In case anyone's wondering, I'm still here (as a "private citizen", who only intervenes as a Mod when the forum rules are violated).

For those of you who aren't wondering, that's cool too. I just didn't want anyone holding their breath!

So, am I stirring the pot? Sure! I do NOT want to see this forum die out.

C'mon folks, feel free to post YOUR views, and don't feel hurt when someone pokes holes in them! It's called discussion.

I'll say again, possibly in a different way, "My views are fair game." I don't get upset when you disagree with ME. Do it! Often times, I find my views changing when I hear/see cogent arguments.

And, to those who feel as a Mod I enjoy some kind of "immunity", I can only say this: If you are bumped from the forum for disagreeing with me, I will fall on my sword to have you put back on. My job as a mod here is to protect the forum, not me. (I can protect myself, thank you.)

So, anything going on?

- Jack

 

stop oil speculation? its worth a try!

John Huntsman is the only republican who tells it how it is, well see if that lasts

Obama is being spineless on dems top issues

why is grover soo powerful? republicans are scared of a primary threat

I understand Bachmann makes gaffs, but some of them are rediclious and points out the fact she wouldnt be a good president

WHY DONT REPUBLICANS GET BEHIND GARY JOHNSON, HES WHAT YOU WANT! (except for social issues, and just saying im a christian aka religious left )

 

I'm sorry, but I've been busy cleaning up my earthquake damage...

 

Hope not much, and, I'm being totally serious here Frank. We've got family in earthquake prone areas, and, they can be devastating.

- Jack

 

I don't have any damage here of course. Was just making a joke/poke at all of the airtime the media wasted covering basically nothing.

I know there was some isolated damages last time I checked (about 7p eastern time) but everything appeared to be relatively minor compared to what we've seen earlier this year.

The good thing was this was only a 5.8 and not a 6.5 or greater. I read where the bedrock formations are more dense on the east coast and earthquakes are felt further away and do not need to be as strong as they are on the west coast to do the same damage.

 

How about this? From Wiki - In 2003 a Congressional Budget Office study was conducted to evaluate the claim that tax cuts would increase revenues; the study used dynamic scoring models as supply side advocates had wanted and was conducted by a supply side advocate. The study found that in most models revenue decreased.

I wish I knew what a dynamic scoring model might be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

 

Glad to hear it. In Christchurch, NZ, where Janet and I flew out of two days after their quake and where her Sister and extended family live, the damage and loss of lives was extensive. It was not much stronger than the Virginia quake, I think about 6.3? But of course that scale is logarithmic - still, you could have had far more serious effects.

Fortunately, your terrain is not on steeply sloped hillsides like some of Christchurch and you are not so near the ocean.

Anyway, good to know things are ok.

- Jack

 

ONELOWF - I'm quite aware of that model, and though I don't pretend to understand it, I'm quite willing to believe the concept of reduced taxation would decrease revenue.

Interesting that the "advocates" seemed to shoot themselves in the foot!

Like, you, though, I wish I understood that model a bit more clearly. (And I DO see the humor in what you posted, but I also see the serious side of it.)

Everything I read or hear about supply side economics seems to cast doubt on the good expected from it. I'm seeing nothing that suggests it actually works.

- Jack

 

Something puzzled me from the Republican debates on Fox last week.
Bret posed a question to all candidates as to whether they would support real cuts to increased tax at a 10 to 1 ratio.
(spending cut $10 / increase tax $1)

Not one candidate would support. He even restated this emphasing 'real' cuts and still no takers.

Common sense would dictate it's a good deal. The debt is real regardless of whether it came from welfare, war, stimulus, etc... I realize they are positioning themselves to run against Obama but the debt has been accumulating under every President since Andrew Jackson.

Don't see a way out with one sides heels dug in that deep.

 

How about the actual implementations of tax decreases or increases, and the resulting tax revenues ?

I go back again, to the APR 1996 JEC report, when Clinton did this.

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-g...t/reagtxct.htm

 

How does one qualify this ?
The cut would have to come after the tax revenue increase, as to raise the tax rate does not mean the tax revenue will increase ( Clinton proved this ).

It is a promise to cut spending if the tax revenue is there, which could lead to slowing growth even more ( hitting SMB with additional taxes - stunting organic job growth ), and not cutting $1 of spending.

How about cutting the spending today to match what the revenue is, and offering something to get organic job growth ( vs the govt providing funding to create jobs at a ridiculous ratio, with money they don't have ) and once the growth rate is above 2%, start reversing the economic policy slowly as not to cause a knee jerk reaction. It is going to take time, but pumping in $ 1T in money to spur growth has proven useless so far.

 

I found that interesting, but not surprising. The unlucky candidate that said yes would be doomed to "he/she wants to raise taxes" for the duration.

Now that I think about it, given the current circumstances, at 10 to 1 there is no better deal. Too bad there is not one candidate that has the courage to be the dissenting voice.

 

The problem is you can't confine what makes an economy grow to any "scoring model" or "laffer curve". Economics is part physics and part Human Action. http://mises.org/resources/3250

Consider China's meteoric growth the last 15 years. I can assure you it's not from high taxation of business and profits. It's a combination of not overspending on welfare programs and lower business taxation. China gets much of it's tax income from product sales.

Having said that, if tax cuts don't spur economic growth, why did we grow jobs/prosper from 1983 until 1990 when Bush and Congress raised taxes? Bush's tax increase caused the recession of 1991-1992 and his loss in the 1992 election.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...highest_t.html

You can find much information supporting both sides, but just look at the facts. If tax increases do not hurt the economy, then why don't we just tax job creators 100% and anyone who makes more than $50,000/year? That should fix everything!

 

A problem that I have is that any model is going to have the bias of it's creator built into it. We are human and we slant things with our bias. I much prefer looking at historical evidence, that is, if it's available.

 

Yes, it seems more reliable to me too. It's the "human" part that Frank mentioned that really screws things up. You cannot quantify emotion, and so much in economics seems driven by emotion, to me at least.

I dunno - it really feels like we have to "try something and see what happens". (Which is a pretty risky way to design a system.)

- Jack