I'm surprised. You actually know something. The invasion of Iraq was based on lies. That invasion was a distraction from the War in Afghanistan, and enabled Osama bin Laden to escape the posse.

 

. . . and? Maybe next someone will post a recent commentary from Ehrlich telling us that The Population Bomb is correct - it's just that the timing is off by a century. Why give these irrelevant has-beens any more light? Let them talk to their tiny, non-sensical circle of hangers-on. There is likely about a 0% chance that Laffer's views would influence policy, law, economies or anything more important than his own personal bowel movements . . . sheeeesh.

 

Paul Ehrlich had a message people did not want to believe, so it was easy to dismiss him. Arthur Laffer tells people what they want to believe, so his message lives on, even though it is obviously untrue.

BTW, the only reason Ehrlich's predictions did not happen is the fact that the birth rate declined. Even then, the international recession can be blamed in part on population growth.

 

Wow - a two-fer-one! Point absolutely missed and a predictable defense of a book that even ardent readers of Mother Jones are embarrassed to see brought up. :lol: Sorry, but Ehrlich just plain got it wrong. His predictions are akin to saying, "We're all gonna die." . . . yeah? . . . and?

I'll try not to be so subtle this time. Laffer is a joke - even to those who used to be "on his team". His opinions, and most especially any suggestions he might make, are widely considered so laughable that he has become a walking, talking, writing straw man. You condemn his utterly irrelevant ramblings at the same time you puncture your own credibility about who'd worth mocking. Wanna make fun of George McGovern next? How about McCarthy? I know, let's point and laugh at Ulysses S. Grant.

 

You did not disprove what I posted about Ehrlich. The growth of the human population is a problem, even though it is a problem many choose to ignore.

If George McGovern had been elected president in 1972 the War in Vietnam would have ended earlier, and those Vietnamese who became boat people could have been evacuated. The American abandonment of the boat people to the Thai pirates was the disgraceful end to a disgraceful chapter in American history.

 

OT, you're succumbing to the siren of using irrelevancy as well as DL & ROM.

While Laffer theories would not get the light of day in policy meetings today, the message he was conveying in the OP link is very relevant and probably quite true.

Rather than have spent and/or committed to spend upwards of $2 trillion US debt coupons, it probably would have been better to place the money directly in the hands of the US taxpayer.

The results would have been much more predictable than shoveling tons of money though bureaucracies into a mishmash of feel good programs.

 

Yep, the whole world of economics is irrelevant and wrong while you are correct.

I mean, seriously... are you going to sit there with a straight face and tell me that everybody else is wrong and you're right?


This from the same person who admits that monetary matters aren't his strong suit?
This from the same person who I've had to explain the progressive tax system to multiple times?

 

Ehrlich may have gotten the dates wrong, but I hope you're not suggesting that the population of the Earth can continue grow indefinitely at current rates. That's akin to the belief that the Earth is manufacturing oil as fast as we use it.

 

Osama Bin Laden is a fictional character invented by Dick Cheney like Goldstein in 1984 to incite public support in favor of his endless adventures to kill Arabs, take their oil, and bring them Jesus and McDonalds!!!

 

There are some striking similarities. The whole western world, with all its money, its vaunted military might and its intelligence apparatus, has been hunting for this guy for the better part of 20 years, and nobody can even find him, let alone kill him. It makes one wonder....

 

Interestingly enough, (Bob- different than the one you're talking about ) Ehrlich is the former governor of MD and essentially created Steele.

He's running again. He's actually a hit and miss candidate imo.

 

the Arab world is doing a great job with the myth, TV tapes, press releases, pop up sightings, are they in on it too?

 

Crap...this thread got ahead of me quick!

Okay...the Republican battlecry is that if you lower taxes you raise revenue.Partly true, partly false. The democrats on the other hand suspect that by raising taxes you increase revenue. Partly true, partly false....and heres why....

When congress lowers taxes they also are compelled to eliminate many of the tax loopholes that exist lest the rich end up paying NO taxes. When congress raises taxes special interest groups lobby congress for aditional tax breaks for certain activities and investments to help offset the added taxation.The end result is a tax rate that looks realy high and makes liberals happy but tax loopholes that effectively nullify the tax increases. The primary advantage to raising tax rates is that it forces more cash into tax sheltered positions which has the effect of job creation.Lowering taxes has the effect of creating rediculously large homes with fully automated hooker dispensers and fountains in the front yard that spew Dom Perignon and caviar.

When Republicans lower taxes the assumption is that either everyones taxes go down or that all taxes go down.In point of fact the Reagan era tax cuts came with literal volumes of new taxes and a restucturing of the income Vs. taxrate structure that laid income taxes on the lower end of the economic spectrum among people who previously never paid taxes because they were considered to poor to afford them.They also laid out new taxes on phone service, imported goods, manufacturing, fuel, food production and a gazillion other things that actualy raised the taxes that were being paid and also restuctured who and how those taxes were being paid.

Many of the taxes we pay are hidden in the cost of things we buy. As an example, gas taxes. You pay at the pump and you also pay at the super market when you buy things that were transported on trucks, harvested with heavy equipment, etc. Once upon a time your personal taxes...oh, by the way this was in many of our lifetimes, were handed to you on what amounted to a three by five card and you simply wrote a check.Now the tax code has become so convoluted and complicated that the tax preperation business has become a multi-billion dollar industry and people in the working class are now in a position to actualy NEED those services. Wouldnt it be nice if a small one sided piece of paper was enough to do your taxes on?

In 1944 and 45 when the top median tax rate was 94%, how many people do you suppose actualy PAID 94% of thier income in taxes? ZERO.And there were plenty of people making epic amounts of money on government contracts.But after deductions and loopholes and whatnot, people making $200,000 would actualy pay about 30%.

Again, the most prosperous period in American history also came with the highest tax rates in U.S. history. 1946 through the 1970's saw steady growth in the middle classes, steady jobs and good bennefits. The economy was strong and people had hope of doing better than thier parents and grand parents.And the top tax rates never dropped below 70%. Between 1951 and 1963 the top tax rate never dropped below 91%. The loopholes force people and organizations making lots of money to reinvest and subsequently spur the economy on or pay up.Thier choice but it was simply a system of making massive amounts of accumulated wealth work for everybody instead of just the wealthy without actualy confiscating it from them and redistributing it through scocial programs. Strong economy means more money moves around and every time a dollar changes hands there is a tax to be paid. Its all about keeping the dollars moving. Once somebody accumulates a pile of cash and then just sits on it its no good to anyone.The tax system is supposed to keep things moving around.

 

Day late and a dollar short, DL has made every single point that you have. His were just as irrelevant as yours too. You never even read the story in the OP link.

Try it, you might see how everything you just said is moot.

 

I enjoy reading this back and forth about the best way of raising tax revenue without any discussion as to WHY we would want to do anything but lower our governments growing income.

Higher tax revenue is not an end to the matter, nor should it be any goal in the matter. The government is wasteful and bloated and they themselves freely admit it. Yes, give them more money so government salaries can continue to rise and pockets can continue to be lined. Do you teach a child about the value of money by throwing it at him--no matter how much he wastes? Talking about the best way to shovel more money into their pockets is like discussing the best way to give a loan to a heroin addict.

Ahhh. Always missing the forest for the trees.

 

of course there are absolutes... 1+1 always =2.... the foundation for love

 

nice analogy... the heroin metaphor so works thanks

 

any pro-growth policy will help this weak recover,,, sorry its politicized cuz inevitably competing interests will contract demand further

 

milton friedman for saint, alan greenspan for king 12.... my dream ticket

 

Low taxes do not constitute a goal unto itself, either. What people should be focused on is what functions they want their government to provide collectively, and how should those things be paid for. Nobody likes paying taxes, but they do benefit from services provided with tax money. Conservatives like to maintain a disconnect, railing against taxes and big government, but seldom talking about what specific programs they want to cut. The reason is simple...people want those programs to stay in place.