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

[jem]

I agree. I would never vote for him in a primary because of his family history... but he was a good governor until he cashed out in the end.

Its odd, I still could not believe Romney was so weak when he had the opportunity laid out on a platter for him. Bush now... also. McCain before Romney.

Its like their donors tell establishment candidates to be a passive and take democrat abuse and lies... because they don't wan't them to excite more people to join the base.

another thing...
Romney and Ryan really could not clearly and forcefully articulate that lower taxes have been followed by increasing revenue. They were so annoying vague. while the democrats were ripping their tax plan up.

Why could they not say... revenues went up after the bush tax cuts and that even the top 1% paid more.

Its like they were told to not tell the truth on basic conservative points.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Romney and Ryan really could not explain that lower taxes has been followed by increasing revenue. They were so annoying vague. Why could they not say... revenues went up after the bush tax cuts and that even the top 1% paid more.

Its like they were told to not tell the truth on basic conservative points.

Maybe because...

U.S. tax cuts don't pay for themselves: Republican-appointed official says

The new Republican-appointed director of the Congressional Budget Office delivered some bad news on Tuesday to the party's "Reaganomics" devotees: Tax cuts don't pay for themselves through turbocharged economic growth.

Keith Hall, who served as an economic adviser to former President George W. Bush, made the pronouncement at his first news conference after the CBO reduced its 2015 budget deficit forecast by $60 billion.

"No, the evidence is that tax cuts do not pay for themselves," Hall said in response to a reporter's question. "And our models that we're doing, our macroeconomic effects, show that."


Read more at Reutershttp://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/25/us-usa-tax-cuts-idUSKCN0QU2FB20150825#hlYf453GFcy2k1Td.99

 

[jem]

what a bunch of bullshit from the CBO... the response was based on Models... they say they "don't pay for themselves" based on models.

you don't need models to see that after the bush, reagan, kennedy and Melon tax cuts... revenues went up.


the models make all sorts of assumptions about baseline growth and other variables.

assumptions don't mean crap in the real world because you can never tie down all the variables that impact dynamic systems...

here is a quote from your link...

No, the evidence is that tax cuts do not pay for themselves," Hall said in response to a reporter's question. "And our models that we're doing, our macroeconomic effects, show that."
Read more at Reutershttp://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/25/us-usa-tax-cuts-idUSKCN0QU2FB20150825#RI7eoMwDOU8Tx14g.99

 

[fhl]

Maybe because...

U.S. tax cuts don't pay for themselves: Republican-appointed official says

The new Republican-appointed director of the Congressional Budget Office delivered some bad news on Tuesday to the party's "Reaganomics" devotees: Tax cuts don't pay for themselves through turbocharged economic growth.

Keith Hall, who served as an economic adviser to former President George W. Bush, made the pronouncement at his first news conference after the CBO reduced its 2015 budget deficit forecast by $60 billion.

"No, the evidence is that tax cuts do not pay for themselves," Hall said in response to a reporter's question. "And our models that we're doing, our macroeconomic effects, show that."


Read more at Reutershttp://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/25/us-usa-tax-cuts-idUSKCN0QU2FB20150825#hlYf453GFcy2k1Td.99

yeah, which so called republicans appointed him, lol, Boehner? His agenda is to give the coc and obama everything they want.

If there is one thing we know better than anything else in public finance, it is that countries that are more free have a higher economic growth rate than socialist countries. And tax policy is part and parcel of that equation. And a higher growth rate produces a greater tax base.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Seriously? That's all you toads got?

Keith Hall, who served as an economic adviser to former President George W. Bush, made the pronouncement at his first news conference after the CBO reduced its 2015 budget deficit forecast by $60 billion.

"No, the evidence is that tax cuts do not pay for themselves," Hall said in response to a reporter's question. "And our models that we're doing, our macroeconomic effects, show that."

This was Bush's go-to guy for all things Laffer. He was a believer. But even he couldn't find enough magic pixy dust to make his own models show what you drones want to hear. Did you even bother to read the piece?

What is the matter with you?

 

[fhl]

Seriously? That's all you toads got?

Keith Hall, who served as an economic adviser to former President George W. Bush, made the pronouncement at his first news conference after the CBO reduced its 2015 budget deficit forecast by $60 billion.

"No, the evidence is that tax cuts do not pay for themselves," Hall said in response to a reporter's question. "And our models that we're doing, our macroeconomic effects, show that."

This was Bush's go-to guy for all things Laffer. He was a believer. But even he couldn't find enough magic pixy dust to make his own models show what you drones want to hear. Did you even bother to read the piece?

What is the matter with you?

GWBush was a fiscal keynesian. He proposed the trillion dollar bailout/stimulus crap. He's only a fiscal conservative if you have communist leanings.

And you say this Hall person is a go to guy for all things Laffer and then proceed to quote him saying he doesn't believe in Laffer economics. LOL

And the funniest thing is you consider that to be real evidence, while I got nuttin.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

And you say this Hall person is a go to guy for all things Laffer and then proceed to quote him saying he doesn't believe in Laffer economics. LOL

Idiot. Keith Hall was a "believer." He just couldn't prove it when it came down to the count, and he had to concede defeat. The numbers simply didn't work, even though he was specifically chosen for the role to try and justify the "dynamic scoring," which turned out to be nothing more than a vivid dream and a brain fart. Pretty much what you are.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

GWBush was a fiscal keynesian.

He cut taxes believing they would more than pay for themselves. Outcome: not even close. He was just like Reagan. They were both Laffer boys but they couldn't giggle their way out of the hole they each dug. From the article:

His comment is at odds with lingering economic theory from the 1980s that some Republicans still hold dear: Stronger economic growth generated by tax cuts would boost revenues so much that there is less need to find offsetting savings.


Even though major tax cuts in the early 1980s and early 2000s ended up boosting deficits while also propping up short-term growth, many Republicans cite the growth argument as a major motivation to cut tax rates as part of a tax reform effort.

Sound familiar?

 

[fhl]

He cut taxes believing they would more than pay for themselves. Outcome: not even close. He was just like Reagan. They were both Laffer boys but they couldn't giggle their way out of the hole they each dug. From the article:

His comment is at odds with lingering economic theory from the 1980s that some Republicans still hold dear: Stronger economic growth generated by tax cuts would boost revenues so much that there is less need to find offsetting savings.


Even though major tax cuts in the early 1980s and early 2000s ended up boosting deficits while also propping up short-term growth, many Republicans cite the growth argument as a major motivation to cut tax rates as part of a tax reform effort.

Sound familiar?

from freddies diatribe:

"Even though major tax cuts in the early 1980s and early 2000s ended up boosting deficits while also propping up short term growth,"


Can freddie read?

If tax cuts propped up growth, then simple mathematics, which may be too hard for our resident leftist canadian, tells you that it increased revenues. And if the deficit increased, then spending must be the problem.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

from freddies diatribe:

"Even though major tax cuts in the early 1980s and early 2000s ended up boosting deficits while also propping up short term growth,"


Can freddie read?

If tax cuts propped up growth, then simple mathematics, which may be too hard for our resident leftist canadian, tells you that it increased revenues. And if the deficit increased, then spending must be the problem.

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 blind faith of ideology:

Sound familiar?