Language:
switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: First ... 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 ... Last
[#] Mon Apr 09 2012 15:21:55 EDT from Spell Binder @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Apr 9 2012 1:37pm from LoanShark @uncnsrd

There's no such thing as a free meatloaf.


What about a free grinning meatloaf?

[#] Mon Apr 09 2012 16:41:25 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

You know what they say: the grinning ones aren't free, and the free ones don't grin.

[#] Tue Apr 10 2012 14:26:58 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/10/santorum-to-suspend-presidential-campaign/?hpw

Looks like unity time for the GOP. Did somebody on the far right claim
that a brokered campaign was inevitable? All I heard was crickets.

[#] Tue Apr 10 2012 16:16:02 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

SpongeBob HolyUndies can't win against Obama. I'd better go buy some guns while they're still legal.

[#] Tue Apr 10 2012 17:56:56 EDT from zooer @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

You can still buy guns in New York?

[#] Tue Apr 10 2012 19:05:44 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Indeed... the choices this election are between a Massachusetts liberal and a Chicago fiscal moderate with a poor track record on civil liberties. Not that I think SpongePants would be any better in that regard.

[#] Tue Apr 10 2012 19:31:54 EDT from zooer @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

"Fiscal moderate"? Hell Bush and Reagan spent like crazy, Obama has out done them.

[#] Wed Apr 11 2012 11:19:26 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I hope you're using the word "moderate" with tongue planted firmly in cheek?
Obama makes Karl Marx look like a moderate.

[#] Wed Apr 11 2012 16:26:47 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I hope you're using the word "moderate" with tongue planted firmly in

cheek?

Honestly, not at all. He really low-balled the stimulus!


He totally planned to fail there... in 2009 the administration was clearly anticipating a V shaped recovery and planned The Package around that. What we got was L-shaped...

And don't you ever, ever forget the Grand Bargain offered to the Tea Party. *Don't. Ever. Even. Think. About. Forgetting it.* A real Marxoid would not have offered massive budget balancing in the midst of the worst recession/depression since the interwar era. Like all those peace offers that Israel keeps offering to the terrorists, which the terrorists keep rejecting, this was the best bipartisan offer that the Tea Party was ever going to receive. It was their chance to show that they were serious about balancing the budget, and those Tea Party morons totally fucking pissed it away.

And don't you dare forget it.

You want to tell me about fiscal responsibility? Wipe the Lafferites out of the GOP and then we'll talk. To the extent the GOP has any conherent position at all, it consists of bogus claims about how deficit-funded tax cuts will actually raise revenue.


[#] Wed Apr 11 2012 21:50:18 EDT from zooer @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Laffer? The Reagan economist that when asked out of the last five Presidents who was the best President economically he
responded with Clinton? Ignore him?

[#] Wed Apr 11 2012 22:44:46 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I didn't say that and you know it. No, ignore all the two-bit political
hacks in the GOP who in turn ignore their own economists. As for
Laffer, I have no idea what he's been saying these days and I could care
less: as an empirical proposition, we are currently located to the left
of the peak of the Laffer Curve. If we raise taxes, we raise revenue,
period. We also make people unhappy, period. This is not a feel good
message but it's the truth. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

[#] Wed Apr 11 2012 22:45:52 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

Subject: Laffer was right!

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I suspect that LS is referring to the Laffer Curve rather than the man himself.  Unfortunately for liberals, the inconvenient truth is that it's more than theory; it's a proven economic effect.  One need only look at this chart:

 [ source: http://tinyurl.com/2ay6r32 ]

Raising taxes does not increase revenue; the revenue level stubbornly stays at 19% of GDP regardless of the tax rate.  Furthermore, it is a documented fact that raising taxes does not pay down the debt; for every $1.00 of new taxation, there is a $1.17 increase in spending [source: http://tinyurl.com/7xb9ym8 ]

Nevertheless, our Marxist-in-Chief continues to fool a lot of people into thinking that class warfare is a good idea, and pushes the kind of taxation that sucks the capital out of the true source of economic growth: investment in business.

Finally, I assert that no "Grand Bargain" was offered at all.  Establishment RINO's bullied our Tea Party reps into accepting politics as usual.  A bargain with the devil is never a real bargain.  Now that it's clear that the GOP has failed to maintain itself as the bastion of conservatism, it's time for the conservatives to bail out and start a true conservative party.  GOP can be "democrats lite" and the traitor scum at MSNBC can continue bashing the hell out of them while the Real Americans go off somewhere else and save the country.



[#] Wed Apr 11 2012 22:52:36 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

Subject: Re: Laffer was right!

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Raising taxes does *not* increase revenue; the revenue level
stubbornly stays at 19% of GDP regardless of the tax rate.

You prove you know nothing at all. You claim "Laffer was right", and then you come out with this idiocy, which is worse than anything even Laffer ever said. Here's a refresher for those who were asleep in class: Laffer postulated a curve, sort of a parabola with a peak, and if we are located to the right of the peak then cutting taxes would raise revenue; if we were located to the left of the peak then raising taxes would move us towards the peak and raise revenue.

P.S. Ur mom wuz a hamster.

[#] Wed Apr 11 2012 23:08:53 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

Subject: Re: Laffer was right!

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Yes I know what Laffer's original curve looked like, and I maintain that you're pointing out minor and irrelevant differences. The bottom line is that raising taxes does not work. Punishing the wealthy by forcing them to give more money to the government instead of using that money to create jobs does not work.
Raising taxes only serves to biggerize the government, sucking the life out of the private sector and causing investment to move to more business-friendly places -- thus lowering the overall revenue and negating any gains made by the new taxation (which, oops, they already spent and then some, so we're even further in the hole than we were when we started).

Keynesian economics fails every time in practice. That's why they need lies to prop it up.

[#] Thu Apr 12 2012 10:11:39 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Yeah, nobody who knows shit disputes that there's a counterbalancing effect from tax evasion, offshoring, or whatever. But if you make a real howler like claiming all tax changes are PRECISELY revenue neutral, you're just placing yourself in with the rest of the loonies. "Calling BS" on that is not a minor or irrelevant difference -- it's fundamental.

Well, one good thing came out of this discussion--now that you've come out of the closet not only as a Lafferite but a paleo-Lafferite, we can put to rest all your claims about fiscal responsibility.

PURGE ALL THE LAFFERITES FROM THE GOP AND YOU PURGE THE GOP FROM THE FACE OF AMERICA! WE NEED A FINAL SOLUTION TO THE LAFFER PROBLEM!

[#] Thu Apr 12 2012 11:17:20 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

You are equating "fiscal responsibility" with "more taxation" even after I've demonstrated the history of that course of action consistently failing (WWII to present, anyway). Arguing otherwise hardly counts as lunacy.

The only fallacy I'll admit to at this point is omitting a couple of in-between steps, so let's clear them up. Although the implication should be obvious, it's clear that we moved past the peak of the Laffer curve a long time ago.
(How far to the right of the peak we are right now is irrelevant; moving it around will only change the results within a margin of error.)

Since the Laffer curve is a simplification, obviously it's expressing tax revenue in terms of absolute dollars, while the chart I showed is showing tax revenue as percent of GDP. If one were to plot a Laffer-like curve showing the relationship between taxation and GDP, it would likely be a downward-pointing bell. Put those together and you end up with the chart I showed.

So what are we left with? When we put Keynesians in power, they raise taxes, which fails to increase revenue, then they raise spending beyond the tax hike, which puts the budget even more out of balance, and we end up with this snowball effect that bankrupted the country a long time ago yet continues to get worse.

The GOP has a *long* list of problems. Affirming the validity of the Laffer curve isn't one of them. It's convenient to point to that and tell the naive people "look, it's a bunch of rich guys who don't want to pay their fair share" but that's beyond a fallacy, it's plainly empty propaganda. The numbers prove otherwise.

[#] Thu Apr 12 2012 15:29:58 EDT from Spell Binder @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I've got a solution!

All these arguments around whether raising taxes will affect revenue or not seem to be making one simple assumption: no change in the U.S. population.

If so, then the answer is incredibly simple! We need to increase the U.S. population! More people means more taxpayers means more gross revenue (who cares about net!).

If we go forward with this idea, it would also end the whole controversy about birth control. We'd want less birth control to get more babies! Of course, the downside is that our need for petroleum products would skyrocket due to the increased demand for diapers and baby toys (both mostly made of plastic).
Baby Binder

[#] Thu Apr 12 2012 17:53:45 EDT from Ragnar Danneskjold @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

LS:

You're skewed in so many different ways I don't even know where to begin.


Obama a fiscal conservative? No President would accept multi-year $1.2 trillion+ deficits being fiscally conservative. Period.

Blaming the Tea Party for Obama's noxious combination of tax increases and spending increases and debt increases was not a "great deal". They should have shut the damned government down to show they were serious about it. The President won the political game, and made the Tea Party look foolish, because they blinked instead of holding to principal.

The Laffer Curve - like it or not, Laffer is correct. There is a point of diminishing returns when raising taxes. Where you think we are on the curve and where I think are entirely different. But, why are you against Laffer in general?

We don't have so much a revenue problem as a spending problem. You can't be at 100% GDP, incur huge deficits each year, continue to hide money on the Feds balance sheet, and have interest rates near zero. We're headed towards a lost decade like the Japanese.

A real fiscal conservative is going to look to balance spending and revenues.
A real fiscal conservative wouldn't push through Health Care act during a massive recession.


We should have let the automakers declare bankruptcy, renegotiate their contracts and move on. We should have a cogent energy policy. We should make American debt attractive by raising interest rates.

Instead, we're committing fiscal suicide as a nation.

[#] Thu Apr 12 2012 20:39:20 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


RD:

Well you made a couple statements in there that I agree with, the rest not so much.




Laffer is correct in a sense. There is a point of diminishing returns: as a matter of common sense mathematical obviousness, there has to be. We are simply not presently located to right of the peak, as an empirical matter.



Now if you'll excuse me, I've got some final solutionizing to do.

[#] Thu Apr 12 2012 22:40:49 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

That's the second time you've called your position "empirical" without presenting any data to back up the claim.

As they say on Wikipedophilia: [citation needed]

Go to page: First ... 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 ... Last