Democrats bringing back balanced budgets

[Starlight]

A Democrat even mentioning fiscal responsibility is absolutely hilarious.

I would say by any objective metric, the Democratic party has been far more fiscally responsible than the Republican party has over the last ~40 years.

[Starlight]

I would say raising taxes is usually beneficial to the economy. The US saw great years of growth in the 1945-1975 era when taxes were sky-high. The top income tax bracket under Eisenhower paid 91%.

Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman had a decent column in the NYT this week discussing this issue, which is worth reading in its entirety, but I'll post some key snippets:

The Economics of Soaking the Rich: What does Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez know about tax policy? A lot.:

[Tassman]

The main source of the debt "increase" is the corporate tax cuts so businesses can afford to innovate, expand, and attract private investment money to do them.

[rogue06]

As I told ff when he recently asserted that wages weren't increasing

Not exactly

[rogue06]

Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman...

The same Paul Krugman that predicted that the election of Trump was immediately send the U.S. economy spiraling into a deep recession? Actually, cause the entire world to immediately plunge into a severe recession?

The same Paul Krugman who predicted that the mere election of Trump would promptly cause the stock market to start plunging and from which they would likely never recover?

The same Paul Krugman who kept declaring that after the 2008-9 recession that Europe be far stronger than the U.S. economically because of all their socialist welfare state policies?

The same Paul Krugman who in 2015 claimed that support for the Democrats among white working class voters was growing with the exception of in the South?

The same Paul Krugman responsible for spreading the false claim that there was a cholera outbreak in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria? He later pulled his tweets but IIRC never apologized -- sort of like he never apologized for trying to blame Sarah Palin for the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords.

Over the past decade Krugman has practically made a career of being wrong.

[Starlight]

The same Paul Krugman that predicted that the election of Trump was immediately send the U.S. economy spiraling into a deep recession? Actually, cause the entire world to immediately plunge into a severe recession?

The same Paul Krugman who predicted that the mere election of Trump would promptly cause the stock market to start plunging and from which they would likely never recover?

The same Paul Krugman who kept declaring that after the 2008-9 recession that Europe be far stronger than the U.S. economically because of all their socialist welfare state policies?

The same Paul Krugman who in 2015 claimed that support for the Democrats among white working class voters was growing with the exception of in the South?

The same Paul Krugman responsible for spreading the false claim that there was a cholera outbreak in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria? He later pulled his tweets but IIRC never apologized -- sort of like he never apologized for trying to blame Sarah Palin for the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords.

Over the past decade Krugman has practically made a career of being wrong.

The same Paul Krugman who burned his credibility in 2016 by throwing weekly deranged tantrums in his column about Bernie Sanders? Was this obvious shilling for Hillary all the more embarrassing for Krugman given that Sanders generally agreed with Krugman's policy views and had even floated Krugman as a possibility for his own cabinet? Yes.

As you point out, Krugman got many predictions of the future wrong. So I guess his credibility as an astrologer is shot. Do not trust him with a crystal ball.

However, he is certainly qualified to be able to tell us what the top economists think. That doesn't require predicting the future, it simply requires him talking to the experts in his own field and attending conferences and reading the papers they publish.

So when he says...
...it's worth taking that seriously.

[Bill the Cat]

I would say by any objective metric, the Democratic party has been far more fiscally responsible than the Republican party has over the last ~40 years.

[Bill the Cat]

You're just regurgitating MSM talking points that have no basis in reality:

[Cow Poke]

Over the past decade Krugman has practically made a career of being wrong.

Aside from weather forecasters, how does one make money being wrong?

[Sparko]

It's called reality, you should try it sometime.

Maybe being upside down has caused you to have a stroke. But your 'reality' is nothing like reality.

[Tassman]

You're just regurgitating MSM talking points that have no basis in reality:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresag.../#4c3c0e8326bb

[Bill the Cat]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresag.../#4c3c0e8326bb

The major outlets were wrong, as stated by the article I cited. Almost all of the respondents said that there was no increase in stock buy-backs, and that they did not change their plans for buying back stocks due to the tax cut. Nearly ALL said they invested in raises, benefits, and technology for their employees.

https://www.atr.org/list

[Tassman]

The major outlets were wrong, as stated by the article I cited. Almost all of the respondents said that there was no increase in stock buy-backs, and that they did not change their plans for buying back stocks due to the tax cut. Nearly ALL said they invested in raises, benefits, and technology for their employees.

https://www.atr.org/list

The article you cited, i.e. 'Americans for Tax Reform', is an anti-tax lobbying group and not reflective of most media outlets including Forbes, which was the one to which I linked.

[Bill the Cat]

The article you cited, i.e. 'Americans for Tax Reform', is an anti-tax lobbying group and not reflective of most media outlets including Forbes, which was the one to which I linked.

Poisoning the well...

[Littlejoe]

The major outlets were wrong, as stated by the article I cited. Almost all of the respondents said that there was no increase in stock buy-backs, and that they did not change their plans for buying back stocks due to the tax cut. Nearly ALL said they invested in raises, benefits, and technology for their employees.

https://www.atr.org/list

I think there should be limits to how much stock a company can buy back. They use it to artificially inflate their stock and to look better on the books. It was illegal for many, many years until Reagan opened the door for it. He was trying to recover from the stagflation of the Carter years but it should have had a time limit or something...