Another way of cutting Social Security payments, without "cutting Social Security"

Proves to the rest of us you can not provide us with a single name.

Case closed.

I sure hope you stick to this promise. Could you please close a bunch of other cases? :clown_face:

The Captain


Sad thing is what happened to the US industrial base because of idiots.

The Utah Legislature just passed a tax cut designed to almost entirely benefit the top 1%, because, they say, giving money to rich people is the best way to help poor people I’m not kidding or exaggerating.

“Those people who add to the economy are the ones that benefit from this, and then they can use that money in the way they see best to continue to add to the economy. That engine helps everyone,” Christofferson said during a House committee hearing on the bill. “It helps those who are poor and those who are sick.

1 Like

Yes beneath the surface, although that came to the surface, the greedy little lies about tax cuts never change.

Still that same poli will never call it supply-side economics at this point. He’d be slammed. It is not like it is at all honest.

It is not like it works at all.

Just doing stupid things in office has not changed.

Scanning the article the label “supply-side econ” was not used. Disappeared as BS a long time ago.

1 Like

In 2011, Michigan had a “JC” for a Gov. And, of course, job 1 was tax cuts for “JCs”, with that well worn “jobs” excuse. Of course, states can’t print money to infinity, like DC, so he paid for that $1.8B “JC” tax cut by raising taxes on retirees and the working poor, and cutting funding that benefited everyone, like education and road maintenance.

“This is a defining moment in Michigan’s turnaround,” Snyder said. “The current tax system is riddled with inequities that are hostile to job growth. Eliminating these longstanding barriers will level the playing field for taxpayers, encourage entrepreneurship and spur more investment in Michigan. Working in conjunction with other reforms such as a balanced state budget and refocused economic development strategies, the overhaul of our tax structure lets job providers nationwide know that Michigan is the place to be. I appreciate the hard work of Lt. Gov. Brian Calley, our legislative partners and the support of stakeholders statewide to make this possible.”

The changes take Michigan from 30th to 16th in the nation in terms of lowest state and local business tax burden,

1 Like

And if I remember right, he didn’t say one solitary word about in the election campaign, but sprung it on the unsuspecting public soon after he began his last ( ? ) term. Really disliked Snyder.


He promised to not sign a “right to work” law, when he was running. But, as soon as the (L&Ses) passed one, he signed it. The current Gov repealed it. So, he reentered the fray to have regime change in Lansing, with the stated intent to re-enact it.

He was first elected in 2010. His first round of “JC” tax cuts was proposed as soon as he was in office, in 2011. Then there was a second round, where the property tax businesses paid to their local cities was repealed, with a promise that Lansing would defund something else, exactly what was a secret, to free up some use tax money to pay to the cities to make up the revenue lost from giving the “JCs” a free ride.

Speaking of exploiting the mob’s innumeracy, do you remember when the education funding system was “reformed” under Engler, in the early 90s? Michigan sales tax was 4%, and the primary funding for public schools came from local voter approved property taxes.

I remember the Gov pushing the plan, saying words to the effect "your property taxes will be cut by (I forget the number he cited), in exchange for only a 2% increase in sales tax, which sounded like a great bargain, except the sales tax increase was 2 percentage points, ie a 50% increase from the then current sales tax rate. The mob was suckered into approving the proposal on the ballot. So Lansing controls the bulk of local school funding now, so it can be cut. But there is an interesting carve out: while poorer school districts are not allowed to levy local property taxes for their schools, no matter how short the funding from Lansing is, richer districts are allowed to enact local school property taxes to supplement what Lansing pays out.


The economic logic is quite simple. People who live hand to mouth have nothing left to accumulate capital with. In Capitalism it’s capital that builds industries. Hand to mouth people just consume the output but otherwise do not build it up further.

The above sounds abhorrent to kind hearted people who want a more just and egalitarian system. Before Communism there was Anarchism which had similar goals but not communally, individually. In places like Barcelona, Spain, they kicked out the old regime and set up socialist economies. Amazing as it might sound, Anarchism was ideologically very close Ayn Rand’s philosophy in the personal realm but not in the economic realm. Along came a control freak called Karl Marx who derailed Anarchism into Communism.

There is no need for thought experiments, we have several experiments to draw data from, the USSR, Mao’s China, North Korea, Castro’s Cuba, Chavez’s Venezuela. All failed economies.

We get to chose between an evil Capitalist system that has brought humanity out of poverty and misery and a kind, loving system that has brought even more poverty, hunger and misery.

Tough choice to make!

The Captain


Easy peasy. Let’s start with Janet Yellen.

Janet Yellen Views Biden Policies as Modernized Supply-Side Economics
The administration’s approach is a departure from traditional supply-side economics, which seeks to promote economic growth through tax cuts and deregulation, Ms. Yellen said in a speech…

OK, let’s run with ‘tax cuts and deregulation’. Then let’s pick one nationally known politician, Nikki Haley.

With a background in accounting, Haley has consistently called for tax cuts, reduced government regulation, and a balanced budget.

See, easy peasy.



Yellen does not support supply-side economics.

The conservatives are trying to define demand side economics as supply side economics.

It is not sticking.

The idea being roads and utilities to factories is supply side economics. It is not. The taxes go up for those roads. Government support was not what the supply siders ever wanted.

It is political playing with words.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, Yellen has never claimed she was supply side economics. “A departure from traditional supply-side economics”, is not claiming to be supply-side economics. It is a discussion of the overlap in time between demand side and supply side economics.

Cutting taxes, balancing the budget etc would hurt our economy. Hamilton realized that the British were projecting huge power because of their financial system where the government could borrow for purposes large and small to get much more done. That the government borrowing became an underpinning of the financial system. How many people here own government bonds? Haley would be destructive to our financial system.

Just because a politician says they are pro business does not mean they are pro business or have a clue what they are doing. Of course inheriting can fool the public.

We both know that. The article was used for the definition of supply side – “promoting economic growth through tax cuts and deregulation”.

It is clear that Haley is in that camp, which provides you the “name of an American in office who supports supply side economics.”

Easy peasy. Case closed.


1 Like

Oh yes but she is not openly calling herself a proponent of “Supply-Side Economics”. No one is.

If she can not label herself perhaps you need to reexamine how viable it is. Use the 1981 to 2020 period where we lost our industrial base and government deficits soared. Look at our trade deficits.

If you think that was a horrible failure then you see why no one calls them a supply-side economics proponent. Just because Haley is stupid when it comes to econ does not mean she will ever call herself in favor of supply-side economics.

Bob, you do not have a case.

In fairness we are in a long period of counter cyclical economics.

Demand side economics between 1949k and 1980 was far better for the US industrial base but also backfired. No one is calling themselves for demand side.

Instead the best of demand side is being sought. There is a bit of tempering it with moderate taxes.

Some would like to moderate federal spending. That is ignorant. The financial system, consumer demand, and retooling the nation depend on larger budgets.

The debt to real GDP ratio over the long run is key. Coming out of 2024 it will begin to drop.

It is being called Bidenomics. It makes a lot of sense.

Will Rogers explained the difference, words to the effect “if you give a dollar to a poor person, the rich man will have by the end of the day, but the poor person would have gotten something for it” vs the “supply side” model, where the money is showered directly on the rich, with everyone else completely cut out of the loop.



Not according to your explanation. The wealthy have no use for more money BUT to continue to not spend it on consumption. They spend on NON-consumption, so the economy is NOT driven by their consumption.


Correct, it’s driven by their production, the labor their capital puts into motion.

In Guns, Germs, and Steel Jared Diamond says, “Necessity is not the mother of invention. Invention is the mother of necessity.”

Quote by Jared Diamond: “invention is often the mother of necessity, rat...”.

Quite simply, you cannot consume what does not exit, what has not been produced. Capitalism produces stuff. Communism distributes stuff, if it exists. Lenin did say that Communists need Capitalist rope to hang capitalists with.

The Captain

Steve, did you know that the first recorded Social Security program failed? It was the original Universal Basic Income (UBI) program. It happened some 6000 years ago when the first humans were kicked out of the Garden of Eden after they abused the system.

The Captain

1 Like

Wow! The first humans appeared 6000 years ago? That’s a long time ago…

Ain’t religion grand!


The program worked. The participants chose to NOT follow the rules. They were then kicked off the program. Choices have consequences.