CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Exactly, and suggesting tax-cuts are "outlays" is wrong, but it seems libs have a hard time accepting that FACT.
couldnt we also say raising taxes on the rich doesnt stimulate the economy?
i mean seriously, the tax issue alone does not control the overall economy. but taxes can definitely starta path up or down if people react a certain way.
i mean seriously, the tax issue alone does not control the overall economy. but taxes can definitely starta path up or down if people react a certain way.
Err sources are cited. The sources are non-partisan.
Supply side economics is the target and scope of the entire paper. It is not intended to be professional it was for a "rebels" class where we were to pick incendiary topics for 4 papers and write a mix of opinion and fact.
The paper makes no intent to show taxing the rich is a good thing. It just says cutting taxes on the rich is not a good thing for the economy as a whole.
Go ahead and show me the bias if you claim it is so.
It was clear that you had a bias with the "paper",... as you stated "My goal is to put to rest the fallacy that cutting taxes always helps the economy."
Regardless,... it is very limited in scope and research,... and it deserves little credit as does your proclamation that "cutting taxes for the rich does not stimulate the economy".
Personally it does not deserve a passing grade if it is for a college class,... secondly,... for you to then have the arrogance for your proclamation is indicative that you need to do more research.
i didn't read his paper, because i don't really care, but his conclusion is empirically correct, regardless whatever the content of his paper may be
Are you KIDDING ME? Look at the TITLES of your damn sources. They were written to prove one thing and only one. Throw out the IRS data but really that's just data.
The number crunching is atrocious. You call that number crunching? At best that's inconclusive data that you've shown us. Graphs with trendlines showing a SLIGHT slope when the data itself is just a bunch of wild swings? There's no trending data at all. Like I said, this paper is as good as a post on ATOT just with graphs. I don't think you looked at issue in an unbiased way and then threw in arguments and numbers from both sides and did some PROPER statistical analysis.
Just the tone itself of the damn paper is pretty terrible. You can tell from the first few words that the author already doubts tax cuts. Really, you make Fox News' fair and balanced look like the most unbiased news channel there has been.
basically break it down like this:
give a rich man a dollar, he doesn't give a shit
give a poor man a dollar, he'll spend it on a fast food dollar menu
point: rich person won't instanly consume dollars saved by reduced taxes
give a rich man a dollar, he doesn't give a shit
give a poor man a dollar, he'll spend it on a fast food dollar menu
point: rich person won't instanly consume dollars saved by reduced taxes
A bunch of wild swings?
You are aware that the economy works in cycles?
The trendlines reflect 60 years of data in each graph. Each comparison of data has a very specific point. A trendline that has a different slope from another one indicates a poor relationship. The final graph shows very clearly that public and private investment drive the economy. The tax rate vs private investment graph clearly shows there is no relationship what so ever.
The sources you discredit:
The IRS.
US Department of Commerce.
US Bureau of Economic Analysis.
The Nation, The NYT, and Essays were just op-eds I read for some ideas on the issue and i included in the sources for completeness, none of those idea are reflected in the paper.
Again if you take issue with some piece of data, please go ahead and say so.
Saying "LOL ITS DUMB LOL" is not a valid reubuttal.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Nope, I'm talking about reality...you know - FACTS. The FACT is, tax-cuts are not an "outlay" and thus are not a "cost".
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Do the 'real issues' include the idea of less spending??
What Cad and Quantum said is completely correct. Why do we have to 'pay' for the privilege of keeping more of our money?
And how come when they increase taxes no one talks about how people are going to 'pay' for the tax increase, why not?
PJ, your reading comprehension is suffering badly. It doesn't get much clearer than the post I wrote above, and your reading comprehension also misses answered issues below:
No, they're completely wrong, as has been explained repeatedly (see Evan's comments).
It it ridiculous to have to say the same things over and over.
If you can cut spending, cut spending. If you cut it, there's no discussion about how to fund the spending you cut. But, if you are going to spend money, you have to tax or borrow.
That's the context of the discussion - how to pay for the spending you're going to do, not whether to do it.
You're like someone who sits down with the finance person at a car dealer to discuss financing options and screams at him, why doesn't he include not buying the car as an option? That's not the context. If you don't want to buy the car, don't buy it and get out of his office. If you don't want to spend, don't spend, and get out of the discussion of how to pay for the spending you are going to do. It's been said repeatedly that you can cut spending - the disucssion is about how to pay for the spenfing you are doing.
Get it yet? Sadly, I doubt it. Tax or borrow, can it be clearer, for the spending you are going to do.
"Why not cut spending" you ask again, probably. Why don't I just cut the time wasted saying the same things over and over to people who ask the same things repeatedly?
Cutting spending is a seperate discussion from how you pay for spending. It's all part of the budget, but are you going to answer every payment question with spending cuts?
If so, let me know, and I'll make a Harvey macro for you, since you are not going to get it.
The topic is how you pay for spending you are doing, following the spending decision.
Not spending gets done earlier at the 'whether to spend' phase. Get it?
So, you are spending the money. Are you going to pay for it by taxing, or are you going to put it on the debt to be paid later with interest?
"Why not cut spending?" I should just give up.
As I (and Evan) said before, you are simply being obtuse about the issue, and distorting the language to try to create an issue where there is not an issue.
In the general sense of the economy, the government, society, you start out with zero spending, zero taxes, and you don't 'pay' to not tax.
You then completely ignore the context when the subject changes to the fact you are going to spend money - and how to finance it - and looking at a budget.
Let's say by that point you're spending $11,000 per person and taxing $10,000 per person for a deficit of $1,000.
You have to figure out at some point how you are going to pay for that $1,000 deficit. Maybe you will pay for it by taxing; maybe you will print money (inflationary).
Now, when Mister Republican comes along and says "oh, we only have a $1,000 deficit, let's cut taxes by $1,000 and have a $2,000 deficit", you ask him, 'how are you going to pay for that tax cut that ncreases the deficit?' If he had brought you a spending cut for $1,000 at the same time, you wouldn't ask that, because it's already answered - the tax cut dosn't need to be 'paid for' because it did not increase the debt. But he didn't bring you a spending cut, no matter how much his campaign said he loves cutting spending.
No, he brought you a tax cut, because Republicans figured out long ago that the way to get ahead politically is to sacrifice future generations to spend now and pay later.
And so, when they want to borrow yet more from future generations to spend now on this generation, you ask, how are they going to pay for the tax cut, to avoid more debt?
As I said, they are welcome to use a spending cut - if they can get it passed. If they can't, it's not a spendingcut, and they haven't 'paid for' the increased borrowing.
Spending cuts, in the context of the budget, would be the normal way to 'pay for' a tax cut. They could find a few others, namely, selling off resources.
This isn't rocket science. It's simply - as I said repeatedly - spending, taxing, and borrowing.
The fact that the language might seem a little odd to talk about 'paying for a tax cut' doesn't make it something it's not, it doesn't make it some important issue.
It's nothing more than saying that cutting taxes without cutting spending adds to the debt.
And that's exactly right, and as I said, you and the others are doing nothing more than playing games with the phrase to try to make it something it's not.
If the increase to the debt that results from lowering taxes but not spending is referred to as not paying for the tax cut, what's your point? You don't have one.
What a frickin' waste of time to have to say this over and over and over. And no, Al Gore did not say he invented the internet. Barack Obama did not call Palin a pig.
That's the same type of nonsense the right comes up with each time.
Tax cuts without spending cuts = deficit increase = tax cuts that are not paid for in the context of the budget.
There's no grand conspiracy that the language of finance is brainwashing politicians into thinking that all your money is their money and they spend wildly because of the phrase.
"Why not cut spending", you respond.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
semantics? :laugh: ok, whatever you say...
Facts are facts and craig and his beloved supposedly smart people have their facts wrong if they think tax-cuts are "costs" - it just isn't true.
Like the Republicans who are in control of the white house and congress right now? Damn Republicans!
Runninig up the debt for political greed when Bush inherited a surplus is not the same as stimulus spenidng to get out of the hold Bush ran the economy into.
Obama has said he had really not wanted to have to spend like this and that it's temporary until the economy is back on track, with a lot of one-time spending.
Go look at a deficit chart and see who ran up the deficits needlessly - Republicans - Reagan, both Bushes - and who had lower deficits, or lowered Republican deficits.
Nothing in Obama's spending is temporary. His best projects still show a deficit higher than Bush. It isnt until his last year in office if he sticks around for 8 years that he approaches the avg deficit run by Bush. You argument he will lower it over time is dishonest. Obama will break the recent mold for democrats and align him with Republican presidents. Huge deficits.
And give me a break. Expanding social programs is political greed. It ensures people become dependent on your platform and will continue to vote for you.
It takes a lot more discernment than you can offer to understand the difference between the politician doing a good job for their constituent, and pandering/greed.
Sometimes, the two coincide. Obama spends money to cure cancer, everyone applauds - his political interests and the public interest overlapped.
Often, leaders are faced with choices to 'do the right thing' against the political situation - JFK/LBJ and civil rights, welfare, etc. Welfare votes don't make up for the anti-welfare vote.
The problem is when politicians do the wrong thing for politics (Terry Schiavo) or greed (Medicare part D).
It's not that hard to spot some examples. The big pharma industry was the biggest donor to Republicans, and these Republicans were especially sellouts to their big donors.
This was the Bush administration's #1 domestic priority his first term. They spent their political capital to get it passed. Analysts said it was only marginally useful to the patients many seniors actually had to pay more under the new program - but it provided cover for them to put in a clause barring price negotiation, so the government had to pay full price and thereby give the big pharma industry a $150 billion windfall. The barring of price negotiation was a smoking gun that it was a very corrupt bill.
That's not the same as a legitimate Medicare bill whihc not only provides political benefit, but does what the government is supposed to do in serving the public.
You can argue all day about how some of the public want Medicare and some don't, but it doesn't affect the difference between that sort of bill and the more corrupt sort.
You are too unimformted to bother responding to on this. Yes, we are in a 'once in a century economic crisis' and he has to spend to get out of it. Many on your side still want to argue that FDR, who led the nation out of the great depression, did harm with his spending, so there's not going to be much point debating that. Obama will have big deficits to do this, but the plan, like with Clinton, is to get them to zero over time - while Bush started with a surplus and turned it into a record deficit (though at least it tapered off).
This isnt a complicated issue Craig and no matter how much you insult it wont change. Obama's own numbers paint a grim picture where he will spend more than Bush and wont approach Bush's numbers until the very end if everything goes to plan. Approaching a balanced budget was part of Bush as well and he managed to cut his deficit spending as well. Whoppie Do.
And talking about Bush blowing the surplus is dishonest as the economy was already tanking before he took office. Clinton could have run a third term and would have run a deficit. You know this so why do you continue to bring it up as some valid criticism of Bush?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter