Why Can't Right-Wingers Into Economics?

The history of the United States

>right-wing nutjob gets elected
>crashes the economy
>democrat gets elected
>starts fixing the economy
>WAHHHH WAHHH why is it taking so long for democrat to fix economy, failed presidency
>elect republinut
>repeat

What

Fuck off Wannabe-Obamaleaf

When you're so stupid you think that the president can make or break the economy when many of the laws are the same from election cycle to election cycle.

0/10 you tried

You're a bad troll, get off my thread right now

Yeah but the budget and tax rate and interest rates are the prime determiner of an economy. Right-wing nutjobs cut taxes to the rich EVERY TIME

well apparently weve been debt free for 4 years, so thats pretty cool.

Perception > Reality

So yes, the president is actually the most important make or break that exists.

because they're strict idealists. their worldview is based on feelings instead of science. read Lenin's "Materialism and Empirio-Criticism" and maybe some Wilhelm Reich.

it's that simple

>Democrats
>Propping up the economy based on nothing but hope and dreams
>Republicans
>Actually having to deal with the shit when it ultimately doesn't work

When taxes are too high those who would be taxed the most lock up their funds in municipal bonds and other tax shelters. There have been 4 administrations which have cut taxes: Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush Jr. After each tax cut, tax revenue increased. Interest rates are determined by the federal reserve by essentially give crediting institution liquidity or by sell bonds to said institutions in order to lock up liquidity. If you are interested in economics I recommend you buy a textbook which is not a current edition b/c those run very expensive, just get a prior edition. Start with micro and then move on to macro. If you really enjoy the topic then I suggest considering majoring in econ.

I'm studying micro right now. I started with macro about 5 years ago. Look. tax cuts do not increase revenue, George Bush and Reagan exploded the deficit. Coolidge created a bubble which caused the stock market crash of 29, and Kennedy made the deficit go up.

Because the american right wing is poisoned by bankster capitalism. They worship capitalism, which means they worship banks.

Trump would have been their chance to get some populist leader that actually cares for the little guy, but because of their ideology Trump gets nowhere. It's a sign how someone like Rand Paul is seen as a "true conservative".

>Posts picture of when Republicans heavily controlled the senate and house.
>Doesn't realize its Congress that makes the budget and not the president.

Give Republicans 60 votes in the senate and you will suddenly see repeats of what happened during the Clinton presidency.

I don't get it, he is one isn't he?

On the contrary. Cutting taxes does increase federal receipts.

The President signs the budget. Guess what repubs controll the senate right now and the economy is in shit.

>not taking money from someone increases the amount you take from them
Explain this to me.

>inb4 muh stock market
That's just due to low FED interest rates.

we have 100 years of data now to show republicans are economic incompetents on all metrics except one: making the rich richer

so evidently that is the only metric that matters

....
Rep elected. Crash economy
Dem elected. Continues to crash economy
Trump elected, does not do much but improves things a little

Stop being delusional moron.
Obama, bush, clintons, etc are the same and enacted the same type of politics for same results.

Bush = Trump

you know, as retarded as obamaleaf is, i admire his persistence and ability to have people keep responding to his posts despite going at this for more than a year now

When you lower taxes, you increase the incentive for people to keep the money/bring money back to the US so they can invest. You lower the incentive for them to use tax loopholes. Also, why are you using the presence of deficits to determine tax revenue? You do know that Reagan and Bush both started wars and, Reagan in particular, increased military spending hugely right. Hell, Clinton engaged in many conventionally conservative reforms (welfare reform) and we know that liberals love to tout his record.

>interest rate
But they have been raising the interest rate recently. You could literally do the same thing and attribute Obama's successes to even lower interest rates.

Why not just use tariffs and regulations so people can't bring money out of the U.S. In the 1950s we actually lowered the Federal Debt and that's when marginal tax rates were 90%. My point is there is other ways to get peoples money back other than a race for the bottom.

Have you learned laffer curves yet? It basically maps out the optimal tax raet under a set of conditions in which the optimal tax revenue can be achieved. During those 4 tax cuts i previously mentioned, the rate was post optimal, which let to an increase in tax revenue when taxes were cut. If taxes were sub optimal this wouldn't occur.

And revenue is less when rates are high for a few reasons, but mainly because wealth which would be taxed in locked up in municipal bonds or other tax shelters (520, MLP, Loss Harvest)

also cut out the little strawmans and jabs like the greentext you posted. It's not a great way to debate lol, just argue on your merits alone (I used to do this myself).

I learned the laffer curve was a myth. The argument is if you let people keep more money they spend and invest more and therefor revenue goes up. However if you just take their money and spend it into the economy via government spending it has the exact same effect.

nice post hoc ergo propter hoc

Except the governmentdoesnt have the same incentives as other people (they don't necessarily experience the effects of losses when their plans don't pan out). The Laffer curve is not a myth. You may disagree on how the curve is shaped but only someone who doesn't understand economic incentives would call it a myth. The Laffer curve exists because if you tax people at zero you will get no money and if you tax people at 100%, they will no longer have any incentive to work so you will also get around zero (or their incentive to move elsewhere, use tax loopholes or engage in corruption will be so high they will do anything not pay the 100%). These two points on the graph are fixed.

Man, it's almost like there is a powerful cabal of bankers who bomb the economy right before the re election of a republican.

Probably just a (((coincidence)))

The laffer curve is a model and it can only do so much. Consider the 2 points you made.

>if you let people keep more money they spend and invest more and therefor revenue goes up. However if you just take their money and spend it into the economy via government spending it has the exact same effect.

which action leads to the desired effect when both could potentially yield desirable results?


There is in fact an optimal rate, but which side of the curve are we on? dems will say left, republicans will say right. Will the cuts increase the amount of money which is collected as revenue by discouraging loopholes or will it simply be taxing less money than it was prior and lead to less revenue?

The annoying part about economics is that it's a soft science, and by that I mean that a strict controlled experiment cannot be set up to determine some law which underpins tax rate optimization, that's what makes history so important in econ. We can then look to instances where the tax rate was cut an observe the outcome. In the 4 times it has occurred there has been an increase in tax revenue. This doesn't mean that will always happen, but it does provide some solid ground to stand on.

Sounds like you studied econ too.

Only those who don't understand economics believe in the laffer curve, it's called the LAFFer curve for a reason. If you have 100% tax rate the gov will get 100% of revenue.

are you an econ major or just interested in the subject?

Obama leaf here on mobile. Will be back in about an hour. Great thread leafbro

>>right-wing nutjob gets elected
>>crashes the economy
If the economy of a particular country is crashed who would want to immigrate to that country? If you weren't a libtard you'd realize crashing the economy was all part of the plan. Unironically hoping weedman crashes our economy btw

Leaf is false flagging, he fears the corporate tax rate.

Clinton repealed Glass–Steagall leading to the forclosure mess
>Clinton is basically Jeb

Because that doesn't work and it's inefficient as fuck.

Yes let's just hire thousands of beaurocrats to come up with the rules and hundreds of law enforcement agents to enforce the rules that rich people will probably get around anyway because they have a higher incentive to figure out a way around it than the individuals who are trying to prosecute them have to stop them.

Tariffs are extremely destructive to the economy and regulations aren't much better in general.

ah obamaleaf, I've missed you.

Because the Rats need a $ Trillion a year to float their corruption. Do the math. 8 years of BJ and 8 years of Cpt Zero. And it all ended up in various Swiss bank accounts for Soros and GOre and HIllary.

Trolling or retarded don't know which

Tax revenue would still be close to zero. At a 100% tax rate, the rich would either stop working because there wouldn't be a reason to, move elsewhere, keep their money in another place, move their business elsewhere, no longer invest in the country, or invest an incredible amount in looking for tax loopholes (why wouldn't they if they aren't going to get any of the money anyway?).

Tax rate does not equal tax revenue. Remember they are rich for a reason.

But, at that point, no one would work. So the government would get 100% of nothing.

...

You're opinion doesn't matter. You are a BLM supporting terrorist.

1972 America GDP growth rate was 5.236% (85% White)

1997 America GDP growth rate was 4.487% (70% White)

2016 America GDP growth rate was 1.6% ( 60% white)

implying shit-skin America will never have economic recovery, ObamaLeaf


>Clinton and Rubin make happend citigroup-travelers merger

>Gramm Leach Bliley Act Passed

>Obama sucking banker cock But "Economy recovery" Didn't happend

And All the government expansion {including Fucking Section 8) only hurt white middle class

>TFW "Hispanic" American refugee emigrate to canada when America economy collapse

>Left wing economics

Congress writes the budget, the president just signs it. Talking about how low the budget was going under the Clinton years just shows the strength of the republican party

Yes.
The budget is the primary driver of the economy.
Congress writes the budget, this is laid out the power of the purse is vested in the Congress as laid down in the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 (the Appropriations Clause) and Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 (the Taxing and Spending Clause)
In 1994 Republicans took control of congress.
Why are you giving Bill Clinton credit for a budget he didn't write?

Right wingers are the dumbest people on earth they should all be genocided.

Republican Congresses are superior.

Laffer curve

To be fair neo cohens aren't right wing.

>a bureaucrat who never engaged in X business in his entire life, and having no fear of losing his job, can make better decisions with your industry's money

If they're not supported by wall street conservatives don't consider them viable economists. "It's not that we gave finance all the the power people just started getting wicked lazy in the 70s"

Not all taxes are created equal

The owners can get out of most of them because they or their lacked effectively write the tax code. Any plan with the potential of becoming superrich will get cucked.

sage

Do you know why right.wing economic people get elected into office?

Because there is low trust in government, but also mostly because there is low trust in the people / your own community.

Nations which are monoethnic tend to have higher trust in each other, because their neighbours are just like them. They look the same, they eat the same food, speak the same language, have the same culture and historical ties, and generally they look and belong to the same tribe of people.

Nations which dont have this racial foundation will always be a nation of low trust. A nation which worships individualism and at the same time has a low trust in each other and its government will always vote for right-wing economics.

People dont want to pay for other races, they dont mind paying for people of their same race to a certain extent (atleast whites dont mind because they know other whites work hard and are good people)


The problem the left has, and particulary the ((democrats)) is that they import a ton of third worlders.

You CANT import tird worlders IE shitskins and expect that whites will remain generous.

Somalians have 30% employment rates, whereas whites have 88% employment rates here. People dont want to fucking pay for lazy niggers that dont look like them, dont have the same values, dont ahve the same historical and cultural ties, and dont belong to their race.


The left will never reconcile this idea, the national socialist is the closest thing you will come to a true leftie with a staunch stance on immigration.

How do you have fair and generous welfare systems AND high social trust if the leftists keep importing trash?
The nation socialist is the only solution to this age old conundrum.