The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Oh right, because the dot com boom had NOTHING to with Clinton's "success". You could have put taxes at 99% and there would have still been growth there.

I see you're also buying into Obummer's race baiting. Not to mention, for someone who hates the 1%, I'm shocked you're actually in favour of the bailout, given who it ended up helping.

None of this makes any sense.

You genuinely lost me on every point you made.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Best thing in all of this is that supply side economics has been crushed in the minds of the American voter.

Uhhhh, no. It has not been crushed. Not in the slightest. Kansas reelected it's governor, as did Wisconsin. Both of them are supply siders. Kansas in the extreme. If anyone on the GOP side gets elected they will be supply siders. Obama's policies did nothing to erase the 99.9% of tax law that exists today that is heavily slanted towards supply siders.

You need some new glasses.

And me pointing out the obvious of what is going on has nothing to do with under mining the hope of electing democrats. Of the two evils that exist today only one party is even remotely interested in governing at all. The fact that 50% of the nation wants to vote for a party that has no interest in governing despite every poll indicating that they want governance is a reflection of the population, not my opinions on a message board.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Oh, good heavens. I never said that much of what you listed sounded to me a lot like the Soviet Union, but obviously there are big differences. Can't anybody get the most simple point being made?

What was that point? Like Flag, you've lost me. Maybe I'm just having a bad day.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

What was that point? Like Flag, you've lost me. Maybe I'm just having a bad day.

There is no point. Unless you accept their premise that Obama ripped up the Original Copy of the Constitution and used it for Toilet Paper. Cause that's exactly what they're selling.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Uhhhh, no. It has not been crushed. Not in the slightest. Kansas reelected it's governor, as did Wisconsin. Both of them are supply siders. Kansas in the extreme. If anyone on the GOP side gets elected they will be supply siders. Obama's policies did nothing to erase the 99.9% of tax law that exists today that is heavily slanted towards supply siders.

I'd say most people who pay attention to such things realize, after the spectacular failure of supply side, that it's a dead end for everybody but the super-rich. David Stockman has said as much that it was a deliberate Trojan Horse foisted on a credulous political class that had no idea of how macro worked, and it was simply quid pro quo for donors. The only people who still actually believe in it are those so blinded by their hatred of the left than anything the left is against they're reflexively for.

Supply side was a prank, used to drive down the marginal rate, make a small number of people a ton of money at the expense of the US Treasury, and explode the debt so that social programs would be cut. Insofar as those were its real objectives it was actually a brilliant success. As an economic theory, it was a hoax.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

I'd say most people who pay attention to such things realize, after the spectacular failure of supply side, that it's a dead end for everybody but the super-rich. David Stockman has said as much that it was a deliberate Trojan Horse foisted on a credulous political class that had no idea of how macro worked, and it was simply quid pro quo for donors. The only people who still actually believe in it are those so blinded by their hatred of the left than anything the left is against they're reflexively for.

Supply side was a prank, used to drive down the marginal rate, make a small number of people a ton of money at the expense of the US Treasury, and explode the debt so that social programs would be cut. Insofar as those were its real objectives it was actually a brilliant success. As an economic theory, it was a hoax.

Doesn't change the fact that not a single tax law that is in place that is based on supply side economics has been changed. Not a one. So, even if no rational person believes in it anymore we are living in it every single day.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

As an economic theory, it was a hoax.

ah, so that explains why tax revenues increased when tax rates were lowered, eh?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

What was that point? Like Flag, you've lost me. Maybe I'm just having a bad day.

My previous post shouldn't have had the word "never" in it. With that, my point is highlighted in what I just posted (and what I posted before).

"Oh, good heavens. I said that much of what you listed sounded to me a lot like the Soviet Union, but obviously there are big differences. Can't anybody get the most simple point being made?

Somehow saying this over and over makes me think it's not worth point out things to begin with.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

ah, so that explains why tax revenues increased when tax rates were lowered, eh?

Kepler. I rest my case.

 

[unofan]

No one mentioned quality universal health care. How much better do you think it is for people forced into ACA exchange policies that have $5,000 deductibles combined with highly-restrictive networks? is that really so much better?

Citation needed.

 

[unofan]

ah, so that explains why tax revenues increased when tax rates were lowered, eh?

When did that happen?

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Doesn't change the fact that not a single tax law that is in place that is based on supply side economics has been changed. Not a one. So, even if no rational person believes in it anymore we are living in it every single day.

Scooby this makes no sense. Taxes were upped on the top levels in 1993 and 2012. Furthermore a surcharge was added to top incomes to help fund the ACA. Do a little research and you might feel better about things.

PS - Supply side economics has been crushed for a national campaign. Individual states may try it from time to time but Kansas has become an economic basketcase with multiple credit rating downgrades since Brownback's idiotic policies went into effect.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Scooby this makes no sense. Taxes were upped on the top levels in 1993 and 2012. Furthermore a surcharge was added to top incomes to help fund the ACA. Do a little research and you might feel better about things.

PS - Supply side economics has been crushed for a national campaign. Individual states may try it from time to time but Kansas has become an economic basketcase with multiple credit rating downgrades since Brownback's idiotic policies went into effect.

Makes perfect sense. All you have to look at is Capital Gains vs. Income Taxes. The fact that income taxes was upped is LAUGHABLE. Capital Gains Tax Policy is entirely supply side.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

My previous post shouldn't have had the word "never" in it. With that, my point is highlighted in what I just posted (and what I posted before).

"Oh, good heavens. I said that much of what you listed sounded to me a lot like the Soviet Union, but obviously there are big differences. Can't anybody get the most simple point being made?

Somehow saying this over and over makes me think it's not worth point out things to begin with.

I guess I don't see how it's anything like the Soviet Union, but I also take your point that this has been beaten so far into the ground it's coming up in China.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Kepler. I rest my case.

FF is a hardcore Republican partisan. There is no contradiction between his channeling of Breitbart and my saying the only people left who believe in SS are GOP dead-enders.

The thing about SS was that it was honestly worth a try. So we tried it and it failed. So now we try something else. The New Deal worked -- it's worth another try. It may well be that systemically things have changed enough that it won't work anymore, in which case we'll try something else.

Party hacks can't say that, because they have to hang on to the bitter end no matter what because all that matters to them is party success. They would literally rather the country fail than succeed if that success was attributed to the other party. But the rest of us -- even those of us who have a 100% voting record with one party -- can always admit when something is broken, throw it out, and start over. Liberty is cool.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

FF is a hardcore Republican partisan. There is no contradiction between his channeling of Breitbart and my saying the only people left who believe in SS are GOP dead-enders.

The thing about SS was that it was honestly worth a try. So we tried it and it failed. So now we try something else. The New Deal worked -- it's worth another try. It may well be that systemically things have changed enough that it won't work anymore, in which case we'll try something else.

Party hacks can't say that, because they have to hang on to the bitter end no matter what because all that matters to them is party success. They would literally rather the country fail than succeed if that success was attributed to the other party. But the rest of us -- even those of us who have a 100% voting record with one party -- can always admit when something is broken, throw it out, and start over. Liberty is cool.

"I was too busy trying to keep my job that I forgot to do my job." --Andrew Shepard, "The American President"

Welcome to the failures of a two-party system. Much easier to defame your opponent than to sell yourself. Heck, we see it in college hockey all the time. Social Security isn't going to go anywhere because it's fodder for the aforementioned system.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

When did that happen?

2003-07. Then spending increased substantially.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Scooby this makes no sense. Taxes were upped on the top levels in 1993 and 2012. Furthermore a surcharge was added to top incomes to help fund the ACA. Do a little research and you might feel better about things.

PS - Supply side economics has been crushed for a national campaign. Individual states may try it from time to time but Kansas has become an economic basketcase with multiple credit rating downgrades since Brownback's idiotic policies went into effect.

No, taxes weren't upped in 2012.

If I own a store that sells widgets for $X and I have a sale at Christmas and sell widgets for $X-1 I do not "raise" the price on December 26th - the sale ended. An increase would be if I set the price at X+1 on December 26.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

2003-07. Then spending increased substantially.

Too funny. You realize that time period also marks the time period that almost destroyed the entire financial system of the planet? Hello?

 

[unofan]

2003-07. Then spending increased substantially.

The Bush tax cuts were first enacted in 2001. Nominal receipts fell for two straight years and receipts as a percentage of GDP fell for three straight years. Nominal receipts did not return to 2000 levels until 2005 and receipts as a percentage of GDP have never returned to 2000 levels.

That's just evidence that inflation and natural economic growth caused tax revenue to increase. There is no evidence that the tax cuts themselves caused tax revenue to increase.

On the contrary, tax receipts jumped by about 325 billion the year after President Obama allowed the biggest marginal rate to jump back up to 39%. As a percentage of GDP, they jumped by 1.4% when previous increases had been about .3% per year. That is significant evidence that tax increases actually increase tax revenue.