Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Tax Plan Results Compared

vortex86
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 3:30:39 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
GDP : 13.9%
Capital Investment: 43.9%
Wage Rate[4]: 12.2%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: 4,861,000

GDP: 11.5%
Capital Investment: 29.0%
Wage Rate: 6.5%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: 5,329,000

GDP: -1.0%
Capital Investment: -2.8%
Wage Rate: -0.8%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: -311,000

GDP: -9.5%
Capital Investment: -18.6%
Wage Rate: -4.3%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: -5,973,000

Take a guess who the results belong to (no cheating)
Sam7411
Posts: 959
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 3:35:39 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/14/2016 3:30:39 AM, vortex86 wrote:
GDP : 13.9%
Capital Investment: 43.9%
Wage Rate[4]: 12.2%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: 4,861,000

GDP: 11.5%
Capital Investment: 29.0%
Wage Rate: 6.5%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: 5,329,000

GDP: -1.0%
Capital Investment: -2.8%
Wage Rate: -0.8%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: -311,000

GDP: -9.5%
Capital Investment: -18.6%
Wage Rate: -4.3%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: -5,973,000


Take a guess who the results belong to (no cheating)

last one is Bernie
Sam7411
Posts: 959
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 3:37:09 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/14/2016 3:35:39 AM, Sam7411 wrote:
At 4/14/2016 3:30:39 AM, vortex86 wrote:
GDP : 13.9%
Capital Investment: 43.9%
Wage Rate[4]: 12.2%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: 4,861,000

GDP: 11.5%
Capital Investment: 29.0%
Wage Rate: 6.5%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: 5,329,000

GDP: -1.0%
Capital Investment: -2.8%
Wage Rate: -0.8%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: -311,000

GDP: -9.5%
Capital Investment: -18.6%
Wage Rate: -4.3%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: -5,973,000


Take a guess who the results belong to (no cheating)

last one is Bernie

Then probably Hillary then Trump then Cruz is first
Runn92
Posts: 324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 3:44:17 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/14/2016 3:30:39 AM, vortex86 wrote:
GDP : 13.9%
Capital Investment: 43.9%
Wage Rate[4]: 12.2%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: 4,861,000

GDP: 11.5%
Capital Investment: 29.0%
Wage Rate: 6.5%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: 5,329,000

GDP: -1.0%
Capital Investment: -2.8%
Wage Rate: -0.8%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: -311,000

GDP: -9.5%
Capital Investment: -18.6%
Wage Rate: -4.3%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: -5,973,000


Take a guess who the results belong to (no cheating)

Cruz, Trump, Hillary, Bernie?????
vortex86
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 1:31:31 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/14/2016 3:44:17 AM, Runn92 wrote:
At 4/14/2016 3:30:39 AM, vortex86 wrote:
GDP : 13.9%
Capital Investment: 43.9%
Wage Rate[4]: 12.2%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: 4,861,000

GDP: 11.5%
Capital Investment: 29.0%
Wage Rate: 6.5%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: 5,329,000

GDP: -1.0%
Capital Investment: -2.8%
Wage Rate: -0.8%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: -311,000

GDP: -9.5%
Capital Investment: -18.6%
Wage Rate: -4.3%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: -5,973,000


Take a guess who the results belong to (no cheating)


Cruz, Trump, Hillary, Bernie?????

What are those assumptions based on?
Sam7411
Posts: 959
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 1:53:52 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/14/2016 1:31:31 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 4/14/2016 3:44:17 AM, Runn92 wrote:
At 4/14/2016 3:30:39 AM, vortex86 wrote:
GDP : 13.9%
Capital Investment: 43.9%
Wage Rate[4]: 12.2%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: 4,861,000

GDP: 11.5%
Capital Investment: 29.0%
Wage Rate: 6.5%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: 5,329,000

GDP: -1.0%
Capital Investment: -2.8%
Wage Rate: -0.8%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: -311,000

GDP: -9.5%
Capital Investment: -18.6%
Wage Rate: -4.3%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: -5,973,000


Take a guess who the results belong to (no cheating)


Cruz, Trump, Hillary, Bernie?????

What are those assumptions based on?

Well I know Sander's economic plan since I've researched it for my debate, and I know that Cruz's policy is the most sound compared to the other candidates
Runn92
Posts: 324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 3:40:45 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/14/2016 1:31:31 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 4/14/2016 3:44:17 AM, Runn92 wrote:
At 4/14/2016 3:30:39 AM, vortex86 wrote:
GDP : 13.9%
Capital Investment: 43.9%
Wage Rate[4]: 12.2%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: 4,861,000

GDP: 11.5%
Capital Investment: 29.0%
Wage Rate: 6.5%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: 5,329,000

GDP: -1.0%
Capital Investment: -2.8%
Wage Rate: -0.8%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: -311,000

GDP: -9.5%
Capital Investment: -18.6%
Wage Rate: -4.3%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: -5,973,000


Take a guess who the results belong to (no cheating)


Cruz, Trump, Hillary, Bernie?????

What are those assumptions based on?

Cruz and Trump have the most pro growth tax plans. Hillary then Bernie for the least
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 4:34:48 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/14/2016 3:44:17 AM, Runn92 wrote:
At 4/14/2016 3:30:39 AM, vortex86 wrote:
GDP : 13.9%
Capital Investment: 43.9%
Wage Rate[4]: 12.2%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: 4,861,000

GDP: 11.5%
Capital Investment: 29.0%
Wage Rate: 6.5%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: 5,329,000

GDP: -1.0%
Capital Investment: -2.8%
Wage Rate: -0.8%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: -311,000

GDP: -9.5%
Capital Investment: -18.6%
Wage Rate: -4.3%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: -5,973,000


Take a guess who the results belong to (no cheating)


Cruz, Trump, Hillary, Bernie?????

That's probably accurate.
vortex86
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 6:46:35 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/14/2016 4:34:48 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/14/2016 3:44:17 AM, Runn92 wrote:
At 4/14/2016 3:30:39 AM, vortex86 wrote:
GDP : 13.9%
Capital Investment: 43.9%
Wage Rate[4]: 12.2%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: 4,861,000

GDP: 11.5%
Capital Investment: 29.0%
Wage Rate: 6.5%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: 5,329,000

GDP: -1.0%
Capital Investment: -2.8%
Wage Rate: -0.8%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: -311,000

GDP: -9.5%
Capital Investment: -18.6%
Wage Rate: -4.3%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: -5,973,000


Take a guess who the results belong to (no cheating)


Cruz, Trump, Hillary, Bernie?????

That's probably accurate.

All 3 of you are correct in your guess by the way.
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 7:07:19 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/14/2016 6:46:35 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 4/14/2016 4:34:48 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/14/2016 3:44:17 AM, Runn92 wrote:
At 4/14/2016 3:30:39 AM, vortex86 wrote:
GDP : 13.9%
Capital Investment: 43.9%
Wage Rate[4]: 12.2%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: 4,861,000

GDP: 11.5%
Capital Investment: 29.0%
Wage Rate: 6.5%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: 5,329,000

GDP: -1.0%
Capital Investment: -2.8%
Wage Rate: -0.8%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: -311,000

GDP: -9.5%
Capital Investment: -18.6%
Wage Rate: -4.3%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: -5,973,000


Take a guess who the results belong to (no cheating)


Cruz, Trump, Hillary, Bernie?????

That's probably accurate.

All 3 of you are correct in your guess by the way.

I call BS. There's no way that Trumps tax plan would lead to an 11% GDP growth rate, its widely considered to put the national deficit into overdrive which would only wreck economic growth, not spur it

http://www.npr.org...
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
SolonKR
Posts: 4,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 7:22:20 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Breaking news: Conservative economists prefer conservative tax plans.
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
vortex86
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 7:30:32 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/14/2016 7:22:20 PM, SolonKR wrote:
Breaking news: Conservative economists prefer conservative tax plans.

So provide sources/info from alternative economists that describe the above mentioned talking points that differ from what I provided.
SolonKR
Posts: 4,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 7:38:06 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/14/2016 7:30:32 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 4/14/2016 7:22:20 PM, SolonKR wrote:
Breaking news: Conservative economists prefer conservative tax plans.

So provide sources/info from alternative economists that describe the above mentioned talking points that differ from what I provided.

I'm out right now, but will be more than willing to provide sources upon my return.
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 8:36:35 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/14/2016 3:30:39 AM, vortex86 wrote:
GDP : 13.9%
Capital Investment: 43.9%
Wage Rate[4]: 12.2%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: 4,861,000

GDP: 11.5%
Capital Investment: 29.0%
Wage Rate: 6.5%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: 5,329,000

GDP: -1.0%
Capital Investment: -2.8%
Wage Rate: -0.8%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: -311,000

GDP: -9.5%
Capital Investment: -18.6%
Wage Rate: -4.3%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: -5,973,000


Take a guess who the results belong to (no cheating)

As someone who did extensive research on these candidates and their tax plans, as well as reading multiple times the Tax Foundation study, I can tell you with certainty that the list goes in this order: Cruz, Trump, Clinton, Sanders.

It's no doubt that Sanders would kill GDP growth, as well as millions of private sector jobs.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 8:40:06 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/14/2016 7:22:20 PM, SolonKR wrote:
Breaking news: Conservative economists prefer conservative tax plans.

Oh please, simply calling it a bias as to take away all of their credibility is not a good way of reasoning against the study.

Tax Foundation is an independent and non partisan research center. If they find that fiscal conservatism works better than fiscal liberalism, which it does, then all the power to them. Just because they don't buy into this silly narrative of fiscal irresponsibility doesn't mean that their studies are not accurate.

It would take a real moron to say that Sanders would help the economy. The only economist that thinks Sanders' plans are good is Robert Reich, who is probably one better than Richard Wolff in terms of economic knowledge.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 8:41:01 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/14/2016 7:30:32 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 4/14/2016 7:22:20 PM, SolonKR wrote:
Breaking news: Conservative economists prefer conservative tax plans.

So provide sources/info from alternative economists that describe the above mentioned talking points that differ from what I provided.

Watch it come from liberal sites.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
SolonKR
Posts: 4,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 9:36:10 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/14/2016 8:40:06 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 4/14/2016 7:22:20 PM, SolonKR wrote:
Breaking news: Conservative economists prefer conservative tax plans.

Oh please, simply calling it a bias as to take away all of their credibility is not a good way of reasoning against the study.

Tax Foundation is an independent and non partisan research center. If they find that fiscal conservatism works better than fiscal liberalism, which it does, then all the power to them. Just because they don't buy into this silly narrative of fiscal irresponsibility doesn't mean that their studies are not accurate.

Were these numbers from the Tax Foundation?
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
SolonKR
Posts: 4,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 9:44:49 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Oh, I know why that never bothered me enough to remember.

Quote: They do not take into account the distributional effects of any of the spending programs that Senator Sanders has proposed.

That's the central component of tax-and-spend, lol. Of course people who raise taxes are going to look terrible every time.
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 10:47:50 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/14/2016 9:36:10 PM, SolonKR wrote:
At 4/14/2016 8:40:06 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 4/14/2016 7:22:20 PM, SolonKR wrote:
Breaking news: Conservative economists prefer conservative tax plans.

Oh please, simply calling it a bias as to take away all of their credibility is not a good way of reasoning against the study.

Tax Foundation is an independent and non partisan research center. If they find that fiscal conservatism works better than fiscal liberalism, which it does, then all the power to them. Just because they don't buy into this silly narrative of fiscal irresponsibility doesn't mean that their studies are not accurate.

Were these numbers from the Tax Foundation?

yup
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 11:06:17 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/14/2016 9:36:10 PM, SolonKR wrote:
At 4/14/2016 8:40:06 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 4/14/2016 7:22:20 PM, SolonKR wrote:
Breaking news: Conservative economists prefer conservative tax plans.

Oh please, simply calling it a bias as to take away all of their credibility is not a good way of reasoning against the study.

Tax Foundation is an independent and non partisan research center. If they find that fiscal conservatism works better than fiscal liberalism, which it does, then all the power to them. Just because they don't buy into this silly narrative of fiscal irresponsibility doesn't mean that their studies are not accurate.

Were these numbers from the Tax Foundation?

Yes, they were taken directly from the Tax Foundation.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
SolonKR
Posts: 4,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 12:03:06 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Given that the study doesn't account for government spending increases and cuts, I'm not exactly sure what I'm supposed to prove any more... that increasing government spending ceteris paribus increases GDP and employment, and lowering it ceteris paribus lowers them? That's just a truism.

In any case, there's no comprehensive study I could find regarding the potential effects of Sanders' fiscal policies. This was the closest I could get. Obviously, ignore the section about Friedman, as it has since been discredited http://www.ibtimes.com...
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
vortex86
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 1:58:16 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/15/2016 12:03:06 AM, SolonKR wrote:
Given that the study doesn't account for government spending increases and cuts, I'm not exactly sure what I'm supposed to prove any more... that increasing government spending ceteris paribus increases GDP and employment, and lowering it ceteris paribus lowers them? That's just a truism.

In any case, there's no comprehensive study I could find regarding the potential effects of Sanders' fiscal policies. This was the closest I could get. Obviously, ignore the section about Friedman, as it has since been discredited http://www.ibtimes.com...

Hence them sticking to what can be accounted for. You can discuss the benefits of the distributional effect on GDP. However, it doesn't say it doesn't account for government spending increases. The only real argument you could make is the value of public sector jobs over private. It doesn't specify the type of full-time jobs. It just describes a positive or negative growth of jobs.

"Third, a realistic examination of the impact of the Sanders policies on
the economy"s productive capacity suggests those effects are likely to
be small at best, and possibly even negative."(1)

Small growth at best by liberal economists.

"Sanders economic policy plan would also raise middle class taxes to the detriment of the economic growth"(2).

So at best we have small growth and millions of lost jobs. I think the above results based on the only things that can be projected hold sound.

(1) https://evaluationoffriedman.files.wordpress.com...
(2) http://www.forbes.com...

You argued for a stronger showing of Sander's plan but didn't dispute the validity of the others, nor did you provide any analysis that supported your assertion.
SolonKR
Posts: 4,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 2:28:39 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/15/2016 1:58:16 AM, vortex86 wrote:
Hence them sticking to what can be accounted for. You can discuss the benefits of the distributional effect on GDP. However, it doesn't say it doesn't account for government spending increases. The only real argument you could make is the value of public sector jobs over private. It doesn't specify the type of full-time jobs. It just describes a positive or negative growth of jobs.

"nor does it account for the potential macroeconomic or distributional effects of any changes to government spending that may accompany the tax plan"

It doesn't factor in government spending. I'm not saying that the Tax Foundation is biased, I'm saying that calling these numbers the results of tax plans is misleading (which is why I initially thought the numbers were from a biased source). It would be like calling just the frosting the result of baking a cake.

"Third, a realistic examination of the impact of the Sanders policies on
the economy"s productive capacity suggests those effects are likely to
be small at best, and possibly even negative."(1)

Small growth at best by liberal economists.

Even if if the growth were negligible, the provision of services such as free college and healthcare are significant investments in the future of the country. Also, just because someone is liberal or conservative and disagrees with their party, it doesn't make them infallible -_-

"Sanders economic policy plan would also raise middle class taxes to the detriment of the economic growth"(2).

With regards to this, it ignores that Sanders has repeatedly stated that his minimum wage hike to $15/hr is inexorably tied to his economic plan, and any remaining loss of income is ideally offset by the provision of formerly expensive services a la carte by the government.

So at best we have small growth and millions of lost jobs. I think the above results based on the only things that can be projected hold sound.

(1) https://evaluationoffriedman.files.wordpress.com...
(2) http://www.forbes.com...

You argued for a stronger showing of Sander's plan but didn't dispute the validity of the others, nor did you provide any analysis that supported your assertion.

I can dispute the validity of all the plans because anything that only analyzes the effects of only taxes themselves doesn't factor in spending cuts/raises. It's clear how problematic this is because a 0% tax, taking this model at face value, would create the greatest amount of GDP possible, but given the gutting of necessary government programs, that's clearly not true.

I don't have to provide analysis because it's a truism that government spending and cuts have major effects on the economy. Now, it can be argued how strong the impacts of spending are relative to taxation, but that the effect isn't negligible isn't up for debate, so this data is nearly-useless without any other info in telling us how good candidates' economic plans are.
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
vortex86
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 2:34:04 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/15/2016 2:28:39 AM, SolonKR wrote:
Even if if the growth were negligible

Yet you said the validity of analyzing his plan is useless since this is the basis of his whole plan. I gave sources describing how minimal that impact is.

You ignored the loss of jobs as well as the negative GDP. So basically your new opinion is that those things don't matter as long as we are investing in our future with things like "free" college education. At least you would be honest, and how would anyone deny you that assertion as it's opinion based.
SolonKR
Posts: 4,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 2:39:57 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/15/2016 2:34:04 AM, vortex86 wrote:
At 4/15/2016 2:28:39 AM, SolonKR wrote:
Even if if the growth were negligible

Yet you said the validity of analyzing his plan is useless since this is the basis of his whole plan. I gave sources describing how minimal that impact is.

Could you reword that first sentence?

Anyway, we're steering away from the core issue here. The question was--do the Tax Foundation's numbers provide a comprehensive picture of how the economy would look under any candidate? The answer is no.

You ignored the loss of jobs as well as the negative GDP. So basically your new opinion is that those things don't matter as long as we are investing in our future with things like "free" college education. At least you would be honest, and how would anyone deny you that assertion as it's opinion based.

I addressed why both of the sources I was given don't hold.
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
vortex86
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 2:55:58 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/15/2016 2:39:57 AM, SolonKR wrote:
Anyway, we're steering away from the core issue here. The question was--do the Tax Foundation's numbers provide a comprehensive picture of how the economy would look under any candidate? The answer is no.


This is the best guess from an independent source that looked at the numbers. They sought further information from the candidates to further fine tune things and have yet to receive all information requested. As I didn't state anywhere this was the end all tell-all of data, I merely provided it for discussion. I also asked you for alternatives as you continue to diminish the validity of the information provided.

You ignored the loss of jobs as well as the negative GDP. So basically your new opinion is that those things don't matter as long as we are investing in our future with things like "free" college education. At least you would be honest, and how would anyone deny you that assertion as it's opinion based.

I addressed why both of the sources I was given don't hold.

There are numerous economists from various political persuasions that have contended that his economic growth would be little to nothing at best. You seemed to concede that point. You also believe that temporary boosts from government spending somehow equate to long term effects. Not to mention the lack of translating from public to private growth.
SolonKR
Posts: 4,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 3:04:41 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/15/2016 2:55:58 AM, vortex86 wrote:
This is the best guess from an independent source that looked at the numbers. They sought further information from the candidates to further fine tune things and have yet to receive all information requested. As I didn't state anywhere this was the end all tell-all of data, I merely provided it for discussion. I also asked you for alternatives as you continue to diminish the validity of the information provided.

I don't have alternatives because there aren't any. Essentially, I've not seen a single study that isn't fiddle faddle with respect to its validity in assessing the effects of the candidates' economic plans. I look to the verdict of history, and the verdict is that democratic socialism is in the best interests of the common people.

There are numerous economists from various political persuasions that have contended that his economic growth would be little to nothing at best. You seemed to concede that point. You also believe that temporary boosts from government spending somehow equate to long term effects. Not to mention the lack of translating from public to private growth.

Two things:
1. I didn't concede. I mentioned the studies do not factor in the minimum wage increase, for one.
2. You're putting words in my mouth. The college reforms and healthcare reforms, for example, are not short term.

But, regardless, I've made my point with regards to the Tax Foundation study. I didn't intend to get involved in the murky subjectives, so I will withdraw from this thread.
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 5:03:10 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/14/2016 3:30:39 AM, vortex86 wrote:
GDP : 13.9%
Capital Investment: 43.9%
Wage Rate[4]: 12.2%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: 4,861,000

Cruz.

GDP: 11.5%
Capital Investment: 29.0%
Wage Rate: 6.5%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: 5,329,000

Trump.

GDP: -1.0%
Capital Investment: -2.8%
Wage Rate: -0.8%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: -311,000


Hillary
GDP: -9.5%
Capital Investment: -18.6%
Wage Rate: -4.3%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: -5,973,000


Sanders

Take a guess who the results belong to (no cheating)

I can even guess the source: Tax Foundation.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 5:05:03 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/14/2016 7:07:19 PM, imabench wrote:
At 4/14/2016 6:46:35 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 4/14/2016 4:34:48 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/14/2016 3:44:17 AM, Runn92 wrote:
At 4/14/2016 3:30:39 AM, vortex86 wrote:
GDP : 13.9%
Capital Investment: 43.9%
Wage Rate[4]: 12.2%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: 4,861,000

GDP: 11.5%
Capital Investment: 29.0%
Wage Rate: 6.5%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: 5,329,000

GDP: -1.0%
Capital Investment: -2.8%
Wage Rate: -0.8%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: -311,000

GDP: -9.5%
Capital Investment: -18.6%
Wage Rate: -4.3%
Full-time Equivalent Jobs: -5,973,000


Take a guess who the results belong to (no cheating)


Cruz, Trump, Hillary, Bernie?????

That's probably accurate.

All 3 of you are correct in your guess by the way.

I call BS. There's no way that Trumps tax plan would lead to an 11% GDP growth rate, its widely considered to put the national deficit into overdrive which would only wreck economic growth, not spur it

It is over a decade, not in one year. 11% in one year = power of God

http://www.npr.org...

I agree, his plan is a terrible idea. The deficits probably won't matter now with interest rates near zero, but if they are raised in the future it will lead to crowd-out.

I just wish someone proposed the X-Tax :/
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 5:05:54 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/15/2016 12:03:06 AM, SolonKR wrote:
Given that the study doesn't account for government spending increases and cuts, I'm not exactly sure what I'm supposed to prove any more... that increasing government spending ceteris paribus increases GDP and employment, and lowering it ceteris paribus lowers them? That's just a truism.

In any case, there's no comprehensive study I could find regarding the potential effects of Sanders' fiscal policies. This was the closest I could get. Obviously, ignore the section about Friedman, as it has since been discredited http://www.ibtimes.com...

There has been analysis by Christina and David Romer, Obama advisors. They say Sanders is full of crap.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross