"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:41:28 -0500, "Adam Corolla"
wrote:
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 06:07:27 -0500, "Adam Corolla"
wrote:
I actually get a chuckle out of the supply side "experts". They want
to
sell
the public a bunch of bull**** and dress it up in fancy economic
terms
to
make it sound like it makes sense. Think about it. What they are
saying
basically is this. Lower the rate of taxes the government charges the
population and you will wind up taking in more money. On it's face
it's
ridiculous. Ask the public to pay in less money to the system and the
government will have more money. Give me a break. It's a total con
job.
Because they use the reasoning "Reducing taxes stimulates the economy,
increasing business and creating more jobs, which means more salaries
are
being paid out and taxed, which brings more money in as taxes." In
reality,
supply-side economics is fundamentally flawed and the boost to the
exonomy
comes from government borrowing and spending.
Which is why after a tax break, revenuse steadily in crease, but after
a increase in taxes, revenues sharply increase, then rapidly fall off
as taxpayers start finding shelters.
If that were true, I wouldn't have said otherwise. However, if it were
true, there would be evidence other than "Because Rush told me so."
Just because someone makes you feel smart doesn't mean they aren't
filling
your head with lies. Engage your skepticism the most when you most
*want*
to believe.
The CBO said so.
Care to dispute it?
You really really need to take your own advise.
Gunner
I hate to interfere with a good fight, but maybe it would be a better
fight if it were fought on a little higher plane. Gunner, what the CBO has
said is that tax revenue increases amount to roughly 17% (labor) and 50%
(capital) of the tax revenues LOST through lower tax rates.
Cool, that's pretty much in line with what I'm saying. Tax cuts result in
increased spending but the bulk of that spending is on foreign goods and
services, meaning that while tax cuts do stimulate the US economy, they are
an inefficient way to do so and result in significantly less money being
spent in the US economy than if that money were kept by and spent buy the
government. Therefore tax cuts would not result in increased revenue. It
just doesn't make sense if you think about it.
Once again, if someone can point me directly to a reliable source that shows
tax cuts consistently resulting in increased revenues, I'll happily admit
I'm wrong. Surely, with all the right-wing web sites out there, there must
be thousands of links to reliable sources of this information?
But today it is common to hear tax cutters claim, implausibly, that all
tax cuts raise revenue. Last year, President Bush said, "You cut taxes and
the tax revenues increase." Senator John McCain told National Review
magazine last month that "tax cuts, starting with Kennedy, as we all know,
increase revenues." Last week, Steve Forbes endorsed Rudolph Giuliani for
the White House, saying, "He's seen the results of supply-side economics
firsthand - higher revenues from lower taxes."
It's a typical neocon tactic. Repeat a lie often (Democrats are big
spenders!) then speak as though the lie is common knowledge ("Why would
anyone vote for a Democrat--we need to DEcrease spending!") and no one seems
to check the facts to find out it's a lie.
Once again, and there is no possible way to stress this enough:
"FROM 1948 to 1981, THE NATIONAL DEBT REMAINED VIRTUALLY UNCHANGED EVEN
THROUGH THE VIETNAM WAR. FROM 1982 (Reagan's first budget) THROUGH 1989 THE
NATIONAL DEBT MORE THAN DOUBLED from its 1981 VALUE. (All values are
adjusted for inflation.)
Since I wouldn't ask you to take my word for it, check the US treasury
department's info to confirm, and use an inflation calc such as the one
found he
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl
To adjust the values. You don't have to check all of them, just spot check
here and there to see if you find any that are off.
Here's the graph:
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f3.../debtgraph.jpg
AGAIN, look at the national debt chart please, during the Vietnam
years--barely a ripple--then starting with Reagan's first budget a sudden,
drastic leap up every year since then except for the PC boom during
Clinton's era. How were we able to support ourselves during the Vietnam war
with nearly imperceptible additions to the national debt, but not during the
peacetime years that followed?
1. If Reagan cut taxes and spending, why did he double the national debt?
(Not the deficit, but the entire national DEBT.)
2. If Reagan cut taxes and increased spending, why did he double the
national debt--why didn't he just increase spending by the amount that
federal revenues increased from the tax cuts?
3. If you adjust for inflation for each year, the amount of money borrowed
by Reagan, Bush and Bush lite through from 1982 to 2006 is about seven
trillion dollars. (The amount borrowed by Clinton is about a quarter to a
third of a trillion, but again, I don't credit Clinton for that but instead
I credit the PC boom which Slick Willie was lucky enough to preside during.)
Seven trillion dollars in new spending, going almost exclusively into the US
economy (even spread out over the last 16 years that the neocons held the
white house) can't help but stimulate the economy. Assuming an average of
125 million in the labor force during that time, that's $3500 per worker per
year for 16 years. Now, it's not going directly to the workers, but because
it is spent buying US goods and services, it's creating a hell of a lot of
new jobs and competition for labor.
That's the basic theory behind supply-side economics, that if you stimulate
businesses by buying, the investment trickles down to the workforce and
everyone is better off. However, the neocons want you to think that the
economic stimulation came from cutting taxes, which is blatant nonsense in
light of the facts. In reality, the tax cuts helped very little and were
mainly for buying lots and lots of rich friends for the neocons by appealing
to their avarice.
The skyrocketing debt that Reagan created and that Bushes perpetuated will
have to be paid off eventually. The only practical way to do that is with a
severely deflated dollar. If the dollar deflates to one hundredth of its
value, then the trillions owed currently drop to tens of billions.
Reagan and the neocons are the big spenders--they spend more than they take
in and borrow the difference. They are the true "liberals" in the worst
sense of the word--liberally spending (wasting, mostly) money that has been
borrowed from America's future generations. They have set the US on a
course for economic catastrophe. Within the next five to twenty years, look
for continuing loss of the petrodollar's exclusivity, devastating inflation
and the economic collapse of the US. This much seems obvious. What follows
is more along the lines of speculation.
During this time, Americans will be confused, disoriented and terrified.
The US government will, if staying true to form, blame some scapegoat such
as terrorists, Mexicans or "liberals" for this collapse. In their panicked
state, Americans will look naturally for comfort from the strongest leaders,
much the way Germany did in the years after world war 1. And history
repeats...