Tax cut dont increase revenue

Topspin said:
desh, the post you trolled is way over your head. AS I said I listen to Laffer weekly on TV he is most definately pro tax cut and supply side.
Click to expand...

Democrats spent much of the '80's and beyond claiming supply-side economics and the Laffer Curve were rebuked and shown not to work etc. Now all of a sudden Laffer's word is bond on this issue?
 
Desh said:
I want the deficit reduced and I would offset it with military cuts.

If we did what the Dems in this country wanted we would be doing great and not paying more.
Click to expand...

dems dont want to spend less. they prove that every time. holds no water.
 
nobody with a any sort of economics education will say that 1993 was single biggest driving force behind late 90's boom except for party hacks.
 
Chapdog said:
nobody with a any sort of economics education will say that 1993 was single biggest driving force behind late 90's boom except for party hacks.
Click to expand...

I think she's coming from a position of being a Democrat (a party hack if you would like) and therefore the party position doesn't always jive with real economics.

A lot of us party hacks to a certain degree. She just happens to take it to the next level.
 
Desh said:
only to yourself
Click to expand...

Right. Because all you have done today is post pieces of articles and then make idiotic proclamations without any evidence to back your point of view.

Or perhaps you would finally like to explain how it is that Laffer has a different view on tax cuts than I do? but you cannot do that can you retard? because in reality you have no clue who Art Laffer is, nor do you understand any of his economic principles and positions.

We all have topics on which we are ignorant. If we were discussing car engines, I would be a moron... cause I know very little on the subject. Your topic appears to be economics, because you have not shown one piece of evidence that you understand anything about economics. You simply cut and paste and then when asked to discuss the articles you simply repost pieces of them and proclaim victory.
 
Superfreak said:
Right. Because all you have done today is post pieces of articles and then make idiotic proclamations without any evidence to back your point of view.

Or perhaps you would finally like to explain how it is that Laffer has a different view on tax cuts than I do? but you cannot do that can you retard? because in reality you have no clue who Art Laffer is, nor do you understand any of his economic principles and positions.

We all have topics on which we are ignorant. If we were discussing car engines, I would be a moron... cause I know very little on the subject. Your topic appears to be economics, because you have not shown one piece of evidence that you understand anything about economics. You simply cut and paste and then when asked to discuss the articles you simply repost pieces of them and proclaim victory.
Click to expand...

You underestimate your ability to be a moran.
 
Superfreak said:
Face the facts retard... no matter how many times you trot out that ignorant prediction by the GAO and CBO, it will not change the fact that it is incorrect. Or perhaps you can show how the 93 tax increase caused the tech and internet booms (that began long before 1993). Not to mention the boom in the economy as a whole (that began in 1982). Lets also not forget the simple little fact that there were NO ACTUAL SURPLUSSES. They predicted BUDGET numbers and they were WRONG.
Click to expand...


Never clained this.




Laffer gushes with praise for Clinton, but he's also a fan of Clinton's successor. "What Clinton did was, he gave Bush the fiscal flexibility to do what was right," Laffer says. In the face of the recession and terrorist attacks of 2001, Bush "needed to stimulate the economy and spend for defense, and Clinton gave him the ability to do that."


He says Clinton created the fiscal flexability. WTF do you think he means by that?
 
Desh said:
Never clained this.




Laffer gushes with praise for Clinton, but he's also a fan of Clinton's successor. "What Clinton did was, he gave Bush the fiscal flexibility to do what was right," Laffer says. In the face of the recession and terrorist attacks of 2001, Bush "needed to stimulate the economy and spend for defense, and Clinton gave him the ability to do that."


He says Clinton created the fiscal flexability. WTF do you think he means by that?
Click to expand...

I know exactly what he means by that. YOU do not. You somehow seem to think that means Laffer disagrees with my views on tax cuts. He does not. But his saying that Clinton gave Bush flexibility does not mean that Clinton by himself created that flexibility. So he still does not disagree with me. So tell me retard... where is it that you think Laffer and I disagree on tax cuts?
 
Desh said:
Never clained this.
Click to expand...

But you have stated over and over and over your idiotic post about how the GAO and CBO stated the 1993 tax increase was the major reason for the so called surplusses (ie the economic boom).

So explain the difference retard.... or are you simply going to repost that idiotic parrot point again?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Superfreak said:
But you have stated over and over and over your idiotic post about how the GAO and CBO stated the 1993 tax increase was the major reason for the so called surplusses (ie the economic boom).

So explain the difference retard.... or are you simply going to repost that idiotic parrot point again?
Click to expand...

I wish you'd stop calling people retards and idiots. Desh is pretty smart.

The fact is, Clinton was a better steward of the economy, taxes, and america in general. There's no point even debating that. The fact that you want to share blame equally, and drag Bilbo down to the Chimps level of culpability, is evidence that you remain, at heart, a bush apologist. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top