Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten I think it's a mistake to focus on Obama's muslim background.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten Sorry, the muslim angle is a nonstarter. The Marxist angle has more promise, because it appeals to conservatives. The muslim angle is too fraught with peril because it is tenuous and smacks of bigotry. Too easy to get labeled using that approach. If you've got oodles of muslim evidence, I'd sure like to see it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten This is all implicit stuff. You have anything concrete? Because I have CONCRETE EVIDENCE that the man is a Marxist. Rumor and innuendo isn't going to defeat Obama. The best way to defeat him is running ads using his own words against him. Running ads implying that he's a muslim because, well, "HE MUST BE, HE WENT TO PAKISTAN!" won't fly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/200.../#comment-3632

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS If you spent a 1/3rd of the energy you do in trying to vilify Obama and focused it on boosting McCain, it'd probably be more effective in having John-boy win the election.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark I'm hoping McCain gets disqualified on citizenship issues too .

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten GASP You don't mean... Ron Paul for President?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo I could handle that..

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark [url]http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frogman You broke the link!

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark Who ever thought I'd be working for the Clintons? I guess stopping Marxism makes for strange bedfellows indeed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark Media is burying his Muslim support. Keep your head in the sand. That way you won't see it coming....

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS Quit your crying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS Quit your crying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum C: Tax cuts (1/2 of what is defined as fiscal conservatism) have been proven to increase tax revenue at the national level in this country, while tax increases do the opposite (It's called the Laffer Curve). That pretty well leaves only the area of government spending that could have caused those deficits then, doesn't it. Now who controls government spending? I would refer you back to point 'A'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum That is why I was very specific in stating that tax cuts have been proven to increase tax revenue at the national level in this country. I probably should have added the word "historically" to make that a bit clearer...

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum Every time tax cuts have been attempted on the national level (at least in the past fifty years), tax revenues have increased.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus It's time to kill this myth that tax cuts pay for themselves. It's never happened before, it will never happen in the future.

Attempts to debunk solid theories often involve first mischaracterizing them as straw men. Critics often erroneously define supply-side economics as the belief that all tax cuts pay for themselves. They then cite tax cuts that have not fully paid for themselves as conclusive proof that supply-side economics has failed.

However, supply-side economics never contended that all tax cuts pay for themselves. Rather the Laffer Curve (upon which much of the supply-side theory is based) merely formalizes the common-sense observations that:

1. Tax revenues depend on the tax base as well as the tax rate;
2. Raising tax rates discourages the taxed behavior and therefore shrinks the tax base, offsetting some of the revenue gains; and
3. Lowering tax rates encourages the taxed behavior and expands the tax base, offsetting some of the revenue loss.

If policymakers intend cigarette taxes to discourage smoking, they should also expect high investment taxes to discourage investment and income taxes to discourage work. Lowering taxes encourages people to engage in the given behavior, which expands the base and replenishes some of the lost revenue. This is the "feedback effect" of a tax cut.

Whether or not a tax cut recovers 100 percent of the lost revenue depends on the tax rate's location on the Laffer Curve. Each tax has a revenue-maximizing rate at which future tax increases will reduce revenue. (This is the peak of the Laffer Curve.) Only when tax rates are above that level will reducing the tax rate actually increase revenue. Otherwise, it will replenish only a portion of the lost revenue.

How much feedback revenue a given tax cut will generate depends on the degree to which taxpayers adjust their behavior. Cutting sales and property tax rates generally induces smaller feedback effects because taxpayers do not respond by substantially expanding their purchases or home-buying. Income taxes have a higher feedback effect. Nobel Prize-winning economist Ed Prescott has shown a strong cross-national link between lower income tax rates and higher work hours. Investment taxes have the highest feedback effects because investors quickly move to avoid higher-taxed investments. Not surprisingly, history shows that higher investment taxes deeply curtail investment and consequently raise little (if any) new revenue.

Yet, using the standard set by some, even a hypothetical tax cut that provides real tax relief to millions of families and entrepreneurs and creates enough new income to recover 95 percent of the estimated revenue loss would be considered a "failure" of supply-side economics and thus merit a full repeal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum Deville, your little carton is exceedingly ignorant... A: Congress controls the purse strings, not the executive branch. Democrats were in control during Regan's, Bush Sr.'s and the past two years of Dubya's presidencies, as well as the first two years of the Clinton presidency. B: The full effects of the fiscal policies under a given president aren't fully known until well after their presidency; sometimes as much as a decade after, according to some experts... C: Tax cuts (1/2 of what is defined as fiscal conservatism) have been proven to increase tax revenue at the national level in this country, while tax increases do the opposite (It's called the Laffer Curve). That pretty well leaves only the area of government spending that could have caused those deficits then, doesn't it. Now who controls government spending? I would refer you back to point 'A'. D: There was never a surplus under Clinton. It was a "projected" surplus that was reached by cooking the books; just like Clinton's friend's at Enron did...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tricky-Dick Shhhh, DeVille thinks political actions work like a "light switch"!

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS At least I think, peanut gallery boy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS You imply I'm being childish by replying with a "what grade are we in" jab? Really, now.

Shhhh, DeVille thinks political actions work like a "light switch"!

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS At least I think, peanut gallery boy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten It's called illustrating the absurd by using absurdity. Rush is right, the left have no sense of humor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tricky-Dick Quote: Originally Posted by Tricky-Dick Shhhh, DeVille thinks political actions work like a "light switch"! "All morons hate it when you call them a moron." - Holden Caulfield Nice Signature Deville...you hit it right on the head!

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vB Easy Archive Final ©2000 - 2008 - Created by Stefan "Xenon" Kaeser