Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Did anyone see this NY Times graphic?

With all the arrows pointing in the wrong direction towards Rummy, how can he not be gone sometime between Nov. 7 and Jan. 3?

(1) See the arrows going from Rummy to others, including his reports? The best defense is a good offense.

(2) It's all Clinton's fault.

(3) Why do you hate America?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
It lends support to the supply siders how? After 6 years of supply side policies, the deficit is down to a quarter-trillion?

Each time we go into supply side territory, we go vastly into the red.

That would be a better argument if what the R's were doing was supply side. They've been pretty good at feeding the demand side too, this time around.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
It lends support to the supply siders how? After 6 years of supply side policies, the deficit is down to a quarter-trillion?

Each time we go into supply side territory, we go vastly into the red.

Because tax revenues were better than anticipated.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That would be a better argument if what the R's were doing was supply side. They've been pretty good at feeding the demand side too, this time around.

And the other times, when their deficits were even worse?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
According to an ABC poll, 60% of Iraqis support attacks on US troops and about 80% think the presence of US troops worsens internal conflicts.ABC News

(a) ABS news Hates America -- so this is automatically suspect.

(b) What the hell do these Iraqis know about what we should be doing in Iraq? They must Hate Freedom.

(c) Ungrateful fuckers -- whining and bitching about the estimated 100,000 extra Iraqis that have died since the invasion. We meant well, dammit!

S_A_M

[eta: The poll's other findings reported there are actually encouraging, to the extent they mean anything.]

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
And the other times, when their deficits were even worse?

Reagan did actually try to cut spending as well as taxes. Neither Bush has realized that the cut-spending part of the formula is part of the package.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Reagan did actually try to cut spending as well as taxes. Neither Bush has realized that the cut-spending part of the formula is part of the package.

I agree with you on the Bushes. Reagan, however, tried to cut only some spending, while massively growing other (particularly military).

I don't remember what the net was -- except for the net result, which was massive deficits.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Because tax revenues were better than anticipated.

It's interesting how Rs credit supply-side policies with this. When tax revenues soared under Clinton, it was merely a reflection of the economic cycle, which was immune to government influence.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
When tax revenues soared under Clinton, it was merely a reflection of the economic cycle, which was immune to government influence.

Are you saying that increased taxes under Clinton stimulated the economy? Because that's laughable. The most you can say is that the increased taxes did not dampen the economy, just as the tax cuts of Reagan and Bush do not stimulate the economy.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch

I don't remember what the net was --

The Soviet Union fell?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The Soviet Union fell?

Yes. You can learn about that here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I agree with you on the Bushes. Reagan, however, tried to cut only some spending, while massively growing other (particularly military).

I don't remember what the net was -- except for the net result, which was massive deficits.

Reagan didn't have an R controlled congress - he had to cut deals with Tip. Bush 43 has not excuse.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Are you saying that increased taxes under Clinton stimulated the economy? Because that's laughable. The most you can say is that the increased taxes did not dampen the economy, just as the tax cuts of Reagan and Bush do not stimulate the economy.

2. Although the data on the correlation between tax cuts and increased tax revenues accross numerous countries and time periods is pretty compelling.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Are you saying that increased taxes under Clinton stimulated the economy? Because that's laughable. The most you can say is that the increased taxes did not dampen the economy, just as the tax cuts of Reagan and Bush do not stimulate the economy.

I may be wrong, but I think that all he was saying was that the increased tax revenue in the Clinton years was attributable to increased income and gains, which would fit within the Supply Sider argument, but the conservatives did an about face and argued that the ecnomic growth was part of an economic cycle which governmental policy is unable to influence. Unless a Republican is in office, then it's the Republican economic wizardry that is creating growth.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I may be wrong, but I think that all he was saying was that the increased tax revenue in the Clinton years was attributable to increased income and gains, which would fit within the Supply Sider argument, but the conservatives did an about face and argued that the ecnomic growth was part of an economic cycle which governmental policy is unable to influence. Unless a Republican is in office, then it's the Republican economic wizardry that is creating growth.

If I misunderstood, then yes. But the reason that there was all that income and gains was because the supply side policies of reagan and bush set the stage for strong economic growth under clinton.