New CBO numbers: Obamacare will cost the US 2.5 million jobs

The Laffer Curve earned its name from a 1978 article by the late Jude Wanniski (then-associate editor of the Wall Street Journal) appearing in The Public Interest entitled, “Taxes, Revenues, and the ‘Laffer Curve.’” Wanniski recounted a 1974 dinner he attended with Arthur Laffer (the professor at The University of Chicago), Donald Rumsfeld (chief of staff to President Gerald Ford), and Dick Cheney (Rumsfeld’s deputy and a former classmate of Laffer’s). When the foursome’s dinner discussion turned to President Ford’s “WIN” (Whip Inflation Now) proposal for tax increases, Dr. Laffer is said to have grabbed his napkin to sketch the curve as an illustration of the tradeoff between tax rates and tax revenues. Wanniski dubbed the tradeoff described as the “Laffer Curve.”


a fukin NAPKIN ... !!

small wonder shit like that makes sense to IDIOTS .. Originally Posted by CJ7

Although the Laffer Curve bears his name, the ideas behind it were not new or his alone. In fact, Dr. Laffer likes to point out that the ideas are so straightforward that people knew about it hundreds of years before. For example, the Muslim philosopher, Ibn Khaldun, wrote in his 14th century work, The Muqaddimah: It should be known that at the beginning of the dynasty, taxation yields a large revenue from small assessments. At the end of the dynasty, taxation yields a small revenue from large assessments.


Muslim idea = Laffer Curve = Republican economics

Republicans = Muslims

The Laffer Curve earned its name from a 1978 article by the late Jude Wanniski (then-associate editor of the Wall Street Journal) appearing in The Public Interest entitled, “Taxes, Revenues, and the ‘Laffer Curve.’” Wanniski recounted a 1974 dinner he attended with Arthur Laffer (the professor at The University of Chicago), Donald Rumsfeld (chief of staff to President Gerald Ford), and Dick Cheney (Rumsfeld’s deputy and a former classmate of Laffer’s). When the foursome’s dinner discussion turned to President Ford’s “WIN” (Whip Inflation Now) proposal for tax increases, Dr. Laffer is said to have grabbed his napkin to sketch the curve as an illustration of the tradeoff between tax rates and tax revenues. Wanniski dubbed the tradeoff described as the “Laffer Curve.”


a fukin NAPKIN ... !!

small wonder shit like that makes sense to IDIOTS .. Originally Posted by CJ7

Wow, CBJ is dazzling us with another one of his brilliant unattributed copy-paste jobs! Yeah I know, Art Laffer is a lightweight, he should have sketched his curve in the American Economic Journal...

Hey CBJ, don't forget to put the "c" back in "fuck"... or did you mean "pukin"?

I have an assignment for you, dickbrain. List every year capital gains taxes were cut over the past four decades. Then look up the change in federal revenues generated by this tax a year later. Then tell us what we should conclude from your data.

Wow, CBJ is dazzling us with another one of his brilliant unattributed copy-paste jobs! Yeah I know, Art Laffer is a lightweight, he should have sketched his curve in the American Economic Journal...

Hey CBJ, don't forget to put the "c" back in "fuck"... or did you mean "pukin"?

I have an assignment for you, dickbrain. List every year capital gains taxes were cut over the past four decades. Then look up the change in federal revenues generated by this tax a year later. Then tell us what we should conclude from your data. Originally Posted by lustylad

eat shit Mohammed ...

hope you enjoyed that you Muslim son of a bitch !

eat shit Mohammed ... Originally Posted by CJ7

Are you blaspheming again? Careful, Barry Hussein may overhear you and toss you in jail like he did to that LA filmmaker...

If you can't handle the assignment, let me know. You should look at it as an opportunity. This is your chance to run with the big dogs and show everyone you can speak economics.

Another trip to Jackson Hole, please?



I have to pay taxes, too?



Piss on these fuckin' turds. Originally Posted by JohnnyCap

You left out Nana.

Let's see... When Reagan came in (1981) federal taxes were running at 19.6% of GDP... when GWB came in (2001) they were running at 19.5% of GDP... yeah right, fagboy, great point there! I see the difference.
. Originally Posted by lustylad

You cherry picked what I said....Reagan raised taxes back up.

No you dumb fuck...I understood we should not have lowered taxes in the mid decade. Taxes were to high when Reagan lowered them...but not so when GWB did so. And Reagan even raised them back! . Originally Posted by WTF

The reason we have an unsustainable debt is because Congress spends too much.

You cherry picked what I said....Reagan raised taxes back up. Originally Posted by WTF

And your point is?

You said "taxes were to (sic) high when Reagan lowered them...but not so when GWB did so."

So are you criticizing Reagan because he "raised taxes back up"?

And if taxes at 19.6% of GDP when Reagan took office were too high, why were they NOT too high at 19.5% of GDP when Bush took office?

You're losing me, tranny boy.

The reason we have an unsustainable debt is because Congress spends too much. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

We haven't had a budget in going on six years now. We are going along on continuing resolutions which means that the executive departments are setting expenditures and not Congress.


and why did Reagan raise taxes? Because the democrats in Congress said that for every dollar in taxes Reagan would sign off on they would cut spending three dollars. They lied.

and why did Reagan raise taxes? Because the democrats in Congress said that for every dollar in taxes Reagan would sign off on they would cut spending three dollars. They lied. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I love how you go back and forth between Congress having all the power, and the President having all the power.

I love how you go back and forth between Congress having all the power, and the President having all the power. Originally Posted by Doove

It just depends upon who is POTUS. If Ronnie Reagan is President and raises taxes, the fault lies with the Democratic Congress.

If Obama is President and raises taxes, the Republican Congress is not at fault. Obama is!

JD Idiot is just another in a long line of Republican partisan clowns! Stand in line, JD!

We haven't had a budget in going on six years now. We are going along on continuing resolutions which means that the executive departments are setting expenditures and not Congress.


and why did Reagan raise taxes? Because the democrats in Congress said that for every dollar in taxes Reagan would sign off on they would cut spending three dollars. They lied. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Got a link?

And your point is?

You said "taxes were to (sic) high when Reagan lowered them...but not so when GWB did so."

So are you criticizing Reagan because he "raised taxes back up"?

And if taxes at 19.6% of GDP when Reagan took office were too high, why were they NOT too high at 19.5% of GDP when Bush took office?

You're losing me, tranny boy. Originally Posted by lustylad

You are mixing up Federal tax rate with all tax receipts.

Reagan lowered the Fed tax rate but broadened the base. Do you not understand that if you lower the Federal tax rate but then increase the SS tax rate you can have a Mexican standoff.

That is what I hate about Reagan...not his policy so much but that he fooled you dumb fucks into believing that lower taxes always bring in higher tax revenue. It shows a complete lack of understanding of the Laffer Curve.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news...axes/index.htm

In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees.

All told, the tax increases Reagan approved ended up canceling out much of the reduction in tax revenue that resulted from his 1981 legislation.
Annual federal tax receipts during his presidency averaged 18.2% of GDP, a smidge below the average


Reagan's behavior might not pass muster with those voters today who insist their Congressmen treat every proposed tax increase as poisonous to the republic.
"By today's standards, the Gipper would easily qualify for status as a back-stabbing, treacherous RINO [Republican in Name Only]," wrote Tax Analysts contributing editor Martin Sullivan, in an article for Tax Notes in May.
Thanks in part to the increases in defense spending during his administration, Reagan also didn't really reduce the size of government. Annual spending averaged 22.4% of GDP on his watch, which is above today's 40-year average of 20.7%, and above the 20.8% average under Carter.
Indeed, in one very symbolic respect he enlarged it. While in the early years of his presidency Reagan tried to shrink the IRS, by the end, the number of IRS employees hit an all-time high, according to Steuerle in his book Contemporary U.S. Tax Policy.

You are mixing up Federal tax rate with all tax receipts.

Reagan lowered the Fed tax rate but broadened the base. Do you not understand that if you lower the Federal tax rate but then increase the SS tax rate you can have a Mexican standoff.

That is what I hate about Reagan...not his policy so much but that he fooled you dumb fucks into believing that lower taxes always bring in higher tax revenue. It shows a complete lack of understanding of the Laffer Curve.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news...axes/index.htm

In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees.

All told, the tax increases Reagan approved ended up canceling out much of the reduction in tax revenue that resulted from his 1981 legislation.
Annual federal tax receipts during his presidency averaged 18.2% of GDP, a smidge below the average


Reagan's behavior might not pass muster with those voters today who insist their Congressmen treat every proposed tax increase as poisonous to the republic.
"By today's standards, the Gipper would easily qualify for status as a back-stabbing, treacherous RINO [Republican in Name Only]," wrote Tax Analysts contributing editor Martin Sullivan, in an article for Tax Notes in May.
Thanks in part to the increases in defense spending during his administration, Reagan also didn't really reduce the size of government. Annual spending averaged 22.4% of GDP on his watch, which is above today's 40-year average of 20.7%, and above the 20.8% average under Carter.
Indeed, in one very symbolic respect he enlarged it. While in the early years of his presidency Reagan tried to shrink the IRS, by the end, the number of IRS employees hit an all-time high, according to Steuerle in his book Contemporary U.S. Tax Policy. Originally Posted by WTF

Ronnie threw the idiots a meatless bone, and while they were busy slobbering all over their feet he stuck 7 tax increases up their ass and they never knew it... they still love him

Ronnie had been a union boss, he knew how to slap them in line.