[HeadedWest]

Originally Posted by Andy

No, statism/socialism breeds crony capitalism, not laissez faire. Big crony corporations with money in association with powerful govt. enact regulation to keep down smaller competition.

Yes. Like a very large company in Fairfield.

[bobtn]

Originally Posted by 7 Wishes

Bob, while it's true if you have no employers you have no employees, what good is job growth if it is almost completely producing jobs one can barely if at all live on?.

Simple: It is safe to assume all who take the new jobs were making LESS. Their income did not drop-it rose. To a level I'd want, maybe not, but it rose. Progress does not come with one big leap. It comes via small steps.

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by Andy

Break them down by demographic and socioeconomic level, then compare. Sure lilly white, old money CT can beat the test scores of those poor Rio Grande Valley Latinos.

Huh? This doesn't even make sense. The quality of the schools are better in Texas because of poor people in the Rio Grande Valley?

Originally Posted by Andy

False. EVERY SINGLE TIME the federal govt. has lowered taxes, GOVT. REVENUES HAVE INCREASED. EVERY TIME = 100% success rate. High taxes chase away business, encourages cronyism, encourages black markets, encourages off shoring, and encourages tax cheating.

Reading this will give you a better understanding of why this is incorrect: Fox Uses VP Debate To Revive Myth That Tax Rate Cuts Increase Growth And Revenue | Research | Media Matters for America

And just for good measure: Paul Krugman Obliterates the Myth that Low Business Taxes Create Jobs

[bobtn]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

And just for good measure: Paul Krugman Obliterates the Myth that Low Business Taxes Create Jobs

Than under Malloy, Ct should lead the nation in GDP growth during his admin. Why would the inverse be true, when he instituted massive tax increases? Krugman says that should have helped boost GDP.

[7 Wishes]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

Huh? This doesn't even make sense. The quality of the schools are better in Texas because of poor people in the Rio Grande Valley?

No I think he's saying compare those people to Bridgeport and New Haven instead of Westport and Darien. But I've also joked on the Westchester forum that the worst districts there would actually still be one of the "better" districts if placed in some other part of the country. Put another way I think even Bridgeport is more committed to education than some poor and/or rural Texas districts, especially the ones that over-focus on building football stadiums......

Originally Posted by bobtn

Simple: It is safe to assume all who take the new jobs were making LESS. Their income did not drop-it rose. To a level I'd want, maybe not, but it rose. Progress does not come with one big leap. It comes via small steps.

Except that's not true, unless you count going from unemployment to that new job being a rise in income......I'd hardly call a "race to the bottom" progress.

Originally Posted by bobtn

Than under Malloy, Ct should lead the nation in GDP growth during his admin. Why would the inverse be true, when he instituted massive tax increases? Krugman says that should have helped boost GDP.

Krugman may not be the best example, he often is "Milton Friedman in reverse" so I consider him to be somewhat extreme much as I would Friedman and his followers on the right. Or put another way, while I think some of Keynesian economics has merit (again, taken in small amounts), I often find Krugman to be "Keynes on steroids".

The real take is it's all about balance. I'll use some "extreme" examples myself.

Of course to a point all the Reaganonmics/Laffer curve stuff works. If I tax business at 90% (don't laugh, in the 50s that was the highest individual tax rate) and thus am taking a very clear majority of one's earnings, there's little incentive to grow, etc. and lowering taxes will fix that and growth will raise revenues beyond that of the original super-high taxation.

But there comes a point where it's counterproductive. If I makes taxes be 2%, I don't think even 1,000,000% business growth is going to make up for that fact that government is getting almost no tax revenue and will not have the means to function. And if you (I don't necessarily mean you Bob, more of a general "you") think that's how it should be (little or no taxation at all), remember (with apologizes to the whole "you didn't build that" debate) there are some things government did to make business work. If we did not have roads, police, schools, etc. you business will probably not be able to be in business. We all have somewhat of a responsibility to pay taxes.

[hartford_renter]

All Malloy does is increase spending, tax and destroy jobs.

Perry needs to give Malloy a good slap!

If we had Perry or any conservative that reduced spending and stopped taking money from the private sector our economy would thrive. Under Malloy's redistribution scheme we are a complete failure.

[nep321]

I would much rather keep my job in Stamford than shift over to Texas.

[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by Andy

False. EVERY SINGLE TIME the federal govt. has lowered taxes, GOVT. REVENUES HAVE INCREASED. .

Ah, the Laugher (oops, Laffer) curve, supply-side, trickle-down economics is alive and well.

[Stratford, Ct. Resident]

I don't understand how anyone can take someone that wears a wig seriously?

[bobtn]

[quote=7 Wishes;29977337

(1) Except that's not true, unless you count going from unemployment to that new job being a rise in income......I'd hardly call a "race to the bottom" progress.



(2) Krugman may not be the best example, he often is "Milton Friedman in reverse" so I consider him to be somewhat extreme much as I would Friedman and his followers on the right. Or put another way, while I think some of Keynesian economics has merit (again, taken in small amounts), I often find Krugman to be "Keynes on steroids".

The real take is it's all about balance. I'll use some "extreme" examples myself.

Of course to a point all the Reaganonmics/Laffer curve stuff works. If I tax business at 90% (don't laugh, in the 50s that was the highest individual tax rate) and thus am taking a very clear majority of one's earnings, there's little incentive to grow, etc. and lowering taxes will fix that and growth will raise revenues beyond that of the original super-high taxation.

But there comes a point where it's counterproductive. If I makes taxes be 2%, I don't think even 1,000,000% business growth is going to make up for that fact that government is getting almost no tax revenue and will not have the means to function. And if you (I don't necessarily mean you Bob, more of a general "you") think that's how it should be (little or no taxation at all), remember (with apologizes to the whole "you didn't build that" debate) there are some things government did to make business work. If we did not have roads, police, schools, etc. you business will probably not be able to be in business. We all have somewhat of a responsibility to pay taxes.[/quote]

I disagree with (1) as again I'm assuming no one is taking a $30k job when making $70k. I largely agree with (2). I numbered to keep my reply short.