The Taxes Are Coming, The Taxes Are Coming

[zdreg]

Quote from Kassz007:

Surely you see the difference between the USA (largest economy in the world) and......Argentina? [/QUOTE

I see no difference if current trends continue. debt and anti- business policy will destroy the US. the US is managing to squander the advantages ie reserve currency , entrepreneurial nation etc. it had over Argentina

 

[zdreg]

Quote from Scataphagos:

Is THAT what America bargained for when 52% of us (the greedy DUMBASSES) voted him in??

"Nobody ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence or taste of the American public."

"every people gets the government they deserve."

 

[Scataphagos]

Quote from zdreg:

"Nobody ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence or taste of the American public."

"every people gets the government they deserve."

Agree with the first part... not the second.

 

[Kassz007]

Quote from zdreg:

Quote from Kassz007:

Surely you see the difference between the USA (largest economy in the world) and......Argentina? [/QUOTE

I see no difference if current trends continue. debt and anti- business policy will destroy the US. the US is managing to squander the advantages ie reserve currency , entrepreneurial nation etc. it had over Argentina

USD as reserve currency. Until this is no longer the case, there can be no currency crisis.

 

[BSAM]

Quote from Kassz007:

Very niave IMO.

1. Tax cuts provide the government with less money, and yourself with more money.

2. The rich employ the poor.

#1 is correct.

#2 is only correct because all the rules are tilted in favor of the rich. Why? Because the rich own the legislators. (local, state, federal) Otherwise, the poor wouldn't need the rich. In other words, it ain't a level playing field.

 

[jem]

Quote from Covertibility:

Reagan tax cuts via Krugman,Carter, Reagan, Revenue.

One common reaction of conservatives, when you point out that the experience of the last 20 years offers zero support for the idea that tax cuts pay for themselves, is to start shouting “Jimmy Carter! Reagan! Supply side roolz!”

So I thought it might be worth presenting a bit of evidence from an earlier 20-year stretch. Here’s real federal revenue, in 2005 dollars, from 1970 to 1990. I’ve plotted the log, because it’s easier to look at trends:


http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/reaganrevenue.png[/im]

A couple of points. First, the Carter years, contrary to legend, were not a period of economic stagnation and falling revenue because high tax rates were strangling the economy; there was a nasty recession starting in 1979, largely thanks to an oil shock, but overall growth was respectable and revenue growth reasonably high.

Second, the revenue track under Reagan looks a lot like the track under Bush: a drop in revenues, then a resumption of growth, but no return to the previous trend.

This is exactly what you would expect to see if supply-side economics were just plain wrong: revenues are permanently reduced relative to what they would otherwise have been.

---------

Tax cuts do not pay for themselves. And really, the rich don't contribute much of anything to society; raise their taxes back to 70%. [/B][/QUOTE]

Your graph proves the point supply siders make. Revenues went up after tax decreases.

Now if only the government would cap their spending.

We could cut taxes... freeze spending and let the economy grow to fix the deficit.


Like what happened when America and the Republicans forced Clinton to move to the center.

 

[BSAM]

Quote from jem:

Your graph proves the point supply siders make. Revenues went up after tax decreases.

Now if only the government would cap their spending.

We could cut taxes... freeze spending and let the economy grow to fix the deficit.


Like what happened when America and the Republicans forced Clinton to move to the center.

Government cap spending / cut taxes??? Have you lost your mind, Jem???

 

[zdreg]

Quote from Scataphagos:

Agree with the first part... not the second.

by being complacent and meek and fearful they get governments who rule them with a heavy hand. where do u disagree?

 

[Scataphagos]

Quote from jem:

"... Like what happened when America and the Republicans forced Clinton to move to the center.

Assuming the Dems lose the House in 2010... Obama will "appear" to move to the center on his policies in order to get elected.... He'll say something like, "I've seen the error of my ways and the need to moderate". And if so, he'll renege on everything he said for prior 2 years and go right back to his present schtick.

He LIED THROUGH THIS TEETH to get elected.... you can count on him to do the same if given another chance.

In his eyes, "the end justifies the means".

 

[Kassz007]

Quote from BSAM:

#1 is correct.

#2 is only correct because all the rules are tilted in favor of the rich. Why? Because the rich own the legislators. (local, state, federal) Otherwise, the poor wouldn't need the rich. In other words, it ain't a level playing field.

You think some jerk-off redneck is going to create a successful construction company? A chain of retail stores?

The only way to "level the playing field" is for the government to confiscate personal property and dictate the terms. Where have we seen this disaster before?

Face it - the world will always have rich people and poor people. The essence of capitalism is that the hard-working get ahead, and the lazy don't. While this not be as true as it once was due to government medling, the basic principle is still in tact.