The Mark Levin Show

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]smh23 wrote:

In response to Bush’s comment that his tax cuts had fueled robust economic growth, his own former chief economist on the Council of Economic Advisers responded:

You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. 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.

[/quote]

Do you realize what you’ve posted above? He is saying that in the short term the government collects less taxes. But (while it takes time) in the long-term the tax base grows thus the government collects more taxes by broadening the tax base and collecting less from more people.

And no one with an ounce of common sense can disagree with this.

Glad you posted it.

22

[quote]smh23 wrote:
From the nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute:

Since 2001 President Bush and congressional leaders have promised that enacting each of a series of tax cuts would strengthen the economy by bringing faster growth, more jobs, and greater investment. With Congress again debating whether to extend past tax cuts and enact new ones, itâ??s time to review how much the last four years of tax cuts have affected the U.S. economy and budget outlook. Unfortunately for most Americans, the tax cuts since 2001 have not made todayâ??s economy stronger. Over the last five fiscal years, the tax cuts have had a direct cost of $860 billion and (with interest costs) a total effect on the deficit of $929 billion. By creating excessive permanent deficits, they have lowered our future standard of living.

In response to Bush’s comment that his tax cuts had fueled robust economic growth, his own former chief economist on the Council of Economic Advisers responded:

You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. 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.

Supply-side economics is not dogma, though you present it as such. [/quote]

Instead of desperately trying to find a source that agrees with you, could you look at the actual numbers?

The revenue that did come in, the jobs that were created, the LARGER PARTION OF THE OVERALL TAXES THAT THE RICH PAID AFTERWARDS.

And no, supply side economics is not dogma, that saving instead of spending money creates wealth is common sense and it takes years of indoctrination to make people believe the opposite.

Maybe you should actually read Keynes opus magnus just to see what a piece of shit that book really is. To cleanse yourself afterwards you could look through some of his other writings to see what an excellent author he actually was when he did not try to snakeoil to the masses.

23

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

In response to Bush’s comment that his tax cuts had fueled robust economic growth, his own former chief economist on the Council of Economic Advisers responded:

You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. 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.

[/quote]

Do you realize what you’ve posted above? He is saying that in the short term the government collects less taxes. But (while it takes time) in the long-term the tax base grows thus the government collects more taxes by broadening the tax base and collecting less from more people.

And no one with an ounce of common sense can disagree with this.

Glad you posted it. [/quote]

No, you are misreading it and drawing the exact wrong conclusion (the key is the last sentence). This is what it’s saying (whether it’s correct or not is open to debate): In the short term, tax revenue decreases. Now, we all agree that this short term effect (loss of money) is blunted by subsequent increases in economic activity. BUT NOT ONE OF YOU (BUSH’S ECONOMIC ADVISERS) BELIEVES THAT THIS OFFSET (I.E. THE LONG-TERM EFFECT ON ECONOMIC ACTIVITY) COULD HAVE COMPENSATED OR WILL COMPENSATE FOR THE INITIAL AND DIRECT LOSS OF REVENUE.

Disagree with the underlying sentiment if you like, but don’t misrepresent the argument.

24

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

In response to Bush’s comment that his tax cuts had fueled robust economic growth, his own former chief economist on the Council of Economic Advisers responded:

You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. 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.

[/quote]

Do you realize what you’ve posted above? He is saying that in the short term the government collects less taxes. But (while it takes time) in the long-term the tax base grows thus the government collects more taxes by broadening the tax base and collecting less from more people.

And no one with an ounce of common sense can disagree with this.

Glad you posted it. [/quote]

No, you are misreading it and drawing the exact wrong conclusion (the key is the last sentence). This is what it’s saying (whether it’s correct or not is open to debate): In the short term, tax revenue decreases. Now, we all agree that this short term effect (loss of money) is blunted by subsequent increases in economic activity. BUT NOT ONE OF YOU (BUSH’S ECONOMIC ADVISERS) BELIEVES THAT THIS OFFSET (I.E. THE LONG-TERM EFFECT ON ECONOMIC ACTIVITY) COULD HAVE COMPENSATED OR WILL COMPENSATE FOR THE INITIAL AND DIRECT LOSS OF REVENUE.

Disagree with the underlying sentiment if you like, but don’t misrepresent the argument.[/quote]

You have that wrong (among other things). The long -term potential will more than make up for the short term loss.

At this point I understand where you’re coming from. Trust me by the time you get to your 25th birthday…make that your 30th which is 8 years away you’ll see things a little differently. I do not mean this as a put down you’re a very smart kid as I said earlier, but you’ve never really made any money in your life and it’s hard for you to understand how money works when you’ve not had that experience. And when you do you are really going to hate the state and federal government taking about half and giving it away to people who have not worked for it and do not deserve it. And of course growing the government even larger.

Until then try to think logically. If the people who make the economy float to begin with have more money (not less) there will be more growth. As I said even your hero Obama knows this. That’s why he extended the Bush tax cuts. Why would he do that? He had the power to eliminate them and he extended them. Why? Because even he understands that it would have devastated the economy. And why is that? Because he would be taking money from all the people, especially the ones that make the economy grow.

Take care my friend,

Zeb

25

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

In response to Bush’s comment that his tax cuts had fueled robust economic growth, his own former chief economist on the Council of Economic Advisers responded:

You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. 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.

[/quote]

Do you realize what you’ve posted above? He is saying that in the short term the government collects less taxes. But (while it takes time) in the long-term the tax base grows thus the government collects more taxes by broadening the tax base and collecting less from more people.

And no one with an ounce of common sense can disagree with this.

Glad you posted it. [/quote]

No, you are misreading it and drawing the exact wrong conclusion (the key is the last sentence). This is what it’s saying (whether it’s correct or not is open to debate): In the short term, tax revenue decreases. Now, we all agree that this short term effect (loss of money) is blunted by subsequent increases in economic activity. BUT NOT ONE OF YOU (BUSH’S ECONOMIC ADVISERS) BELIEVES THAT THIS OFFSET (I.E. THE LONG-TERM EFFECT ON ECONOMIC ACTIVITY) COULD HAVE COMPENSATED OR WILL COMPENSATE FOR THE INITIAL AND DIRECT LOSS OF REVENUE.

Disagree with the underlying sentiment if you like, but don’t misrepresent the argument.[/quote]

You have that wrong (among other things). The long -term potential will more than make up for the short term loss.

At this point I understand where you’re coming from. Trust me by the time you get to your 25th birthday…make that your 30th which is 8 years away you’ll see things a little differently. I do not mean this as a put down you’re a very smart kid as I said earlier, but you’ve never really made any money in your life and it’s hard for you to understand how money works when you’ve not had that experience. And when you do you are really going to hate the state and federal government taking about half and giving it away to people who have not worked for it and do not deserve it. And of course growing the government even larger.

Until then try to think logically. If the people who make the economy float to begin with have more money (not less) there will be more growth. As I said even your hero Obama knows this. That’s why he extended the Bush tax cuts. Why would he do that? He had the power to eliminate them and he extended them. Why? Because even he understands that it would have devastated the economy. And why is that? Because he would be taking money from all the people, especially the ones that make the economy grow.

Take care my friend,

Zeb[/quote]

I’ll admit that I have often wondered If I’ll feel the same way on these issues when (if, lol) I have money.

I sometimes come across more leftist than I am-- I’m in the end a capitalist, and I dig ideas about people having a right to keep as much of what they’ve earned as possible. I just think balance has been lost in the political debate to such an extent that reality has taken a back seat to ideology and the incessant whining of interest groups. Sacrifices must be made and they must be made by all. That includes cutting spending programs-- I understand and fully support that.

26

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

In response to Bush’s comment that his tax cuts had fueled robust economic growth, his own former chief economist on the Council of Economic Advisers responded:

You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. 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.

[/quote]

Do you realize what you’ve posted above? He is saying that in the short term the government collects less taxes. But (while it takes time) in the long-term the tax base grows thus the government collects more taxes by broadening the tax base and collecting less from more people.

And no one with an ounce of common sense can disagree with this.

Glad you posted it. [/quote]

No, you are misreading it and drawing the exact wrong conclusion (the key is the last sentence). This is what it’s saying (whether it’s correct or not is open to debate): In the short term, tax revenue decreases. Now, we all agree that this short term effect (loss of money) is blunted by subsequent increases in economic activity. BUT NOT ONE OF YOU (BUSH’S ECONOMIC ADVISERS) BELIEVES THAT THIS OFFSET (I.E. THE LONG-TERM EFFECT ON ECONOMIC ACTIVITY) COULD HAVE COMPENSATED OR WILL COMPENSATE FOR THE INITIAL AND DIRECT LOSS OF REVENUE.

Disagree with the underlying sentiment if you like, but don’t misrepresent the argument.[/quote]

Everyone on this planet knows that the revenue must more than offset the cuts if he understands compound interest.

Interestingly enough Bush did rake in more money a few years down the road so what everyone believes is pretty much irrelevant anyway.

27

[quote]smh23 wrote:
cutting health care funding for poor people and fighting to keep the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy alive simultaneously is something that only a real, honest-to-god, grade-A douchebag could do. Fuck these people.

If the poor are being told to tighten their belts, fine–in hard times we all sacrifice. But the rich had damn well better start tightening too. (for the record, a 3 percentage point tax hike on someone that makes 500,000 dollars/year is not exactly tightening their fucking belt)[/quote]

Class warfare bullshit.

Entitlement mentality and ignorance of simple economic matters like this is why the US economy is in a downward spiral and much of the rest of the world is climbing.

The US already soaks the rich. The rich pay most taxes. The rich invest and provide jobs. The US has many many rich people that are investing their money overseas and providing jobs overseas.

I fear for the future of the US. The lazy outnumber the workers and are outvoting them. It is a shame that the lazy are also the ignorant and end up voting for men like Obama who extended the tax cuts, takes advantage of them with his own tax return and criticizes them in order to get the class warfare fools behind him.

28

[quote]smh23 wrote:
cutting health care funding for poor people and fighting to keep the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy alive simultaneously is something that only a real, honest-to-god, grade-A douchebag could do. Fuck these people.[/quote]

Once again you have it wrong. How many times do I have to tell you that the Bush tax cuts cut taxes for ALL Americans, not just the wealthy. Every one received the same exact percent rate cut.

Secondly, why do you think it’s fair to give those “poor people” money from those who worked hard for it? Essentially the government steps in takes the money from someone who earned it and after paying for multiple government workers doles out a small percentage of it to the “poor”.

And for the record 3% of a half million dollars is 15-k. Not a small amount of money. Secondly, as I’ve already schooled you that the top 10% of tax payers pay 70% of all taxes. How is that fair to the wealthy?

30% are paid by the remaining middle class and the poor pay nothing. And in fact not only pay nothing but get continual federal (and state) hand outs in the form of welfare, workfare, and numerous other government programs which kick money and food to them on a regular basis.

Tell me how is any of that fair - Especially in light of the fact that this “sub-class” of people are the fastest growing economic segment of our society. It’s almost like people are starting to catch on that they don’t have to work in order to live. All they have to do is become part of the entitlement problem.

And that problem is perpetuated by lefty’s like YOU and your professor’s. The only difference being that while your professor’s will never awaken from their stupor, as many feed off the system, and are essentially removed from reality. You, on the other hand will one day (hopefully) make a reasonable wage. And some day (soon I hope) when you gross $1,000 per week and only keep about half that because of federal, state and other runaway taxes you will look back and realize how idiotic your thinking was.

Until that time at least have the common decency to quote the Bush tax cuts correctly so that I don’t have to continually remind you that Bush cut taxes for all Americans at the same rate.

29

Great interview with Walter Williams. 04/21 show. Starts at the 54:40 mark.

http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930#