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: RetiredNow who wrote (530169)	11/18/2009 10:45:16 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1574270

If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. This, of course, is a liberal lie. But I really don't want to discuss this with you further. People either believe in supply side or they don't. Economists can't agree on it, you and I aren't going to. In the last month I have presented a short, cogent discussion of this on this very thread and explained it to at least one lefty. I was met with a confused stare. No mater how obvious it is and how clearly you explain it, lefties, who generally are analytically challenged, aren't going to get it. "How can you possibly collect more taxes with lower tax rates"? Well, you have to accept that is is not only possible but in practically every instance of tax cuts in the last 60 years it has done just that. Arguments with you are never ending. And I really don't care to engage you on this.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (530169)	11/18/2009 11:48:38 AM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574270

But, those guys are LIBERALS, MM. It's Dave's final redoubt when he's defeated, where he shuts his eyes real tight, sticks his fingers in his ears, and goes "Nya, nya, nya!". Everyone that disagrees with Dave is a LIBERAL, even conservatives.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (530169)	11/19/2009 10:42:33 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574270

The writer of that piece is asserting A, arguing for B, and then pretending he proved A. "the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves" != "tax cuts don't boost revenues". It does mean a couple of tax cuts did not boost revenues. I'd go further and say many tax cuts do not boost revenues. But that still isn't "tax cuts do not boost revenues", which without any qualifier implies that no tax cuts boost revenue. and it took the fiscal discipline of Bill Clinton to mop up the resulting red ink. Compared to Bush's policies, Clinton's were a good example of fiscal discipline, but its really "it took the fiscal discipline of the newly elected Republican congress, combined with the tech bubble, combined with the "peace dividend" to mop up the resulting red ink."