A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You haven't posted anything that a reasonable person would construe as suggesting that lower taxes will result in increased revenue. There are all sorts of other reasons why corporate tax revenues might have been higher in December than they were a year earlier.

If the question is whether lower taxes result in increased revenue, as Club suggests, then the point of comparison isn't last December. And the picture is a lot worse than he seems to think.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Interesting that you would make that comment today.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/12/wmd.search/index.html

(Spree: Search for WMD in Iraq officially over. None found. They were destroyed in the early 90s.

Remember when the Admin was telling us how strong -- nay, incontrovertible -- the evidence was? Remember when the right wing on this board was telling us that?)

Yeah, but look at the larger picture - according to the same folks, freedom is now on the march. So we got that going for us.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
My understanding is that supply side theory says that lower taxes will result in increased revenue. It does not say that it will wipe out all deficits, which is what I think you are suggesting.

I didn't say "wipe out all deficits," which implies that tax cuts will wipe out preexisting deficits (assuming there are any -- as there were when Reagan hatched the theory, but not when Bush resurrected it).

I said "result in greater growth so as to offset any deficit effects." The supply-sider phrasing is "tax cuts will pay for themselves." $8 trillion later, we're still waiting for the check.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You forget about all the "Blue State" secession talk after election day?

Quite a few of those articles spoke of civil war.

And you equate that to being willing to take up arms against the most powerful military the world has ever seen?

Talk is cheap. Planting bombs is not.


eta: Cite please. From someone actually representative of "blue states" (i.e., no fringe freaks who've never done anything but scream from a university podium) who actually called for a civil war.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You forget about all the "Blue State" secession talk after election day?

Quite a few of those articles spoke of civil war.

Yeah, and we were gonna KICK YOUR SISTER-LOVIN' BATHTUB-GIN-BREWIN' FIDDLE-PLAYIN' NASCAR-POSTER-HANGIN' GENERIC-BEER-DRINKIN' RED STATE ASSES!!

But then we settled down with the NY Times crossword puzzle and..well, we just plain forgot about it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Yeah, and we were gonna KICK YOUR SISTER-LOVIN' BATHTUB-GIN-BREWIN' FIDDLE-PLAYIN' NASCAR-POSTER-HANGIN' GENERIC-BEER-DRINKIN' RED STATE ASSES!!

But then we settled down with the NY Times crossword puzzle and..well, we just plain forgot about it.

Michigan (blue) declared war on Ohio (red) a long time ago. It ended as a tie, and had to do with toledo, not voting patterns.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Michigan (blue) declared war on Ohio (red) a long time ago. It ended as a tie, and had to do with toledo, not voting patterns.

I thought Jefferson played for New Jersey (blue).

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I thought Jefferson played for New Jersey (blue).

Chauncey's from Colorado (red)

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
NAt its heart, I don't think this is a battle against the US. I think it's a battle against other Iraquis, a battle that is not winnable for the reasons stated in the article I posted. The best they can hope for is long term chaos, but by sheer numbers and economics, they are never going to win nor garner anywhere near a majority to back them. It is also not based on ideaology, but rather, sheer power.

No matter how many articles you post about how the insurgents are unpopular, I've got thirty years of Sunni rule to back the proposition that a struggle among religious groups is "winnable" by an unpopular minority. (Until they piss off a superpower, that is.)

I don't think they will win, but to say their struggle is not winnable is pretty farfetched.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You forget about all the "Blue State" secession talk after election day?

Quite a few of those articles spoke of civil war.

Oh, for God's sake. Slave, even in your neighborhood, you will not encounter anyone who really advocate(d) civil war.

Except possibly the drunks and winos. If you come across one named Stretch, give him a fiver for me, and tell him I'm sorry.

[SlaveNoMore]

Sexual Harassment Panda
Yeah, and we were gonna KICK YOUR SISTER-LOVIN' BATHTUB-GIN-BREWIN' FIDDLE-PLAYIN' NASCAR-POSTER-HANGIN' GENERIC-BEER-DRINKIN' RED STATE ASSES!!

But then we settled down with the NY Times crossword puzzle and..well, we just plain forgot about it.

The acrostic that week was a bitch.

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
eta: Cite please. From someone actually representative of "blue states" (i.e., no fringe freaks who've never done anything but scream from a university podium) who actually called for a civil war.

Fringe Freaks who've never done anything but scream from a university podium/Hollywood bully pulpit/ Dowd-ish op-ed column ARE the front face and "representatives" of the Blue States.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I didn't say "wipe out all deficits," which implies that tax cuts will wipe out preexisting deficits (assuming there are any -- as there were when Reagan hatched the theory, but not when Bush resurrected it).

I said "result in greater growth so as to offset any deficit effects." The supply-sider phrasing is "tax cuts will pay for themselves." $8 trillion later, we're still waiting for the check.

I was under the impression that the numbers you cited were not just limited to the "deficits caused by tax cuts" but also took into account the spending side as well.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I was under the impression that the numbers you cited were not just limited to the "deficits caused by tax cuts" but also took into account the spending side as well.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You haven't posted anything that a reasonable person would construe as suggesting that lower taxes will result in increased revenue. There are all sorts of other reasons why corporate tax revenues might have been higher in December than they were a year earlier.

You are reading to deep into my post - it was off the cuff in response to Sidd's "theory" post.

But that's not to say that I'm not a supply sider.