In response to:

The Great Tax Divide

Daniel436 Wrote: Sep 19, 2012 12:00 PM
And what exactly would you attribute the increase in tax revenues from? You then state a falsehood, when you state that no serious economist believes. You should have said no serious MARXIST economist. Mr. Sowell pre-slammed your stupid argument when he wrote, 'John Maynard Keynes said in 1933 that "given sufficient time to gather the fruits, a reduction of taxation will run a better chance, than an increase, of balancing the budget."' Or is Keynes not a serious economist. Or Friedman, Or Sowell for that matter.
WodenofAzgard Wrote: Sep 19, 2012 7:51 PM
I don't believe I've said or implied any of that. Whatever intellect Sowell has is handicapped by being paid to support dishonest positions to sway the stupid and ignorant.
rightmostofthetime Wrote: Sep 19, 2012 4:53 PM
Nah. Woden just thinks he's smarter than all the columnists on TH and smarter than all the posters. Delusional. Besides, my bet is that he doesn't think Sowell is really black. Libs love to claim that conservative blacks are just Uncle Toms or oreos.
FranksNBeans Wrote: Sep 19, 2012 3:56 PM
Woden's issue with Sowell is that he is black. He just won't come right out and say it.
rightmostofthetime Wrote: Sep 19, 2012 1:40 PM
Sorry for the typos. That should be an instead of and, and clearly it's Walter, not Water.
rightmostofthetime Wrote: Sep 19, 2012 1:07 PM
You quote a guy who led the CEA for one year and call him W's economist. You can find lots of Keyensians. I have a news flash for you--Thomas Sowell is and economist. Water Williams is an economist. They both contradict Samwick, and I think they qualify as "thoughtful" people. I have zero respect for someone who claims that no thoughtful person would disagree with him.
WodenofAzgard Wrote: Sep 19, 2012 12:53 PM
Keynes also famously said in the long run we're all dead.

"You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one." - Andrew Samwick, W's chief economist on his CEA 2003-2004, in 2008
rightmostofthetime Wrote: Sep 19, 2012 12:13 PM
Woden lives in a fantasy world in which he's smarter than someone like Sowell, but he displays his ignorance all the time. Note he says "tax cuts pay for themselves" when in fact it is tax RATE cuts that pay for themselves. Woden doesn't understand something as simple as this.
There was a time when Democrats and Republicans alike could talk sense about tax rates, in terms of what is best for the economy, without demagoguery about "tax cuts for the rich."

Democratic presidents Woodrow Wilson and John F. Kennedy spoke plainly about the fact that higher tax rates on individuals and businesses did not automatically translate into higher tax revenues for the government. Beyond some point, high tax rates on those with high incomes simply led to those incomes being invested in tax-free bonds, with the revenue from those bonds being completely lost to the government -- and the investments lost...