It's happened: 1.00 USD = 1.00 CAD

[@_@ Artman]

Positively loonie (http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?amt=1&from=USD&to=CAD&submit=Convert&).

This has good and bad ramifications. Canadians will be streaming over the border to buy our crap. The U.S. dollar could tank even more (http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=USD&to=CAD&amt=1&t=5y)* and everyone starts switching to a stable currency like the Euro (can't wait until the Chinese do this).

Ok armchair economists...the thread is yours....:smokey:

* Of course, the five year history is really not so bad, because it brings us maybe more in line with where we should be. It''s the next five years that could make life really interesting.

[segovius]

Watch the Sauds (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml;jsessionid=BYRFMD0QYRQTVQFIQMFSFF4AVCBQ 0IV0?xml=/money/2007/09/19/bcnsaudi119.xml)

[iPoster]

Canadians will be streaming over the border

They'll find it well guarded by these folks:

http://i12.tinypic.com/5xhcg2x.jpg

;)

Seriously though, this could be very bad news for the economy. I grew up in upstate NY, and remember when it was 2:1 or better in favor of the dollar. (1980's)

[@_@ Artman]

Watch the Sauds (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml;jsessionid=BYRFMD0QYRQTVQFIQMFSFF4AVCBQ 0IV0?xml=/money/2007/09/19/bcnsaudi119.xml)

That is a very well written article. It is a very worrisome situation, more so by the day.

Just how much of the crisis is to do with that giant money sucking leech of Iraq draining the finance out of the country? I thought we were paying for the war with Iraqi oil! It's not supposed to cost us a thing! I guess as long as the war profiteers are getting their share, why bother with the details? :rolleyes:

Another two countries to watch are Russia and Venezuela. They are considering (threatening some say)to sell their oil in rubles and pesos. Which would effectively destroy life in this country overnight. We're talking, seriously, 60-80% decrease in value of the USD in a 24 hour period.

Euros don't seem to be a bad investment now (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070920/dollar.html?.v=1), even the Canadian dollar is good. It's not that the Euro is going up, it's that the dollar is crashing, hard. Almost any currency is a good bet compared to the dollar.

http://backspace.com/notes/images/uncle_sam.jpg

[trumptman]

I'm running to Canada right now. I've heard that if I put my name on the hip replacement list now, I can probably have one by the time it is needed in my 80's.

This is called everyone riding the same horse until it is dead. They won't go anywhere either. Saudi Arabia kills the largest purchaser of oil on the planet by dumping currency. What happens to the price per barrel of oil when the United States can't buy?

China holds over a trillion dollars in debt and large parts of the economy are centered around exporting to the United States. Let that become worth a lot less and see what happens to China.

I could go on, but needless to say, prepare for BRIC ROW to take a tumble. The U.S. will go into recession. The suffering in other places will be worse. Hopefully someday we will learn.

Nick

[Fellowship]

A portion of your assets in Gold is something one could consider in this environment with these conditions.

Fellows

[@_@ Artman]

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g255/artman46/sctv_2.jpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7glurlaLdCE)

[Fellowship]

Ron Paul live giving Fed Chief "uncle Ben" hell about allowing the US $ to fall with rate cuts.

Fellows

[SpamSandwich]

A portion of your assets in Gold is something one could consider in this environment with these conditions.

Fellows

Last time I checked, gold was over $700/oz.

[SpamSandwich]

Sorry to sound like a broken record (CD player?)... but Ron Paul is the only pres. candidate with the guts and knowledge to do anything positive and long-lasting for America.

[Fellowship]

Sorry to sound like a broken record (CD player?)... but Ron Paul is the only pres. candidate with the guts and knowledge to do anything positive and long-lasting for America.

I just watched CNBC's Rick Santelli http://www.cnbc.com/id/15837966/ when asked about the discussions with "uncle Ben" say he agreed with Ron Paul that people are worried about the fall of the US $

Fellows

[Tulkas]

The US company I work for moved their worldwide software and hardware development to Waterloo a few years ago after they bought out a local software company. Later, they also moved most of their customer support staff up here. In a large part these moves were due to the low Canadian dollar at the time, though it was mainly because the developers in the Canadian company they bought were head and shoulders above their US counterparts and the Canadian product line was to become the flagship product.

Waterloo in particular has always had a large number of major tech companies locate or open dev offices here because of the cheap, educated and skilled labour pool (RIM, Google, OpenText, Agfa, IBM, DesireToLearn are a few). I wonder how long until these companies start relocating back to the US now that their Canadian employees are no longer the great value in salaries they once were...I really don't want to move to the US.

[Frank777]

Prepare to welcome your new Canadian overlords. It's 1814 all over again.

[@_@ Artman]

Fucking lying, retarded monkey. :mad:

Bush: Don’t Ask Me About The Economy, I Got A ‘B In Econ 101′ (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/20/bush-econ101/)

QUESTION: Do you think there’s a risk of a recession? How do you rate that?

BUSH: You know, you need to talk to economists. I think I got a B in Econ 101. I got an A, however, in keeping taxes low and being fiscally responsible with the people’s money.

UPDATE: Michael Roston takes a look back at Bush’s college transcripts. Bush received grades of 71 and 72 in Economics — a grade that “would correspond with a C-.”

If anyone gets confused with me calling Bush a retard let me clear this up, from now on I will only mention him as a retard, monkey or moron. It's what he deserves for the last 7 years and next 16 months.

[MarcUK]

its getting exciting now isn't it?

I can feel the new era lurking just over the horizon. Jesus should return just about any minute now. Bwahahahahaha

[Frank777]

its getting exciting now isn't it?

I can feel the new era lurking just over the horizon. Jesus should return just about any minute now. Bwahahahahaha

Well yes, but what does that have to do with currency fluctuations? :err:

[MarcUK]

Well yes, but what does that have to do with currency fluctuations? :err:

well obviously, but in the context of you...I really am talking about something entirely different, yet somehow something strangely similar :D

[segovius]

Well yes, but what does that have to do with currency fluctuations? :err:

Children died, the days grew cold, a piece of bread could buy a bag of gold.....I wish we'd all been ready......

[@_@ Artman]

its getting exciting now isn't it?

I can feel the new era lurking just over the horizon. Jesus should return just about any minute now. Bwahahahahaha

http://www.vancegroup.net/blogs/rw1chase.jpg

My life fades. The vision dims. All that remains are memories. I remember a time of chaos. Ruined dreams. This wasted land. But most of all, I remember The Road Warrior. The man we called "Max". To understand who he was, you have to go back to another time. When the world was powered by the black fuel. And the desert sprouted great cities of pipe and steel. Gone now, swept away. For reasons long forgotten, two mighty warrior tribes went to war and touched off a blaze which engulfed them all. Without fuel, they were nothing. They built a house of straw. The thundering machines sputtered and stopped. Their leaders talked and talked and talked. But nothing could stem the avalanche. Their world crumbled. The cities exploded. A whirlwind of looting, a firestorm of fear. Men began to feed on men. On the roads it was a white line nightmare. Only those mobile enough to scavenge, brutal enough to pillage would survive. The gangs took over the highways, ready to wage war for a tank of juice. And in this maelstrom of decay, ordinary men were battered and smashed. Men like Max. The warrior Max. In the roar of an engine, he lost everything. And became a shell of a man, a burnt out, desolate man, a man haunted by the demons of his past, a man who wandered out into the wasteland. And it was here, in this blighted place, that he learned to live again...

[Frank777]

Children died, the days grew cold, a piece of bread could buy a bag of gold.....I wish we'd all been ready......

Great song, but a weak US dollar isn't what foreshadows the Rapture/Tribulation period.

Game's not over yet, we're just into overtime. ;)

[MarcUK]

Children died, the days grew cold, a piece of bread could buy a bag of gold.....I wish we'd all been ready......

from the moment I heard it, this lyric has always stuck in my mind.

"And if it all came to pass now, You feel we'd all deserve it somehow"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8unqSVHiwZE

[MarcUK]

Great song, but a weak US dollar isn't what foreshadows the Rapture/Tribulation period.

Game's not over yet, we're just into overtime. ;)

i just looked it up on you tube, well its not my sort of song, but that kind of 70's hippy christianity isn't something I would argue against.

Anyway, this could get interesting, how do you know a collapse in the US dollar isn't what foreshadows rapture?

[MarcUK]

for the rest of us that aren't going to be raptured away, i'd suggest we invest in a bit of Gold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsistence_agriculture) and learn to read the stars - this is detailed in the Bible as the story of Jesus - so we know when to plant our crops. Bring on the Aquarian era where the meek inherit the earth. F'ing right mate!

[e1618978]

Weak dollar means:

1 - prices at wal-mart go up
2 - foreigners start buying up US real estate
3 - the US treasury has trouble getting people to buy debt
4 - as a result of #3, they have to raise interest rates. When they have
plenty of customers they can tailor interest rates to control unemployment
and inflation. When they have few customers, they are forced to raise
rates, and the Fed loses control of inflation and unemployment.
5 - outsourcing would slow down, as outside countries labor becomes more
expensive
6 - as the Fed raises rates to get debt customers, we start to see deflation
and unemployment

Lucky for me, most of my net worth is outside the US.

[MarcUK]

Weak dollar means:

1 - prices at wal-mart go up
2 - foreigners start buying up US real estate
3 - the US treasury has trouble getting people to buy debt
4 - as a result of #3, they have to raise interest rates. When they have
plenty of customers they can tailor interest rates to control unemployment
and inflation. When they have few customers, they are forced to raise
rates, and the Fed loses control of inflation and unemployment.
5 - outsourcing would slow down, as outside countries labor becomes more
expensive
6 - as the Fed raises rates to get debt customers, we start to see deflation
and unemployment

Lucky for me, most of my net worth is outside the US.

Its going to be much worse than that!

Lucky for me, all my net worth is in my mind, so whatever happens I come out the other side exactly the same as I am now! Good luck suckers.

[e1618978]

Its going to be much worse than that!

Evidence? Description? Will food taste worse? What will be worse?

Will there be more religious people? That would be worse for me.

[@_@ Artman]

Weak dollar means:

1 - prices at wal-mart go up
2 - foreigners start buying up US real estate
3 - the US treasury has trouble getting people to buy debt
4 - as a result of #3, they have to raise interest rates. When they have
plenty of customers they can tailor interest rates to control unemployment
and inflation. When they have few customers, they are forced to raise
rates, and the Fed loses control of inflation and unemployment.
5 - outsourcing would slow down, as outside countries labor becomes more
expensive
6 - as the Fed raises rates to get debt customers, we start to see deflation
and unemployment

Lucky for me, most of my net worth is outside the US.

Wow! Great! Bring it on! :rolleyes:

[e1618978]

Wow! Great! Bring it on! :rolleyes:

If it got bad enough, we might see a devaluation of the dollar (like a reverse split, where "New Dollars" get traded for old dollars 100-1 or something). Are there any economists on the board? Is my description above accurate or likely?

[trumptman]

http://www.vancegroup.net/blogs/rw1chase.jpg

First Art.. you are seriously dating yourself there.:lol:

Second, who the hell never raised an uproar about that movie?!?


I mean we are talking 1981 and a movie filled full of men walking around in ass-less chaps.

Where have all the ass-less chaps gone? Oh... to yearn for the good ol'Reagan days.:lol::lol:

Nick

[MarcUK]

Evidence? Description? Will food taste worse? What will be worse?

Will there be more religious people? That would be worse for me.

take a look around - all the evidence you need has been posted here on AI.

SDW is having a winger nervous breakdown, Fellowship is buying gold. Segovius is bored, waiting for something, trumptman is trying to restructure everything in terms of cash, Frank is claiming it isn't going to happen (frank is always 100% wrong). Iraq, Iran, Israel, wars, nuclear weapons, antichrist presidents, currency collapse, revived roman empire (euro), oil, rise of communist nations, insane greed and stupidity, police states, dictatorship democracys, sheeple, torture, corruption, sub-prime housing, interest rates, inflation. Hilary is the new Jesus, stockmarket turmoil, the list goes on and on.

Everything is conspiring. The roman empire didn't fall for any one particular reason, a plethora of things were stacked against it, and it just disintegrated from within. Its all tender-hooks at the moment, poised on the edge waiting to tip. As soon as people get spooked in the stock-market, all these things are going to hit at once, then...boom, all these little snowballs are going to merge into one unstoppable lump and flatten civilization...

Anyway, im just pulling a few legs, because its fun.

I doub't there will be many religious people around afterwards, they'll probably end up killing eachother blaming eachother for their stupidity in not realising what the bible was really talking about.

[e1618978]

The Roman empire fell because they used lead pipes to transport water. I just don't buy apocalypse scenarios - we survived the 1929 stock market crash and the depression, Mexico survived the devaluation of its currency, and WWII and the Cold War were pretty bad also. I don't think this will be as bad.

And there are benefits to devaluation - the national debt will be worth less because it will be traded 100-1 for new dollars or whatever.

[MarcUK]

The Roman empire fell because they used lead pipes to transport water. I just don't buy apocalypse scenarios - we survived the 1929 stock market crash and the depression, Mexico survived the devaluation of its currency, and WWII and the Cold War were pretty bad also. I don't think this will be as bad.

And there are benefits to devaluation - the national debt will be worth less because it will be traded 100-1 for new dollars or whatever.

the world was a very small place in those days, even the worst things that could happen didn't effect much else for very long.

The difference then was that people were real, they knew how to survive. We dont know shit about life today because of our technology. And the world is a much bigger place today, yet it is very small really. If someone pulls the plug, no matter where we are, we're all doing down the crapper together. Haha.

PS. You dont really think the roman empire fell because 0.00001% of the population had their water delivered by lead pipes do you???

[trumptman]

Weak dollar means:

1 - prices at wal-mart go up
2 - foreigners start buying up US real estate
3 - the US treasury has trouble getting people to buy debt
4 - as a result of #3, they have to raise interest rates. When they have
plenty of customers they can tailor interest rates to control unemployment
and inflation. When they have few customers, they are forced to raise
rates, and the Fed loses control of inflation and unemployment.
5 - outsourcing would slow down, as outside countries labor becomes more
expensive
6 - as the Fed raises rates to get debt customers, we start to see deflation
and unemployment

Lucky for me, most of my net worth is outside the US.

How do we see deflation with prices going up at Walmart? ;)

Nick

[MarcUK]

How do we see deflation with prices going up at Walmart? ;)

Nick

wouldn't it be the case that everyday food skyrockets, and everything else depreciates in value to be worthless?

[@_@ Artman]

First Art.. you are seriously dating yourself there.:lol:

Dude, I saw that movie (double bill with Mad Max I) at the drive-in theater. :smokey:

Second, who the hell never raised an uproar about that movie?!?

None! I think it's a great film and analogous to the dystopian mind-think of this subject. :p

I mean we are talking 1981 and a movie filled full of men walking around in ass-less chaps.

I'm sorry, I must have been watching someone else...:wow:

http://www.madmaxmovies.com/cast/MadMax2/VirginiaHey/VirginiaHey.jpg

http://www.madmaxmovies.com/cast/MadMax2/VirginiaHey/SlideAndDice.jpg

Where have all the ass-less chaps gone?

You had to ask...

http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/175059__prince_l.jpg

Oh... to yearn for the good ol'Reagan days.:lol::lol:

Nick

http://www.forumspile.com/No-Darth_Vader.jpg

[Fellowship]

http://www.gold-eagle.com/gold_digest/markus112297.html


10 years old but you get the picture

Fellows

[Jubelum]

BUSH: You know, you need to talk to economists. I think I got a B in Econ 101. I got an A, however, in keeping taxes low and being fiscally responsible with the people’s money.
.

I laughed out loud at the TV when I heard him say that today. Remarkably and stunningly full of shit. Never met a big-government spending bill that he didn't sign. And BTW, Mr. President, offering an expensive Amnesty package is NOT being fiscally responsible. It's called breaking the bank. :mad:

[MarcUK]

http://www.gold-eagle.com/gold_digest/markus112297.html


10 years old but you get the picture

Fellows

no im a bit confused actually, did you link to that in the positive or negative tense?

[e1618978]

How do we see deflation with prices going up at Walmart? ;)

Nick

Prices go up for foreign goods due to exchange rate effects, and then margins (for both producers and retailers) start to go down because fewer people are buying things due to higher interest rates. They are two conflicting forces acting on prices. But Mr. Bush is ahead of me, he got a B in Econ 101, and I never took any economics courses at all (I did take all the first and 2nd year math courses at my university though).

[SpamSandwich]

Lucky for me, all my net worth is in my mind.

I hear you're running a huge deficit. :lol: ;)

[SpamSandwich]

The Roman empire fell because they used lead pipes to transport water. I just don't buy apocalypse scenarios - we survived the 1929 stock market crash and the depression, Mexico survived the devaluation of its currency, and WWII and the Cold War were pretty bad also. I don't think this will be as bad.

And there are benefits to devaluation - the national debt will be worth less because it will be traded 100-1 for new dollars or whatever.

Heck, the "Roman Empire" fell, but the 'Romans' are still around... who really cares about their system of government anyway, until it takes too much money from you or starts throwing people in prison for no good re.... oh, uh... nevermind. :lol:

[SpamSandwich]

I laughed out loud at the TV when I heard him say that today. Remarkably and stunningly full of shit. Never met a big-government spending bill that he didn't sign. And BTW, Mr. President, offering an expensive Amnesty package is NOT being fiscally responsible. It's called breaking the bank. :mad:

For a very brief time, I thought he was being sly... that passed quickly when I realized he really is brain-damaged.

[Fellowship]

I laughed out loud at the TV when I heard him say that today. Remarkably and stunningly full of shit. Never met a big-government spending bill that he didn't sign. And BTW, Mr. President, offering an expensive Amnesty package is NOT being fiscally responsible. It's called breaking the bank. :mad:

I laughed out loud as well... Bush is no conservative when it comes to budgets. The record speaks for itself.

Fellows

[Frank777]

I hear you're running a huge deficit. :lol: ;)

:lol::lol::lol: Excellent post.

Frank is claiming it isn't going to happen...

Just to be clear, I've never doubted that the US is in for a rough ride economically. If we're really going to bring Bible Prophecy into the thread, I'd say that the scriptures do say that Europe is the centre of the world's economic system at the time of the end. As Lindsay, Jeffrey and Van Impe have been saying long before even the first Bush took power, the Euro must most assuredly rise.

However, I don't think that the first sign of a US economic meltdown is cause for selling all you have and buying the Unabomber's cabin in Montana. For Christians anyway, the idea of Jesus' return is a welcome one - but we are supposed to live our lives every day as though his return is imminent.

[giant]

First Art.. you are seriously dating yourself there.:lol:
:???: with Mad Max? :err:
The Roman empire fell because they used lead pipes to transport water.
There's a debated theory that lead poisoning from various sources had an impact on the decline, but the theory has limited supporters and is nowhere concrete enough to make a statement like that.
I just don't buy apocalypse scenarios - we survived the 1929 stock market crash and the depression, Mexico survived the devaluation of its currency, and WWII and the Cold War were pretty bad also. I don't think this will be as bad.
I'm inclined to agree that it won't be apocalyptic. The US is large, homogeneous, has good resources and is well-protected. However, I firmly believe that there is a widespread false sense of economic and political security among americans.

[BRussell]

I laughed out loud as well... Bush is no conservative when it comes to budgets. The record speaks for itself.

FellowsI beg to differ: He's the epitome of conservatism when it comes to budgets. Conservatism just doesn't mean what it's been marketed to mean.

[Jubelum]

I beg to differ: He's the epitome of conservatism when it comes to budgets. Conservatism just doesn't mean what it's been marketed to mean.

Most silly.

:no: No, it actually means what it means, as evidenced by the 2006 US elections... people who are CONSERVATIVES refused to show up to vote for "conservative" politicians who were spending in very liberal ways.

[BRussell]

Most silly.

:no: No, it actually means what it means, as evidenced by the 2006 US elections... people who are CONSERVATIVES refused to show up to vote for "conservative" politicians who were spending in very liberal ways.

I don't think spending had anything to do with the elections at a time when the war in Iraq dominated everything, but it doesn't refute my point even if it was true: Conservatives have never tried to enact low spending. Their "economic philosophy," if you dignify it with such a label, has always been that as long as you cut taxes, you can also increase spending and suffer no consequences. Oh, and just by sheer coincidence, that's exactly the most crowd-pleasing "economic philosophy" a politician can have. It's the economic equivalent of nutritional advice that says you should eat candy and drink Coke all day, and you'll be really healthy I swear you will.

Why people see that history of modern conservatism, from Reagan through to Bush today, and still are able to claim that conservatism in its Platonic state is exactly the opposite, is beyond me. It's as if liberals always supported something, say, anti-abortion laws, but always claimed to be pro-choice, and people believed them. Why does that work with conservatives? :???: I suppose people just want to believe you can eat candy all day.

[Frank777]

Even setting 9-11 aside (because that was somewhat unprecedented) Bush/Cheney have been unbelievably reckless with public funds in a time of national hardship. To pass that off as general conservative policy does a disservice to all your countrymen.

[e1618978]

Heck, the "Roman Empire" fell, but the 'Romans' are still around... who really cares about their system of government anyway, until it takes too much money from you or starts throwing people in prison for no good re.... oh, uh... nevermind. :lol:

After the Roman empire fell there was several hundred years of death and chaos... I think it was kind of a bigger deal than you make out.

[@_@ Artman]

I suppose people just want to believe you can eat candy all day.

http://homepage.mac.com/khorist/.pictures/MySpace/crazy_fat_kid.gif

America's No. 1! America's No. 1! America's No. 1!

[iPoster]

For Christians anyway, the idea of Jesus' return is a welcome one - but we are supposed to live our lives every day as though his return is imminent.

Unless he's pissed off about some of the shtein that's been pulled in his name in human history:

http://i12.tinypic.com/62puqzp.jpg

After the Roman empire fell there was several hundred years of death and chaos... I think it was kind of a bigger deal than you make out.

Seconded...

[Jubelum]

you can also increase spending and suffer no consequences.

Consequences? Why is it that when you cut taxes, REVENUES INCREASE?

There are many of us that believe that the function of government is not to redistribute wealth. Many on your side of the coin do believe that. Many of us believe that the less the government takes from the people, the freer they are to pursue THEIR dreams and not the dreams of politicians who want to bribe their fellow citizens.

This nation is heading toward European socialism economically, especially if the Dems get full control of the government. Those jitters are already causing uneasiness in the business climate. People know that their taxes WILL go up if the current gridlock is broken with Democratic government. I have a number of clients that are not making any large financial commitments until AFTER the 08 elections. They're nervous about the spectre of Hillarycare (thousands per family in more income tax), rising capital gains, "windfall profits taxes" and the usual mile long list of taxes we get every time the Democrats run the country... look at 1992-1993. The largest tax increase in history, soon to be dwarfed I am sure.

Liberals cannot admit that a country cannot tax its way to wealth... mostly because wealth is not the goal, "fairness" is the goal. Such is socialism.

"Vote for us, we'll take money from other people and give it to you, unless of course, you have been successful and made more money than we think you deserve. Then we'll take from you."

I have long been on record here stating that the government is too large in this country. Large enough to fight the protracted Iraq conflict so many of you hate... large enough to destroy generations of people with lifelong welfare. We need less taxing. And less spending. At this point it is not likely- many politicians have finally realized that they can bribe us with our own money.

Many of you refuse to see that for a government to give something away, they have to take it from someone else first. Someone who has worked for it. Do you have any idea, at all, what % of every earned dollar is paid to the government in taxes of all kinds? And I know you have your Iraq idea, which is partially valid, but among us eeeeevil conservative types, the spending issue was HUGE in the 06 elections. Many of us who vote for right-of-center candidates are extremely pissed off about the ways government has grown under the 00-06 regime.

[Flounder]

Consequences? Why is it that when you cut taxes, REVENUES INCREASE?

Must we trot out this blatant falsehood yet again?

[BRussell]

Consequences? Why is it that when you cut taxes, REVENUES INCREASE? Q. E. fuckin' D.

They don't. We lost revenues for years after Bush's tax cuts, and have only recently gotten back to the same level of revenues we were at when Bush took office. Please look it up. Jeezus. This is the creationism of economics - not a single economist, Republican or Democrat, believes this. Yet this is exactly my point, and just proves about conservative "economic principles" what I've been claiming here. As long as they push this line - which not a single one of their economists actually believes, as proven by their public testimony - and try to convince the gullible that it's true, conservative "economic principles" will be utterly bankrupt, and will utterly bankrupt the country whenever they're enacted.

[@_@ Artman]

President Bush tells reporters not to ask him about the economy, because "I think I got a B in Econ 101." Perhaps that's good advice, seeing as his college transcripts show he actually got a C. Minus. (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/20/bush-econ101/)

[e1618978]

http://2004.georgewbush.org/images/bios/transcript.jpg

Its not completely legible, but it seems his good grades were in History, Philosophy and Spanish.

[Gon]

Despite all of that, it is my belief that tax cuts should be accompanied by spending cuts. If revenue increases, this increases the chance for surpluses which should be used to reduce debt and ultimately for further tax cuts once debt has been retired.Exactly. :)

It's my opinion that nothing besides impending loss of sovereignty (being invaded) or a catastrophic disaster should give the government license to take on debt. That debt should be paid off at first opportunity. If the politicians want to spend, they should tax then spend. If they want to spend more than taxes can reasonably be, tax, save, then spend.

[@_@ Artman]

[IMG]
Its not completely legible, but it seems his good grades were in History, Philosophy and Spanish.

And just being an ass? A+

http://www.cynical-c.com/archives/bloggraphics/bushsuckerpunch.jpg

[FormerLurker]

Consequences? Why is it that when you cut taxes, REVENUES INCREASE?
Ummm... Yeah....
No.
Sorry!

We've been through this thoroughly at least twice around here, but this myth just doesn't want to seem to die with you candy-eaters.

If the Search function didn't thoroughly suck around here, I'd post links to the thread... but why don't you give this a thorough reading, and get back to us if you've got something... you know, substantial... to refute it.

Tax Cut Myths and Realities (http://www.cbpp.org/9-27-06tax.htm)

We need less taxing. And less spending.

No.

We need less spending. And less taxing.

That's the other big problem y'all seem to have - you always get that part backwards!

[Fellowship]

Ron Paul live giving Fed Chief "uncle Ben" hell about allowing the US $ to fall with rate cuts.

Fellows

Here it is for those of you who did not see it live as I did on CNBC:

http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/ron_paul_slams_bernanke_for_dollar_meltdown.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeHWW5gbc0w

RON PAUL 2008

Fellows

[FormerLurker]

Here it is for those of you who did not see it live as I did on CNBC:

http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/ron_paul_slams_bernanke_for_dollar_meltdown.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeHWW5gbc0w

RON PAUL 2008

FellowsI was passing by this music club in downtown Ft. Lauderdale today
www.jointherevolution.net
and saw several homemade Ron Paul 2008 banners tied to the fence facing one of the city's most highly-trafficked road.

One of them said

Ron Paul
rEVOLution
2008

and the EVOL letters were in reverse type and mirror reverse, so that those four letters were a mirror image of the word LOVE. I thought it was by far the most creative and clever of several guerrilla-grass-roots homemade RP2008 signs I've seen around Florida.

I was actually early for the appt. I was on my way to - wish I'd doubled back and snapped a photo for all of you AO-PO regulars with the Ron Paul LOVE.
:)

[Splinemodel]

And just being an ass? A+

http://www.cynical-c.com/archives/bloggraphics/bushsuckerpunch.jpg

That's pretty common in rugby. Nothing to write home about.

As for the low dollar, enjoy it while it lasts. This isn't the first time the dollar has been low.

[Jubelum]

you candy-eaters

That is one hell of a 7th grade put down. Do that again and I'll hurt your feelings. :lol:



No.
We need less spending. And less taxing.
That's the other big problem y'all seem to have - you always get that part backwards!

Is that the best you have.. the ORDER in which I listed my preference? The ORDER? Really?
Did you miss the point? Apparently.

As for the rest of the PO cabal re: taxes- how is it that the "tax cuts for the rich" (which helped the middle class a LOT, just like the ones in the 80s under Reagan) led to new high water marks of government receipts? You guys love taxes. You defend taxes. You want more taxes. The full socialist utopia cannot run without that capacity to buy votes. It's OK. And transparent.

[SpamSandwich]

http://homepage.mac.com/khorist/.pictures/MySpace/crazy_fat_kid.gif

America's No. 1! America's No. 1! America's No. 1!

Hey, isn't that the Star Wars Kid? :lol:

[SpamSandwich]

I was passing by this music club in downtown Ft. Lauderdale today
www.jointherevolution.net
and saw several homemade Ron Paul 2008 banners tied to the fence facing one of the city's most highly-trafficked road.

One of them said

Ron Paul
rEVOLution
2008

and the EVOL letters were in reverse type and mirror reverse, so that those four letters were a mirror image of the word LOVE. I thought it was by far the most creative and clever of several guerrilla-grass-roots homemade RP2008 signs I've seen around Florida.

I was actually early for the appt. I was on my way to - wish I'd doubled back and snapped a photo for all of you AO-PO regulars with the Ron Paul LOVE.
:)

We know, we know... This graphic has really taken off.

[FormerLurker]

That is one hell of a 7th grade put down. Do that again and I'll hurt your feelings.
"7th grade"?

Wrong.

I was referencing the following:
It's the economic equivalent of nutritional advice that says you should eat candy and drink Coke all day, and you'll be really healthy I swear you will.



Is that the best you have.. the ORDER in which I listed my preference? The ORDER? Really?
Did you miss the point? Apparently.

:lol:
Speaking of "miss the point" and "is that the best you have" - I see you completely ignored the meat of my post.

So - once again - present your data to refute Tax Cut Myths and Realities (http://www.cbpp.org/9-27-06tax.htm), please.

And I'm looking for something more substantial than yet another rant about "blah, blah, liberals... blah, blah, wealth distribution... blah, blah, socialism..."
(you've had two already, and that should be more than enough for any thread)

[FormerLurker]

We know, we know... This graphic has really taken off.

It wasn't just the banner itself - it was also the fact that it was hanging in front of a club named REVOLUTION.

[trumptman]

Weak dollar means:

1 - prices at wal-mart go up
2 - foreigners start buying up US real estate
3 - the US treasury has trouble getting people to buy debt
4 - as a result of #3, they have to raise interest rates. When they have
plenty of customers they can tailor interest rates to control unemployment
and inflation. When they have few customers, they are forced to raise
rates, and the Fed loses control of inflation and unemployment.
5 - outsourcing would slow down, as outside countries labor becomes more
expensive
6 - as the Fed raises rates to get debt customers, we start to see deflation
and unemployment

Lucky for me, most of my net worth is outside the US.

I got to slap at this a bit, but Sunday morning is when I have some real time to address this. I made a joke abou it earlier. Most of it I agree with but the small differences lead to different outcomes for me.

1. Prices at Walmart will go up... and then down...and then possibly up again...

When you have an exporter like China, they've actually generated very little domestic demand for most of their products. When (not if) the U.S. has a recession, they have no one else to sell to and thus begin cannibalizing each other for sales which drives prices down, might turn a profit, but at least keeps the factory doors open. Later and if the recession lasts long enough, they might survive and get some pricing control due to less competition.

2. Agreed if they let their currency adjust

3. Agreed but the effect of this is two-fold. First those profits that are not invested in U.S. bonds has to go somewhere and it does. It gets converted into their own respective currency and causes massive inflation (and bubbles) within their own economies. China for example has just instituted their first government price controls in an attempt to contain inflation. (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/II22Cb01.html) When these bubbles pop, it could become the lost decade much like what happened to Japan.

4. They could raise interest rates. They could print money. They could raise taxes. They could lie about who qualifies for services, what constitutes the service and just not do their job. From my experience they do a bit of all of these.

5. Yes, that real estate bing can also include factories and manufacturing here as Japan did as well.

6. Agreed and without the joke this time.;)

Still that said, I can't see why I would prefer my holdings be overseas. In a recession, oil providers will suffer and watch profits fall as the U.S. is the engine of the world and when the consumption falls, so does demand, pricing etc. This would apply to Russia, Middle East, even Canada, Mexico, etc.

China is a major exporter and if it follows the pattern of Japan, will experience massive inflation and bubbles followed by deflation and inability to generate growth for a long period.

Anyway, we could dig in more, but I personally don't see the need for now. All assets go up and down in value for period of time. Will the U.S. go through some hardship? Absolutely, but their position relative to the rest of the world is still much better in terms of investment from my perspective.

trumptman is trying to restructure everything in terms of cash.

I sold one house sure, but the rest which were all purchased before the run up and I still keep possession of them. I think they are great inflation hedges because they generate inflation adjusted income.

So having everything in cash would be quite the opposite of what I doing.

MarkUK you have to understand where I am coming from with this stuff. Many people are operating from a position of leverage in these markets and in their personal lives. Telling them to get out of leverage as a standard operating procedure does not mean operating strictly on cash. Look at say.. the yen carry trade (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/currencycarrytrade.asp) as an example of this. On a personal level, using a credit card to pay for your brake job is going to get even more ridiculously expensive.

:???: with Mad Max? :err:

There's a debated theory that lead poisoning from various sources had an impact on the decline, but the theory has limited supporters and is nowhere concrete enough to make a statement like that.

I'm inclined to agree that it won't be apocalyptic. The US is large, homogeneous, has good resources and is well-protected. However, I firmly believe that there is a widespread false sense of economic and political security among americans.

Mad Max was 1979 and Road Warrior 81-82. That means that someone graduating from college last June was born three years AFTER that movie was made.

Yes, you are that old. :lol:;)

As for the rest... we agree. :wow:

Nick

[Jubelum]

Speaking of "miss the point" and "is that the best you have" - I see you completely ignored the meat of my post.

Where's the beef? Articulate to us clearly what your point is... why is a cut in spending and taxing better or worse than a cut in taxing and spending. Geez, some of you around here sometimes... :lol: :no:

And I'm looking for something more substantial than yet another rant about "blah, blah, liberals... blah, blah, wealth distribution... blah, blah, socialism..."
(you've had two already, and that should be more than enough for any thread)

I'm sorry that you do not like hearing the truth about what you are proposing. That does not mean that I will ever, ever cease from telling the truth about both wealth redistribution (with hurts everyone involved in the long term) and socialism (which also hurts everyone involved in the long term.)

[FormerLurker]

Where's the beef? Articulate to us clearly what your point is... why is a cut in spending and taxing better or worse than a cut in taxing and spending. Geez, some of you around here sometimes... :lol: :no:
You are pathetic.

The first POINT is that IF you can cut spending, THEN you can cut taxes.

Otherwise, if you cut taxes, all you are doing is increasing deficit spending. So cut the spending first - once you do that, THEN you can cut taxes responsibly.

Is that "clear" enough for you?

Instead, what we get is Republican tax cuts that are never, ever offset by any spending cuts - over, and over, and over. Do I really need to really spell out for you why cutting revenue without cutting spending is, umm, BAD?

DUH!

Are you really that dense - or are you just using obtuse tunnelvision as your primary discussion tactic?

The second POINT is that the following statement of yours is complete bullshit:
Consequences? Why is it that when you cut taxes, REVENUES INCREASE

THAT is what I posted the TAX CUT MYTHS link (twice now, which you continue to completely ignore) in response to, because the entire document (with everything researched, sourced, and linked) completely demolishes your statement (which is well-known and oft-repeated favorite fabrication of the rabid right wing.)

So - I'm still waiting for you to show me why the information at that link is wrong, and why your "consequences" statement is correct.

I'm sorry that you do not like hearing the truth about what you are proposing. What exactly am I "proposing" that you are stating the "truth" about (be sure to quote me, OK?)?

That does not mean that I will ever, ever cease from telling the truth about both wealth redistribution (with hurts everyone involved in the long term) and socialism (which also hurts everyone involved in the long term.)
:lol:
Anyone who disagrees with your opinions does so because they "don't like hearing the truth"?
Wow, what an intellectually honest approach.... and you're so humble about it, too!
:no:

"blah, blah, liberals... blah, blah, wealth distribution... blah, blah, socialism..."
:rolleyes:
So that's three, now.

I suppose the reply to this will completely ignore my two clearly-stated points, and instead consist of Part Four of your ranting, rambling opinion, supported by absolutely nothing besides your palpable outrage:
BLAH BLAH, liberals... BLAH BLAH, wealth distribution... BLAH BLAH, socialism..."

[Jubelum]

So cut the spending first - once you do that, THEN you can cut taxes responsibly.

Is that "clear" enough for you?

blah blah blah candy-eater blah blah pathetic... 7th grade again.

You cut taxes, and tell government to live within a BUDGET, just like the rest of us do. I don't spend what I want and then find a way to make enough to cover it at the point of a gun... I bring in what I can without hurting others and then set my priorities. This is why there will NEVER be high enough taxes for you liberals. You want us to just accept that the government MUST get ever more money, with little regard for what it is doing to people and families. Why do you think most families have both parents working to make a living? TAXES.

TAX CUT MYTHS

OK... here is a response to get your panties out of a wad- BULLSHIT SPIN. Here ya go... (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/WM5.cfm) And BTW- just look at the language of that glorious article you link to- tax cuts do not "cost" anything. The assumption is that the government is ENTITLED to that money, and not receiving it is a COST. Nope, it means a reduction in the rate of growth in government.

Do you think the government will ever be big enough? Should it ever stop growing? Should it ever be reduced in size? Or should we, the people, just let them tell us that it MUST grow 12% per year from now until eternity? Do you understand baseline budgeting, and what it is doing to our country? The way to reduce the size of government is to limit the drug that it is hooked on- the peoples' money.

Outrage? Sure, I am outraged. You want to maintain perpetual political power for your side, while you get the taxpayers to fund it. That IS outrageous!

[FormerLurker]

I agree that spending should be reduced first. In order to have the greatest impact the focus on spending cuts should be the three largest budget items (social security, welfare and defense).
We do seem to be in agreement here, and it does seem to be the obvious logical conclusion (except for those less interested in logic than in maintaining political power and "proving" their rhetorical points).
Again, this is not necessarily true. The honest answer is "it depends". The relationship is more complex than you seem to want to believe. I've made a post on this question which...

You seem to be ignoring.
Sorry, I didn't meant to completely ignore your Cato Institute links. I've been too busy trading ad-homs while responding to other, less worthy arguments, instead of your logical and rhetoric-free posts.
One of the links I posted provides a brief analysis of tax cuts in the 1920s that, the data shows, did lead to an increase in tax receipts. [...] it does demonstrate the possibility of tax rate cuts leading to increased tax receipts. It also provides the reasoning for this.

I won't disagree that it demonstrates the possibility that these specific tax cuts led to tax receipts increases. But I'm not sure this is a convincing argument when discussing the net revenue effects of tax cuts today.

From the Cato PDF:
A review of tax data for high-income earners in the 1920s shows that as top tax rates were cut, tax revenues and the share of taxes paid by high-income taxpayers soared (see Figure 1).

When the federal income tax was enacted in 1913, the top rate was just 7 percent. By the end of World War I, rates had been greatly increased at all income levels, with the top rate jacked up to 77 percent (for income over $1 million). After five years of very high tax rates, rates were cut sharply under the Revenue Acts of 1921, 1924, and 1926.

So the tax cuts were enacted when the federal income tax was 8, 11, and 13 years old. Income taxes were pretty young, and it's fair to say that the complexity of their interaction with the entire national economy was several orders of magnitude less than they are today.

Secondly, 1921 was the beginning of a time of an unprecedented explosion in the stock market:

http://people.few.eur.nl/smant/m-economics/images/1929sp.jpg

Isn't it possible that the increase in revenues from the upper income brackets were a result of huge income gains from the stock market (which of course skew heavily to the upper income brackets)?

It's the usual problem of "how do we know that tax receipts wouldn't have increased as much or more without the cuts, or that the economic growth was primarily due to the tax cuts?".

Regardless, the 1920's stock market spike makes economic data from that time somewhat suspect when used as a reference and comparison.

While it's not a direct refutation of the link that you posted (which appears to exclusively deal with the Bush tax cuts and assume that all of its conclusions apply to all tax cuts across all time)

"All tax cuts across time"? Your example has a much, much larger time gap than mine, so that statement discredits your example much more than it discredits mine. It should be obvious that the Bush tax cuts are a much more relevant metric to practical discussions of today's tax policy than the 1920s tax cuts.

Also, we have much more data about the Bush cuts... and we have many more economists from a diversity of the political spectrum analyzing them than just "Veronique de Rugy, Fiscal Policy Analyst, Cato Institute" from the study you cited.

Though I'm sure you wouldn't deny the conservative and "Free Market" philosophy and agenda of The Cato Institute, I'm not going to try to attack your source. But since my sources references the conclusions of multiple economists based on extensive Congressional Budget Office data, including a study by the President’s own Treasury Department, I'll call your source significantly less reliable than mine.

P.S. There are some that argue that Bush didn't really cut taxes at all which would mean (if that assertion is true) using the Bush tax cuts in an analysis of the "do tax cuts lead to increased tax revenue" question somewhat pointless. Look here and here for this argument.

Interesting articles from what seems to be a libertarian economic think tank - I read them both.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the gist of the argument in the both links seems to be that if government spending is increased, then future tax burdens are increased, so therefore all spending increases are tax increases. And therefore, even though Bush cut taxes, he really only "shifted" them because he also increased spending.

Since all forms of government revenue are generated by a coercive, non-contractual transfer of assets, it would be accurate to refer to all government spending as some form of taxation. Now, what can we say about Bush's tax-cutting reputation? Simply put, it's undeserved.

The most appropriate measure of the level of taxation is government spending.
Though interesting (and obviously very libertarian), that's a pretty radical conclusion, with little or nothing supporting it. Increased debt does indeed lead to increased future interest payments, but that's not relevant when considering the actual current tax burden. Sure - Bush has increased the potential future tax burden substantially. But that's not the same thing as shifting the current tax burden. And it's not at all supporting the "Bush didn't really cut taxes" argument you seem to want to use it for - even as a "maybe".

In seven years, from fiscal year 2001 to the proposed budget in fiscal year 2008, federal spending will increase from $1,863.2 billion to an estimated $2,901.9 billion, an increase of 55%. Actual spending in 2008 will probably top $3 trillion, so it's likely that federal spending will increase more than 60% in the first seven years of Bush's reign. The president has supported these spending increases and is pushing for even higher levels of spending.

The Republican Party claims to be the party of limited government and economic freedom. Don't believe it. Republicans have shown that when they are in power they are even more fiscally irresponsible than their Democratic counterparts, and that takes some doing.
I agree with these parts completely.

If nothing else, your links provide a powerful counterpoint to the arguments that "Bush's tax cuts paid for themselves" and that "tax cuts automagically lead to LESS spending".

[Jubelum]

I won't disagree that it demonstrates the possibility that these specific tax cuts led to tax receipts increases. But I'm not sure this is a convincing argument when discussing the net revenue effects of tax cuts today.


We've gone from "myth" to "possiblity" - I think we can take that as progress.

[FormerLurker]

Summary of points made in responses to sslarson and Jubelum:


1. It may have been shown that the 1920s tax cuts led to higher tax revenues (or not - the answer is most likely more complex - but it is "possible").

2. It is theoretically possible that cutting tax revenue will cut spending and government growth, but it is far from being a certain result.

3. The Reagan and Bush tax cuts did NOT lead to higher tax revenues than would have been taken in without the tax cuts.

4. The Reagan and Bush tax cuts did NOT lead to reduced government spending and growth.

5. As both of the major tax cuts in the past 25 years have led to neither reduced spending OR increased revenues, it is logical to believe that a third such tax cut would have the same lack of promised results.


If you want to argue that one of the above points is wrong, please quote and reply to the specific points - thanks.

------------

You cut taxes, and tell government to live within a BUDGET, just like the rest of us do.
So how did that work out after the Reagan tax cuts?
Did non-defense spending increase, or decrease?

So how did that work out after the Bush tax cuts?
Did non-defense spending increase, or decrease?

This is why there will NEVER be high enough taxes for you liberals.
This is a complete strawman. If it's not, please provide a quote where I even suggested that this is my belief.

I'm a moderate, not a liberal - a registered Independent who has historically voted for Republican candidates about a third of the time. Despite the best efforts of Republicans to alienate me and others with the same viewpoints over the past 10-15 years, I will vote for the candidate and not for the party, every time. If you are seeing any partisanship in my arguments, it is but a reflection of your own highly partisan methods of discussion.

You want us to just accept that the government MUST get ever more money, with little regard for what it is doing to people and families.
"You want" ... could you try making your argument without putting words in my mouth or thoughts in my head, please?

Why do you think most families have both parents working to make a living? TAXES.
Because incomes have not risen as fast as living expenses - how's that? Do you think your answer is more likely to be true than my answer? Then please answer the following:

When exactly did higher taxes cause both parents to start working?

Were there more or less two-income families than now in the Reagan years?

How much higher was the tax burden in the Reagan years, as compared to today?

Has the cost of living increased since then? Has it been more or less than wages and income for 90% of the country have increased? Have significant items such as health care, education, housing, and energy increased more or less than the rest of the CPI?

OK... here is a response to get your panties out of a wad- BULLSHIT SPIN. Here ya go... (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/WM5.cfm). Ah, a 2001 article from The Heritage Foundation - that's sure to be timely, contain relevant information about the actual effects of Bush's tax cuts, and be completely nonpartisan as well....
:lol:

I don't see anything in there that even comes close to refuting the 2001 - 2006 CBO numbers that my link's article is based on.

Perhaps we could try this - show how the following from my link is "BULLSHIT SPIN":


But when Treasury Department staff simulated the economic effects of extending the President’s tax cuts, they found that, at best, the tax cuts would have modest positive effects on the economy; these economic gains would pay for at most 10 percent of the tax cuts’ total cost. Under other assumptions, Treasury found that the tax cuts could slightly decrease long-run economic growth, in which case they would cost modestly more than otherwise expected. (http://www.cbpp.org/7-27-06tax.htm)

Edward Lazear, the current chair of President’s Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, has stated, “I certainly would not claim that tax cuts pay for themselves.” N. Gregory Mankiw, President’s Bush’s former CEA chair and a well-known Harvard economics professor, has written that there is “no credible evidence” that “tax revenues… rise in the face of lower tax rates.”

In 1981, Congress substantially lowered marginal income-tax rates on the well off, while in 1990 and 1993, Congress raised marginal rates on the well off. The economy grew at virtually the same rate in the 1990s as in the 1980s (adjusted for inflation and population growth), but revenues grew about twice as fast in the 1990s, when tax rates were increased, as in the 1980s, when tax rates were cut. During the current recovery (with its tax cuts), the economy has grown at about the same pace as during the equivalent period of the 1990s business cycle, but revenues have grown far more slowly. (http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htm)

In 2001, 2002, and 2003, revenues fell in nominal terms (i.e. without adjusting for inflation) for three straight years, the first time this has occurred since before World War II. Measured as a share of the economy, revenues in 2004 were at their lowest level since 1959.

Even taking into account the growth in revenues in fiscal year 2006, total revenue growth over the current business cycle as a whole has still been negative, after adjusting for inflation and population growth.

But as a general rule, it is difficult or impossible to infer the effect of a given tax cut from looking at a few years of economic data, simply because so many factors other than tax policy influence the economy. What the data do show clearly is that, despite major tax cuts in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2006, the economy’s recent performance has been far from stellar.

http://www.cbpp.org/9-27-06tax-f3.jpg

Meanwhile - your link contains 2001 projections of the effects of the Bush tax cuts (by that famously impartial source The Heritage Foundation). Please explain how these projections are more relevant than the actual data of the CBO numbers from 2001 to 2006.

And BTW- just look at the language of that glorious article you link to- tax cuts do not "cost" anything. The assumption is that the government is ENTITLED to that money, and not receiving it is a COST.

Well, if your assumption is that the government is NOT "entitled" to that money, then why are they entitled to ANY of "your money"? Why settle for tax cuts, which still leave you paying a significant portion of your income to the government? Aren't you really arguing for the complete elimination of taxes? The only way they'll be taking none of your money, is if you pay no taxes whatsoever.

As far as your strong objection to the usage of the word COST - perhaps from a technical accounting standpoint, it may be more technically correct to refer to it as "unrealized revenue" or something like that - I'm not sure. I suppose it could be argued that nothing is truly a "cost" unless it results in an outlay of cash. But when it gets right down to it, anything financial is either a positive item on the books, or a negative one. If Apple contemplates discontinuing a product, or lowering a price, I'm sure that the "cost in lost revenue" is part of the financial discussion.

Regardless, you appear with this statement to be hung up on simple semantics and what you see as their dangerous rhetorical implications.

Nope, it means a reduction in the rate of growth in government."
Nope - it means a reduction in the revenue available to the government. It does NOT automagically have ANY effect on the rate of government growth. For plain evidence of this, please see the growth of non-defense spending in both the Reagan and Bush administrations following their tax cuts.

Do you think the government will ever be big enough? Should it ever stop growing? Should it ever be reduced in size? Or should we, the people, just let them tell us that it MUST grow 12% per year from now until eternity? Do you understand baseline budgeting, and what it is doing to our country?
Did you not see where I specifically advocated SPENDING CUTS? Can you quote anywhere I am specifically advocating government growth?

More rhetorical strawmen - you seem to love those.

This is now the fourth time you've tried to bring your anti-taxation rhetoric into this discussion, and I'm still refusing to buy in to your diversionary rhetorical strawmen.

Let me remind you what instigated this discussion - you said "Why is it that when you cut taxes, REVENUES INCREASE?" and I and several others disagreed with this statement.

You hate taxes - we get that.
You think taxes are fundamentally government theft - we get that.
You think that everyone who doesn't think like you is a liberal that loves taxes - we get that.
You think that "liberals" only motivation in opposing tax cuts is to increase their political power - we get that, too.

None of your rhetorical strawman arguments against the very principle of taxation have anything at all to do with whether or not tax revenues increase when tax rates are cut.

The way to reduce the size of government is to limit the drug that it is hooked on- the peoples' money.
You seem to be stuck on the idea that cutting revenues will magically and automatically reduce the size of the government, despite the complete lack of evidence for this in either theory or practice.

The way to reduce the size of the government is to reduce the size of the government - specifically, by cutting government spending.

You want to maintain perpetual political power for your side, while you get the taxpayers to fund it.

Excuse me? "political power for my side"? I don't HAVE a side, and I'm not involved in fundraising or power politics for either "side".

You're just trying once again to divert the discussion using made-up shit, and refusing to address the actual issue of net revenue effects of cuts in income tax rates.

[FormerLurker]

We've gone from "myth" to "possiblity" - I think we can take that as progress.

You do realize that I was talking about the 1920s tax cuts, and not the Bush tax cuts - right?

[Jubelum]

Please, use the word "strawman" one more time. I'm starting to like it. :D

You want to keep the topic to tax cuts and revenue? Cool with me. Do you think that tax cuts stimulate the economy? That a stimulated economy creates more money moving? And that more moving money means more taxable money? And more taxable money equals revenue to the government, right?

Please, if you are going to post about being misrepresented, make sure you are making true representations of others. :)

[SpamSandwich]

Please, use the word "strawman" one more time. I'm starting to like it. :D

I like it too... it reminds me of "Hee-Haw".

http://www.morethings.com/fan/hee_haw/hee_haw_cast.jpg

[vinea]

blah blah blah candy-eater blah blah pathetic... 7th grade again.

You cut taxes, and tell government to live within a BUDGET, just like the rest of us do.


Well no, you cut spending FIRST and decide whether the pay down the debt or give a tax break. If you can cut spending enough you might get to do both. Of the two, I'd rather pay down the debt.

Screw tax cuts.

Whining that the government is too big and spends too much money is simpky evading the issue. We spent all that money already, the tax payers may or may not have gotten their money's worth but the money is owed.

We can pay it or we can sluff it off on our kids. At this point tax cuts are a luxury. Its like having $50,000 in credit card debt but still wanting $50/month cable TV because its "cheap entertainment" that "saves you money".

Outrage? Sure, I am outraged. You want to maintain perpetual political power for your side, while you get the taxpayers to fund it. That IS outrageous!

False outrage. The government is big, that horse left the barn a while ago. It might be fixiable in the long term, it might not but one thing is for sure...CUTTING SPENDING is something WE CAN DO and that should in NO WAY BE LINKED TO TAX CUTS.

[FormerLurker]

Please, use the word "strawman" one more time. I'm starting to like it. :D
Well, if you'll promise to keep trying to argue against stuff I haven't said, I'll promise to keep using it - deal?

Please, if you are going to post about being misrepresented, make sure you are making true representations of others. :)
:lol:
I've quoted your misrepresentations of my arguments - let's see you quote what you say are mine.

As far as your questions - I haven't seen you provide any evidence to disprove any of the following, and you've avoided answering every single one of my questions while asking a bunch of your own, so I guess we're done here...


Summary of points made in responses to sslarson and Jubelum:

1. It may have been shown that the 1920s tax cuts led to higher tax revenues (or not - the answer is most likely more complex - but it is "possible").

2. It is theoretically possible that cutting tax revenue will cut spending and government growth, but it is far from being a certain result.

3. The Reagan and Bush tax cuts did NOT lead to higher tax revenues than would have been taken in without the tax cuts.

4. The Reagan and Bush tax cuts did NOT lead to reduced government spending and growth.

5. As both of the major tax cuts in the past 25 years have led to neither reduced spending OR increased revenues, it is logical to believe that a third such tax cut would have the same lack of promised results.

[FormerLurker]

But the principles of what created this phenomenon haven't changed. The central issue is that the more governments tax, the more effort people will put into tax avoidance. Furthermore they will withdraw their money from the most productive (incoming producing) uses (because greater taxation has created and incentive for them to do so). When government reduces tax rates, the incentives change. People put much less effort into tax avoidance and they put more money to productive uses which leads to...
This all sounds like economic theory to me, and it's far from being the only theory out there (or even the most prevalent one). Perhaps you could provide some evidence of the above, besides the cato.org opinion article and research project you've already cited.

Also, you're arguing about what people do when tax rates increase, in a discussion about tax CUTS. Even IF avoidance increases when taxes increases, what would make it decrease when taxes are cut? Are people getting mass doses of conscious and suddenly deciding that cheating the government is wrong (but it was OK last year when taxes were higher)? Or that tax cheating is no longer worth the risk (but they got away with it for the past several years, and maybe they still could get away with it and pay even less tax.... HMMM).

The majority of evidence I've seen suggests that the last two major tax cuts (Reagan and Bush) did not lead to greater tax revenues than would have been seen absent the cuts.

Isn't the most sensible explanation that when people have less of their money confiscated by the government, they have more of it to spend and invest?Are you saying that tax cuts are the ONLY possible way people could get more money for spending and investing?

I'll address the more likely causes of the 1920s stock market expansion in a separate post.

However there appears to be a pattern that is exhibited in the 1920s, 1960s and 1980s tax rate reductions. Greater economic growth. More people making more money. Increased tax revenue. See these:

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm327.cfm

You have a correlation. The question is what is the causal relationship? Is it that:

1) government reduces the amount of money is confiscates from people
2) because of 1, people have more money to spend and invest (and do)
3) because of 2, an expansion of the stock market occurs


Again, this is great (though overly simplistic) theory - but where is the data to suggest that the tax cuts were the primary cause of stock market expansion, or that the markets would not have expanded without the cuts? I've already shown data suggesting that tax revenue from 2001-2006 would have increased MORE without Bush's tax cuts, than it actually did following them.

And why did investment increase following tax INCREASES in the 1990s, if changes in tax rates are such an important factor in investment rates?

http://www.cbpp.org/9-27-06tax-f3.jpg

Don't make the mistake of assuming because you've seen only a single briefing to mean that the tax cuts in the 1920, 1960s and 1980s haven't been extensively analyzed by "economists from a diversity of the political spectrum".

Sounds good. "Show me the money" - let's see some of those extensive analyses!

Fair enough.

However, for full-disclosure, it should be noted that the link you provided ("TAX CUTS: MYTHS AND REALITIES") is from the "Center on Budget and Policy Priorities" which couldn't be fairly described as a source of "economists from a diversity of the political spectrum". This organization is best described as a liberal "think tank".

I don't point this out as an ad hominem argument, but merely for full and fair disclosure.
Well, there is nothing "liberal" about the CBO numbers used to support their conclusions... nor about these sources they quoted:
But when Treasury Department staff simulated the economic effects of extending the President’s tax cuts, they found that, at best, the tax cuts would have modest positive effects on the economy; these economic gains would pay for at most 10 percent of the tax cuts’ total cost. Under other assumptions, Treasury found that the tax cuts could slightly decrease long-run economic growth, in which case they would cost modestly more than otherwise expected. (http://www.cbpp.org/7-27-06tax.htm)

Edward Lazear, the current chair of President’s Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, has stated, [/b]“I certainly would not claim that tax cuts pay for themselves.” [/b]

N. Gregory Mankiw, President’s Bush’s former CEA chair and a well-known Harvard economics professor, has written that there is “no credible evidence” that “tax revenues… rise in the face of lower tax rates.”

First, I haven't claimed that the Bush tax cuts, specifically, "paid for themselves".

Really? Despite your continuing argument that suggests any tax cut will most likely do so?
"But the principles of what created this phenomenon haven't changed. The central issue is that the more governments tax, the more effort people will put into tax avoidance.", and all that?
Fine.

I've argued that the Bush tax cuts did NOT (despite the claims of at least one other poster here, and of course good ol' GWB himself).

So if they didn't, then WHY didn't they? And why should we believe that future cuts would "pay for themselves" if the most recent ones (which were promised to do so) did, in fact, NOT?

I simply pointed out that the relationship between tax rate cuts and tax revenue increases or decreases is an "it depends" kind of thing. Not a slam dunk in either direction.
I'm pretty sure I never claimed it was a slam dunk in either direction in general - just with the Bush cuts specifically.

So you would agree that I was not wrong when I disagreed with a poster who made a definitive statement that "tax cuts lead to increased tax revenue" in my first post in this thread?

Sounds like progress to me!

Though there appears to be a pattern of showing that tax rate cuts can, and do, lead to greater economic growth and increased tax revenue.It's far from having been shown to be a conclusive causal pattern, and it's been shown that other factors are likely to be more responsible for the economic growth of at least one of the periods in question. I'm open to any credible evidence you can provide to the contrary.

BTW, personally, I don't care to see the government get additional tax revenue except for the purpose of reducing outstanding debt. I've stated before that I believe tax cuts should be accompanied by spending cuts (particularly in the three largest budget items...social security, welfare and defense). I also think that the the government's ability to take on debt or inflate the money supply (another surreptitious form of taxation) should be eliminated or significantly curtailed to prevent the government from shifting its spending burdens to others (e.g., the poor, future generations, borrowers, lenders, etc.) Except for the fact that we're not talking about "government getting additional tax revenue" but about not losing revenue due to tax CUTS, I'm down with that.

Second, I've never claimed that "tax cuts automagically lead to LESS spending".My apologies if you thought I was referring directly to you. I should have said "other posters who believe that tax cuts..." instead.

[FormerLurker]

Now, what caused the [1920s] stock market expansion?

Well, off the top of my head, I've seen it stated many times that relaxed credit practices and skyrocketing use of "buying on margin" was the biggest factor in the 1920s stock market expansion.

Another example I shouldn't have to provide specific citations for would be the jump in consumer spending and available consumer goods and services in the 1920s. This is the era of Henry Ford's Model T for every working man, right? Besides the automobile boom and resulting oil company and road infrastructure building booms, this was the decade that introduced movies, radio, and even electric utilities to their first widespread consumption.

A third common example unrelated to tax cuts would be the "post-WWI-economic-boom".

Other important factors would include the Fed's dramatic increase of the money supply, and an increasing wealth inequality (more money available to the "investor class" top 5%):
http://www.amatecon.com/gd/gdcandc.html
The Fed took several actions that, in retrospect, were quite bad. The first thing it did was to inflate the money supply by about 60% during the 1920's. If the Fed had been a little more careful in expanding the money supply, it might have prevented the artificial Stock market boom and subsequent crash.

In The Great Depression: An International Disaster of Perverse Economic Policies, Hall & Ferguson write that:
Wages grew more slowly than output per worker, which suggests that corporate profits were rising. This change shows up as rising dividends, which constituted 4.3 percent of national income in 1920 and rose to 7.2 percent of national income by 1929 (Soule 1947, 284). Since 82 percent of all dividends were paid to the top 5 percent of income earners, this clearly helped contribute to the change in income inequality (Potter 1974).

See also
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=3651
regarding Fed policy

The valuation of intellectual property and technology advances increased greatly during this period (reminds me of a familiar phrase - "dot-com" anyone?)
I found the following from Harvard Business School:
http://drfd.hbs.edu/fit/public/facultyInfo.do;jsessionid=GDfDxN03N7WVkyK16Jqthnqh GQPq5yvm74h5hWp5bD65cGzKnTDL!-139615531!482340567?facInfo=res&facEmId=tnicholas%40hbs.edu
Does Innovation Cause Stock Market Runups? Evidence from the Great Crash

This article examines the stock market's changing valuation of corporate patentable assets between 1910 and 1939. It shows that the value of knowledge capital increased significantly during the 1920s compared to the 1910s as investors responded to the quality of technological inventions. Innovation was an important driver of the late 1920s stock market runup and the Great Crash did not reflect a significant revaluation of knowledge capital relative to physical capital.

And, it seems there was a bestseller that popularized stock investment, as well:
http://stlouisfed.org/publications/re/2002/c/pages/beyond_risk.html
In the early 1920s, stock market valuation was comparatively low, as measured by the inflation-adjusted present value of future dividends. The attractive valuation of stocks relative to bonds became a widely held belief after Edgar Lawrence Smith published in 1924 a book on stock market valuation, titled Common Stocks as Long Term Investments. Smith argued that stocks not only offer dividends, but also capital appreciation through retained earnings. The book, which was reviewed by John Maynard Keynes in 1925, gave cause to an unprecedented stock market appreciation. The inflation-adjusted average annual growth rate of a buy-and-hold investment in large-company stocks established at the end of 1925 amounted to a staggering 32.13 percent at the end of 1928.

Also, the 1920s stock market expansion was international in nature (see table, "International Stock Market Returns 1921-1929"):
http://www.gold-eagle.com/analysis_98/taylor061798.html

Were the stock market expansions in all those other countries also primarily due to tax cuts?