Jeb Bush running of donors, cuts staff... yet he is still trying?

[fhl]

Stop embarrassing yourself. Really.

TAX CUTS DO NOT PAY FOR THEMSELVES:

Under the CBO's traditional "static" scoring method, a bill to extend a package of expired business tax breaks for two years would boost deficits by $97 billion over 10 years. Under dynamic scoring, the increase would be less at only $87 billion, but still a substantial cost to the Treasury.

See? Even with dynamic scoring, while the deficit would be less, it would still be "substantial," all else being equal (including spending). That's your "growth."

In a move partly aimed at making the numbers work better, Republicans who control both the House and the Senate appointed Hall to run CBO. He replaced Democratic appointee Doug Elmendorf. Hall was given a mandate to incorporate macroeconomic effects more fully in the agency's cost estimates, a process known as "dynamic scoring."

Even when they tried to stack the cards in their favor, the numbers didn't work; it didn't pan out.

Game over. You lost. Go home.

Guys like you and jem latch on to single words and think you know something. But you don't have a clue. All you have is the unfounded faith of ideology:

View attachment 158997


Sound familiar?

Art Laffer's curve is based on tax rates at the margin on income, primarily personal income.

Presenting an example of some targeted business break, for depreciation or whatever, does not in any way constitute evidence that the Laffer Curve is ineffective. It could also mean that the target they're going after, maybe Green Investment or some such nonsense, has no economic viability to begin with. Ever heard of Solyndra?

The fact is that the original quote you offered said that tax cuts promote growth, and you offered it up right after saying that tax cuts won't pay for themselves by increasing growth.

You're articulate and a skilled wordsmith, much better than me, but you have a problem seeing obvious logical fallacies in the responses you offer.

Of course with you being a very scientific minded guy, you wouldn't believe in creationism, you obviously are of the factual belief that everything came from nothing all by itself. Just the way science has proved with repeatable cause and effect experiments. Hee hee

 

[gwb-trading]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...unes-campaign-as-money-and-enthusiasm-dry-up/

There are at least 2 articles on Breitbart explaining that Jeb may be just about done. And he is having a Bush summit in texas to try and find a way to fix his campaign.

I wonder why Jeb is still trying. He like Romney is K street milquetoast.

He is seen as pro open borders and he is not just pro establishment, he is the establishment. he had a chance to re define himself but he choose to be establishment. The base wants anti illegal immigration and anti establishment. The base is tired of establishment tricks. he had no way to get the votes... no matter how much he spends as long as he did not have the balls to re define himself. He sort of fell for the same reason Romney did. As successful as Romney was he was not smart enough to be something important and Jeb never even came close.

For Jeb...

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Art Laffer's curve is based on tax rates at the margin on income, primarily personal income.

Source? Because event he Laffer site doesn't seem to make any such distinction:

http://www.laffercenter.com/the-laffer-center-2/the-laffer-curve/

Further, the notoriously conservative Cato Institute tried to sell the magic of the Laffer curve on corporate taxes:

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/tbb_1107_49.pdf

Of course, the CBO destroys that BS, doesn't it?

In any event, now even the Laffer site is not as unequivocal as you boys are:

Importantly, the Laffer Curve does not say whether a tax cut will raise or lower revenues, nor does it predict that any and all tax rate reductions would necessarily bring in more total revenues. Instead it says that tax rate reductions will always result in a smaller loss in revenues than one would have expected when relying only on the static estimates of the previous tax base. This also means that the higher the starting tax rate, the more dramatic the supply-side stimulus will be from cutting the tax rate. It is possible that this economic effect will swamp the arithmetic effect, causing an actual increase in tax revenue.

However, the Laffer Curve does not say that “all tax cuts pay for themselves” as many people claim. What is true is that tax rate cuts will always lead to more growth, employment, and income for citizens, which are desirable outcomes leading to greater prosperity and opportunity. There is, after all, more to fiscal policy than simply maximizing government revenue.

Stated differently, while there may be a benefit to tax cuts, it may not justify the costs associated with those tax cuts. Meanwhile, the Republican-led CBO, led by a Laffer faithful, confirmed that, in fact, it does not justify the cost in present circumstances (where you guys already claimed taxes are too high).

Thanks for playing.

 

[jem]

we are seeing typical leftist is bullshit.

In a dynamic systems "paid for themselves" can only really be tested by looking to see if tax revenues went up after tax cuts.

Sure... there may have been other contributing factors such as inflation... but if you have tax cuts and followed by revenue ... the tax cuts paid for themselves. you cut taxes but revenues did not fall they went up.

If you wish to define paid for themselves any other way..
go for it.
But, be warned you will be bullshitting your ass off... using models to try and prove your point.
The models have to make all sorts of assumptions. And when you make assumptions instead of looking at the real world revenue increase... you make an ass of yourself.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

All this debate is beside the point. Conservative should always oppose increasing tax revenues, by any means possible. History has shown us that congress and the president will spend >100% of any increase in revenues. This president has doubled down by printing unprecedented amounts of money and running up a trillion in additional debt, and of course the republicans are too timid to oppose him.

Raising more revenues means one thing, more increases in spending. The solution is to cap spending and let growth bail us out. We actually had that with the sequestor but the republicans were desperate to start throwing money at their donor class again, so they sold us out.

 

[jem]

I would also add to prove my point...

I you owned a theater and cut seat prices... how would you determine if the price cut paid for itself (for those econ majors..."holding all other costs even").

Answer... did overall revenues go up.

Now... if factor in costs...

Cost of collection is probably a fair cost to consider for tax revenue... so do we have to hire more IRS officers.. I am sure that was a net revenue increase.

In short and in this situation... if tax revenues went up after tax cuts... the only way to deny they "paid for themselves, is if you are leftist fool or tool.

 

[fhl]

Source? Because event he Laffer site doesn't seem to make any such distinction:

http://www.laffercenter.com/the-laffer-center-2/the-laffer-curve/

Further, the notoriously conservative Cato Institute tried to sell the magic of the Laffer curve on corporate taxes:

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/tbb_1107_49.pdf

Of course, the CBO destroys that BS, doesn't it?

In any event, now even the Laffer site is not as unequivocal as you boys are:

Importantly, the Laffer Curve does not say whether a tax cut will raise or lower revenues, nor does it predict that any and all tax rate reductions would necessarily bring in more total revenues. Instead it says that tax rate reductions will always result in a smaller loss in revenues than one would have expected when relying only on the static estimates of the previous tax base. This also means that the higher the starting tax rate, the more dramatic the supply-side stimulus will be from cutting the tax rate. It is possible that this economic effect will swamp the arithmetic effect, causing an actual increase in tax revenue.

However, the Laffer Curve does not say that “all tax cuts pay for themselves” as many people claim. What is true is that tax rate cuts will always lead to more growth, employment, and income for citizens, which are desirable outcomes leading to greater prosperity and opportunity. There is, after all, more to fiscal policy than simply maximizing government revenue.

Stated differently, while there may be a benefit to tax cuts, it may not justify the costs associated with those tax cuts. Meanwhile, the Republican-led CBO, led by a Laffer faithful, confirmed that, in fact, it does not justify the cost in present circumstances (where you guys already claimed taxes are too high).

Thanks for playing.

First you told me that a guy that doesn't believe in supply side tax cuts is the 'go to guy for laffer' tax cuts.

Then you told me that tax cuts don't grow themselves out of it, and used a quote that said the tax cuts increased growth.

And finally you try to foist on us an example of some kind of targeted tax cut for business as being the quintessential experiment on whether the laffer curve works. Guess what. Targeted tax cuts for some green energy projects or whatnot is not what those of us who have a brain claim is going to pay for itself on the laffer curve. We never have to my knowledge. Those are the kind of tax cuts, to get green, that crazy leftist economists tell us are going to pay for themselves.

Study Shows ROI on Solar Energy Tax Credit, But Ignores ...
dailysignal.com/.../study-shows-roi-on-solar-investment-but-ignores-ban...
Jul 23, 2012 -[ Proponents of taxpayer support for green energy are touting a new study claiming that tax credits for solar companies will pay for themselves ..]

Yes, there you have it. Clownish leftists who think tax cuts for green energy will pay for themselves. Wouldn't you know it. Probably the only tax cuts that won't cause growth that anybody could think of and the left are saying those are just the ones that will pay for themselves. The only ones. LOL

Freddie, why do you defend the wrong side on every issue?

 

[Frederick Foresight]

You guys will twist and contort yourselves unrecognizably into pretzels before admitting simple, outright and utter defeat.

 

[fhl]

You guys will twist and contort yourselves unrecognizably into pretzels before admitting simple, outright and utter defeat.

You make nothing but contradictory arguments over and over and then declare victory.
And for good measure, they're painted blue. Like that reeeeally makes a point.



And of course you insist that you're right because you have a model. There's global warming and there is no growth from tax cuts because you have models.

Guess what. Art Laffer has models, too.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

"Yes, there you have it. Clownish leftists who think tax cuts for green energy will pay for themselves. Wouldn't you know it. Probably the only tax cuts that won't cause growth that anybody could think of and the left are saying those are just the ones that will pay for themselves. The only ones. LOL "

They left out a crucial qualifier. They will pay for themselves "in campaign contributions and slush funds." Like Solyndra or the "investments" that made Al Gore so rich.