Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JakeStraw who wrote (16237)	7/27/2009 1:21:52 PM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 103300

Jake, you are hopeless. That supply side stuff is BS. Clinton raised taxes, raised revenues and produced a surplus. That supply side crap never produced a surplus.

To: JakeStraw who wrote (16237)	7/27/2009 1:39:12 PM
From: TideGlider	1 Recommendation Respond to of 103300

Kenneth wants to go down with Obama, probably on Obama. The more he doggie paddles in the Koolaid pool the more ridiculous he appears.

To: JakeStraw who wrote (16237)	7/27/2009 4:50:05 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

Re: "Tax rate reductions increase tax revenues." Sure they do, to whatever extent that they increase the natural rate of economic growth! But they ALSO directly reduce government revenues. So --- whether they reduce them MORE then they INCREASE them (or the other way around) depends entirely upon where the country is on the Laffer Curve. For example: the combination of the Bush II tax policy changes (mentioned by you) and the Bush outlays RESULTED IN an immediate (first year) DECLINE in revenues, followed by some degree of improved revenues occasioned by the slight improvement to the natural rate of growth, followed (along about the time his second term rolled in) by a DECLINE in expected revenue rate (measured as percent of GNP... as the increasing debt depressed economic growth) and a huge increase in federal debt and federal borrowing to cover the gap, and then EVEN LOWER ECONOMIC GROWTH THEN WE WOULD HAVE HAD IF WE HAD MADE NO CHANGES AT ALL..... ALL OF WHICH is exactly what most major economic analysis PREDICTED (the official GAO analysis, the official CBO analysis, and even the private econometrics firm that the Bush WH hired to do an analysis that specifically factored in "dynamic scoring" like the Laffer Curve postulates... that "lower taxes always increase growth to some degree" --- a statement with which I completely agree). All three of these official economic projections said (essentially) the EXACT SAME THINGS: That: 1) lower taxes are GOOD. But that: 2) If you CONTINUE TO SPEND MORE THEN YOU TAKE IN IN REVENUE, (forcing borrowing to cover the difference, and more amd more interest paid on the borrowed amounts) that before long the unbalanced budgets would OVERWHELM ALL OF THE BENEFITS that you first saw from lowered taxes. All three projections said that Bush's budgets would hit the wall long about halfway through his terms... and that is EXACTLY WHAT happened, right on schedule. -------------------------------------------------- For example, (based upon where they thought America was on the Laffer Curve), most of these economic analysis predicted that for ever DOLLAR that Bush cut taxes... we would probably gain about a THIRD of a DOLLAR back in extra revenue right away... meaning that we would need to eliminate that two thirds of a dollar we were net-losing in federal revenue by REDUCING FEDERAL BORROWING and SPENDING by that amount --- or else all the benefits from lowered taxes would quickly VANISH because of the extra borrowing that was forced upon us. Which is exactly what happened.