Where were you when conservatards got fucking DESTROYED?

Where were you when conservatards got fucking DESTROYED?

theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/tax-cuts-dont-lead-to-economic-growth-a-new-65-year-study-finds/262438/

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=GkAtUq0OJ68&t=3s
theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/06/did-fannie-and-freddie-cause-the-housing-bubble/57664/
publications.lakeforest.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1054&context=seniortheses
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

My Nana is still a looker, even at eighty. Whenever I bathe her in the driveway, I'm always impressed by her sinewy physique. I'll be like "Nana you're ripped bro" and she'll be like "nothing but clean living and good genes" then I'll be like "clean living? You ain't been sober an entire day since Nixon was still on the teet" and she'll be like "you'd drink too if you had such a shitty family" and I'll be like "maybe if you didn't have so much side wang pop-pop wouldn't have moved to Reno" and she'll be like "he moved to Reno because Schenectady was getting overrun with Mexicans" and I'll be like "Nana that's racist" then she'll say "then why don't you move there." This goes on until I'm done hosing her off, at which point I take her back inside, but her in front of a TV playing Diagnosis: Murder reruns, and give her a box of wine with a straw. Old people need the routine.

>don't have true free market system
>introduce more tax cuts
>new businesses still struggle to start
>hurr why don't tax cuts fix the economy

Have we controlled for murders by steam and hot vapours though?

Fallacies.

If I raise taxes to promote small business, I'll naturally get growth because more people are employed and there's more competition. If I cut taxes and take it straight out of STEM training, I'll naturally get lower growth because there are fewer skilled workers in the one field that actually needs more skilled workers.

>Republicans are fucking retarded
Tell us something we dont know about. People don't care or give a shit. I mean they put Donald Trump in the whitehouse.

the Atlantic doesnt make any money, 65-year study finds

just cut taxes and keep the STEM funding up by slashing the funding for the bullshit fields

tada, solved your problem

@op: if they would have actually figured out how shit works they wouldn't be publishing it but making mad dosh at the stock market. they found some correlation, but that's about it. they definitely don't understand the full causation and all the factors that play into it

I hate these stupid studies. There are so many factors to prove why this is bull shit.

CAUSATION nod CORELATION, OK?
Praise Allah :DDD

Lmao under what logical scenario does tax hikes lead to economic growth. Its antithetical.

Also what the fuck happened after the peak growth period? I mean that huge growth came as a consequence to the first tech boom. No, its all about tax hikes. Bad science!

Furthermore, I bet the crash has something to do with the fact that we have a full blown war in 2003.

Kill yourself for citing the heaping load of autistic shit that is the Atlantic.

Correlation =/= Causation

I thought Reaganomics was in favor of tax cuts and it did boost the economy, no?

May I red pill you? Those bullshit initiatives are already fairly lowly funded. The expensive stuff is stuff like education, which actually promotes growth. When like 0.1% of people are disabled enough to receive benefits, you're not actually saving a lot of money leaving them to die.

We need a radical change to both the tax collection system and the welfare system.

Seriously, we can't let this guy get the nuclear codes.

I want to take Sup Forums serious as a place to talk about politics but when you see "Where were you when conservatards got fucking DESTROYED?" I just don't want to spend any time writing a response that feeds the trolls.

Hey, trolls. Want to have a conversation or even argument about politics? Start by not being such obvious trolls. Subvert more and get people engaged rather than be reddit tier trolls.

the thing that is missing in this graph is all the other factors contributing to the economy during that period. for example, the 90s was the last time the US had a decent manufacturing base. since then its practically all being moved to China. Coincidentally, the tax increase would have been one factor for companies to move out of the US (ticking time bomb). When bush tried to lower taxes in 2001 it was too little too late. And by 2003 most companies were already manufacturing offshore so it didn't work then either.

China joined the WTO in 2001 so any attempts after that time were doomed to fail. China opened the doors to offshoring for any remaining businesses and no tax cuts could save the economy after that.

Tax cuts are only part of the equation. You need protectionism too. As long as protectionism is not implemented, then tax cuts will be useless.

Also, you pin this on conservatives, but it's really aimed at neocons who sold out the US. They don't represent the nationalist conservatives that hate how the wealth in the west has moved to asia.

We already did m8 cheers

Sounds a lot like correlation/causation honestly

>65 year "study"
>just picked points where tax was increased or decreased, with no distinctions made for the areas of the market that were targeted, where the money was distributed or how much tax were cut or increased

Last year our government lowered taxes on small and medium businesses by a pitifully small amount, it naturally did nothing.

>Tax cuts don't lead to economic growth
This is 1/2 of the process behind deficit spending as advocated by Keynes and his modern day followers. If true, this destroys half of the modern theory of economics and leaves open the speculation that the favored process of the Democrats, increased spending, is probably just as bunk as well.

Of course this study is probably massive click bait bullshit because modern economics is nothing but a giant circle jerk of "academics" sucking off each others unfalsifiable, un testable theories.

Nope, you're assuming everyone is able to graduate and be useful. Those who are naturally smart and able will make it, regardless of subsidies to universities.

Not everyone was born to run a company. Some of the most successful people don't even have a degree.

Those with the qualities to setup a business will decide whether to set it up onshore or offshore. Taxes and regulations make a big impact on those decisions.

Local business tend to hire locals. Assuming the government makes their country business friendly this will happen. After that it's a matter of finding the right people. If there are fewer skilled workers then its a reflection on how intelligent people really are in ones local area and it might be better to move elsewhere where people take initiative to improve themselves.

The problem with having fed the last few generations with subsidies is that they've grown lazy. Make it harder for them and you'll see them eat each other to outperform (like in Japan and China for example). That's good for business.

Would you rather have 35% of nothing or 15% of something in our economy? The graph and comment are meaningless because you're ignoring corporate inversions, which have been a huge problem in the last decade. When a corporation takes their main office overseas to avoid US taxes, guess how much our govt gets? $0. When you lower the taxes to say 15%, to entice them back, you immediately go from $0 to 15%. It's an immediate win. If you want to pay more taxes go ahead and personally volunteer that to the govt. otherwise maybe stfu.

why do people keep thinking clinton had fucking anything to do with the economic growth in the 90s? it was all private sector in silicon valley that created an unprecedented amount of millionaires who were all middle aged white men. what bill did do was make housing loans easier to get for subhuman niggers who all eventually defaulted. way to go, bill

The major parties here don't want to talk about the real reason nothing they throw at the economy works: We are losing our self sufficiency. Manufacturing is practically dead and agriculture is being bought up by the Chinese. Retail relies on importation and consumer dollars (which is dwindling)

Until we start building up our capabilities again, tax cuts or subsidies to industries (inc education) won't do jack.

>until we start building up our capabilities again

Not going to happen. All the young people with trade qualifications and uni degrees are going to move to other countries. It's already starting, one of my friends has fucked off and everyone else is wanting to fuck off, including myself. There's no future here.

Shame on you shill.
Thanks for making my job easier.

of course left wingers would think that. I think taxing left wingers 90% will teach them a lesson. We can give the proceeds to nigaroos in africa. See how their lives fare when they make no money.

Hmmm, I wonder what could have caused that downturn in 2001 other than tax cuts? I can't think of anything significant...it must have been those tax cuts

We should try a centrally-planned economy based on studies.

So you're saying that growth went up after the collapse of the Soviet Union and started dropping like a stone near the end of Clinton's first term?

>more money in the free market hurts a free market

>65 year study finds that op is still a faggot
wow how thought provoking

nothing helps the free market more than the government picking a winning and pumping them with cash

I know mate, all that will be left here are all the Chinese immigrants who brought their wealth over from China (which the west handed to them in the form of factories) and bought up off-the-plan apartments.

I hope for the best but plan for the worst.
e.g. I vote for Pauline but I have offshore accounts/assets

>I have offshore accounts/assets
Oh, so you're a drug runner and a terrorist and a tax cheat?

It was clearly nose-diving before that, cherry pick harder.

Obama got the nation back on track, now that we have money, the republican in office will slash taxes which will end up crashing the economy

then another democrat will come in and clean things up.

The Jew in charge of the Federal Rejew Jewed things one way. Now that we have a different Jew pulling the levers of Jewery at the Federal Rejew, we're going to get Jewed again.

Then another Jew will come Jew what's left of us.

That diagram forgot to take into account the war that Bush dragged us into. A war will cause the economy to tank regardless of tax cuts.

give poor people money
people spend the money
no impact on economy
?????

unregulated markets, giving rich people more money they can deal with.

These two factors cause an economy to crash, especially when the happy merchant is working his magic.

>the antlantic sourcing from TNYT with a non metric called "growth"

>This Obama leaf lie again

Guess who controlled the house and senate whenever the economy takes off? It isn't the "redistribute all wealth to brown people" policies that makes an economy take off, I can tell you for a fact

Judging from the picture, this "study" is literally just a correlation = causation fallacy.

Fuck America and Israel

No but Nike and cocoa butter futures make sick gains.

No.

It is giving those with vast amounts of money the power to move markets much more freely, which means a single mistake fucks the entire economy.

This is such a shitty argument that shows a misunderstanding of how government works.

Congress cannot just ram through bills, the executive branch has to sign off on them as well.

Jup. Basically we're nearing the end of the line of being able to continue to use Market Jewery to maintain power. If they miss this chance to rebuild and reregulate then the whole world gets Jewed.

Just a business man - reducing tax doesn't mean avoiding tax.

I vote One Nation (our far-right, nationalist party) and support Trump, so of course I'm not a terrorist or drug runner lol.

>which means a single mistake fucks the entire economy

You mean like Clinton starting disastrous gov't backed housing loan policies that were never shut down because it would be political suicide, or like Obama doing the exact same thing with student loans now causing an even bigger bubble with loans that can't be expunged through bankruptcy?

> the executive branch has to sign off on them as well.

The president can veto a bill and then congress can tell him to fuck himself and pass it anyway, president has to jump through hoops to completely block a bill if congress wants it enough that they won't give up on it.

Taxes aren't the entire issue ya libcuck. Businesses can't get off the ground because ever since the 16th amendment liberals said to hell with capitalism, started an ever-growing and oppressive bureaucracy of idiots behind desks who have no clue how the real world works, and gave them indisputable power over everything under the sun. I'll be you can't find one thing under your roof that isn't regulated by the government. Until these shit agencies are done away with or largely deregulated, we won't see the economic growth we're looking for.

Also, I find it funny that the OP has zero intentions of debating this issue. Just dropped by and dropped an insult to make his enemies look bad, but won't stick around for the real fight.

>DESTROYED
Top kek.

It's fun having a economics degree and watching pleb shits like you try to act like you know what your talking about. 75% of people with degrees in the damn field don't know what they're talking about, you sure as shit don't.

A halfway skilled economist can make it look like an increase in murders on late Tuesday mornings are a direct irrefutable correlation to result in more consumer spending on teddy bears at Christmas if he wants to.

You being sarcastic or retarded?

no, more like when Bush did the same thing and THEN HE CUT TAXES on the rich.

youtube.com/watch?v=GkAtUq0OJ68&t=3s

Clinton deregulating the housing market ( oh look deregulation caused a crash ) and then Bush cutting taxes on the people that the deregulated housing market was going to hurt (the rich investors and the banks) is what crashed the economy, plus the war.

You cannot invest into the rich and the middle class at the same time, one will hurt the other. The rich were picking up the tab for niggers buying houses, when the rich weren't paying the taxes to make up for that slack and the niggers had no money, the economy crashed.

Overriding the president's veto takes an amount of unification that is not possible in Congress except under the most special of circumstances. It rarely happens.

...

>neat little trick

If you don't know what sage is/does without some infopic to tell you what it does, you shouldn't be posting.

>deregulating the housing market

The cause of the crash was irresponsible lending policy. Regulation or no regulation handing out cheap loans like candy to people have absolutely no way of repaying it is a terrible idea. Clinton started it, Bush continued it and the result was devastating. You've provided no evidence that market deregulation lead to the housing bubble. The best you can argue is the market deregulation made it slightly worse than what it would've been but make no mistake: there would have been NO housing bubble in absence of cheap government loans. The deflection to profiteers on Wall St and other private sector groups is just a typical left-wing tactic of blaming the private sector for everything the government does.

theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/06/did-fannie-and-freddie-cause-the-housing-bubble/57664/

publications.lakeforest.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1054&context=seniortheses

furthermore, i said deregulation combined with tax cuts for the people the deregulation was going to hurt

I admitted it exacerbated the problem, many things went into the crash.

I'm reading the section of the thesis that tries to argue that deregulation was a cause and not a contributing factor and in pages 32-33 you can see a mixing up of the wording, first it is said that the deregulation bill "led to" the housing crash, then in 33 it is said that it "contributed to." Which is it?

Furthermore the text is arguing that the deregulation of bank lending led to the artificially low interest rates and the increase in borrowing and house prices. This seems an odd argument to make, the interest rates should not have been so low in the first place if the loans were not government backed, likewise more rigorous risk assessment would be required since it would be more important from the bank's perspective that the borrower reasonably be able to repay the loan in due time, something that most borrowers of these types of loans were not able to do and as much would've been obvious seeing their income, qualifications and credit history.

In any case by refusing to accept that the responsibility for the crash lies with the types of loans that allowed the bubble to form by cheapening loans and allowing banks to lend without caution, you're essentially saying that you think that the government could've kept up with a tight rope balancing act of price fixing and tax hiking/cutting to keep the market at a stable level. This seems awfully complicated and risky, the whole problem would've not existed in the first place if the banks were lending their own money, regardless of how taxed or regulated they were.

You admitted it yourself

Like I said, many factors here. Clinton deregulated the market, putting the cost of bad loans on the banks and investors.

Bush continued this, and then gave those rich people tax breaks, which meant they were no longer subsidizing bad housing loans. This lead to a crash

Now Obama wanted affordable college for people, he couldn't pass what he wanted to pass because of the Republican owned Congress, much like Obamacare, he passed watered down versions of what he wanted, which are half in - half out policies, which means prices go up and cause a bubble.

So what I got from this thread is...
>tax cuts without some protectionism = useless
>only retards think raising taxes magically causes growth
>housing crash was partly Bill Clinton's fault

the reason why raising taxes causes growth is actually quite simple

people with the wealth to move markets are more fiscally conservative when 60% of what they make goes to Uncle Sam.

When they get a 30% tax cut, they play the market. Then they tell their friends, then people follow what the big players are doing, then you end up with billions and billions of dollars inflating a market and then it crashes.

They don't get hurt, they have the money to cushion their losses, but you and me get fucked because of it.

>you admitted it yourself

Perpetual price fixing in the market, especially markets as intrinsically prone to fluctuations as housing is not a good idea. You need to understand the purpose of a government backed housing loan is so that someone who wouldn't normally be able to make repayments can get a loan since the government backing skews risk assessment. If you think fixing a loan interest minimum (or even more pertinently, a housing price maximum) is a solution you are retarded. I say housing price maximum because the increase in home buying thanks to the cheap loans, even with a fixed interest minimum would inflate prices which will lead to a bubble, if not quite as bad because the higher interest rate would decrease the rate of borrowing slightly. It's a bad idea because say you're looking to sell your house and you're a mcmansion in a safe neighborhood and down the street is an old shitbox in need of renovation, and you get told if you want to sell your house you need to price it at the same value as the house down the street because you both have hit maximum value just off property location. You'd feel like you were getting robbed and wouldn't want to sell. You could try to fix this by saying the loans are only applied to housing purchases below a certain price rather than fixing the market itself but this also leads to a certain problem, the lowest quality houses would be driven up to the loan maximum and poor people would find it absolutely impossible to get a home without having an insurmountable pile of debt that is totally unrepresentative of the quality of their housing.

tl;dr there is no feasible solution to the housing market when you have such extensive government subsidization of lending.