1. Standard memberbill718
    Enigma
    Seattle
    Joined
    03 Sep '06
    Moves
    3298
    10 Jul '11 09:491 edit
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/04/corporate-profits_n_748889.html

    For 30+ years all I've been hearing from the GOP is "we must lower taxes, and allow business's to make profits in order to stimulate the economy and create jobs" Well, the folks on Wall Street seem to be raking in massive profits in these dark economic times. so....

    Where is all the hiring that was promised??

    Where is all the prosperity that was promised??

    When is it going to "trickle down" as good old Ronnie Regan promised???

    Unemployment seems to be headed up....not down. When is all this supply side economic theory going to translate into some job growth. Or was it all a pack of lies??!!😲
  2. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    10 Jul '11 11:16
    They'll hire more people if they think that will earn them more money. Not out of charity.
  3. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    10 Jul '11 11:51
    Originally posted by bill718
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/04/corporate-profits_n_748889.html

    For 30+ years all I've been hearing from the GOP is "we must lower taxes, and allow business's to make profits in order to stimulate the economy and create jobs" Well, the folks on Wall Street seem to be raking in massive profits in these dark economic times. so....

    Where is all t ...[text shortened]... conomic theory going to translate into some job growth. Or was it all a pack of lies??!!😲
    Oh, please. You can like supply side economics or not, but Reagan's policies were put into effect in the early 1980s and for much of the time since then there's been near full employment. You can't look at one arbitrary point in time 30 years out from the implementation of a policy and then declare the policy a failure. There are many of specific reasons for the recent rise in unemployment, including the failure of the current President to take steps that would reduce unemployment.
  4. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    10 Jul '11 11:52
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    They'll hire more people if they think that will earn them more money. Not out of charity.
    Yes, and no sane economist ever promoted any other view.
  5. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    10 Jul '11 12:27
    Originally posted by sh76
    Oh, please. You can like supply side economics or not, but Reagan's policies were put into effect in the early 1980s and for much of the time since then there's been near full employment. You can't look at one arbitrary point in time 30 years out from the implementation of a policy and then declare the policy a failure. There are many of specific reasons for th ...[text shortened]... including the failure of the current President to take steps that would reduce unemployment.
    Unemployment rose for much of Reagan's first term.
  6. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    10 Jul '11 13:37
    Originally posted by sh76
    Oh, please. You can like supply side economics or not, but Reagan's policies were put into effect in the early 1980s and for much of the time since then there's been near full employment. You can't look at one arbitrary point in time 30 years out from the implementation of a policy and then declare the policy a failure. There are many of specific reasons for th ...[text shortened]... including the failure of the current President to take steps that would reduce unemployment.
    The average unemployment rate in the 80's was actually higher than in 70s. http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm

    Eyeballing the figures, it looks like the average yearly rate from 1971-80 was 6.4% and from 1981-90 7.1%.
  7. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    10 Jul '11 13:431 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    Oh, please. You can like supply side economics or not, but Reagan's policies were put into effect in the early 1980s and for much of the time since then there's been near full employment. You can't look at one arbitrary point in time 30 years out from the implementation of a policy and then declare the policy a failure. There are many of specific reasons for th ...[text shortened]... including the failure of the current President to take steps that would reduce unemployment.
    So I can assume you are a Democrat?

    BTW, you seem to forget the 4 trill we have spent on the Iraq war started by lets see.....
    Wait, I have it here somewhere.....
  8. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    66636
    10 Jul '11 14:38
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    So I can assume you are a Democrat?

    BTW, you seem to forget the 4 trill we have spent on the Iraq war started by lets see.....
    Wait, I have it here somewhere.....
    There comes a point where people will have to stop blame Bush for all of eternity. The Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and the presidency for two years if Bush's policies were clearly wrong they could have changed them. We are still in Iraq because people like Obama clearly support that policy.
  9. Standard memberbill718
    Enigma
    Seattle
    Joined
    03 Sep '06
    Moves
    3298
    10 Jul '11 15:30
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    They'll hire more people if they think that will earn them more money. Not out of charity.
    In other words the G O P's supply side economic theory was one big fat lie!!
  10. Standard memberbill718
    Enigma
    Seattle
    Joined
    03 Sep '06
    Moves
    3298
    10 Jul '11 15:35
    Originally posted by sh76
    Oh, please. You can like supply side economics or not, but Reagan's policies were put into effect in the early 1980s and for much of the time since then there's been near full employment. You can't look at one arbitrary point in time 30 years out from the implementation of a policy and then declare the policy a failure. There are many of specific reasons for th ...[text shortened]... including the failure of the current President to take steps that would reduce unemployment.
    One arbitaray point in 30 years???!!! Lower taxes and corporate profits + hiring and prosperity, have been the GOP's answer to every economic question for decades. I'd hardly call that one arbitrary point....it seems to be the GOP's answer to everything.
  11. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    10 Jul '11 16:32
    Originally posted by bill718
    One arbitaray point in 30 years???!!! Lower taxes and corporate profits + hiring and prosperity, have been the GOP's answer to every economic question for decades. I'd hardly call that one arbitrary point....it seems to be the GOP's answer to everything.
    whooosh!
  12. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    10 Jul '11 16:34
    Originally posted by bill718
    In other words the G O P's supply side economic theory was one big fat lie!!
    I'm not sure if it was a lie. Reagan was pretty dim, so I wouldn't be surprised if he actually believed in it.
  13. Windsor, Ontario
    Joined
    10 Jun '11
    Moves
    3829
    10 Jul '11 18:59
    it's due to capitalism's bane: technology.
  14. Joined
    03 Feb '07
    Moves
    193773
    10 Jul '11 21:29
    Originally posted by bill718
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/04/corporate-profits_n_748889.html

    For 30+ years all I've been hearing from the GOP is "we must lower taxes, and allow business's to make profits in order to stimulate the economy and create jobs" Well, the folks on Wall Street seem to be raking in massive profits in these dark economic times. so....

    Where is all t ...[text shortened]... conomic theory going to translate into some job growth. Or was it all a pack of lies??!!😲
    I hope this current recession puts to death the now several times debunked Say's Law. Giving money to the rich is not necessarily economically productive.
  15. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    10 Jul '11 21:31
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    I hope this current recession puts to death the now several times debunked Say's Law. Giving money to the rich is not necessarily economically productive.
    Something which is obviously already known to anyone who has spent more than three seconds studying the Scandinavian model...
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree