Say Anything Blog

Let me get this right.  We cut taxes to stimulate the economy?  We cut taxes to fix unemployment?  We cut taxes in prosperity?  We cut taxes to reduce the deficit?  We cut taxes to strengthen the dollar?  We cut taxes to...*fill in appropriate symptom of economic distress here*.

Lets make this the bedrock of Economic Policy for Conservatism.  We can follow this placebo with a dose of “By looking out for our own best interest, we are helping out all of society” rhetoric.  How can anyone disagree with such simplistic and easy to swallow medicine?

Brilliant!

Sven: Wrong.  We cut tax rates, which actually increases revenue collected.  If you don’t know anything about simple economics, don’t expect to be able to understand it.
Taxation diverts money from where it is most productive to where it is unproductive: govt spending on social engineering pyramid schemes that only serve to buy votes for leftie politicians.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

...the deficit nearly tripled during the Reagan presidency, partly due to tax cuts and increases in military spending.

Wrong.  It was due to having to make up for the Carter gutting of our military, taxation and regulation that damaged business, and the general Carter economic debacle.  In other words, Reagan had to pay Carter’s bills.  You got it wrong as usual, Master Baiter.
BTW, Reagan also defeated the Soviets, while Carter couldn’t even get our hostages back from the Iranians.
Pathetic.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

...the deficit nearly tripled during the Reagan presidency, partly due to tax cuts and increases in military spending.

Really???  The economics illiterate liberals keep repeating this mantra like it was the partisan secular version of Nicene Creed or the Buddhist “Om” chant.  But no one seems able to demonstrate that cutting tax rates has actually diminished the amount of ensuing federal revenues.

Yesterday, I asked “jimmy” to make a similar demonstration after he offered the same tedious blather about tax rate reductions causing deficits.  He ran and hid instead.

I know better than to suggest that RBB address something more complex than a glib one-liner.  But there ought to be some liberal intelligent and knowledgeable enough to answer the question and courageous enough to defend his party’s peculiar view of economic and tax policy.

As for the Reagan deficits, those came about because Speaker “Tip” O’Neil and the Democrats reneged on a promise they made to cut spending increases.  Typical.

Of course, come to think of it, I have yet to see anyone demonstrate the negative effects of those “as far as the eye can see” deficits, either.  Liberals are such intellectual cowards!

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Well, I have a Masters Degree Education in Economics, so I think I know a little bit more than most.  At least I can solve differential equations to find out for myself what Economic policies actually work.  I don’t have to take the words of others at their face and vomit them back up on pages and declare it art… or good even good politics.

Well, I have a Masters Degree Education in Economics…

If you don’t know the difference between tax cuts and tax rate cuts, then someone ripped you off; you still don’t know anything about economics.  You lie, I think.
BTW, the correct economic terminology is “marginal tax rate reductions”; I guess you don’t know that, either.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Sven,

So???

Your credentials are considerably less important than your answer.  My question to “jimmy” yesterday was simple enough, and should be even more so for someone well versed in the subject:

How much was federal tax revenue diminished by the Bush tax rate cuts?  And how was that number arrived at?  In fact, I even suggested that for the sake of simplicity, we limit the discussion to the relatively minor 2003 cut in capital gains tax rate to 15%.

How much less federal revenue was collected subsequent to the cap gains rate cut because of that cut?

If you are going to disparage cutting tax rates because of deficit concerns, then clearly you should be able to defend that position by explaining how those cuts effect the federal budget deficit and how you arrived at that conclusion.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

The economics illiterate liberals keep repeating this mantra like it was the partisan secular version of Nicene Creed or the Buddhist “Om” chant.  But no one seems able to demonstrate that cutting tax rates has actually diminished the amount of ensuing federal revenues.

What if the tax rate was 10% and it was cut to 5%...would tax revenue still increase?

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

The Commies at the CBO say you are wrong.

CBO director Peter Orszag said, “The short-term effects of EGTRRA and JGTRRA in stimulating aggregate demand in the economy have largely dissipated by now, and the supply-side effects of those policies are uncertain but are probably small.

Some of the tax cuts’ provisions “increased incentives for people to work and save (which can increase growth), but other provisions had no effect on incentives. In addition, the two tax laws increased the budget deficit, and doing so tends to reduce economic growth over the medium and long term. At this point in time (several years after enactment), once those various factors have been taken into account, the overall impact of the tax legislation on the economy is likely to be modest,”

It currently expects this year’s deficit to be between $150 billion and $200 billion, implying that without the tax cuts, the budget would probably be in surplus this year

What if the tax rate was 10% and it was cut to 5%...would tax revenue still increase?

It’s worth a try!  Seriously, Mike, any taxes extracted from the private sector in excess of the amount needed to fund the legitimate functions of govt(national defense, law enforcement, infrastructure creation/maintenance, maintaing a stable currency) negatively impacts economic activity.  Any taxation in excess of that amount can be cut to benefit economic growth.  IMO, an overall tax rate of 20% is about as high as it should ever be, but govt could be made more efficient if we constitutionally limited how much it could spend.
Practically speaking, we can cut tax rates until revenues decrease, then raise them slightly until equilibrium is achieved.  That assumes fiscal responsibility, of course.  Govt will only be fiscally responsible if we force it on them.  It is the tendency of govt to grow in power, influence and expense, unless limited by an external force.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Mike,

Thank you for proving my point!

The question you ask is, of course, rhetorical… much like the liberals’ claim that tax cuts (misnomer) cause deficits.  I am merely insisting that those who make such a claim should be able to demonstrate the correctness of what they state, and explain how they’ve done so.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Practically speaking, we can cut tax rates until revenues decrease, then raise them slightly until equilibrium is achieved.

That would work. I’m glad to see you acknowledge that a point can be reached when a lower tax rate will lower tax revenues. It seems to me that the correct answer to the tax rate/tax revenue question is that it depends on the circumstances.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

Bat One

The question you ask is, of course, rhetorical…

It’s hypothetical rather than rhetorical and demonstrates the possibility that a lower tax rate does not always mean greater tax revenue.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

WOOF,

CBO Director Orszag is wrong… demonstrably so… a point to which we’ll return later.

For now let’s note that while he is not new to the field, he is relatively new to his job, having been appointed early last year by the liberal Democrats as part of their takeover of Congress.  He is as beholden to Speaker Pelosi for his job as Hank Paulson is to President Bush for his current position.

Even if he knows better, a point not yet demonstrated, Orszag is not about to endorse anything resembling supply-side economics or a policy that might foster real economic growth.

If the Speaker of the House wants increased taxes, increased spending, increased regulation of the economy and the resulting stagnant, “Old Europe” economy, then that’s what her CBO Director is going to endorse.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

If you don’t know the difference between tax cuts and tax rate cuts, then someone ripped you off; you still don’t know anything about economics.  You lie, I think.
BTW, the correct economic terminology is “marginal tax rate reductions”; I guess you don’t know that, either.

Its interesting how you imply what I know or do not know.  Of course I know what marginal tax rates are.  You are implying some very questionable assumptions about the state of an economy and many other variables if you want to jump right to the conclusion that by lowering MTR (marginal tax rates), that you will increase tax revenue.  Thats a very simplified Supply side economics example that doesn’t fly awfully well with many educated Economists who don’t see Macro Economics in the same way that you apparantly do.

I’m glad to see you acknowledge that a point can be reached when a lower tax rate will lower tax revenues.

Actually, Mike, I misstated it a bit.  Eliminating taxes entirely would eliminate revenues entirely, of course.  The key to understanding here is the “legitimate expenses of govt” part.  Govt will always spend more money, if we let it.  The point is to minimize the damage done by the expense of govt.  The actual, real-world level of taxation that would result in reduced revenues would be so low as to be impractical to run a govt of our size, even if we had responsible govt spending.  Nothing to worry about.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Mike,

You should know me better than that.  Since the “rate” is not at 10% and cannot be reduced to 5%, the question is rhetorical.

But rhetorical or hypothetical, the question/remark demonstrates nothing, which is my point.

Those on your side of the aisle who insist that cutting marginal tax rates (let’s be precise!) increases the federal budget deficit are merely being asked to demonstrate the accuracy of their contention.

I’ve offered one relatively simple scenario, the 2003 cap gains cut to 15%, and insisted that one of your liberal deficit hawks show how much revenue was lost due to that cut.  Put up, or shut up!

So far, no takers!

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

You are implying some very questionable
assumptions about the state of an economy and many other variables if you want to jump right to the conclusion that by lowering MTR (marginal tax
rates), that you will increase tax revenue.

Wrong again, Sven.  As we are way overtaxed at present(due to 2/3 of our budget going to wasteful and useless social spending and entitlement spending), a significant reduction in that spending would enable significant tax rate reductions and increased economic growth.  Limiting the govt sector would also pay off in increased economic growth, and therefore, increased prosperity for all sectors of the economy.
If we had a reasonable level of govt spending, then reducing tax rates might be counterproductive, as it would cut into necessary govt services, but we are so far away from that level that it isn’t worth worrying about.  I’m not talking theory here, but reality.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Bat: I guess the “appeal to authority” bullshit isn’t working for the lefties today, as usual.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Mike: Taxation is only one side of the “deficit” situation, isn’t it?  How about the spending?  With today’s govt spending levels, all a “balanced budget” means is that we confiscated enough money to support the wasteful spending, which is hardly a virtue, is it?
What a “budget deficit” means these days is overspending, not an insufficiency of taxation.  Simple bookkeeping.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

With today’s govt spending levels, all a “balanced budget” means is that we confiscated enough money to support the wasteful spending, which is hardly a virtue, is it?

I’m not talking deficits today r108, just tax rates and tax revenues, but I will say that I don’t agree with your premise so I can’t really answer your question.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

Wrong again, Sven.  As we are way overtaxed at present(due to 2/3 of our budget going to wasteful and useless social spending and entitlement spending), a significant reduction in that spending would enable significant tax rate reductions and increased economic growth.  Limiting the govt sector would also pay off in increased economic growth, and therefore, increased prosperity for all sectors of the economy.
If we had a reasonable level of govt spending, then reducing tax rates might be counterproductive, as it would cut into necessary govt services, but we are so far away from that level that it isn’t worth worrying about.  I’m not talking theory here, but reality.

This 2/3 of gov’t spending you are talking about that can be reduced:  IF THAT IN FACT IS YOUR ASSUMPTION, I may be persuaded to buy your conclusion.  However, I am correct in saying that you are making some questionable assumptions.  I would love to see how you are gonna cut out 2/3 of the federal budget without having a Civil War on your hands.  Being that you cannot cut out 2/3 of the federal budget, then your assumption will not hold and reducing MTR will not increase tax revenue.  You wanna try again?

You wanna try again?

One more time, but your ignorance is becoming tiresome.  I didn’t say that 100% of the wasteful social spending and entitlements could be eliminated, I said reduced.  Do you understand what that means?  This is a typical leftie straw man argument from you, like saying we can’t do anything about the illegal aliens because we can’t deport all of them at once, and indicates an inability on your part to think well.
Reducing that wasteful spending 10% would enable significant tax rate reductions, and reducing it 20% would be even better.  See how that works?  It’s called reasoning.  In the same way that socialist spending was imposed on us(incrementally), it has to be undone in a like manner.  We just need to recognize that the economic problems we have are a result of excessive govt spending, then apply the appropriate remedy.
The less govt spends, the more capital is available to the private sector to produce economic growth, which gives us prosperity.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

I’m not talking deficits today r108, just tax rates and tax revenues…

You’re kidding, right?  The entire context of taxation is to justify defraying govt expense, and when that doesn’t happen(for whatever reason), the result is a “deficit”, isn’t it?  How do you separate the two?

What exactly is the premise with which you disagree?

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Current Military
$965 billion:
• Military Personnel $129 billion
• Operation & Maint. $241 billion
• Procurement $143 billion
• Research & Dev. $79 billion
• Construction $15 billion
• Family Housing $3 billion
• DoD misc. $4 billion
• Retired Pay $70 billion
• DoE nuclear weapons $17 billion
• NASA (50%) $9 billion
• International Security $9 billion
• Homeland Secur. (military) $35 billion
• State Dept. (partial) $6 billion
• other military (non-DoD) $5 billion
• “Global War on Terror” $200 billion [We added $162 billion to the last item to supplement the Budget’s grossly underestimated $38 billion in “allowances” to be spent in 2009 for the “War on Terror,” which includes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan]

Past Military,
$484 billion:
• Veterans’ Benefits $94 billion
• Interest on national debt (80%) created by military spending, $390 billion

Human Resources
$789 billion:
• Health/Human Services
• Soc. Sec. Administration
• Education Dept.
• Food/Nutrition programs
• Housing & Urban Dev.
• Labor Dept.
• other human resources.

General Government
$304 billion:
• Interest on debt (20%)
• Treasury
• Government personnel
• Justice Dept.
• State Dept.
• Homeland Security (15%)
• International Affairs
• NASA (50%)
• Judicial
• Legislative
• other general govt.

Physical Resources
$117 billion:
• Agriculture
• Interior
• Transportation
• Homeland Security (15%)
• HUD
• Commerce
• Energy (non-military)
• Environmental Protection
• Nat. Science Fdtn.
• Army Corps Engineers
� Fed. Comm. Commission
• other physical resources

Total Military 54%
Non - Military 46%

Start Cutting.  Tell me what you want to name your country in when you get 2/3 of it hacked off.

The less govt spends, the more capital is available to the private sector to produce economic growth, which gives us prosperity.

Building infrastructure, investing in education, medical breakthroughs etc… I could go on forever.  In your eyes this doesn’t count as economic growth.  These things are the building blocks of economic growth.  Your VERY OVERSIMPLIFIED vision of how an Economy works is laughable at best.  Whats even more ironic is that you imply someone who doesn’t see things through your distorted glasses is wrong, LEFTY or uneducated.

r108...I never worry about taxes.

Bat One...I’ll shut up because there isn’t agreement among economic experts for any given tax cut or hike as to how much was affected and by what. I readily agree that tax rate cuts will not decrease revenue until the point of maximum efficiency is reached at which point revenue will decline. I don’t think we’re at that point in America or Canada today so, all things being equal, tax rate cuts should not decrease tax revenue. What I reject is the view that tax rate cuts always result in increased tax revenue as if it were a law of nature...cause it ain’t.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

r108...they’re certainly related topics and I can’t imagine a discussion of deficits not including taxation but it’s very possible to talk about tax rates and tax revenues without even thinking about deficits. In this case, I was discussing raising and lowering tax rates and how that impacts tax revenue.

The premise with which I disagree is

With today’s govt spending levels, all a “balanced budget” means is that we confiscated enough money to support the wasteful spending, which is hardly a virtue…

I specifically object to the words “confiscated” and “wasteful” because I don’t see taxation as confiscatory in the same way that you do and because I suspect I have a broader view of non-wasteful spending than you do.

Seriously, I’m not addressing deficits at all today.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

What I reject is the view that tax rate cuts always result in increased tax revenue as if it were a law of nature...cause it ain’t.

Straw man; nobody has said that but you, Mike.

I was discussing raising and lowering tax rates and how that impacts tax revenue.

And revenue is only germane when you are discussing the remedies for deficits, right?

I specifically object to the words “confiscated” and “wasteful”…

While there is no doubt that taxes are confiscated from us(through the withholding tax; you never get that money, do you?), you may certainly disagree with me on the wasteful part.  I would ask you if you think that there is any level of govt spending that is wasteful, though.  If not, then your disagreement is not a matter of degree, is it?

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Building infrastructure, A legitimate expense of govt, as I have already said, although with severe limitations. investing in education,The govt doesn’t “invest”, it spends, and the results yielded by the govt monopoly on primary and secondary education proves the wastefulness of that spending. medical breakthroughs Govt spending is not necessary in this area at all.  It’s all about control, not “breakthroughs”. etc… I could go on forever. You can keep on being wrong forever, I’ll grant you.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Start Cutting. Tell me what you want to name your country in when you get 2/3 of it hacked off

I guess you didn’t get the meaning of “reduce” did you?
Same old leftie straw man argument.
You left out a lot on the social spending, like the unfunded liabilities of SS and Medicare, to name two.  You also didn’t list the absolutely wasteful Dept of Education budget, which educates no children, and is only used to impose govt mandates on local schools.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Building infrastructure, A legitimate expense of govt, as I have already said, although with severe limitations. investing in education,The govt doesn’t “invest”, it spends, and the results yielded by the govt monopoly on primary and secondary education proves the wastefulness of that spending. medical breakthroughs Govt spending is not necessary in this area at all.  It’s all about control, not “breakthroughs”. etc… I could go on forever. You can keep on being wrong forever, I’ll grant you.

Being an expert in Economics and pointing out my lack thereof, perhaps you would like to explain how Natural Monopolies fit into the private sector?  Or how the Multiplicative Effect of Keynsian Economics is falsified by your premises.

If educating the unwealthy is not an investment but wasteful spending, Im sure glad you don’t have direct influence on policymaking.  Many breaktrhoughs in technology would have gone undiscoverd by such a shallow view. Very often scientific breakthroughs are not just subsidized by gov’t but fully funded by it.  Its Technology that grows the “Pie.” Its hard to imagine such things as Nuclear Power being developed independantly by private enterprise.

The gains in revenues from the tax rate cuts is a fraction of revenues lost.

I guess you didn’t get the meaning of “reduce” did you?
Same old leftie straw man argument

Erase Cut and Insert Reduce if you so choose.

The gains in revenues from the tax rate cuts is a fraction of revenues lost.

So what your saying is the gains realized from the Presidents tax cuts would have been far greater had he either 1. raised taxes or 2. left the rates alone. 

Who do you think you’re kiddin’ Woof, besides yourself of course.

r108

Straw man; nobody has said that but you, Mike.

Fair enough...I still haven’t mastered this parsing business yet but somebody did say

But no one seems able to demonstrate that cutting tax rates has actually diminished the amount of ensuing federal revenues.

Bat One did say something different...he said that cutting tax rates has never reduced tax revenues. I said that cutting tax rates does not necessarily raise tax revenue. Straw man? Probably.

r108

And revenue is only germane when you are discussing the remedies for deficits, right?

No...it is also germane when you are discussing the effects of raising or lowering the tax rate. I understand that revenue and deficits are related but I am limiting myself only to the discussion of tax rates and tax revenues and how one impacts the other. Deficits are not on my agenda today...seriously.

r108

I would ask you if you think that there is any level of govt spending that is wasteful, though.  If not, then your disagreement is not a matter of degree, is it?

Yes, there is a lot of wasted spending by governments at all levels and in all countries. I suspect that we could agree on some areas that constitute waste and some areas where we don’t. Since I think the government plays a useful role in society, I suspect that your list of waste will be considerably longer than mine.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

Sven,

“By looking out for our own best interest, we are helping out all of society”

Are you saying that working to meet my needs and in so doing provide a product and/or service desired and/or required by consumers I am not helping out all of society? 

investing in education, medical breakthroughs etc… I could go on forever.  In your eyes this doesn’t count as economic growth.  These things are the building blocks of economic growth.

Really, so I guess we were without a “society” before the early part of the 1900’s considering government didn’t exclusively fund these “breakthroughs”?  The building blocks of society excape you my friend.

HG , what I am saying is more tax revenue would have been generated had there not been cuts.
That’s the facts.
There is no free lunch.
Pretty simple.

Since I think the government plays a useful role in society,

Government plays a useful role in society, true, but not always true.  Regarding national security, gov’t plays an absolutely necessary role.  Regarding social issues, government plays a optional role and quite often a hindering role.  Welfare for instance, has hindered far, far more than helped.  Gov’t social spending may prove useful occasionally, but it is usually the wrong choice given that the private solution will often succeed where gov’t spending fails.

Are you saying that working to meet my needs and in so doing provide a product and/or service desired and/or required by consumers I am not helping out all of society?

Perhaps you are.  But perhaps not as efficiently as you could be.  A graduate economics example of Game Theory or an undergraduate example of Supply Chain Management are two examples of where Adam Smith was wrong.  Analogous to Einstein and Newton with Physics, the old way of thinking about Economics, is in fact wrong.

There is no free lunch.
Pretty simple.

So tax cuts do not increase economic activity (which would be the case if there is no “free lunch")?

Woof you’re kiddin’ yourself.

But perhaps not as efficiently as you could be.

Oh hell ya, we all know how efficiently gov’t spends money, and we all know how efficient social programs are.  Hell, most social spending hinders more than helps.  Welfare has created a dependent class consisting of far more than have used it as temporary assistance as a step in the right direction.

A graduate economics example of Game Theory

Therin lies your problem.  Try practicing what you preach in real life and see how it doesn’t work.

Seven years of stagnancy says I ain’t kidding.

Over the past 7 years, Oil has risen from about ~$25 to $112; The CRB Commodity index has more than doubled; Gold has quadrupled; Many industrial metals are up 50, to 150%; Foodstuffs have recently doubled; the Goldman Sachs Agricultural Price index has almost tripled over the past three years alone. Oh, and the follar has fallen 40% over the same period.

And just now, inflation is back? Puh-leeze!

The Big Picture

Woof,

Tax revenues still went up. 

You actually think tax cuts are to blame for the expamples you cite?

Stagnancy?  Woof you really are kiddin’ yourself.

The lack of any practical economic sense liberals exhibit is truly amazing.  Especially when they claim to be educated.  Education is not the goal, application of knowledge is.  To some it seems knowledge is greater than wisdom.

Therin lies your problem.  Try practicing what you preach in real life and see how it doesn’t work.

Well, first you have to know HOW to pracitce it.  If you lack the intellectual capacity to learn it, you won’t be able to apply it.  It doesn’t sound like you want to learn or care to hear about mathematical models that require applied calculus and complex business statistics.  You remind me of the Preacher who wants to keep right on believing in God regardless of any evidence to the contrary.  You have Faith in Free Markets.  Anything contrary that might show benefits of government direction, or benefits from non-government cooperation in direct violation of “Self Interest,” you don’t want to hear about it.

first you have to know HOW to pracitce it.  If you lack the intellectual capacity to learn it, you won’t be able to apply it.

I never diminished the value of learning, rather the value of rightly applying it.  Attempting to hijack the point and make it your own will not replace your stated faith in theory.

You have Faith in Free Markets.

I have confidence in Free Markets because America is the greatest nation in the world.  I have confidence in Free Markets because America has proven they work and work far better than any other alternative.  I have confidence in Free Markets because I believe freedom to be far superior to socialism.

It should have read…

rather [I recognized] the value of rightly applying it.

Straw man; nobody has said that but you, Mike.

Fair enough...I still haven’t mastered this parsing business yet but somebody did say

But no one seems able to demonstrate that cutting tax rates has actually diminished the amount of ensuing federal revenues.

No “parsing”, Mike; you simply overgeneralized.  Your straw man was to state that we believe tax rate cuts always result in increased revenues, although you are the only one to make that claim. Bat states(truthfully) that no one has given an example of tax rate reducions that have diminished revenue.  That’s correct, but it doesn’t entitle you to assume the opposite.

Bat One did say something different...he said that cutting tax rates has never reduced tax revenues. I said that cutting tax rates does not necessarily raise tax revenue. Straw man? Probably.  Hypothetically, one might concoct an extreme example, but none exists in real life.

r108

And revenue is only germane when you are discussing the remedies for deficits, right?

No...it is also germane when you are discussing the effects of raising or lowering the tax rate. I understand that revenue and deficits are related
but I am limiting myself only to the discussion of tax rates and tax revenues and how one impacts the other. Deficits are not on my agenda today...seriously. I suggest you reread the title of this thread; it’s about deficits.

r108

I would ask you if you think that there is any level of govt spending that is wasteful, though. If not, then your disagreement is not a
matter of degree, is it?

Yes, there is a lot of wasted spending by governments at all levels and in all countries. Therefore, there is also a lot of excess taxation; that’s my point. I suspect that we could agree on some areas that constitute waste and some areas where we don’t. Since I think the government plays a useful role in society, So do I, and I’ve listed what I consider the legitimate items of govt spending many times, including this thread. I suspect that your list of waste will be considerably longer than mine.

Obviously true, if your list is longer than the one I have already written.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

I believe freedom to be far superior to socialism.

Who said anything about Socialism?

I have confidence in Free Markets because America is the greatest nation in the world.

It’s not like we invented it or something.

I have confidence in Free Markets because America has proven they work and work far better than any other alternative.

Many people would believe this statement.  I believe Free markets are the most “Efficient” in all Industries.  I believe Free Markets work the BEST in most Industries.  However, I believe Free markets FAIL in some industries with respect to what those industries in spirit attempt to accomplish.

The gains in revenues from the tax rate cuts is a fraction of revenues lost.

False.  The increase of income-producing activity that results from tax rate cuts is responsible for the increased revenue, even with the lower marginal rate.  Oppressive taxation suppresses economic activity and increases asset-protecting activity, like hedging with gold and other commodities, for instance.  Oppressive regulation does the same thing.  Punitive taxation and regulation of business produces outsourcing.
Govt-produced energy crises, through taxation and regulation, plus subsidizing of so-called “alternative fuels” raises fuel costs and spawns shortages, like we have in electricity.

Sven: Economics is the study of human behavior, not a mathematical exercise.  A free market is what happens naturally when people can act freely without govt control.  Duh.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Natural Monopolies

Now you’re reciting textbook stuff.  In real life, the only long term monopolies are those created by govt through regulation that inhibits or prohibits freedom of entry and exit.

As far as Keynes is concerned, his basic premise that govt can create economic growth was wrong, so the rest of his stuff is also wrong.  Govt is an expense to the taxpayer.  A slight amount is a necessary evil, but the amount we have now is detrimental to economic growth, and the Keynesian approach just makes it worse.  At best, Keynesianism distorts the market, that’s all.  Govt is a lousy economic decision-maker, or else Communism would be flourishing.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

I believe Free markets are the most “Efficient” in all Industries.  I believe Free Markets work the BEST in most Industries.

So you too “have faith in Free Markets”.

However, I believe Free markets FAIL in some industries with respect to what those industries in spirit attempt to accomplish.

It would be helpful if you could point to “some” examples.

Who said anything about Socialism?

Sven, once you hang out here long enough you will realize they believe that any regulation is socialism.  They want Laissez Faire economics.

that any regulation is socialism.

If true than wouldn’t we be saying that America has socialized medicine since our current healthcare industry is over-regulated? 

Wrong again Letstat.

Don’t kid yourselves, Liberals want all the government interference in the market they can get.

However, I believe Free markets FAIL in some industries with respect to what those industries in spirit attempt to accomplish.

The key word here is “believe”; it’s a matter of faith with you, Sven.

Lestat: you lie, as usual.  Minimal regulation, like enforcement of contracts and basic ground rules, is necessary, but most govt regulation these days is for political reasons, and inhibits both freedom and prosperity, in order to funnel the earnings of the productive into the pockets of the non-productive political class.  You just don’t get it.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Sven, you really do need to go out and do something with your new-found knowledge. Go start a business, making or selling something everyone wants, and then employ some people. Make the world a better place through the sweat of your brow, give a fair wage to those who work for you, and then come back in ten years and tell us all how you feel about the government taking a good portion of it away from you each year, in direct and indirect ways.  What you have now is a very infantile, uninformed worldview, based on what little you have been spoon fed by some professors. Life, my boy, is where the learning is.

What you have now is a very infantile, uninformed worldview, based on what little you have been spoon fed by some professors

What I do have an eye for is Irony.  I find it Ironic that the last few Republican administrations have grown the government more than any other administrations in history.  And yes, the Military is a government institution.  That and the interest we pay on the debt (to huge U.S. corporations and foreign investers) make up MOST of our government spending.

I find it Ironic that the largest military (and goverment) spending buildup in history under Reagan was used to defeat Communism (Gov’t spending Idealism). 

What really seems to scare some of you is that Welfare bogeyman.  People having babies to get bigger welfare checks, and other urban legends. I find it Ironic that Welfare as it was known was dismantled under a Liberal administration.  Gov’t surpluses at record levels under a Liberal administration.

If I were you guys I’d sure switch sides if big government is as bad as you make it out to be.

urban legends.

The welfare state is an urban legend?  Jeez, you really are out of touch.

If I were you guys I’d sure switch sides if big government is as bad as you make it out to be.

National security is the primary function of government, social spending is not.  That military spending rose is not an issue to conservatives for that very reason.

And yes, the Military is a government institution.  That and the interest we pay on the debt (to huge U.S. corporations and foreign investers) make up MOST of our government spending.

Military spending is dwarfed by social spending.  Look it up.

Sven,

Was that last post supposed to argue in favor of free maket interference from government?  Or, are you simply attempting to hasten such interfenrence by arguing republicans vote for liberal socialists?

And yes, the Military is a government
institution.

No; it’s a legitimate function of our federal govt.

I find it Ironic that Welfare as it was known was dismantled under a Liberal administration. It was passed by a Republican Congress, which overcame the objections of a Dem President, who later lied and said he supported it to get credit. You’re wrong on this one, too. Gov’t surpluses at record levels under a Liberal administration.  Another lie; Clinton’s “surplus” was a ten-year projection that never happened, and his gutting of military and intel enabled 9/11, so you are simply showing your ignorance, yet again.

Sven, you’re just another mouthpiece for leftie lying propaganda.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Military spending is dwarfed by social spending.  Look it up.

I will:

U.S. military spending – Dept. of Defense plus nuclear weapons (in $billions) – is equal to the military spending of the next 15 countries combined.

These numbers show military expenditures for each country. Some say that U.S. military spending will naturally be higher because it has the highest Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of any country. The United States accounts for 47 percent of the world’s total military spending, however the U.S.’s share of the world’s GDP is about 21 percent. Also note that of the top 15 countries shown, at least 12 are considered allies of the U.S. The U.S. outspends Iran and North Korea by a ratio of 72 to one.

Total Military 54%
Non - Military 46%

From above

The welfare state is an urban legend

No, but Welfare mothers driving Cadillacs was a popular Urban Legend during the Reagan Administration.  A worm on a hook that many bit on.

National security is the primary function of government, social spending is not.  That military spending rose is not an issue to conservatives for that very reason.

Why can’t the Military function more efficiently as a private enterprise?  Why the Military and not any other of the essential functions of society gets a pass on Government control?

People having babies to get bigger welfare checks, and other urban legends.

Yup, urban legend. And you know what other ridiculous thing I heard? Paul McCartney was in another group before Wings.

Sven, you’re just another mouthpiece for leftie lying propaganda.

Thats odd.  When I post on the Liberal blogs they accuse me of being a Right Wing nut job.

Yup, urban legend. And you know what other ridiculous thing I heard? Paul McCartney was in another group before Wings.

Your’e still biting at that worm on the hook Good ‘Ol Boy! Let go, before you end up in the boat!

Was that last post supposed to argue in favor of free maket interference from government?  Or, are you simply attempting to hasten such interfenrence by arguing republicans vote for liberal socialists?

I’m simply making a point that if its smaller, more efficient government that you want, the Republicans have a terrible track record over the last few decades.  I’d be mad as hell if I kept voting for Republicans thinking they would shrink the government, and they just keep growing it and growing it.  Even when they have all three legislative branches of government in control they increase spending and blame it on the Democrats. haha.

r108

I suggest you reread the title of this thread; it’s about deficits.

True but I responded to a specific statement from Bat One and limited that response to tax rates and their effect on tax revenues. I will not be discussing deficits today.

Therefore, there is also a lot of excess taxation; that’s my point.

There’s certainly a lot of government debt. I’ve never considered how American governmental spending matches up with American tax revenue...imagine how high your taxes would be if the government wasn’t out borrowing all the time.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

Sven...SA might seem like the Twilight Zone given your apparent philosophical bent but I appreciate your comments and commend your civility and perseverance. They’re really not a bad lot...they can’t think straight but pretty decent.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

Sven-HO, don’t confuse Republicans with Conservatives. It’s a common mistake of the left. We wish we could count on Republicans, really we do, but as Juan McCain has shown, that is not a good strategy. Since our stated goals line up somewhat, we try our level best to play nice, but it’s not 100 percent. You were saying?

don’t confuse Republicans with Conservatives. It’s a common mistake of the left

I couldn’t agree more.  It goes both ways with Dem’s and Lib’s I guess.  I personally relate much better with the intellectual old Right wing.  The Neo-Cons aren’t considerably different than the Truman-Kennedy Dems of the 50s and 60s.  I think the Neo Cons are a blending of International politics caused by the inevitable globalization we face and a sort of Theological idealism of Good vs. Evil simplicity that Evangelicals have been promoting over the past couple decades.  I think its an incredibly dangerous combination personally.

But, this thread was about Economics and I still stand by my premises that Pure Free markets across all industries will ultimately degrade society without some sort of directional control - be it Democracy (I hope) over Theocracy.