Trump supporters are uneducated shitbags who unironically vote against their own economic interests

you can say that about everyone who voted for every winner and loser for the past... how many election cycles? stop being a retard with your divisive tactics. faggot fuckin jew.

These one post by this id threads with that same phrasing must've been made over 9000 times so far. Is it one committed communist, or is it a template used by a group?

the very fact that you even have the device you posted that reply from is a proof of supply-side economics working.
anyway, keynesian (demand-side) economics only work in the short-term, when the economy isn't working at its full potential (e.g. during the great depression). then, and only then does increasing government spending and stimulating the lower class make sense. HOWEVER, even though keynesian economics can increase the short-term GDP by bringing the market back to the equilibrium, their long-term product is nothing but inflation (on top of a lower amount of investments, start-ups and innovation, due to excessive taxation that is necessary to keep stimulating the lower class) which makes them completely unsustainable in the long-run. supply-side economics, on the other hand, due to not disincentivizing investments and innovation through excessive taxation, facilitate real GDP growth, without causing any inflation. this is why supply-side economics are undeniably superior in the long-run, which even keynes himself understood, hence his quote: "in the long-run we are all dead".
so, here's a little "exam" for you: the following graph contains the examples of both keynesian economics, as well as supply-side economics, with each encompassing about half the graph. your task is to tell me which half represents keynesian economics, and which half the supply-side economics: i.imgur.com/R6uj5.gif

>(((economic interests)))

>the following graph contains the examples of both keynesian economics, as well as supply-side economics, with each encompassing about half the graph
>planned economy = Keynesian economics
ayyyy

Attached: 1551886872076.jpg (325x166, 10K)

Go back to your basement.

>t. schlomo shekelstein

Attached: (((you))).jpg (800x1106, 145K)

>everyone taxed at 100%
>wealth completely redistributed from the upper to the lower class
>demand artificially inflated to its theoretical maximum
i don't see what's wrong with calling planned economy just keynesianism taken to its logical conclusion.

Okay

This. It's hard for these dumbass zoomers to admit it but acceleration is the only way.

Attached: this.gif (300x186, 446K)

>brown people
>beneficial to working white class

>1post by this id

Attached: 1559684272204.gif (159x146, 1.94M)

Unironically dems are the way to go

Attached: 2c125cc.jpg (567x326, 28K)

that's simply untrue just by the logic by which a deficit operates, and the difference is never '0'.

Its true

Lmao, only Slick Willie managed to somewhat correct the course in that regard.
>President Barack Obama had the largest deficits. By the end of his final budget, FY 2017, his deficits totaled $6.785 trillion. Obama took office during the Great Recession. He immediately needed to spend billions to stop it. In 2010, the Obama tax cut added $858 billion in deficits in its first two years. Obama increased defense spending, totaling $800 billion a year. Federal income decreased due to lower tax receipts from the 2008 financial crisis.He convinced Congress to add $253 billion from the economic stimulus package to Bush’s FY 2009 budget. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act added another $534 billion over the rest of Obama’s terms.
>

Attached: 1533609162180.png (800x1035, 63K)

>In 2010, the Obama tax cut added $858 billion in deficits in its first two years. Obama increased defense spending, totaling $800 billion a year. Federal income decreased due to lower tax receipts from the 2008 financial crisis.
Second paragraph got swallowed for some reason