Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Right-Wing Economist Makes The Worst Prediction You've Ever Heard" video.

  1. We always have had boom bust cycles. Also 10% is higher than 20% if you are taking 10% from 100,000 compared to 20% of 100. The idea of cutting taxes is to have growth so the lower percent is bringing in more revenue. Kyle needs to study economics.
    2
  2. +Emily Schmitt Not really.
    1
  3. +JosephM1750 I do. As a moderate I tend to vote republican because when I break down the issues the argument favors the right more than the left. I see liberals anymore having statements that simply appeal to emotions and empty rhetoric.
    1
  4. +gunnyblender I am 30
    1
  5. +JosephM1750 And yet you give zero justification. You do know that "tickle down economics" is not an economic term?
    1
  6. +JosephM1750 Funny, my uncle has PhD in economics. Both of my siblings have their MBAs. I have several friends who studied economics and they give a different story. I doubt you have an MBA because you immediately went to "trickle down economics", which as I said is not an economic term. It is a political term designed to be an ad hominem attack or a phrase to appeal to emotions.
    1
  7. +JosephM1750 So you went to a top 5 MBA program but yet you cited a NYtimes article as opposed to an article from a peer reviewed journal? I read the article, it said there is no correlation. If you were actually intelligent then you would know it is more complicated than that. What we need to do is simplify the tax code. If you really were knowledgeable than you would know that paying taxes through a W2 is the worst way to pay taxes, but yet it is the way more middle and lower class pay. In one of my jobs I pay through a 1099. I pay $0 in taxes on that due to the numerous write offs I can do. So it isn't as simple as "tax cuts for the rich" or as you said, supply side economics. If you actually went to a top 5 MBA program than I suggest you get your money back. Stanford, UPenn, Harvard, MIT and Chicago are expensive schools.........Chicago, isn't that the same school where Milton Friedman worked at? Sorry to burst your delusional bubble but facts are facts.
    1
  8. +JosephM1750 You made a hand wavy argument of "tax cuts for the rich don't work" and "supply side economics don't work". Ok, as in what? How? You are ignoring the complexity of the tax code as is. And "multiplier effect"? Really? You should have also learn that you can't consume what you don't produce. If you increase the amount of money people on the bottom have without increase supply then prices go up. Now I agree we should have a simplified tax code which cuts taxes for the middle and lower class. But you have to realize that those up top have to invest to produce.
    1
  9. +JosephM1750 And you haven't justified anything besides "supply side doesn't work". And then you said "right wing dribble". I suggest you try to get your money back.
    1
  10. +JosephM1750 " In addition, supply side economics isn't supported by recent peer-reviewed academic research either and we have lots of examples of how it doesn't help employment or the economy " Again, "supply side economics" is a very broad term. If you studied for your MBA you would know that. Bush's policies kept the economy strong after 9/11. Where he messed up was when he listened to the democrats in congress and passed the stimulus bill which slowed down the recovery after a recession. Recessions happen, they are hard to avoid. But what we can avoid is wasteful spending. Bush's tax policy did not hurt anything.
    1
  11. +DAK4Blizzard Noticed how quickly we recovered? Recessions happen, recovery is key. The crash of 2007 saw slow recovery because of massive federal government spending as in the stimulus package. You can't blame that one fully on Bush.
    1
  12. +Daniel Price There are several right wing economist that know how economics work. I question left wing economist though.
    1
  13. +Kaleb Adams Trickle down economics is not an economic term.
    1
  14. That is a lot, but the reality is that Republicans will win. If Clinton wins the primaries then few voters will come out since she can't motivate anyone. Especially members of her voting crowd like the young and minorities. Clinton will get beat. Bernie will get beat because he is too easy of a target. He has radical ideas that will get torn apart easily. Even simply pointing towards higher taxes will get him beat. So to say that Republicans will win 45 states is a stretch, but republicans will win. And the democrat debate has been a joke as well.
    1
  15. +ThezRhino Obama predicts 54 of the 59 states.
    1
  16. +Andrew How am I a birther?
    1