Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Supply-Side Economics is Working

shakran · 07-20-2004, 09:27 PM

you know, i was reading through this thread (ignoring the stupid little troll war at the end) and I must say, W must be an amazing president.

I mean, despite the fact that KMA-628 is crediting the economic policies of Mr. Bush as the factors behind the economy's "upturn" (more on that later), the largest economic boom in recent memory, under Clinton, was credited to Bush's dad. Why? Because, the republicans said at the time, a president's fiscal policy takes at least 8 years to have a measurable effect on the economy. Now, if we're to take that ludicrous notion at face value, then Bush is certainly not responsible for what the economy is doing now since he hasn't even been in office 4 years. How is it that when the economy is genuinely good under a democrat, it's credited to the republicans, and when the economy is bad under a republican (see earlier in Bush's term) it's blamed on the democrats, yet when the economy is "good" under a republican, it's the republicans' brilliant leadership.

I'm not sure what's more sad - the fact that they actually believe the American people are stupid enough to swallow this twisted, bullshit logic, or the fact that their belief is correct.

As for the economy being good, that is a load of crap.

Don't tell me about jobs being added because so many were taken away due to the crappy economy that Bush brought about that at the current rate we'd be decades replacing them all. I mean, if I stole $1,000 from you and then gave you 50 cents, would you really be grateful about it?

The debt continues to climb, and Bush himself has said he doesn't care - "I don't care about the deficit, I care about jobs."

Just because the deficit isn't as bad as predicted doesn't mean things are great. If I'm diagnosed with prostate, lung, skin, and liver cancer, and the doctor later tells me that I don't really have skin cancer, I'm still just as dead.

supply side economics is a moronic concept that cannot work. Let's reduce our income, and increase our spending, and we'll get rich. It's such a load of utter crap that it astounds me people still believe in it. Look, you guys had 12 years to try it out under Reagan/Bush and it never worked, yet you keep pushing it. Hell even rats in mazes are clever enough to try a different passage when they keep hitting a dead-end in the one they're in.
The system is just like communism - looks great on paper but the theory fails utterly to take into account human nature. Communism failed not because the idea of everyone sharing equally was bad, but because humans are by and large assholes, and a select few decided they wanted to be more equal than others. Supply-side (I like the name Bush Sr. gave to it before he changed his tune to become Reagan's VP candidate - Voodoo Economics) says that we'll let the rich keep most of their money, they'll invest it, the places they invest it will hire more people, and the money will trickle down to the unwashed masses. Aside from the fact that it's an appallingly classist system, it relies on the idea that the rich guy will invest his money instead of buying that new porsche. It also relies on the idea that companies will take that money and hire more people with it rather than buying more robots to do the same job. Unfortunately, this isn't a fairy land, it's the real world, and in the real world, with real money, voodoo economics simply can't work for any but those who are already rich.

07-20-2004, 09:27 PM	#40 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	you know, i was reading through this thread (ignoring the stupid little troll war at the end) and I must say, W must be an amazing president. I mean, despite the fact that KMA-628 is crediting the economic policies of Mr. Bush as the factors behind the economy's "upturn" (more on that later), the largest economic boom in recent memory, under Clinton, was credited to Bush's dad. Why? Because, the republicans said at the time, a president's fiscal policy takes at least 8 years to have a measurable effect on the economy. Now, if we're to take that ludicrous notion at face value, then Bush is certainly not responsible for what the economy is doing now since he hasn't even been in office 4 years. How is it that when the economy is genuinely good under a democrat, it's credited to the republicans, and when the economy is bad under a republican (see earlier in Bush's term) it's blamed on the democrats, yet when the economy is "good" under a republican, it's the republicans' brilliant leadership. I'm not sure what's more sad - the fact that they actually believe the American people are stupid enough to swallow this twisted, bullshit logic, or the fact that their belief is correct. As for the economy being good, that is a load of crap. Don't tell me about jobs being added because so many were taken away due to the crappy economy that Bush brought about that at the current rate we'd be decades replacing them all. I mean, if I stole $1,000 from you and then gave you 50 cents, would you really be grateful about it? The debt continues to climb, and Bush himself has said he doesn't care - "I don't care about the deficit, I care about jobs." Just because the deficit isn't as bad as predicted doesn't mean things are great. If I'm diagnosed with prostate, lung, skin, and liver cancer, and the doctor later tells me that I don't really have skin cancer, I'm still just as dead. supply side economics is a moronic concept that cannot work. Let's reduce our income, and increase our spending, and we'll get rich. It's such a load of utter crap that it astounds me people still believe in it. Look, you guys had 12 years to try it out under Reagan/Bush and it never worked, yet you keep pushing it. Hell even rats in mazes are clever enough to try a different passage when they keep hitting a dead-end in the one they're in. The system is just like communism - looks great on paper but the theory fails utterly to take into account human nature. Communism failed not because the idea of everyone sharing equally was bad, but because humans are by and large assholes, and a select few decided they wanted to be more equal than others. Supply-side (I like the name Bush Sr. gave to it before he changed his tune to become Reagan's VP candidate - Voodoo Economics) says that we'll let the rich keep most of their money, they'll invest it, the places they invest it will hire more people, and the money will trickle down to the unwashed masses. Aside from the fact that it's an appallingly classist system, it relies on the idea that the rich guy will invest his money instead of buying that new porsche. It also relies on the idea that companies will take that money and hire more people with it rather than buying more robots to do the same job. Unfortunately, this isn't a fairy land, it's the real world, and in the real world, with real money, voodoo economics simply can't work for any but those who are already rich.