H.R. 5029 - Economic Freedom Act of 2010

[MaggieMae]

Who cares who wrote it? The sponsor is Jim Jordan; if you have evidence that he is a Dick Armey sock puppet, please post it.

The points are plain common sense if combined with significant cuts in government spending.

Let's hold bureaucrat line item budget reviews on CSPAN, like Japan is doing.

Yes, I can just envision 18-hour, seven-day workweeks to do line by line. And of course the American people would generally show interest for, oh I don't know, a week maybe, and then they'd tune it out and move to their favorite pundit for their favorite biased synopsis.

Oh ye of little imagination.

This concept has Block Buster Potential. "Grill The Bureaucrat" - Must See TV!

Considering how outraged a big chunk of the public are about government spending, watching squirming career bureaucrats with huge pensions and benefits attempt to justify wasteful spending is exactly the Sunlight Disinfectant we need.

I think you exaggerate (unintentionally) the number of people seriously interested in how all this will turn out. Of, say, 10 people closest to me, I can count only 4 (maybe 5 only because of my influence) who pay any attention at all about the size of the budget, the financial crisis (what financial reform?), or even details of the health care bill. WE care because WE are political junkies. I was in the supermarket just a few hours ago and someone in line mentioned how the oil spill was getting bigger, and someone else said "what oil spill?" If she had added "which aisle?" I swear I would have slapped her. (Just kidding.)

 

[MaggieMae]

If this bill were introduced it would be a good START. I think everyone in here can admit that the problems that were created in this country didn't happen and take effect in one day, but over years and years of abuse of power from our elected officials. If a bill like this could get passed, the next step would be to reign in government spending. Thats going to be a battle in itself. No one wants to tell all the gov't employees that get paid around 20% more than the private sector to do the same job that they are going to have to get out and find a job outside of the gov't. But if that could be accomplished and some programs could be cut or simply stream lined to run efficiently, that would be another step in the right direction. See where I am going with this. Step by Step this gov't has to be fixed. WE elected the people there that created this mess. Now its time we elect people to fix the mess. But I would propose something simple. How about first and foremost, limit terms for all gov't officials. No more lifers in the congress and senate. 2 terms and your out. New blood in, maybe then they would care about what they do to the people they SERVE.

Just one mans humble opinion!

The OP summary is not "a bill." Each item would be a proposed bill by itself. So it would obviously take many months, and even years, to pass all of it. The proposal is a piece of propaganda to make it appear the Republicans are concerned, but most of it would be impossible to pass as generically proposed.

Term limits have never been, nor will they ever, be possible because the very people who would need to approve limits are those who would be affected. And if anything, term limits of House members need to be EXPANDED from two years so that they don't spend one year actually working and the next year campaigning to get reelected.

Your right it would take years to pass, that was kind of my point. We have put so many band aids on the problems over the years that if you take them all off at once we would hemorage and bleed out of control.

But to say its a piece of propaganda is really a bold statement. I hear all this crap about how the republicans are evil rich and how they only want to give tax cuts to the "rich". blah blah blah. Here is a question for you. For example, you have all these elitist assholes in Hollywood, Rich as all hell, begging for you to vote Democrat, Why would they want that? Could it be they are truly looking out for themselves? that it would be a good thing to keep Dem's in power. I mean look at that fat ass Michael Moore. Making millions off of propaganda. Al Gore, the creator and almighty of the internet revolution, self claimed. Even that facist troll looking terd Bill Mahr. Always bashing conservative movements. To me the Dem's have a lot more vocal people to the cause making a lot more noise about being liberal that us evil Conservative or Republicans do. Again, just one mans opinion.

So why do you suppose Hollywood types are mostly Democrats? It's a serious question, because I don't know either. They're certainly in the highest tax brackets, pay all sorts of capital gains taxes and that pesky inheritance tax. So why wouldn't they all be Tea Partiers?

 

[MaggieMae]

Y'know. If Harry and Nancy can RAHM through a 2,700 plus page bill nobody has read in a short amount of time, there is no reason why some clearly drafted common sense government financial reforms cannot be expedited.

The Real Financial Reform we need is in Government, not Wall Street. If we properly reform government, the ability for Wall Street to be ensured form risk with Taxpayer money will be eliminated (cuz that is the problem with them).

I don't know why you insist in using that lame argument, still. It's quite obvious the bill was READ from the get-go. Otherwise, the Republicans wouldn't have been able to cherry-pick parts they didn't like.

And the whole purpose of regulating Wall Street so that better oversight is had has little to do with taxpayers, or the government for that matter. It has to do with not allowing Wall Street to screw up Main Street's daily operations.

 

[MaggieMae]

across the board, tax revenues need to go up for the solvency pf government. unlike our states, our federal solvency effects the dollar directly, and we cant play the games we have been the last 30 years. wouldn't raise taxes if we didn't need to reclaim the dough.

This may be the single most warped narrow minded thing I've read so far. If I were a democrat I'd be laughing my ass off at you. "Look not only am I spending inefficiently, I actually have this donkey (no pun intended) supporting it."

I am sad for the tax issue when I see both righties and lefties playing the governments game. Everyone is arguing about who should have their taxes raised and who should get cuts, but no one seems to want to hold the people that caused the problem accountable.

I disagree about the accountability. One of the reasons the Republicans were booted starting in 2006 was because the Bush tax cuts were skewed to keep the wealth at the top, thereby creating the beginning of class warfare, added to the fact that we were heavily invested in two major wars at the same time. Now the Republicans are all upset that Obama has increased the size of the deficit Bush created, and they will have their turn at holding him and the Democrats accountable if nothing has changed by 2012.

 

[The Rabbi]

Fiscal conservatism includes the government using no more of the people's property than is absolutely necessary in order for government to fulfill is constitutionally mandated responsibilities.

Define "people's property." Government's constitutionally mandated responsibilities have necessarily expanded exponentially because we are no longer a country of 4 million, but a country of 309 million.

It wouldn't matter if we were a country of 4B people. Without amending the constitution there is no expansion of mandated responsibilities.
Where do you get this crap from??

 

[rightwinger]

Fiscal conservatism includes the government using no more of the people's property than is absolutely necessary in order for government to fulfill is constitutionally mandated responsibilities.

Define "people's property." Government's constitutionally mandated responsibilities have necessarily expanded exponentially because we are no longer a country of 4 million, but a country of 309 million.

It wouldn't matter if we were a country of 4B people. Without amending the constitution there is no expansion of mandated responsibilities.
Where do you get this crap from??

Sure there are...that is why we have a Supreme Court

To imply that the Government of the 1780s is all we are entitled to is moronic. The role of Government has expanded as we have become a modern society. To straddle us with a Government designed to handle an agrarian economy with a dispersed population will send us into third world status

 

[MaggieMae]

Please, don't paint yourself as the rational one here because you are clearly a partisan hack. Anyone who would write in a neg rep "suck my dick you little assclown" is clearly not playing with a full deck, in addition to violating TOS on this board.
The fact is that the economy lost many more jobs in the 2001 recession but the unemployment rate never went this high. That is because job creation was still strong.
Under "Barak" (I didnt know you were on a first name basis with Barry) that job creation has lagged badly. The last figure for job creation you cite includes many government jobs (which are a drain on the economy, not a help) including census worker jobs, which are temporary by nature.
So we have not gained jobs in any meaningful sense, and the unemployment rate continues to be stubbornly high. It will continue to be this way because Barack has pushed an agenda that punishes job creation, making it expensive and uncertain. ANd this will not change before November, when the Democrats will get the full force of electoral anger.

So if government job creation isn't ideologically viable in your opinion, then why doesn't the private sector rejoin the human race and stop being so afraid to take risks? If businesses want to move forward, they've got to put some shoes on.

Of all the stupid spins of the Left I've seen on this thread (and there are some dandies) this one takes the cake.
First, it isn't a question of ideology but economics. Temporary jobs created by the gov't to hand people checks are not sustainable. The only take money from productive people to give to unproductive people. You might as well hire 10k people to dig ditches and then another 10k to fill them in.
Businesses are not hiring because your president Barack Insane Obama has declared a fatwa on businesses that make money (businesses that lose money get gov't handouts). Have you noticed how many businesses have written down their earnings in anticipation of the new Obamacare? What other mandates will Obama put on businesses? How about banks, where they are considering a tax on assets?
Businesses exist to earn a profit. If gov't makes that difficult, they will respond by freezing hiring and expansion until things become clearer.
That is what has made this recession worse. Job loss was every bit as bad under Bush in 2001. But job creation has lagged and this accounts for the high unemployment rate.

Zero fact; 100% rant.

Yep, this is some fatwa on small businesses.

More Stimulus Tax Breaks and Hiring Credits in Obama's 2010 Small Business Recovery Plan

 

[MaggieMae]

Of all the stupid spins of the Left I've seen on this thread (and there are some dandies) this one takes the cake.
First, it isn't a question of ideology by economics. Temporary jobs created by the gov't to hand people checks are not sustainable. The only take money from productive people to give to unproductive people. You might as well hire 10k people to dig ditches and then another 10k to fill them in.
Businesses are not hiring because your president Barack Insane Obama has declared a fatwa on businesses that make money (businesses that lose money get gov't handouts). Have you noticed how many businesses have written down their earnings in anticipation of the new Obamacare? What other mandates will Obama put on businesses? How about banks, where they are considering a tax on assets?
Businesses exist to earn a profit. If gov't makes that difficult, they will respond by freezing hiring and expansion until things become clearer.
That is what has made this recession worse. Job loss was every bit as bad under Bush in 2001. But job creation has lagged and this accounts for the high unemployment rate.

Job creation has lagged because credit was frozen and spending was at a stand still. However, in spite of those issues, job losses improved immediately when the dems took control, and now in the last year-half we're actually gaining jobs.

I think I've thoroughly proven this to be true. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that anything bad that happens in the economy is because of the Democrats, while anything good that happens under Democratic control is unrelated to politics. THAT is why it's impossible to take you seriously.

As a friend - OK not as a friend, you're too much of a dousche to be a friend, but as advice - Try starting an entry that does not unilaterally blame the democrats for everything that ails every-fuckin-body.

No, you haven't proven it.
Job losses began increasing when the Dems won Congress. They accelerated after Obama was sworn in. Job creation is still minuscule, if you exclude the public sector, in fact a net loss of jobs still.
Nothing good has happened under Democratic control. Only less bad. And imposing higher taxes and more mandates on business will guarantee that the next 3 years will be years of high unemployment. No amount of spinning will change that.

And without questioning the reason WHY is downright illiterate. It's tantamount to saying that terrorism didn't exist until nine months after Bush took office when the 911 attacks took place.

 

[MaggieMae]

No, you haven't proven it.
Job losses began increasing when the Dems won Congress. They accelerated after Obama was sworn in. Job creation is still minuscule, if you exclude the public sector, in fact a net loss of jobs still.
Nothing good has happened under Democratic control. Only less bad. And imposing higher taxes and more mandates on business will guarantee that the next 3 years will be years of high unemployment. No amount of spinning will change that.

OK I got it - Congress pushes the "Recession" button.

So, the dot-com burst that happened under Clinton, well that must have been the fault of the Republican congress, right?

Except the dot-com companies weren't gov't regulated and the banks and brokerages and Fannie/Freddie are. And the gov had plenty of advance knowledge that they were over-lending and putting crap in their portfolios.
Nice try at spinning but fail.

Fannie & Freddie were only GUARANTORS of loans. The subprime lenders were the carnival barkers who established themselves as bogus mortgage lenders. By the time the housing market began to tank, F&F were only guaranteeing about 5% of those loans. Blaming that organization for the whole goddamned collapse has been debunked a gazillion times.

 

[MaggieMae]

For those who say the Republicans are the party of 'no' and have no ideas, Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) introduced H.R. 5020 - Economic Freedom Act of 2010 - recently. It is still in committee and the Democratic majority probably will not allow it out of committee this year.

No industrial nation in the modern age can survive without taxing the key beneficiaries of its system. This stuff is stupid. If you were to destroy the tax base would you then remove the military as it eats most of that money? Simplistic bunk like this appeals to some but makes zero sense.


Newsflash: Ronald Reagan Raised Taxes (You Idiots) | Firedoglake

The Conservative Nanny State

Hale "Bonddad" Stewart: Ronald Reagan: Fiscal Disaster

It isn't a matter of taxation. Nobody is saying that taxes are not necessary in order for the government to operate.

It is a matter of how the taxes are administered and how the money is then spent.

To tax only the effective, efficient, productive is to punish effectiveness, efficiency, productivity.

To spend only on the ineffective, inefficient, non productive is to reward those characteristics or activities.

It shouldn't take a genius to figure out that punishing success and rewarding failure or the substandard is going to promote a lot more substandard and failure than success.

And once you no longer have enough of the successful left to punish then voila! You have the high permanent unemployment and stagnant economies of Europe.

We can do better.

That's the flaw in your argument. The use of the word "only," when you know that's not true.

File:Fy2008spendingbycategory.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Foxfyre]

No industrial nation in the modern age can survive without taxing the key beneficiaries of its system. This stuff is stupid. If you were to destroy the tax base would you then remove the military as it eats most of that money? Simplistic bunk like this appeals to some but makes zero sense.


Newsflash: Ronald Reagan Raised Taxes (You Idiots) | Firedoglake

The Conservative Nanny State

Hale "Bonddad" Stewart: Ronald Reagan: Fiscal Disaster

It isn't a matter of taxation. Nobody is saying that taxes are not necessary in order for the government to operate.

It is a matter of how the taxes are administered and how the money is then spent.

To tax only the effective, efficient, productive is to punish effectiveness, efficiency, productivity.

To spend only on the ineffective, inefficient, non productive is to reward those characteristics or activities.

It shouldn't take a genius to figure out that punishing success and rewarding failure or the substandard is going to promote a lot more substandard and failure than success.

And once you no longer have enough of the successful left to punish then voila! You have the high permanent unemployment and stagnant economies of Europe.

We can do better.

That's the flaw in your argument. The use of the word "only," when you know that's not true.

File:Fy2008spendingbycategory.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perhaps you have a problem distinguishing between stated fact and a statement of nuanced principle?

 

[MaggieMae]

Fiscal conservatism includes the government using no more of the people's property than is absolutely necessary in order for government to fulfill is constitutionally mandated responsibilities.

Define "people's property." Government's constitutionally mandated responsibilities have necessarily expanded exponentially because we are no longer a country of 4 million, but a country of 309 million.

It wouldn't matter if we were a country of 4B people. Without amending the constitution there is no expansion of mandated responsibilities.
Where do you get this crap from??

The intentionally ambiguous language in the Constitution. The framers weren't stupid. They were quite aware that the country would grow and modernize, and that their guidelines needed to be vague enough to allow for expansion.

 

[MaggieMae]

It isn't a matter of taxation. Nobody is saying that taxes are not necessary in order for the government to operate.

It is a matter of how the taxes are administered and how the money is then spent.

To tax only the effective, efficient, productive is to punish effectiveness, efficiency, productivity.

To spend only on the ineffective, inefficient, non productive is to reward those characteristics or activities.

It shouldn't take a genius to figure out that punishing success and rewarding failure or the substandard is going to promote a lot more substandard and failure than success.

And once you no longer have enough of the successful left to punish then voila! You have the high permanent unemployment and stagnant economies of Europe.

We can do better.

That's the flaw in your argument. The use of the word "only," when you know that's not true.

File:Fy2008spendingbycategory.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perhaps you have a problem distinguishing between stated fact and a statement of nuanced principle?

I don't know, the statement looked pretty clear to me. Just removing the word completely would then have made sense.

 

[The Rabbi]

OK I got it - Congress pushes the "Recession" button.

So, the dot-com burst that happened under Clinton, well that must have been the fault of the Republican congress, right?

Except the dot-com companies weren't gov't regulated and the banks and brokerages and Fannie/Freddie are. And the gov had plenty of advance knowledge that they were over-lending and putting crap in their portfolios.
Nice try at spinning but fail.

Fannie & Freddie were only GUARANTORS of loans. The subprime lenders were the carnival barkers who established themselves as bogus mortgage lenders. By the time the housing market began to tank, F&F were only guaranteeing about 5% of those loans. Blaming that organization for the whole goddamned collapse has been debunked a gazillion times.

Geez, do you know anything what you're talking about??
Fannie and Freddie were the largest purchasers of mortgages in the country. As such they set the rules for what they were willing to buy. And their "Alt-A" product was a big innovation and probably went bad faster than their standard plain vanilla product.
About 80% of mortgages were sold to Fannie/Freddie, some held in portfolio and some securitized.

 

[The Rabbi]

For those who say the Republicans are the party of 'no' and have no ideas, Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) introduced H.R. 5020 - Economic Freedom Act of 2010 - recently. It is still in committee and the Democratic majority probably will not allow it out of committee this year.

The bill has a number of supporters however and, should the Republicans achieve a majority in November, they will bring it to a vote on the House floor early in 2011.

Basically the bill proposes the following:

1) Eliminate the capital gains tax.
2) Reduce the corporate tax rate to 12.5%.
3) Permanently eliminate the death tax.
4) Provide immediate business expensing.
5) Reduce the payroll tax by half for 2010.
6) Repeal the "stimulus" spending (except for unemployment benefits and the tax cuts).
7) Terminate the TARP program.

Would you vote for this? Why or why not?

More of the same Republican "new ideas."

​

Democratic broken record is:
Higher taxes for more bureaucrats. Higher taxes for more bureaucrats.

 

[MaggieMae]

Except the dot-com companies weren't gov't regulated and the banks and brokerages and Fannie/Freddie are. And the gov had plenty of advance knowledge that they were over-lending and putting crap in their portfolios.
Nice try at spinning but fail.

Fannie & Freddie were only GUARANTORS of loans. The subprime lenders were the carnival barkers who established themselves as bogus mortgage lenders. By the time the housing market began to tank, F&F were only guaranteeing about 5% of those loans. Blaming that organization for the whole goddamned collapse has been debunked a gazillion times.

Geez, do you know anything what you're talking about??
Fannie and Freddie were the largest purchasers of mortgages in the country. As such they set the rules for what they were willing to buy. And their "Alt-A" product was a big innovation and probably went bad faster than their standard plain vanilla product.
About 80% of mortgages were sold to Fannie/Freddie, some held in portfolio and some securitized.

Scholars and Rogues False conservatives lie that Fannie and Freddie caused the subprime mortgage crisis

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that’s being lambasted by conservative critics.

That law would be the aforementioned Community Reinvestment Act (CRA).

Furthermore, the article goes on to show that, while Fannie and Freddie were a small part of the problem, the mortgage failure actually happened as Fannie and Freddie were reducing their holdings of subprime mortgages by a factor of 2, from 48% to 24% between 2004 and 2006. In fact, in 2005 and 2006, private investment banks stopped using Fannie and Freddie for 2/3rds of all the mortgages they initiated, preferring instead to package them into questionable mortgage-backed securities. And now about 70% of all mortgages are in this secondary, non-Fannie or Freddie market.

Furthermore, the article shows that not only were Fannie and Freddie not pressuring banks, they were prevented from their regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (part of the Executive Branch), from effectively competing against the private securities.

 

[antagon]

Why would you raise corporate tax burdens? Reducing the tax burden would encourage Large Corporations to move and grow here in the US as one of the most favorable tax rates in the world. right now we are treading on the high end, and look what it gets you. Raising it or keeping it the same only results in more of the same BS. Companies moving and shrinking in order to reduce their overall tax burden to the Fed's.

across the board, tax revenues need to go up for the solvency pf government. unlike our states, our federal solvency effects the dollar directly, and we cant play the games we have been the last 30 years. wouldn't raise taxes if we didn't need to reclaim the dough.

But what does it accomplish if increased tax revenues result in decreased economic activitiy and prosperity? It sounds great that yeah, raise all the taxes to balance the budget.

But if those tax increase result in lost jobs, more folks on unemployment, more folks on food stamps, more folks on welfare, more folks not paying into the system because they have little or no income, those tax increases would be pretty stupid wouldn't you say?

none of that is indicated by moderate increases in taxes, fox. 100% unsubstantiated policy positions.

for businesses, as i had espoused to GA earlier, taxes invite investment as they promote the activity of businesses to shelter themselves through deductibility. how does your analysis fit with the clinton tax increase?

do you acknowledge that there needs to be more government revenue at all, in addition to major restructuring of the costs of government? a line is drawn for me on that basic recognition between folks who have a clue about what the dollar faces, and those who have fallen victim to the political budgeteering.

the myths you've laid out above are symptoms of this modern voter dystrophy. also indicated is an impression that the government has the will or wherewithal to affect debt reduction through constraining costs of government alone, or that there isn't commensurate impact on the wider economy from such adjustments alone.

Every businessman knows that just raising prices does not necessarily increase the bottom line and can actually hurt it if the tax increase results in his customers going elsewhere or not buying at all.

taxes effect the whole economy. price increases aimed at accounting for taxes tend to be across the board, not offering preferential competitive advantage between domestic businesses. personally, i have never adjusted pricing for any products or services i've ever offered to account for tax. how real is that?

 

[The Rabbi]

Facts. So inconvenient to the Left

Friday, August 8th, 2008, 5:44 pm

All hemming and hawing aside over a large quarterly loss at Fannie Mae (FNM: 1.26 +1.61%) posted Friday — one that, it should be noted, was the result of aggressive reserving for future losses — it’s pretty clear that the GSE now faces the proverbial piper over its foray into Alt-A mortgages in the past few years. Fannie said Friday that it would exit the Alt-A business altogether by the end of the year, as a result.

From the start of 2006 until the third quarter of 2007, Alt-A loans represented 20 percent or more of Fannie Mae’s mortgage acquisitions; the GSE purchased $25 billion or more each quarter in Alt-A mortgages until the market for low-doc, no-doc and other non-traditional loans began to dry up towards the back half of last year (and the GSE implemented several eligibility and pricing increases).

During the second quarter, Alt-A represented just below 5 percent of acquisition volume and barely more than $5 billion — still plenty of dollars, to be sure, but nowhere near what was observed during 2006 and 2007.

But any changes purchase/underwriting criteria still clearly came far too late to prevent the GSE from taking a direct credit hit, now that the Alt-A mortgage class is the latest area of mortgages to go through a meltdown, and many borrowers are defaulting at a seemingly parabolic rate each month and each quarter.

For its part, Fannie had roughly $307 billion in Alt-A mortgages remaining on its books (UPB) at the end of the second quarter, or 11.5 percent of the GSE’s entire mortgage book.

And there can be little doubt that Alt-A is the source of much of Fannie’s actual credit costs during the quarter, either — Alt-A mortgages represented a stunning 49.6 percent of the company’s $1.6 billion in credit costs booked in Q2.

It’s not hard to see why, either: Fannie holds $8.6 billion in option ARM mortgages and another $92 billion in interest-only mortgages, which together comprise roughly one-third of the Alt-A book at the company. Sliced differently, $100 billion of the Alt-A mortgage book is in California and Florida alone, two states that have seen median home prices slide dramatically throughout the past year.

Thirty percent of REO acquisitions by Fannie during the first six months of 2008 were tied to foreclosures on Alt-A mortgages; Fannie held 54,173 REO properties in inventory at the end of the second quarter.

Fannie Mae’s Alt-A Pain May Extend to BofA HousingWire

 

[Stainmaster]

For those who say the Republicans are the party of 'no' and have no ideas, Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) introduced H.R. 5020 - Economic Freedom Act of 2010 - recently. It is still in committee and the Democratic majority probably will not allow it out of committee this year.

The bill has a number of supporters however and, should the Republicans achieve a majority in November, they will bring it to a vote on the House floor early in 2011.

Basically the bill proposes the following:

1) Eliminate the capital gains tax.
2) Reduce the corporate tax rate to 12.5%.
3) Permanently eliminate the death tax.
4) Provide immediate business expensing.
5) Reduce the payroll tax by half for 2010.
6) Repeal the "stimulus" spending (except for unemployment benefits and the tax cuts).
7) Terminate the TARP program.

Would you vote for this? Why or why not?

More of the same Republican "new ideas."

​

Democratic broken record is:
Higher taxes for more bureaucrats. Higher taxes for more bureaucrats.

I am sure you are correct, every Dem and many of us independents rush to the polls each election just thinking about how more government employees would enhance our lives! And, higher taxes goes without saying, we have so much money we look for candidates who can squander it away as fast as possible. I am sure all of us would feel better if we doubled the Pentagon's budget, and reduced taxes at the same time.

 

[antagon]

I believe the last number i heard about two months ago are we are number 27 out of 30 ranked from lowest to highest. So we are in 3rd place from being one of the highest tax rates among the industrialized countries. So go ahead and raise them again, lets just push the rest of large corporations out of this country.

Simply put, The result of increased taxes will reduce the output of companies, while the reduced tax rate would increase revenues to the company, which would spur growth, job creation, etc.

If you don't understand that theory, your just plain dumb

i'm glad i understand your simpleton's theory and have passed your lil' bar for wit.

i set my bar at being able to demonstrate your halfwit mechanism in practice as affected by the dramatic tax cuts bush threw down. i see whimper and crash. what's all this about spurring growth? i see spurring deficits.