Does Yang have the answer to avoiding the imminent recession???

[GDViking]

LOL. There will always be recessions. That's economics 101.

LOL there will always be dinosaurs, that was biology 101 millions of years ago.

There will never "always" be anything!!!

 

[ttwtt78640]

No one ever cuts federal spending. Whenever they talk about cutting spending they are actually talking about cutting the rate of growth of spending. I hear all of your complaints about Republicans. You're right. But, if we have a Democratic president and a Republican congress, Republicans do get serious about "cutting spending". I'm certainly not going to vote for a party who, when we already owe over 22 trillion dollars, says up front that they want to spend 200 trillion more than we are spending now.

Yep, but some do cut federal taxation rates.

 

[dirtpoorchris]

I agree and another bonus that just recently accused to me would be how many of the homeless would be able to get homes...

Well one thing that it WOULD be able to do would be allow 5 homeless people to all go in on a house together and barely survive like a halfway-normal person.

I think they should take 5% from all corporation and pay it directly to the people equally without the government taking any of it for themselves. When people start seeing that Walmart gives them 26$ a month and Amazon gives them 30$ a month their stock shares will skyrocket and they will just end up having more people spend on them. Trickle-Up really would work. The whole 1,000$ flat given to every american wouldnt work as landlords will just increase rent by 1,000$ and take the money for themselves. But if we taxed 5% corporate tax paid evenly to all people it would work just fine.

 

[GDViking]

You seem to purposefully ignore the demorats promise to greatly increase federal taxation and the republicants promise to reduce it. Trump is now babbling about a middle class tax cut and/or a payroll tax cut yet, of course, has not mentioned any federal spending cuts.

You ha e been more critical of trump and at times the GOP In general lately,so I have to ask, if by some universal twist of fate Yang wins the nomination would you vote for him over trump???

 

[ttwtt78640]

You ha e been more critical of trump and at times the GOP In general lately,so I have to ask, if by some universal twist of fate Yang wins the nomination would you vote for him over trump???

Yes I would, but I do not favor a VAT tax or UBI. I do think that Yang (with his basic understanding of math) would press for raising federal taxation to at least cover current federal spending.

 

[GDViking]

Yes I would, but I do not favor a VAT tax or UBI. I do think that Yang (with his basic understanding of math) would press for raising federal taxation to at least cover current federal spending.

M

I agree however after thirty years of the failed trickle down experiment, I would like to see maybe a decade of UBI. If it were to pass it should have a sunset clause on it ( as should ALL laws).

I suspect when we come out the other end there will be recorded data that would indicate a middle of the road solution...

 

[Obscurity]

Doesn't really have anything to do with Trump. Republicans only mean business on the debt when there is a Democratic president. But, Democrats are only reigned in if either the House or the Senate are Republican, or both. No other political combination works. If Democrats get the presidency, the House, and the Senate, then here comes the 200 trillion added to the debt, minus the 50 trillion in increased taxes. They will spend us into oblivion and beyond trying to fight a losing battle against the environment.

Oh, the irony of this is absolutely delicious. Who is speculating on the future now?

What a fraud.

 

[Obscurity]

M

I agree however after thirty years of the failed trickle down experiment, I would like to see maybe a decade of UBI. If it were to pass it should have a sunset clause on it ( as should ALL laws).

I suspect when we come out the other end there will be recorded data that would indicate a middle of the road solution...

Trickle down doesn't work. It's basic economics. Milton Friedman is a joke and a total fraud. The economy booms when consumer spending is high.

Rich people have tons of money but do not "need" more things than anyone else. Companies hire more when production merits a need for labor; labor demand happens when there is a need for production; production is driven by consumer demand.

Since individuals compose the economy, and all individuals have a baseline need that is similar in terms of widgets purchased, supply side economics is simply win more conditioning. If you filter wealth up, not down, more individuals with more disposable income drives demand which increases production, increasing hiring, and increasing wealth at the top.

I never understood the Milton/Mises idiocy of trickle down hysterics. Cutting taxes for rich folks does not lead to an increase in consumer demand. Those rich people aren't buying more pillows than anyone else. This is why the trickle down right wing libertarian economic myth is duly mocked for a race to the bottom that it creates. Cutting taxes for workers and increasing taxes to make up the difference on employers won't destroy the economy because increased sales of goods and services will make up the difference anyway.

It's inverted economics and nonsense.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Trickle down doesn't work. It's basic economics. Milton Friedman is a joke and a total fraud. The economy booms when consumer spending is high.
Rich people have tons of money but do not "need" more things than anyone else. Companies hire more when production merits a need for labor; labor demand happens when there is a need for production; production is driven by consumer demand.
Since individuals compose the economy, and all individuals have a baseline need that is similar in terms of widgets purchased, supply side economics is simply win more conditioning. If you filter wealth up, not down, more individuals with more disposable income drives demand which increases production, increasing hiring, and increasing wealth at the top.
I never understood the Milton/Mises idiocy of trickle down hysterics. Cutting taxes for rich folks does not lead to an increase in consumer demand. Those rich people aren't buying more pillows than anyone else. This is why the trickle down right wing libertarian economic myth is duly mocked for a race to the bottom that it creates. Cutting taxes for workers and increasing taxes to make up the difference on employers won't destroy the economy because increased sales of goods and services will make up the difference anyway.
It's inverted economics and nonsense.

Oh man, great post. If it could be boiled down into one single statement though it would be:

Those rich people aren't buying more pillows than anyone else.

This is the best explanation of the folly of trickle-down. A rich person does not buy more than a few pillows, so a pillow making company is not going to see any added benefit from demand by showering the rich with money. This applies to thousands of every day things normal people buy from companies where normal people work.

 

[Moderate Right]

Yep, but some do cut federal taxation rates.

It all boils down to Democrats at election time offering freebies to buy votes and Republicans offering tax cuts to buy votes.

 

[Moderate Right]

Oh, the irony of this is absolutely delicious. Who is speculating on the future now?

What a fraud.

Democrats have flat out said what they want. Reparations to slave descendants, MFA, forgive student loan debt, offer free college, build or rebuild infrastructure, and spend 93 trillion dollars on the Green New Deal (just to start). Are you saying that I shouldn't believe them?

 

[ttwtt78640]

It all boils down to Democrats at election time offering freebies to buy votes and Republicans offering tax cuts to buy votes.

Yep, and either of those great deals increase the federal deficit.

Heads I win, tails you lose - call it in the air.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Democrats have flat out said what they want. Reparations to slave descendants, MFA, forgive student loan debt, offer free college, build or rebuild infrastructure, and spend 93 trillion dollars on the Green New Deal (just to start). Are you saying that I shouldn't believe them?

Only if they pass a top FIT rate of 70% to 90% and close those (50K?) pages of "loopholes".

 

[GDViking]

Trickle down doesn't work. It's basic economics. Milton Friedman is a joke and a total fraud. The economy booms when consumer spending is high.

Rich people have tons of money but do not "need" more things than anyone else. Companies hire more when production merits a need for labor; labor demand happens when there is a need for production; production is driven by consumer demand.

Since individuals compose the economy, and all individuals have a baseline need that is similar in terms of widgets purchased, supply side economics is simply win more conditioning. If you filter wealth up, not down, more individuals with more disposable income drives demand which increases production, increasing hiring, and increasing wealth at the top.

I never understood the Milton/Mises idiocy of trickle down hysterics. Cutting taxes for rich folks does not lead to an increase in consumer demand. Those rich people aren't buying more pillows than anyone else. This is why the trickle down right wing libertarian economic myth is duly mocked for a race to the bottom that it creates. Cutting taxes for workers and increasing taxes to make up the difference on employers won't destroy the economy because increased sales of goods and services will make up the difference anyway.

It's inverted economics and nonsense.

Very well stated!!!

 

[NeverTrump]

Yang's UBI idea has some merit but the devil is in the details. Why does it start at age 18 and end at age 64? Who, exactly must pay for it, and why only those (carefully selected?) entities? Is it instead of or in addition to current "safety net" programs?

Sorry you guys don't have the right to ask for who pays for what anymore.

 

[Obscurity]

Oh man, great post. If it could be boiled down into one single statement though it would be:



This is the best explanation of the folly of trickle-down. A rich person does not buy more than a few pillows, so a pillow making company is not going to see any added benefit from demand by showering the rich with money. This applies to thousands of every day things normal people buy from companies where normal people work.

Multiply the impact of this by billions of transactions daily and anyone can see how downright idiotic the trickle down economic mythology is.

 

[Obscurity]

Democrats have flat out said what they want. Reparations to slave descendants, MFA, forgive student loan debt, offer free college, build or rebuild infrastructure, and spend 93 trillion dollars on the Green New Deal (just to start). Are you saying that I shouldn't believe them?

All -may- at some point in the future happen.

Are you saying I shouldn't believe scientists who make claims like the salmon population being decimated thanks to a gold mine which will employ less people for a finite amount of time as compared to the salmon industry?

Unbelievable. You're literally hanging yourself.

This is ****ing glorious.

 

[Bullseye]

It's very telling that you think you own one...:roll:

What makes you think I do?

 

[Bullseye]

That is because they are taxing the oil companies and not taxing labor...

Yep, because they allow oil and natural gas extraction and charge companies for it. By the way the amount is around $2000-$3000 a year.

 

[Moderate Right]

All -may- at some point in the future happen.

Are you saying I shouldn't believe scientists who make claims like the salmon population being decimated thanks to a gold mine which will employ less people for a finite amount of time as compared to the salmon industry?

Unbelievable. You're literally hanging yourself.

This is ****ing glorious.

I'm saying that a national debt of 22 trillion dollars is unacceptable. How do you think I feel about a national debt of 200 trillion dollars?

 

[Obscurity]

I'm saying that a national debt of 22 trillion dollars is unacceptable. How do you think I feel about a national debt of 200 trillion dollars?

And you said to me I can't predict the future, which is what you literally just did. Hilarious.

Tell you what. I'll give a damn about the deficit when we stop spending 60 cents of every tax dollar on the military and start spending it on programs that support the american people. Judging from the campaign slogan of your demigod, you ought to be salivating at the proposals offered by the likes of Bernie.

Instead you shall remain a globalist who wants to spend all the tax money on the military and pursuing stupid, wasteful geopolitical schemes instead of caring for american citizens.

 

[Moderate Right]

And you said to me I can't predict the future, which is what you literally just did. Hilarious.

Tell you what. I'll give a damn about the deficit when we stop spending 60 cents of every tax dollar on the military and start spending it on programs that support the american people. Judging from the campaign slogan of your demigod, you ought to be salivating at the proposals offered by the likes of Bernie.

Instead you shall remain a globalist who wants to spend all the tax money on the military and pursuing stupid, wasteful geopolitical schemes instead of caring for american citizens.

The United States must remain the biggest superpower in the world and we need a strong defense in order to keep not only us free, but the world. That's why all the NATO countries take advantage of us. They know they can't be free unless we foot the bill to keep them free.

 

[Obscurity]

The United States must remain the biggest superpower in the world and we need a strong defense in order to keep not only us free, but the world. That's why all the NATO countries take advantage of us. They know they can't be free unless we foot the bill to keep them free.

1. No, we do not need to be a superpower, and we can't justify sending money to states like Israel, which have a single payer healthcare system, when we do not.

2. We have a DEFENSE budget, not an Occupy-Regime change-Offense budget and need to get back to it.

Like I said to you before, we don't even take care of our own, yet we give billions in aid to those that do.

Cut the military budget. Focus on asymmetric warfare and drones. Small scale engagement of special forces in targeted strikes. The age of massive ground engagements needs to finally be completely ended.

 

[Pound4abrown]

People only truly appreciate that which they EARN.

Not saying UBI is a bad idea, because its not. But if people are being paid, then they need to be doing more than just existing to earn it. Hospitals and assisted living establishments always welcome volunteer help, even if its just to play cards with patients. Roads always need cleaning, snow needs shoveled, grass needs mowed.

Agree. I don't know enough about his plan to implement this. Aside from that he wants to and thinks it will help.
I don't think something like this ever, ever, ever, gets past congress. No matter who is there.

 

[Moderate Right]

1. No, we do not need to be a superpower, and we can't justify sending money to states like Israel, which have a single payer healthcare system, when we do not.

2. We have a DEFENSE budget, not an Occupy-Regime change-Offense budget and need to get back to it.

Like I said to you before, we don't even take care of our own, yet we give billions in aid to those that do.

Cut the military budget. Focus on asymmetric warfare and drones. Small scale engagement of special forces in targeted strikes. The age of massive ground engagements needs to finally be completely ended.

Well, we could argue this back and forth for the rest of eternity. There is no middle ground on this. You have your opinion and I have mine. Fortunately for me, even when we have Democratic presidents, they believe that the US should remain a superpower. Your time will never come. The US will always be a superpower, even when Democrats rule.