Mitt Romney Sent Millions to Mormon Church

[Lucrum]

Quote from Brass:

Face the fact that your knowledge of economics is entirely limited to a series of nonsensical sound bites....

I'd consider it, but it's just not the case.
I don't have a degree in economics. But I have had at least one (don't recall) or more economics classes.

Here is a point you seem unfamiliar with. Even Ivy league educated professional economists don't always agree with each other about the same issues we discuss here almost daily. But then of course to you the only economist worth their salt - is one that agrees with you.

 

[jem]

Quote from Brass:

yes, lets. Did you even look at the link posted earlier by Ricter that factually and discriptively blows your nonsense right out of the water:

http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...x_cuts_ever_increase_government_revenues.html

You write this:

And then you try to reduce a complex multivariate scenario down to the two variables of your choice while ignoring the other salient variables and context entirely, and EVEN THEN getting it wrong.

I guess that means <120 for you. I'm further guessing well less than.

did you read that yourself.

I present proof .. you present models.

Here is the largest crock shit I have read on slate recently ...
this is a quote... Let me explain that for those who are not used to understanding complex models.

"Both the Kennedy and Mellon tax-cut packages actually lowered overall revenue, relative to a baseline where the tax cuts did not happen. "


1. Slate is now citing fantasy... because the tax cuts did happen.
2. Even according to your bullshit... the tax cuts did raise revenue... just not as much as slate would have preferred .. in slates liberal fantasy world.

In the real world tax cuts may have induced growth... but we know revenues went up.

In slates fantasy world... the economy improved - tax cuts did not happen and revenues were even higher.

That is the problem with you tax and spenders... you look at models of utopian fantasy and then pretend they are real... we review real world facts.

 

[Brass]

Quote from Lucrum:

I'd consider it, but it's just not the case.
I don't have a degree in economics. But I have had at least one (don't recall) or more economics classes...

You clearly don't recall the content either.

Quote from Lucrum:

...Here is a point you seem unfamiliar with. Even Ivy league educated professional economists don't always agree with each other about the same issues we discuss here almost daily. But then of course to you the only economist worth their salt - is one that agrees with you.

No. On the matter of tax cuts effectively paying for themselves, no legitimate economist with serious credentials buys it because the facts and history do not bear it out. It's a wish and a dream, but it's not a fact. It is partisan faith-based balderdash.

Just take a few moments to read the link that Ricter kindly provided:

http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...x_cuts_ever_increase_government_revenues.html

 

[Brass]

Quote from jem:

did you read that yourself.

I present proof .. you present models.

Here is the largest crock shit I have read on slate recently ...
this is a quote... Let me explain that for those who are not used to understanding complex models.

"Both the Kennedy and Mellon tax-cut packages actually lowered overall revenue, relative to a baseline where the tax cuts did not happen. "


1. Slate is now citing fantasy... because the tax cuts did happen.
2. Even according to your bullshit... the tax cuts did raise revenue... just not as much as your model would have preferred... in its fantasy world.

Are you legally insane?

Did you read these parts:

"...Both the Kennedy and Mellon tax-cut packages actually lowered overall revenue, relative to a baseline where the tax cuts did not happen. They just increased some receipts from richer families. Take a Congressional Budget Office analysis of the Kennedy-era cuts. No studies "showed that the increased economic activity generated by the tax cut raised revenues and lowered countercyclical transfer payments enough to make the tax-rate reductions self-financing," it wrote in 1978. "Instead, the models showed a net increase in the federal deficit, after three years, of $5 billion to $13 billion," versus models where the tax cuts never took effect. Shorthand: The tax cuts did pay for themselves a little bit by inducing growth, but not nearly enough to pay for themselves entirely..."

"...The Irish case also offers little support for the idea that tax cuts always pay for themselves by goosing growth. The cut in the corporate tax rate did not aid Irish companies' bottom lines so much as it attracted extraordinary amounts of foreign capital. International firms like Pfizer relocated their European headquarters to the country to take advantage of the low tax rates. All those new companies contributed to an expanded corporate tax base. (Now, Ireland, suffering from crippling debts, is scared to raise the tax rate, which might encourage the companies to leave.)"

Seriously, are you on medication?

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Brass:

...no legitimate economist with serious credentials buys it...

Like I said: "But then of course to you the only economist worth their salt - is one that agrees with you. "

 

[jem]

Quote from Brass:

Are you legally insane?

Did you read these parts:

"...Both the Kennedy and Mellon tax-cut packages actually lowered overall revenue, relative to a baseline where the tax cuts did not happen. They just increased some receipts from richer families. Take a Congressional Budget Office analysis of the Kennedy-era cuts. No studies "showed that the increased economic activity generated by the tax cut raised revenues and lowered countercyclical transfer payments enough to make the tax-rate reductions self-financing," it wrote in 1978. "Instead, the models showed a net increase in the federal deficit, after three years, of $5 billion to $13 billion," versus models where the tax cuts never took effect. Shorthand: The tax cuts did pay for themselves a little bit by inducing growth, but not nearly enough to pay for themselves entirely..."

1. Here is the point of the article before the fantasy began...

"In all three cases, the tax cuts likely helped to increase tax receipts. How do lower taxes raise the amount the government takes in?"


First of all - leave Ireland out of it.

Then read the fricken english you moron...

You are citing models not facts.

"Both the Kennedy and Mellon tax-cut packages actually lowered overall revenue, relative to a baseline where the tax cuts did not happen. "

Revenues... were up... just lower than the model... a model based on a fantasy if the tax cuts did not happen. See that word "baseline" - where tax cuts did not happen...

that is a model.

You leftists get fooled by slate... because you are incompetent when it comes to distinguishing facts from models.

 

[Brass]

Quote from Lucrum:

Like I said: "But then of course to you the only economist worth their salt - is one that agrees with you. "

Be an ignoramus if you must. The only "economists" who support the idea that tax cuts pay for themselves are the brazenly and opnely partisan, so it feeds into their ideology. But it is strictly faith-based because it has no meaningful precedent. Did you take a moment to read Ricter's link? It presents the historical context of the only instances where they were *thought* to work, but actually didn't.

Seriously, stick to what you know.

 

[Brass]

Quote from jem:

Quote from Brass:

Are you legally insane?

Did you read these parts:

"...Both the Kennedy and Mellon tax-cut packages actually lowered overall revenue, relative to a baseline where the tax cuts did not happen. They just increased some receipts from richer families. Take a Congressional Budget Office analysis of the Kennedy-era cuts. No studies "showed that the increased economic activity generated by the tax cut raised revenues and lowered countercyclical transfer payments enough to make the tax-rate reductions self-financing," it wrote in 1978. "Instead, the models showed a net increase in the federal deficit, after three years, of $5 billion to $13 billion," versus models where the tax cuts never took effect. Shorthand: The tax cuts did pay for themselves a little bit by inducing growth, but not nearly enough to pay for themselves entirely..."


First of all - leave Ireland out of it.

Then read the fricken english you moron...

You are citing models not facts.

"Both the Kennedy and Mellon tax-cut packages actually lowered overall revenue, relative to a baseline where the tax cuts did not happen. "

Revenues... were up... just lower than the model... a model based on a fantasy if the tax cuts did not happen. See that word "baseline" - where tax cuts did not happen...

that is a model.

You leftists get fooled by slate... because you are incompetent when it comes to distinguishing facts from models.

"Relative to" means "compared to." Did you not catch the significance? You can't even read.

Cherish your remaining neurons while you can.

 

[jem]

Quote from Brass:

"Relative to" means "compared to." Did you not catch the significance? You can't even read.

Cherish your remaining neurons while you can.

Listen moron - that was my point... facts which show -- after cuts revenues went up.... facts compared to liberal fantasy models.

your article said this...

------------------
"In all three cases, the tax cuts likely helped to increase tax receipts. How do lower taxes raise the amount the government takes in?"
------------------


but you missed the plain english... why?
Modern day liberalism... its a disease.

 

[Ricter]

You have to use models to analyze for causality, for mechanism. Even the two variable one relationship expression, "tax cuts raise revenues" is a model. But of course many other relevant variables exist, and if they're not properly taken into account somehow... well, in that example, post hoc ergo propter hoc.