The Laffer Curve debunked; Part One

It all began, back in the day, with the Laffer Curve.

In the early ’70s, economist Arthur Laffer and his acolytes began preaching a very simple idea: By cutting taxes — always a politically popular move — it was possible to actually increase government revenue. As the story goes, Laffer illustrated the seemingly magical concept for Dick Cheney, among others, by drawing the curve on a cocktail napkin in a Washington hotel bar. (The versions published here, created by yours truly, attempt to honor the original in their crudeness. At least that’s my excuse.)

lafferone

Figure One

The idea was quickly seized upon by leading Republican conservatives, who used it to justify major tax cuts in the early ’80s and have continued to do so ever since, under the rubric “supply-side economics.” And under the right conditions, the argument behind the Laffer Curve does make some sense.

Without a doubt, excessively high taxes can strip needed capital from the private economy, reducing investment and spending and thus curtailing growth. By cutting taxes, you can theoretically free up capital and encourage investment, and the resulting growth will generate more government revenue than you had in the first place.

The theory is illustrated by Figure One, to the right. Pay particular attention to the part of the curve labeled C. As the tax rate moves to the left and gets lower, you see government revenues rising. That process continues until you reach the sweetspot, labeled Point A, which in this illustration is at roughly 25 percent.

Point A represents nirvana, the point at which you have both the highest possible government revenue generated by the lowest possible tax rate.

But there’s a downside to the Laffer Curve as well. Note that if you move beyond Point A into the region marked B, tax rates continue to fall but this time revenue plummets. Region B represents the part of the curve where cutting taxes does NOT generate enough growth to compensate, and in fact may not generate any growth at all.

lafferb

Figure Two

So the trick, it would appear, is to identify where Point A is. But that’s difficult to impossible, in part because the location of Point A probably varies wildly from country to country, era to era and tax system to tax system.

Figure Two, for example, offers just as plausible a depiction of the tax rate’s impact on revenue as Figure One.  In this example, Point A, the sweetspot, is at roughly 60 percent; any reduction in rates below that point would put you into Region B, where government revenues would drop. (NOTE: The percentages used here are for discussion purposes only and are not intended to reflect actual taxation or its impact).

But the problem is, something very destructive happened in the translation of this economic theory into political language and policy. In the popular conservative version of the Laffer Curve, no debate over the location of Point A is even tolerated, because cutting tax rates is said to ALWAYS generate more government revenue.

In effect, Region B, the part of the curve in which lower tax rates produce sharply lower government revenue, has simply been banished from the discussion.

Figure Three

Figure Three

Once you do that, however, the Laffer Curve no longer functions as a curve at all (see Figure Three). If lower rates always produce more revenue, as the right likes to claim, the Laffer Curve becomes the Laffer Line, and Point A, the sweetspot, stands at a tax rate of zero.

While that makes no sense mathematically, politically it is an enormously appealing notion. It’s like telling someone with an obesity problem that the best way to lose weight is to always eat more ice cream — more times than not, their eagerness to believe overwhelms any skepticism.

Or to paraphrase the argument:

“Cutting taxes doesn’t add to the deficit, it’s how we fight the deficit!! Less is more, don’t you see?? Reagan proved it. Oh, and hand me that chocolate sauce and whipped cream, will you?”

Coming tomorrow: The search for Point A.

285 comments Add your comment

tm

September 14th, 2010
5:20 pm

Jay
If you are really against the Bush tax policy you should be in favor of letting ALL of the Bush tax expire and go back to the Clinton tax policy. Was Clinton wrong? What is the reason for letting Bush’s tax cut for the rest of the population stay. Why pick only one one group lets all share in the pain. By the way it would have been nice if the dems would have proposed a budget in the spring like they were suppose to so we would know what they need our money for..

Hillbilly Deluxe

September 14th, 2010
5:20 pm

Alls I know is the fastest way to get from Point A to Point B is by following a straight line.

But it’d be a curved line, unless the Earth is really flat. (IW&SH)

jewcowboy

September 14th, 2010
5:20 pm

Jay,

Seeing how quickly this post broke down to SEC and Cadillacs, I would suggest withholding a Part Two…Mathematics doesn’t seem to be anyone’s..eh hem..cup of tea.

Doggone/GA

September 14th, 2010
5:20 pm

“Naw…midnight blue with champagne silk and wool interior”

Well, sounds pretty nice…but I think she’s got a ways to go to beat the “KEPT” gal!

Del

September 14th, 2010
5:21 pm

Chuck,

I watched them against the Cains last week. They looked impressive and hungry to win. Pryor has the tools but also a maturity issue. If he matures into his capability, I think they will be very strong this year. If he doesn’t he’ll be their weak link.

Rightwing Troll

September 14th, 2010
5:22 pm

There has to be numbers and some sort of equation to create the curve, otherwise it’s an arbitrary scribble on a napkin.

I understand the local hate baggers and conservitards don’t need to know how points A B and C are achieved, they accept it as gospel because the teary eyed Beck drew it for them on a chalkboard. But I need some sort of facts…

Chuck E. Employee

September 14th, 2010
5:22 pm

Del

ESPN said that VT would be awesome and look how they turned out. The ACC is a terrible football conference and you should overlook that win. Miami is a second tier football team much like UGA.

Chuck E. Employee

September 14th, 2010
5:23 pm

jewcowboy

Jay isn’t a mathematician so……… But alas, he does love football which is great in my book.

I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...

September 14th, 2010
5:24 pm

“The social fabric is fraying. Human capital is being squandered. Society is segmenting. The labor markets are ill. Wages are lagging. Inequality is increasing. The nation is overconsuming and underinnovating. China and India are surging.”–David Brooks, New York Times, Sept. 14

Give Laffer a chance, just sayin…

Chuck E. Employee

September 14th, 2010
5:24 pm

“I understand the local hate baggers and conservitards”

I see Jr. High has let out for the day.

Jefferson

September 14th, 2010
5:24 pm

TM,

I’ve got no problem letting all the Bush tax cut expire, but I’m not running for office. It would be better for the deficit, which would raise interest rates which would fix many problems.

Kamchak

September 14th, 2010
5:25 pm

I’ve devised a new drinking game next door at Ms. Tucker’s—every time Commie comes up with a new sock-puppet, take a shot of the liquor of your choice.

Del

September 14th, 2010
5:26 pm

Chuck E.

UGA a second tier football team. That’s down right mean.

jewcowboy

September 14th, 2010
5:26 pm

Chuck E. Employee,

“Do we know each other from a past life or something?”

In my past life I was the Pekingese personal guard dog of Li Yuan during the Tang Dynasty in China…perhaps you were Li Jiancheng?

Chuck E. Employee

September 14th, 2010
5:27 pm

“UGA a second tier football team. That’s down right mean.”

Yeah but it’s the truth.

@@

September 14th, 2010
5:27 pm

Hillbilly:

I’m a flat lander, remember? Don’t want anything obstructing my view.

(ISH)

Chuck E. Employee

September 14th, 2010
5:27 pm

“In my past life I was the Pekingese personal guard dog of Li Yuan during the Tang Dynasty in China…perhaps you were Li Jiancheng?”

Or not.

Pogo

September 14th, 2010
5:32 pm

Bosch, all I can say is your experience is not like mine. Title transfer is apparently beyond the government template of what is supposed to be normally encountered by the average DMV employee. They were totally lost and they were totally rude (the last of which I ignored considering the attitude of 90% of their obnoxcious clients). I really don’t blame the employees (though in this case the job screeners could have done a little better job). It is the protocol that they have been handed by their government bosses, which is exactly my point. Bureaucracy creates jobs but destroys efficiency and that ultimately wastes taxpayer money because there is no incentive for efficiency because they are spending money that is not theirs. Yea, we can get a license by snail mail, but try anything else outside of that, and they (the DMV) are down for the count. But they are insignificant compared to the Federal Government’s inefficiency. What must it be like? I would like to give you a story about exactly how in-efficient the federal government truly is but it would take way, way too long and it would involve having to devolve things that can’t be said.

Admittedly, as I said before, the DMV is microscopic, but just imagine what the waste must be like on the National level. Maybe it is protocol, maybe it is procedure, maybe it is just pure out “I don’t care”, but it is still waste. Obama and the democrats and their in-action of not presenting a federal budget so far this year within the historically mandated timeline should tell everyone that something is severely amiss in this country. They speak of “government shutdown” but yet they won’t pass a budget though they hold the majority in both Houses of Congress and the Whitehouse. If there ever was a red flag of government/administration failure, this is one.

And Bosch, with the exception of your sometimes passion for name-calling of us conservatives, I still think you and jewdude are two of the better contibutors to this blog. I don’t call my more leftist friends anything but liberals or progressives. If those two terms are considered offensive, I would like to hear the alternatives and I would abide by them and I wish others would do the same. Civil discourse by ALL of us will get us (the American people) much farther than harsh vulgarity and name calling.

Hillbilly Deluxe

September 14th, 2010
5:32 pm

I’m a flat lander, remember? Don’t want anything obstructing my view.

But you can see a lot further (pronounced “futher” by Hill folks) from the ridge line.

Chuck E. Employee

September 14th, 2010
5:34 pm

“And Bosch, with the exception of your sometimes passion for name-calling of us conservatives”

Yeah, why is that?

jewcowboy

September 14th, 2010
5:36 pm

Chuck E. Employee,

“Or not.”

After that I was a L’hasa Apsos in the employ of the Jokhang Monastery in Tibet where I guarded the temple from strangers…

From Li Yuan I learned cunning and patience…from Jokhang I fine tuned my senses to distinguish intimates from strangers…

Both help me to identify those who are less than truthful.

Chuck E. Employee

September 14th, 2010
5:37 pm

“Both help me to identify those who are less than truthful.”

So you knew Clinton was lying before he didn’t?

Jay

September 14th, 2010
5:37 pm

You’re going to get Part Two, Jewcowboy, and you’re going to LIKE IT!!!!!

Moderate Line

September 14th, 2010
5:40 pm

Once you do that, however, the Laffer Curve no longer functions as a curve at all (see Figure Three). If lower rates always produce more revenue, as the right likes to claim, the Laffer Curve becomes the Laffer Line, and Point A, the sweetspot, stands at a tax rate of zero.
++++++++++
The Laffer Curve is manipulated for conservative propaganda just like Keynes is manipulated for liberal propaganda.

If you look at Bush tax cut the receipts were up to 18.5% of GDP which is higher than 17.79% average from 1946 to 2009 or the 18.13% since 1980. This was done after a tax cut. Although I don’t believe that tax cuts necessarily lead to more tax revenues, I do believe a growing economy does. Currently, our tax revenues are at 14.8 percent and our outlay are at 25.4.

In 2007 are defict spending was 1.2% of GDP. It was 9.9 for 2008, 10.6 in 2009 and expected to be 8.3 for 2010 but yet no recover for jobs.

jewcowboy

September 14th, 2010
5:40 pm

Pogo,

“DMV is microscopic, but just imagine what the waste must be like on the National level.”

I would certainly agree…but my posit is that it makes no sense to expend the time and energy to take on small items that may end up costing more to identify and eliminate when there are larger items looming.

The problem with the large items is political will…from both sides. Both sides have to be adults and choose difficult cuts in combination with certain tax increases. Think about your own house if you live with someone. It takes a balanced approach to satisfy all parties to agin a positive budget effect.

jewcowboy

September 14th, 2010
5:42 pm

Jay,

“You’re going to get Part Two, Jewcowboy, and you’re going to LIKE IT!!!!!”

eek!

Del

September 14th, 2010
5:43 pm

Okay then question of the day…who in Hollywood has the most laffer curves?

jewcowboy

September 14th, 2010
5:44 pm

Del,
“who in Hollywood has the most laffer curves?”

Hands down..Christina Hendricks from Mad Men…

http://images.teamsugar.com/files/upl1/0/10/04_2009/4a53fa2d8ac82b0a_Christina-Hendricks.jpg

paleo-neo-Carlinist

September 14th, 2010
5:45 pm

I’m probably not the first, but did you say “Laugher Curve” or Laffer Curve? I don’t know if this is a spellcheck/copy editor issue or an example of instututional isantity? Let me see if I have this stright; a well-meaning (or not) economist decides that cutting taxes (essentially borrowing money, or replacing actual revenue with debt, based on the THEORY that the debt will actually blossom into revenue – (Kamchack, I need that shot) 25 years later, when “debt-fueled spending” has produced record deficits AND a housing bubble, filled with YOU GUESSED IT; DEBT)is about to burst and wreak havoc on the American/global economy, the very same economist pronounces the economy “sound” and “healthy”. and to add to the mix the very healthy (for some) derivitives market (unhealthy for everyone else), which via pixie dust, transforms debt (bad debts at that) into “assets” which are sold in a high stakes game of musical chairs, and wouldn’t you know it, when the music stops, the U.S. taxpayers are without a chair (holding the very same “bad debts” which made TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS for a handful of thieves on Wall Street? as I said, this is “Laugher” economic theory, not Laffer. and, as I noted on CT’s blog, let’s just say there was a shred of “reality” in the Laffer model? were is the prosperity and and economic health (bear in mind, the “green shoots” Laffer noted were produced by record deficits and debt – to wit: THE DID NOT EXIST)? why, if we had tax cuts from 2001-2001, did we fall into a recession (and that’s a nice word) with double digit unemployment BEFORE THE TAX CUTS expire? smoke and mirrors, shell game, call it what you like, tax cuts do not bolster the economy, they merely fortify the balance sheets of a handful and destabilize the United States.

Del

September 14th, 2010
5:46 pm

jewcowboy,

Good choice

jewcowboy

September 14th, 2010
5:47 pm

Del,

“Good choice”

She even makes me swoon…

tm

September 14th, 2010
5:49 pm

I am not runnign for office but why is it so bad to just go back to the Clinton tax rates. Are the dems saying they were not equitable or do the dems just want to promote class war fare.
by the way my wife and I both make over 250K but less than 300K. We have two in priviate high schools at a total costs of 50K a year which I am sure pays the salary of a few people at the school andhave two children in college at a total cost of 75K a year. None of that is tax deductible but provides employment for a number of people. I guess I should just pull my children from private education andput them in public schools and let those schools lay off people.

jewcowboy

September 14th, 2010
5:50 pm

So let me see for second here… we had the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, right?

And it’s now late 2011 and the economy is booming with record low unemployment, a strong housing market and record high consumer confidence, right? So what is the problem, obviously the tax cuts have worked…

I mean if they didn’t work then things wouldn’t be so great, right?

Bosch

September 14th, 2010
5:52 pm

Pogo,

I won’t argue with much of what you wrote, I know there is waste and plenty of it, but the DMV is the right’s stereotypical “look at the government waste” when most people don’t even have to step foot there. When I’ve transferred titles, I’ve always done it at the tag place, not the DMV, and they’ve always been polite and incredibly knowledgeable. I think you can also do that online too.

I think you have me confused with someone else as far as namecalling, I am limited to only a few albeit it really memorable times. :-) I call you guys wingnuts all the time, but I do so with the utmost respect. :-) I do think most Earl Greyers are dumb and subtle racists, based on the timing o their poutrage, but what good would it do to surround myself with only those who think like me?

Alright, gotta run! Pleasant evening.

saywhat?

September 14th, 2010
5:53 pm

I thought I could escape the “worst blogger in the world” from Kyle’s place by staying over here at Jay’s. (sigh) Apparently not any more.

jewcowboy

September 14th, 2010
5:55 pm

tm,

“by the way my wife and I both make over 250K but less than 300K”

That is great for you and your family, but the reality is the lower the income…the greater the pinch of loss of income.

If your taxes go up by 5%, you’ll be paying an extra $12.5k out of $250k…on a family earning $45k that would be $2250.

Same proportion…but greater impact on lower wage earners.

Chuck E. Employee

September 14th, 2010
5:58 pm

“That is great for you and your family, but the reality is the lower the income…the greater the pinch of loss of income.”

Go to college, get a degree and get a good job.

Curious Observer

September 14th, 2010
6:00 pm

It’s 10. I know a 95 year old, who renewed for 10 more years, within the last year. And yes, he is still a good driver.

Check your facts. At age 65 and beyond, Georgia drivers have to appear in person for a vision test. I know. I had to go in to renew mine, and my wife, who’s 65, has to go in to renew hers this month. You can’t renew online if you’re 65 or over, although you once could before the passage of the law. And BTW, I found the state people doing the renewing very efficient.

Curious Observer

September 14th, 2010
6:02 pm

And the maximum renewal for people 65 and older is four years. You can verify the facts by going to the DMV Website.

RW-(the original)

September 14th, 2010
6:06 pm

This whole argument about the point being unknowable and maybe even in a constant state of flux is a good one, but it blows the hell out of the lib talking points that purport to know the exact “cost” of their tax increases not getting done. We might be sitting right on the high side of the proper point and raising them will take the rest of the way over this cliff.

Disgusted

September 14th, 2010
6:15 pm

Of course lowering taxes will increase federal revenues if all other factors remain the same, but that revenue won’t increase to the point of recovering the cosr of the tax cuts. Go to any reputable Web site. On average, for every dollar of tax cut, federal revenue has increased by 10 cents over the past 14 years. So we’ve been giving away 90 cents to gain 10 cents. You business people out there would scoff at such an exchange.

A half-truth is a terrible thing, especially when our federal fiscal life depends on it.

Saul Good

September 14th, 2010
6:18 pm

Well if the Laffer worked (Or is it LAUGHER Curve…as the Rich laughing all the way to the bathroom to go piss on the poor)… we’d be able to look back at those who used his “theory” and see the results. After 12 years of Reagan/Bush…more jobs or less? Better growth or a recession? After 8 years of Bush and his tax cuts…more jobs created or less? Growth or more growth because of tax cuts for the rich…the “proof” and evidence is quite clear. Yet those on the right just HATE charts that show their failures in action. So they’ll bash them and say it’s just “smoke and mirrors”… when in reality…it’s the “tax cuts for the rich create jobs” which has PROVEN to be all smoke and mirrors. Yet the poor and middle class on the right keep asking for tax cuts for the rich…tax cuts which never have helped them in the past. It’s like waiting for that “rapture” to happen… it simply never happens. Like the rapture that has never come and “saved them”…”trickle down” has never created jobs and a healthy economy for the middle class…in the end all it’s done is added more of the middle class to the ranks of the poverty class.

F. Sinkwich

September 14th, 2010
6:21 pm

The point of your post, Jay, seems to be Laffer is a charlatan and an a-hole so we need to jack tax rates up as much as possible now and forever more.

Liberal prescription for a recession: Raise Taxes !!!

Libs want to control people’s lives by taking.

Kinda sad but ruinous.

godless heathen

September 14th, 2010
6:26 pm

Jay,

You seem to not be in denial that the curve exists, as others here are. They seem to not believe that Point C even exists. The argument may be which side of Point B we are on, but logically the point where taxes are so high that the government obtains less revenue does exist, just as the converse also exists.

One would think that the way to limit government is to limit its revenue, but anymore that doesn’t seem to work, because our “leaders” have learned to spend money they don’t have.

Pogo

September 14th, 2010
6:30 pm

jewdude at 5:40, I concur. Which means we are all, regardless of political leanings and ideologies, screwed.

Pogo

September 14th, 2010
6:32 pm

Saul, you are a confused indiviual. You are mixing metaphors which I don’t think you understand.

F. Sinkwich

September 14th, 2010
6:36 pm

gh:

“our “leaders” have learned to spend money they don’t have.”

So sad but true. The only answer is to vote them out, but unfortunately the Obama dupes will prevail.

It’s “somebody else’s money,” so they don’t care.

Saul Good

September 14th, 2010
6:38 pm

pogo…what part of “no jobs created” by lowering taxes for the richest did YOU not understand?

TaxPayer

September 14th, 2010
6:39 pm

Well, Jay certainly has a learned crowd critiquing his work. They cannot even figure out that there is no Point “B” or “C” referenced by Jay. I think that pretty much sits the pace for the rest of their argument, whatever it is.

Chuck E. Employee

September 14th, 2010
6:40 pm

“pogo…what part of “no jobs created” by lowering taxes for the richest did YOU not understand?”

When Bush cut taxes, unemployment dropped. In 2006, before the Dems took over, unemployment was 4.4%. .2% lower than it ever was under Clinton.

Saul Good

September 14th, 2010
6:45 pm

Chuck…the Bush tax cuts are STILL in effect…how many jobs did they create?

Chuck E. Employee

September 14th, 2010
6:45 pm

F. Sinkwich

Libs want to control everything but their own lives are so screwed up and yes, it is sad.

TaxPayer

September 14th, 2010
6:45 pm

When Bush cut taxes, unemployment dropped. In 2006, before the Dems took over, unemployment was 4.4%. .2% lower than it ever was under Clinton.

And as more of those tax cuts took effect, unemployment increased. Go figger.

Kamchak

September 14th, 2010
6:46 pm

gh:

“our “leaders” have learned to spend money they don’t have.”

So sad but true. The only answer is to vote them out, but unfortunately the Obama dupes will prevail.

It’s “somebody else’s money,” so they don’t care.

But…but…but…it was Cheney that said that Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.

Saul Good

September 14th, 2010
6:47 pm

BTW Chuck…when the dems “took over” (as you say) in 2006….name the taxes they raised during 2007-2008. Your point shows that the “tax cuts” created ZERO jobs in the long run and only added to the 8 million jobs lost (since those tax cuts are STILL in effect and have been the entire time)… faulty logic…or should I say no logic at all.

F. Sinkwich

September 14th, 2010
6:47 pm

Chuck E,

Don’t bother with Saul. He’s an Obamatron who like his hero and god Obama hates people who have succeeded in society and wants to make them transfer their “ill-gotten gains” to losers like him.

Chuck E. Employee

September 14th, 2010
6:48 pm

“Chuck…the Bush tax cuts are STILL in effect…how many jobs did they create?”

Presidents don’t create or save jobs. Yes the Bush tax cuts are still in effect, and yes they did help lower the unemployment rate. Businesses always look at the future, unlike politicians, and those businesses saw that Obama’s economic agenda didn’t make any sense therefore a lot of businesses put on hiring freezes and laid off many people.

It’s common knowledge that businesses like the GOP more than they do Dems because the GOP would rather people be employed by private companies rather than government.

Without the private sector, the government is doomed when it comes to funds.

Chuck E. Employee

September 14th, 2010
6:48 pm

“And as more of those democrats took office unemployment increased.

FYT

godless heathen

September 14th, 2010
6:49 pm

TaxPayer: “Well, Jay certainly has a learned crowd critiquing his work. They cannot even figure out that there is no Point “B” or “C” referenced by Jay. ”

What the hay are you talking about?

Chuck E. Employee

September 14th, 2010
6:50 pm

“name the taxes they raised during 2007-2008. ”

You said it, not me. I never said anything about Dems raising taxes.

“Your point shows that the “tax cuts” created ZERO jobs in the long run and only added to the 8 million jobs lost (since those tax cuts are STILL in effect and have been the entire time)… faulty logic…or should I say no logic at all.”

Saul, please quit making stuff up.

Chuck E. Employee

September 14th, 2010
6:50 pm

F. Sinkwich

I don’t think Saul even knows what he’s typing. I went back and looked at a few of his postings and a lot of it is gibberish.

TaxPayer

September 14th, 2010
6:51 pm

What I want to see is an analysis of CIM, HTS and NLY, for starters. How the heck can these REITs afford to dish out such dividends? It can’t last but it sure has appeal.

F. Sinkwich

September 14th, 2010
6:52 pm

Kam:

“But…but…but…it was Cheney that said that Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.”

Non-sequitor. I said it’s libs want to raise taxes because it’s “somebody else’s money,” so they don’t care.”

I was talking about taking to satisfy lib (your) inadequacies.

Chuck E. Employee

September 14th, 2010
6:53 pm

Saul Good

If the Bush tax cuts are so bad and evil, explain why Democrats, the moderate ones, are calling for Obama to extend them…

Thanks, Chuck.

TaxPayer

September 14th, 2010
6:53 pm

What the hay are you talking about?

Would you be more specific, please.

godless heathen

September 14th, 2010
6:53 pm

I believe these words are from Jay’s post, TaxPayer.

The theory is illustrated by Figure One, to the right. Pay particular attention to the part of the curve labeled C. As the tax rate moves to the left and gets lower, you see government revenues rising. That process continues until you reach the sweetspot, labeled Point A, which in this illustration is at roughly 25 percent.

Point A represents nirvana, the point at which you have both the highest possible government revenue generated by the lowest possible tax rate.

But there’s a downside to the Laffer Curve as well. Note that if you move beyond Point A into the region marked B,

Chuck E. Employee

September 14th, 2010
6:53 pm

F. Sinkwich

Like arguing with vacant signs?

Saul Good

September 14th, 2010
6:55 pm

It’s like I was saying to a good “republican” friend of mine out on the west coast last week when he was talking about the housing crisis….how many homes that have been foreclosed upon or are currently in foreclosure were bought since Obama has been in office? In fact what’s the percentage of them that were bought before the dems took over the senate and congress in early 2007? Nearly ALL of those that got into trouble due to the housing bubble purchased, financed, sold, built, etc those homes PRIOR to 2007. Yet the “housing bubble” was created by the dems right??? Need I post the speeches of Bush talking about 100% no money down financing for minorities…and his glowing report about himself talking about “record minority” home ownership… Obama’s fault again I suppose…sheeesh.

TaxPayer

September 14th, 2010
6:55 pm

“And as more of those democrats took office unemployment increased.

First, it was a claim that tax cuts increase unemployment and now it is a claim that the presence of Dems in office increase unemployment. You know, there’s also the increase in atmospheric CO2, amongst other things.

Saul Good

September 14th, 2010
6:56 pm

Chuck show me the “parts” made up with regards to 8 million jobs lost and the tax cuts STILl being 100% in effect. Hurts to be WRONG 100% of the time huh?

Chuck E. Employee

September 14th, 2010
6:57 pm

“You know, there’s also the increase in atmospheric CO2, amongst other things.”

Ok, go tell Al Gore about it. I hear he’s looking for a new crusade now that his global scamming operation failed.

Fly-on-the-wall

September 14th, 2010
6:58 pm

My question about the South WILL and IS rising again is – who cares? What the heck does that really mean anyway? Rise to what? Like you’re going to attempt to secede again or something. Unless the South could somehow export SEC college football they’d go broke inside a week. Why do you think the auto companies that have moved here did so. So they could pay college educated line workers a high wage? They moved here because the labor is cheap and cheap labor is just that.

jconservative

September 14th, 2010
6:58 pm

“Without a doubt, excessively high taxes can strip needed capital from the private economy, reducing investment and spending and thus curtailing growth.”

The flip side of this coin follows:

And, without a doubt tax cuts, and the resulting loss of revenue, and the resulting large deficits, and the need for government to borrow money to pay for the deficits, strips needed capital from the private sector, reducing investment and thus curtailing growth.

No one recognizes the flip side. But that is exactly what has happened over the last 30 years. The $13.6 trillion dollar national debt is money the government borrowed to fund the tax cuts that did not generate excess tax revenue.

The details are in any political history of the last 30 years.

Chuck E. Employee

September 14th, 2010
6:59 pm

“Chuck show me the “parts” made up with regards to 8 million jobs lost and the tax cuts STILl being 100% in effect. Hurts to be WRONG 100% of the time huh?”

Saul, I’m sure you are big in your own little world, but here in the real world no one really cares what you think.

Chuck E. Employee

September 14th, 2010
7:00 pm

“My question about the South WILL and IS rising again is – who cares? ”

You do since you went out of your way to write an entire paragraph about it.

Chuck E. Employee

September 14th, 2010
7:01 pm

Looks like the American left has some stiff competition in Europe.

Left-Wing Terrorism Surges In Europe, As Governments Dismantle Social Safety Net

With European governments paring back the social safety net, and businesses blamed for creating a crisis, left-wing terrorism in Europe is on the march, according to a new report from EuroPol (the European Police Office).

http://www.businessinsider.com/left-wing-terrorism-surges-in-europe-2010-9

TaxPayer

September 14th, 2010
7:02 pm

godless,

Regarding your post of a portion of Jay’s post (without accompanying explanation of your concern and hence my assumption regarding your concern and accompanying explanation), I refer you to my earlier post in which I alluded to the fact that some here had referred to Points B and C when in fact there was only Point A and hence the conclusion that these persons did not even bother to read Jay’s post thoroughly. Then again, perhaps I did not allude. Oh well.

Kamchak

September 14th, 2010
7:02 pm

Non-sequitor. I said it’s libs want to raise taxes because it’s “somebody else’s money,” so they don’t care.”

Really?

Let’s take a look at the relevant post, shall we?

F. Sinkwich

September 14th, 2010
6:36 pm

gh:

“our “leaders” have learned to spend money they don’t have.”

So sad but true. The only answer is to vote them out, but unfortunately the Obama dupes will prevail.

It’s “somebody else’s money,” so they don’t care.

Please show me where you said, “it’s libs want to raise taxes” cause I can’t find it anywhere.

Saul Good

September 14th, 2010
7:02 pm

Chuck….thanks for admitting that you’re wrong. Take a BIG man like you to admit that you’re in way over your head when understanding simple economic principles that added to job LOSS and not job CREATION.

Thanks! :)

Chuck E. Employee

September 14th, 2010
7:04 pm

“thanks for admitting that you’re wrong.”

The voices in your head must be getting meaner and meaner, huh Saul.

“Take a BIG man like you to admit that you’re in way over your head when understanding simple economic principles that added to job LOSS and not job CREATION. ”

The thing is Saul, you actually think that you have some sort of influence on the way I think. In other words, I couldn’t care less as to what you think about me or anyone else.

Saul Good

September 14th, 2010
7:10 pm

Chuck? Mean? Nah… I’m just pointing out that you simply REFUSE to admit that the tax cuts (which are STILL in effect) created job LOSS and not job GAIN. If that’s being mean… I’m sorry. Sometimes the “truth” is all we have (when outside the “creationist” world views of Foxy Baby News and Rush).

F. Sinkwich

September 14th, 2010
7:11 pm

godless heathen

September 14th, 2010
7:11 pm

TaxPayer:
“I refer you to my earlier post in which I alluded to the fact that some here had referred to Points B and C when in fact there was only Point A and hence the conclusion that these persons did not even bother to read Jay’s post thoroughly. Then again, perhaps I did not allude. Oh well.”

You are the one who failed to read Jay’s post. He discusses all three points on the Laffer curve. Oh well.

Fly-on-the-wall

September 14th, 2010
7:12 pm

Chuck – you are so full of it. So when the economy was losing 750K jobs A MONTH before Obama took office that is somehow his and the Democrats fault. Those tax cuts really helped a lot didn’t they. I’m sure every CEO in the country was thinking about what Obama was going to do over the next year so the housing market, wall street/stock market had nothing to do with it. Nope just people so worried about Obama that for months before he took office they started laying people off and the country almost went down the tubes. Glad you gave us that great conservative insight you’ve got. Geez…..

Chuck E. Employee

September 14th, 2010
7:12 pm

“I’m just pointing out that you simply REFUSE to admit that the tax cuts (which are STILL in effect) created job LOSS and not job GAIN.”

Guess you missed out on the mid-2000s when unemployment was at 4.4%.

“(when outside the “creationist” world views of Foxy Baby News and Rush).”

Ok, at first I figured you to be just another brain dead left winger, but now you’ve confirmed it.

Thanks.

Hey, when are all the jobs coming back that Obama promised in 2008?

Fly-on-the-wall

September 14th, 2010
7:16 pm

Chuck – are you allowed up this late on the computer? Shouldn’t you be getting ready for bed since elementary school starts so early?

What a lame answer to my question about your statement of the South will rise again. You can’t even answer it. All you can do is repeat garbage that’s been said for 100 years. What a waste.

Chuck E. Employee

September 14th, 2010
7:16 pm

“So when the economy was losing 750K jobs A MONTH before Obama took office that is somehow his and the Democrats fault.”

No, your words not mine. I’d appreciate it if you left wingers would quit writing things I never wrote.

“Those tax cuts really helped a lot didn’t they.’

Yep, and even the Democrats are calling for Obama to extend them.

“you are so full of it.”

Full of what, fly. Go ahead, please show me some of your good ole liberal tolerance that you cats are always preaching to us right wing evil doers.

Chuck E. Employee

September 14th, 2010
7:18 pm

“are you allowed up this late on the computer? Shouldn’t you be getting ready for bed since elementary school starts so early? ”

Do you always get your insults from Hillary Clinton?

“What a lame answer to my question about your statement of the South will rise again.”

You are one angry little person.

“All you can do is repeat garbage that’s been said for 100 years. What a waste.’

Not as much of a waste as your angry rants.

TaxPayer

September 14th, 2010
7:19 pm

You are the one who failed to read Jay’s post. He discusses all three points on the Laffer curve. Oh well.

Whatever floats your boat, godless.

Fly-on-the-wall

September 14th, 2010
7:20 pm

Chuck – I have tolerance, unlike you. I just don’t believe in your bull c-r-a-p and I’m willing to say so. Guess this means that you can dish it out but can’t take it so you just curl up in a little ball and say “Mommy, they’re not playing nice. They keep showing how much I distort the truth. Liberals are suppose to just roll-over and play dead aren’t they mommy”

Time for bed little one and go dream of the South rising again. HAHAHAHAH…how lame.

Chuck E. Employee

September 14th, 2010
7:20 pm

F. Sinkwich

You were right about these left wingers. They are angry little people. I guess they’re angry that Obama turned out to be lame president and the fact that the democrats are going to get slaughtered in November.

Oh well, life is good.

Saul Good

September 14th, 2010
7:21 pm

“Hey, when are all the jobs coming back that Obama promised in 2008?”

Hey…first thing that needed to be done was STOP that massive leak (which was approx. 800,000 jobs being lost a month) when Obama took office. He did just that. First you need to STOP the leak and then FIX the leak BEFORE you can fill the pool again… the right just kept adding more water and did nothing to fix the leak. They STILL have no plans to fix the leak.

Too bad McCain and Palin didn’t win…perhaps we all could have experienced bread lines and soup kitchens. The right never had a plan to fix the economy and still doesn’t. That’s crystal clear.

Anyway…enjoy blaming the WRONG people/party for the mess that was created and that others are working on fixing. CHANGE does not happen over night…most of all when it’s on a scale like was left behind from the last train wreck… nobody said it was going to be easy….not once. So keep blaming those working on a solution for the problems your votes caused in the first place. It’s always easier compared to taking responsibility for ones actions. Me? I’m signing out and off and going out to enjoy a lovely evening with the Mrs…

Add Dee Oss

Kamchak

September 14th, 2010
7:21 pm

6:52pm.

I see.

Show me in the relevant post at 6:36 where you said, ““it’s libs want to raise taxes”

Chuck E. Employee

September 14th, 2010
7:22 pm

“I have tolerance, unlike you.”

Your angry rants say differently.

“Guess this means that you can dish it out but can’t take it so you just curl up in a little ball and say “Mommy, they’re not playing nice.”

The hell are you talking about?

“Time for bed little one and go dream of the South rising again. HAHAHAHAH…how lame.”

Like Tax said, whatever floats your boat.

Chuck E. Employee

September 14th, 2010
7:23 pm

Saul Good

So when are all those jobs coming back? It’s been what, almost 2 years………

Highest unemployment under Bush: 8.1%

Highest unemployment under Obama: 10%

Del

September 14th, 2010
7:24 pm

Chuck E.

Saul like many of his far left brethren don’t understand the three branches of government. They think that there is only a president who governs our country. They seem to be unaware of a Congress comprised of two houses. A Democratic controlled congress during these difficult economic times doesn’t resonate with them.

Chuck E. Employee

September 14th, 2010
7:24 pm

“Too bad McCain and Palin didn’t win…perhaps we all could have experienced bread lines and soup kitchens. ”

The last time the USA ever had bread lines was when a Democrat was in the White House.

TaxPayer

September 14th, 2010
7:25 pm

Chuckee made a foul. Improper use of another blogger’s line. That one’s good for a one hundred yard penalty.

Chuck E. Employee

September 14th, 2010
7:25 pm

Del

I don’t think Saul can tie his shoe laces much less know anything about economics.

Chuck E. Employee

September 14th, 2010
7:26 pm

“Chuckee made a foul. Improper use of another blogger’s line. That one’s good for a one hundred yard penalty.”

Only in your mind, Tax.