|
45420. judithathome - 11/29/2012 7:33:17 PM Are you seriously weeping for a rich person who can spend more on a designer dress for his wife than many houses in this country cost? 45421. concerned - 11/29/2012 7:53:08 PM Re. 45418 -
Gee, Lefties - looks like you had the Bush tax cuts wrong all along. 45422. concerned - 11/29/2012 7:58:34 PM JAH -
Come off of it. The rich most certainly do respond to marginal tax rate changes of a few percent. You sound like you have never heard of investments or financial advisors. Sheesh.
I'm only weeping for the middle class and the impoverished and how Democrat stupidity is making their lot in life much worse than it has to be.
Never forget, JAH, that I sued a hundred million dollar corporation and WON based on their unethical dealings and breach of warranty. I have less actual sympathy for the 'rich' than you do, if anything.
I just don't think that going through life being a partisan Democrat sockpuppet and hating on people because of their financial status is good enough for me. 45423. concerned - 11/29/2012 8:00:16 PM Hating on private sector job creators (or anybody else) is a terminally stupid move. 45424. concerned - 11/29/2012 8:07:21 PM Btw, nobody's claiming that the top 10% of incomes total $20 trillion (that's substantially more than the entire GDP of the USA!) which is what would be required for $1 trillion in new revenues with a 5% top marginal tax increase. 45425. arkymalarky - 11/29/2012 8:35:12 PM Private sector job creators---HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Yw, China . 45426. concerned - 11/30/2012 1:16:03 AM Re. 45425 -
Glad you agree with me - if you didn't you would have proposed an alternate source for private sector job creators, right? 45427. concerned - 11/30/2012 1:20:44 AM Yeah...and if the taxes don't go up, they will create jobs with all that excess money...riiiiight.
That's right, JAH. Ever hear of anybody getting a good paying job from a poor person, or any government bureaucrat who ever added value to a product?
Didn't think so.
Guess that pretty much leaves people with money to invest.
45428. concerned - 11/30/2012 1:23:12 AM 
What's wrong with this picture?
45429. concerned - 11/30/2012 1:27:40 AM I can say right now if Democrats get their way with the Federal budget negotiations, the result will be somewhere between a clusterfuck and kicking the can down the road a bit further before the final collapse. The deficit will still be in the trillion dollar range, unemployment will probably rise significantly, but, regardless, I'm sure that Lefties will convince themselves that it's all the fault of Republicans. Today's Democrats 'think' pretty much with the reptilian parts of their brains. 45430. concerned - 11/30/2012 1:30:10 AM I'd say Laffer definitely has the last guffaw on Keynes. Too bad Democrats don't have a sense of humor about this. 45431. concerned - 11/30/2012 1:47:32 AM Regarding 45412 -
The Time article is just stupid. What the Democrats are doing today hardly even rises to the level of Keynesianism, as marginal as Keynesianism itself is. Reference my earlier post regarding the Keynsian 'multiplier' and how Democrat fiscal and monetary policies fall abysmally short.
The second link attempts to criticize Laffer over a total irrelevancy - the effect of TARP which Laffer did not address being that there was no related change in taxation rates.
The third one does not dispute the validity of the Laffer Curve in any way but critiques a paper he wrote about the economics of certain European countries over a very limited period of time - all in all this is the only reference that RN came up with that isn't a total waste of the readers' time.
45432. concerned - 11/30/2012 1:50:47 AM And as far as 'embarrassing himself', Laffer never stoops to the level of the Marxist clown Paul Krugman. 45433. RickNelson - 11/30/2012 3:19:06 AM Check out the whole article and follow links
Where a $Trillion is mentioned
Taxes on the rich will do the trick. Yupper! 45434. RickNelson - 11/30/2012 3:20:02 AM When you read the "whole article" concerned, we can go over some details. 45435. judithathome - 11/30/2012 5:34:01 PM 45427.
But they don't, do they? They haven't for the past 4 years because they didn't want Obama to look good by "creating jobs" and they won't in the future because they are so steamed that he won a second term.
You may have sued rich people and won but you don't understand rich people at ALL.
They aren't interested in creating jobs for people they deem to be leeches. They want their money to make more money for them in the cleanest, most efficient way: sitting safely in foreign tax shelters. They don't wish to invest in anything as risky and messy as jobs for those grubby proles.. 45436. concerned - 11/30/2012 6:41:45 PM Charles Krauthammer on budget 'negotiations' from 11/28:
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Obama has never offered anything in public about entitlements. He always says he wants a discussion. And now he says, after the Republicans give up their one issue of taxes, I'll discuss a bargain next year. Of course he wants that because that'll be the time when the Republicans are defrocked, disrobed and disarmed. They have nothing to bargain with. Look, the Republicans started out, as Steve indicated, by offering a peace pipe, by saying we'll raise the revenues. And they just had a punch in the nose this afternoon. Any Republican who buys this is a fool.
The Republicans stood for one thing consistently. It's held them together ideologically, and generally speaking it's helped them electorally. They are the low-tax party. The other guys want to tax to match their reckless spending. If they give it up now in return for nothing, Obama wins and he wins big.
Now I understand why Democrats are doing this. They imagine that the Republicans have no bargaining power today. I say it's true that if Republicans resist, they'll take the blame. And that will help the Democrats in the Congress. But Obama is never running again. He doesn't care who gets the blame. He's going to be the president. He's a lame duck. He wants a successful second term. If it starts by going over the cliff, it starts with a second recession, two million unemployed, and a wrecked second term. That's the leverage that Republicans have over Obama, and they ought to use it and not cave in in the face of a demand that I think is utterly unacceptable.
###
KRAUTHAMMER: The Republicans have one card. If we go over the cliff, Obama will have a failed second term. And that's the one thing he cares about and he's in charge. The idea that Republicans are here empty handed is a huge mistake. They assume it's so, they're going to cave. They will undermine their entire stance of the low-tax party, for a generation they're going to lose that issue. The same way that George Bush Sr., he made a promise on taxes, he went against it. It destroyed his career.
0bama will take the blame for this unless he changes his intransigent position.
45437. concerned - 11/30/2012 7:00:22 PM Re. 45433 -
Income inequality decreased under GWB and it is now increasing under 0bama. Plus the curve regarding tax rates shows the largest GDP growth after the top marginal rate tax cut of the early '60's.
What you need to do to have any credibility is to factor in the actual results of 0bama era policy which shows a nearly 5% reduction in middle class income, far worse than the increase during GWB's two terms - and until 2007, the economy was generally quite good, with unemployment averaging 5%.
After that, the Democrats crashed the economy when their subprime mortgage bubble popped.
You really need to give it up wrt your pretense that $30 billion dollars or less a year in revenue from top tax bracket increases is going to make a perceptible difference in the deficit. Nobody with even an ounce of brains believes that.
Spending has to decrease, something that 0bama and the Democrats have got away with opposing so far, and now the US has accrued over $200,000 in debt for each and every child in America with selfish, shortsighted Democrat deficit spending and government waste with trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see as long as Democrats call the shots.
You Lefties ought to be ashamed of yourselves. 45438. concerned - 11/30/2012 7:03:52 PM Keep in mind also that GWB was dealing with the bursting of the dot.com bubble at the beginning of his first term, as well as the $600 billion economic hit caused by the destruction of the Twin Towers during 9/11.
Laffer rules, Keynes drools.
45439. concerned - 11/30/2012 7:06:10 PM Btw, I did read the article and followed all the links with their selective and partial information. It all reminded me of the book 'How to Lie with Statistics'.
|
