Here is another area where liberals get an undeserved free pass.
They are considered tolerant of all people and views...but how?
In the Democratic party you:
MUST be against the war
MUST agree with global warming
MUST support amnesty
Just look what happens when you don't follow the party line...
A quote from an editorial written by Joe Klein (liberal)
But the smart stuff is being drowned out by a fierce, bullying, often witless tone of intolerance that has overtaken the left-wing sector of the blogosphere. Anyone who doesn't move in lockstep with the most extreme voices is savaged and ridiculed—especially people like me who often agree with the liberal position but sometimes disagree and are therefore considered traitorously unreliable.
For the most part, conservatives debate and argue ideas, that is not intolerant...that is using your brain...
Even though many might not be happy with some of Rudi's views, he sticks with what he believes and that doesn't automatically disqualify him from 2008.
But look at the Dem's...they are falling all over each other to show how liberal they are...
Who hates Bush more
Who can bring the troops home the fastest...
Could you see a pro-war candidate make it on the Left? (we had one, now he is no longer a Democrat)
Liberal like to simply say that Republicans are slaves to the "far right"
I'd like to see how they can defend that when it is CLEAR that all Democratic candidates are scared to death of the far left...
Hillary can't run far enough away from her vote for the war, Edwards has said he was sorry and wrong about 1.5 millions times...
I think if Hillary or Obama came out and said global warming was crap and the Iraq war was the most important mission our country had, they would be murdered...
Whereas Rudi just has to debate IDEAS, defend himself and people at least listen...no debate or ideas coming from the Left
Friday, June 08, 2007
Left wing intolerance
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
52 comments:
There is much more ideological diversity on the right than there is on the left. The left tolerates complete diversity of behavior, no matter how criminal or decadent, and absolutely no diversity of thought.
Republicans, for better or for worse, have plenty of moderates like Schwarzenegger and Giuliani in the party. Meanwhile, the Democrats kicked their Vice Presidential nominee in 2000 out of the party, which tells you how radical the left has gotten over the past few years.
Phil,
Thanks for goosestepping in here to drop off your load of manure.
There isn't one idea debated by the left. There is a pronouncement, and then the jackals attack.
This from the party where 3 of the 10 presidential contenders don't believe in evolution.
Yeah, you guys will tolerate any bs.
philip can't even address the facts and examples I gave...proof that I am correct...
For the most part, conservatives debate and argue ideas, that is not intolerant
all Americans ... need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is. Ari Fleischer GWB Press Secretary
In the Democratic party you:
MUST be against the war
MUST agree with global warming
MUST support amnesty
In addition, you:
MUST believe the earth is round
MUST agree that the sun will rise each morning
MUST believe that science supercedes superstition
Who can bring the troops home the fastest...
"Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a ''remaining military as well as political mission'' in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02E6DB1E31F936A25750C0A9619C8B63
Could you see a pro-war candidate make it on the Left?
Could you see an anti war candidate make it on the right? (yeah right)
"The President considers this nation to be at war, and, as such, considers any opposition to his policies to be no less than an act of treason."
Your average Democrat is not anti-war, at least not beyond the sense that Republicans are anti-war. Nobody likes war.
When the Democrats say they are anti-war, they mean they are against the Western side and for the Jihadist side of the global conflict. How many times have I heard that attacks upon us are "blowback," which is Newspeak for justified revenge?
And while 3/10 Republicans don't understand basic biology, 8/8 democrats don't understand the laws of economics.
8/8 democrats don't understand the laws of economics.
And yet republicans still cling to the fantasy that tax cuts pay for themselves
sorry philip, but you are just flat out stupid...
Kennedy, Reagan and Bush all passed big tax cuts which was followed by prosperity and higher tax revenues...not even hard to understand...
I hate to be off topic, but I have researched it extensively. Tax revenues always rise, but they rise slower after tax cuts. I have tons of evidence to prove it.
Please, then, offer your best 3lbs. I love watching libs debate Jason on economics.
I guess, since I've debunked this garbage post, I'll oblige.
The main problems with this theory:
1. The architects of this meme have admitted that it doesn't work and was just a ploy to reduce taxes for the wealthy
2. Statistics show that total revenues have always been lower after the tax cuts have been implemented in the past
3. Arguments that the right uses to support this meme ignore evidence that undercuts their claims
First, some history. The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 is one of the biggest sources of contention in this debate. This act lowered taxes by 25% over 3 years. From 1980 to 1990, tax receipts did nearly double ($517B to $1032B). Many advocates of the Laffer curve took this as evidence that the Reagan tax cuts worked. Closer analysis shows this to not be the case. Historical Data shows that tax receipts have doubled or more during nearly every decade since the depression. In fact, receipts from income taxes only went up 91%. At the same time, reciepts from Social Security taxes went up 141%. This was due to the FICA Tax increase from 6.13% to 7.65%. Another fact that proponents of the Laffer curve like to ignore is that Reagan actually RAISED taxes six additional times between '82 and '87.
Now, with all of this debate about "Supply Side" or "Trickle Down" economics, let's examine what some in the Reagan Administration had to say about it. One of the key players in spreading this meme was Reagans budget director, David Stockman. However, in an Atlantic Monthly article in 1981, he admits that the tax cut in '81 "was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top [tax] rate" for the wealthy. Additionally, in his book "The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed", he admits to "cooking the numbers" in the computer simulations.Even conservative Bruce Bartlett says "U.S. taxes have never been so high, in 1981 or any other time, that an across-the-board rate cut would lead to such an outpouring of economic output, and such a diminution of tax evasion and avoidance, that there would be no loss of revenue". In case you can't comprehend, that means that lower taxes does not provide enough of a stimulus to outweigh the loss in revenue. Additionally, N. Gregory Mankiw, former chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisors and a Harvard economics professor, said that there is "no credible evidence" that "tax revenues ... rise in the face of lower tax rates."
Looking at the Bush tax cuts, you get the impression that history is repeating itself. These cuts were sold by appealing to voters self interest, and there was a lot of talk about how these cuts would stimulate the economy, which was in bad shape during the recession and after 9/11.
Now, according to the Congressional Budget Office, total tax revenues fell after the tax cuts, mirroring what happened during the Reagan years.
Look under Table 3, the first column, Income tax revenues (in Billions of $):
2001 994.3
2002 858.3
2003 793.7
2004 809.0
2005 927.2
The income tax cuts led to LESS personal income tax revenue, as you would expect. Now look under Table 1, Total Tax Revenues:
2000 2025.5
2001 1991.4
2002 1853.4
2003 1782.5
2004 1880.3
2005 2153.9
It's even more clear when you look at revenues as a percentage of GDP:
2000 20.9
2001 19.8
2002 17.9
2003 16.5
2004 16.3
2005 17.5
As these data show, total tax revenue fell along with personal income tax revenue. Now, supporters of these tax cuts claimed that the decrease in personal income tax revenue wouldn't be a problem, because the corporate tax revenue would pick up the slack, and then some. Did that happen? Let's look at corporate tax revenue in relation to the GDP:
2000 2.1
2001 1.5
2002 1.4
2003 1.2
2004 1.6
2005 2.3
If consumers were spending all of those tax savings and stimulating the economy, why did it take 4 years for corporate tax revenues to rebound to the same levels as in 2000, when we were starting a recession?
The Congressional Budget Office commissioned a study to determine the effects of a income tax cut on the economy. In fact, the exhaustive study shows that, at best, only 28 percent of lost tax revenue is recouped over a 10-year period.
I'd like to see what Jason has to say, but a few thoughts...
You are comparing numbers that have a small event that happened to affect the economy (9-11)..
You use charts that compare income to the GDP...again, we would have to see how this relates to times when we didn't have the only terrorist attack ever on US soil.
Taxes are always cut after they have been raised for years by Dem's. The tax increases starts a recession in all cases...therefore, you can't conclude that there would have been guaranteed increases while this recession was going on...also, you can't predict what would have heppened to tax revenues if no tax cut was done.
For now I'll go with:
Tax cuts happen, unemployment goes down, tax revenue goes up (in time)...
But philip, you used stats and numbers to make your arguement. I have done many research projects and know how numbers can be manipulated. EVERYONE does it...I am complimenting you for doing it at all. Most liberals just scream and yell all the time, you seem to only do it about 80% of the time.
Nice try philip. You simply can't convince these people with the truth, much less government produced facts.
I've been trying it for months and months with Social Security. I've told them to read the SSA's own site. Doesn't do any good. Nothing you can say will fit their world view. They are still trying to say that Plame wasn't a covert CIA agent despite what the courts AND the CIA itself have said.
They will tell you that FISA doesn't allow the feds to tap phones without a warrant for up to three days in extreme cases.
They will tell you, as Romney did the other night, that Saddam wouldn't let the UN inspectors in to look for WMDs when if fact every factual source will tell you that UN inspectors were inspecting until they were warned to leave by the Bush administration just prior to the invasion.
But I LOVE your being here, philip. Between you, Jay, and me, there is some actual factual dialog going on. Don't shy away!
Wow Phillipee
Straight out of wikipedia, that proven source that's correct at least 81.6% of the time.
I find it interesting that part of your thesis has Republicans "actually raising taxes" while your charts show a decrease in tax revenue. Which is it? Did the Repubs raise taxes and cause a decrease in revenues or did they decrease taxes and cause a decrease in revenues?
GDP aside, with the Regan tax cuts "actual" dollars increased to the federal government, while the people kept more of their own money. Just because we produce more, doesn't mean the fucking government should get more! Regardless of what you people think, an increase in prosperity doesn't necesarily equal an extra gov't tit.
And isn't that what it all comes down to? It seems as if the average american has more, in your mind they should "give" (have forcibly confiscated) more.
Just so you know the jury is not out on the Laffer curve. You merely presented the cons.
I find it amusing, this vast amount of time and energy that liberals have spent trying to disprove what they call Reganomics. Bottom line the government got more, the people kept more. And just why do you think that pisses so many people off? Any guesses?
Jim
unprostrate yourself and wake the hell up!
Blamin
1. That was not from wikipedia at all. It was drawn straight from the Congressional Budget Office, obviously you didn't read it carefully
2. My thesis shows that tax revenues always increase over time, however they increase more slowly in the face of tax cuts. Also, the increase in revenues during Reagan's term was due to his tax INCREASES not tax cuts
Just because we produce more, doesn't mean the fucking government should get more! I don't know if you are just stupid or what, but we are taxed a PERCENTAGE of our income. Therefore, if we make more, we are taxed more.
But that is beyond the scope of my argument. I am just showing that tax cuts don't pay for themselves.
Jim-
I know what you mean. These people wouldn't even believe that the sky is blue unless it comes from the mouths of the Heritage Foundation or Bill Kristol. I am really directing my arguments to those on the fence, those impressionable young minds that can still be persuaded by facts.
philip--
Classical economics does work. Marxist economics has been a universal failure. And Keynesian economics has been on the retreat since the 1970s since it cannot easily explain stagflation-- it was become theoretically unwieldly, like the Ptolemaic cosmological system at the time of Copernicus.
Before we get down to the details, let us make certain we have the big picture correct. My favorite examples are Japan and India. India after WWII was country blessed with extensive contact with the superior British way of doing things, and as a result had and still has limitless potential. Japan after the Meiji restoration on the other hand was a backward, feudal society ruled by diamyos that kept all foreign contact limited to an island in the port of Osaka. But Japan took off like a rocket and was able to defeat a major power, Russia, in a conflict in 1905. That's amazing. India stagnated as it aped the USSR by developing a welfare state.
India after independence created a bunch of protections, and tried extensive state involvement as a method of catching up the modern world. They stagnated for decades. Now, they have sold off many state enterprises, removed a lot of protectionism, and deregulated entire sectors. The Indian Left said this would open their country up to foreign "exploitation," but the opposite happened-- India is growing at 10% a year, millions of proletarians have been transformed into proprietors, and the unemployment has dropped from 25% to 8%. This is jaw dropping stuff. Ironically, a growing free market is allowing the Indian government to make state investments in things like a European-style rail system.
Estonia is another example. They adopted a flat tax, and now their economy is growing at 10% a year. Why can't we do this in the United States?
If the United States goes Marxist at precisely the time the rest of the world is getting more competitive, history is going to pass us by.
Philip, I'm afraid of the US going Marxist! Aren't you?
Jason, I thought India, Japan, and Estonia were different countries from the US? Am I wrong? Or do history, culture, and institutions make any difference in economies over decades?
"like the Ptolemaic cosmological system at the time of Copernicus." We have our own Dennis Miller.
blamin--
These people literally want us to go back to the Jimmy Carter regime, where we had inflation at 21% at unemployment as high as 11%.
The idea that the economy always grows, and that unemployment is always low, so it doesn't matter what the tax rates are-- is lunacy. Under this logic we might as well raise taxes and take money out of people's hands as a method to grow the economy and give people jobs. This is completely asinine. .
When Reagan took office, he inherited a 7.5% unemployment rate, presided over an economy that created 20 million new jobs, and left his successor with a 5.4% unemployment rate. A 5.4% unemployment is awesome by historical standards, which should tell you how effective the Bush policy has been, with unemployment at 4.4% and GDP growth at 3.4% last year, despite us fighting a world war.
With regard to the Laffer curve, since these liberals believe in consensus, they should look at how most other countries are behaving around the world, and the awesome results they are getting. Trying to recreate the USSR on American soil is **not** a recipe for economic growth.
Jim--
The point is that classical economics explains a lot more with a lot less. Stagflation is impossible under traditional Keynesianism, which relies on the Philips curve to do most of the theoretical weightlifting. To overcome this Keynesianism has become theoretically baroque, always a mark ceteris paribus against the credibility of a hypothesis.
But leftists don't bother to *think* -- everything is repeating memes without understanding. Maybe I'm being too harsh-- perhaps memetics is a good explanation if we restrict the domain of discourse to braindead Democrats.
Reagan took office, he inherited a 7.5% unemployment rate, presided over an economy that created 20 million new jobs, and left his successor with a 5.4% unemployment rate.
Of course, since Reagan rolled back over 1/3 of his tax cuts the next year and substantially increased the Social Security tax in 1983, that would lend credence to MY argument.
Most of the economic growth during the Reagan era that you are claiming came from tax cuts was actually due to the massive deregulation of the era.
Most of the economic growth during Bush 2 that you are claiming came from tax cuts was actually due to monetary policy, i.e. record low interest rates.
Let's be scientific. First a hypothesis:
If what you say is true, we would expect revenues to increase by a bigger percentage after tax cuts were enacted than during periods when there were no tax cuts.
Now let's test that hypothesis:
Using '83-'90 to illustrate the awesome growth spurred by the Reagan tax cuts (revenue went from 600.6 to 1032.1, or 71.8% growth). Let's look at some other 8 year periods when there weren't tax cuts in order to compare.
From '75 till '82 saw revenue growth from 279.1 to 617.8 for an increase of 121.4%
From '93 till '00 saw revenue growth from 1154.5 to 2025.5 for an increase of 75.4%
and for shits and giggles, let's use Bush's numbers for a four year period and double the percentage of growth to get an estimate of how he compares.
From '02 till '05 saw revenue growth from 1853.4 to 2153.9 for an increase of 16.2% which we can double to 32.4%
Since we see that revenue growth was faster during periods that there weren't tax cuts, that would lead an intellectually honest person to believe that tax cuts reduce revenue growth.
When we look at this data along with the Congressional Budget Office study that estimates as a best case scenario that only 22% of the revenue lost from a 10% tax cut is regained during the first 5 years and only 33% is regained after the second 5 years,
PLUS
The fact that numerous supporters of the tax cuts even admit that the increased revenue due to the economic stimulus of the cuts is not enough to cover the lost revenue from the cuts themselves,
PLUS
the fact that there are possible other explanations for what caused the (lower) growth in revenues during the tax cut eras,
This would lead an intellectually honest person to admit that the evidence for tax revenues being increased by tax cuts is inconclusive at best.
Jason, you are arguing a point that I'm not making.
I'm not arguing that tax cuts don't provide economic stimulus.
I'm arguing that the tax cuts don't even begin to pay for themselves, nor do they increase tax revenue at all.
philip--
If higher taxes are adverse to economic growth, what makes you believe they will generate more revenue? Are you the second coming of Walter Mondale?
When assessing economic principles context matters. Since we aren't talking about matters of culture and will as Jim believes, we need to include all relevant times and places when making an empirical assessment. This is important when examining something like the Laffer curve, which is simply a restatement of the law of diminishing returns as applied to tax policy rather than an empirical generalization. One would not disprove Newton's law of gravitation, for example, by pointing out air resistance exists for falling objects in the earth's atmosphere. In addition, the Laffer curve doesn't predict that cutting taxes always creates more revenue, only that there is a point between 0% and 100% where the government can maximize revenue. The Laffer Curve essentially is our old friend from 1st semester Calculus, the Mean Value Theorem.
The idea of the Laffer curve isn't exactly new. The 14th century thinker Ibn Khaldun noticed that raising taxes frequently can diminish revenues, and I would broaden the debate to look at most other countries, states within the Union, the Coolidge-Harding tax policy, the results of the Kennedy tax cuts in addition to the Reagan boom.
I'm not certain what your examples are supposed to demonstrate. Claiming the government can take in loads of money during periods of runaway inflation does nothing to your argument. And WJC was much more hands off with regards to economics than his wife, keeping income taxes close to where they were during the 1980s, drastically cutting the capital gains tax twice, passing NAFTA, passing welfare reform, telecom deregulation, etc etc. Laissez-faire was one of the reasons why I was a big Clinton supporter in the 1990s, and I love the way the old Al Gore took Ross Perot to school on Larry King. Today it seems the entire Democratic Party has gone Pat Buchanan on me: anti-Israel, anti-trade, isolationist, anti-industry -- bah!
The Laffer curve makes all the sense in the world to me.
Can you show me where we are on the Laffer curve?
Or model it with any existing data set?
In addition, the Laffer curve doesn't predict that cutting taxes always creates more revenue, only that there is a point between 0% and 100% where the government can maximize revenue.
Yes, but the conservative belief that more tax cuts are necessary indicates that we are on the right side of the curve, which the evidence shows is false.
Your ponderous non sequitors notwithstanding, the EVIDENCE clearly shows that cutting taxes does not raise revenue.
The idiots Jim and Phil are trying to actually prove that you can tax your way to prosperity.
What fools.
Neither of them can prove that The Clinton Luxury tax actually collected more tax than unemployment payments that had to be made because people WERE NOT buying the luxuries.
PCD: proof that excessive masturbation causes brain damage.
Again, no refutation from Phil, just an emotional, juvenile outburst of frustration and impotence on his part.
I don't really feel the need to refute your verbal feces. You have yet to produce any evidence or even a cogent argument of any sort to refute my well researched, well supported arguments.
You moron.
Phil,
What are you some sort of sophmore in accounting? You have been refuted and smacked down.
You are also beaten on the Luxury Tax Democrat fiasco.
You are one little baby or are you an incompetant teacher trying to salvage some part of your ego? Because you have no answer for the Luxury tax proving you wrong. You also can not prove your theory of taxing yourselves into prosperity will work because it won't.
What are you some sort of sophmore in accounting? You have been refuted and smacked down
Show me where someone disproved my thesis: "tax revenues always increase over time, however they increase more slowly in the face of tax cuts. Also, the increase in revenues during Reagan's term was due to his tax INCREASES not tax cuts"
You are also beaten on the Luxury Tax Democrat fiasco.
I wasn't arguing that point you moron. You challenged me to prove that the tax increase brought in more revenue than was spent on unemployment payments for people who lost their jobs due to the tax. Give me a few minutes...
You are one little baby or are you an incompetant teacher trying to salvage some part of your ego?
First of all, "you are one little baby or are you an incompetant teacher trying to salvage..." does not really make sense in the English language, Sybil.
Perhaps you meant:
"You are either a little baby or an incompetent teacher trying to salvage".
It's hard enough to try and dissect your "reasoning" without having to wade through and understand your 4th grade writing skills.
Second, it's spelled "incompetent" not "incompetant"
PCD = Poor Confused Dumbass.
The luxury tax was introduced in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of ...
wait for it...
1990!
Now I know that PCD is a moron, but some of you might remember who was president in 1990.
The luxury excise tax on jewelry, furs, boats and aircraft was repealed effective January 1, 1993. Perhaps you remember who was president then?
So once again, this example shows that Democrats have a much better understanding of how tax policy affects the economy than Republicans.
You also can not prove your theory of taxing yourselves into prosperity will work because it won't. I know your reading comprehension skills aren't that great, PCD, but you need to read my comments again.
Your asinine strawman argument is not the point I was making.
This Just In:
Poor Confused Dumbass Gets Pwned Yet Again!
Phil,
Show where The DEMOCRAP'S LUXURY TAX RECEIPTS WERE GREATER THAN THE ECONOMIC DAMAGE IT CAUSED. Start with Bayliner and how many people were laid off and collected unemployment, decrease in payroll taxes collected, etc. vs. the so called increased revenues from the LUXURY TAX. That is one tax increase THAT MOST DEFINITELY DECREASED TAX REVENUES!
Phillip
You wrote: “I don't know if you are just stupid or what, but we are taxed a PERCENTAGE of our income. Therefore, if we make more, we are taxed more.”
See if you can follow this, read slowly if you must. If tax rates are reduced, helping stimulate the economy, causing higher incomes, then gov’t can have an increase in actual dollars, while the taxpayers paying those higher actual dollars, are keeping a larger portion of their earnings. When it comes to their money, for the most part taxpayers aren’t ignorant on this subject, they’re perfectly fine with keeping a larger portion, particularly in a growing economy.
You wrote:” Most of the economic growth during the Reagan era that you are claiming came from tax cuts was actually due to the massive deregulation of the era.
Most of the economic growth during Bush 2 that you are claiming came from tax cuts was actually due to monetary policy, i.e. record low interest rates.”
Really? I hate to have to point this out but taxation, regulation, interest rates, inflation, trade policy, politics, the global economy, and many other factors are intricately linked to the performance of our economy.
I had no idea there were studies out there proving how much one particular item was responsible for economic growth. ;)
The bottom line is this, when the CBO estimates aprox one third of govt spending is wasted through fraud, theft, malfeasance, and mismanagement (this does not even consider if a particular program is a waste of money). Who the hell cares if taxes as a percentage of GDP are lower, it doesn’t matter.
I’ll tell you who the hell cares, people who think the government needs a greater share of our money to throw away. After all, the greater share of our money the govt takes the more powerful it becomes, and the more dependent on government the citizen becomes.
One more thing the proponents of raising tax rates always neglect to point out. When tax rates are increased on the producers, the consumer pays for that increase.
If tax rates are reduced, helping stimulate the economy, causing higher incomes, then gov’t can have an increase in actual dollars, while the taxpayers paying those higher actual dollars, are keeping a larger portion of their earnings.
I don't know if you read the above comments, but I tracked the results of tax cuts, and, to quote Gregory Mankiw, former chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisors and a Harvard economics professor, there is "no credible evidence" that "tax revenues ... rise in the face of lower tax rates.", or to quote Bruce Bartlett, "U.S. taxes have never been so high, in 1981 or any other time, that an across-the-board rate cut would lead to such an outpouring of economic output, and such a diminution of tax evasion and avoidance, that there would be no loss of revenue".
I had no idea there were studies out there proving how much one particular item was responsible for economic growth. ;)
And yet you are claiming the same thing regarding taxes.
. After all, the greater share of our money the govt takes the more powerful it becomes, and the more dependent on government the citizen becomes.
Or, as a rational person would say, the greater share of our money the government takes, the more services it is able to provide, such as education, law enforcement, infrastructure, health care, etc.
Did you know that virtually all research for new drugs is actually funded by the government? That's right, the government heavily subsidizes R&D for drug companies.
I had no idea there were studies out there proving how much one particular item was responsible for economic growth. ;)
And yet you are claiming the same thing regarding taxes.
To clarify, I am claiming that the economic growth is due to numerous factors including record low interest rates and deregulation. You are claiming that it's all due to lower taxes. Therefore, your little comment applies more to you than to me.
If tax rates are reduced, helping stimulate the economy, causing higher incomes, then gov’t can have an increase in actual dollars
This is what's called a hypothesis. If it is correct, the evidence will support that point. In other words, if the hypothesis is correct, we can look at periods where there were reductions in the tax rate, and see if
1. the economy increased faster than periods with no tax cuts
2. people had higher incomes than periods with no tax cuts
3. Government had higher tax receipts.
So that's what it boils down to.
Look at periods after tax cuts and see if the economy increased faster, people had higher incomes, and government had higher tax receipts when compared to times when there were no tax cuts
If you scroll up the page, you can see that I've done some of the research for you, and it proves the third part of your hypothesis laughably false.
phillip
That's some awfully imaginative language coming from a double-talking geef.
All your stats are based on a percentage of GDP. On the other hand, claims of an increase in revenue after tax cuts are based on actual inflation adjusted dollars.
So wail and gnash your teeth while playing with the numbers if that’s what gets your rocks off (I seriously suggest you get a hobby).
You wrote: “Or, as a rational person would say, the greater share of our money the government takes, the more services it is able to provide, such as education, law enforcement, infrastructure, health care, etc.”
Ah, true colors come shining through, maybe in a socialist worldview one would consider that rational.
I would think a rational person would believe a government that waste one-third of our money needs to take a close look at its procedures before having the balls to ask for a greater share. Regardless of how many sucklings may support it.
Also, I made the point that there are many factors that affect the economy; I never suggested tax cuts were the only factor. Wake up!
geef n 1: the densely forested region between one's anus and phallus
2: a irritating and annoying person; someone of sub-average social worth.
SYNONYM –
mook n 1: A male adolescent or young adult exhibiting an unpleasant, self-centered attitude, formed during a sheltered upbringing. 2: One who revels in their own ignorance.
I never suggested tax cuts were the only factor. Wake up!
Hey Dipshit! I never suggested that there was only one factor either!!!
I would think a rational person would believe a government that waste one-third of our money needs to take a close look at its procedures before having the balls to ask for a greater share.
What the fuck does that have to do with anything?
I'm arguing that cutting taxes doesn't increase revenue. Government efficiency is a different topic.
So sorry, I was merely using the "phillip" method of selective response.
Wipe the spittle from your chin and chill out.
Blamin,
I don't blame you for being forced to misstate my arguments, engage in logical fallacies and construct weak strawman arguments.
You are obviously so brainwashed and indoctrinated that even in the face of mountains of contradictory evidence, you still are unable to abandon your programming.
Some weak minds would see suicide as their only option in the face of such cognitive dissonance (I guess I better take it easy on Poor Confused Dumbass).
BTW, that reminds me - have you been able to dig up any supporting evidence for your hypothesis?
Ok, Phil, I'm going to hit you between your goddamn eyes.
In your examples, you cherry picked data and put conclusions that didn't match what you were trying to prove.
You are trying to prove high taxation causes prosperity.
You can't explain the Democrat Luxury Tax fiasco. You try to pawn it off on the GOP when the Congress was decidedly Democrat. If you can't be honest here, well, you can't be honest, period.
High income taxes only keep people from advancing themselves. You Democrats love that and hate it when the people get independent of your nanny state government, otherwise known as Socialism, if not Communism.
I'm gone on vacation for 2 days. You want to try to prove your point without playing "3 card monte" with figures?
Oh, pick your stats from JFK's tax cut time frame. Let's see you be honest for a change.
Oh, Sheriff Baca is still a Democrat. Bill Clinton still is credited with the biggest tax increase.
Also, since you like high taxes so much Phil, how about applying the Clinton imputed rent tax to yourself and pay it in arrears back to 1992.
Ok, Phil, I'm going to hit you between your goddamn eyes.
That'll be hard with your one hand on the mouse and the other on your tiny codpiece.
In your examples, you cherry picked data and put conclusions that didn't match what you were trying to prove.
Let's see, I tried to prove that tax cuts don't pay for themselves. I "cherry picked" the data for 5 years after tax cuts and showed how tax revenues grew slowly. Then I "cherry picked" data from when there were no tax cuts and showed how tax revenue grew faster.
But if you disagree, why don't you show some evidence that supports your point instead of crying like a little bitch?
You can't explain the Democrat Luxury Tax fiasco. You try to pawn it off on the GOP when the Congress was decidedly Democrat. The president submitted the budget to Congress for approval you sad little monkey. The president approved it. He signed it into law because he thought it was necessary. Bill Clinton repealed it. Are you really that stupid?
High income taxes only keep people from advancing themselves.
Finally, a statement from you that is not laughably false and ignorant. The question is, what is "high"(other than your mom when she's hookin')?
I have a little secret to share with you...Just as a tax rate that's too high can stifle investment and harm the economy, a deficit that's too high (like under the administrations of your favorites, Reagan and Bush II) can harm the economy as well by causing interest rates to rise. In fact, the deficit spending that we see today is like a family of suburbanites living the high life on their credit cards. One wrong step, one late payment, and all of a sudden our creditors are refusing to subsidize our extravagant lifestyles. Suddenly, 10yr Treasuries have to pay 7% to find any buyers, the Prime Rate is at 10% and there's an economic meltdown. For those of you familiar with NSPD 51 and HSPD-20, you know what happens next.
You Democrats love that and hate it when the people get independent of your nanny state government, otherwise known as Socialism, if not Communism.
Boy I love it when morons like you throw those terms around without knowing what they mean. Nobody that I'm aware of is advocating the government control of the means of production. I am more of a capitalist than you, I'm sure.
I'm gone on vacation for 2 days. You've been "gone on vacation" for a lot longer than that, Sybil...
Oh, pick your stats from JFK's tax cut time frame. Let's see you be honest for a change.
Do you really have to go back almost half a century to find support for your argument? JFK's tax cuts, in addition to proving once again that Democrats have a better understanding of how tax policy affects the economy, does support the Keynesian theory, in that it was a DEMAND side cut, rather than supply side. I know you don't know what that means, but smarter people will. Kennedy also accomplished significant tax reform, including the closing of many loopholes. In addition, Kennedy also cut the top rate from an absurd 90 percent to 60 percent. In that case, I would be willing to concede that we had passed the apex of the Laffer curve, to put it in a simplistic term that you might be able to understand.
Oh, Sheriff Baca is still a Democrat.
Holy frijoles are you stupid.
Although Sheriff Lee Baca (a registered Republican) won in a non-partisan election landslide
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0402/0402eleventhcommandment.htm
Baca, a Republican, was elected Los Angeles County's 30th Sheriff against his mentor Sherman Block, who had died in office days prior to the election but remained on the ballot
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:0djEPcnUyIMJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Baca+%22lee+baca%22+registered+republican&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Baca backs California’s Three Strikes law and is a registered Republican and Bush supporter
http://www.laweekly.com/general/features/zen-and-the-art-of-sheriffing/2360/
I gotta admit, "tiny codpiece", that was funny. I spit my drink.
But here's a few more questions:
Is it reasonable to expect a turnaround in revenues following a tax cut to occur in the span you've highlighted? I would think some period of adjustment before the real effects are felt, particularly after the immediate change of revenue amounts the year of the tax cuts.
Should anyone care about any of this who believes the feds have no business with whatever it is they say they need revenues for, that is, beyond securing the borders, strengthening the military, maintaining infrastructure.
Considering all that has befallen this country since Bush took office, 9/11, the war, hurricanes, giving aid to Indonesia following the tsunami, and Africa for AIDS, etc., unemployment is down, the economy is growing still. Shouldn't tax cuts have killed us if what you're saying is true?
Is it reasonable to expect a turnaround in revenues following a tax cut to occur in the span you've highlighted?
I think so. I used a 5 year time frame to judge the results. I think if it were to take longer than 3 years or so, so many other variables would be introduced that it would be impossible to tell what effects, if any the tax cuts actually had.
Should anyone care about any of this who believes the feds have no business with whatever
A person like that would take the (more honest IMO) view that we should cut taxes and reduce government spending to basically reduce the role of government in our lives. That is a respectable position that I agree with, more or less. But the proponents of the idea that I'm arguing aginst here are not making that claim. They are claiming that tax cuts actually increase the amount of money that the Gov takes in, helping to pay for programs without any significant cuts in spending. That is an absurd idea. It's like saying that if you voluntarily take a pay cut, the company you work for will make more profit, and thus be able to charge less for their products and will be more generous with raises in the future. That may be true, but it won't have enough of an effect to make up for your pay cut.
Shouldn't tax cuts have killed us if what you're saying is true?
It's impossible to say where our economy would be without the tax cuts. I think that what's been keeping our economy afloat, however, is the record low interest rates we've seen since 2001. Here is a graph of the interest rates compared to GDP growth rates.
http://www.intelligentguess.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/usa-gdp-growth-pa-versus-fed-rate-since-1954-wthumbs.JPG
You can see that there's a pretty strong inverse correlation, especially in the years since 1990
Philip,
Your arguments are pretty well laid out and we don't see much of that from the left side. For that I give you kudos. I'm not sure yet that I am convinced, due to the fact that I haven't the time to really research the issue. Hopefully soon. Theoretically, I still believe the cuts are the better way to go. Of course reduced spending is every bit as important for the total desired result of smaller government, but it wasn't brought up because of the narrow scope of the discussion.
I would also argue that your paycut analogy is a bit on the apples and oranges side, but the effect for the employer is exactly the same. Payroll and taxes are both expenditures and the company benefits from a reduction of both. But from there you have to view the profits in the same way as tax revenues to the feds. In that way, the analogy backs our side of the equation because of the rise in profits/revenues. But also, as a result of the drop in expenses, the company can now invest elsewhere to further increase market share, if it desires, or to shore up infrastructure or research or training. And here's where another factor might skew your numbers. The tax savings might not all go into immediate expansion, but to these other areas that are of value to the company, and that could delay increases in profits for a time, thus affecting the overall revenue increases to the feds in the timeframe used. Speculation on my part perhaps, but I think it's quite likely.
I see Phil can't handle a direct question. Phil, you are a party hack, pure and simple, and I do mean you are simple.
Sherrif Lee Baca is a republican, PCD
Post a Comment