- Jeffco ballot issue lets schools off the hook
- Objections cited to Dougco Ballot Issue 1B
- Prostitution should be a legal activity
- A suspect switch
- Wasteful searches
- A higher law
- 100 percent unsafe
- A DIFFERING VIEW/Denver bond measures should pass as a package
- Ongoing war funding is killing U.S. troops
- Paul Campos & Mitt Romney
Just lower the tax rates
So when the tax man tells us he needs more money to keep our cash-starved schools afloat we can just tell him, “Not a problem, just lower my tax rates.”
This letter has not been edited.
So the increased tax revenue after the Clinton tax rise means what?
Perhaps there's more to federal tax receipts than meets the (simpleton's) eye.
Posted by on October 22, 2007 02:34 PMHere are the net tax collections for the last 12 years as posted by the IRS (after refunds). Draw your own conclusions.
1995 $1,269,640,535,000
1996 $1,376,100,628,000
1997 $1,482,163,171,000
1998 $1,617,014,912,000
1999 $1,716,817,761,000
2000 $1,900,329,406,000
2001 $1,874,998,696,000
2002 $1,732,715,156,000
2003 $1,650,372,248,000
2004 $1,738,702,169,000
2005 $1,998,850,893,000
2006 $2,238,287,182,000
That's a total of $20.6 Trillion.
Posted by on October 22, 2007 02:59 PM234 the tax increase by clinton meant less money in your pocket and more for social spending programs.
but look at what happens when you cut the tax rate the money goes up and you get to keep more of your money. of course to a progressive liberal you have no money as all money belongs to the government.
If you stacked $1 bills, $20.6T would reach the moon and back over 3 times (1.4 million miles). Placed end to end, it would reach the sun and back over 10 times.
Posted by on October 22, 2007 03:28 PMAnd didn't the two biggest tax cutters, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, produce the biggest budget surpluses in our history? Oh wait, no. They presided over the two biggest orgies of deficit spending in our history. Oh, well. Another piece of conservative dogma collides with the facts.
Posted by Romulus on October 22, 2007 03:42 PMEarth to Romulus, were you dropped on your head as a child? What does that have to do with the point being made? Or, do you like these forums so you can be a slobbering partisan hack?
Posted by on October 22, 2007 03:47 PMJimmy Jay strikes his one-sour-note once again:
I'm sure (I think) that Jimmy Jay isn't so stupid he believes his own letter.
He makes a basic cause and effect mistake that an eight-year old should spot.
Got any new material Jimmy Jay?
Uh-Oh, here comes Johny Deuce to set me straight...
Posted by Charles B. on October 22, 2007 04:12 PMWow, a direct personal attack from Charles B. And you criticize JJ for having "one-sour-note?"
Posted by on October 22, 2007 04:19 PMall of you are idiots and the problem with our country
Posted by Fresh on October 22, 2007 04:30 PMWell Fresh,
I've always heard it said that if you're not offering a solution you're part of the problem. What, then, is your solution?
Posted by Old Grouch on October 22, 2007 04:58 PMOld Grouch,
What is your solution? I am sure we would all love to hear it.
Posted by on October 22, 2007 05:20 PMSo Jimmy, how do you know that the earnings wouldn't have gone up even more if the rate had remained the same?
Nah, that wouldn’t square with “the message”, so it can’t be true.
Posted by Bangalore Skank on October 22, 2007 06:12 PMCharles B,
You really need to stop asking 8-year-olds to explain these posts to you.
They have better things to do.
Posted by James Jones on October 22, 2007 06:15 PMBanngo's Spanked,
Because I know the model isn't static - it's dynamic.
That's beyond your comprehension but the leader's of your party get it - they just don't care. They just want your money so they can control you.
That's one for you, nineteen for me cause I'm the tax man and you're working for no one but me.
JJ:
Whether or not I ask eight year olds to decipher your letter for me doesn't change the fact that you're making a cause and effect mistake.
Try providing proof that revenues wouldn't have been even higher had Bush not given tax breaks to his "base".
You simply don't know what you're talking about and have no proof for your contention. Therefore your opinion is worthless.
Posted by Charles B. on October 22, 2007 06:37 PMCharles B,
By "base" you mean those who earn money?
OK - I was wrong. The 8-year-old doesn't have anything better to do.
Posted by James Jones on October 22, 2007 06:50 PMRecord surplus vs. record defecit.
You choose.
Posted by rick on October 22, 2007 06:55 PMCharles B,
You should know better by now, already yet. Shouldn't you?
You expect understanding of cause and effect from Jones?!?
How do you expect the old twit to explain what's wrong with something he had to get an 8 year old to write for him in the first place?
Oh! That's right! He's the "tax man" - so he says. And everyone knows the "tax man" comes out "ahead" in the end. There's your answer.
But, you want to bet he goes back and expects the 8 year old to do a rewrite, so he can have the real answer read to him, in case anyone else brings up the question.
"Theologian", "economics expert", "tax man", and all round nincompoop. Gee what a whiz of a whiz he is.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 22, 2007 07:29 PMoh wait in mentioning Regan and Bush you forgot the first presdent to reduce the tax rate was JFK and it worked for him also
chas b when there is more money in the pockets of bosses there is more money for the workers so there is a direct relationship to lower taxes and that is more jobs and better wages. now go back to your livable wage the progressieves just gave you in raising the minimum wage.
Posted by on October 22, 2007 08:17 PMJimmy said earnestly ” Because I know the model isn't static - it's dynamic.”
You know it’s a dynamic model, but yet you are sure of the direct causal mechanism – even though many people whose core business was economics have been wrong about this before. This lower-rates-equals-higher-returns has been tried before, and failed before. It seems to have rather a narrow power-band and a few more moving pieces than were understood.
Some remarkable prescience there Jimmy old bean, that you know better.
” That's beyond your comprehension but the leader's of your party get it…”
Ah Jimmy me boy, how right you are there, at macroeconomics I am but a duffer, but see, I ken that well, so I ask questions rather than blow on about what will or won’t happen in a complex system that beggars much cleverer men who study this stuff.
As for “my leaders”, now who would those be Jimmy lad? I didn’t know I had some.
” That's one for you, nineteen for me cause I'm the tax man and you're working for no one but me.”
Are you sure that you are cut out for this numerating stuff Jimmy boy?
I work mostly for myself boyo, since I give less than half in taxes.
So where would you be getting one in twenty from, eh?
But here I am Jimmy boy, mighty proud to pay my way and all, I bear my burden and I work my way, and I don’t cower or beg away from that duty and privilege.
Yourself on the other hand, whine and squeal, and fart like a crook over taking strain.
You grizzle over paying your due, and you chafe at your duty.
I say you are just a miser that hates his fellow man, and begrudges his country and nation their due.
Why are you such a coward Jimmy?
Hear Hear Sir Skank!
Posted by on October 22, 2007 09:28 PMSo by JJ's math, if we cut the tax rate to zero, we should have infinite revenue?
Sorry-- but I think the economic formulae are more complex than that. I would also like to know why, from 2001 to 2007, when Republicans controlled all significant branches of government, that debt spiraled under this revenue model. Yes, I know the expense side of the U.S. budget is not the topic of discussion, but you can't really discuss one without the other. And we can't blame war spending as many Bush-supporting posters (i.e. Dan2, KW, etc.) proposed that war spending is an insignificant amount of total U.S. expenditures.
So if taxes were cut, and revenue has increased, why has spending not decreased under the "fiscally responsible" party to provide us a budget surplus during that time?
Posted by Dan on October 22, 2007 10:52 PMTaxes are the size of government. Period. Taxes have increased tremendously under Bush (as well as Reagan). The fact that they are deferring taxes (in fact, due to interest, actually increasing taxes) in no way constitutes a tax cut. It's a tax transfer to the future. How ignorant do you have to be not to see that a tax deferral is not a tax "cut"?
Posted by Liam on October 22, 2007 11:41 PMDan said:
"So by JJ's math, if we cut the tax rate to zero, we should have infinite revenue?"
Oh, I don't think that is Mr. Jones' math. He was simply pointing out that a decrease in the tax rate does not necessarily result in a decrease in total taxes paid. At some point, a tax rate cut will result in lower revenues. But we have not yet hit that level.
Before the tax cuts, liberals warned us that revenue would drop. Now that their prediction turned out to be wrong, they say well, revenue would have gone up anyway. They said the same thing about Mr. Reagan's tax rate cuts.
"I would also like to know why, from 2001 to 2007, when Republicans controlled all significant branches of government, that debt spiraled under this revenue model."
Because the Republicans spent money like Democrats.
"Yes, I know the expense side of the U.S. budget is not the topic of discussion, but you can't really discuss one without the other."
Why not? Raising revenue and spending it are completely different things. This discussion is about the best way to raise money, not spend it.
"So if taxes were cut, and revenue has increased, why has spending not decreased under the "fiscally responsible" party to provide us a budget surplus during that time?"
Because the Republicans spent money like Democrats. This is old news.
Posted by John II on October 22, 2007 11:42 PMBango,
So you don't ken mcuh about macroeconomics - not to worry. I will tell you what you need to ken:
No society can tax itself into prosperity.
If you ken that, you ken enough.
In a society where a man is jailed for not paying his taxes, the most docile of the truely servile tells himself that ponying up is an act of great courage. The tax man is coming - better grab for your checkbook there Braveheart.
Giving half you income may seem a great blow but, I'm certain you'll be back on your knees in no time.
Posted by James Jones on October 23, 2007 07:30 AMDan,
"I would also like to know why, from 2001 to 2007, when Republicans controlled all significant branches of government, that debt spiraled under this revenue model"
I have more bad news.
The Congressional Budget Office has released its preliminary estimates for Fiscal Year 2007 that ended September 30, and the federal budget deficit fell again, this time by 35% to $161 billion.
Since 2004, deficit spending has tumbled by $251 billion, which is one of the most rapid three-year declines in U.S. history. The deficit as a share of the economy is down to 1.2%, or about half the average of the last 50 years.
So the reality is exactly the opposite of what you thought was true. Ouch!
But I'll bet your a Democrat so you're probably used to it.
Don't get discouraged, the deficit may be falling faster than the Cosgress' approval ratings since Pelosi took over but, the Democrats will still find some justification for raising taxes. Because they're the Tax Man and that's what they do.
If you drive a car, I'll tax the street
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat
If you get too cold, I'll tax the heat
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet
'Cause I'm the taxman,
It thus stands to reason that if we lower the tax rate to zero our government would have infinite income! Or is there some sweet spot we stop at?
Posted by observer on October 23, 2007 08:26 AMI'm surprised that there are still conservatives here who are apologists for the former majority and this administration's fiscal policies.
Spend and tax is just as bad as tax and spend.
Posted by jay on October 23, 2007 08:38 AMobserver,
You're not very observant -
Oh, I don't think that is Mr. Jones' math. He was simply pointing out that a decrease in the tax rate does not necessarily result in a decrease in total taxes paid. At some point, a tax rate cut will result in lower revenues. But we have not yet hit that level.
Posted by John II on October 22, 2007 11:42 PM
It helps, while observing, to read the posts.
Posted by James Jones on October 23, 2007 08:52 AMJames Jones,
Are you ignoring the trillions of dollars in U.S. treasury notes that China is holding and the fact that no matter how much money you save, if you spend money more than you have saved you still are broke.
Posted by Allen Campbell on October 23, 2007 08:57 AMjay,
Who was apologizing?
Do you think we spend too much? Other than the wars, what other spending would you cut?
Posted by George Washington on October 23, 2007 09:38 AMNice try with the "George Washington" moniker, JohnnyBoy2.
Why, it was not so long ago that you were bitching (big surprise, such bitching and emotional whining from such a big "manly man") about people using more than one handle in a thread. In fact, you wanted them banned from the message boards.
Do us all a favor and enforce your own rule, big shot. Oh, make that "Big Pussy".
Posted by JohnnyBoy2 is a moron on October 23, 2007 09:45 AMI was bitching about folks who post with no name at all.
My browser is stuck here at work on the GW moniker. No matter how many times I change it back to my usual name, it reverts to GW. So, until I figure out what's going on, I shall channel the great George Washington.
Posted by George Washington on October 23, 2007 09:49 AMAlan Campblee,
I am not ignoring the fact that you spend more than you take in then you are accumulating debt.
My point is the Bush's lower tax rates have stimulated the economy and increased the "more you take in" component.
Now is the time to talk not about raising taxes but about lowering spending.
If we decrease the reach of government and decrease the money spent by government then we can take in more then we spend and pay down the debt attributable to deficit spending.
I'm not as alarmed about the debt relative to China as I am the debt we owe to ourselves created primarily by Social Security.
But that is a different topic.
Posted by James Jones on October 23, 2007 09:51 AMNo, JohnnyBoy, you were bitching about those who post under more than one handle. But in all fairness, I am not surprised in the least that you would lie to try to weasel out of that one.
And I don't give a shit what is going on at your work, or anything else in your life.
You are the worst channeler of any historical figure. Just because they are dead and cannot disagree with you does not mean that they are a modern Neo-Con. Got that, Big Pussy?
Posted by JohhnyBoy2 is a moron on October 23, 2007 09:54 AMGeorge Washington,
Other than the wars, what other spending would you cut?
All of it.
What's all this business about you're not being able to tell a lie? Charles B can tell a lie - it's the simplest thing in the world to do.
Posted by James Jones on October 23, 2007 09:56 AMJohhnyBoy2 is a moron
So George Washington and John II are one in the same? That's very perceptive of you.
By the way, are you always this vulgar or does John II bring out something special in you?
Posted by James Jones on October 23, 2007 10:03 AMVulgarity and acrimony are all he's got. He can't make any valid arguments for himself so he resorts to petty sniping instead.
Posted by John II on October 23, 2007 10:24 AMJohn I think you'd agree that deficit spending while handing out unprecedented tax cuts in time of war isn't sound fiscal policy.
Posted by jay on October 23, 2007 10:31 AMjay,
Unprecedented tax cuts followed by unprecedented tax revenues is always a sound policy.
Spending more than you take in is never a sound policy.
The nexus you make doesn't exist.
Posted by James Jones on October 23, 2007 10:39 AMNo, jay, I wouldn't.
The tax cuts were enacted to help the country recover from recession and the financial losses of the WTC attack. Since the tax rate cuts, we have paid more, not less, in taxes.
As for deficit spending during a time of war, that is the norm.
Posted by John II on October 23, 2007 10:40 AMJohn II,
I see. I thought it might just be the tights.
Posted by James Jones on October 23, 2007 10:42 AMPosted by John II on October 22, 2007 11:42 PM
"At some point, a tax rate cut will result in lower revenues. But we have not yet hit that level."
What facts is this assertion based on? What is the ideal rate of taxation that will optimize revenue? How do you know? Or is it simply lower is always better?
"...the Republicans spent money like Democrats."
Given that the only balanced budget this generation was based on Democratic tax hikes under a Democratic president, a better answer might be "spent money like politicians" since both sides like to spend, but one party pays now and the other charges it to our grandkids. This thought that Dems outspend Republicans is a fossil, and belongs in a museum.
Science Guy,
It is a fact that tax rates were cut and revenue went up. The only real way we can determine that tax rate sweet spot is to lower taxes until revenue begins to drop. Of course, it's a bit more complex than that. But I'm sure you get the point.
"Given that the only balanced budget this generation was based on Democratic tax hikes under a Democratic president, a better answer might be "spent money like politicians" since both sides like to spend, but one party pays now and the other charges it to our grandkids."
What an interesting take on history. I seem to recall a Republican Congress shutting down the government until Mr. Clinton signed a balanced budget.
Those are some wonderfully rose-tinted lenses on your retrospectoscope.
It's a fact that Clinton raised taxes and revenue went up and the budget was in surplus.
Posted by Science Guy on October 23, 2007 11:13 AMI never denied any of that. But, you seemed to have forgotten the Republican Congress that initiated and passed the budget.
Posted by John II on October 23, 2007 11:22 AM"It's a fact that Clinton raised taxes and revenue went up and the budget was in surplus."
It's a fact that when ice ream sales rise, so does the murder rate. Why, oh why, do they still sell that noxious cream? I guess no one ever told you that correlation is not causation, and that correlations often don't mean anything. I mean, there's no way that the .com bubble could act as a lurking variable to your statement, nor did its bursting in any way affect the economy. There is no possible way that we should be in a depression right now, not following one of the largest troughs ever. No way should we be asking if Clinton should have provided a bigger surplus than he did, given the incredibly positive economic situation during his terms. It makes absolutely no sense that most economists are right wing, not when the facts about the Clinton administration are so crystal.
Posted by drew on October 23, 2007 11:27 AMSo what does that mean for you and Mr. Jones' thesis that lower rates equals more revenue, when the exact opposite has proven true in the recent past?
Posted by Science Guy on October 23, 2007 11:30 AMWhassa matter Johnny2, or should I say Big Pussy? When all you do is use angry, profane, and overall stupid rhetoric when I hand your ass to you on a subject? Now I remember, the rules are different for you there too, just like with your handles. What an effete gasbag.
And as if it is any of your business, O King of the Kool-Aid Jimmy J, yes, the Big Pussy (aka J2) does bring out something special in me. See the above paragraph for elucidation (do you know what that word means?). And my "super-sleuth" skills are much better than either of you jokers, since I noticed when Big Pussy (aka j2) stated that he was "channelling" the founding fathers. Jealous much, when someone is better than you at something? Why are you not used to it?
Posted by JohnnyBoy2 is a Big Pussy on October 23, 2007 11:43 AMScience Guy,
I think the enormous Dot Com Boom may have had a thing or two do with the rise in revenue. But, near the end of Mr. Clinton's term, the economy was heading into a recession (which Mr. Bush inherited).
Few people doubt that tax rate hikes can raise more revenue in the short term. But, the key is to keep the economy from recessing in addition to raising revenue.
11:43,
Perhaps your sleuthing talents were aided by my statement to Old Grouch on another thread that I was channeling George Washington (and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison).
Posted by John II on October 23, 2007 11:53 AMThat's right, Big Pussy (aka J2)!!!! So you can read after all . . . (see above post).
And it is so cute to see that you cannot begin to describe yourself as what you are, and must use a time instead.
Oh, but you just cannot refute anything that I have said, as usual. So you turn it into something else, trying to get me to dance with you. Well, piss off, Big Pussy.
Posted by JohnnyBoy2 is a Big Pussy on October 23, 2007 12:01 PMIt's worth noting that it took five years for revenue levels to reach their Clinton level after the Bush tax cuts.
Clearly the issues are complex and not so simple as purported to be by amatuer economists.
Posted by Science Guy on October 23, 2007 12:07 PMScience Guy,
That is not true.
Posted by John II on October 23, 2007 12:12 PMJohnnyBoy2 is a Big Pussy
I make it my business. You can think of it as a sense of hygiene.
I not only know what elucidate means I am a practitioner. That's why I would never concoct a mess like:
Just because they are dead and cannot disagree with you does not mean that they are a modern Neo-Con.
I'm quite sure you are more accomplished in the vile and vulgar than I and I am not the least bit jealous. In fact, what you seek to cultivate, I seek to eliminate.
The remarkable thing for me is your failure to comprehend that as you tap out insults aimed at people you hope you will never meet, hiding behind a made-up name; you tell us nothing at all about your target and everything we need to know about you.
That knowledge is useful.
Posted by James Jones on October 23, 2007 12:27 PM2000 $1,900,329,406,000
2001 $1,874,998,696,000
2002 $1,732,715,156,000
2003 $1,650,372,248,000
2004 $1,738,702,169,000
2005 $1,998,850,893,000
These numbers are wrong? Or it is simple?
Posted by Science Guy on October 23, 2007 12:33 PMThe numbers are correct. There was a tax cut in 2001 followed by a bigger tax cut in 2003.
Posted by John II on October 23, 2007 12:38 PMWow...apologists for the last 7 years of fiscal irresponsibility still abound.
That is an amazing display of politically blindered loyalty.
Anyone here still think we won't have to raise taxes because of the fiscal policies of the former Republican majority?
Posted by jay on October 23, 2007 01:02 PMSo, King of the Kool-Aid, was that supposed to make me feel bad or belittled? Just like GW Bush, "Mission Not Accomplished".
Although it is funny to see you stroke your ego. What the hell are you? Do you actually think you are making a difference incessantly posting your shallow BS on a third-rate s**trag's website? You are as small and inconsequential as the RMN itself.
That says everything we need to know about you. And that knowledge is useful.
Posted by James Jones is a Glow In The Dark Pussy on October 23, 2007 01:07 PMJimmy claimed ” So you don't ken mcuh about macroeconomics - not to worry. I will tell you what you need to ken”
Nah, I know just enough to know that you don’t know any more than I.
You are as much an expert on macro-economics as you have proven to be on religion, ethics, and science, which is to say, not at all.
I know you fancy yourself as a bit of a Conservative intellectual, but the evidence rather points against that being the case.
So let’s go back to why it is that you admit that economies are dynamic, but yet imagine yourself capable of boiling it down to something as simple as claiming that further rate cuts would necessarily result in increases in revenue.
I say that you are way too stupid and way too ignorant to know such a thing, and that all you are doing is parroting what you glean from your idols on the Right.
You don’t really have a clue, but are more than willing to shout whatever you think they are saying.
This brings me back to the simple fact that you are just a coward and somebody who is eager to shirk their responsibilities as a citizen.
I am happy to share my part of the burden without even being a citizen, so what reason other than irresponsibility do you have for wanting to dodge this happy duty?
FWIW, the other guy is not me, but JJJ sees a vast left wing conspiracy of one person out to torment him.
Sorry Jimmy, but your opponents are many, though we agree on your attributes.
Posted by James Jesus Jones is a glow in the Dark Bitch on October 23, 2007 01:38 PMJohn II,
I knew it! It's not a he; it's a she. That's Repugnants, Queen Gorgo, et. al.
There's almost an odor in her posts that's unmistakable.
Posted by James Jones on October 23, 2007 01:43 PMMr. Skank,
That was a bit unnecessarily harsh, wouldn't you agree?
You said:
"I am happy to share my part of the burden without even being a citizen, so what reason other than irresponsibility do you have for wanting to dodge this happy duty?"
The issue is not about doing your part as a citizen. You are not more civic-minded than Mr. Jones, myself or anyone else just because you're willing to pay more taxes. If it were that simple, I'm sure we'd all pay whatever was necessary.
The issue is what is the best way to manage a nation's revenue collection.
Taxes are a penalty to business. Would you agree with that statement?
Posted by John II on October 23, 2007 01:45 PMAh, that explains her emotionalism.
Posted by John II on October 23, 2007 01:49 PMI just wish I could tell you exactly how satisfying it is to see you be wrong again, O Great King of the Kool-Aid!!
Your paranoia is shining through again, King Kool-Aid.
And like your other, eh, admirer stated: "Sorry Jimmy, but your opponents are many, though we agree on your attributes."
I couldn't put it better myself. And I am not the poster at 1:38pm, as she sees you as a bitch primarily (which is indeed true) and I see you as primarily a pussy (also true).
There is no "vast, left-wing conspiracy" against you, JJ the King of Kool-Aid. Just a lot of people who are as sick of you as we are of Big Pussy, aka JohnnyBoy2.
Posted by James Jones is a Glow In The Dark Pussy on October 23, 2007 01:54 PMBango,
There is a ton of evidence that you are a dogmatic leftist with an appreciation of conservative thought equal to an oyster's appreciation of a sunrise.
"further rate cuts would necessarily result in increases in revenue."
Wrong. Increases in revenue are attributable to growth in the economy. Tax cuts increase revenue to the extent they stimulate growth in the economy.
It's the stimulating the economy bit of the program that is beyond your leftist comprehension. That's because in your theology, the government is the fount from which all good flows. That includes prosperity.
Holding yourself out as a role model indicates you at least retain some sense of humor.
You seem a little overly fixated on being "manly", JohnnyBoy2. Just come out of the closet already, Big Pussy. It is OK for you to love the "bear" type, you know. Just keep on peeking your nose out the closet door, J2. We will be happy to let everyone else know when you are doing so.
Posted by JohnnyBoy2 is a Big Pussy on October 23, 2007 02:03 PMJohn II
You see - Definetly a woman.
Posted by James Jones on October 23, 2007 02:22 PMI still haven't heard the apologists deny that the Republican fiscal policies of the last 7 years will require a tax raise.
Anyone want to touch that or are you conceding the point?
Like I said....spend and tax is just as bad as tax and spend fellas.
You can't spin your way around that.
Posted by jay on October 23, 2007 02:44 PMjay,
If you read some of the posts you could probably come up with a better question.
Maybe not.
Posted by James Jones on October 23, 2007 02:55 PMjay,
It will not require a tax raise. It will require a reduction in spending.
Posted by John II on October 23, 2007 02:55 PMIt would be easy to think every poster who disagrees with you is one person masquerading as many, but it ain't so.
Keep guessing and flailing about and feeling persecuted if it inflates your ego.
Posted by James Jesus Jones is a glow in the Dark Bitch on October 23, 2007 03:31 PMRighty-O!! Apparently, the King of Kool-Aid needs to keep the psychosis at bay. Whatever it takes, little "man"!!
Posted by James Jones is a Glow In The Dark Pussy on October 23, 2007 04:12 PMOk John...just so I understand your position.
You believe that the trillions of dollars that the Republicans have needlessly added to our national debt will simply go away by reducing spending...even though we're still deficit spending as we speak.
did I get that right or would you like to take another stance?
Posted by jay on October 23, 2007 05:49 PMJimmy boy, you warm my heart, so you do!
I said “So let’s go back to why it is that you admit that economies are dynamic, but yet imagine yourself capable of boiling it down to something as simple as claiming that further rate cuts would necessarily result in increases in revenue.”
You post this “further rate cuts would necessarily result in increases in revenue."
And then answer yourself with : ” Wrong. Increases in revenue are attributable to growth in the economy. Tax cuts increase revenue to the extent they stimulate growth in the economy.”
This is what I mean, Jimmy lad, you just aren’t up to snuff.
I don’t for a minute doubt that this is the claim you are making, and I am entirely cognizant that your claim is that rate cuts lead to growth which leads to increased revenue.
I get that Jimmy boy, really I do, I understand what you are claiming.
What I pointed out to you several times though Jimmy, is that this has been shown to be true only in a very narrow band, and with some unknown and unpredictable factors involved.
So my accusation, and pay attention now, is that you are far too dim and ignorant to know if the current situation is such that rate cuts would necessarily lead to the growth and thus revenue increases that you claim.
Not to put too fine a point on this Jimbo, but you don’t really understand this stuff enough to speak with any authority, and all you are doing is parroting whatever you think your preferred sources are saying.
Since your choice of who you believe and trust, and therefore parrot is dependant on your preferences on outcomes, I again ask you – why do you not wish to bear your fair share of the burden?
As I said, if a foreigner like me is glad to pay to support this country, why aren’t you?
jay,
What needless trillions are you referring to?
Your question was confusing. We should reduce spending to the point where we don't need to spend more than we have?
Besides the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, what would you like to cut from the federal budget that would return us to a balanced budget?
Posted by John II on October 23, 2007 06:01 PMcorrection:
"We should reduce spending to the point where we don't need to spend more than we have?" That should have been a statement, not a question.
No answers, jay?
Posted by John II on October 23, 2007 08:00 PMBango,
So glad to hear I warm you heart. This will bring some light as well.
You just now posted
You post this “further rate cuts would necessarily result in increases in revenue."
And then answer yourself with : ” Wrong. Increases in revenue are attributable to growth in the economy. Tax cuts increase revenue to the extent they stimulate growth in the economy.”
This is what I mean, Jimmy lad, you just aren’t up to snuff.
I don’t for a minute doubt that this is the claim you are making, and I am entirely cognizant that your claim is that rate cuts lead to growth which leads to increased revenue.
I get that Jimmy boy, really I do, I understand what you are claiming.
Posted by: Bangalore Skank | October 23, 2007 06:01 PM
Just after posting:
"So let’s go back to why it is that you admit that economies are dynamic, but yet imagine yourself capable of boiling it down to something as simple as claiming that further rate cuts would necessarily result in increases in revenue."
Posted by Bangalore Skank on October 23, 2007 01:24 PM
Did you notice "that further rate cuts would necessarily result in increases in revenue?" Does that ring a bell at all? You wrote is just a matter of hours ago.
You didn't really understand my claim at all. In fact, it wasn't even my claim - it was yours.
You just forgot you had a made it.
Not to put to fine a point upon it but,
You patiently explained to me, as one would to an inferior intellect, that you understood a claim that you yourself had just made.
Is this starting to seep in? Rather stepped into it here didn't you Old Stick?
Then we are treated with more of the usual ad hominem stuff:
you just aren’t up to snuff
Not to put too fine a point on this Jimbo
you are far too dim and ignorant
all you are doing is parroting
But the point of one's devastingly witty personal attacks is rather lost coming directly after one's making a complete fool of oneself, don't you know?
You have told us many time that you are an immigrant. As a host the last thing I want to do is be unwelcoming. But I must ask a question.
Is everyone back home as dim-witted as you?
If so, then you have my deep sympathy.
If not, then a) what did they give you to leave and b) what would it take to get you to go back?
Sorry John...so again...you believe that we won't have to raise taxes to pay for the record deficit spending, the tax cuts that won't pay for themselves (greenspan's admission) and the needless 2 trillion dollar war in Iraq if we just reduce spending?
Take an economics class john...and while you're at it...take a history class....and pay attention when you study the promise Bush the Smarter was forced to break the last time we tried voodoo economics.
Again...I am absolutely amazed at the financial naivity of the apologists for the incompetent republican fiscal polices.
do me a favor fellas...pick up greenspan's new book....read it...and get back to us when we can have an intelligent, REALISTIC conversation about the long term ramifications of the last 7 years.
Posted by jay on October 24, 2007 10:08 AMjay,
I'll assume I'm one of the fellas and respond to your last point. I'll leave it to John to explain voodoo econmics to you. John and I agreed on this protocol earlier.
I am going to decline your assignment of reading Greenspas's book. He was in a postition to tell us what he thought for many years. The fact that he has left his public position to write a book telling us what he really thought all that time sufficiently destroys his credibility for me.
However, I wll be happy to discuss with you whatever it is you found in his writing that you think is instructive.
What, would you say, are some of his more important lessons?
Posted by James Jones on October 24, 2007 10:31 AMSo now Greenspans accurate criticisms of the Republican fiscal policies don't warrant review?
Sounds like someone has a case of the Denials.
Posted by jay on October 24, 2007 11:58 AMJames...Greenspan said, even during his tenure that the tax cuts wouldn't pay for themselves and that without proper fiscal restraint, would be detrimental to our financial health. Starve the beast economnics simply don't work if you don't cut spending....as we saw under Reagan.
He warned us repeatedly about the ramifications of the type of spending spree the Republicans perpetrated with glee.
I don't see how his views aren't relevant or lack credibility.
Surely you're not going to deny that we'll have to raise taxes to pay for said cuts, deficit spending and the needless Iraq war?
How would you like your children, grandchildren and greatchildren to pay for that?
Paper or plastic?
Posted by jay on October 24, 2007 12:02 PMCan't we all just get along?
Come see DAMN YANKEES at the Longmont
Theatre Company. Opening this Friday the 26th, and running until Nov. 17. Tickets are $17.00, much cheaper than World Series!!
Call 303.772.5200 for tickets.
Directed by yours truly,
Ricky Lee Landrum
jay,
I'm glad I didn't buy the book.
The phrase "tax cuts need to pay for themselves" is interesting.
When a tax is cut, then the individual gets to keep more of the money they earned. That does not require anyone to pay for anything.
Of course what you actually mean is that tax cut will result in a loss of revenue to the treasury that will result in something not being paid for.
But the economy doesn't necessarily work that way. I wrote a letter (it's at the top of this thread) that chronicles the condition of revenue actually rising after a tax cut.
But I will defer to John to explain the nuts and bolts of voodoo economics.
I will say that the question of taxation is as much a moral as an economic question.
I think people should, as a rule, be able to keep what they earn. I acknowledge that we need a government to function socially but state funding should be limited to common needs (defense) and should not extend to social engineering (transfer of wealth).
And James.....do you believe, like John, that we won't have to raise taxes to pay for the tax cuts, the record deficit spending and the needless Iraq War...ie...Republican policies of the last 7 years?
Posted by jay on October 24, 2007 02:38 PMYes
Posted by James Jones on October 24, 2007 02:51 PMwow
Posted by jay on October 24, 2007 03:34 PMjay,
I don't understand the point you are trying to make; you're all over the map in terms of positions.
You asked us if we think we should raise taxes to pay for our spending. We answered no.
You claim Mr. Bush is spending too much money. On a separate thread, you said the Republicans spent too much on the drug bill. When I asked you if you feel we should cut money from Medicare/Medicaid, you declined to answer. When I asked you what spending, other than war spending, would you cut, you refused to answer.
Then you advise us to read Mr. Greenspan's book. You paraphrased him as saying "He warned us repeatedly about the ramifications of the type of spending spree the Republicans perpetrated with glee."
This seems to suggest that you feel we are spending too much. So, I'll ask again, in addition to cutting spending on the wars, what else would you cut?
Posted by John II on October 24, 2007 05:31 PMThe article referred to by CheckTheFacts in another thread deserves to be posted here as well:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/16/AR2006101601121_pf.html
Bush hailed the dwindling deficit as a direct result of "pro-growth economic policies," particularly huge tax cuts enacted during his first term. "Tax relief fuels economic growth. And growth -- when the economy grows, more tax revenues come to Washington. And that's what's happened," Bush said.
Economists said Bush was claiming credit where little is due. The economy has grown and tax receipts have risen at historic rates over the past two years, but the Bush tax cuts played a small role in that process, they said, and cost the Treasury more in lost taxes than it gained from the resulting economic stimulus.
"Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that," said Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist now at the nonpartisan American Enterprise Institute. "It's logically possible" that a tax cut could spur sufficient economic growth to pay for itself, Viard said. "But there's no evidence that these tax cuts would come anywhere close to that."
Economists at the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and in the Treasury Department have reached the same conclusion. An analysis of Treasury data prepared last month by the Congressional Research Service estimates that economic growth fueled by the cuts is likely to generate revenue worth about 7 percent of the total cost of the cuts, a broad package of rate reductions and tax credits that has returned an estimated $1.1 trillion to taxpayers since 2001.
Robert Carroll, deputy assistant Treasury secretary for tax analysis, said neither the president nor anyone else in the administration is claiming that tax cuts alone produced the unexpected surge in revenue. "As a matter of principle, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves," Carroll said.
Posted by Truth on October 24, 2007 06:49 PMMore of the same:
"The Office of Management and Budget describes the rebound in the past few years as a return to the historical average. As a percentage of GDP, federal receipts are now 18.4 percent of GDP (in line with the 40-year historical average of 18.3 percent)."
"Federal agencies have published similar statements regarding the effect of tax cuts on federal receipts. From the Congressional Budget Office’s 2007 Budget Outlook: “The expiration of tax provisions as scheduled has a substantial impact on CBO’s projections, especially beyond 2010 when a number of revenue-reducing tax provisions enacted in the past several years are slated to expire,” the report says. “Almost all of the expiring provisions reduce revenues.”
"The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the 2001 tax legislation (the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act) would cause government revenues to be 107.7 billion less than they would have been in the absence of the legislation in 2004, 107.4 billion less in 2005 and 135.2 billion less in 2006. The committee's estimates for the effect of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 were that it would reduce otherwise projected revenues by 148.7 billion in 2004, 82.2 billion in 2005 and 20.7 billion in 2006. The JCT makes its comparisons against the Congressional Budget Office's receipts baselines."
"Also, Rob Portman, director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Ed Lazear, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, told journalists at the Washington Times last October that the tax cuts prompted economic and stock market growth. But, the paper reported, “they conceded that the tax cuts…cut deeply into government revenue.”"
Posted by Truth on October 24, 2007 06:51 PMTruth
Tax receipts have soared by 46% in the four years following the Bush rate reductions and that is the largest increase in US history.
So you and Alan D. Viard conclude (and of course there can be no dispute) that the record rise would have been even larger absent the Bush tax cuts.
Then to what do you and Alan attribute the rise that actaully did occcur?
Posted by James Jones on October 24, 2007 09:38 PM"You asked us if we think we should raise taxes to pay for our spending."
Not "should" John...."have to".
Have to.
Take an economics class.
You can't raise our debt by TRILLIONS in 6 years and expect to save our way out of it.
Not going to happen.
Record pork barrel spending. Needless war spending (yes...you have to count it). Tax cuts that don't pay for themselves (as confirmed by Greenspan and Bernanke both).
You can't go on this kind of spending spree without paying the bill by raising taxes.
It staggers the imagination that you would think otherwise and still dress yourself in the morning.
Once again we see logic and reason displaced by your blind political loyalty.
Posted by jay on October 24, 2007 10:33 PMjay,
I hate to butt in here but I think some clarity might help.
You don't understand what the Federal Debt is. Deficit spending adds annually to the debt but not to the scale you imply.
A larger part of the debt is held by government agencies or government trust funds such as those for Social Security In addition, because the Federal Reserve banks are technically private corporations, the debt "held by the public" includes the Federal Reserve holdings although the interest paid on Federal Reserve holdings largely goes right back to the Treasury.
You also fail to make it clear that you are referring exclusively to gross debt which does not subtract what the public owes to the federal government or its credit agencies. The net debt—the debt owed by the government to the public exclusive of the Federal Reserve, minus the debt owed by the public to the government—is some 20 percent less.
In any event, the debt of U.S. businesses (excluding financial institutions) and households is much higher than the Federal debt but there is no panic on that account.
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 25 Oct 2007 at 01:15:17 PM GMT is: $9,060,298,526,659.
The deficit forecast or this year is $161,000,000,000 or about 0.0002% of the total.
Deficit spending is bad policy in my opinion where it indicates an expanding governmental authority.
But your hysteria
You can't raise our debt by TRILLIONS in 6 years and expect to save our way out of it.
here is as baseless as your Global warming hysteria.
jay,
You keep telling me about all this spending that happened in the last six years, but you don't tell me what spending you would cut.
Is it not possible to keep taxes where they are and cut spending to achieve a budget surplus which can then be used to help pay down our debt?
Posted by John II on October 25, 2007 07:54 AMMe and Alan D. Viard? Now, Jones, please don't accuse me of questioning your premise, I'm just not that kind of guy. See, like you, I am not an economist and so, like you, I only know what I read. But it appears that you look to different sources than I do, political ones instead of economic ones.
But I'm afraid you are trying to make some people feel bad. You mention only Alan D. Viard, and I'm sure that hurts the feelings of the others.
Here is a more complete list of the dastardly, mean-spirited, low down-culprits that say you are wrong:
Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist now at the nonpartisan American Enterprise Institute
Rob Portman, director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Ed Lazear, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
Joint Committee on Taxation
Congressional Budget Office’s 2007 Budget Outlook
I think even you will agree that the interesting thing about the list is that most of them are economists rather than politicians. I would say that they are nonpartisan, except for one thing. No doubt you have heard tell of the American Enterprise Institute?
It is well for you to ask why, then, the rise in receipts? Even though I am not an economist, I am smart enough, and I think you are too, to know that tax receipts and the tax rate do go hand in hand, and how the economy goes depends on so many other factors than the tax rate, such as the world economy and consumer confidence.
I'll leave you to do your own research on the topic but I will give you a leg up by referring you to a few sources:
http://www.cbpp.org/6-2-04tax.htm
THE ULTIMATE BURDEN OF THE TAX CUTS
I will give you a free hint. Just because one thing follows another in time does not mean that the one thing was caused by the other. I expect that is particularly true in the field of economics in which there are so many variables.
Posted by Truth on October 25, 2007 08:45 AMTruth said:
"Even though I am not an economist, I am smart enough, and I think you are too, to know that tax receipts and the tax rate do go hand in hand, and how the economy goes depends on so many other factors than the tax rate, such as the world economy and consumer confidence."
Very good, Truth. As usual, your thinking stops at the surface. You must dig deeper.
Do you deny that taxes affect business? Do you think the capital gains tax cut had no effect on investment?
Taxes are a penalty on business. Penalize business and you penalize the economy. Penalize the economy and you lower consumer confidence. Consumer confidence is a trailing indicator; it is dependent on underlying events that have occurred months before.
Do other factors contribute to a booming economy? Of course. But, you cannot ignore the enormous impact of tax policy on the economy.
Posted by John II on October 25, 2007 09:31 AMTruth,
"But it appears that you look to different sources than I do, political ones instead of economic ones."
No Truth, the only source I quoted was the CBO which was the
"nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office"
in your post. They must have become partisan right after you referenced them.
I understand that
"Just because one thing follows another in time does not mean that the one thing was caused by the other."
Quite profoud and exactly why I asked the single question - if not the tax cut then what was reponsible for the rise in the revenue.
Your best answer seems to be the world economy and consumer confidence and I should figure it out for myself.
You're correct about one thing - you don't understand econmics.
You are however a man accomplished in the art of google, copy and paste. If you read some of your pastes, I mean posts, you might learn a little about economics.
Posted by James Jones on October 25, 2007 09:36 AMJones, it's always fun to see you go from trying to explain to trying to attack when you can't come up with anything intelligent. Much like a little boy.
It was interesting to see that you think that world economics and consumer confidence don't affect the economy in the U.S. Could you copy and paste something from the people who taught you that?
You don't like copy and paste? You prefer to paraphrase what you have read? Myself, I prefer copy and paste to paraphrase so that I will be more accurate. But I realize that accuracy is not your goal.
The Reagan tax cuts:
"Remember Ronald Reagan and Supply Side Economics? In the early 1980s, Reagan promised the nation that if we lowered tax rates on the wealthy, the economy would grow so much the federal budget would be balanced "within three years, maybe even two."
Sober people were skeptical-and rightly so. Reagan's Republican opponent for the 1980 presidential election, George H.W. Bush called it "voodoo economics." His own Budget Director, David Stockman, called it a "Trojan horse," a scam intended really to funnel more money to the already rich. Stockman was quickly dismissed.
The results, we now know, were a disaster. In 1982, the first full year after the tax cuts were enacted, the economy actually shrank 2.2%, the worst performance since the Great Depression. And the effect on the federal budget was catastrophic. "
Posted by Truth on October 25, 2007 10:37 AMTruth,
World economy and consumer confidence "affect" the US economy but they do not account for
"Tax receipts have soared by 46% in the four years following the Bush rate reductions and that is the largest increase in US history"
If you had read what you pasted last night
The expiration of tax provisions as scheduled has a substantial impact on CBO’s projections, especially beyond 2010 when a number of revenue-reducing tax provisions enacted in the past several years are slated to expire,” the report says. “Almost all of the expiring provisions reduce revenues.”
Posted by Truth on October 24, 2007 06:51 PM
You would know I was asking about which provisions they are referring to - how about hitting google and see what you can find?
I don't at all mind your cut and paste method.
My passing comment
"to what do you and Alan attribute"
was what Grouch would call my hilariously amusing way of pointing out that you rarely post an original thought.
Outside of personal slurs of course. Even those are particluary original cometo think of it.
Did you miss John's questions by the way?
Let me help - you will gind them at 9.31 am
You guys still trying to spin your way out of the fact that we'll have to raise taxes to pay for the TRILLIONS in debt Republican policies saddled us with over the last 6 years?
By the way...your figures are completely irrelevant if you don't add the 2 trillion in war costs....so....still sticking to your story of "no new taxes"?
Remind me....how'd that work out for Bush the Smarter the last time the Rubs got us into this mess?
Posted by jay on October 25, 2007 02:19 PMjay,
You keep telling me about all this spending that happened in the last six years, but you don't tell me what spending you would cut.
Is it not possible to keep taxes where they are and cut spending to achieve a budget surplus which can then be used to help pay down our debt?
Posted by John II on October 25, 2007 04:07 PMJones, your posts are beginning to sound like the cries of a drowning man. Too bad. And you seemed to be such a nice young man.
Of course the tax rates affect tax receipts along with a number of other factors, including those I have mentioned. There is no way to know mathematically the effect any one factor has, so we have to rely on the opinions of the experts. That is what I have done. I'm not talking liberal politicians here. I'm talking both nonpartisan and conservative economists.
Posted by Truth on October 25, 2007 04:56 PMMy bad. I should have noted that, yes, tax rates do affect tax receipts, and the experts say that lowering the rates adversely impacts receipts, so that the increase in tax receipts now is less than it would be without the tax cuts.
Posted by Truth on October 25, 2007 04:59 PMCorrection. I should have said that the experts say that tax cuts can lower receipts, as in the case of the Reagan cuts before and the Bush cuts now.
Posted by Truth on October 25, 2007 05:02 PMCorrection: can lower receipts below what they would have been without the tax cuts.
Posted by Truth on October 25, 2007 06:47 PM"You keep telling me about all this spending that happened in the last six years, but you don't tell me what spending you would cut."
We can save 4 billion a week by significantly reducing our footprint in Iraq John, but again...that's beside the point. You still haven't come even close to making the case that we won't have to raise taxes to pay for the republican policy decisions regarding the war in iraq, tax cuts and deficit pork spending.
Trillions.
Once again we find you cornered and simply refusing to acknowledge politically inconvenient facts.
Posted by jay on October 25, 2007 07:42 PMjay,
I said we could cut spending. Why won't you tell me what spending you would cut besides spending on the war?
There's two reasons why I think you won't answer this question: 1) You really don't know what the federal government spends it's money on. 2) You feel that every new spending program is worth it's cost and you 'd rather raise taxes than have to cut any programs.
Posted by John II on October 25, 2007 09:27 PMJohn...your question has no bearing on the discussion...you're simply trying to wiggle out of the corner and I'm not going to let you.
You STILL haven't made the case that we won't have to raise taxes for the irresponsible Republican fiscal policies of the last 7 years and asking me what spending I would cut has no bearing on that fact.
Give me some sign you understand that.
Damn nice try though.
Truth,
That's easy for you to say.
Posted by James Jones on October 25, 2007 11:22 PMjay,
The sometimes non-partisan CBO puts the figure at about $9 billion a year which you have roughly doubled. That's a pretty modest exaggeration by your hysteria-driven standards.
But, just for fun, let's use $4 billion a week.
If that's true and we devote the saving to pay off the debt then the US will be free and clear in about 2052. Unless of course the debt due to Social Security increases. But uf you elect Hillary and rasi taxes then that won't happen either.
And there's really no downside except for the slaughter of innocents in Iraq, Iranian control of Iraqi oil fields, and an al-quaidi allied Sunni government in Baghdad.
Putting it more succinctly - you haven't got a clue.
John II,
I put this letter up based on an earlier exchange between you and Bango.
You were arguing that rate decreases can stimulate the economy and result in an increase in tax revenue. Bango kept asking for a study to prove the point - the leftist lament.
You and I know that economics being what it is, you can produce a half-dozen studies to prove and then disprove just about any proposition.
So I reasoned: forget the studies. Let's just look at the raw data. We know Bush lowered the rates so, what happened? I found that in fact the revenue had increased at a record rate and produced the data. This was not a study. This is just a report of what plainly happened.
You see the result.
Is there any leftist here that is the least bit curious about how this could be? No.
Instead what we have is Truth telling us he doesn't know much about economics, thinks the rise had something to do with consumer confidence but is absolutely, positively convinced it had nothing to do with the rate cuts.
And we have jay ignoring every question, every point and endlessly repeating Democrat talking points.
There is not interest whatsoever in getting to the truth because they are blinded to reality by their fundamentalism.
I think you would have to conceed that I have given this a full and honest effort. It seems to me pointless to go on tilting at these windmills.
Jimmy...the war in iraq is going to cost us 2 trillion dollars...2.4 by the latest gov't estimates.
Listen fellas...it's pretty clear that you guys are the loyal, apologistic footsoldiers for the Bush Administration here...which is your right as free americans. Unfortunately, all of the educated Conservatives that I know are appalled at the fiscal fiasco perpetrated by your hijacked party over the last 7 years.
A Reagan Conservative at the Cato Institute summed it up well:
The grotesque highway bill, enacted in August 2005, was a wakeup call to many conservatives who believed that Republicans were still fiscal conservatives. The spending proposals in the wake of Hurricane Katrina were the final nail in the coffin. Republicans aren’t opposed to spending—only spending on things Democrats want to spend money on. Republican pork, it seems, is okay.
If Republicans have any hope of holding the White House in 2008, it is essential, in my mind, that they repudiate the big government policies of George W. Bush and stop aping the Democrats by throwing money away on wasteful subsidies, pork-barrel projects, and tax giveaways. Voters don’t automatically reward the party that spends the most to buy their votes. On the contrary, research shows that they are more likely to reward presidential candidates who demonstrate fiscal restraint.
The Republican Party needs to start a dialogue that will get it back on track as the party of small government before it loses what is left of its principles, reputation, and heritage. If the American people conclude that it stands for nothing except payoffs for those on its team, it will have lost something precious that, like one’s virtue or good name, is awfully hard to get back.
http://www.cato.org/research/articles/cpr28n1-050101.html
And by the way fellas....even the most stauch of Republican supporters with any education in economics at all agree that we'll have to raise taxes to pay for your party's recent fiscal policies...and sticking your heads in the sand and refusing to come to terms with and acknowledge that fact only hurts your respective credibilities here.
Yes, Mr. Jones, I would agree.
The good thing about this forum is that people from all walks of life participate in the discussion. The bad part about this forum is that people from all walks of life participate in the discussion.
One of the things I've learned from posting on blogs is that logic and reason are no match for immaturity and ignorance. In order to even get to the rational discussion part, we first need to make sure both sides are honest and somewhat intellectually mature. Otherwise, it's like talking to bratty teenagers.
I feel your frustration because I know why you post here. It's the same reason I post here: the quest for a challenging intellectual discussion. It is so boring to play along with the games jay plays. I'm not even sure what jay gets out of it. In the end, he robs himself of a learning experience. "The swindler swindles himself".
Posted by Joe on October 26, 2007 12:15 AMYou may also like this one from the Conservative Cato Inst.
"A Republican Spending Explosion"
http://www.cato.org/research/articles/cpr28n1-050101.html
And if you can imagine...this was only halfway through your reign of fiscal terror...This paper doesn't even take into account the ridiculous spending habits outlined in the paper above.
Again...running from your party's track record is just going to make you tired...and make you sound desperate.
Posted by jay on October 26, 2007 12:15 AMjay,
You are preaching to the choir about spending. Most conservatives are not happy about it. I've already told you numerous times that I want to cut spending.
But, what about you? Would you cut the highway bill if you had the power? Would you limit spending for Katrina damages? What would you cut other than war spending? This is the sixth time I've asked you this and you still refuse to answer.
Posted by John II on October 26, 2007 12:19 AMJoe should be John II.
Posted by John II on October 26, 2007 12:21 AMJimbo, try formatting your responses would you?
As I said, Jimmy boy, I understand that you are proposing a multi-step process, with indirect increases in revenue claimed to result from rate reduction.
... but again, wiser men have been shown wrong on this score before, and experience has shown that the relationship is complex with some mystrerious bits, and it has only shown to work under very narrow circumstances.
So again, I doubt that you are in the know in this case, being the duffer that your are.
Now, why is it that I am prepared to bear my share of the tax burden but you balk?
I think you just aren’t very patriotic.