Is there even a point? Like I'm not trying to aggravate the situation, but you'll still have the same mindset that you always had, regardless of what we say. It's always the same outcome in any political or social thread here. Shit gets flung around for a while, an occasional golden post gets thrown in only to be buried by the mindless babbling, and no one leaves reconciled or more enlightened from civil discourse. So I could give you a substantiated argument, but to reiterate, is there any point at all? Sorry to rant, but I felt I needed to get that off my chest.

I'll give you a longer explanation. [quote]How are increasing taxes and increasing spending (thus increasing debt and future taxes),[/quote] This part of your post tackles two main points: the relationship between taxes and spending, and the relationship between taxes and future spending. -First of all, let's stop worrying about the debt. The US's debt is on incredibly low interest rates, to the point that the US almost makes money off of it (negative rates when you look at bonds). The debt is mostly owed to US institutions, so foreign ownership isn't an issue either. To tackle your main point, the relationship between revenue and expenses is tied in with economic growth and unemployment. The US has a variety of economic goals, here are the main ones: -Ideally 4% growth per annum -Unemployment should decrease at an appreciable rate -Budget Surplus The proposed solutions to this are: "Leftist" Democrats: -Remove Bush tax cuts, especially for the rich. -Cut military spending -Spending more on healthcare, infrastructure -At least maintain current levels of the welfare system This policy involves increasing revenue with tax hikes, and reducing unnecessary military spending. This pays for universal healthcare, a New New Deal and the welfare system. What about the goals? ->Increase economic growth? Check. -The money saved from a medicare for all system (or medicaid) is roughly 10% overall IIRC. That's a lot les spending on healthcare on more on consumption spending. -Infrastructure projects easily provide millions of jobs, and thus economic growth. Also reduces unemployment massively. -Tax hike hit on eco growth is minimal. The rich distribute a far greater percentage of their income to savings, so current consumption won't be affected significantly. FYI consumer spending is 2/3 or the American economy IIRC. What about the budget surplus? Depends on the level of spending/revenue. Tax hikes will be the most important aspect of the whole ordeal. Remember that the economic growth from the extra spending will reduce the GDP to debt ratio, so the problem fixes itself to an extent. Right wing Dems: -Same as leftist dems except: -Obamacare -No second stimulus I don't really need to say much here. I am not going to talk about the GOP policy yet, but if I do it will be something along the same lines. In the long run, look at the Australian/NZ systems. They aren't collapsing. I would also say the Scandanavian system as well; the rest of the EU however is going through an austerity phase. Also, austerity doesn't work. The most propenent paper supporting it wasn't peer reviewed and had major errors, which in all honesty smells like a major conspiracy to me. European governments, especially Germany jumped in glee when it was published to push through austerity quickly, only to continue the policy after it was debunked. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/16/is-the-best-evidence-for-austerity-based-on-an-excel-spreadsheet-error/ On the subject of Keynesianism, look at the Great Depression. Government funding ended the Depression. The New Deal fixed a lot of issues, while WW2 sealed the deal. Either way, both were massive goverment spending sprees, = not only into the US's military and welfare systems, but also its industry; the US grew into a super power during this time. [quote]as well as wealth redistribution, lead to [b]long term[/b] prosperity?[/quote] -The problem with the current system is that wealth inequality is too high and the problem is getting worse. In the 60s and 70s, effective tax rates for rich people were at 70%, the CEO to average worker pay ratio was 10:1. Now the rich get tax cuts despite the fact that they don't need it, and the CEO to average worker pay ratio is 270:1. -The problem with wealth inequality was already stated earlier; the rich tend to forego current consumption for savings and investment. The lack of capital is certainly not an issue in the current economic climate, look at Wall Street for example. The poor are struggling with day to day living, which also hurts small businesses as poor people (I presume) are much more likely to buy food from a dairy than a CEO would. I'll also state that high wealth inequality= erosion of rights in the long run.

I always liked the gardening analogy. If you tend to a garden, take out weeds, cut back plants now and then and water it all equally you will have a lovely garden in a few years time. If you leave it to grow unattended it becomes a right mess and if you over stifle it and replace it with paper flowers and astro-turf then it's worthless.

Hey [b]Stereotypical[/b] Liberals.. U mad or Jelly?

I'm not a liberal or a conservative, I prefer the word "independent". Just so I can say something that might be something worthwhile, here's my contribution to this thread: What would happen if minimum wage increased and prices didn't go up? Pure logic question here, no hidden motive, just want to see where you guys end up with it.

[quote]How are increasing taxes and increasing spending (thus increasing debt and future taxes), [/quote] Thinking that all liberals think that increasing spending and immediately increasing taxes to pay for the purchased item is a completely good thing and on it's own will lead to prosperity is as asinine as thinking that all conservatives believe in trickle down economics. As a base concept liberals are seen as the tax and spend on goods/services because it's a general difference in philosophy from that of conservatives. The taxes are being spent on goods and services that benefit the community or large parts of the community or those currently in need of aid. [quote]wealth redistribution[/quote] Dat trigger word. There was a youtube video posted a while back and while I forget the actual specifics, the top single digit % richest own the majority of all the money. This seems ridiculous to me. They do not need that much to even live a comfortable life of luxury and is a grossly exorbitant reward for the work and effort they put in to earn it. Then on top of that, that much money means that much power and indeed it seems that the wealthy are using their wealth to write rules that benefit them. That's not to say that those in a higher risk position that required an increase in effort on their part (due to education/experience requirements) should be paid similarly to their bottom rung workers. They should be paid more. How much is where the argument should start. You say don't say things like "think of the poor people you depraved monster!" but people are inherently ingrained into this argument. With all that money being funneled to the top, it is getting harder and harder for everyone else to make ends meet or even for those in a lower economic standing to educate and improve their station in life. A college education, at the very least SOME form of post high school education, is required for even the most blue of blue collar jobs. And college education is now starting to become unavailable to the lower end of the economic standing. Everything is costing more, simply applying to the college, classes, books. The price totals are insane. [quote]How would minimum wages and labor unions artificially raising wages not cause some to be unemployed?[/quote] Because as I've had it explained, the logic to the counter argument is incredibly simplified and narrow. Labor costs are only part of a business' expenditures and there's some flexibility that consumers are willing to just absorb. Increases in the minimum wage, when done small and over time, don't cause unemployment. As for labor unions? Right now there are definitely some problems with unions being another institution looking to only increase their power and wealth and are too blind and shortsighted to see the forest through the trees and look at the damage they are going to inflict upon themselves in the long term. I live in Kommiefornia and after the latest round of BART protesting and striking; for all things, increased wages and benefits when they already have some of the best around, was absolutely disgusting. Meanwhile the trains are old, broken, and dirty. End result is that the managers caved like little bitches when they had popular support from EVERYONE against the union demands. Rider fees are going to go up and all this is doing is leading to a vicious cycle where people are more willing to drive to work, which causes revenue to go down, which causes rates to go up, which causes more people to drive to work. Soon BART is broken and the unions are out on their ass. Well, I suppose not the union leaders. But as a concept, Unions have been invaluable in providing basic rights to workers from businesses seeking to exploit their status as low economic earners, and thus invisible to the politicians. End result is that neither side of the debate has the perfect answer to long term prosperity and that it's both sides being tempered by the other, with leanings towards one or the other depending on the current situation, that is going to lead to prosperity.

Even if the OP wasn't bait, this entire thread had become a shitstorm.

>asks question for liberals >overwhelming responses from non-liberals about how liberals are wrong lolol

I have a degree in economics. I wrote my dissertation on the interaction between political bias and macroeconomic outcomes. Short version: 'liberal' economic plans lead to higher economic growth and lower unemployment. Long version: Doesn't really fit on Bnet. But if you get the data (mostly available from the US Census Bureau or Department of Labour) and run some multi-variate regression analyses, the outcome is unmistakable.

Is liberal basically left wing and conservative right wing, in a very simplified sense?

I'll take a bite. Let's discuss raising the minimum wage and this "Job loss". When people earn more money, they spend that money. Yes, for some businesses costs [i]can[/i] go up but this isn't a universal phenomenon. When more people are spending money, businesses have to accommodate to the new market by keeping competitive with other businesses and keep up with demand which can entail hiring new workers. So while there is an initial loss in jobs the market picks them back up.

Look up Keynesian Economics /thread

Well, the poor are in greatest need of stuff. Therefor if they have more disposable income, they will buy more stuff. The increased demand will cause businesses to kick up production, which will in turn mean more hiring. More hiring will mean a larger tax base to draw from, and then the tax rate on the wealthy can be relaxed, since the budget requires a solid number, not a percentage. So, what do I win?

Nobody in this thread is an economist

[quote]Convince me, using nothing but logical argumentation, how the economic policies of a liberal(in the American sense of the word) will lead to economic prosperity.[/quote]An unregulated free market economy will necessarily generate a large disparity between rich and poor, which stifles the economy. Liberal economic policies tend to combat that disparity, which bolsters an economy. [quote]How are increasing taxes and increasing spending (thus increasing debt and future taxes), as well as wealth redistribution, lead to [b]long term[/b] prosperity?[/quote]First off, increasing taxes and spending doesn't increase debt unless the increase in taxes is less than the increase in spending. Wealth redistribution increases the number of people who can buy essential and luxury goods. Which in turn increases cash flow, which is how one judges a good economy.[quote]How would minimum wages and labor unions artificially raising wages not cause some to be unemployed?[/quote]It might, if the business in question is already teetering on the edge of solvency. However, the benefits gained from companies that make billions in profits would outweigh those scenarios.

It depends on where the spending goes. Significant investments in infrastructure, education, and health care would, in the long run, help bring people over the property line and bring business back to areas in economic decline. Redeveloping infrastructure such as roads, rail, etc would help to make some areas attractive for investment by businesses. It makes sense to build factories or distribution warehouses in areas where there is easy access to transportation by road, rail, sea, or air. Improving education expands the skilled worker base. If I run a specialized manufacturing business, I'm going to want to set up shop in an area with lots of tradespeople and engineers. They have the skills I want. Improving access to and quality of health care is also beneficial. Healthy people can work, sick people can't. Costs borne by people will also be indirectly lowered, since they won't need to spend as much time in Primary Care. The only problem is that the money needed to do this is not there. Fudging the tax rates or minimum wage a bit isn't going to accomplish anything with the state that the federal government's finances are in. To roll this our nationwide would cost trillions and take years if not decades.

[b]Why Liberal economics does not work.[/b] A Man works 20 years of his life as a an electrician, he gets idea that would increase electrical output. He decides to place a patent on it. Then sell it to electric companies and business that need it. Through his own life experience he was able to invent this, without no help from another. He then starts a small business, which grows into a corporation. He donates to charity regularly having been so blessed in life, he wishes to give back to the world. He eventually employs thousands of individuals, and begins to invest in other companies, buying out new inventions, or absorbing younger companies into himself. Creating more and more jobs as his business grows and flourishes. Now enters the Liberal Ideology of redistribution of wealth. Mister, you didn't invent that amp, the company that hired you did, and all the people who helped teach you did. The Money you are making with that invention, well, it belongs to these people over here that are doing nothing. So give it to us so we can pay for them to live for nothing, and to do nothing. Oh and you also have to pay more personal taxes, and you no longer can receive such large bonuses, well because, you don't deserve anything for your accomplishments. Redistribution of wealth is econimic communism and bellow I will explain by definition. ...I defined redistribution. Also, economic Fascism and communism nothing alike, do some damn research. [b]Also direct quote of communist economics, which is redistribution of wealth.[/b] The means of production are held in common, negating the concept of ownership in capital goods. Production is organized to provide for human needs directly without any use for money. Communism is predicated upon a condition of material abundance. [b]In case you want the socialist description.[/b] A socialist economic system is based on some form of social ownership of the means of production, which may mean autonomous cooperatives or direct public ownership; wherein production is carried out directly for use. Where markets are utilized for allocating inputs and capital goods among economic units, the designation market socialism is used. When planning is utilized, the economic system is designated a planned socialist economy. Non-market forms of socialism usually include a system of accounting based on calculation-in-kind or a direct measure of labor-time as a means to value resources and goods [b]For shits and giggles, Fascist economics.[/b] Focused on glorifying and strengthening the State. Both Fascist Italy and -godwinslaw!- Germany attempted to pursue self-sufficiency. So yea. Go back to school young grasshoppa.