Posting Towards Gomorrah

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
all I'll say is that he's not ready for Russert.

Can you translate this for me?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Can you translate this for me?

Spanky's arguments don't withstand the first round of questioning. On meet the press, people who can't withstand the first round of questioning get asked the same question again, which they answer with teh same non-answer. Russert lets the viewer judge what that means.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Spanky's arguments don't withstand the first round of questioning. On meet the press, people who can't withstand the first round of questioning get asked the same question again, which they answer with teh same non-answer. Russert lets the viewer judge what that means.

That sounds sort of fun. When is it on? What channel?

Please don't tell me to google. It's been a long day already and I'm fragile.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
But in terms of Congress spending more than it has (taking into account commitments on debt, too), I think you'll find the only anomoly to be the gilded age. Other than that, our elected officials have generally had considerable trouble restraining themselves.

Yep.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/pdf/hist.pdf

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I still don't see you explaining what deficits have to do with this. If cutting taxes would increase growth, why not do it when we're running a surplus too?

Well under Keynsian theory you should run deficits when you are in a recession. Increase spending and cut taxes. Then when you are in a surplus you should raise taxes to pay off the debt. If you don't pay off the debt the long term debt will crowd out investment reducing your overall growth. Under Keynsian theory long term debt is bad because it crowds out investment. So in a boom, raise taxes, in a bust cut taxes and raise spending.

But Laffer did not think that Deficits were that big a deal. So under his theory you just keep cutting taxes until you reach t* because in the long run that will give you the most growth and the most revenue. I agree that in certain circumstances cutting taxes increases revenue, but I think Laffer and the other Supply Siders take deficits too lightly. I think high deficits hamper growth.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
Well under Keynsian theory you should run deficits when you are in a recession. Increase spending and cut taxes. Then when you are in a surplus you should raise taxes to pay off the debt. If you don't pay off the debt the long term debt will crowd out investment reducing your overall growth. Under Keynsian theory long term debt is bad because it crowds out investment. So in a boom, raise taxes, in a bust cut taxes and raise spending.

But Laffer did not think that Deficits were that big a deal. So under his theory you just keep cutting taxes until you reach t* because in the long run that will give you the most growth and the most revenue. I agree that in certain circumstances cutting taxes increases revenue, but I think Laffer and the other Supply Siders take deficits too lightly. I think high deficits hamper growth.

Waitasecond.

Your post supports one of two conclusions: Either we should raise taxes, or after six years of Republican dominance we are still in a recession (or "bust") and need to cut them.

Which is it?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Speaking of which, empty your d***ed PM box.

Sorry. I will empty it. I wish people would stop PMing me. What is the point of a chat board if you PM? Everytime I make on appearance on the FB board (or am gone a while) the stupid thing starts to fill up. I don't know how you FBrs get any work done with all the PMing.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Are you assuming that short-term revenue shortfalls will be paid for with long-term revenue gains, no matter the size of the shortfalls in the short term, the size of the gains in the long term, or the number of years it takes to get there? That's what it sounds like to me.


Do you consider the compounded costs of that first year? Do you discount the (hypothesized) future benefits to take into account that they're not coming until some time in the future?

As long as you get growth yes. Growth is the key. If a tax cut gets you consistent growth then cut away. Because Growth will always overcome any revenue deficienty problem. My problem with the theory is I don't believe that Tax cuts always create growth, especially in the up mark of the cycle. And in fact during up points in the cycle, like Keyens pointed out, raising taxes might even help growth because you are reducing teh deficit. I am not sure about that.

What I am sure about is that in a recession you cut taxes to stimulate growth. And any growth you get, when you figure in compounding, and that fact that the benefit will be there foreever, you should do it.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Those questions aside, I asked you whether there was some empirical test you would accept of whether the supply-side hypothesis is right, and your answer apparently is no, because you assume that it will be right. In other words, tax cuts are intelligently designed.

We have had increased growth since the tax cuts. This growth will enventually overcome the short fall. Compounding interest just determines that. The only thing that has kept us from balancing the budget is increased spending. If Bush's tax cuts led to the growth that we have had (or even amplified it) then they were worth it and they will pay for themselves. But there can be no empirical tests in Economics. That is why it is not a true science.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Is your "belief" that the costs are de minimus based on some empirical work you can point to? If so, what?

Like I said, over time Economic growth is a much more important factor than tax rates in determining revenue. A multi trillion dollar economy growing at one percent that has a ninety percent tax bracket, in the long term will not raise as much revenue as a million dollar economy with a five percent tax level and five percent growth consistent growth rate.

Eventually the million dollar economy will dwarf the multi trillion dollar economy and the citizens will not only be better off because they have lower taxes, but they will better off because they are wealthier.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Spanky's arguments don't withstand the first round of questioning. On meet the press, people who can't withstand the first round of questioning get asked the same question again, which they answer with teh same non-answer. Russert lets the viewer judge what that means.

What question have I not answered?

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by Spanky
What question have I not answered?

What do deer eat?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Waitasecond.

Your post supports one of two conclusions: Either we should raise taxes, or after six years of Republican dominance we are still in a recession (or "bust") and need to cut them.

Which is it?

I think the Bush tax cuts were the right call. I am conflicted on whether or not we should keep them, but am leaning towards the side we should. But if we keep the tax cuts and dip into recession then keeping them would have been a mistake, regardless of what Laffer says.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
What question have I not answered?

You've answered them all. Brilliant.

65656 to 1.

:doh3:

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Yep.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/pdf/hist.pdf

I didn't see anything about the nineteenth century in there.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

So, why we're all worshipping at the altar of growth, let me ask this: do people here think that growth results in inflationary pressures? Are there times when growth should be moderated for any reason?

Unfortunately, not a problem we're facing in today's economy.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
What question have I not answered?

1. Why do the Demos hate America?

2. When will Hillary apologise?