Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Three years ago Kansas embarked on a remarkable fiscal experiment too: It sharply slashed income taxes without any clear idea of what would replace the lost revenue. Sam Brownback, the governor, proposed the legislation, which was in percentage terms, the largest tax cut in one year any state has ever enacted. He did this in close consultation with Arthur Laffer. Mr. Brownback predicted that the cuts would create an economic boom. "Look out, Texas," he proclaimed.
But Kansas' economy didn't boom. In fact, its economy is lagging both neighboring states and America as a whole. Meanwhile, the state’s budget has plunged deep into deficit, provoking a Moody's downgrade of its debt.
So how many examples does one need for conservatives to finally accept that supply-side economics is a discredited theory? As Harvard economist Greg Mankiw -- who would become chairman of George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, said, 'I used the phrase "charlatans and cranks" in the first edition of my principles textbook to describe some of the economic advisers to Ronald Reagan, who told him that broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue. I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't.'
You keep missing the other part of the equation. Spending needs to be reduced not replaced with another form of taxation. You have about as much economic common sense as that idiot Yellen. She never saw the collapse coming.
Ahem, monetary policy is in the exclusive hands of the Federal Reserve, not the president. The President has nothing to do with QE.
That is like saying, the US Constitution is in the hands of the Supreme Court, not the President. And the President has nothing to do with it. (This President has appointed 2, very Progressive(US communist party) "Judges")
If it was all about the US Constitution, there would not be split decisions on the constitutionality of Statutory Legislation and totalitarian executive orders.
If it was truely like a Jury of the Constitution, split decisions would go in the favor of the people and the legislation, totally thrown out.
You keep missing the other part of the equation. Spending needs to be reduced not replaced with another form of taxation. You have about as much economic common sense as that idiot Yellen. She never saw the collapse coming.
She did. She had hoped to get in front of it with the rate hikes but was unsuccessful because they were started way too late.
You have the right to believe in invisible fairies if you want but that's not a valid economic theory.
Supply side economics is based upon the the theory of economist Arthur Laffer, who said during the Reagan Administration that cuts in taxes would jump-start an economic boom. After cutting taxes under Reagan, the economy continued to decline and revenue sunk -- to the point that revenue fell so much that Reagan rightly raised taxes the next year. The experiment continued under Bush, who cut taxes twice, and economic activity didn't increase especially great nor did jobs.
Three years ago Kansas embarked on a remarkable fiscal experiment too: It sharply slashed income taxes without any clear idea of what would replace the lost revenue. Sam Brownback, the governor, proposed the legislation, which was in percentage terms, the largest tax cut in one year any state has ever enacted. He did this in close consultation with Arthur Laffer. Mr. Brownback predicted that the cuts would create an economic boom. "Look out, Texas," he proclaimed.
But Kansas' economy didn't boom. In fact, its economy is lagging both neighboring states and America as a whole. Meanwhile, the state’s budget has plunged deep into deficit, provoking a Moody's downgrade of its debt.
So how many examples does one need for conservatives to finally accept that supply-side economics is a discredited theory? As Harvard economist Greg Mankiw -- who would become chairman of George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, said, 'I used the phrase "charlatans and cranks" in the first edition of my principles textbook to describe some of the economic advisers to Ronald Reagan, who told him that broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue. I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't.'
"You have the right to believe in invisible fairies if you want but that's not a valid economic theory."
And then we have the usual , "if you don 't agree with ME you (fill in the blank), you cast the juvenile insults and want to be taken serious.
Sorry, if you CANT accept that people are entitled to their own opinions without being insulted, THAT is YOUR problem. NOT MINE.
Ahem, monetary policy is in the exclusive hands of the Federal Reserve, not the president. The President has nothing to do with QE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
That is like saying, the US Constitution is in the hands of the Supreme Court, not the President. And the President has nothing to do with it. (This President has appointed 2, very Progressive(US communist party) "Judges")
If it was all about the US Constitution, there would not be split decisions on the constitutionality of Statutory Legislation and totalitarian executive orders.
If it was truely like a Jury of the Constitution, split decisions would go in the favor of the people and the legislation, totally thrown out.
Except in this case it is much more directly linked to Obama.
QE didn't start until Obama won in 2008 and met with the Fed.
Twice Obama got to pick the Fed Chairman - each time he picked a major QE Trickle Down supporter.
Obama has got to pick many positions within the Fed - ALL of them have went to QE Trickle Down pushers.
If Obama didn't want QE Trickle Down economics to exist, he would just have to stop stocking every single Fed position big or small with QE Trickle Down pushers.
Romney said he would fire Bernanke and demand his resignation -- Obama keeps picking Bernanke clones.
I was predicting if Romney won that he would have fired Barnanke and replaced him with Richard Fisher from the Dallas fed. Fisher was on board for round 1 and jumped the ship after, before Obama picked QE queen Yellen he was getting a lot of ink from the press. As Rubio would say Obama knows exactly what he is doing. All that QE is Barnanke , Yellen , and Obama's baby. Too give Obama a free pass like he was a innocent by stander is dishonest, when Fisher was there for the taking.
I was predicting if Romney won that he would have fired Barnanke and replaced him with Richard Fisher from the Dallas fed. Fisher was on board for round 1 and jumped the ship after, before Obama picked QE queen Yellen he was getting a lot of ink from the press. As Rubio would say Obama knows exactly what he is doing. All that QE is Barnanke , Yellen , and Obama's baby. Too give Obama a free pass like he was a innocent by stander is dishonest, when Fisher was there for the taking.
"I expect your resignation tomorrow. Without it I push for the strongest regulations I can push through and changes to how the Fed works".
Congress instructs the Fed in what way they want them to go.
There are no "regulations" that apply to the Fed that the Fed doesn't write. What you are proposing requires amending the Federal Reserve Act, which of course, requires it to pass both houses of Congress.
If one has to attempt herculean measures to remove a member from office, you effectively proved my point that the Fed is indeed not subject to the direction of the president.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
