Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I take it post #115 is going to be ignored?
Barstool economics
- Thread starter SmarterthanYou
- Start date
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
It has been addressed numerous times. Your repeating the same stupid arguments is not going to change them. They have already been addressed. If you truly want to learn about economics, by all means do so.
But thus far on this thread all you have accomplished is to show that not only do you suck at basic math, but you also have no comprehension of economics.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Here's a synopsis of the argument so far....
SF: THIS.... [Dixie: The problem is, my LOGIC doesn't say that, I didn't say that, I didn't infer that! I clearly acknowledged the "Laffer Effect" and admitted it can't be lowered to zero, so there is my LOGIC... exactly the same as YOUR LOGIC...] and THIS.... [Dixie:....and this is why lowering the top marginal rates always results in stimulating the economy.] CONTRADICT EACH OTHER. You acknowledge the laffer curve and then proceed to state lowering the top marginal rates ALWAYS result in stimulating the economy.
Dixie: No, the statements do not contradict each other. Read carefully!
"lowering the top marginal rates always results in stimulating the economy"
This is a true statement of fact based on historical data of what has happened in America, whenever we have lowered the top marginal rates! I do not say anything about Laffer, or suggest, infer, imply, or state anything about lowering it to ZERO!
SF: MORON... if lowering the top marginal rate ALWAYS results in stimulating the economy, then WHY would you NOT lower it to zero... if lowering if ALWAYS stimulates, then it would make sense to continually lower it until it hit zero.
Dixie: Because, as Laffer suggests, lowering it past a certain point is counterproductive! So, NO... it doesn't make sense at all to do that! This is why I didn't suggest that we should do that! AND, that is why I am puzzled as to why you keep thinking I have suggested something absurd? Can you fucking explain that to me?
And of course, you CAN'T explain that to me, can you?
Because the explanation is, you are a fucking control freak fascist who has to get his way all the time. You have to be right and no one else can have an opinion! It doesn't matter that you supposedly CLAIM you are on the same side of the political spectrum as I, you don't like the fact that I run circles around you in debate, and you have a personal animosity toward me, so you're going to go out of your way to find SOMETHING to disagree with me about, even if you have to fucking make it up out of whole cloth! I've had it with you putting words in my mouth, and claiming I have said outrageous things I never said! If you want to debate rationally, bring it on! But let's stop this petty nit picky arguing over nonsense like this. I never said what you claimed I said, you couldn't show where I even IMPLIED what you claimed, and by your own admission, it would have been stupid to claim it!
SF: THIS.... [Dixie: The problem is, my LOGIC doesn't say that, I didn't say that, I didn't infer that! I clearly acknowledged the "Laffer Effect" and admitted it can't be lowered to zero, so there is my LOGIC... exactly the same as YOUR LOGIC...] and THIS.... [Dixie:....and this is why lowering the top marginal rates always results in stimulating the economy.] CONTRADICT EACH OTHER. You acknowledge the laffer curve and then proceed to state lowering the top marginal rates ALWAYS result in stimulating the economy.
Dixie: No, the statements do not contradict each other. Read carefully!
"lowering the top marginal rates always results in stimulating the economy"
This is a true statement of fact based on historical data of what has happened in America, whenever we have lowered the top marginal rates! I do not say anything about Laffer, or suggest, infer, imply, or state anything about lowering it to ZERO!
SF: MORON... if lowering the top marginal rate ALWAYS results in stimulating the economy, then WHY would you NOT lower it to zero... if lowering if ALWAYS stimulates, then it would make sense to continually lower it until it hit zero.
Dixie: Because, as Laffer suggests, lowering it past a certain point is counterproductive! So, NO... it doesn't make sense at all to do that! This is why I didn't suggest that we should do that! AND, that is why I am puzzled as to why you keep thinking I have suggested something absurd? Can you fucking explain that to me?
And of course, you CAN'T explain that to me, can you?
Because the explanation is, you are a fucking control freak fascist who has to get his way all the time. You have to be right and no one else can have an opinion! It doesn't matter that you supposedly CLAIM you are on the same side of the political spectrum as I, you don't like the fact that I run circles around you in debate, and you have a personal animosity toward me, so you're going to go out of your way to find SOMETHING to disagree with me about, even if you have to fucking make it up out of whole cloth! I've had it with you putting words in my mouth, and claiming I have said outrageous things I never said! If you want to debate rationally, bring it on! But let's stop this petty nit picky arguing over nonsense like this. I never said what you claimed I said, you couldn't show where I even IMPLIED what you claimed, and by your own admission, it would have been stupid to claim it!
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
No moron... the problem is that no matter how many times I explain it to you... you are too fucking ignorant to comprehend where your contradiction was made. I have pointed to it time and again and you continue to remain ignorant. Which given your past idiocy, really should surprise anyone. I will go for one more attempt, though I do not believe you will be intelligent enough to comprehend it.....
To say result 'y' "ALWAYS" happens when event "X" occurs... then by that statement.... if you want 'y' to continue to occur, you continue doing "X" as much as you can.
So if you state 'reducing the top marginal rate (event X)' ALWAYS causes a 'stimulation in the economy (result Y)' then by the very nature of your comment, it suggests that the top marginal rate should be reduced to zero because in doing so you would continue to stimulate the economy.
Your contradiction comes into play when you state that you understand the Laffer curve and that you KNOW that there is a point where a reduction will have a negative impact. Then you go right back to saying 'lowering the top rate will ALWAYS stimulate the economy'
I know you are essentially retarded and thus not likely to have gotten further in your comprehension of the above than the word "No", but again... your idiocy has been pointed out and your idiocy has been addressed once again. As the rest of us know... your idiocy is typically compounded by your moronic fantasy world that you have created where you believe yourself to be intelligent. You are not. Not even close.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
It's real simple, I posted exactly what I said, and where you thought you found a contradiction, then I explained to you why it wasn't a contradiction. When I say it has "always" helped boost the economy to lower top marginal rates, that is nothing but truth based on historical fact. We've never lowered the top marginal rate to zero, or even suggested it... probably because of Laffer, and his argument regarding the point of diminishing returns. This does not, in any way, change the facts or validity of my statement! Every time we've lowered it, we've ALWAYS seen an increase in economic growth. Is that a fact you wish to challenge, yes or no?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
yes you moron.... The Bush tax cuts did not provide any sustained economic benefit. The fact that we needed to see spending cuts to sustain them is evidence that we apparently found the break point Laffer discussed.
I also note that you now try to attempt to pretend you were simply talking in past tense. Like I stated ditzie... you are too much of a moron to comprehend. 1/3
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No, it's not evidence of any such point articulated by Laffer. It is evidence that Keynesian policies don't really work. The Bush tax cuts targeted primarily the middle class. The top marginal rate decrease got a lot of publicity, but was actually only a 4% reduction from an 11% increase under Clinton. I don't think this proves anything Laffer suggests, because revenues did increase under the Bush tax cuts, and we did experience some economic growth. The fact the growth was not sustained is silly... no growth is ever sustained! Economic growth was certainly sustained while the cuts were being made, and people were still investing... that isn't happening now.
I'm not pretending to talk in the past tense, I am saying you are a fucking liar who can't tell the truth about what someone posted, when it's there for everyone to see. I showed you where I didn't say what you claim I said, and I didn't contradict myself because I didn't ever say what you claimed I said. You misinterpreted... read something into what I said, which was utterly stupid and superfluous by your own admission. Now you want to call me names and say I am "pretending" to be saying something else... no, I am saying the same goddamn motherfucking thing I said in the previous posts, which you continue to lie about and claim I've said something stupid!