Originally posted by CrazyPoet: I love lower taxes - but not at the cost of higher future taxes, increased interest rates, a weaker dollar or reduced essential services.
Increased revenues....
Posts: 1313 | Location: WI | Registered: November 16, 2007
Originally posted by CrazyPoet: I love lower taxes - but not at the cost of higher future taxes, increased interest rates, a weaker dollar or reduced essential services.
Increased revenues....
Where?
---------------------------------
Some people see the glass half full. Others see it half empty. I see a glass that's twice as big as it needs to be.
Just because someone's opinion is different than yours, doesn't make them wrong.
A man who WILL NOT to reason is a bigot, A man who CANNOT reason is a fool, A man who DARES NOT reason is a slave
Works in theory, but hasn't been born out in practice. We're still spending far more than we're taking in, as a nation.
Anyone care to look up the percentage of our taxes that are going towards paying just the interest on our national debt?
I'll see if I can dig it up over lunch...
"The Reagan tax cuts, like similar measures enacted in the 1920s and 1960s, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance, and can increase the amount and share of tax payments generated by the rich. High top tax rates can induce counterproductive behavior and suppress revenues, factors that are usually missed or understated in government static revenue analysis. Furthermore, the key assumption of static revenue analysis that economic growth is not affected by tax changes is disproved by the experience of previous tax reduction programs. There is little reason to expect static revenue analysis to evaluate the economic or distributional effects of current tax reform proposals much better than it evaluated the Reagan tax program 15 years ago."
Christopher Frenze Chief Economist to the Vice-Chairman
Posts: 1313 | Location: WI | Registered: November 16, 2007
Originally posted by KKL: "The Reagan tax cuts, like similar measures enacted in the 1920s and 1960s, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance, and can increase the amount and share of tax payments generated by the rich. High top tax rates can induce counterproductive behavior and suppress revenues, factors that are usually missed or understated in government static revenue analysis. Furthermore, the key assumption of static revenue analysis that economic growth is not affected by tax changes is disproved by the experience of previous tax reduction programs. There is little reason to expect static revenue analysis to evaluate the economic or distributional effects of current tax reform proposals much better than it evaluated the Reagan tax program 15 years ago."
Christopher Frenze Chief Economist to the Vice-Chairman
Note the emphasis above. I don't argue with the core assumptions mentioned, but I don't believe that the Bush tax policy meets those standards.
My statement was, in essence, that Bush can't cut taxes and then increase spending the way he has.
Lower taxes? GREAT!!!
But... The president and congress then need to make the hard choices that come afterwards.
It's that second part that hasn't happened in quite some time...
So many cigars, so little time...
Posts: 2038 | Location: South of the Mason/Dixon Line | Registered: September 24, 2007
"Reagan left three major adverse legacies at the end of his second term. First, the privately held federal debt increased from 22.3 percent of GDP to 38.1 percent and, despite the record peacetime expansion, the federal deficit in Reagan's last budget was still 2.9 percent of GDP. Second, the failure to address the savings and loan problem early led to an additional debt of about $125 billion. Third, the administration added more trade barriers than any administration since Hoover. The share of U.S. imports subject to some form of trade restraint increased from 12 percent in 1980 to 23 percent in 1988."
William A. Niskanen Chairman, Cato Institute and member of President Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers
'Question authority. Think for yourself. Filter out the spin. Engage elected officials critically. Make them defend what they're doing in your name. Derive the truth. Speak truth to power.'
Posts: 2682 | Location: Boston | Registered: April 16, 2005
'Question authority. Think for yourself. Filter out the spin. Engage elected officials critically. Make them defend what they're doing in your name. Derive the truth. Speak truth to power.'
Posts: 2682 | Location: Boston | Registered: April 16, 2005
Third, the administration added more trade barriers than any administration since Hoover. The share of U.S. imports subject to some form of trade restraint increased from 12 percent in 1980 to 23 percent in 1988."
Hence keeping the jobs here at home instead of having our nuts in the hands of the Chinese so whats your point Jack?
"Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God" -Thomas Jefferson
"The tree of freedom must be nurtured from time to time with the blood of its patriots" -Thomas Jefferson
"When the Government Fears the People, There is Liberty; When the People Fear the Government, There is Tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 3767 | Location: Reggio di Calabria, Italy / New York United States | Registered: July 12, 2007
Hence keeping the jobs here at home instead of having our nuts in the hands of the Chinese so whats your point Jack?
Hell, our nuts are already in the hands of the Chinese.
That aside, it wasn't my point -- I'm not that smart. It was Bill Niskanen's.
His point is that trade tariffs and quotas have significant costs to the U.S. economy and to American consumers, since they tend to raise prices on all protected products, domestic or foreign. Those significantly higher consumer costs, from sugar to steel, caused by eliminating competition usually outweigh whatever artificial benefits workers in protected industries may receive. Whenever trade barriers have been eliminated since the 1980s, U.S. GDP has risen proportionately in response and the loss of jobs was relatively insignificant. And you and I benefit from lower consumer prices.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Jack White,
'Question authority. Think for yourself. Filter out the spin. Engage elected officials critically. Make them defend what they're doing in your name. Derive the truth. Speak truth to power.'
Posts: 2682 | Location: Boston | Registered: April 16, 2005
Originally posted by Jack White: Whenever trade barriers have been eliminated since the 1980s, U.S. GDP has risen proportionately in response and the loss of jobs was relatively insignificant. And you and I benefit from lower consumer prices.
True - unless the job loss is your own. Then, it's a bit more significant.
There's no arguing that on the scale of the whole economy, lower trade barriers make sense. Unfortunately, all those whose jobs are threatened - even indirectly - raise enough of a ruckus to make things difficult for the politicians...
So many cigars, so little time...
Posts: 2038 | Location: South of the Mason/Dixon Line | Registered: September 24, 2007
Whenever trade barriers have been eliminated since the 1980s, U.S. GDP has risen proportionately
OH yeah i can see that happening in America today our Euro is worth 1 and 1/2 of your dollars at that rate people will be living in the street soon.You think it can't happen in America you are dead wrong.The government has protected your savings since after the great depression.But when the American dollar becomes so d valuated its not worth the paper its printed on and with America holding no gold reserves to satisfy the money printed since nixon took it off the gold standard.Well your a smart guy let your mind wander for a few moments let me know what you come up with.
"Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God" -Thomas Jefferson
"The tree of freedom must be nurtured from time to time with the blood of its patriots" -Thomas Jefferson
"When the Government Fears the People, There is Liberty; When the People Fear the Government, There is Tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 3767 | Location: Reggio di Calabria, Italy / New York United States | Registered: July 12, 2007
OH yeah i can see that happening in America today our Euro is worth 1 and 1/2 of your dollars at that rate people will be living in the street soon.
I think not. The decline in the dollar against other currencies is bad news for American tourists, to be sure, but it sure is helping our exports be competitive in foreign markets, not to mention softening the the impact of the current economic downturn. Our trade deficit was finally lower for four consecutive quarters last year, for the first time since Bush took office. Erecting more trade barriers would likely wipe all that out.
'Question authority. Think for yourself. Filter out the spin. Engage elected officials critically. Make them defend what they're doing in your name. Derive the truth. Speak truth to power.'
Posts: 2682 | Location: Boston | Registered: April 16, 2005
HA. I love it. Typical Neocon, always deny the obvious, shoot the messenger and tell people to prove the obvious facts. They are hysterical. What's even funnier is they actually take themselves seriously! ha! Great comedy. The state of denial is a powerful tool for those who choose not to think.
quote:
Originally posted by appa69:
quote:
Originally posted by Presley: Do you have any data to back up your claim that republican administrations have racked up more debt? Secondly, you have to account for inflation and a lot of other factors. If you are unhappy, then go vote for Clinton/Obama. They will make all your wildest dreams come true.
These are matters of public record available to anyone willing to take the time. Maybe YOU should do some research.
Well, that is exactly what you get when you vote republican. They have cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans, then borrow money from communist China to support their irresponsible spending. Fiscal lunacy doesn't get much worse than a neon President.
quote:
Originally posted by Jack White:
quote:
However, there is not question that Obama and Clinton are NOT fiscal conservatives.
Nope, they're not. But conservative or liberal, my preference would be for fiscal responsibility -- expanding programs and increasing spending in essential areas when -- and only when -- the means to pay for them can be found. Maybe that means making money available by cutting other programs, and yes, maybe that means new taxes. Choices, choices, choices. But I don't want it to mean higher and higher deficit levels.
Originally posted by appa69: If I KNOW I'm NOT getting smaller government or less spending(which makes lower taxation irresponsible), then what reason do I still have to vote for a "conservative" republican? Without their blanket "conservative" policies(which they have proven they don't enact) what do they have left?
Gay Marriage wedge issues and and Bible thumping hypocrisy?
YES. And Dmocrats will get the blame. It's a set up. Every time the GOP leaves a mess the dems come in and have o fix it and then get blamed for raising taxes. Same old crap.
quote:
Originally posted by CrazyPoet:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack White: But conservative or liberal, my preference would be for fiscal responsibility -- expanding programs and increasing spending in essential areas when -- and only when -- the means to pay for them can be found. Maybe that means making money available by cutting other programs, and yes, maybe that means new taxes. But I don't want it to mean higher and higher deficit levels.
I'm with Jack on this - no government can sustain itself over the long term without balanced spending.
The Bush administration has increased spending and lowered taxes at the same time. It's simply not sustainable, and it leaves the next administration - regardless of who is in the Whitehouse - with some very difficult decisons to make right off the bat.
Somthing needs to give - we either have to cut some very popular programs, or increase taxes. Neither option is going to make people happy.
I really don't understand why fiscal conservatives (the original core of the Republican Party) haven't been calling for Bush's head over this.
