Drill Now for oil

[Simon S Aysdie]

It has been discredited for over years now.  People have been trying
to find proof of it in the real data and it never seems to show up.
Clinton raised taxes and the economy rocketed ahead.  Bush cut them
and slow growth was the result.  Clintons tax increase increased the
amount of money the government got and Bushes decreased it.

The real drag on the economy is nonproductive spending whether it is
funded by taxes or borrowing doesn't matter in the long run.
Nonproductive spending burns up wealth and produces nothing.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/10/whos-lafferi...

http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/cgi-bin/res.pl?keyword=Laffer+Cur....

Imagine that -- within the space of a couple of paragraphs, a rather
basic and straightforward economic proposition is debunked/
discredited. Are you fucking serious?

I had to laugh when you wrote "real data." It sort of assumes that it
exists.

Now to your links...
Krugman doesn't claim to have debunked the basic proposition,
especially in one or two paragraphs. (As much of a shill has he has
become, that would be bold, even for him.) All he is saying is that
it hasn't been sufficiently demonstrated that marginal tax rates are
at the level were increasing the rate would result in decreased
revenues. The other link is a cartoon.

Once again, the problem with Laffer's proposition is not in its basic
theoretical statement -- the problem is knowing the complex conditions
for a particular nation and its rates, and its "economy."

I don't have much problem with what Krugman wrote, as to whether his
assessment is correct -- it may well be correct and I don't really
doubt it. I did notice he got shady with "So everything you’ve heard
about how revenues have boomed since the Bush tax cuts is wrong. What
really happened was that revenue plunged, as a percent of GDP, in the
early Bush years, then staged a partial, but only partial, recovery"
and then quickly covered up the shadyness with ""UPDATE: Aha, I forgot
to point out that GDP growth has not been exceptionally strong under
Bush, so that I’m not cheating by looking at revenues as a percent of
GDP."

Yeah, he is an economist and "he forgot... and so he is not
cheating." What a bunch of bullshit. Isn't that the sort of thing he
constantly complains about with GWB? He is such a fucking shill.

 

[Simon S Aysdie]

Yes I do.  Anyone with two neurons to rub together can see what
happens EVERY TIME taxes are cut; tax revenue increases.

Sounds like you have it figured out.

 

[Richard Henry]

Yes I do.  Anyone with two neurons to rub together can see what
happens EVERY TIME taxes are cut; tax revenue increases.

Please provide data.

 

[Simon S Aysdie]

Please provide data.

Even if he could, he wouldn't know how to read it.

"[T]he most reckless and treacherous of all theorists is he who
professes
to let facts and figures speak for themselves." -- Alfred Marshall

 

[z]

donald wrote:
How about we:
[...]
get public transportation working,
Jim Thompson wrote:
Bwahahahahahaha! [...]
Most public transportation is a political boondoggle.
Typical Republican:
Won't look beyond the top layer on public mechanisms.  8-|
(Think:  more person-miles/gallon==cleaner air
and--for the folks who insist on a 2-ton chunk of stuff
to transport a single person--less road congestion.)

That's a great _theory_, provided you somehow create significant
rider-ship.  You clearly have no idea of the population density
distribution in Arizona... we're now above 100 miles west-to-east in
the Phoenix metro area... mostly single-family housing.

It's a dense area that I feel is unfit to live in.

One model _does_not_fit_all_!

I can now drive cheaper than I can fly.  AND be comfortable.

In Tennessee ;-)

truck and SUV plants are closing?
..and people are parking their ridiculous vehicles.
get the air breathable again,
You know not of what you speak.
Air quality is _dramatically_ better than it was in the '50's.
[. . .]
We need to drill so we're not dependent on enemies
Wasn't it you that was just talking about living in the '50s?
<checking> Yup, that was you.

As usual you have your leftist weenie head up your ass.  '50's
education WAS better, air quality was NOT.

Cars WERE more powerful ;-)

GE is developing more efficient incandescents.

My present house is 30% larger than my last, but costs 1/2 to cool,
insulation IS generally better here than in other parts of the country
where thinking seems totally inadequate: I was amused seeing on TV
some crime situation back east... police car with hood up to avoid
over-heating.  Wonder why you don't see that in Arizona?

I do.  And my pool.  Though I do crank up a heat pump in the "dead of
winter" ;-)

Confucius say "Man who live in Florida sweat without evaporation, and
smells terrible" ;-)

It was 118°F in my neighborhood today... didn't get sticky at all ;-)

                                       ...Jim Thompson

Socialists refuse to recognize that the US is not built in a manner to make
public mass transit practical for most people. It's just too big and spread
out.
Instead,they want to force a massive change upon the US people,at
unbelieveable costs.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

ah yes, right wing thinking at it's clearest: "the majority of
Americans don't live where there are a lot of people".
see also
"nobody goes there any more, it's too crowded".

 

[z]

Yep, you got it Jim. And the reasons are POLITICAL!  Your CAR is your
FREEDOM!  That's what has socialist panties in a bunch.  

Damn! I thought it was my gun! Damn you, founding fathers, you
buggered it up!

 

[James Arthur]

It isn't taxes it is nonproductive spending that is the long term drag
on the economy.

Since one is quickly 106% converted to the other, what's the dif?

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[krw]

JeffM wrote:
Never mind that The Left's *Tax and spend*
is preferable to The New Right's *Borrow and spend*.

krw wrote:
While neither is a good thing,

Amen.

tax and spend drives the economy to zero,
reducing the ability to pay equally.

At least it's an honest approach.

No, it's really not.

Piling your debt onto your grandchildren is fundamentally dishonest.
It's a Ponzi scheme.

How does piling on more entitlements help "my grandchildren"?

When the economy turns down, the weenies simply spend more.

It doesn't seem to slow down the Borrow-and-spenders.

It does slow down the tax-n-spenders. At least there is an economy
left to *hope* to be able to pay the bills.

That doesn't make the Republicans. [NO CARRIER]

It's been mentioned here before that Progressives spend their terms
cleaning up the economic messes that NeoCons leave behind
--only to have the NEXT Republican screw it up again.
http://www.bartcop.com/natl-debt_Chart-2004.jpg

Hogwash. What about the economic and other messes
the progressives hero FDR made?
They're the granddaddy of all messes!

Yeah. That
getting-the-nation-through-the-Coolidge/Hoover-Great-Depression
thing was a real bad legacy. 8-|

Complete nonsense.

...though I'l concede that Social Security was a Ponzi scheme.

The Righties should just call their party what it is:
The Subsidize the Trans-Nationals and Send Jobs Overseas Party.

Funny. I didn't know Bill Clinton was a Republican.

...and George H.W. Bush said, "No new taxes".
Politics breeds policy aberations.

Silly statement. Even sillier to knuckle under to the DemonRATS and
go back on a silly statement.

Let me know when you see job growth under a Republican
even keep pace with population growth.

For the last 6 years there has been a lot of job growth.

"The Bush *job growth* record" is an oxymoron.

Only to a flaming weenie.

To repeat:
The rate of job creation hasn't even kept up with population growth.

Nonsense.

Yo, Jeff, Keith. Don't argue, post links to quality data.

Let 'im. He's the one that made the outrageous claims.

Hmmm. Preemptive strike?

No, fact. Let him show how the unemployment rate can be low while
the number of jobs hasn't kept up with the population growth and the
rest of the Democrat talking-point claptrap.

 

[krw]

But if you deficit-spend you're effectively levying
an undeclared tax, accumulating a debt. That's my
point. You're stealth-taxing. It will still come due,
but with interest.

It doesn't "come due" at all.

Meanwhile you've put the federal government in
competition with citizens for borrowing money,
raising interest rates, yadda yadda yadda.

There has to be some debt. If the national debt were zero,
government bonds wouldn't exist, so the "knobs" used to dampen the
economy wouldn't exist.

Better is not to spend so much in the first place.

Better the tooth fairy left us all a million bucks too.

 

[krw]

I think you should check the timing better. Dot.com went dot.bomb
near the beginning of Clinton years.

Wow! What a retelling of history! BTW, your nose is growing.

The Clinton boom was from
balancing the budget.

The budget was "balanced" on the .bombs back. When that revenue
went away the so did the "balanced" budget.

The Bush recession is straightforwardly the
result of his war deficits.

More lies. The recession, if there really was one, happened
*BEFORE* Bush was in office. It's been uphill since, with a recent
leveling, somewhat.

Bush required FERC to NOT respond to
Enron until it was blown and then some. If you think there was some
prior changes in laws or regulations leading this, you are asked to
show it. And keep track of who was in charge of Congress at which
time, the President cannot Legislate nor regulate.

Now he moves the goal posts. <sheesh!>

 

[Don Klipstein]

Since one is quickly 106% converted to the other, what's the dif?

The neocon tax cutters have a poor record at cutting spending - they
borrow to make up for less tax revenue, and spend like Democrats. This
started with the Reagan administration.

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

 

[Don Klipstein]

It doesn't "come due" at all.

So you want taxpayers to pay interest on it forever?

There has to be some debt. If the national debt were zero,
government bonds wouldn't exist, so the "knobs" used to dampen the
economy wouldn't exist.

I would think a trillion or two is enough.

 

[krw]

Please provide data.

Good grief. OPEN YOUR LEFTIST WEENIE EYES! You might start with
the aftermath of the Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush tax cuts.

 

[Simon S Aysdie]

  The neocon tax cutters have a poor record at cutting spending - they
...

"They" don't have a record of cutting spending.

"Sacred cows run in herds." -- David Stockman, Reagan OMB Director

 

[krw]

Republicans who have drunk the Kool-aid simply refuse to see that one
of their pet ideas has been disproved by facts on the ground. They
are in the ballroom of the Titanic and are chanting "there is no
iceberg, there is no iceberg" with their fingers in there ears.

Nice metaphors. Meaningless and wrong, but nice anyway.

It isn't taxes it is nonproductive spending that is the long term drag
on the economy.

Nonsense. Taxes on businesses kill growth, which strangles the
economy. If you want to compete in the world, drop *ALL* taxes on
business. There wouldn't be enough people to fill all the jobs.

But if you want to eliminate welfare (both the street corner bum
type and the corn growing type), I'm all for it.

 

[krw]

The neocon tax cutters have a poor record at cutting spending - they
borrow to make up for less tax revenue, and spend like Democrats. This
started with the Reagan administration.

That is true, mainly because the conservatives have never truely
been in power. The only way to limit government has been to
redirect spending. The government will *never* reduce spending.

 

[James Arthur]

Exactly, except for government has become essentially parasitic and/or
serving special interests.

That's inherent in the beast: governments can't make things,
people do, so governments have to live off their hosts, off
the people. That's why least is best.

Our government has become so large it's its own entity,
complete with its own special interest groups.

Politicians want to be re-elected. Their interest is in
spreading money as widely possible, gleaning votes.
Inefficiency is a virtue--the more hands involved, the
more people are pleased, the better the election returns.

Civil servants have their own pension / medical plans, and
a union. Their chief interest is in perpetuating their own
jobs.

Neither have but the barest incentive to be innovative,
effective, or frugal.

In fact you're safer doing nothing--or even better, bashing
the other guy--than doing anything; the incentive is to inaction,
as actions can be criticized, programs can fail.

(Of course government programs never fail, they just need
more funding.)

If any problems crop up blame the other guy.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[James Arthur]

Bush also trash talked the economy a lot during the election. He was
a regular Chicken Little about there being a down turn coming.

Trash-talking? There was a huge mania, a bubble, ripe
for bursting. That was real, and not Bush's fault.

Acknowledging and addressing that is what Bill should've been
doing rather than taking credit for it.

Steve Ballmer and Greenspan were hip. Everyone was. I
was screaming it to the rafters a year before it
happened.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[James Arthur]

On Jun 23, 7:47 pm, John Larkin


See you have to make up reasons why the economy improved when taxes
where increased.


.. and you have to make up reasons for the poor economy under Bush.

"Clinton's" taxes and policies were still in effect when
revenues plummeted in 2001.

So, they don't explain the "prosperity."

It was a bubble. Not sustainable, and not real.


Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[James Arthur]

Manufacturing has been steadily leaving the USA for decades now.
That's why we have a rust belt.

Actually, AIUI we produce more manufactured goods than ever.
It's the jobs we've been paring.

Small wonder, really: burden employers and they cut
employees. Build robots. Or leave.

Which makes them evil, to the guys inventing the burdens.

Cheers,
James Arthur