|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Ads |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
STOP THE FEAR MONGERING
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 |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
STOP THE FEAR MONGERING
"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 |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
STOP THE FEAR MONGERING
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 |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
STOP THE FEAR MONGERING
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 |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
STOP THE FEAR MONGERING
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 ? |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
STOP THE FEAR MONGERING
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. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
STOP THE FEAR MONGERING
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. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
STOP THE FEAR MONGERING
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. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
STOP THE FEAR MONGERING
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
BBC documentary exposes the Zionist jew conspiracy and the NeoCon war mongering - using our countries to carry out Israel's dirty work. Australia needs to stop supporting these racist terrorists, Israel. | Midex | Australia | 0 | May 6th 07 03:52 PM |
Why I dont stop at red lights or stop signs | Tom Keats | Social Issues | 5 | August 4th 04 07:55 AM |
Why I dont stop at red lights or stop signs | Pete | Racing | 1 | August 3rd 04 06:13 AM |
Aren't bicycles suposed to stop at stop signs? | Ken | General | 85 | September 22nd 03 11:22 PM |
The Fear | dannyfrankszzz | UK | 33 | August 29th 03 09:47 AM |