United States — over a 50-year period from 1965 to 2015. The study compared countries that passed tax cuts in a specific year, such as the U.S. in 1982 when President Ronald Reagan slashed taxes on the wealthy, with those that didn't, and then examined their economic outcomes.

Per capita gross domestic product and unemployment rates were nearly identical after five years in countries that slashed taxes on the rich and in those that didn't, the study found.

But the analysis discovered one major change: The incomes of the rich grew much faster in countries where tax rates were lowered. Instead of trickling down to the middle class, tax cuts for the rich may not accomplish much more than help the rich keep more of their riches and exacerbate income inequality, the research indicates.

"Based on our research, we would argue that the economic rationale for keeping taxes on the rich low is weak," Julian Limberg, a co-author of the study and a lecturer in public policy at King's College London, said in an email to CBS MoneyWatch. "In fact, if we look back into history, the period with the highest taxes on the rich — the postwar period — was also a period with high economic growth and low unemployment."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tax-cuts-r ... ckle-down/

High economic growth and low unemployment in the postwar period was due to the highest taxes on the rich ...

The rich should pay their fair share but they shouldn't be gouged to pay for every program and service a pseudo-progressive can dream of.

[kalm]

Speaking of tax cuts and the Gipper…



https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tax-cuts-r ... ckle-down/

High economic growth and low unemployment in the postwar period was due to the highest taxes on the rich ...

The rich should pay their fair share but they shouldn't be gouged to pay for every program and service a pseudo-progressive can dream of.

I was waiting for this reply, Ganny.

It doesn’t say “due”.

But it does show that despite a 91% top marginal rate, huge growth was still achieved.

(I’m sure these economists never considered that impact either )

And even back that when we were still able to have rich people.

[BDKJMU]

High economic growth and low unemployment in the postwar period was due to the highest taxes on the rich ...

The rich should pay their fair share but they shouldn't be gouged to pay for every program and service a pseudo-progressive can dream of.

I was waiting for this reply, Ganny.

It doesn’t say “due”.

But it does show that despite a 91% top marginal rate, huge growth was still achieved.

(I’m sure these economists never considered that impact either )

And even back that when we were still able to have rich people.

With loopholes large enough to drive a fleet of trucks through that NO ONE came remotely close to paying..