Thursday, January 08, 2009
|
|
Good Tax Cuts vs. Pointless Tax Cuts...
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
6:58 PM
|
Over at AmSpec, Peter Ferrara hits the nail on the head regarding the effectiveness of tax cuts:
Tax cuts do not stimulate the economy by "putting money in people's pockets" which they can then spend, as even some Republicans, including George Bush, mistakenly say. That's an old-fashioned Keynesian strategy, and, if it worked, the same result could be achieved by sending out increased welfare checks, which also puts money in people's pockets, which they can spend. But it doesn't work, because it doesn't do anything to change the basic incentives governing the economy, and because just borrowing money and then sending it out to people, in "tax rebate" checks or welfare checks, doesn't add anything to the economy on net. Tax cuts stimulate the economy when they involve reductions in tax rates. The reduction in rates improves incentives for savings, investment, business creation and expansion, job creation, entrepreneurship, and work, by allowing people to keep a greater percentage of the reward produced by these activities. This improves the economy not just by the dollar amount of the tax cut. The improved incentives affect every economic decision and every dollar in the entire economy. The astoundingly successful Reagan tax cuts in the 1980s, as well as the astoundingly successful Kennedy tax cuts of the 1960s, were both based on reducing tax rates, and were successful for these reasons.
|
|
Thanks for playing but if you look at the laws, it was across the board. You still couldn't resist spewing could you?
I never said anything about poor people being responsible for the economic issues facing this Country. Go back and look at the laws. It may be the rich who invest more because they make more, but the poor make less and therefore don't get as large a benefit. Why should they get more back when they don't make the same? Across the board. Key words.
Indeed, you'll bow to the COW because more money will be printed and you'll think he's fukking grand. You go right on. But, why is not one person questioning the COW on where the money is going or where it will come from? Bush couldn't do anything without the freaks coming out and yelling foul. Why is it Obama, the COW gets a pass?
Do you think it's magic? It's obvious that you have no clue about tax cuts and the implications because you spew what every other liberal does-Tax cuts are only for the rich. It's a crock and all you have to do is read to figure it out. |
|
I fear your use of reason will be to no avail with Lola, but thanks for trying. I admire your general lucidity. |
|
is not the same as saying that "the poor" are at fault.
But government intervention in the economy disrupts the normal flow of commerce, causing such vital signals as prices and profits to be corrupted. Prices and Profits direct the flow of resources to the most needed areas; when government intervenes, then resources get directed to whereever they are most politically advantageous for the politician.
The fact that they use legislation rather than backing the "rich guy" into an alley at gunpoint makes the politicians no less thieves.
http://mises.org/story/3243
|
|
If Lola is not Monkey Girl (aka Kimberly)she does a really great imitation.
If she's so smart, I ask why all the smarmy comebacks and not facts to support her words. I can give you facts all day long and you'll ignore it to call conservatives Rethugs, spew your BDS, but never a coherent fact.
I challenge you or Munckey Man to try. Because frankly, I'm tired of the BDS.
FYI- The tax cuts in rates spur investment by the nasty rich into to the economy, which in turn creates jobs. A novel concept huh, Monkeys?
Lo and behold because of that, it generated the most income tax revenues ever in 2005... |
|
|
|
is the natural result of the Federal Reserve printing too much money; it pushed the interest rate down to 1% and held it there for a year, then gradually worked it back up to over 6%, which finally pricked the housing bubble.
Couple that fact with the Federal Government guaranteeing loans, which directs housing from puchasers with good credit toward purchasers with bad credit. In other words, loans private lenders were unwilling to make because they couldn't be sure of getting their money back, Government decided to make for them by appropriating their funds (through taxes or borrowing) and lending them to poor credit risks. The "mortgage swaps" and securitization of mortgages, etc. complicated matters, but were not the cause of the crisis. |
|
|
Lola= M_____. does not take much brains to figure out that lower tax rates help to spur the economy on. so the congress and President should cut tax rates big time across the board. And also get real and cut spending. And yes the President is going to have to deal with SS, Medicare and medicaid. no way around it. |
|
behind the reform bills not passing are thus.....
Yes, the GOP had the majority in the Senate.....
ALL the GOP Senators voted FOR the investigation into the financial system, especially of Fannie & Freddie.....
ALL the Democratic Senators voted "nay" and blocked said investigations......
If the Republicans have the majority and all voted for the investigations, how did it not come to pass, you ask??????
Simple.......having the majority is not enough......
You MUST have 60 votes, which the Republicans alone did not have......
Synopsis.......GOP wanted the investigations and the Dems voted 100% to block them......
This financial meltdown belongs to the Dems so aim your wrath at the correct people when you look at your next IRA and 401k statements......
|
|
|
It goes farther back than 1964. Harding and Coolidge proved that in the 1920s. It worked then, but Hoover changed things, and then we had the DISASTERIS fu**ing FDR. The only thing that saved us was we stumbled into a war... |
|
so explain again how its abundantly clear ?
Housing crisis ... CRA push by Clinton ... Frank and Dodd protecting Fannie and Freddie that was run by democrats ...
seems abundantly clear that is was the dems who messed things up ... |
|
|
More satire from you to be ignored by intelligent people....... |
|
|
But about future vs. past. Giving someone a one-time tax cut on income they have already earned does not give them any incentive to do anything. Cutting rates in the future, or promising future rebates to anyone who does X, Y or Z, does. |
|
|
|