Romney Looks Like the Next Pres
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
lol yes and so do i
That was not the argument. Dipshit said he presented evidence to the contrary.
So I will ask you.
Were those tax cuts followed by an increase in revenue.
Yes or No
Krugman like b.s. not required.
If they were followed by an increase in revenue... you know brass is a fraud without even clicking on the thread.
Again, we had this discussion. And this time you're pre-loading my response with your Krugman bit. (Krugman is not only not being refuted anywhere, he is being publicly vindicated.)
Anyway, same old problem. You keep asserting that there is no more to this than "If TC then RI", with the implicit follow-on argument that since it happened that way once, it will happen that way again. You've already been told more than once that how and where the tax cuts fell, how and where the tax increases occurred, and where the increasing revenues came from, are all important variables that are much changed, if not entirely absent, from the present circumstances.
Maybe YOUR business, your life, is short on cash, and you're blaming taxes for that, but that is simply NOT the case elsewhere. The world is awash in underutilized, even desperate capital; I know, I'm sitting on a tidy sum myself, in spite of taxes. Enough in fact to hire all the people I might need should sales or projected sales warrant it.
So you "proved" tax cuts pay for themselves, jem? In the same eway that you "proved" evolution is false in favor of creationism? In the same way that you "proved" that climate change is a fraudulent claim?
I don't think so:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/can-tax-cuts-pay-for-themselves/
http://thebroadermarket.com/post/2580791366/no-tax-cuts-do-not-pay-for-themselves
http://www.theatlantic.com/business...r-reagan-and-they-wont-under-pawlenty/240616/
http://www.cnbc.com/id/38810267/Haines_Tax_Cuts_Do_Contribute_to_Nation_s_Deficit
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Colum...y-Tax-Cuts-Dont-Pay-for-Themselves.aspx#page1
http://economistmom.com/2011/06/do-tax-cuts-pay-for-themselves-sorry-no/
http://gulzar05.blogspot.ca/2010/07/do-tax-cuts-pay-for-themselves.html
http://economistsview.typepad.com/e...gusto-tax-cuts-do-not-pay-for-themselves.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/briando...les-jfks-advisor-said-tax-cuts-raise-revenue/
http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...x_cuts_ever_increase_government_revenues.html
And so you see, jem, the thinking world calls bullshit on your snake-oil "economics."
I am tired of you leftists mis representing my statements especially trolls like you Brass.
I did not try to prove tax cuts pay for themselves.
I proved that after tax cuts revenues went up.
"Pay for themselves" is ripe with leftist bullshit and fake models. I could care less if tax receipts could have been higher in a fake model.
Real world receipts are the real evidence we have.
You show me one article that proves that the Reagan tax cuts were not followed by an increase in revenue.
or kennedy
or melon
at best... all you can say is other factors may have been involved... you can not say tax cuts dont work.
And Krugman has been shown to be a fool. Not vindicated. If you read what nial fergusson wrote you see he says ok his prediction on interest rates is correct but not fiscal policy.
And note to Ricter... even keynes himself was in favor of tax cuts to grow out of crisis. he was the first supply sider.
Yes, I suppose you could say that, but only if you had an ideological horse in the race. It is explained in fair detail in about half of the links I included in my previous post. If you can't take the time to click on them, then you'll understand if I'm too busy washing my hair to cut&paste them for you.
P.S. I admire your consistency. Your above comment is reminiscent of your masterful argument that science can't prove god doesn't exist.
you are appealing to economists. Who cares what they claim when, we have the data. As a guy with an econ degree I can tell you economists are about as soft a science as climatology. The cnbc guys said the secret to being a good economist is forecast early and forecast often.
When you have the data, you don't need and economist to tell you whether 100 dollars in tax revenues is more than 95 dollars in tax revenues.
But... even you slate article admits the following...
"In all three cases, the tax cuts likely helped to increase tax receipts. How do lower taxes raise the amount the government takes in? Three answers are commonly given. First, tax cuts encourage businesses and individuals to be more honest about their earnings. Rather than hiding income, taxpayers just fess up and pay their share. Second, lower taxes encourage businesses and individuals to move money from lower-productivity, tax-free investments and shelters to more productive, taxable investments. Third, most importantly, perhaps, tax cuts goose growth. The government might be taking a smaller piece of the pie, but the tax cuts make the pie bigger. (In Ireland's case, of course, there's a fourth: The country became a kind of tax haven.)"