Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-13-2010, 04:46 PM
 
19,198 posts, read 31,463,266 times
Reputation: 4013

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
It proves you don't know what you are talking about. Being you know , why don't you give us a year by year breakdown to prove you are correct?
Talk to these guys. They're all former Bush adminsitration officials...
----------
Edward Lazear, former CEA Chairman...
I certainly would not claim that tax cuts pay for themselves.

Greg Mankiw, former CEA Chairman...
Most economists believe that taxes influence national income but doubt that the growth effects are large enough to make tax cuts self-financing.

Alan Viard, former CEA Sr Economist...
Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that.

Robert Carroll, Treasury DAS for Tax Policy...
As a matter of principle, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves.

Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve Chairman...
I don't think that as a general rule tax cuts pay for themselves. What I have argued instead is that to the extent the tax cuts produce greater efficiency or greater growth, they will partially offset the losses in revenues.

Andrew Samwick, former CEA Chief Economist...
You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.
----------
You were saying???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-13-2010, 04:58 PM
 
1,842 posts, read 1,707,510 times
Reputation: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough
"Nope. First of all, you have to know how much hole tax cuts are going to put you in, and then you be daring enough to cut spending proportionally "

Wrong. Tax cuts bring in MORE money, not less. Check your history.

I speak after looking at history, not a revisionist's history however. In fact, we don't have to go farther, we're living it. 2001+ era has seen greatest tax cuts and proves the point I made earlier. How is the economy doing? Why has this decade among the worst in job growth (hint: it did not keep up with population growth), and forget about salaries keeping up with inflation. And deficits... yep, we've seen the trillion mark cross for the first time, and in the last budget of the President who followed the conservative principles of cutting taxes.

It proves you don't know what you are talking about.

Being you know , why don't you give us a year by year breakdown to prove you are correct?
http://www.bearishnews.com/wp-conten...-debt-gdp2.jpg What cutting taxes on the top does is it leads to a growth in debt. Just take a look at 1981 until 2008.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2010, 05:31 PM
 
19,198 posts, read 31,463,266 times
Reputation: 4013
Quote:
Originally Posted by newonecoming View Post
What cutting taxes on the top does is it leads to a growth in debt. Just take a look at 1981 until 2008.
Helps as well if you can effect a diversion of productivity gains into corporate profits while keeping them from going into wage increases. That way you can have truly huge pools of capital in the hands of the rich while real median household income declines for everybody else, as it did between 2000 and 2006. That means everybody else has to borrow just to keep pace, but it gets worse, as they now don't have the combined purchasing power needed to clear the shelves of the inventories those productivity gains put there. The only solution is to cut interest rates and encourage everyone to borrow the money that should have been theirs through wage gains to begin with so that they can afford to buy more stuff. Borrow and spend, all you consumers -- it's the Bushco way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2010, 05:39 PM
 
1,842 posts, read 1,707,510 times
Reputation: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
Helps as well if you can effect a diversion of productivity gains into corporate profits while keeping them from going into wage increases. That way you can have truly huge pools of capital in the hands of the rich while real median household income declines for everybody else, as it did between 2000 and 2006. That means everybody else has to borrow just to keep pace, but it gets worse, as they now don't have the combined purchasing power needed to clear the shelves of the inventories those productivity gains put there. The only solution is to cut interest rates and encourage everyone to borrow the money that should have been theirs through wage gains to begin with so that they can afford to buy more stuff. Borrow and spend, all you consumers -- it's the Bushco way.
Yip. and look where it ends up
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2010, 06:20 PM
 
19,198 posts, read 31,463,266 times
Reputation: 4013
Quote:
Originally Posted by newonecoming View Post
Yip. and look where it ends up
Well, it didn't have to end up where it did. Households could have just carried pretty ugly looking balance sheets for the rest of the decade or so. But at the same time, those low, low interest rates were forcing institutional investors to seek higher yields which they found in the secondary mortgage markets. And Wall Street was quick to respond to new demand in that market, as they teamed with unregulated private brokers to originate and securitize all sorts of mortgages, earning huge profits and bonuses in the process. And when they began to run out of decent mortgages to write then slice-and-dice, well, they just sort of rewrote the underwriting standards a little bit. What could it hurt. They were stripping off all the profit and selling off all the risk, so any problems would belong to somebody else anyway. What actually happened of course was the garbage paper increased to levels beyond system tolerances for it and major credit players had to write down tens of billions of dollars worth of assets at a time, undermining confidence in their positions and setting off the systemic chain of events that unchecked brought us to September 2008, when overexposed households got to see their equity wealth vanish even more quickly than their real estate wealth had. And some people think we should give the reins of power back to the people who sat back and allowed all this to happen...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2010, 07:27 PM
 
1,842 posts, read 1,707,510 times
Reputation: 169
That is the bubble in short. Where do you pop the bubble? At the beginning? At the middle? At the end? And then the fed lost control.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:28 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top