"Doug Miller" wrote in message
t...
In article , "Adam Corolla"
wrote:

You didn't really answer my questions. Probably my fault for my rambling,
random style in my post--I apologize, I was very drowsy then.
I'll try to state my questions as clearly as possible.
[snip]
The questions I'm asking don't require pages and pages of complicated
answers,
just a few sentences will suffice.

Actually, they won't. The subject is much more complex than you appear to
realize.

HELLO?!?! YOU're the one saying that printing too much money causes
inflation, and you're accusing ME of oversimplifying? ROFL!!


Therefore, the answer "go read
a book" will be taken as an admission that you don't know the answers.

It is not my job, or anyone else's, for that matter, to remedy the
deficiencies in your education

No, but when you make blatantly nonsensical assertions, it's your job to
defend them with reasoning, unless you don't mind looking like an ignorant
windbag. Your choice.


-- and your unwillingness to make the necessary
effort (i.e. "go read a book")

And your INCORRECT assumption that I am unwilling to read a book is just
another of the many incorrect assumptions you have made in this thread.
When you use "go read a book" what you really mean is, "I don't know
anything about it and don't want to admit that, so stop asking me
questions." I am AMREADY reading up on this subject. And though I just
started, what I'm finding out is that printing more money doesn't cause
inflation.

will be taken as an admission that you would
prefer to remain argumentative and ignorant.

Actually, you are the one who is argumentative and ignorant. I proved you
wrong through simple logic, but you still cling to your silly belief that
printing too much money causes inflation. If you actually think about it,
that makes no sense. You haven't provided a shred of reasoning to support
your assertion, you're basically just saying that you're right because I'm
wrong. I am AM willing to learn about this, and I am doing so. I never
said I was unwilling to read about it, that's your assumption--because I
called you out on your belief by asking you to answer a few simple questions
about it--which you couldn't do.



Also, I would like to know if you hold the belief that reducing taxes
results in stimulation of the US economy which ends up bringing more
income
into the government by increased tax revenue.

If by "reducing taxes" you mean reducing tax *rates* -- yes

That's what I thought. You sound like one of the victims of the neocons.
They hook people by making them feel clever. They give people nuggets of
"wisdom" which make them feel "in the know" about things. However, if you
actually examine those nuggets, they are made not of wisdom but of
excrement. Now, you're probably going to make the assumption that I'm a
liberal, right? Have they programmed you to think that anyone who
challenges the things they've told you to believe is a liberal dupe who's
going to hand America over to the commies? Feeling angry, beligerant,
unwilling to discuss it further? Want to dismiss me as a hopeless idiot who
refuses to see the truth? I hope not. Because if so, then you're a great
neocon puppet.


I do hold that
belief, and it's a mystery to me why anyone does not, as the historical
record
shows quite clearly that that is exactly what happens.


Actually, it doesn't. I'm sure you believe it does, but have you ever seen
the actual evidence, or are you trusting some extremist nut-job who's
telling you that the evidence exists? If you've seen the evidence, please
submit a link. And don't try to weasel out of this by telling me to look it
up--you're the one making the claim. Back it up or admit your ignorance and
STFU.

Reducing the tax rates (since you obviously have some sort of trouble with
the phrase "reducing taxes") brings less money in to the government. The
money stays in the hands of the people instead. Let's look at this with
applied reasoning.

---Scenario 1: The government reduces the tax rate ten percent across the
board. What happens to it? Let's say 5% goes into savings accounts. That
5% is out of circulation. Of the 95% left, much of that, say 40%, will be
spent on merchandise such as tools, clothes, digital cameras, TVs, DVD
players, computers and accessories, MP3 players, cell phones, PDAs,
appliances, cookware, etc.

Where is all that stuff made? 90% of it is made in China and the rest is
made in a smattering of other countries. Less than 1% is actually made in
the US. Some of the money goes to the resellers, so let's say of that 40%,
one-fourth (and I am being VERY generous here) goes into the US economy
rather than straight overseas.

So far, out of 45%, 15% is going into the US economy.

Utility bills? Most of the cost of utilities is energy, which comes from
oil (imported for the most part) natural gas (imported for the most part)
coal (some is imported and some is mined here) and a small amount from other
sources such as nuclear, hydro, etc. At least 50% of the cost of utilities
goes to foreign countries.

House payments? Well, the interest goes to the bank, which if local, goes
into the US of course, but if it's one of the banking systems owned by an
international corporation, only some of it is going into the US economy.
The rest of the cost for house payments goes to materials and labor. Labor
is basically 100% local, but much of the materials are imported.

Cars, of course, are made almost entierly in other countries--even the ones
which are "made" in the US are actually made elsewhere and only the final
assembly (connect the drivetrain to the chassis) takes place here. Gas for
those cars? Again, almost all foreign.

Interestingly, entertainment is largely local. If you go into a bar and
order drinks made with domestically-produced beverages, practically all that
money is going into the US economy. Pot? Well, I heard it was California's
biggest cash crop, but who the hell really knows where that stuff comes
from. Movies are produced in the US, most food is produced locally,
sporting events are mostly domestic, and other divestions such as
"theraputic" massage, salons, spas, etc--largely domestic. So entertainment
budgets (which don't include buying merchandise such as DVD players etc) go
mostly into the US economy.

So, probably (and roughly) 25 to 40% of the money people have as a result of
a tax rate reduction actually goes into the US economy!

However, tax rates will drop for businesses as well. This will be good for
the service industries and what little manufacturing/production industries
we have that are staying in the US, but many US businesses have already
outsourced so heavily it won't make a difference within the US.

In other words, reducing the tax rate is a great way to boost China's
economy and the economies of other foreign countries, but doesn't really do
so much for the US economy.

---Scenario 2: The government decided not to reduce the tax rate and
instead keeps that money. What happens to that money? Well, then they
spend it of course. Now, if you've ever worked for the government you may
already know this--I didn't--apparently if you are buying something for the
government, you have to buy products produced and sold within the US unless
you can prove that there is no product produced and sold within the US which
could meet your needs. I found this out when my company bought a Norwegian
company, and discontinued one of our software products because that
Norwegian company had a similar product that was more advanced than ours (we
had put resources into other products instead for several years.) A
government employee called and wanted to buy a large volume license. I
explained that the purchase would need to go through our new Norwegian
office, and he then told me that it would be a huge headache and practically
impossible for him to get approval for buying something produced and sold
overseas, even though it was technically now a branch office of our company
which was based in the US.

So how much of the money that the government spends goes into the US
economy? Why, damned near all of it! There are entire industries which
would not even exist if they didn't have Uncle Sam as a client. Government
spending is what's kept the US out of severe economic recession since 1982
(except for the brief period during the middle- and latter-1990s when the PC
boom was in full force, before major outsourcing had taken place which of
course ended the boost to the US economy.)

From around 1945 through 1982, even through the Vietnam war, the US debt
stayed fairly level (when adjusted for inflation.) When Reagan's first
budget took effect in 1982, the debt leapt up and continued to rise until it
had *more than doubled* by the time he left office. Not the deficit, mind
you, but the entire debt of the nation *more than doubled* in eight years.
That's an economic catastrophe right there. By the time Clinton got into
office, the national debt had nearly tripled from what it was in 1982 (ALL
these values are adjusted for inflation.) Why? Because as the US economy
grew stronger and stronger during the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, we priced
ourselves out of the world market due to the high cost of labor, and the
1970s brought the start of a recession which could last many decades.
Reagan kicked off a massive borrow-and-spend trend which boosted the hell
out of tyhe US economy through the trickle-down effect. It worked all
right, but saddled the nation with a crushing debt which will be one of the
major contributing factors in the upcoming years of rampant inflation and
depression of the US economy.

During Clinton's time in office, the increase to the debt slowed, stopped
and began to decrease. I don't credit Clinton with this, though. He was in
the right place at the right time, during the PC boom. However the PC boom
was ending just as he was leaving office, and he had sharply reduced
government spending. Now that the cold war was over, the government needed
a new excuse to start that same borrow-and-spend trend. In 2001, 9/11
occurred, and gave the persect excuse: the waar on terror. I'm not one of
those who believes the US government perpetrated the attacks on September
11, but it sure did seem to happen at *just* the right time (One month
before the US fiscal year was to start in October.) How lucky for them.

Here's a link to a graphical representation of the debt. Please check its
accuracy for yourself (as I did) by looking up the national debt histiory on
the US Dept. of the Treasury's web site and using an online inflation
adjustment calendar to adjust each year's debt to one year's dollar value so
you're comparing apples to apples (You'll have to log in to myspace to see
the graph, creating an account to log in is free):

http://tinyurl.com/2v6xoa

Again, check this graph's accuracy for yourself. I think you'll find out
it's right on the money (and I'm sorry for the pun.)

Neocons are not conservative. Their borrow-and-spend policies are a large
part of the cause of the impending implosion in the value of the dollar.
Other major factors include loss of the petrodollar exclusivity, baby
boomers retiring and the rise of the Euro. We're in for a rough ride.

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.. .
In article , "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

You may want to take a look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

Interesting article -- yet it fails to provide the most crucial (to
this
discussion) datum: a graph of tax revenues vs. tax rates.

True, it's all about the economic ideas rather than the evidence.

In that regard, tax revenues have consistently fallen behind the losses
due
to tax cuts during the times that supply-side economics has been in
ascendance. If you look at it in terms of the Laffer curve, it implies
that
all of the activity has been on the left side of the curve, which is the
side where the revenues from tax cuts are slight, and the losses from tax
cuts are large. This agrees with the fact that we're running a
substantial
deficit.

Supply-siders are avoiding acknowledging the left-side arguments because
they're accurate descriptions of what has actually happened; all you have
to
do is measure revenues and tax rates, and plunk the results down on the
curve. They're also damned inconvenient to the supply-siders' theories,
because they suggest that, in terms of tax revenues, our taxes are
already
too low. Compared to the rest of the world that does appear to be the
case.

However, that's another argument. And the Laffer Curve is about tax
revenues, not directly about the health of the economy. So I don't want
to
even try to argue this one. It's much too complicated.

The Wikipedia links do a good job of fleshing it out, for anyone with
that
much interest in the ideas and, more importantly, the evidence.

--
Ed Huntress


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.


If
the government wants money from the public it collects taxes. If it needs
a
little money it collects a little in taxes. If it needs a lot of money it
collects a lot in taxes.

Unless there's a neocon president, in which they just borrow it:
http://tinyurl.com/2v6xoa



It does this by raising or lowering the rate. It's
so simple that the act of raising taxes is what the government does to get
more money that no one has ever questioned it. Now the supply siders come
along and say lower the rate and more will come in. As Ed pointed out the
record is in. When the government did what the supply siders wanted two
things happened. One, less money came in and two, the deficit ballooned.
Take away inflation, and raises in FICA taxes under Reagan and the revenue
was actually less. So in the end it turns out that supply side is what
many
thought it was right from the start, a con job perpetuated by the right
wing
to benefit it's core constituent groups wealth and business. I'm shocked!

Hawke


LOL yep, exactly. They sucker people into believing this crap by giving
them simple explanations which seem to make good sense, but if you actually
look at them are smoke and mirrors.

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:54:44 -0700, "Hawke"
wrote:


"Adam Corolla" wrote in message
news

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

I sure wish they would stop printing so much money. It's
getting to be worthless.

Are you joking, or do you really believe that the amount of money that's
printed affects its value?


Nope, I wasn't joking. The fact is the more money that a government prints
the less value it has. It takes more money to buy commodities because
there
are more and more dollars chasing the same amount of goods.

What you're saying is based on the presumption that the amount of goods and
services produced remains constant.

Does it?

Let's take a step back, and pinpoint this principle. It's not the fact that
there is more money which makes it less valuable, it's the fact that it's
easier to obtain. That might seem like not-picking, but it's actually the
crux of the belief. If the feds printed 500 trillion dollars tomorrow, and
kept it all, the value of money wouldn't change even though there's more of
it.

However, if they spent it all, they would be buying an incredible amount of
goods and services. This would drive up the price of goods and services
because extra workers would have to be hired and overtime paid to meet the
demand; plus when the demand is high, sellers tend to increase their profit
margins.

The real issue here is that money is not a commodity in itself, it's a
representation of value. If the government prints 500 trillion and is
unable to find any goods and services to spend it on, all that cash is
effectively worthless except maybe as furnace fuel. The actual value is in
the goods and services produced, not in the money.

Inflation is caused largely by an increase in the demand for goods and
services. That's only part of the story, and an oversimplification at best.
However, it seems to be a more precise way of saying what I believe you're
getting at.


of this was in post WWI Germany where the inflation was so high that it
was
reported that it took a wheelbarrow worth of money to buy a loaf of bread.
The German government tried to get out of its economic problems by
printing
more and more money but all that did was create hyperinflation.

Well, if they subsequently paid off their debt in DM, then they succeeded!
If they owed one billion DM, and they caused so much inflation that the
value of a DM dropped by a factor of, say, 100,000, then they're paying off
a biillion-DM debt with what's actually worth only ten thousand DM. How
convenient for them!

Now, we're at a point at which the US government has suddenly started
skyrocketing the national debt in 1982 after the debt remained relatively
steady from 1948 through 1981 (adjusted for inflation of course) and is now
approaching *quadruple* the amount it was in 1981, with no sign of slowing
down. How do you suppose the government is going to pay off this debt?

On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 21:02:25 -0700, "Hawke"
wrote:


"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:54:44 -0700, "Hawke"
wrote:


"Adam Corolla" wrote in message
news
"Hawke" wrote in message
...

I sure wish they would stop printing so much money. It's
getting to be worthless.

Are you joking, or do you really believe that the amount of money
that's
printed affects its value?


Nope, I wasn't joking. The fact is the more money that a government
prints
the less value it has. It takes more money to buy commodities because
there
are more and more dollars chasing the same amount of goods. A good
example
of this was in post WWI Germany where the inflation was so high that it
was
reported that it took a wheelbarrow worth of money to buy a loaf of
bread.
The German government tried to get out of its economic problems by
printing
more and more money but all that did was create hyperinflation. Inflation
takes the value out of a dollar or whatever currency you are talking
about.
The more scarce a dollar is the more it's worth and vice versa. Money is
just paper with ink on it. Money has no intrinsic value by itself. Much
psychology is involved. People have to believe that money is valuable for
it
to be valuable. Once people see money as not being valuable they want
more
and more of it to purchase the same thing they did a week ago and on and
on.
Government creates inflation by printing too much money. Inflation makes
the
dollar able to buy less and less so you need more and more dollars. It's
simple economics really. Right now we'd have tremendous inflation but
since
we're buying everything overseas prices are staying low. For now.

Hawke

You are being over simplistic. Governments print more money so
inflation results. Takes a wheelbarrow full to buy a loaf of bread.

It is a bit more complicated then that and I'm not here to educate but
the first thing you need to think about is how does the money get from
the Government Bank into all those wheelbarrows?

You can equally well blame labor unions for inflation as the union
goes on strike; gains higher wages for the employees; who now have
more money to spend. As a result of the costs of the higher paid
employees employers have to raise the price of goods made and as well
need to borrow more from the Bank to finance operations. As more goods
are being made the demand, and therefore the cost, of raw materials
goes up.

In short inflation and or depressions are caused by a multitude of
actions and reactions and are far too complex to explain by a
simplistic statement that the Government prints too much money.

Not according to Milton Freedman. But also understand that I was truncating
the process so it could be briefly stated and the gist of it understood by
someone who isn't well versed in the subject.

Hawke


You certainly did truncate it. You stated that the government printing
money caused inflation to the extent that in the Wiemer Republic it
took a wheelbarrow full of currency to buy a loaf of bread.

However - you neglected to show any relationship between the
government printing plants and the wheelbarrow. In other words how
does the number of bank notes effect the price of bread? Your
analysis sounds logical until one applies a little thought to the
problem and then the simple equation of number of bank notes vis-a-vis
inflation fly right out the window.

As I said, inflation is a complex action and an over simplistic answer
does little to explain it.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(Note:displayed e-mail
address is a spam trap)

On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 21:29:24 -0700, "Hawke"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.. .
In article , "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

You may want to take a look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

Interesting article -- yet it fails to provide the most crucial (to this
discussion) datum: a graph of tax revenues vs. tax rates.

True, it's all about the economic ideas rather than the evidence.

In that regard, tax revenues have consistently fallen behind the losses
due
to tax cuts during the times that supply-side economics has been in
ascendance. If you look at it in terms of the Laffer curve, it implies
that
all of the activity has been on the left side of the curve, which is the
side where the revenues from tax cuts are slight, and the losses from tax
cuts are large. This agrees with the fact that we're running a substantial
deficit.

Supply-siders are avoiding acknowledging the left-side arguments because
they're accurate descriptions of what has actually happened; all you have
to
do is measure revenues and tax rates, and plunk the results down on the
curve. They're also damned inconvenient to the supply-siders' theories,
because they suggest that, in terms of tax revenues, our taxes are already
too low. Compared to the rest of the world that does appear to be the
case.

However, that's another argument. And the Laffer Curve is about tax
revenues, not directly about the health of the economy. So I don't want to
even try to argue this one. It's much too complicated.

The Wikipedia links do a good job of fleshing it out, for anyone with that
much interest in the ideas and, more importantly, the evidence.

--
Ed Huntress


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. If
the government wants money from the public it collects taxes. If it needs a
little money it collects a little in taxes. If it needs a lot of money it
collects a lot in taxes. It does this by raising or lowering the rate. It's
so simple that the act of raising taxes is what the government does to get
more money that no one has ever questioned it. Now the supply siders come
along and say lower the rate and more will come in. As Ed pointed out the
record is in. When the government did what the supply siders wanted two
things happened. One, less money came in and two, the deficit ballooned.
Take away inflation, and raises in FICA taxes under Reagan and the revenue
was actually less. So in the end it turns out that supply side is what many
thought it was right from the start, a con job perpetuated by the right wing
to benefit it's core constituent groups wealth and business. I'm shocked!

Hawke


Strange how well selling in volume at a lower price works so well for
Walmart but you say it won't work from the other side of the balance
sheet isn't it?

It would seem to me that if it works for retail sales it ought to work
for taxes.

The Chinamen do it too. Sell a whole bunch cheap and make more money
they selling a few expensive ones

Must be some sort of exotica Asian Magic?


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(Note:displayed e-mail
address is a spam trap)

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.

Democrats...always trying to tax us into prosperity.

Gunner


"[L]iberals are afraid to state what they truly believe in, for to do so
would result in even less votes than they currently receive. Their
methodology is to lie about their real agenda in the hopes of regaining
power, at which point they will do whatever they damn well please. The
problem is they have concealed and obfuscated for so long that, as a group,
they themselves are no longer sure of their goals. They are a collection of
wild-eyed splinter groups, all holding a grab-bag of dreams and wishes. Some
want a Socialist, secular-humanist state, others the repeal of the Second
Amendment. Some want same sex/different species marriage, others want voting
rights for trees, fish, coal and bugs. Some want cradle to grave care and
complete subservience to the government nanny state, others want a culture
that walks in lockstep and speaks only with intonations of political
correctness. I view the American liberals in much the same way I view the
competing factions of Islamic
fundamentalists. The latter hate each other to the core, and only join
forces to attack the US or Israel. The former hate themselves to the core,
and only join forces to attack George Bush and conservatives." --Ron Marr

"Adam Corolla" wrote in message
...
snip-----

How do you suppose the government is going to pay off this debt?


With inflated, useless dollars comes to mind. Government benefits by
inflation.

Harold

In article , "Hawke" 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.

And yet it happens. So inconvenient for you guys on the left, isn't it?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , "Adam Corolla" wrote:

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.

That's absolute nonsense. Government borrowing drives interest rates up by
increasing the demand for borrowed money; perhaps you'd care to explain how
increasing interest rates boosts the economy? And government spending never
provides as much of a boost to the economy as the same amount of private
spending -- they can spend only what they take from us, but far less
efficiently.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"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.

Democrats...always trying to tax us into prosperity.

Gunner


Republicans: fighting to produce even more prosperity to all; all of those
who already have it. Along with giving prosperity to those already rich goes
the corollary of preventing prosperity for everyone else. It works every
time republicans are in power.

Hawke

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.

That's absolute nonsense. Government borrowing drives interest rates up by
increasing the demand for borrowed money; perhaps you'd care to explain
how
increasing interest rates boosts the economy? And government spending
never
provides as much of a boost to the economy as the same amount of private
spending -- they can spend only what they take from us, but far less
efficiently.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Then why are the republicans borrowing and spending like there is no
tomorrow? Take away the economic activity due to the government buying goods
and services and the economy stinks. I'd like to see the percentage of the
GDP that comes from military and defense spending alone. That is pure wasted
money. If it was used by the private sector instead of the government we'd
actually have a good economy instead of a fake one that only looks good on
paper.

Hawke

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 21:29:24 -0700, "Hawke"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.. .
In article , "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

You may want to take a look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

Interesting article -- yet it fails to provide the most crucial (to
this
discussion) datum: a graph of tax revenues vs. tax rates.

True, it's all about the economic ideas rather than the evidence.

In that regard, tax revenues have consistently fallen behind the losses
due
to tax cuts during the times that supply-side economics has been in
ascendance. If you look at it in terms of the Laffer curve, it implies
that
all of the activity has been on the left side of the curve, which is
the
side where the revenues from tax cuts are slight, and the losses from
tax
cuts are large. This agrees with the fact that we're running a
substantial
deficit.

Supply-siders are avoiding acknowledging the left-side arguments
because
they're accurate descriptions of what has actually happened; all you
have
to
do is measure revenues and tax rates, and plunk the results down on the
curve. They're also damned inconvenient to the supply-siders' theories,
because they suggest that, in terms of tax revenues, our taxes are
already
too low. Compared to the rest of the world that does appear to be the
case.

However, that's another argument. And the Laffer Curve is about tax
revenues, not directly about the health of the economy. So I don't want
to
even try to argue this one. It's much too complicated.

The Wikipedia links do a good job of fleshing it out, for anyone with
that
much interest in the ideas and, more importantly, the evidence.

--
Ed Huntress


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.
If
the government wants money from the public it collects taxes. If it needs
a
little money it collects a little in taxes. If it needs a lot of money it
collects a lot in taxes. It does this by raising or lowering the rate.
It's
so simple that the act of raising taxes is what the government does to
get
more money that no one has ever questioned it. Now the supply siders come
along and say lower the rate and more will come in. As Ed pointed out the
record is in. When the government did what the supply siders wanted two
things happened. One, less money came in and two, the deficit ballooned.
Take away inflation, and raises in FICA taxes under Reagan and the
revenue
was actually less. So in the end it turns out that supply side is what
many
thought it was right from the start, a con job perpetuated by the right
wing
to benefit it's core constituent groups wealth and business. I'm shocked!

Hawke


Strange how well selling in volume at a lower price works so well for
Walmart but you say it won't work from the other side of the balance
sheet isn't it?

It would seem to me that if it works for retail sales it ought to work
for taxes.

The Chinamen do it too. Sell a whole bunch cheap and make more money
they selling a few expensive ones

Must be some sort of exotica Asian Magic?


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(Note:displayed e-mail
address is a spam trap)


It doesn't really work that way. Government and business are different. In
business it's a simple matter of figuring out the equilibrium point between
price and how many units will be sold. At some point lowering the price of a
product produces more sales and more revenue and at some lower price it just
produces lower revenues. Business only wants to get at the right price point
to achieve the maximum revenue. Government doesn't work that way. When it
needs more money it either raises taxes or prints more money. I'd say that
makes it wildly different than Wal-Mart. Which is why you can't compare the
two and is also why the idea that businessmen make good government leaders
is usually unsound.

Hawke

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Hawke"
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.

And yet it happens. So inconvenient for you guys on the left, isn't it?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

You need to check the facts, pal. Supply side economic theory has been
discredited by the historical facts. The criticisms of it from the experts
when it was proposed have now been proven. The supposed benefits from it
have been illusionary. In truth it did what the real experts said it would,
end in less tax revenue coming in than before implementation. Check
Wikipedia if you don't believe me. The main change from changing to supply
side economics has been a reduction in taxes for the rich and for business.
As always when republicans are in charge.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...


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.

That's absolute nonsense. Government borrowing drives interest rates up
by
increasing the demand for borrowed money; perhaps you'd care to explain
how
increasing interest rates boosts the economy? And government spending
never
provides as much of a boost to the economy as the same amount of private
spending -- they can spend only what they take from us, but far less
efficiently.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Then why are the republicans borrowing and spending like there is no
tomorrow? Take away the economic activity due to the government buying
goods
and services and the economy stinks. I'd like to see the percentage of the
GDP that comes from military and defense spending alone. That is pure
wasted
money. If it was used by the private sector instead of the government we'd
actually have a good economy instead of a fake one that only looks good on
paper.

Hawke



Gee, I dunno, Hawke. The government has spent a ton of money on the war so
far. It should start showing a profit any day now! :-)

Is anyone besides me curious how spending money on overhead is expected to
show a profit? Isn't that a whole lot like a free lunch? Someone,
somewhere, gets the honor of paying the tab. Taxpayers, perhaps? Raise
taxes endlessly, until we're all prosperous?

Harold

In article , "Hawke" wrote:


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.

That's absolute nonsense. Government borrowing drives interest rates up by
increasing the demand for borrowed money; perhaps you'd care to explain
how
increasing interest rates boosts the economy? And government spending
never
provides as much of a boost to the economy as the same amount of private
spending -- they can spend only what they take from us, but far less
efficiently.


Then why are the republicans borrowing and spending like there is no
tomorrow?

Because many of them, including -- perhaps especially -- the President think
that they can buy friendship.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , "Hawke" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
t...
In article , "Hawke"
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.

And yet it happens. So inconvenient for you guys on the left, isn't it?

You need to check the facts, pal. Supply side economic theory has been
discredited by the historical facts. The criticisms of it from the experts
when it was proposed have now been proven. The supposed benefits from it
have been illusionary. In truth it did what the real experts said it would,
end in less tax revenue coming in than before implementation. Check
Wikipedia if you don't believe me. The main change from changing to supply
side economics has been a reduction in taxes for the rich and for business.
As always when republicans are in charge.

Perhaps you should check the facts yourself. Tax revenue has increased
substantially -- but the deficit has increased even faster because spending is
completely out of control, due in large part to a president who took seven
years to figure out that he could actually veto legislation once in a while.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 01:17:42 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "Hawke" 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.

And yet it happens. So inconvenient for you guys on the left, isn't it?

Hush now, he's in his happy place. Don't disturb him with reality, he
doesn't like it.

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
. net...

"Adam Corolla" wrote in message
...
snip-----

How do you suppose the government is going to pay off this debt?


With inflated, useless dollars comes to mind. Government benefits by
inflation.

Harold

On this we agree.

"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.

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

"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.

Democrats...always trying to tax us into prosperity.

Gunner


Republicans: fighting to produce even more prosperity to all; all of those
who already have it. Along with giving prosperity to those already rich
goes
the corollary of preventing prosperity for everyone else. It works every
time republicans are in power.

Hawke

I'm not defending the democrats, because they have their share of problems;
but yeah, the repubs have been corporate stooges since *at least* the Reagan
era. The end result of unregulated capitalism is obvious.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Adam Corolla"
wrote:

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.

That's absolute nonsense.

Confused? I'll dumb it down for you.

1. Increased spending on US goods and services boosts the economy.

2. Your belief that reducing the tax rate boosts the economy is based on #1
above. Obviously, if everyone stuck their extra money from tax cuts into
savings accounts, there'd be no boost to the economy.

3. In private spending, the bulk of it for merchandise goes overseas.
Therefore it doesn't boost the US economy much. Or are you denying that
almost every item you can buy is made entirely or mostly in other countries?

4. In government spending, the bulk is spent on US goods and services.

Therefore, lowering taxes will result in less money going into the US
economy and more of it going overseas.

It's simple reasoning.




Government borrowing drives interest rates up by

The feds set the interest rate. Government borrowing doesn't do anything to
the interest rate. Most of the money the US government borrows is borrowed
from China.



And government spending never
provides as much of a boost to the economy as the same amount of private
spending -- they can spend only what they take from us, but far less
efficiently.

Sigh. It doesn't matter how inefficiently the government spends the money.
The government spends money almost exclusively within the US. If they spend
a dollar, a good 95% of it goes to US businesses. If they give that dollar
to Joe Blow, he goes and spends half of it at Wal-Mart or other merchandise
sellers, and most of that goes to foreign countries. Makes a car payment,
mostly the same thing. Etc.

Tax breaks might create a few jobs at places like Wal-Mart and Sears, but
government spending is creating thousands of engineering jobs, middle and
upper management jobs, etc--jobs that make people thrive, not just keep them
alive.

If what you're saying is true, there should be a graph or chart based on
cited data which proves that lowering taxes is always followed by increased
tax money coming in. If you can find one I would be grateful and will
recant, because I *want* to believe that lowering taxes is good for the
economy. I don't like paying taxes any more than you do! And for the
record, I'm NOT in favor of increasing taxes to stimulate the economy. I'm
in favor of the government sharply curtailing spending, and paying off the
national debt. The US is rich in resources, we can support ourselves rather
than needing handouts (loans) from China and other countries. In that way,
I'm actually fiscally conservative--much more so than the borrow-and-spend
Reagan/Bush/Rush neocons, who are for practical purposes less so than the
democrats!

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


"[L]iberals are afraid to state what they truly believe in, for to do so
would result in even less votes than they currently receive. Their
methodology is to lie about their real agenda in the hopes of regaining
power, at which point they will do whatever they damn well please. The
problem is they have concealed and obfuscated for so long that, as a group,
they themselves are no longer sure of their goals. They are a collection of
wild-eyed splinter groups, all holding a grab-bag of dreams and wishes. Some
want a Socialist, secular-humanist state, others the repeal of the Second
Amendment. Some want same sex/different species marriage, others want voting
rights for trees, fish, coal and bugs. Some want cradle to grave care and
complete subservience to the government nanny state, others want a culture
that walks in lockstep and speaks only with intonations of political
correctness. I view the American liberals in much the same way I view the
competing factions of Islamic
fundamentalists. The latter hate each other to the core, and only join
forces to attack the US or Israel. The former hate themselves to the core,
and only join forces to attack George Bush and conservatives." --Ron Marr

"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. In other words, cutting
taxes cuts revenues, but not by the full amount of tax cuts. And this is
exactly what most sophisticated supply-siders have been saying for some time
now. If you looked at the Wikipedia entry for supply-side economics (one of
their better efforts), you see the "left-side, right-side" issue that's the
core of intelligent analysis of tax-cutting effects today.

An easier way to see what's going on in this debate is to start with Bruce
Bartlett's op-ed article in the NYT earlier this year. Bartlett was one of
the original supply-siders and arguably its strongest proponent. He was an
advisor to Reagan and an author of the Kemp-Roth bill that was the roadmap
for Reaganomics. You can view NYT articles for free now but I don't know if
you'll have to sign in:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/06/op...6bartlett.html

Here's about as much of it as I can paste without worrying about copyright:

==============================================
AS one who was present at the creation of "supply-side economics" back in
the 1970s, I think it is long past time that the phrase be put to rest. It
did its job, creating a new consensus among economists on how to look at the
national economy. But today it has become a frequently misleading and
meaningless buzzword that gets in the way of good economic policy.

Today, supply-side economics has become associated with an obsession for
cutting taxes under any and all circumstances. No longer do its advocates in
Congress and elsewhere confine themselves to cutting marginal tax rates -
the tax on each additional dollar earned - as the original supply-siders
did. Rather, they support even the most gimmicky, economically dubious tax
cuts with the same intensity.

The original supply-siders suggested that some tax cuts, under very special
circumstances, might actually raise federal revenues. For example, cutting
the capital gains tax rate might induce an unlocking effect that would cause
more gains to be realized, thus causing more taxes to be paid on such gains
even at a lower rate.

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."

===============================================

The rest of it is worth reading. It's pretty short and will give you a good
idea of what smart and knowledgeable supply-siders have to say for
themselves today.

--

Ed Huntress

"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.

OK, what's the CBO?

"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...

"Adam Corolla" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

snip


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.

I am not going to get into this, if you're addressing it to me. g Gross
imports are only about 13% of our GDP, so your point would take some work to
prove, but I see where you're going with it. You'd have to cover the amount
of the tax cuts that went into investment as well. Because the bulk of the
tax cuts go to the wealthy and to corporations, I think you'll have a hard
case to make.


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?

To the best of my knowledge, there are none, because it's never happened.
Maybe in 1964, although I'm not sure even then. That would fit with the more
sophisticated supply-side argument because marginal tax rates then were
sky-high.

And it's complicated by the fact that tax cuts since 1980 generally are
accompanied by phenomenal deficit spending. So sorting out which economic
factors are at work is all but impossible, even if there had been any
increased revenues.

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.

I don't think that George Bush is lying about it. I think he's too ignorant
about economics to have an opinion worthy of the name. McCain is
dissembling. Forbes is blinded by ideology. Giuliani probably knows better.

snip

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:25:37 -0500, "Adam Corolla"
wrote:

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.


So you are saying that all the entitlements, including LBJs Great
Society, were NeoCon constructs?

Tax and Spend = Democrats

Or was Midnight Basketball something a Neocon dreamed up?

Oh, now there's a big-spending program. g Dem' basketballs cost like hell.
And turning on the lights after midnight probably bankrupted the state of
Illinois, at least. g


Hardly a lie to call Democrats big spenders. Or was FDR a Neocon too?

Now about the single biggest tax increase in US history....that NeoCon
Clinton...right?


http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1765.cfm

sigh Gunner, will you PLEASE start reading those long articles that you
point people to, which you claim say one thing, but which actually say the
opposite? You'll save everyone some time and yourself some ...oh, never
mind, you probably don't care.

Here's what Laffer says in that article. First, it was mostly about capital
gains taxes (his favorite subject, for a reason that would be obvious if you
thought about it -- cut tax rates on capital gains and people cash in to get
the lower rates, which increases tax revenues, temporarily), not income
taxes or total taxes, and he pointed out that the capital gains tax was
increased from 20% to 28% in 1986. Then he says this:

"Reducing the capital gains tax rate from 28 percent back to 20 percent in
1997 was an unqualified success, and every claim made by the critics was
wrong. The tax cut, which went into effect in May 1997, increased asset
values and contributed to the largest gain in productivity and private
sector capital investment in a decade. It did not lose revenue for the
federal Treasury."

Now, let's see if you remember who was president in 1997, hmm?

BTW, that is not to say Laffer is right -- he engages in some tricky
slight-of-hand, as he often does. Only that your reference says the opposite
of what you claim.

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:25:08 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


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?

To the best of my knowledge, there are none, because it's never happened.
Maybe in 1964, although I'm not sure even then. That would fit with the
more
sophisticated supply-side argument because marginal tax rates then were
sky-high.

And it's complicated by the fact that tax cuts since 1980 generally are
accompanied by phenomenal deficit spending. So sorting out which economic
factors are at work is all but impossible, even if there had been any
increased revenues.


http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1765.cfm

you may find it of interest

Gunner

Yeah, I did. And you might find it interesting and quite surprising, too, if
you ever actually read it. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:25:37 -0500, "Adam Corolla"
wrote:

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.


So you are saying that all the entitlements, including LBJs Great
Society, were NeoCon constructs?

Tax and Spend = Democrats

Or was Midnight Basketball something a Neocon dreamed up?

Hardly a lie to call Democrats big spenders. Or was FDR a Neocon too?

Now about the single biggest tax increase in US history....that NeoCon
Clinton...right?


http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1765.cfm



Gunner


"[L]iberals are afraid to state what they truly believe in, for to do so
would result in even less votes than they currently receive. Their
methodology is to lie about their real agenda in the hopes of regaining
power, at which point they will do whatever they damn well please. The
problem is they have concealed and obfuscated for so long that, as a group,
they themselves are no longer sure of their goals. They are a collection of
wild-eyed splinter groups, all holding a grab-bag of dreams and wishes. Some
want a Socialist, secular-humanist state, others the repeal of the Second
Amendment. Some want same sex/different species marriage, others want voting
rights for trees, fish, coal and bugs. Some want cradle to grave care and
complete subservience to the government nanny state, others want a culture
that walks in lockstep and speaks only with intonations of political
correctness. I view the American liberals in much the same way I view the
competing factions of Islamic
fundamentalists. The latter hate each other to the core, and only join
forces to attack the US or Israel. The former hate themselves to the core,
and only join forces to attack George Bush and conservatives." --Ron Marr

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:25:08 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


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?

To the best of my knowledge, there are none, because it's never happened.
Maybe in 1964, although I'm not sure even then. That would fit with the more
sophisticated supply-side argument because marginal tax rates then were
sky-high.

And it's complicated by the fact that tax cuts since 1980 generally are
accompanied by phenomenal deficit spending. So sorting out which economic
factors are at work is all but impossible, even if there had been any
increased revenues.


http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1765.cfm

you may find it of interest

Gunner


"[L]iberals are afraid to state what they truly believe in, for to do so
would result in even less votes than they currently receive. Their
methodology is to lie about their real agenda in the hopes of regaining
power, at which point they will do whatever they damn well please. The
problem is they have concealed and obfuscated for so long that, as a group,
they themselves are no longer sure of their goals. They are a collection of
wild-eyed splinter groups, all holding a grab-bag of dreams and wishes. Some
want a Socialist, secular-humanist state, others the repeal of the Second
Amendment. Some want same sex/different species marriage, others want voting
rights for trees, fish, coal and bugs. Some want cradle to grave care and
complete subservience to the government nanny state, others want a culture
that walks in lockstep and speaks only with intonations of political
correctness. I view the American liberals in much the same way I view the
competing factions of Islamic
fundamentalists. The latter hate each other to the core, and only join
forces to attack the US or Israel. The former hate themselves to the core,
and only join forces to attack George Bush and conservatives." --Ron Marr

On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 00:34:00 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1765.cfm

sigh Gunner, will you PLEASE start reading those long articles that you
point people to, which you claim say one thing, but which actually say the
opposite? You'll save everyone some time and yourself some ...oh, never
mind, you probably don't care.

Here's what Laffer says in that article. First, it was mostly about capital
gains taxes


Actually...no. One small section of the article was about capital
gains..at the end. The first portions dealt with the increased
revenues:

"Over the past 100 years, there have been three major periods of
tax-rate cuts in the U.S.: the Harding-Coolidge cuts of the mid-1920s;
the Kennedy cuts of the mid-1960s; and the Reagan cuts of the early
1980s. Each of these periods of tax cuts was remarkably successful as
measured by virtually any public policy metric."

Followed by an investigation in all three tax cuts and the stats.

(his favorite subject, for a reason that would be obvious if you
thought about it -- cut tax rates on capital gains and people cash in to get
the lower rates, which increases tax revenues, temporarily), not income
taxes or total taxes, and he pointed out that the capital gains tax was
increased from 20% to 28% in 1986. Then he says this:

"Reducing the capital gains tax rate from 28 percent back to 20 percent in
1997 was an unqualified success, and every claim made by the critics was
wrong. The tax cut, which went into effect in May 1997, increased asset
values and contributed to the largest gain in productivity and private
sector capital investment in a decade. It did not lose revenue for the
federal Treasury."

Now, let's see if you remember who was president in 1997, hmm?

So then cutting the capital gains tax ALSO increased revenues. Thanks
for backing up the claim.

This of course followed the 1993 Clinton retroactive tax increase. The
largest regressive tax increase in history...which flatlined the
economy until 1997 when the Capital Gains tax break helped it start
climbing again.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1544.cfm

The 1993 Clinton Tax Rate Increase.
Without a vote to spare in either the House or the Senate, during his
first year in office, President Clinton imposed the largest tax
increase in history. His increase in the top tax rate from 31 percent
to 39.6 percent59 was the biggest jump since Herbert Hoover boosted
the rate from 25 percent to 63 percent in 1930. Harvard economist
Martin Feldstein estimates that the tax rate increase raised only
one-third of the anticipated revenue.60 The combined effect of the
Bush and Clinton tax rate increases was utter disaster.

Some have argued that the Clinton tax increase must have succeeded
since the budget shifted from deficit to surplus in the late 1990s,
but the Clinton Administration's own budget figures dispel this myth.
In January 1995, almost 18 months after the tax increase was enacted,
President Clinton's Office of Management and Budget projected that
future budget deficits would remain above $200 billion--and climb in
all subsequent years.61 Needless to say, if the Clinton Administration
admitted in 1995 that the tax increase would not lead to a balanced
budget, it would be groundless to make that claim today.

What really happened? As always, it is difficult to provide a precise
answer, but the fiscal restraint imposed by the newly elected
Republican Congress, combined with pro-growth capital gains tax cuts
and private-sector initiative, clearly were the main factors in
balancing the budget. In other words, the budget was balanced because
government policy shifted away from President Clinton's original
approach.

The 1997 Capital Gains Tax Rate Reduction.
The 1997 capital gains tax cut is the most recent example of the
negative impact of static scoring. The Joint Committee on Taxation
estimated that reducing the capital gains tax from 28 percent to 20
percent would "cost" the government $21 billion over the next 10
years.62 The JCT did estimate that revenues would increase in the
first two years because the lower rate would encourage more asset
sales, but there was no attempt to measure the higher revenues that
would be generated because of better economic performance.

In reality, capital gains tax revenue skyrocketed, climbing from $62
billion in 1996 to more than $100 billion in 1999.63 But this figure
is only a partial measure of the JCT's failure to grasp economic
realities. In addition to mis-measuring the impact of a capital gains
tax cut on financial markets, the JCT failed to estimate the impact of
a lower capital gains tax cut on the overall economy. In other words,
the lower capital gains tax rate not only boosted revenues from the
capital gains tax, but also indirectly increased personal income tax,
corporate income tax, and payroll tax revenues.64 None of these
results were incorporated in the JCT estimate.
snip

I guess Im going to have to start back checking your claims that my
cites yada yada.

Gunner


"[L]iberals are afraid to state what they truly believe in, for to do so
would result in even less votes than they currently receive. Their
methodology is to lie about their real agenda in the hopes of regaining
power, at which point they will do whatever they damn well please. The
problem is they have concealed and obfuscated for so long that, as a group,
they themselves are no longer sure of their goals. They are a collection of
wild-eyed splinter groups, all holding a grab-bag of dreams and wishes. Some
want a Socialist, secular-humanist state, others the repeal of the Second
Amendment. Some want same sex/different species marriage, others want voting
rights for trees, fish, coal and bugs. Some want cradle to grave care and
complete subservience to the government nanny state, others want a culture
that walks in lockstep and speaks only with intonations of political
correctness. I view the American liberals in much the same way I view the
competing factions of Islamic
fundamentalists. The latter hate each other to the core, and only join
forces to attack the US or Israel. The former hate themselves to the core,
and only join forces to attack George Bush and conservatives." --Ron Marr

On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 00:34:58 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:25:08 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


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?

To the best of my knowledge, there are none, because it's never happened.
Maybe in 1964, although I'm not sure even then. That would fit with the
more
sophisticated supply-side argument because marginal tax rates then were
sky-high.

And it's complicated by the fact that tax cuts since 1980 generally are
accompanied by phenomenal deficit spending. So sorting out which economic
factors are at work is all but impossible, even if there had been any
increased revenues.


http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1765.cfm

you may find it of interest

Gunner

Yeah, I did. And you might find it interesting and quite surprising, too, if
you ever actually read it. d8-)


I did. Again. Seems it backs up my statements.

Gunner


"[L]iberals are afraid to state what they truly believe in, for to do so
would result in even less votes than they currently receive. Their
methodology is to lie about their real agenda in the hopes of regaining
power, at which point they will do whatever they damn well please. The
problem is they have concealed and obfuscated for so long that, as a group,
they themselves are no longer sure of their goals. They are a collection of
wild-eyed splinter groups, all holding a grab-bag of dreams and wishes. Some
want a Socialist, secular-humanist state, others the repeal of the Second
Amendment. Some want same sex/different species marriage, others want voting
rights for trees, fish, coal and bugs. Some want cradle to grave care and
complete subservience to the government nanny state, others want a culture
that walks in lockstep and speaks only with intonations of political
correctness. I view the American liberals in much the same way I view the
competing factions of Islamic
fundamentalists. The latter hate each other to the core, and only join
forces to attack the US or Israel. The former hate themselves to the core,
and only join forces to attack George Bush and conservatives." --Ron Marr

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 00:34:00 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

snip


http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1765.cfm

sigh Gunner, will you PLEASE start reading those long articles that you
point people to, which you claim say one thing, but which actually say the
opposite? You'll save everyone some time and yourself some ...oh, never
mind, you probably don't care.


snip lengthy quote from the following

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1544.cfm


I guess Im going to have to start back checking your claims that my
cites yada yada.

Gunner

Duh, Gunner, notice anything about that first URL, which you first supplied
as evidence, and the one you quoted from now? See the two different numbers
at the end? g

Did you just miss the fact that you're quoting from a different article, or
did you think you'd get away with it? My guess is the latter. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 00:34:58 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:25:08 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


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?

To the best of my knowledge, there are none, because it's never
happened.
Maybe in 1964, although I'm not sure even then. That would fit with the
more
sophisticated supply-side argument because marginal tax rates then were
sky-high.

And it's complicated by the fact that tax cuts since 1980 generally are
accompanied by phenomenal deficit spending. So sorting out which
economic
factors are at work is all but impossible, even if there had been any
increased revenues.


http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1765.cfm

you may find it of interest

Gunner

Yeah, I did. And you might find it interesting and quite surprising, too,
if
you ever actually read it. d8-)


I did. Again. Seems it backs up my statements.

Gunner

Not exactly. You said that reducing the tax rate increases revenue. That's
not what this page shows. It shows that reducing a tax rate *that's too
high* increases revenue. That's a big difference. Otherwise, the more that
the feds cut taxes, the more money they get in return, until the tax rate is
zero--which of course isn't so.

The Laffer curve is a hemispherical curve--starting at the zero point,
arcing to maximum, and curving back to zero. If the tax rate is 100%, no
business can occur and therefore no taxes can be collected. However if the
tax rate is the opposite, 0%, then no taxes will be collected regardless of
what business does.

Laffer pointed out that there is a theoretical "best tax rate" which results
in maximum intake of revenue by the feds (and probably a practical one,
though it may vary from year to year depending on the global business
climate.) When taxes go above or below that point, revenues are reduced.

In Reagan's case, though, his vastly increased borrowing and spending was
more likely the cause of any economic upturn. Assuming an average workforce
of 118 million people during his time in office, Reagan increased the debt
more one point three two trillion dollars in eight years (adjusted to year
1986 values) or over two and a half trillion in today's values,
approximately $2700 per worker per year for the whole eight years.

Dumping $2700 per worker per year into the US businesses for eight years is
going to make a big difference in the job rate, wouldn't you say?
Unemployment down, competition for labor (and thereby wages) up, means more
people paying taxes and the ones who were already paying taxes would be
paying more, even if the rate was cut slightly.

The "Reagan Republicans" would have you believe that they came up with a
magic formula to have your cake and eat it too--however, they are
stimulating the economy by borrowing money and spending it. That's not
fiscal responsibility, it's setting the US economy on the path to
catastrophe. When the catastrophe happens, they'll be blaming the liberals,
al Qaeda, Mexico--everyone but the real culprits!

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...


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.

I am not going to get into this, if you're addressing it to me. g Gross
imports are only about 13% of our GDP

Actually it's just over 14% according to info from the CIA world factbook,
but I'm splitting hairs--your point is valid--that's a small percentage of
imports.

Ok, but the value of the USA's imports is 15% of the value of all imports
for every country on earth (and that's comparing 2004 world imports with
2006 US imports!):
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2087rank.html

However, your point is even better taken when you consider that our exports
value around 60% of our imports:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2078rank.html

However, I hope you can help me understand those numbers. They make no
sense to me. Go to your average department store and look around. How much
of what you can buy there is made in the US? The few items that even claim
to be made in the US are usually just put to final assembly here from
components made overseas. Same with cars. Even services such as sales,
support, IT and such are being outsourced. How is it that our imports
account for only 14% of our GDP? And what are we exporting besides food and
raw materials?

"Adam Corolla" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...


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.

I am not going to get into this, if you're addressing it to me. g Gross
imports are only about 13% of our GDP

Actually it's just over 14% according to info from the CIA world factbook,
but I'm splitting hairs--your point is valid--that's a small percentage of
imports.

Ok, but the value of the USA's imports is 15% of the value of all imports
for every country on earth (and that's comparing 2004 world imports with
2006 US imports!):
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2087rank.html

However, your point is even better taken when you consider that our
exports value around 60% of our imports:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2078rank.html

However, I hope you can help me understand those numbers. They make no
sense to me. Go to your average department store and look around. How
much of what you can buy there is made in the US? The few items that even
claim to be made in the US are usually just put to final assembly here
from components made overseas. Same with cars. Even services such as
sales, support, IT and such are being outsourced. How is it that our
imports account for only 14% of our GDP? And what are we exporting
besides food and raw materials?

All good questions, for which I can't give you complete answers. The CIA
World Factbook is good for summaries, but the details lie within the Census
Bureau and Bureau of Economic Analysis spreadsheets, which can be a little
difficult to navigate. If you really get into it I'll try to help you find
what you're looking for, but I always dread a new project like that because
I have to re-learn it each time.

In broad terms, though, it's not too tough. You see a lot of imports in the
department stores because that's where the imports are concentrated: in
consumer goods. You see much less of it in industrial goods, and oil is a
big wild card that biases the statistics. Don't base your impression on
machine tools. They've *always* been a very small percentage of industrial
goods. Even back in the mid-'70s, the total volume of all US machine tool
builders, added together, would have placed them at number 274 on the
Fortune 500 list. I remember that number because the publishing company I
worked for, which was then only the 4th largest, was number 273.

As for cars, I don't know the percentage offhand but the domestic production
is much higher than you may think. All of the big Japanese builders,
Hyundai, and some of the European builders (including BMW and M-B) have
plants in the US, and the Japanese in particular tend to make their
high-volume cars here. That's counted as US production. My Ford, in
contrast, was made in Mexico. d8-)

Concerning services, despite all of the hoopla only a very small proportion
of our services are outsourced. The ones that are, again, tend to be
consumer-related, so our experience with them gives us the false impression
that the volume is much higher than it is.

Let me know if you want to track down the details. If you want to do it on
your own, a good place to start is www.fedstats.gov. The government
statistics are complex, as I said, but the FedStats website tries to make
the navigation easier. It's partly successful.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Adam Corolla" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...


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.

I am not going to get into this, if you're addressing it to me. g
Gross imports are only about 13% of our GDP

Actually it's just over 14% according to info from the CIA world
factbook, but I'm splitting hairs--your point is valid--that's a small
percentage of imports.

Ok, but the value of the USA's imports is 15% of the value of all imports
for every country on earth (and that's comparing 2004 world imports with
2006 US imports!):
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2087rank.html

However, your point is even better taken when you consider that our
exports value around 60% of our imports:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2078rank.html

However, I hope you can help me understand those numbers. They make no
sense to me. Go to your average department store and look around. How
much of what you can buy there is made in the US? The few items that
even claim to be made in the US are usually just put to final assembly
here from components made overseas. Same with cars. Even services such
as sales, support, IT and such are being outsourced. How is it that our
imports account for only 14% of our GDP? And what are we exporting
besides food and raw materials?

All good questions, for which I can't give you complete answers. The CIA
World Factbook is good for summaries, but the details lie within the
Census Bureau and Bureau of Economic Analysis spreadsheets, which can be a
little difficult to navigate. If you really get into it I'll try to help
you find what you're looking for, but I always dread a new project like
that because I have to re-learn it each time.

In broad terms, though, it's not too tough. You see a lot of imports in
the department stores because that's where the imports are concentrated:
in consumer goods. You see much less of it in industrial goods, and oil is
a big wild card that biases the statistics. Don't base your impression on
machine tools. They've *always* been a very small percentage of industrial
goods. Even back in the mid-'70s, the total volume of all US machine tool
builders, added together, would have placed them at number 274 on the
Fortune 500 list. I remember that number because the publishing company I
worked for, which was then only the 4th largest, was number 273.

As for cars, I don't know the percentage offhand but the domestic
production is much higher than you may think. All of the big Japanese
builders, Hyundai, and some of the European builders (including BMW and
M-B) have plants in the US, and the Japanese in particular tend to make
their high-volume cars here. That's counted as US production.

That's partly what I mean. If the drivetrain and chassis are made overseas,
shipped here, and welded together on robotic assembly lines, can they count
it as a US production?


My Ford, in contrast, was made in Mexico. d8-)

Concerning services, despite all of the hoopla only a very small
proportion of our services are outsourced. The ones that are, again, tend
to be consumer-related, so our experience with them gives us the false
impression that the volume is much higher than it is.

Let me know if you want to track down the details. If you want to do it on
your own, a good place to start is www.fedstats.gov. The government
statistics are complex, as I said, but the FedStats website tries to make
the navigation easier. It's partly successful.


Thanks much!! I will look into it and try to sort it out myself.

"Adam Corolla" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

snip


As for cars, I don't know the percentage offhand but the domestic
production is much higher than you may think. All of the big Japanese
builders, Hyundai, and some of the European builders (including BMW and
M-B) have plants in the US, and the Japanese in particular tend to make
their high-volume cars here. That's counted as US production.

That's partly what I mean. If the drivetrain and chassis are made
overseas, shipped here, and welded together on robotic assembly lines, can
they count it as a US production?

I haven't kept up with this lately, but back in 1996, when I was reporting
on it, a car needed to have something like 70% US content to be counted as a
US-built car. There was some odd thing in there about NAFTA; I think a car
built partly in Mexico or Canada needed 50% US content to count as a
US-built car. I don't remember how that worked.

You probably could Google this one up.



My Ford, in contrast, was made in Mexico. d8-)

Concerning services, despite all of the hoopla only a very small
proportion of our services are outsourced. The ones that are, again, tend
to be consumer-related, so our experience with them gives us the false
impression that the volume is much higher than it is.

Let me know if you want to track down the details. If you want to do it
on your own, a good place to start is www.fedstats.gov. The government
statistics are complex, as I said, but the FedStats website tries to make
the navigation easier. It's partly successful.


Thanks much!! I will look into it and try to sort it out myself.

Take your time. It will be very frustrating at first, but almost anything
you could want is there somewhere. A browser with tabs is a great help for
that work.

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 22:58:48 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


I haven't kept up with this lately, but back in 1996, when I was reporting
on it, a car needed to have something like 70% US content to be counted as a
US-built car. There was some odd thing in there about NAFTA; I think a car
built partly in Mexico or Canada needed 50% US content to count as a
US-built car. I don't remember how that worked.

You probably could Google this one up.

While he's at it, he should googlize this:
http://www.google.com/search?q=north+american+union

That's a border around the whole of Canada, the USA, and Mexico, with
no division between us. The concept of abrogating our power (adding
Canada's liberals and Mexico's communists to our already too-socialist
regime) scares me ****less. Life, as we know it, would end. shudder

--
Real freedom lies in wildness, not in civilization.
-- Charles Lindbergh

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 22:58:48 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


I haven't kept up with this lately, but back in 1996, when I was reporting
on it, a car needed to have something like 70% US content to be counted as
a
US-built car. There was some odd thing in there about NAFTA; I think a car
built partly in Mexico or Canada needed 50% US content to count as a
US-built car. I don't remember how that worked.

You probably could Google this one up.

While he's at it, he should googlize this:
http://www.google.com/search?q=north+american+union

That's a border around the whole of Canada, the USA, and Mexico, with
no division between us. The concept of abrogating our power (adding
Canada's liberals and Mexico's communists to our already too-socialist
regime) scares me ****less. Life, as we know it, would end. shudder

Well, life as *you* know it might end. Life as I know it wouldn't skip a
beat. g

Did you ever see that map that divides North America into "The United States
of Canada" and "Jesusland"? It's a hoot.

--
Ed Huntress