US gov't shutdown

So, with as much fanfare as it deserves (none), it would seems Trumps' SoE has been ended with barely a soul noticing.

Probably for the best really given a media storm would only motivate the useless cunt to try saving face.

It's not ended. Read more carefully. The Senate has to vote on it, and while it might pass, Trump can just veto it (neat, huh?). It's unlikely that the votes are there for an override in the House, although it's not inconceivable that the Senate could do so.

What an absurd system!

OOPS! Trump underestimated (or as Bush II would say "misunderestimated" ) his wall needs. We need two more walls right here in Georgia! One wall around the Atlanta airport and one around Savanna. Let me preach on it:

Supposedly the border wall is for stopping drug smugglers, human traffickers and other similar criminal activity. Yet time & time again legal & authorized "ports of entry" are used. If 10 or even 20 percent of your product is detected & confiscated that's just the cost of doing business. It's not like the criminals are closing up shop. Low level mules and patsies go to prison and flip on their higher-ups but the highest level guys still remain in business.
If criminals tried to move large quantities of product 24/7 across the border in the middle of the desert the logistics would doom nearly every attempt to failure!

My point being if the overwhelming majority of heartless greedy sociopathic criminal kingpins already use major points of entry that already exist instead of trying bring their products over/through a wall out in the boondocks, why would they start using an even bigger & better wall? Obviously the fence/wall we have is not the most important factor in controlling multi-million dollar criminal networks.

The main bullet-point here is I'm not a big fan of the wall. IMHO we should use any resources earmarked for the wall and hire the people we need to streamline the immigration process for those who really just want a better, safer life in the land of milk & honey. And newsflash - if there was no demand
for their products & services the criminals would stop doing business in the US. Just sayin'



https://kdwn.com/2019/02/25/cocaine-found-in-pineapples-figurines-at-georgia-ports/

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/he...ounds-of-cocaine-at-atlanta-airport/924216394

Where did @Marso go?

He did this the last three times I explained to him how the national debt works too.

He'll find another lost cause to champion with ignorance soon enough, have no fear.

At some point you have to realize that this is ideological for them. Trickle Down/Faith Based Economics are a religion for these people. Facts don’t mater. Case studies (waves at Kansas) don’t matter.

At some point you just give up and have fun.

Trickle down economics never existed, no economist ever used that term, it was created by the media.

Stop peddling lies Anc, public health care is impossible to achieve. It's not like you have a whole other country to your north doing it or anything.

It was first used by Will Rogers. You're right that no economist would use it. Reagan was no economist.

Reagan never used the term either. The actual term is supply side economics which did work. Cutting taxes has also worked in the pastas well, but @Ancalagon likes to ignore that and just focuses on Kansas.

"It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."

-- David Stockman, budget director for Ronald Reagan

Not an economist.

I was half expecting you to go into one of your feedback loops ("Did Ronald Reagan ever say the exact words 'trickle-down,' yes or no? Yes or no? YES OR NO?"), so I guess this is a slight improvement.

Trickle-down economics exist. The fact that that exact term isn't used by economists doesn't change that fact. And, yes, it is exactly the same as "supply-side economics," and Reagan's own budget director admitted it.

Your argument is like saying "partial-birth abortion doesn't exist because doctors who practice abortion don't call it that."

Trickle down focuses on cutting taxes for the rich and businesses, supply side focuses on cutting taxes for everyone with the goal of creating growth that will generate revenue.

In that case, it's funny how supply-side economics always ends up as trickle-down in practice, isn't it?

What’s funny is how people say it doesn’t work when it does.

No, what is funny is you have to do verbal gymnastics to avoid the actual point that it has never worked.

Really, then what do you call the economic boom of the late 80s through the 90s, or the economic boom of the 1920s?

Try addressing the recession of the early 80s first.

Um ... the Reagan/Bush administration ended with a devastating recession that we came out of during the Clinton administration (after the top marginal tax rate went up.)

And do I really need to explain to a "historian" why crowing about "the economic boom of the 1920s" is stupid?

Apparently you do. I'd recommend we substitute "voodoo economics" for the other terms. Or will the conservopublicantarians label that "racist"?

You mean the great depression and recession? I would not call them economically good. However, the great recession recovery was mainly due to a huge new industry coming to a climax. That was the time when we put computers on every office desk and into every home. It was the time when we made a country wide commercial network called the internet and upghraded phone lines to high speed local networks we can now stream data over. It literally created millions of medium to high paying jobs across the country. No, I do not give Clinton or gore credit for those inventions or that advancement.

The history of the highest marginal tax rate in the United States is actually pretty interesting.

During World War I, taxes on the richest Americans went up dramatically. The war ended in 1918 but the top rate stayed above 70% through 1921. The recessions that stemmed from the sharp fall in war production were short-lived, and the Roaring Twenties began. Then Harding, Coolidge and Hoover slashed taxes, bringing the top rate all the way down to 25% in 1925, and four years later the Great Depression began. The GDP cratered and unemployment spiked.

Roosevelt was elected and increased the top rate, first to 63% and then to 79%, and we began to recover from the Depression. The top rate went all the way up to 94% during the final two years of World War II. Again, the recessions resulting from the end the war were short-lived, and even the end of war production didn't cause a massive spike in unemployment.

The rate stayed high through the 1950s, and prosperity continued. During the period when the top rate was above 90%, end-of-year unemployment never went above 6.6%, and was usually much lower.

The '60s and '70s were a mixed bag. At the end of the Nixon-Ford years, end-of-year unemployment hit a level not seen since the beginning of World War II. Reagan and Bush took a leaf from Harding, Coolidge and Hoover and slashed taxes, especially for the rich, and ... hey, look, it's a recession!

Then we elected Clinton, the rate went up, and the economy recovered.

Then Bush, a tax cut, and ... yay, it's the biggest economic decline since the Depression!

Then Obama, an increase in the top marginal rate, and recovery.

Not only are Republican economic policies demonstrably bad for the economy as a whole, the Reagan-Bush years increased income inequality, ensuring that crashes would be easier for the rich to weather, but even more devastating for everyone else.

The fact that there are still huge swaths of the electorate buying into the "Republican policies are better for the economy" bullshit is just a testament to how effective gaslighting can be.

This was due in no small part to the pent up consumer demand caused by the war. From 1942 until about June 1945, most of the US' industrial output went towards the war. There were a lot of things which were either difficult or impossible to get.
Once the US government allowed civilian production after Germany fell, consumers started buying all the things they couldn't get during the war.

An abject failure directly resulting in near economic collapse.

No, no, the 1920s proved that Republican economic policies are awesome! A historian told me so.