Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So Heritage, basically the best economic minds in the country, are full of shit. You'd rather believe a bunch of Marxists or money-grubbing Democrats.
Shows everyone how bright you are.
Only thing the people on the left know how to do is take money, spend it faster then they can steal it, and cause turmoil everywhere they go.
Heritage isn't even a collection of good economic minds, must less the best ones. It's a talk shop for making intellectual sounding arguments to support Republican policy preferences.
That's your opinion. Problem is the Heritage Club has been in existence long before there even was a Republican party. I tend to believe them over a bunch of left-wing anarchists.
I heard an Obama mouth piece on TV last night say "the US is cash strapped"
Well now, that is not actually the truth. Saying it that way makes it sound like were just not taking in enough money.
The truth is were taking in more money every year than ever before. By a long shot. The Truth is the BUSH tax cuts caused an increase in revenues to record highs.
It is not that were not taking in enough money, WERE FUCKING SPENDING TO MUCH!!!
So Heritage, basically the best economic minds in the country, are full of shit. You'd rather believe a bunch of Marxists or money-grubbing Democrats.
Shows everyone how bright you are.
Only thing the people on the left know how to do is take money, spend it faster then they can steal it, and cause turmoil everywhere they go.
Yeah, the Bush tax cuts worked out great. Look at all the jobs all around. Where is unemployment now? 4...5%?
Listen you stupid jack ass. All I said was those cuts in taxes produced an increase in Revenue. That is an indisputable fact.
Actually going by Greenbeard's chart..they didn't produce an increase in revenue. They either went down..or stayed flat.
Listen you stupid jack ass. All I said was those cuts in taxes produced an increase in Revenue. That is an indisputable fact.
Actually going by Greenbeard's chart..they didn't produce an increase in revenue. They either went down..or stayed flat.
That is a percentage of GDP, which is the appropriate metric. But in absolute terms, government spending is higher.
The problem with Charles's argument is that he hasn't shown causality.
In truth, the economy has gone up whether tax rates were increased or tax rates were cut.
I heard an Obama mouth piece on TV last night say "the US is cash strapped"
Well now, that is not actually the truth. Saying it that way makes it sound like were just not taking in enough money.
The truth is were taking in more money every year than ever before. By a long shot. The Truth is the BUSH tax cuts caused an increase in revenues to record highs.
It is not that were not taking in enough money, WERE FUCKING SPENDING TO MUCH!!!
You are correct. Tax receipts have gone down somewhat for the past two years because of the recession (which I assume the Obamabots are focusing on), but outlays have gone up significantly.
The financial principles that apply to individuals and businesses are equally valid for the government: when income falls, spending should be cut back below the amount of cash coming in.
It's quite simple - but it does take a sense of responsibility and discipline.
It's almost as if economic growth was a natural occurrence caused by increases in population and technology.
It's almost as if economic growth was a natural occurrence caused by increases in population and technology.
Taxes certainly aren't unimportant, but those trumpeting tax cuts as the source of growth conveniently ignore those times when the economy has expanded after taxes have risen.
Here you go, read:
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary
Due to the DotCom and 9/11 double whammy recession, tax receipts fell. The Bush tax cuts helped spur GDP growth, which resulted in recovery and growth of tax receipts.
That's the real solution: GDP GROWTH.
Somehow, this simple fact eludes you leftwing loons and the Obama Administration.
That doesn't do anything to prove cause and effect.
Try again.
It doesn't prove cause and effect only to an economic illiterate.
For those of use with actual knowledge, spurring GDP growth results in increased tax receipts.
Try reading something beside the Daily Kos.
The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates | The Heritage Foundation
Federal tax revenues fell in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2008, 2009.
That's roughly Bush's record. Bush had 2 major tax cuts.
Tax revenues rose for 7 straight years after the 'infamous' Clinton tax increase of 1993. Can we fairly say that Clinton's tax hike INCREASED revenues, I mean,
if you're going attempt to credit tax cuts for increasing revenues...
Uh, there was a big decrease in the Cap Gains rate in 1997 (from 28% to 20%), along with tax credits and other modifications. Combining this with the dotcom/telecom/y2k bubble drove up federal tax receipts.
Tax Cuts, Not the Clinton Tax Hike, Produced the 1990s Boom | The Heritage Foundation
However, the rapid development and application of these new technologies could not have occurred at such a rapid clip absent the enormous investment flows made possible largely by the reduction in the capital gains tax rate. This experience demonstrated yet again the truth of the axiom: The less you tax of something--in this case, venture capital investment--the more you get of it.
Actually going by Greenbeard's chart..they didn't produce an increase in revenue. They either went down..or stayed flat.
That is a percentage of GDP, which is the appropriate metric. But in absolute terms, government spending is higher.
The problem with Charles's argument is that he hasn't shown causality.
In truth, the economy has gone up whether tax rates were increased or tax rates were cut.
It's almost as if economic growth was a natural occurrence caused by increases in population and technology.
That is a percentage of GDP, which is the appropriate metric. But in absolute terms, government spending is higher.
The problem with Charles's argument is that he hasn't shown causality.
In truth, the economy has gone up whether tax rates were increased or tax rates were cut.
It's almost as if economic growth was a natural occurrence caused by increases in population and technology.
Or perhaps it is effected by those, as well as things like Tax Rates, Regulations, Etc Etc.
Yeah, the Bush tax cuts worked out great. Look at all the jobs all around. Where is unemployment now? 4...5%?
Listen you stupid jack ass. All I said was those cuts in taxes produced an increase in Revenue. That is an indisputable fact.
Actually going by Greenbeard's chart..they didn't produce an increase in revenue. They either went down..or stayed flat.
You are correct. Tax receipts have gone down somewhat for the past two years because of the recession (which I assume the Obamabots are focusing on), but outlays have gone up significantly.
The financial principles that apply to individuals and businesses are equally valid for the government: when income falls, spending should be cut back below the amount of cash coming in.
It's quite simple - but it does take a sense of responsibility and discipline.
No it shouldn't. Financial principles are that governments should borrow when the economy is in contraction and save when the economy is in expansion. Households and businesses often borrow or dip into savings when income falls in anticipation of growing income later. Government should do the same.
Oh my, that made me laugh. You have got some funny posts, Toro. You make a good Keynesian.
I heard an Obama mouth piece on TV last night say "the US is cash strapped"
Well now, that is not actually the truth. Saying it that way makes it sound like were just not taking in enough money.
The truth is were taking in more money every year than ever before. By a long shot. The Truth is the BUSH tax cuts caused an increase in revenues to record highs.
It is not that were not taking in enough money, WERE FUCKING SPENDING TO MUCH!!!
Please show a causal affect between the Bush tax cuts and higher revenues. Thanks. The empirical evidence suggests the opposite.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/51527-tax-cuts-dont-pay-for-themselves-gop-economists.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/139720-bush-tax-cut-extensions-will-increase-deficit.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/144973-the-laffer-curve-bends-at-an-80-rate-of-income-tax.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...know-if-bush-tax-cuts-pay-for-themselves.html
I heard an Obama mouth piece on TV last night say "the US is cash strapped"
Well now, that is not actually the truth. Saying it that way makes it sound like were just not taking in enough money.
The truth is were taking in more money every year than ever before. By a long shot. The Truth is the BUSH tax cuts caused an increase in revenues to record highs.
It is not that were not taking in enough money, WERE FUCKING SPENDING TO MUCH!!!
The financial principles that apply to individuals and businesses are equally valid for the government: when income falls, spending should be cut back below the amount of cash coming in.
It's quite simple - but it does take a sense of responsibility and discipline.
No it shouldn't. Financial principles are that governments should borrow when the economy is in contraction and save when the economy is in expansion. Households and businesses often borrow or dip into savings when income falls in anticipation of growing income later. Government should do the same.
The permanent income hypothesis (PIH) is a theory of consumption that was developed by the American economist Milton Friedman. In its simplest form, the hypothesis states that the choices made by consumers regarding their consumption patterns are determined not by current income but by their longer-term income expectations. The key conclusion of this theory is that transitory, short-term changes in income have little effect on consumer spending behavior.
Measured income and measured consumption contain a permanent (anticipated and planned) element and a transitory (windfall gain/unexpected) element. Friedman concluded that the individual will consume a constant proportion of his/her permanent income; and that low income earners have a higher propensity to consume; and high income earners have a higher transitory element to their income and a lower than average propensity to consume.
In Friedman's permanent income hypothesis model, the key determinant of consumption is an individual's real wealth, not his current real disposable income. Permanent income is determined by a consumer's assets; both physical (shares, bonds, property) and human (education and experience). These influence the consumer's ability to earn income. The consumer can then make an estimation of anticipated lifetime income.
No it shouldn't. Financial principles are that governments should borrow when the economy is in contraction and save when the economy is in expansion. Households and businesses often borrow or dip into savings when income falls in anticipation of growing income later. Government should do the same.
No. You've got it wrong. It's not Keynes. People decreasing net savings is Milton Friedman's Permanent Income Hypothesis.
The permanent income hypothesis (PIH) is a theory of consumption that was developed by the American economist Milton Friedman. In its simplest form, the hypothesis states that the choices made by consumers regarding their consumption patterns are determined not by current income but by their longer-term income expectations. The key conclusion of this theory is that transitory, short-term changes in income have little effect on consumer spending behavior.
Measured income and measured consumption contain a permanent (anticipated and planned) element and a transitory (windfall gain/unexpected) element. Friedman concluded that the individual will consume a constant proportion of his/her permanent income; and that low income earners have a higher propensity to consume; and high income earners have a higher transitory element to their income and a lower than average propensity to consume.
In Friedman's permanent income hypothesis model, the key determinant of consumption is an individual's real wealth, not his current real disposable income. Permanent income is determined by a consumer's assets; both physical (shares, bonds, property) and human (education and experience). These influence the consumer's ability to earn income. The consumer can then make an estimation of anticipated lifetime income.
Permanent income hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
People alter their consumption if they believe their income is going to permanently change. If they do not believe that, they don't change their consumption. So if you lose your job and you think you will get a similar one within a few months, you don't change your consumption (much) and you draw down your net savings to support your life style. But if you think you can't get a new job that pays as much, then you change your consumption.
So if you use people and businesses as the yardstick to measure what governments should do, then according to the Permanent Income Hypothesis, since most people won't cut back unless they believe there has been a structural change in their incomes, governments shouldn't either. And that means funding consumption during a recession with debt. BUT it also means running surpluses during good times and paying off that debt.
