Name your President now

[Big Will]

And that something would be?

JackC, Wow! Are you looking for historical references into the "something" namely the US/Canada/British military action in Afganistan and other countries in response to the September 11th attacks?! If so.. I have some good references that could educate you if you want. Also, if you want, I could educate you to the lip service Clinton masterly delivered in the wake of EACH terrorist attack during his Presidency and his actions, or lack thereof, following the attacks?

[Art]

Gbear,

Of course government spending is a part of the GDP and is a factor in the economy. But, you seem to continue to want to confuse government revenue, which is simply and solely tax dollars, with government borrowing, economic growth or whatever else.

In the three times our government has lowered taxes, the government has increased the amount of tax dollars it took in, which is all government revenue is. Obviously government plays a part in spurring various sectors of the economy.

Where you are lost in this conversation is you seem to lend more weight to the correlation drawn from a theoretical economic graph and reality. Further, I've never stated that all tax dollars allowed to be kept by Americans is invested or saved. In fact, I suspect that's a great deal of the case at all.

When Americans have an extra $100 in their pockets, they spend it most of the time. Giving money back to Americans has been proven to spur the economy because they spend the money, which increases the amount of taxes the government will pull in. It's a rather simple premise.

While I'm looking at the New Deal spending habits that got us out of the depression, will you please look at the historical fact that every recession we've ever entered has come due to burdensome marginal tax rates? Is that a fair deal?

The difference between our two points though is simple, Gbear. You lend weight to a hypothetical theory of economics and I lend weight to the historical facts we've witnessed every time we've allowed Americans to keep their dollars. You aren't going to have a winning side when that's the difference.

Everything you've said though suggests in reality you support lowering taxes as the best fundamental way to inspire growth and increase government revenue. I say this because you've written that people spend money, which is precisely the point of giving them the money to spend, and that you want to go on predictions and historical results, which supports lowering taxes is the way to bring money into the government.

But, I can draw a U instead of an upside down U if you are compelled by the letter in some way.

[gbear]

Art,

You are right that I support the lowering of taxes, especially the capital gains tax under the right conditions, but only if you can come up with an answer to the political side. I've said so in other threads. IF you check out the graphs, they pretty accurately describe what happened with the lower taxes.

The government increased it's debt in what should have been the short term. That's a serious problem because by the time the government can start to pay off the debt, I suspect conservative like you will say "we don't need to tax even this much. See, we're running a surplus." Then the liberals will say "look at how much more we can do." The end result is what happened here, more government debt because nobody is in favor of paying it off.

Now let's say you can control that. You still need a situation where you can control inflation. In the late 80's we had some serious help with lowering of gas and energy prices. Where will that help come this time. As of right now, gas prices are contributing to inflation because of uncertainty in the middle east.

Also, the lower tax rates you want regardless have a side effect of hurting the dollar. You might remember that happening the late 80's early 90s. I certainly do when I was traveling. I'd point out that our economy certainly benefits from overseas investment, and part of the reason it has is because the dollar has been strong. It's made our economy look more attractive to invest in. I suspect if you remove the strong dollar through lower taxes, you lose some investment. I suspect that might dampen the gains from lower taxes (not wipe them out). Just something to consider.

[JackC]

Originally posted by Big Will

JackC, Wow! Are you looking for historical references into the "something" namely the US/Canada/British military action in Afganistan and other countries in response to the September 11th attacks?! If so.. I have some good references that could educate you if you want. Also, if you want, I could educate you to the lip service Clinton masterly delivered in the wake of EACH terrorist attack during his Presidency and his actions, or lack thereof, following the attacks?

I'm still waiting. (I sure hope you don't think that was it)

[JackC]

Originally posted by Art

Jack,

What the government spends does not increase revenue. You understand that right? The government can't make money. It doesn't produce anything. The only revenue the government receives is through tax dollars. That's all there is. So, yes, I'm positive increased government spending didn't cause government revenue to go up.

And, I'm stunned someone beyond preschool could even offer the question up.

I stunned you would have no understanding of a topic and insist on calling someone else stupid. Let me help you.

If the government spends a whole lot more than it takes in tax revenues are likely to be enhanced. Why you asked? Because, especially in the case of the 1980's a ton of government money is spent in the private sector such as the defense industry. Employment goes up, more people have jobs and thus pay taxes. Thus the increased revenues in the 1980's were not due to tax cuts but to increased government spending which fueled the economy. When you spend outside of your means there will always be a price to pay. Sometimes that price is inflation or increased interest rates.(because the government's need to borrow money conflicts with the rest of us thus driving up demand)

Logic should tell you if the tax rate goes down you will get less revenue everything else being equal. It really is a weak arguement to say the two things are related. I've heard it from buffoons like Limbaugh before and it's simply not true.

[fansince62]

jack you surprise me with a tolerable argument. what a refreshing change!.......

logic, borrowing the ceteris paribus dictum economists so love, can cut both ways. if you reduce the tax rate and that influences me to change my marginal propensity to save (from low to very low, for instance); then, consumption could very well increase (and taxes). it depends on what happens at the margins (e.g., the first and second derivatives).

also, you have not mentioned anything about monetary policy. keynesianism has it's limits - as those of us who lived through the nixon and carter eras well understand (revisit the philips curve and stagflation).

[JackC]

Originally posted by fansince62

jack you surprise me with a tolerable argument. what a refreshing change!.......

logic, borrowing the ceteris paribus dictum economists so love, can cut both ways. if you reduce the tax rate and that influences me to change my marginal propensity to save (from low to very low, for instance); then, consumption could very well increase (and taxes). it depends on what happens at the margins (e.g., the first and second derivatives).

also, you have not mentioned anything about monetary policy. keynesianism has it's limits - as those of us who lived through the nixon and carter eras well understand (revisit the philips curve and stagflation).

Let's cut taxes to zero. Then revenues would surely explode! Money for nothing and I hope chicks for free!

[fansince62]

better....let's raise the tax rate to 100%......and then redistribute the booty to everyone with an income under $12k so all retributive justice fantasies are finally answered.

better still........let's spend the money from the escalated taxes on improving the quality of economics teaching at our major universities!! economics professors can be counted on to spend the extra income, right? that would increase the gov't take from taxes and make the whole thing self perpetuating!!! what a dream!!!

[JackC]

Are the chicks still free under your plan?

[fansince62]

Jack.......you'll have to take that up with MS Smeal, Mary McCrory, et al. I am not allowed to have an opinion on those sorts of things!!!

all our exchanges aside....and I imagine they are frustrating both of us to distraction.......let's hook up at some skins game so I can buy you a beer........after all, we really should be focusing on what is most important!!!!.........HTTR

[SkinsLegacy44]

Originally posted by JackC

Art,

Let me get this straight so I can argue with you. In the 90's when things were going great the Conservatives told us that it was because of the groundwork layed by Ronald Reagan and the GOP congress. Now that the Dubya economy is in the tank it's because of Clinton?

You can't have it both ways my young friend. As for you point of when the "crimes" took place during the Clinton years, I would tell you I would guess they are still taking place and the fault lies at the feet of the GOP congress who pushed thru major deregulation.

I would vote for President Clinton again tomorrow, more than once if I could get away with it.

I agree totally......!!!!! :notworthy :notworthy

[fansince62]

CLINTON!!!!! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

that Jackc......what a sense of humor!

bring him back....we need someone to belittle who is deserving!