Another help for those mortgages underwater.

Dream on. I have much more important things to do -- like sorting my sock drawer. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Is that a sock in your drawers or are ya just happy to see Emily!

Old bull, hell!

I'm a young stud! I can post a picture here if you like. (Well, OK, it was taken around 1975.)

It's OK, WTF. I occasionally slap someone around a little bit when they post something that's really ridiculous. We're all friends here.

Please just remember to refrain from putting words in my mouth or thoughts in my head (or misrepresent what I said or tell me or others what I believe).

Deal? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Hell no...I'm not agreeing to that until you do the same!

Hey PJ got socks in his drawers! SPHunter watch out!

That being said, it is a well known economic fact that supply increases with price. So if you raise the value of labor/income production by cutting the cost of taxes, you get more of it. So all other things being equal, cutting taxes does increase economic activity. Whether that increase in economic activity is enough to off set the lost tax revenue is a subject for the Laffer Curve disciples to debate. It also has to do with how you cut taxes. marginal rate cuts having a MUCH stronger effect than rebates and other one-time cuts which have little long term effect. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Spot on.

The extent to which revenue losses predicted by static models would be replaced by marginal tax revenue resulting from tax-cut-stimulated growth is obviously impossible to predict with any accuracy at all, but the number certainly isn't likely to be anywhere near zero.

Rebates and one-time tax cuts have little if any stimulative effect, although for obvious reasons they're popular with politicians. (See "permanent income hypothesis.")

The key point some people seem not to get is that massive increases in government spending eventually have to be paid for. The method favored by the left, of course, is to raise marginal tax rates on the "rich" to as high a level as politically feasible.

Obviously, that's an economic retardant -- not a stimulant.

That's why the net result of the fraudulent, pork-festooned "stimulus package" will be the opposite of that intended. We're already seeing some of the fallout, with all the current talk about deficits and VATs.

And I have a hard time accepting talking about economics when after reading the site you insist on talking about spelling! LOL Come on Emily, you can't have it both ways. You can't purport to speak on a subject that you then say you really were to young to speak of that subject. Originally Posted by WTF

You're obfuscating.

As to playing nice, I love all you Tea Party folks! Keeps me on my toes and if I'm lucky my backside every no and again!

And unless you can quote where I state my membership in the Tea Party movement, now you're pidgeonholing.

WTF, are you just in this for the fun of being unpleasant?

You're obfuscating.


And unless you can quote where I state my membership in the Tea Party movement, now you're pidgeonholing.

WTF, are you just in this for the fun of being unpleasant? Originally Posted by EmilyHemingway

Suggest you ask atlcomedy he seems to have all those answers these days.

DG

ps Sorry, I couldn't resist, my keyboard made me do it; apologies ahead of time if it offends. A conundrum: if I am a hypocrite do I need to apologize?

WTF, are you just in this for the fun of being unpleasant? Originally Posted by EmilyHemingway

Emily, that's just the way WTF is sometimes. I guess I've sort of gotten used to it.

Usually he's OK, and harmless enough, but sometimes he acts like a cross between an internet troll and a petulant child.

You're obfuscating.
Originally Posted by EmilyHemingway

Well you can think what you wish. Yet you spoke nothing of the article except to try and shoot the messenger. Who cares if they can spell Alans last name correctly. What kind of conclusion is that to draw in the the crux of the article?

You're obfuscating.


And unless you can quote where I state my membership in the Tea Party movement, now you're pidgeonholing.
Originally Posted by EmilyHemingway

Come on Emily...this is politics.

If you spout Tea Party rhetoric do not be upset if I confuse you for a member.

WTF, are you just in this for the fun of being unpleasant? Originally Posted by EmilyHemingway

I'm not trying to be unpleasant...I am trying to debate a point that Sir Ronnie and his so called tax cuts spurred economic growth. It's not that I was aganist the idea just the parroting that trhat was an end all be all. He did turn around a raise taxes elsewhere you know. Captain can vouch that that is a pet peeve of mine. Nothing personal...sorry if you do not care how I stated it. I will try and do better.

Let's try this...Emily though the myth is that Reagan was this great cutter of taxes, the fact of the matter is that it is just not so. If you read the article I linked you will see that despite their (The authors)inabality to spell Alan's last name correct they are spot on as to the facts. I will be glad to point you in any one of several different direction to cross refrence this if you still choose not to believe the article.

Emily, that's just the way WTF is sometimes. I guess I've sort of gotten used to it.

. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Awwww, you're so sweet!

Usually he's OK, and harmless enough, but sometimes he acts like a cross between an internet troll and a petulant child. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

A obfuscating petulant child!


Come on folks, lets all go get a drink and forget this political crap!

I will be glad to point you in any one of several different direction to cross refrence this if you still choose not to believe the article. Originally Posted by WTF

No doubt, links that are just as credible as your usual lunatic fringe groups

And most federal taxes are income taxes. So it is fair to say that they don't pay any meaningful Federal taxes -- which is the subject we were discussing. Local taxes are a different matter entirely -- they aren't a monopoly. If you don't like local taxes you can easily move.

Because it makes as little sense as tying the price of a loaf of bread to a percentage of your income. Originally Posted by pjorourke

You know that's not true!! They pay payroll taxes. Arguably both halves.

You know that's not true!! They pay payroll taxes. Arguably both halves. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

But FDR told us those were "contributions" that go into a trust fund to pay for the benefit we will some day get from the system. (I understand that Al Gore still has the lock box where they are kept.) Have all those damn liberals been lying to us all these years.

It is hard to call something pretty directly related to what you get back a tax -- more of a forced social savings system, which btw is HEAVILY favored towards the low income folks. For 2010, the SS benefit formula is 90% of the first $761 in average indexed wages plus 32% of the next $4,586 plus 15% of any excess. Where average indexed wages is the average of what you earned over your career indexed up to current dollars. Somebody making an average of $20,000 a year gets a benefit equal to 58% of their pay, someone making $60,000 gets 41%, and someone making the maximum income that benefits are figured on ($106,800) gets 30%. That is a very progressive benefit structure. Taken together, which is the only rational way to look at it, the system is heavily progressive.

(But I do agree with your both halves comment -- even though it is irrelevant here.)

But FDR told us those were "contributions" that go into a trust fund to pay for the benefit we will some day get from the system. (I understand that Al Gore still has the lock box where they are kept.) Have all those damn liberals been lying to us all these years.

It is hard to call something pretty directly related to what you get back a tax -- more of a forced social savings system, which btw is HEAVILY favored towards the low income folks. For 2010, the SS benefit formula is 90% of the first $761 in average indexed wages plus 32% of the next $4,586 plus 15% of any excess. Where average indexed wages is the average of what you earned over your career indexed up to current dollars. Somebody making an average of $20,000 a year gets a benefit equal to 58% of their pay, someone making $60,000 gets 41%, and someone making the maximum income that benefits are figured on ($106,800) gets 30%. That is a very progressive benefit structure. Taken together, which is the only rational way to look at it, the system is heavily progressive.

(But I do agree with your both halves comment -- even though it is irrelevant here.) Originally Posted by pjorourke

Not what FDR said. Otherwise, how could current retirees in the 30's draw benefits. Yes, there was some rhetoric about paying in, and getting your money out, but it was clear that the design of the program was that current workers paid for current retirees.

No doubt, links that are just as credible as your usual lunatic fringe groups Originally Posted by pjorourke

Please show me where Reagan did NOT raise taxes.

Please show me where Reagan did NOT raise taxes. Originally Posted by WTF

As they say in the court room, it is hard to prove a negative.

It is hard to call something pretty directly related to what you get back a tax -- more of a forced social savings system, which btw is HEAVILY favored towards the low income folks. .) Originally Posted by pjorourke

As it should be. It is insurance/tax. I sure as hell ain't depending on it when I retire. That said the government sure does not mind taking that money and spending it.

The problem with SS is not that it was a bad plan....it was a great plan had we not raised the average life expectancy up so high!

Here is the history of how our con men politicans have used off budget on bidget SS tricks for decades. It's a link PJ. Sorry but that is how I roll!

http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html