Fri, Aug 29, 2014, 12:05 AM EDT - U.S. Markets open in 9 hrs 25 mins

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. Message Board

  • iamadogooder iamadogooder Sep 16, 2004 6:34 AM Flag

    Latest Poll

    Even the Democracy Corps shows Bush up by one in their poll. I think the Democrats are going to start jumping ship soon.

    >Democracy Corps is an independent, non-profit organization dedicated to making the government of the United States more responsive to the American people. It was founded in 1999 by James Carville, Stanley Greenberg, and Bob Shrum. Democracy Corps provides free public opinion research and strategic advice to those dedicated to a more responsive Congress and Presidency.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Thank you for your thoughtful and civilized exchange too. That is a breeze of fresh air.

    • lying about your stupid example is only unlawful if the lie is told to officers and there is a crime involved, like murder-Kennedy, like violence -- Byrd and his KKK, like sexual harassment of a number of women-- unless you are the president....

    • Appreciate the comment.

      Thinking about an isssue instead of screaming and going on personal attacks is more interesting. Having done both, that is at least my own experience.

    • Difference of opinion...

      agreed, but it was fun. I definately prefer this kind of talk to much of what I read spewed out by both sides on these boards. Your viewpoints are backed by intellent thought and I respect that.

    • Guess a difference of opinion.

      Paul Volker had a lot to do with the inflation coming down, he stopped the money printing presses. He then eased the money sullpy in 1982, which is when the economy finally took off again.

    • Actually I am disappointed that the Dems were unable to field a stronger candidate.

    • Hi Rocks,

      I read the article and I completely disagree with its interpretation of the statistics:

      excerpt:

      <Also remember that, because the economy grows in the long run, tax collections will inevitably start rising again sooner or later as the tax base continues to grow. Therefore, supply-siders do not have the argument that there was a delay in increased tax collections, or that we can't expect tax policy to have immediate effects. The simple fact is that there was a 5 year drop in tax collections, which was extremely uncharacteristic of a growing economy. And during that time we incurred a trillion and a half dollars in debt, so the alleged value of such a tax policy is refuted outright.>

      Before Reagan came into office the economy was very weak and inflation was very high. His economic policies DID help get that under control. The fact that the chart shows a 5 year decline in tax revenue does not support the arguement that the tax cuts didn't work. First of all, the tax cuts were phased in over a 3 year period. Secondly, of course it takes time to see the results of increased investment kick in, and once it did it went wild! After the 5 year decline tax revenue DID go up BECAUSE the system works!

      As to the deficit, it wasn't a result of decreased tax revenue. A large contribution came from increase military spending which was necessary at the time. Because of this the cold war ended. That's money well spent. Governments use deficit spending all the time -its not the scary disaster politicians try to portray it as. The deficit will be tended to when better days come along, which will happen as a result of current needed policies: when tax revenue increases due to tax cuts, when the world is more stable because of our military machine, etc.

    • Good one rocks. Robert Reich uses this argument as well. If there were more liberals out there like you who can debate the issues rather than whine and complain like little girls, the Democrats would win this election. I have not heard one intellegent thing come out of Kerry's mouth.

    • <"Arthur Laffler: Tax rates and tax revenues have a direct relationship at low rates. An increase at lower tax rates also increases tax revenues. However, tax rates and tax revenues have an indirect relationship at high tax rates. Therefore, an increase at higher tax rates decreases tax revenues. Any rise in tax rates now has a significant dampening effect on economic activity. (Lovewell)">

      Just read the statement. An increase at lower tax rates increases tax revenue. We have been at these "lower" rates for at least the last 20 years. As far as the statement relating to higher tax rates is concerned, it is strictly a hypothetical. The JFK tax reduction did not increase tax revenue, but it has always been kept as the classical example of stimulating the economy by tax cuts.

      Tax revenue did not go up when Reagan reduced tax rates.

      Take a look at http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxcollections.htm

    • >The idea of increasing tax revenue by lowering tax rates has been proven wrong. Reagan believed the Laffler curve, but there was no increase in revenue when he lowered taxes

      Are you sure? Revinue was increased. This was also proven in JFK's administration. Don't confuse revinue with deficits. The laffler curve is accurate. I have A feeling this may be too complicated for you.

      "Arthur Laffler: Tax rates and tax revenues have a direct relationship at low rates. An increase at lower tax rates also increases tax revenues. However, tax rates and tax revenues have an indirect relationship at high tax rates. Therefore, an increase at higher tax rates decreases tax revenues. Any rise in tax rates now has a significant dampening effect on economic activity. (Lovewell)"

    • View More Messages
 
MSO
4.37-0.08(-1.80%)Aug 28 4:05 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.