The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Bought into that lie, have you?

Whether it is the Demand-side cuts of JFK or the Supply-side cuts of RWR I think a case can be made that tax cuts do create more revenue.....at least in the short term. The last three Presidents to try it all had success(JFK, RWR, and yes, GWB)

As for me....I'd rather see the source of the problem addressed first......spending.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

Whether it is the Demand-side cuts of JFK or the Supply-side cuts of RWR I think a case can be made that tax cuts do create more revenue.....at least in the short term.

Pure correlation, no cause/effect relationship can be proven.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Pure correlation, no cause/effect relationship can be proven.

Perhaps....but it has also been done on the State level too......Bill Richardson, the current 4th place contender for the Democratic nomination lowered taxes in his state and viola.....revenue increased.

Correlation? Maybe.....but can you find an equal number of recent correlations showing that lowering taxes produces less revenue?

btw: Is "proven" a word? My spell check didn't like it???

[3894]

1. Ron Paul appeared to be missing some marbles during the NH Republican debate.

2. Some of the others - particularly Mitt Romney and John McCain - seemed to be smirking at Ron Paul's simplicity.

3. What combination of factors would lead a person to be as big a donkey's rear as Fred Thompson appears to be?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

Correlation? Maybe.....but can you find an equal number of recent correlations showing that lowering taxes produces less revenue?

I can find you examples where lowering taxes lead to lower revenue, examples where raising taxes lead to lower revenue, examples where raising taxes lead to higher revenue, and examples where lowering taxes lead to higher revenue. What would be the point? There are but a small handful of examples, none of which are more than circumstantial correlations that were caused by such immense factors that 1) have shown no consistent pattern and 2) can't possibly be pinned to being affected solely by the act of changing taxation.

btw: Is "proven" a word? My spell check didn't like it???

"Proved" is technically the correct form, though "proven" is an accepted alternative. I personally prefer "proven" and have added to my Firefox dictionary. Incidentally, "Firefox" is not in the Firefox dictionary.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

I can find you examples where lowering taxes lead to lower revenue, examples where raising taxes lead to lower revenue, examples where raising taxes lead to higher revenue, and examples where lowering taxes lead to higher revenue. What would be the point? There are but a small handful of examples, none of which are more than circumstantial correlations that were caused by such immense factors that 1) have shown no consistent pattern and 2) can't possibly be pinned to being affected solely by the act of changing taxation.

Fair enough.

"Proved" is technically the correct form, though "proven" is an accepted alternative. I personally prefer "proven" and have added to my Firefox dictionary. Incidentally, "Firefox" is not in the Firefox dictionary.

lol