47.43%, which we can just round down to 47%. So there are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the Republicans no matter what. Our job is not to worry about those people.

Republicans lie. They know they lie.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you a classic example of epistemic closure. This person will never have the vision to see another side.

Shooty... this is how we spell irony

f-o-r-t-y-s-e-v-e-n-p-e-r-c-e-n-t

It's ironic that the party that needed to worry about the 47% didn't and the party that DOES care about everyone including the 47% could have forgotten about them.

Hey Blanks, don't think it's a matter of seeing the other side....the proof is pretty much in the pudding. We got the Bush tax cuts over ten years ago and we are still waiting for the jobs. It seems the "epistemic closure" lies with you.

You did get jobs after the tax cuts, right up until the time bomb left by the Democrats exploded... See the big bump up after 2003 when the cuts kicked in?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_nSTO-vZpSgc/TUw6hMzI7OI/AAAAAAAAKdo/Lv53LLi50Cs/s1600/nonfarm-payroll-2011-01A.png

In 1993-94, the Republicans all claimed that Clinton's proposed tax hikes would "kill jobs" and none of them voted for the new rates. With 20-20 hindsight we know they were wrong. Correct me if I am wrong, but as I recall, under those horrid, oppressive tax rates, we had the best economy since the 60s.

And I see Pooper is showing us once again why he didn't even make "bench warmer" when he tried out for Junior High basketball.

And congratulations to Mike Lee for continuing to remind us that the way you understand those people is to take the second "m" out of the word "Mormon."

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you a classic example of epistemic closure. This person will never have the vision to see another side.

Being able to see the other side or lacking self-awareness to one's own acts is not the definition or use of "epistemic closure." Epistemic closure is when you assume a circuit of thinking is closed- such as when playing devil's advocate and pointing out contradictions and/or fallacies. You could state that the argument is an example of confirmation bias- which is what I think you meant to say- but not epistemic closure. You, Shooter, would have made the epistemological argument there, not Marko. This is just confusing.

Also charts without references is just silly.

Your post is a good description of "trickle down" economics. Thanks for the support.

It always amazing to me how it is that the left can't wrap it's mind around the simple observation that to get a paycheck, they have to work for someone that has more money than they do. Tsk.

Of course we understand that. And in a perfect world, 'job creators' would allow their employees to share in their growing wealth, which would boost their buying power, improve the economy and the standard of living... good times had by all.

The problem is that this doesn't work. The wealthy tend to hold on to their money like it was their precious virginity, wages have stagnated since the 1970s while corporate profits have grown ever higher, and jobs are moved overseas in order to save a buck.

Trickle-down is a fine theory, but it does not work, and it has never worked.

Shooter-

So how about you take the CRS report that shows that trickle down doesn't work and show us where it's wrong.

Oh, right... you only troll, you don't make any substantive responses or contribution to the conversation.

It always amazing to me how it is that the left can't wrap it's mind around the simple observation that to get a paycheck, they have to work for someone that has more money than they do.

Which explains why it's so very hard to get by as a cardiologist -- there just aren't enough clients who have more money.

Oh, wait.

Lord you people are thick....

Rizzy you just admitted there is no other way for jobs to come into existence, and then turned around and denied it. Of course workers benefit from a businesses wealth, it's called a job.

Very, very, have you got a link? The last person that claimed one was wrong.

DC, cardiologists work for insurance companies, individuals don't have enough money. Once again, it's trickle down. Duh.

Shooter,

If the trickle down effect REALLY worked, why were we in a recession? Why did a lot of Americans lose their jobs while CEO's got 2 million dollar bonus's? When oil companies and millionare's got tax cuts to PROVIDE the trickle down effect, nothing changed. But when middle class citizens got the tax break a few years ago (not really sure when), low and behold!! We fought off the recession. You talk about the democrats and liberals not looking on the other side, but you're so engrossed in you're fantasy world to see that America is falling apart. I assume you are Republican by the way you just toss FACTS off and put in what you believe is correct.

Amber, Economics is not rocket science. Everything starts with business. Why? Because it is the only institution that creates economic wealth, goods and services that comprise a nation's prosperity. All stop, this is a big effin' deal.

Look around you. Everything you didn't make yourself came from a business. Your food, clothes, shelter, car, electronics, everything. Business takes disparate elements and shapes them into something new... it creates things that are more valuable than the sum of it's parts.

Being able to sell what it makes for more than the elements cost produces a profit from which all else follows. Profit allows a business to hire, creating jobs. Profit creates money that can be taxed, along with wages which can also be taxed. I think we can agree that without taxes Govt can't exist, yes?

As for Govt, it doesn't create, it facilitates. It hires business and employees to maintain the business environment,the legal system, and the infrastructure. In order to do this it takes from business and it's employees. ie trickle down.

So back to your questions... we're in a recession because business froze up during the financial crisis, and doesn't want to take a chance on losing it's savings in the Obama environment. ie all the money sitting on the sidelines.

CEO's give themselves bonuses because they can, but fortunately it comes from the business not you. As for middle class tax cuts staving off the recession, you're going to have to make a decision... are we in a recession now or not? If you think middle class tax cuts fixed things there's nothing to talk about, yes?

Any questions?

Shooter-

Here's the link.

http://www.dpcc.senate.gov/files/documents/CRSTaxesandtheEconomy%20Top%20Rates.pdf

......Shooter exactly where do you think money comes from?

Thank you sir for the link. I've read the summary and it tells me all I need to know. While reading it I was reminded by two real life examples where tax rates weren't the determining factor... The Clinton prosperity, and our current predicament though we're at Bush rates.

What's that tell us? Something else determines the health of an economy

The evidence does not suggest necessarily a relationship between tax policy with
regard to the top tax rates and the size of the economic pie, but there may be a relationship to how the economic pie is sliced.

The pie fallacy strikes again. There is no pie. There is nothing that gets distributed, or taken, or stolen, or sliced from someone else.
There is a pie chart, representing who has made what incomes, and a total.
The total is what every person makes added together.

Added. Not distributed, taken or stolen. If the rich are said to have a larger percentage of the income it's because they contributed more to the total. Contributed.

Money comes from the Fed, Treasury, and banking system. And your point is?

As for Govt, it doesn't create, it facilitates. It hires business and employees to maintain the business environment,the legal system, and the infrastructure. In order to do this it takes from business and it's employees. ie trickle down.

Because this statement is incompatible with this statement

Money comes from the Fed, Treasury, and banking system.

As well as this one

Everything starts with business. Why? Because it is the only institution that creates economic wealth, goods and services that comprise a nation's prosperity.

You're talking out of two sides of your mouth at once.

The pie fallacy strikes again. There is no pie. There is nothing that gets distributed, or taken, or stolen, or sliced from someone else.

This statement is also incompatible with this statement

Added. Not distributed, taken or stolen.

You've created 2 logical paradoxes in your attempt to try to explain how you think economics works. You believe that business creates wealth even though you also believe that the government prints money. You believe that there is no way to take wealth from one person and distribute it to another, yet you then state that taxes is cutting off the wealthy.

Your ideology is so contradictory it makes zero sense. And this is coming from someone who actually does have a degree in economics. It's almost like everything you know about economics was taken piece by piece from various books- you never bothered to read up on the theory or rationale behind these talking points, you just snipped them together and pasted them on a board like a collage of things that make you feel better about Republican policies no matter how incoherent their existence is in a singular sentence.

You believe that business creates wealth even though you also believe that the government prints money.

Cartoon, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and explain further. Economic wealth, is goods and services. Stuff. Money is paper/pixels that represents the value of said goods and services. Do you see the difference? Business makes stuff we can use, Govt facilitates business with a system of value exchange.

You might think money is wealth, but it merely represents the value of actual things. You can't eat money, wear it, or drive it, but you can use it to buy something you need. Something made by business.

The pie fallacy strikes again. There is no pie. There is nothing that gets distributed, or taken, or stolen, or sliced from someone else.

The pie image is common when talking income inequality, yes? For instance it's common to say the rich take an inordinate share of the income pie. Most people literally have an image of someone loading up a plate. Well... stop and think a minute. For that image to be true there has to be some authoritarian that created the pie, or rather a plate full of money. A plate that holds a finite amount, where if one takes too much, someone else is left with less.

But that isn't how it works, there is no fixed amount of money. If Romney makes $20 million it has absolutely no effect on how much a bus driver makes. Or anyone else for that matter. People make what they make because they compete against each other for a job. Not because Romney is emptying a mythological pie plate with cash in it.

the pie is actually a pie chart where all the contributions to the national income are combined by group. the 1%'s share of the income is what they contributed, not what they took. For the left however, having an image of greedy rich people stealing from the poor is much better politically.

As for you having an economics degree, I find that highly doubtful.

I have a MBA in business and economics. The only reason why you find it "doubtful" is because you are meshing terminology and not paying attention to how it contradicts. For instance your pie analogy completely contradicts your assertion that businesses produce goods. If businesses produce goods and goods are wealth then that does mean that businesses limit the number of available assets. Likewise if government is the printer of money and that money is used to facilitate wealth then that makes government the authoritarian figure by your own argument. Yet if this is the case then in both instances that would mean the pie analogy fits. So which one is it? You've confused 4 different economic theories and what is more you label theories about economic figures as if the theory itself is immovable fact (which is not how theories work) while then on another blog page stating that there isn't a way of predicting, measuring, or testing for economic factors. Of course in order for the latter to be true you must then have the former be false. So which one is it? Either the market has quantifiable factors that can be measured and hypothesized therefore rending your theories possible OR economics does not have quantifiable factors that can be measured and hypothesized therefore rending your theories impossible. Which one is it?

Make it simple. When there's a credit, there's a debit.

If Romney makes $20 million it has absolutely no effect on how much a bus driver makes. Or anyone else for that matter.

This statement just makes no damn sense at all. Shooter sounds smart, but once you peel back the layers a bit, you begin to realize it's all a mirage. EVERYTHING is connected somehow in some way. How Shooter fails to understand this is troubling.

718, yes everything is connected in some way but sometimes the connection is so small as to be nonexistent. On the other hand a butterfly in Chile can generate a typhoon in China. Economics is like predicting the weather, near term is easier, and some aspects come out of nowhere.

As for the bus driver, it will remain true that their wage is determined by a lot of things other than how much money Romney has. Theoretically. Heh.

Cartoon, the idea of you having an MBA is laughable. You don't think like a business person. So lets examine your reply in detail.....

For instance your pie analogy completely contradicts your assertion that businesses produce goods.
If businesses produce goods and goods are wealth then that does mean that businesses limit the number of available assets.

Yes. The first principle of economics is that resources are limited. Farther down the line comes the distinction between tangible wealth (goods and services), and money.

Likewise if government is the printer of money and that money is used to facilitate wealth then that makes government the authoritarian figure by your own argument. Yet if this is the case then in both instances that would mean the pie analogy fits.

You missedthe part about how the banking system makes money also. As in the local savings and loan. My point about the pie is that there is not a fixed amount of money in the system. It expands, it contracts. The Fed is printing more dollars, the banking system isn't. In any event the system is so large that Romney making twenty million has no effect on what a busdriver makes. Prove it to yourself... if Romney gave away all his money tomorrow, what would change about the bus driver's salary? Answer, nothing.

while then on another blog page stating that there isn't a way of predicting, measuring, or testing for economic factors.

Actually what I said was " In economics there are no rules, no certainty, and nearly no predictability. Yes that's dogmatic, yet still true for the most part.
And I'll stand by that, reminding you that there is nearly no predictability. For example I'm sure you read me admit that tax rates cannot adequately explain the Clinton prosperity, or our current stagnation, there must be something else that explains it. OTOH If I offer my brunette $100 to blow on shoes, I'm 99% sure she'll happily accept. My definition of economics is that it's the study of human psychology around what a person will do with a dollar in a given situation. It's the human factor that makes economics iffy.

Of course in order for the latter to be true you must then have the former be false. So which one is it?
Either the market has quantifiable factors that can be measured and hypothesized therefore rending your theories possible OR economics does not have quantifiable factors that can be measured and hypothesized therefore rending your theories impossible. Which one is it?

Yes, the market has lots of quantifiable factors, tons of them. The thing is that any two given people can look at exactly the same data and come to two different opinions. As I said, economics doesn't have the exactitude of physics.

Right. It's really a dour skinny guy that brings presents. As in the Santa Claus party, yes? Home of the free lunch, free dinner, free phone, free medical, free education, free money, etc., etc., etc.,.

Or in other words shooters worried he won't get his handouts because there are more deserving people ahead of him. To bad for shooter that his party have shown themselves as the party of whiners and sore loser, but then again they only thing the GOP have been really good at is failure.

Hey Blankman, I must have missed out on the lines for the "free stuff" you keeping going on about. So maybe you can tell me where those lines are? The only ones getting "free stuff" are those in Congress and their corporate pimps! Funny thing, you whine about hard working Americans whose wages have been stagnant for over 30 years, yet you neglect the corporate welfare being doled out - that makes you not just a hypocrite, but also an ignorant shill, so you must have a "fully loaded" portfolio that you're living off of!

See Blankman we've been doing "trickle down" for years, and the results are more jobs have hemorrhaged to low/no wage nations, American workers are producing more and yet their salaries have stagnated, the Oligarchy has become out of control, and we have the greatest wealth inequality since that last "Gilded Age" - all of these are documented FACTS! I know that your type hates facts, data, and everything else that might penetrate your FAUX NOOZ bubble, but there it is - now it's time to tax the rich and get on with the business of governing this nation and putting justice and democracy back into our republic!

I've read numerous interviews with people who have worked for members of Congress. They all say that if you REALLY want to get the attention of your representatives then WRITE A LETTER, and then put it in the mail.

Letters take much more effort than phone calls or emails. Emails in particular get less attention because it is so easy to get large numbers of people to send emails on hot-button issues.

So write a letter. Be polite. And tell how the issue affects YOU personally.

They all say that if you REALLY want to get the attention of your representatives then WRITE A LETTER, and then put it in the mail.

And then a staffer glances at the letter, sees that it's about tax policy, and sends you the standard form response thanking you for your support of Senator Blowhard's position.

Been there, done that. If there isn't a check enclosed, it's just noise.

Remember the "Anthrax Scare"? ALL mail to congress was sent to Ohio, for 'decontamination', and took weeks/months to get back to congress.

What is this need to segregate politics into a ridiculously false "you're 100% wrong and I'm 100% right" meme? It's deadly.

This mentality is the driving force behind our MSM's miscommunications. It keeps folks from cross-referencing the validity of their information sources. It derails our governments ability to operate as it should.

Republicans seem to have a penchant for viewing the complexity of the human beings around them strictly in black and white while viewing themselves and their motivations in shades of pearliest gray. They dictate their actions based on this plus/minus world view with no apparent twinges of conscience at all.

The mistake you make is equating economics to physics. In economics there are no rules, no certainty, and nearly no predictability.

The problem is you mistake talking points for economics which has lead to economic failures. The GOP economic plan in a nut shell, let everything go bankrupt as long as they get their handouts.

Sorry sir, but it's the Democrats that are the party of free stuff, including paying off Wall St. Look to thineself.

Blanks has a problem with economics and physics. There may be no rules in economics, but any idiot can understand that if the people that SPEND money (ie: most of us in the middle class), don't HAVE money, it stops the FLOW of money.

Now, the physics. If you stop the flow, as is the case of constipation in the body, you get sick and you need a "physic" to get back on balance.

That's pretty much what needs to happen to the wealthy in this country and the democrats have a plan to do just that.....and we'll all feel much better;-)

• OK Rim, where do most people get their money? Answer, a job.
• Why are there fewer jobs? Answer, it's easier and cheaper to make stuff outside the US
• Why is it easier and cheaper to make stuff outside the US? Answer, because of people like you and Obama.
• So why is the money flow slowing down? Answer, you and Obama.
• Any questions?

Actually Shooter the reason why it's so easy to send jobs over seas is because the Greedy CEO's send it over there so they get more money because labor over seas is a lot cheaper. Why is the money slowing down? Because Republicans are so opposed to increasing taxes on their big time supporters (the wealthy CEO's). I think it's time for you to actually use common sense.

Sense requires logic and all the republicans seem to muster is hysterics based on fake outrage. After all the world is a scarey place according to Fox news, why there are terrorists, rapists, and new black panthers behind every shrub in the tea bagged republicans neighborhood. Why they need lists in order to feel safe.

Having an intellectual debate with an unarmed opponent (Pooper) is ultimately boring, not to mention it's unfair to the poor little lad who was born without frontal lobes or opposable thumbs.

So Blanks, you are saying we should all work for $5 per hour so we can keep jobs here? Guess what, the world is changing and companies also go overseas because there is a market there. Companies like Coca-Cola sell more overseas than they do here and when China or even Korea open up their market will quadruple and the little ol' USA will be screwed because there just aren't enough of us to compete.

The problem with your kind, mainly the conservatives, is they have no vision about where the world is going. We need to find a solution that isn't just cutting regulations and paying people less. We need to invest in industries that create jobs and train our smart, inventive, hardworking, loyal, free Americans to do them. Industries like clean energy, because we live in a country with plenty of sun, wind, wave and whatever power and all it takes is the will to do it. And those kind of jobs can't go to Bangladesh.

The Repubs want us to stand still while all the rich beat us to the ground. They want us to work in factories for minimum wage saying it will keep jobs here, they want to take us back to when education was only for the rich, they want to keep women barefoot and pregnant so they can control them, they want to ignore science and teach us from the bible so they can keep us ignorant and they have absolutely no ideas to offer for a future where this country LEADS the world again.

Any questions? Read "The Road" by Cormac McCarthy to see where the right wing will take us.

Now I know how Xerxes felt about the tide...

Actually Shooter the reason why it's so easy to send jobs over seas is because the Greedy CEO's send it over there so they get more money because labor over seas is a lot cheaper.

Yes, that's their job. They want to make things cheaply to make more profit. Profit is where jobs and taxes come from. ie trickle down.

Why is the money slowing down? Because Republicans are so opposed to increasing taxes on their big time supporters (the wealthy CEO's). I think it's time for you to actually use common sense.

What does taxing someone more have to do with money flow? It doesn't. You're not making sense, common or otherwise.

The Repubs want us to stand still while all the rich beat us to the ground. They want us to work in factories for minimum wage saying it will keep jobs here, they want to take us back to when education was only for the rich, they want to keep women barefoot and pregnant so they can control them, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Look sport, capitalism has been the basis of the world's prosperity since barter arrived. If you want to freak out about it be my guest, but it isn't going to make marginal technology profitable, and until it's profitable it isn't going to happen. This is reality, this is how the world works. You have no choice in the matter. Deal.

In economics there are no rules, no certainty, and nearly no predictability.

You do realize that you have now invalidated every single statement you have ever made about economics in one fell swoop, yes?

You have just stated that there is no profit motive, no trickle down, no free market, and no psychological effect to the market. Do you ever listen to the things that you say before you say them???

Look sport, capitalism has been the basis of the world's prosperity since barter arrived.

It has also been the basis of immense greed and cruelty. It's how the world works because we allow it and it may very well take us down. Someone said that capitalism would be a perfect system if humans weren't so greedy. Probably true. Without any limits to that greed we are the vacuum mouthed monster from The Yellow Submarine that sucks up the world til there is nothing left. The rich may be the last to die, but they will die nonetheless.

The likely system to keep the world running is probably a combination of capitalism and socialism, since neither are perfect alone. We actually have something like that here and a lot of people are happy with it because if you have people starving in the streets while bankers live in castles in the sky.....there is bound to be trouble. Besides, I don't see any of the rich turning down those "socialists" subsidies the government hands out to them.

Cartoon, don't be a cartoon. My statement doesn't invalidate anything. I think I know what motivates people, and you think you know what motivates people. Then we argue. Sometimes I'm right and sometimes I'm wrong. We arrange our lives according to what we think will happen and hope for the best.

The point is that there is no certainty in economics like knowing the exact temperature of water freezing.

Someone said that capitalism would be a perfect system if humans weren't so greedy.

But then you're loaded the observation with an emotionally charged accusation. In reality if people weren't "greedy" it wouldn't work. Substitute "self-interest" for "greedy". If you then look at ones choices as coming from "self interest" you understand why capitalism works so well. It's simply a variation of how everyone lives their life.

Self interest determines who you love, where you work, what you spend your money on, every aspect of your life. I like brunettes, so it was in my self interest to marry one. Mr. Benen likes to wrote about politics, so it's in his self interest to do so. One usually does well at jobs one likes. Acting in ways to maximize one's income is certainly in one's self-interest.

Working for one's own interest usually produces better outcomes. It's just human nature. Calling it "greedy" won't change that nature, just stunt it.

Aaah, Blanks, greed is absolutely not the same as self-interest. Even the dictionary calls greed "excessive or rapacious desire". For self-interest you married ONE brunette. Greed would require you have them lined up out your front door as you threw the used ones out back.

Please, anyone pursuing success has to have "excessive or rapacious desire". It applies to doctors, musicians and business men. There is no way to have people do anything that doesn't benefit them. The more benefit the better.

The point is that there is no certainty in economics like knowing the exact temperature of water freezing.

If you state that there is no certainty then you cannot claim 100% definitity to anything that you assert to be true. Yet you do this constantly. If you state that there exist no rules to the parameters that something operates by then that means you automatically cannot quantify the very nature of the thing you're talking about. Yet this is exactly what you claimed. So either a. you're admitting your economic theories are automatically void or b. you're admitting that you were so reactionary in your desire to win the debate that you openly created a logical contradiction in theory without realizing it (hence why I always tell you to think before you type because you do this constantly). Because one statement necessitates the absence of the other you cannot argue that both exist simultaneously. Thus, by making that statement, you've invalidated every claim you've ever made about the economy OR you've automatically told everyone that you are so incredulous in your desire to win whatever it is you think you're winning that you will make up whatever bull@!$%# you feel serves the argument no matter how incoherent. If it's the former then you are lying; if it's the latter then you're a blathering buffoon. Why would you advocate either position on your behalf?

Self interest determines who you love, where you work, what you spend your money on, every aspect of your life. I like brunettes, so it was in my self interest to marry one. Mr. Benen likes to wrote about politics, so it's in his self interest to do so. One usually does well at jobs one likes. Acting in ways to maximize one's income is certainly in one's self-interest.

But by your own admission you don't know this to be true. You are openly stating that you assume this to be true, but that other realities can exist. OK that's fine, but then you're not invalidating the claim that capitalism is bad- you're simply saying that from your subjective view point it's good. In which case why are you asserting your opinions as if they are factually true statements? If you don't know this to be true, but rather simply believe it to be true then WHY should anyone be compelled to pass policies that reflect your arbitrary belief system?

Yes, I have opinions, which in some circles are called theories. Just like you do.

I do have an advantage here though... I've actually owned my own business and seen first hand how the market works. Experience counts for quite a bit. It's the difference between living a theory and reading about it.

What kind of alternate universe are these people living on???

One where it's a rare voter who remembers what was happening in politics two weeks ago, much less two years ago. Ten-plus years ago (2014 back to 2003)? Irrelevant: you're trying to avoid Democratic responsibility for the economy that Democrats have controlled since 2006!

Or better known as more republican lies to hide the fact that they are the party of economic failure. Lets see lets blame it on the democrats who won in 2006 while ignoring that the took office in 2007 and nothing they did had an impact on the GOP disaster that was starting to unfold by the time democrats took office. Boy talk about spin and distortions of facts, the GOP fail safe or so they believe, always point fingers then accuse others of what you do.

Democrats might have "controlled" the economy since 2008 if they had a functional legislative body with which to pass the necessary laws. You're like all the other morons within D.C., "Sessions," you passed the IQ test low enough to get there.

Well yes, and hire someone offshore rather than here. Good plan. Heh.

To bad for you shooter that there has been 35+ years of GOP support of those off shore jobs while giving the corporations all the help they needed to off shore those jobs you now whine about 35 years to late as well as blaming the wrong people for the problem. Typical republican tries to put the horse back into the barn after the horse got out and got run over by a freight train, as well as not being able to tell a horse from a chipmunk.

Shooter totally missed what the dude said... How the hell is the millionaire going to offshore a maid or gardener. </facepalm>

What MANGST98 said.