SkyDekker 1,129 #151 August 14, 2012 This is starting to look like one of those, everything that's bad for business is Obama's fault and everything that is good is somebody else's accomplishment, type of arguments. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,405 #152 August 14, 2012 >This is starting to look like one of those, everything that's bad for business is Obama's >fault and everything that is good is somebody else's accomplishment, type of >arguments. "Starting?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #153 August 14, 2012 QuoteQuote Must be why the stock market is up some 80% since he's been president. That's widely acknowledged, by those who make their living picking stocks, to be the result of the Fed's QE policies. And it FELL by some 30% during Bush's term.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #154 August 14, 2012 The is starting to look like one of those threads where everything positive that happens is because of Obama and everything bad is Bushs fault. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 384 #155 August 14, 2012 [url] Quote Quote Scholars at the American Enterprise Institute examined .... Well, there's a nice non-partisan analysis. What about this non-partisan analysis? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbzpuqWo6yU Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 384 #156 August 14, 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbzpuqWo6yU clicky Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #157 August 14, 2012 QuoteI've been reading the Tax Policy Center (TPC) article that David Firestone seems to have based his critique of Romeny's tax plan on: ON THE DISTRIBUTIONAL EFFECTS OF BASE-BROADENING INCOME TAX REFORM, along with referenced articles. The article is very well done, with assumptions clearly spelled out, and many references provided to boot. All of the referenced material is similarly well done. I'm still forming an opinion on it, but in the meantime, the WSJ came out today with an AEI analysis covering that TPC article. It's hard to imagine that a NewsCorp publication would turn to a neo-conservative think tank in response to research by the Brookings institution, one of the most widely respected non-partisan think tanks.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #158 August 14, 2012 QuoteThe is starting to look like one of those threads where everything positive that happens is because of Obama and everything bad is Bushs fault. "starting"? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #159 August 14, 2012 Quote It's hard to imagine that a NewsCorp publication would turn to a neo-conservative think tank in response to research by the Brookings institution, one of the most widely respected non-partisan think tanks. As you usually seem to do, you're too busy shooting the messenger to bother with the message. Did you read the article, and if so, what exactly didn't you like about their analysis? The TPC paper is a good read. The numbers they've come up with are for limited scenarios that may, or may not, end up occurring. They really didn't need to do this analysis to make their point. Considering they are pro-progressive tax structure, simply looking at Romney's tax proposal will lead one directly to TPC's conclusion. The magnitude of the numbers are questionable, especially considering they've assumed no net impact to Federal revenues related to increasing growth, which is very questionable, IMO. That's the whole point of Romney's tax plan - to increase growth. That is a necessary condition for us to get out of the fiscal mess the country is in. Obama is not going to grow the economy. That's crystal clear, even more so when one listens to his people say "this is the new normal". Bullshit on that.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #160 August 14, 2012 QuoteQuote It's hard to imagine that a NewsCorp publication would turn to a neo-conservative think tank in response to research by the Brookings institution, one of the most widely respected non-partisan think tanks. As you usually seem to do, you're too busy shooting the messenger to bother with the message. Did you read the article, and if so, what exactly didn't you like about their analysis? It's ludicrous to believe that we can cut taxes to increase revenue and decrease the deficit. We're on the wrong side of the Laffer curve for that. Further, if spending cuts are going to be used to decrease the deficit, those cuts have to include large defense spending cuts.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #161 August 14, 2012 QuoteQuoteThe is starting to look like one of those threads where everything positive that happens is because of Obama and everything bad is Bushs fault. "starting"? Well it is about Romney and Ryan. They just can't help themselves. They have to blame "something" on Bush. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #162 August 14, 2012 Quote We're on the wrong side of the Laffer curve for that. Do you have any references for this? I'd be interested to read them. Quote Further, if spending cuts are going to be used to decrease the deficit, those cuts have to include large defense spending cuts. While the details of "large" can be debated, +1.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #163 August 14, 2012 QuoteQuote We're on the wrong side of the Laffer curve for that. Do you have any references for this? I'd be interested to read them. A quick search found this one, among others.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #164 August 14, 2012 Quote Quote Must be why the stock market is up some 80% since he's been president. That's widely acknowledged, by those who make their living picking stocks, to be the result of the Fed's QE policies. What?! The guys who would prefer Obama and his "regulate the banks" attitude be run out of town in favor of one of their own are attributing their success to someone other than him? Preposterous! Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 291 #165 August 14, 2012 Quote"A blind spot is caused by something getting in the way that you can't do anything about." Speaking metaphorically; you could adjust your mirrors. Or open your other eye. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #166 August 14, 2012 Quote Makes me sick to my stomach.... I don't think Ryan is actually going to help. Rubio might have carried FL. The chances of a "R" victory is very slim given the electoral system. Liberal strong holds: 172 EC Likely Liberal: 99EC Conservative strong: 139 Likely: 42 So right there we have: 271 to 181. oh, it's definitely still in Obama's court. But keep in mind that if they get any of the Likely Liberal states to turn over, then they've probably already won all of the undecideds as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #167 August 14, 2012 Quote A quick search found this one, among others. Thank you. My goal was to read something that you would read, and at least have a common point for discussion.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #168 August 14, 2012 QuoteQuote We're on the wrong side of the Laffer curve for that. Do you have any references for this? I'd be interested to read them. Quote Further, if spending cuts are going to be used to decrease the deficit, those cuts have to include large defense spending cuts. While the details of "large" can be debated, +1. The International Monetary Fund puts the maximum of the Laffer curve at 54% for the USA. We are well on the low side of that. Tax rates during the Clinton years were probably close to optimum for producing revenues.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 384 #169 August 15, 2012 We have made progress today with Kallend admitting that there is even such a thing as a Laffer curve. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #170 August 15, 2012 Using your article, ended up coming across three good videos about the Laffer curve. The Laffer Curve, Part I: Understanding the Theory The Laffer Curve, Part II: Reviewing the Evidence The Laffer Curve, Part III: Dynamic Scoring The three curves shown in the article you shared seem to suggest the "optimum" point is between 60% and 80%. That seems high. Even more so, how can they condense it to one number? Seems to me that each type of tax would have it's own Laffer curve. Still looking around to see what the literature says about the "optimum" value. Thanks again for sharing the link.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #171 August 15, 2012 QuoteWe have made progress today with Kallend admitting that there is even such a thing as a Laffer curve. Your research is as sloppy as your opinions. www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=search_results&search_forum=forum_35&search_string=Laffer&search_type=AND&search_fields=sb&search_time=&search_user_username=kallend&sb=post_time&mh=25... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #172 August 15, 2012 For those of you interested in a paper that actually discusses how Laffer curves are modeled, here's a paper that will give you a perspective How Far Are We From The Slippery Slope? The Laffer Curve Revisited To me, this paper inspires confidence that these folks have seriously thought about their topic. Having dealt with large scale mathematical systems, I know very well the false sense of comfort they can engender. But, none the less, I can't help but admire this work, based upon the rough pass(es) I've made. We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #173 August 15, 2012 Quote For those of you interested in a paper that actually discusses how Laffer curves are modeled, here's a paper that will give you a perspective How Far Are We From The Slippery Slope? The Laffer Curve Revisited To me, this paper inspires confidence that these folks have seriously thought about their topic. Having dealt with large scale mathematical systems, I know very well the false sense of comfort they can engender. But, none the less, I can't help but admire this work, based upon the rough pass(es) I've made. A number of analyses have been done by mathematically competent people, and every one I've seen shows that the US tax rate lies to the left of the peak of the curve. IOW, those expecting tax cuts to decrease the deficit are living in cloud cuckoo land.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #174 August 15, 2012 > are living in cloud cuckoo land. Do you welcome them when they arrive?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #175 August 16, 2012 Ike was a very smart man.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites