StarDestroyer.Net BBS

"If this is not evil, than evil has no meaning"

Awsome quote.

Am I just being naive, or is it silly to pledge gobs of money toward various programs and of course, the war in Iraq while taking in less tax revenue? Isn't there a balance sheet somewhere upon which this doesn't work out?

Darth Wong wrote:Am I just being naive, or is it silly to pledge gobs of money toward various programs and of course, the war in Iraq while taking in less tax revenue? Isn't there a balance sheet somewhere upon which this doesn't work out?

Well, some programs would be cut, and there's the theory that reducing taxes would help the economy grow, which increases tax revenue even when taxing at lower rates.

Alex Moon wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:Am I just being naive, or is it silly to pledge gobs of money toward various programs and of course, the war in Iraq while taking in less tax revenue? Isn't there a balance sheet somewhere upon which this doesn't work out?

Well, some programs would be cut, and there's the theory that reducing taxes would help the economy grow, which increases tax revenue even when taxing at lower rates.

Ah, yes. Supply-side economics. I believe Reagan tried that, thus causing the national debt to balloon to $3 trillion.

Well, according to my economics professor, the government's revenues have increased every time taxes have been cut. Unfortunately, it never quite seems to match the government's ability to deficit spend.

Darth Wong wrote:Am I just being naive, or is it silly to pledge gobs of money toward various programs and of course, the war in Iraq while taking in less tax revenue? Isn't there a balance sheet somewhere upon which this doesn't work out?

President's always talk big in their State of the Union addresses. Like any other President, Bush knows that many of his plans rely heavily on the success of the economy, the willingness of Congress to cut other existing programs, and of course Congress' willingness to go along with him in the first place. Off hand I'd say that with a rebound in the economy and a cut in existing programs (or at least a cut in their growth) that he didn't really say anything that couldn't be delivered.

Ah, yes. Supply-side economics. I believe Reagan tried that, thus causing the national debt to balloon to $3 trillion.

No that was the Massive Miltary Buildup, Regan borrowed very heavly on that because in his words "I could have put a ten or twenty year build up plan in place, but frankly I did not trust the next guy to understand why we needed this massive increase to begin with"

I was actually anotating while everyone else was posting, you can view it here for a discussion if you like...

Darth Wong wrote:

Alex Moon wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:Am I just being naive, or is it silly to pledge gobs of money toward various programs and of course, the war in Iraq while taking in less tax revenue? Isn't there a balance sheet somewhere upon which this doesn't work out?

Well, some programs would be cut, and there's the theory that reducing taxes would help the economy grow, which increases tax revenue even when taxing at lower rates.

Ah, yes. Supply-side economics. I believe Reagan tried that, thus causing the national debt to balloon to $3 trillion.

Actually Reagan increased the budget by billions. Unfortunately Congress simply spent the new revenue plus some.

phongn wrote:

Darth Fanboy wrote:omfg, Bush pledging $1.2 Billion towards hydrogen powered cars?

Is this his way of telling Dad he doesn't want to be part of the family business?

GWB did very, very poorly when he was involved in the oil business. I don't recall him doing much more with it after he left.

And you can also get H2 from crude oil, quite a bit of it (but you still get CO2 emissions in the process). I'm not sure how energy efficient it is (at least compared to getting it from H2O).

You also forget that one of the first things that shrubby did was to cut all research into alternative fuel sources by over 60%. $1.2 billion is nothing compared to what it was getting before shrubby.

I just saw this come across on chat. I agree. Bush drove me crazy with this.

"OK, listen up

It's not Noo-Kyoo-Ler.

It's Noo-Klee-Er. F!&*ing get it right."

Ted wrote:

phongn wrote:

Darth Fanboy wrote:omfg, Bush pledging $1.2 Billion towards hydrogen powered cars?

Is this his way of telling Dad he doesn't want to be part of the family business?

GWB did very, very poorly when he was involved in the oil business. I don't recall him doing much more with it after he left.

And you can also get H2 from crude oil, quite a bit of it (but you still get CO2 emissions in the process). I'm not sure how energy efficient it is (at least compared to getting it from H2O).

You also forget that one of the first things that shrubby did was to cut all research into alternative fuel sources by over 60%. $1.2 billion is nothing compared to what it was getting before shrubby.

The President seems to be focusing the efforts onto one specific area instead of a broad 'alternative energy' program. Frankly we have plenty of oil to do until alternative fuel sources become available, new money for alternative fuel is just a nice touch to satisfy the few and show that he cares.

Darth Wong wrote:

Alex Moon wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:Am I just being naive, or is it silly to pledge gobs of money toward various programs and of course, the war in Iraq while taking in less tax revenue? Isn't there a balance sheet somewhere upon which this doesn't work out?

Well, some programs would be cut, and there's the theory that reducing taxes would help the economy grow, which increases tax revenue even when taxing at lower rates.

Ah, yes. Supply-side economics. I believe Reagan tried that, thus causing the national debt to balloon to $3 trillion.

unfortunatly it is being touted as the cure all solution to the ailing American economy i can't wait till the American national debt doubles

Darth Wong wrote:Am I just being naive, or is it silly to pledge gobs of money toward various programs and of course, the war in Iraq while taking in less tax revenue? Isn't there a balance sheet somewhere upon which this doesn't work out?

Actually, yes, in theory.



That's the Laffer curve. The "x" axis is the tax rate, the "y" axis is government revenues. Point "t" is the optimum tax rate, the highest possible tax rate before overtaxation begins to sap productivity and reduce revenues despite the increased tax rate.

The theory behind it is fairly simple, on the surface. A 0% tax rate produces no revenue because, obviously, the government isn't collecting any. A 100% tax rate produces no revenue because nobody bothers to work if the government takes it all. Somewhere in between them is an optimum tax rate, at which raising taxes is counterproductive. The real trick is figuring out exactly where the optimum tax rate is. Bush, like most Republicans today, thinks the tax rate is far to the right of t, and is betting that lowering taxes will produce more revenue by stimulating the economy.

EDIT: Added the quote from Darth Wong, so the first line actually makes sense.

I think i liked "hitlerism" more.

It really reminded me of Reverend Jim on taxi, but jim had an excuse, he was stoned. what is shrub's excuse?

RedImperator:

Thanks, I was looking for that. You know, being an econ major, I should know that one. Oh well, back to the books I guess.

Alex Moon wrote:RedImperator:

Thanks, I was looking for that. You know, being an econ major, I should know that one. Oh well, back to the books I guess.

Don't be too hard on yourself. There's two kinds of polisci majors in this country: those that understand economics and those who become leftists. I made sure I had at least a basic grounding in econ, and look at me now.

Alex Moon wrote:RedImperator:

Thanks, I was looking for that. You know, being an econ major, I should know that one. Oh well, back to the books I guess.

Actually, there is evidence that supports both sides. That tax cuts spur growth and that they don't.

Remember, the study of economics has nothing to do with reality.

According to my econ prof.

Did anybody actually do me that favor?

RedImperator wrote:

Alex Moon wrote:RedImperator:

Thanks, I was looking for that. You know, being an econ major, I should know that one. Oh well, back to the books I guess.

Don't be too hard on yourself. There's two kinds of polisci majors in this country: those that understand economics and those who become leftists. I made sure I had at least a basic grounding in econ, and look at me now.

ROTFLMELAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm gonna sig that if you don't mind.

neoolong wrote:

Alex Moon wrote:RedImperator:

Thanks, I was looking for that. You know, being an econ major, I should know that one. Oh well, back to the books I guess.

Actually, there is evidence that supports both sides. That tax cuts spur growth and that they don't.

Remember, the study of economics has nothing to do with reality.

According to my econ prof.

True. True.

neoolong wrote:

Alex Moon wrote:RedImperator:

Thanks, I was looking for that. You know, being an econ major, I should know that one. Oh well, back to the books I guess.

Actually, there is evidence that supports both sides. That tax cuts spur growth and that they don't.

Remember, the study of economics has nothing to do with reality.

According to my econ prof.

Strange, my econ prof said that econ was study of human behavior. Specifically, self interested human behavior usually.

Ah, supply-side economics, or right-wing Keynsianism. I wish it would just go away like the rest of that crackpot's ideas.

Alex Moon wrote:

RedImperator wrote:

Alex Moon wrote:RedImperator:

Thanks, I was looking for that. You know, being an econ major, I should know that one. Oh well, back to the books I guess.

Don't be too hard on yourself. There's two kinds of polisci majors in this country: those that understand economics and those who become leftists. I made sure I had at least a basic grounding in econ, and look at me now.

ROTFLMELAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm gonna sig that if you don't mind.

Go for it. I'm a sig! W00t!

Falcon wrote:

neoolong wrote:

Alex Moon wrote:RedImperator:

Thanks, I was looking for that. You know, being an econ major, I should know that one. Oh well, back to the books I guess.

Actually, there is evidence that supports both sides. That tax cuts spur growth and that they don't.

Remember, the study of economics has nothing to do with reality.

According to my econ prof.

Strange, my econ prof said that econ was study of human behavior. Specifically, self interested human behavior usually.

That's true. It's the study of how people make choices. Costs and benefits of actions and such.