STOP THE FEAR MONGERING

On Mar 3, 8:11*pm, Scott wrote:
On Mar 3, 7:50*pm, Howard Kveck wrote:





In article ,

*Scott wrote:
As for my views on the direction that the administration is taking, I
just happen to believe (and lot's of economists agree) that you can
not tax/spend our way out of a recession and tax/spend doesn't
actually create lasting jobs.

* *There are some people who sort of fall into the category of "economist" who've
said that. But the majority of economists (Krugman, Roubini, Baker, etc) believe the
opposite is true. That's why they've been supportive of the stimulous package.

*President Kennedy (who I believe would be a Republican if
he were alive today, given that his views at the time were more in
line with current Republican views than the current Democrat views)

* *I think it's a mistake to assume that his views would remain consistent with his
time frame - the late '50s and early '60s. I'd say he would have been at the
forefront of what you are criticizing.

was one of the strongest proponents of lower taxes which resulted in
increased economic activities which led to greater tax revenues (which
should be the goal, right??). *To follow a static model that assumes
that investment behaviours won't change as tax rates change, thus
thinking that higher rates = higher revenues is just stupid. *As long
as the tax rules allow for loopholes to protect certain gains, higher
rates will primarily lead to higher levels of hiding income, not
higher tax revenues. *People with money will move their wealth to
minimize the impact of higher rates. *It is silly to assume they'll
just glibly go along and pay more taxes.

* *It's a given that people are going to what they can to minimze their tax burden.
The mistake is assuming that if you give rich people big tax cuts (a la Bush) they'll
help create more jobs. I think the last two decades (at least) have been pretty ample
proof that that is not true.

* *And one other thing that is really messed up: that so few people talking about
"tax hikes" actually understand marginal taxes (that wasn't directed at you, Scott -
it's just a general comment on what I've been seeing in the media lately).

--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * tanx,
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Howard

* * * * * * * * * * * * *Caught playing safe
* * * * * * * * * * * * * It's a bored game

* * * * * * * * * * *remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Howard,

What happened when Reagan instituted across the board tax rate
reductions?




Dumbass -


You're seriously overestimating the power of the government's role in
how an economy performs.

Generally there was prosperity under Reagan. Clinton also.

Neither one of those guys really deserves that much credit.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

On Mar 3, 8:11*pm, Scott wrote:

What happened when Reagan instituted across the board tax rate
reductions?

Record deficits and a tripling of the national debt. Sky high interest
rates. The US became a net debtor nation for the first time. And of
course in time it lead Cheney to say "Reagan proved deficits don't
matter."

-Paul

"K. Gringioni" wrote in news:4deccea8-b3f4-4192-
:


It's amazing to me how some people just make **** up all the time.

Seems like there should be some sort of Darwinian mechanism to prevent
that sort of behavior. It's gotta be a detriment to optimal function.

Apparently not in the Kuniverse.

--
Bill Asher

On Mar 3, 6:23*pm, Scott wrote:

For the better part of eight years liberals have slammed President
Bush, and now that the shoe's on the other foot President Obama's
supporters seem to have a bit of a problem accepting the fact that
criticism is part of the deal. *No need for the name calling or
insults (are you getting this, Paul?).

Bush is a piece of ****. You're an idiot. If I may quote you, you
"seem to have a bit of a problem accepting the fact that criticism is
part of the deal." So how many times did you vote for that piece of
**** George Bush?
-Paul

On Mar 3, 10:48*pm, "K. Gringioni" wrote:
On Mar 3, 8:11*pm, Scott wrote:



On Mar 3, 7:50*pm, Howard Kveck wrote:

In article ,

*Scott wrote:
As for my views on the direction that the administration is taking, I
just happen to believe (and lot's of economists agree) that you can
not tax/spend our way out of a recession and tax/spend doesn't
actually create lasting jobs.

* *There are some people who sort of fall into the category of "economist" who've
said that. But the majority of economists (Krugman, Roubini, Baker, etc) believe the
opposite is true. That's why they've been supportive of the stimulous package.

*President Kennedy (who I believe would be a Republican if
he were alive today, given that his views at the time were more in
line with current Republican views than the current Democrat views)

* *I think it's a mistake to assume that his views would remain consistent with his
time frame - the late '50s and early '60s. I'd say he would have been at the
forefront of what you are criticizing.

was one of the strongest proponents of lower taxes which resulted in
increased economic activities which led to greater tax revenues (which
should be the goal, right??). *To follow a static model that assumes
that investment behaviours won't change as tax rates change, thus
thinking that higher rates = higher revenues is just stupid. *As long
as the tax rules allow for loopholes to protect certain gains, higher
rates will primarily lead to higher levels of hiding income, not
higher tax revenues. *People with money will move their wealth to
minimize the impact of higher rates. *It is silly to assume they'll
just glibly go along and pay more taxes.

* *It's a given that people are going to what they can to minimze their tax burden.
The mistake is assuming that if you give rich people big tax cuts (a la Bush) they'll
help create more jobs. I think the last two decades (at least) have been pretty ample
proof that that is not true.

* *And one other thing that is really messed up: that so few people talking about
"tax hikes" actually understand marginal taxes (that wasn't directed at you, Scott -
it's just a general comment on what I've been seeing in the media lately).

--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * tanx,
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Howard

* * * * * * * * * * * * *Caught playing safe
* * * * * * * * * * * * * It's a bored game

* * * * * * * * * * *remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Howard,

What happened when Reagan instituted across the board tax rate
reductions?

Dumbass -

You're seriously overestimating the power of the government's role in
how an economy performs.

Generally there was prosperity under Reagan. Clinton also.

Neither one of those guys really deserves that much credit.

I don't agree with that. Reagan ran huge deficits which stimulated
the economy but resulted in high interest rates and left gigantic
debts. Bush the first inherited that mess, which made him a one-term
president.

Clinton raised taxes which gradually got the deficit under control,
which lessened the threat of inflation which resulted in lower
interest rates. Lower interest rates stimulated the economy and
produced an era of unprecedented prosperity. Bush the second's
irresponsible policies quickly destroyed all traces of that.
-Paul

dave a wrote:
Hold on, I'm losing the play by play here. You are saying that Bush was
a Liberal? And the problem with the Republican Party is caused by
Democrats that joined and pushed out the "real Conservatives"?

You never fail to amaze...

Fred Fredburger wrote:
This is the stuff I tune in to the Kunich channel for. It's really
creative, in a disturbed sort of way.

What's the frequency ?

K. Gringioni wrote:
It's amazing to me how some people just make **** up all the time.

Seems like there should be some sort of Darwinian mechanism to prevent
that sort of behavior. It's gotta be a detriment to optimal function.

Unfortunately SchwartzSoft are not familiar with genetic algorithms. OTOH
maybe its just as well.

On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 18:23:02 -0800 (PST), Scott
wrote:

For the better part of eight years liberals have slammed President
Bush, and now that the shoe's on the other foot President Obama's
supporters seem to have a bit of a problem accepting the fact that
criticism is part of the deal.

My problem with most criticism of Obama is that it's wrong. And it's
often (at least the criticism about deficits) hypocritical.

On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 18:23:02 -0800 (PST), Scott
wrote:

As for my views on the direction that the administration is taking, I
just happen to believe (and lot's of economists agree)

If by "lots" you mean hundreds out of, say, tens of thousands, of
econmists, you're right. Lots of plumbers think that too.

If by "lots" you mean a majority or even a large minority of
economists you're wrong.

On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 20:11:15 -0800 (PST), Scott
wrote:



What happened when Reagan instituted across the board tax rate
reductions?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...idential_terms

among other things