Except Republicans don't actually "leave money in the economy", because their tax cuts essentially only help their plutocrat friends hoard more and more of it, and put very little into the overall economy. I agree about the chart, but letting the above statement stand without context is just a tad misleading, don't you think?
but a chart that shows *only* the change in the deficit doesn't show where or with whom the currency is left. That's the point. If we are concerned *only* with the "deficit", then a regime that actually does meaningful stuff for the masses would have similar-looking "deficit" numbers.
As I said in the piece, if we want to show year-to-year changes in income levels, in income inequality, wealth inequality, or progressive tax rates, we could just make charts that show THOSE things. A chart that shows *only* the "deficit" doesn't show any of those things and is most effectively used against the marginalized.
I understand that, but I'm an editor so when I see an incomplete thought I tend to want it fixed. :-) Especially if the idea is to educate and inform. The simple fact of life is the charts presented by politicians are always going to be prime examples of "lies, damned lies, and statistics", so I favor making sure all the villains are clearly represented.
People are tired of your fictional charts and constant negativity, whining and complaining about EVERYTHING that doesn’t matter. Black lives don’t matter, LGBTQ lives don’t matter and YOUR life, wherever category it falls within, doesn’t matter either.
The majority of Americans feel the same way. We have spoken, so sit down and STFU.
If you want to truly cats an editorial eye, look at Kamala Harris' comment James quotes last. The Democrats really are the "badder guys" among all bad guys here. There is no nice way to dress up such austerity, because you know under a surplus-seeking government the poor and low-income groups aren't going to get any trickle-down whatsoever, not even free healthcare as things stand.
The GOP are not much better, but at least they provide a dim chance for trickle-down with their proto-fascism. The point to make here is if Democrats really care about the working class they'd (a) run permanent deficits, and (b) make sure the injections go in ONLY at the base, and they could *easily* choose to do so, they just don't, because they've all got neoliberal brainworms and still take advice form Summer, Blanchard and Bernstein and Co.
Right, when Democrats who promote this "deficit" mythology (which is nearly all Democrats) say things like "trickle-down economics doesn't work" (which is true), they're also saying "and, so, we're not going to try trickle-UP economics either," even though trickle-up economics actually DOES work.
The "deficit" is simply a reflection of untaxed federal assets, and even the guy who created the PR admitted years ago "trickle down" was a con; so, no, the Republicans aren't "slightly better". Still, the faith displayed in the idea there actually are two political parties one of which is a lesser evil is endearing.
It is not a reflection so much, it is a residual. The reflection is the non-government sector surplus is =(−deficit). Yes, neither trickle 'works". What works is when the currency fully circulates, everyone spends all their income. But all economies have power imbalances that create enormous anxiety and precarity (the precariat is not a modern phenom) and so people have insatiable savings desires, so there will be a government deficit either way if governments do not want pensioners dying in the streets.
Savings is fine—the implicit goal for it is to put it into the economy at some point. It serves the same function as taxation, which is to remove a portion of the circulating currency to prevent rampant inflation, like bonds. China plans to allow its deficit to increase as it injects stimulus money into the economy to encourage people to buy stuff, which makes sense if the US, it’s biggest export customer, is going to slam tariffs on everything. Better to sell the surplus at home by improving the buying capacity of the population, which reduces poverty as well provided prices are kept under control.
Except Republicans don't actually "leave money in the economy", because their tax cuts essentially only help their plutocrat friends hoard more and more of it, and put very little into the overall economy. I agree about the chart, but letting the above statement stand without context is just a tad misleading, don't you think?
but a chart that shows *only* the change in the deficit doesn't show where or with whom the currency is left. That's the point. If we are concerned *only* with the "deficit", then a regime that actually does meaningful stuff for the masses would have similar-looking "deficit" numbers.
As I said in the piece, if we want to show year-to-year changes in income levels, in income inequality, wealth inequality, or progressive tax rates, we could just make charts that show THOSE things. A chart that shows *only* the "deficit" doesn't show any of those things and is most effectively used against the marginalized.
I understand that, but I'm an editor so when I see an incomplete thought I tend to want it fixed. :-) Especially if the idea is to educate and inform. The simple fact of life is the charts presented by politicians are always going to be prime examples of "lies, damned lies, and statistics", so I favor making sure all the villains are clearly represented.
People are tired of your fictional charts and constant negativity, whining and complaining about EVERYTHING that doesn’t matter. Black lives don’t matter, LGBTQ lives don’t matter and YOUR life, wherever category it falls within, doesn’t matter either.
The majority of Americans feel the same way. We have spoken, so sit down and STFU.
If you want to truly cats an editorial eye, look at Kamala Harris' comment James quotes last. The Democrats really are the "badder guys" among all bad guys here. There is no nice way to dress up such austerity, because you know under a surplus-seeking government the poor and low-income groups aren't going to get any trickle-down whatsoever, not even free healthcare as things stand.
The GOP are not much better, but at least they provide a dim chance for trickle-down with their proto-fascism. The point to make here is if Democrats really care about the working class they'd (a) run permanent deficits, and (b) make sure the injections go in ONLY at the base, and they could *easily* choose to do so, they just don't, because they've all got neoliberal brainworms and still take advice form Summer, Blanchard and Bernstein and Co.
Right, when Democrats who promote this "deficit" mythology (which is nearly all Democrats) say things like "trickle-down economics doesn't work" (which is true), they're also saying "and, so, we're not going to try trickle-UP economics either," even though trickle-up economics actually DOES work.
The "deficit" is simply a reflection of untaxed federal assets, and even the guy who created the PR admitted years ago "trickle down" was a con; so, no, the Republicans aren't "slightly better". Still, the faith displayed in the idea there actually are two political parties one of which is a lesser evil is endearing.
It is not a reflection so much, it is a residual. The reflection is the non-government sector surplus is =(−deficit). Yes, neither trickle 'works". What works is when the currency fully circulates, everyone spends all their income. But all economies have power imbalances that create enormous anxiety and precarity (the precariat is not a modern phenom) and so people have insatiable savings desires, so there will be a government deficit either way if governments do not want pensioners dying in the streets.
Savings is fine—the implicit goal for it is to put it into the economy at some point. It serves the same function as taxation, which is to remove a portion of the circulating currency to prevent rampant inflation, like bonds. China plans to allow its deficit to increase as it injects stimulus money into the economy to encourage people to buy stuff, which makes sense if the US, it’s biggest export customer, is going to slam tariffs on everything. Better to sell the surplus at home by improving the buying capacity of the population, which reduces poverty as well provided prices are kept under control.
Put your crayons down boy. The American people have spoken. Donald J Trump is the best president since George Washington.