Anti intellectualism...

Mott the Hoople said:
Oh no! Tax cuts reducing revenue would never, ever have anything to do with that! LOL Come on. Be honest. Either you supply siders are purposefully misrepresenting the Lafler curve or your dumber than shit.
Click to expand...

I think the main problem is that many in politics incorrectly cite the Laffer curve.

The Laffer curve states that by reducing marginal taxes to a certain point will increase revenues. Once you go beyond that point, it will begin to decrease revenues.

It is at that point that spending cuts MUST be done to offset the losses in revenue.

That said, to blame supply side economics for the deficit spending is moronic. The effects of the marginal tax cuts are minimal compared to the massive spending programs put in place. ie... Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the Pill bill etc... by implementing those programs without an effective means to pay for them is what caused the massive deficits. (that coupled with defense spending increases and inefficiencies)

Supply side economics is meant to shift the economic burden of income taxes onto the wealthier individuals. Which it has done. The top half pay almost all of income taxes now. Yes, their reduced brackets also provide them the incentive to make more money.... but who among us doesn't want to earn more?

But again, we can only go so far, there is a limit at which point the cuts start working against the revenue. Personally I think if we are going to stick with the bullshit tax code we have now, then the brackets are appropriate. But we must curb spending. 50 straight years of deficits is the problem and you would be hard pressed to justify that is a result of supply side economics.

I think if we want the idiots in DC to have a better grasp on the situation, we need to simplify the tax code so that they can better project what their revenue will be.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
By definition, if you decrease taxes to the bottom half of the curve in this graph you will decrease revenue and thus create deficits.

What is controversial about the Laffer curve is that Laffer does not define where the peak of his curve is at. Is it 40%? 50%? 60%? That's controversial because according to his own graph, if you fall on either side of "T" you decrease revenue. Well that's just plain rediculous with out defining quantitatively what "T" is. That's why almost all serious economist give Supply Side economics and the Laffer curve the ridicule it so richly deserves.
Click to expand...

That is ridiculous. Claiming that 'almost all serious economists' ridicule the Laffer Curve is ridiculous. It again is the fact that individuals, even those with intelligence such as yourself don't understand the Laffer curve.

There is a reason there is no magic number given by the Laffer curve. It depends on the economy it is being used within and on the legislature. If you have a tax code such as ours where the loopholes or deductions you want are only a bribe or two away, then the rate at which revenues decrease due to corresponding increases in tax rates will be lower. Bottom line, the more simplified the tax code, the easier it is to pinpoint the peak marginal tax rate.
 
Watermark said:
The main problem with modern conservatives is that they think 1. tax cuts 2. reduce the deficit. If you can't do number 2 do number 1 anyway. And when asked what cuts to government they'd make to accommodate their tax cuts, they're always very vague and dishonest about it. When they do point out a program it's usually one that makes up an insignifigant amount of the budget. So, when a conservative proposes a tax cut, we always need to ask them, WHAT specifically do you want to cut? And how much money is that? How much revenue will the tax cut take away?
Click to expand...


And you will never get a straight answer. They will call a press conference and wave a book around that has a slick four-colored cover, but has nothing inside it but blank pages. No charts, no text, no numbers, no nothing. And Boehner will lie to the American people, and then they'll all shake hands and congratulate each other for standing firm against the Dem's wasteful bill, even though the bill passed anyway, because they can't do anything to stop it, then they will go home to their constituents and brag about how much money they brought in to their districts from the dem's bill against which they all stood firm. And don't forget the well-scripted spontaneity, like those G.W. Bush "town hall" meetings which were admission by tickets only, party members only, with all those spontaneous questions that all began with thanking him for keepinh us safe from terrorist attack, somehow forgetting that we had a huge one almost nine months into his first term. But that of course was all Bill Clinton's fault, even though he had been out of office for nine months, and had tried to warn the Shrubites about th terrorist threat and had been rebuffed. yes, being a Repugnican in the 21st century means not being responsible for anything bsad that happens in the first year of your administration, which is all the fault of your predecessor, even though it started during your term, or happened in its entirety during your term, like the aforementioned 9/11 attack, and the recession which was all his. He and Cheney tried to gin up a faux recession they could blame on Clinton. the only problem was thast a eecession is defined as three successive quarters of economic contraction, and Bush's recession had its first quarter of contraction in th esecond quarter (April-June) of 2001, so th contraction started two months afgter Clinton was gone. Now of course, they blame the recession on 9/11. Unfortunately for this noxious little piece of spin, the second consecutive quarter of contraction was almost over on 9/11, and it was already a lost cause, and would have been the second consecutive quarter of contraction with or without the attack, and given the fact that his entire term of office was marked by economic incompetence, with jobs lagging behind population growth and stagnant income for the middle class actually losing ground to inflation, i'd say itwouldn't be out of line to say he would have notched his third consecutive quarter of contraction even without 9/11. Oh, yeah, and the GOP has been trying to spin the near economic meltdown of last September, 2 months before the presidential election either as Obama's economy, or failing that, is trying to extend the roots back over a decade into Clinton's term.

Okay, here's the deal. The economy sucked during the entire Bush administration. If it is all either Clinton's or Obama's fault, then Bush's economic policies had absolutely zero positive effect on the economy, so the best you can say about his economic stewardship is that it was ineffective, although given the huge national debt he left us, worthless is too kind a description.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
What is controversial about the Laffer curve is that Laffer does not define where the peak of his curve is at.
Click to expand...
wouldn't it differ depending upon the nature of the economy.....it would seem for example that it would differ greatly in a nation with a large per capita disposable income than for a nation with only a small one....
 
AssHatZombie said:
The richest and most powerful people on earth. Bankers, Politicians, Royalty, Board Members of huge corporations.

These people exist. And they;re not nice.

The evidence is the idiotic memes perpetuated in our media and educational systems.
Click to expand...
YOu forgot....THEY'RE JOOOOOS.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
BINGO! And then when you back one of the supply siders into a corner with their faulty logic then you have to listen to some damn diatribe about dem librals and all their spending, not recognizing that won't give up on the major spending programs either.

Supply side economics is smoke and mirrors and has no more validity as an economic philosophy then socialism does.
Click to expand...
I think George H.W. Bush called it VooDoo Economics.
 
zoombwaz said:
And you will never get a straight answer. They will call a press conference and wave a book around that has a slick four-colored cover, but has nothing inside it but blank pages. No charts, no text, no numbers, no nothing. And Boehner will lie to the American people, and then they'll all shake hands and congratulate each other for standing firm against the Dem's wasteful bill, even though the bill passed anyway, because they can't do anything to stop it, then they will go home to their constituents and brag about how much money they brought in to their districts from the dem's bill against which they all stood firm. And don't forget the well-scripted spontaneity, like those G.W. Bush "town hall" meetings which were admission by tickets only, party members only, with all those spontaneous questions that all began with thanking him for keepinh us safe from terrorist attack, somehow forgetting that we had a huge one almost nine months into his first term. But that of course was all Bill Clinton's fault, even though he had been out of office for nine months, and had tried to warn the Shrubites about th terrorist threat and had been rebuffed. yes, being a Repugnican in the 21st century means not being responsible for anything bsad that happens in the first year of your administration, which is all the fault of your predecessor, even though it started during your term, or happened in its entirety during your term, like the aforementioned 9/11 attack, and the recession which was all his. He and Cheney tried to gin up a faux recession they could blame on Clinton. the only problem was thast a eecession is defined as three successive quarters of economic contraction, and Bush's recession had its first quarter of contraction in th esecond quarter (April-June) of 2001, so th contraction started two months afgter Clinton was gone. Now of course, they blame the recession on 9/11. Unfortunately for this noxious little piece of spin, the second consecutive quarter of contraction was almost over on 9/11, and it was already a lost cause, and would have been the second consecutive quarter of contraction with or without the attack, and given the fact that his entire term of office was marked by economic incompetence, with jobs lagging behind population growth and stagnant income for the middle class actually losing ground to inflation, i'd say itwouldn't be out of line to say he would have notched his third consecutive quarter of contraction even without 9/11. Oh, yeah, and the GOP has been trying to spin the near economic meltdown of last September, 2 months before the presidential election either as Obama's economy, or failing that, is trying to extend the roots back over a decade into Clinton's term.

Okay, here's the deal. The economy sucked during the entire Bush administration. If it is all either Clinton's or Obama's fault, then Bush's economic policies had absolutely zero positive effect on the economy, so the best you can say about his economic stewardship is that it was ineffective, although given the huge national debt he left us, worthless is too kind a description.
Click to expand...

This from the party of "personal responsibility" .. except when it comes to their own tragic failings .. then it's somebody else's fault.

Good post.
 
The party of personal responsability says "blame the media" and this recession is "Obama's fault" and "Bush is not really a Conservative".
 
Jarod said:
The party of personal responsability says "blame the media" and this recession is "Obama's fault" and "Bush is not really a Conservative".
Click to expand...
True dat. We insist that you liberals take personal responsibility for your actions, and that drives you into a tizzy.
 
Southern Man said:
True dat. We insist that you liberals take personal responsibility for your actions, and that drives you into a tizzy.
Click to expand...

No, you merely refuse to accept any responsability for yourselves, but claim to be the party of personal responsability...

You require personal responsability for everyone but yourselves...!
 
Jarod said:
No, you merely refuse to accept any responsability for yourselves, but claim to be the party of personal responsability...

You require personal responsability for everyone but yourselves...!
Click to expand...

The crappy economy is a bipartisan effort. All candidates are bribed to send jobs overseas, and to accept asset bubbles created through fiat currency manipulation as true wealth.

Globalization is war waged on the rest of humanity by the combined miltary industrial complexes of the g20.
 
zoombwaz said:
And you will never get a straight answer. They will call a press conference and wave a book around that has a slick four-colored cover, but has nothing inside it but blank pages. No charts, no text, no numbers, no nothing. And Boehner will lie to the American people, and then they'll all shake hands and congratulate each other for standing firm against the Dem's wasteful bill, even though the bill passed anyway, because they can't do anything to stop it, then they will go home to their constituents and brag about how much money they brought in to their districts from the dem's bill against which they all stood firm. And don't forget the well-scripted spontaneity, like those G.W. Bush "town hall" meetings which were admission by tickets only, party members only, with all those spontaneous questions that all began with thanking him for keepinh us safe from terrorist attack, somehow forgetting that we had a huge one almost nine months into his first term. But that of course was all Bill Clinton's fault, even though he had been out of office for nine months, and had tried to warn the Shrubites about th terrorist threat and had been rebuffed. yes, being a Repugnican in the 21st century means not being responsible for anything bsad that happens in the first year of your administration, which is all the fault of your predecessor, even though it started during your term, or happened in its entirety during your term, like the aforementioned 9/11 attack, and the recession which was all his. He and Cheney tried to gin up a faux recession they could blame on Clinton. the only problem was thast a eecession is defined as three successive quarters of economic contraction, and Bush's recession had its first quarter of contraction in th esecond quarter (April-June) of 2001, so th contraction started two months afgter Clinton was gone. Now of course, they blame the recession on 9/11. Unfortunately for this noxious little piece of spin, the second consecutive quarter of contraction was almost over on 9/11, and it was already a lost cause, and would have been the second consecutive quarter of contraction with or without the attack, and given the fact that his entire term of office was marked by economic incompetence, with jobs lagging behind population growth and stagnant income for the middle class actually losing ground to inflation, i'd say itwouldn't be out of line to say he would have notched his third consecutive quarter of contraction even without 9/11. Oh, yeah, and the GOP has been trying to spin the near economic meltdown of last September, 2 months before the presidential election either as Obama's economy, or failing that, is trying to extend the roots back over a decade into Clinton's term.

Okay, here's the deal. The economy sucked during the entire Bush administration. If it is all either Clinton's or Obama's fault, then Bush's economic policies had absolutely zero positive effect on the economy, so the best you can say about his economic stewardship is that it was ineffective, although given the huge national debt he left us, worthless is too kind a description.
Click to expand...

:good4u: :hand: :hand: :hand:
 
AssHatZombie said:
You wouldn't know TRUE if it raped you with a fifteen inch dildo.
Click to expand...

Have you noticed how irrelevent you've become?

All you have to offer is dildo's, sex with men, and all manner of thoughless shit one would expect from a teenager.

Are you a teenager?

If that's your schtick, so be it .. but please go play with someone else. I don't come eher to play with teenagers who can't hold civil conversations.

Obvioulsy you have no self-respect, no dignity, no self-esteem.
 
blackascoal said:
Have you noticed how irrelevent you've become?

All you have to offer is dildo's, sex with men, and all manner of thoughless shit one would expect from a teenager.

Are you a teenager?

If that's your schtick, so be it .. but please go play with someone else. I don't come eher to play with teenagers who can't hold civil conversations.

Obvioulsy you have no self-respect, no dignity, no self-esteem.
Click to expand...

Notice bac has nothing to say to my complete truthout of his tired persona. He has runaway, nothing to say, he'll come again to play another day.


Irrelevant? Hardly. This is my universe. You fade in and out of truth. You're torn. You recognize the internationalist fascists and their fiat currency control, yet you are continually down with their cause, because you think they are going to destroy whitey. You don't realize that if that happens, you're next.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top