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 (610702)	5/9/2011 12:29:23 PM
From: jlallen	3 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578028

You know I just can't take Donny boy seriously anymore...thanks for putting up a more detailed reply.

To: i-node who wrote (610702)	5/9/2011 2:17:47 PM
From: bentway	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578028

"Historically, tax cuts increase revenue over what would otherwise have been." Dave, it only worked ONE time, when Kennedy cut the top rate from 91% to 71%. I'm happy to repeat that anytime rates rise that high again! It's disproved by the Clinton presidency and tax rates.

To: i-node who wrote (610702)	5/9/2011 2:33:43 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578028

Inode, > If you read the book, you know the $3T figure was absurd and requires one to totally ignore the meaning of the word "cost" as it is historically defined. Classic libtard thinking. Take an obviously inflated estimate and call it "low," then use that as a starting point for their lunacy. We could get out of Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow (which I'm actually hoping for now that Osama is fish food), and the deficit would still be above a trillion per year. And libtards will still come up with more excuses. Tenchusatsu

To: i-node who wrote (610702)	5/9/2011 2:43:17 PM
From: Alighieri	Respond to of 1578028

Historically, tax cuts increase revenue over what would otherwise have been. There is every reason to believe that Bush's cuts did the same. That is the biggest pile of non sense...here's an idea...why don't you back up what you just said...historically and in the case of the bush cuts...with data ok, not theoretical arguments about how people thrive and revenue is increased as a result...graphs, data, numbers, dollars and cents, normalized for economic growth... The data I have seen shows clearly that following a tax cut revenue drops noticeably, then begins to recover as a result of GDP/economic growth, but does not return to pre-tax cut levels until many years later, again as a result of economic growth...unfortunately these cuts are never matched with spending cuts and that leaves us with huge deficits/debt. Then comes the worst scenario...like we have now...in which following a series of tax cuts (W) the economy tanks leaving us with a double whammy of reduced revenue of the cuts themselves and that which results from economic contraction... Al