And for my 5000th post . . .

[Mr. S]

you've already posted 68 times since you hit 5000 today? Dang! Congrats though!

My friend from reading your posts almost thought you Libertarian, seems like being a Centrist would be ideal for you, just not sure how it would for the voting public.

[Destino]

pick up the pace nooby.

[chomerics]

Yup. I figured as much Chome. The fact that I agree with you 1000% won't help me when your generation gets its revenge on mine. When your generation gets control and decides that the only thing it can do is reduce our Social Security and medical benefits, that is when the roosters will come home to roost.

Will it be selfish of you guys to do that? No more selfish than my generation borrowing money that you have to pay back while at the same time we vote ourselves big tax breaks in our peak earning years and vote ourselves future drug benefits that you have to pay.

Personally, I don't think my generation will put it on your generation's poor, because that is not who caused the problem. If anything, the tax rate for the top 1% will be like 70%, and we'll make the rich suffer. Unfortunately for myself, I plan on being in the top 1% by then so, I'll only be getting porked by the gov. again :dah:

The candidates who had a chance to de-rail this foolishness couldn't escape the old class warfare divisions in their campaign rhetoric. What they never figured out is that the real future divisions in our society will be based on generational conflict NOT class conflict. My generation is screwing our own children and grand-children. What goes around comes around.

My number one hot button.

Great Post and so freakin true. It is definately going to be a generational conflict, as a majority of people in theyr late 20's and early 30's are pissed already. We know there will be no SSI for us, and we have already kind of reserved ourselves that this will be gone. I wish it wasn't like this, believe me I do, and I thought we had everything finally straightened out, but who knew republicans would be like this? I sure didn't.

[chomerics]

you've already posted 68 times since you hit 5000 today? Dang! Congrats though!

My friend from reading your posts almost thought you Libertarian, seems like being a Centrist would be ideal for you, just not sure how it would for the voting public.

:laugh:

I actually become more and more libertarian as I get older. I am getting so sick of gevernment, I am almost at the point where I think we should get rid of it all.

[wskin44]

I wish it wasn't like this, believe me I do, and I thought we had everything finally straightened out, but who knew republicans would be like this? I sure didn't.

You might not have been paying attention during the Reagan Administration but it was the same deal: Give everyone big tax breaks so that they can party and buy a new car, spend bunches on the military, and leave the resulting deficits, debts, and high interest rates to the next Administration. Then when that Administration gets hit with a recession he gets voted out of office because he couldn't blame it on the vodoo economics of the popular president who cut everyone's taxes but didn't bother to cut spending too.

But President #2 eventually got his revenge on us didn't he?

[chomerics]

You might not have been paying attention during the Reagan Administration but it was the same deal: Give everyone big tax breaks so that they can party and buy a new car, spend bunches on the military, and leave the resulting deficits, debts, and high interest rates to the next Administration. Then when that Administration gets hit with a recession he gets voted out of office because he couldn't blame it on the vodoo economics of the popular president who cut everyone's taxes but didn't bother to cut spending too.

But President #2 eventually got his revenge on us didn't he?

I was young during Reagan (my teens) so I didn't really follow politics at all. i was to busy trying to get my noodle wet back then :laugh:

I have read a lot of economic theory on supply-side economics, or as Papa Bush uset to cal it "voodoo economics" (I always think of Ferris Beuler when I hear that phrase) and it just doesn't work. People like to point to 86' as when the government gave another "tax cut" but it was really a tax increase. Reagan gave a small income tax cut to a few people, but he increased taxes on business by closing loopholes. The result was the "appearance" of supply-side economic theory working, but in reality is was a tax increase working. People just don't look deep enough to see the truth.

Well, Bush's cuts are the same exact kind of tax cuts, just cut them for the sake of cutting them. It doesn't work at all. Now, I am not saying supply side theory is wrong, as I believe in the Laffer curve, but I think politicians always want to portray us on the RIGHT side of the curve, when in reality we are on the LEFT side. In other words, to maximize the profits of the federal government, a tax INCREASE should be found, not a tax decrease. I mean if you cut taxes, and your revenue decreases with absolutely no growth when compared historically, then you are at the left of the curve, it's pretty basic stuff and it amazes me that politicians just don't get it.

[wskin44]

Ahh, so that's what the Laffer curve is. I didn't get it either until just now. So have our tax receipts gone down or does the Administration just say that the economic growth that will cause larger receipts is just delayed?

[chomerics]

Ahh, so that's what the Laffer curve is. I didn't get it either until just now. So have our tax receipts gone down or does the Administration just say that the economic growth that will cause larger receipts is just delayed?

Check it out here. . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

It is basically a curve which plots out the tax revenue vs tax rate. The theory holds that if you are on the right hand side of the curve (where you are going down hill) then a decrease in tax rate will increase your revenues. If you are on the left hand side of the curve (you are going uphill) then an increase of tax will increase your revenues.

The mainstream approach states that a tax cut will stimulate spending, thus increase the economy. I agree with this addage, and I also agree that all tax cuts should be in the form of spending cuts as well. So if you want to give a tax cut, you need to cut spending to offset the loss of revenue. This is not what supply siders (also known as voodoo economics or "trickle down" economics) theorize. It's .

In supply side theory, the premise is that if you cut taxes, the tax cut will increase the economy . . . BUT. . . it will also increase your revenue, so you don't have to cut spending. The growth in the economy will encapsulate any and all deficits created by cutting taxes. They often use the Laffer as factual evidence for this train of thought, portraying the Americans are on the right side of the curve.

Now, here is where the problem lies. . . If you are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve (which is what I am arguing) then when you cut taxes, you decrease revenues. . . BUT spending was never curtailed, so your deficit baloons out of control. This is the second time we have seen this issue. At lease Reagan was man enough to admit he made a mistake, and raised taxes in 86' to stop the bleeding. He was smart though, he gave a tax cut to individuals, while closing loopholes in business', thus putting on the illusion that supply side economics really works, when in fact his "cut" was actually an "increase". Well, Dubya did the same old supply side cuts, and never decreased spending, he actually INCREASED it. So he gave a tax cut on top of a spending increase, completely against every economic theory out there.

Well, that's my little econ101 lesson for the day. I think I have everything right, but please feel free to jump in if I made any other mistakes lycky & Riggo

[wskin44]

So how do you know (prior to making tax/spending decisions) whether we are on the right hand or left hand side of the curve?

[wskin44]

After reading the link I like David Stockman's quote that he had to explain to the politicians that there is no literal laffer curve. Apparently they expected tax revenues to increase like "manna from the sky" as soon as they cut taxes.

It seems appropriate that something called a Laffer Curve would become the tool of idiots.

[chomerics]

After reading the link I like David Stockman's quote that he had to explain to the politicians that there is no literal laffer curve. Apparently they expected tax revenues to increase like "manna from the sky" as soon as they cut taxes.

It seems appropriate that something called a Laffer Curve would become the tool of idiots.

:laugh:

The laffer curve exists, but we are on the left hand side of it IMHO. When we cut taxes, our revenues go down, it's pretty simple and you can look up the data on government sites. Krugman has written about supply side cuts quite a bit in his life, and he has a good handle on the situation. I've always called them Dooh Nibor cuts (robin hood in reverse) because they cuts only help the top, and not the bottom.

[Sarge]

And I thought you were going to say you and my former Capt were going to come out of the closet:laugh:

Lesson 1:You should never, EVER put a closeup pic of yourself on the internet Chom on the right BTW

There's always some government employee with the latest version of Paintshop 7.0 an too much time on their hands

Ladies and gents, over the next few days and weeks, Chom is going to become Bush's best buddy :laugh: And we all know pictures don't lie....eh?

[Thiebear]

DUDE! Your a New Englander that want to run for Political office... I can think of TWO good reasons right now why that would be a bad idea..

One was a drowning and the other was a Swiftboat victim...

You go and do a lot of leg work to try and prove your point.. I wouldnt put you in the 11% on either side that are just lunatics but you around 16ish...

[chomerics]

And I thought you were going to say you and my former Capt were going to come out of the closet:laugh:

Lesson 1:You should never, EVER put a closeup pic of yourself on the internet Chom on the right BTW

There's always some government employee with the latest version of Paintshop 7.0 an too much time on their hands

Ladies and gents, over the next few days and weeks, Chom is going to become Bush's best buddy :laugh: And we all know pictures don't lie....eh?

Man, toooo funny Sarge, good one :notworthy: :applause:

BTW, told you the Skins would win last night, hey at least tarhog's nipple wasn't on my cheek or something . . . maybe I shouldn't have said that :paranoid:

[Sarge]

Man, toooo funny Sarge, good one :notworthy: :applause:

BTW, told you the Skins would win last night, hey at least tarhog's nipple wasn't on my cheek or something . . . maybe I shouldn't have said that :paranoid:

You didn't have to tell me about the Skins, I had a feeling.

AS for the nipple.....................

SO let it be written, so let it be done