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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (530044)	11/17/2009 7:01:56 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574260

"At these levels and in this economy, any tax cut is good." Dave, you will ALWAYS say this, in ANY economy. That's because wingnut "theories" begin in ideology and proceed to a conclusion supporting that ideology. Which ISN'T science - it's more akin to Lysenkoism. The Clinton economy/taxes prove Laffer wrong.

To: i-node who wrote (530044)	11/18/2009 9:47:31 AM
From: RetiredNow	2 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1574260

Don't be so sure you have economists or even Laffer on your side. Hell even Bush's economists don't believe his tax cuts paid for themselves. Want proof? Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues time.com If there's one thing that Republican politicians agree on, it's that slashing taxes brings the government more money. "You cut taxes, and the tax revenues increase," President Bush said in a speech last year... If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues.... I decided to find out what Arthur Laffer thought.... Laffer is a bona fide economist with a doctorate from Stanford. He's also largely responsible for the Republican belief that tax cuts pay for themselves. Now 67, Laffer runs economic-consulting and money-management firms in Nashville. About the best I could get out of him on the question of whether the Bush tax cuts have paid for themselves was "I don't know." But that's only part of the story.... But Reagan's tax cuts for the nonrich were big money losers, and it took the fiscal discipline of Bill Clinton to mop up the resulting red ink. 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." In other words, the Bush tax cuts were meant to create big deficits. But Laffer's O.K. with that. "The Laffer Curve should not be the reason you raise or lower taxes," he says. Perhaps not, but it does make for great campaign promises.

To: i-node who wrote (530044)	11/18/2009 9:52:26 AM
From: RetiredNow	Respond to of 1574260

i-node, if you think Bush Jr was a master negotiator, you really have no conception of what negotiation is about. Being tough and hardball isn't being a good negotiator. True master negotiators are skilled listeners and seek first to understand, before they put forward solutions. Skill negotiators look for win-wins. Bush was the opposite of that. He brooked no dissension in his Administration, so much so, that at the end he only had lackies and yeah-sayers surrounding him. Not only that but Bush was famous for multiple quote that all amounted to the same Bush mantra: "my way or the highway". That level of negotiation can be graded. It's called nursery school negotiating skill. Obama is far far above that level. What sets him apart is his listening skills and his willingness to allow others to save face, while still not giving an inch unless it serves your purposes. Those are hallmarks of a master negotiator. Any child can say no, like Bush does, but master negotiators have to find win-win solutions, not just truculently piss off every one of their allies and enemies. That's simply infantile. That was Bush.