The Tea Party Movement

[NAOS]

It's known as kiting where you write yourself a check out of an account that has no money. Then you deposit into that account a check from another account that has no money. As long as you can keep depositing checks into the accounts to cover the checks you have written you never need any real money. What's wrong with that?

What is money? I'm serious.

 

[TheMulletMutilator]

What is money? I'm serious.

If we are talking about the dollar then it is now diminishing into glorified toilet paper. But gold is on the rise.... You just better hire a security team to guard your stash of it though.

 

[franklin]

Who creates jobs? Everyone. Demand is a necessary component in the creation of the demand for labor. If no one can afford ipods, Apple doesn't exist and there are no jobs for Apple employees.

Where your reasoning really breaks down is in the marginal analysis. The consensus of economic studies presently is that the wealthy tend to save tax gains rather than spending them, meaning that your position that less taxes on the wealthy is creating jobs is simply false. However, tax breaks on the middle and lower classes tend to get spent in the larger economy. In effect, you get a bigger bang for your tax break because the tax break is consumed by lower classes and not utilized by the wealthiest 1%.

Not exactly. You correctly note current consensus about where stimulating is most effective. The first half is big picture blind, ignoring aggregate demand. There is no current economic consensus regarding the effects of rich saving more. You've incorrectly extrapolated a conclusion based on limited input into a highly complex model--the economy. You've ignored "big picture" benefits of rich saving more, which pushes borrowing rates lower, which is highly stimulative. Arguing against this is an argument against our entire economic machine. Interest rates are the main tool used to control economic growth (since no longer seem to believe in raising taxes during the good times). They're also what the current consensus says will help the middle class. There are dissenters over Federal Reserve policy and currently low rates. These arguments, however, are not arguments against the benefits of low rates. They're attacking the detrimental effects only.

In sum, your supply argument is empirically denied. Tax cuts for the lower and middle classes, however, empirically stimulate demand. And greater demand means more jobs.

This was big in word and small in substance. Empirically, of course.

 

[franklin]

If you mean the current economic meltdown, it started with the removal of a lot of controls during the last couple of years in the Clinton administration. The resulting boom-bust cycle is an almost predictable result, compare the ecnomic behaviro of the US in teh second half of the 19th century (contrast with the second half of the 20th, when the controls were in place). Your comment on economic illiteracy are nothing more than ironic.

Why are you arguing with me about something I haven't commented on? The lefty fundamentalist that you are, I'll do you a favor and insist that the current economic meltdown started with the right's political prophet, Pope Ronny. RR started the borrow and spend boom that no president since was able to stop without being thrown out of office. Maybe Bush 1 tried, but they booted him when he lied. Read my lips. Every president since continued the trend until KABOOM! it blew up under Bush 2's watch. That's the debt game, but we make ourselves feel better by blaming it on our favorite political boogey man.

Politicians attempt to skirt recessions and take credit for the outcome by borrowing and spending to offset declines. It's a drug addiction. Repubs are just as Keynesian with their military stimulus, but they won't admit it. Did Clinton balance the budget or not? Who really gives a ****. He was able to raise taxes in a strong economy. Big ****ing deal. That's really no different than the Fed raising interest rates. It's a different tool that accomplishes the same goal of controlling the economic growth rate, err inflation. It's all about control in a system that was built to requires such controls. If you're a righty then go read Milton Friedman's views on counter-cyclical policy. If you're a lefty then read Keynes views on counter-cyclical policy. Then, whatever you are, read the other major side right after.

 

[DeliveryBoy]

In the 50's and 60's they were the John Birch Society. In the 60's and 70's, they were the Silent Majority. In the 80's and 90's, they were the militia movement. Now they're the Tea Party.

Absolutely nothing is new about this. It's a bunch of dumb, unhinged white right wingers that have convinced themselves that their views are a lot more common than they actually are. They just have much better media coverage this time.

Also, anyone that lived through the Bush administration and still thinks there "is no difference between Democrats and Republicans" needs to see a psychiatrist immediately.

 

[TheMulletMutilator]

In the 50's and 60's they were the John Birch Society. In the 60's and 70's, they were the Silent Majority. In the 80's and 90's, they were the militia movement. Now they're the Tea Party.

Absolutely nothing is new about this. It's a bunch of dumb, unhinged white right wingers that have convinced themselves that their views are a lot more common than they actually are. They just have much better media coverage this time.

Also, anyone that lived through the Bush administration and still thinks there "is no difference between Democrats and Republicans" needs to see a psychiatrist immediately.

https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38558455/

I guess this ruins your myth of dumb white right wingers....

 

[NAOS]

If we are talking about the dollar then it is now diminishing into glorified toilet paper. But gold is on the rise.... You just better hire a security team to guard your stash of it though.

I was serious. What is money? Don't give that gold standard bull**** and then sweep it under the rug. You can't hide behind an abstraction (that's been my whole point). Also, while your at it, tell me why the perfect system isn't a bunch of black markets. Thanks.

 

[TheMulletMutilator]

I was serious. What is money? Don't give that gold standard bull**** and then sweep it under the rug. You can't hide behind an abstraction (that's been my whole point). Also, while your at it, tell me why the perfect system isn't a bunch of black markets. Thanks.

Wow, I was being very cordial and joking around with you. I guess someone needs a lesson in manners.

 

[NAOS]

Wow, I was being very cordial and joking around with you. I guess someone needs a lesson in manners.

I think bull**** is a funny word.
And, I said thanks.

 

[One Brow]

Why are you arguing with me about something I haven't commented on?

By "Look where it's gotten us," were you commenting on something other than the current economic meltdown?

The lefty fundamentalist that you are,

*chortle*

I'll do you a favor and insist that the current economic meltdown started with the right's political prophet, Pope Ronny. RR started the borrow and spend boom that no president since was able to stop without being thrown out of office.

As has been pointed out, Clinton stopped it, starting with his first budget.

Did Clinton balance the budget or not? Who really gives a ****. He was able to raise taxes in a strong economy. Big ****ing deal.

Clinton's tax hike was in 1993, before the economy took off again.

That's really no different than the Fed raising interest rates. It's a different tool that accomplishes the same goal of controlling the economic growth rate, err inflation.

Unless increased to punitive levels, tax increases do not slow down the economy by very much. The money that comes in, goes back out. There is little economic loss.

I guess this ruins your myth of dumb white right wingers....

Why would it do that?

Wow, I was being very cordial and joking around with you.

Of course. No one takes you seriously anyhow.

 

[TheMulletMutilator]

By "Look where it's gotten us," were you commenting on something other than the current economic meltdown?



*chortle*



As has been pointed out, Clinton stopped it, starting with his first budget.



Clinton's tax hike was in 1993, before the economy took off again.



Unless increased to punitive levels, tax increases do not slow down the economy by very much. The money that comes in, goes back out. There is little economic loss.



Why would it do that?



Of course. No one takes you seriously anyhow.

I am glad you provided great proof with all your arguments... Wait....

 

[Duck Rodgers]

I was serious. What is money? Don't give that gold standard bull**** and then sweep it under the rug. You can't hide behind an abstraction (that's been my whole point). Also, while your at it, tell me why the perfect system isn't a bunch of black markets. Thanks.

Because a full black market system would turn into a bunch of bottom up individual ponzi schemes, instead of the consolidated top down one we have going right now, and subsequently all the profit/profiteers would leak out of the country to where the real efficient productive economies are? See: Albanian Capitalism.