The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (PUBLIC) The Pub Holrom's Video Message to Former KGB Shadowbane

Well, since the vast majority of folks in this country have no savings and live hand to mouth, ... ...

Well, since the vast majority of folks in this country have no savings and live hand to mouth, I'd say that both monies are going to be spent, and probably before they've even been earned.

I want to scream every time I hear some news caster play a clip of Pelosi saying this. It is ludicrous. The idea that you can take $1 out of the economy via taxes (take it out mind you, not create a new one to add in) then give that $1 to some one who didn't earn it, and their spending of said dollar creates $2 (actually the claim is $1.66 but that's too many numbers for us dummies so I really appreciate Nancy rounding that off for us) of economic growth is mind boggling.

But, for argument's sake, let's throw logic out the window and use some of the administrations own people to refute this claim. Let's assume that for every $1 of unemployment the economy grows by $2. Christina Romer and her husband, also a Berkley economist, wrote a research paper entitled, "The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes" just six months before her appointment to chair Obama's Council of Economic Advisers. In this paper they conclude, at odds with most traditional Keynesian (he's the nut ball who pioneered the idea that government spending is always good for the economy and that debt, while bad for the individual, is great for a government) analysis, that the tax multiplier was 3 — in other words, that every dollar spent on tax cuts (this phrase kills me) would boost GDP by $3. This would mean that the tax multiplier is roughly three times larger than Obama's advisors assumed it was during their policy simulations, and 1.5 times higher than all of the sound bites we've heard lately.

Which is better? You decide.

Oh, and actually that $1.66 is supposed to be representative of the economic growth associated with government spending not unemployment benefits, although I can see how one could fail to make the distinction between the government taking money from group A and giving it to group B and the government taking money from group A and giving it to group C. Oh, I guess I too can see why they don't bother making the distinction.

Dollars spent on tax cuts This is the terminology that is used by the government when describing tax cuts. Don't words have meaning anymore? How can you spend a dollar that you haven't confiscated yet? Tax cuts are not government spending. Its just a decrease in the amount they take from you each year. Now, some might read this post and assume that I am completely against all taxes. I assure you that I'm not so ignorant as to assume that the government doesn't need funds to function. However, I do think that over 50,000 pages of tax code is ridiculous. Hell, even the former chair of the House Ways and Means committee (the one that writes the tax code) apparently couldn't understand it, thus yesterday's censure of Charlie Wrangle. Oh, and if you want to experience real hopenchange, I suggest forgetting to claim income from your vacation home in the islands (don't have a vacation home? Neither did he before he was a Senator. That must be a great job) for 17 years. Let's see if they only censure you, or if, like Wesley Snipes, you get to face hard time.

I maintain that any money spent by a private citizen is a much better investment in our economy than a politician confiscating it and then doling it out for political favor with various constituencies to win an election. In the absolute best case scenario, taking $1 from Bill and giving it to Tom generates the EXACT same amount of economic stimulus. Unfortunately this isn't the case because at the very least they have to deduct the salary of the bureaucrat whose responsibility it is to dole out the confiscated riches. The truth is that this is all a big shell game and an attempt to get more of the "I don't know, from his stash" people out to vote in two more years, all while pompously declaring "if it hadn't been for us, the world would have ended."

Are any of you old enough to remember Reaganomics? We tried this reduce taxes on the rich thing. Why not do some reading on the success of "Trickle down economics". It was a disaster with right income increasing 80% after 10 years, the poorest income down -4.4%, and middle class income flat.

Entire Post = BAZINGA!

Well done.

The idea that you can take $1 out of the economy via taxes (take it out mind you, not create a new one to add in) then give that $1 to some one who didn't earn it

WHAT I DO CARE ABOUT

Can you use ventrilo ?

Do you pwn everyone in video games ?

Then were friends

/end discussion

I WIN REP 2012 President !

According to a 1996 study[36] from the libertarian think tank Cato Institute:

* On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.
* Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
* Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
* The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s.
* The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.

Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute stated that "no act in the last quarter century had a more profound impact on the US economy of the eighties and nineties than the Reagan tax cut of 1981." He claims that Reagan's tax cuts, combined with an emphasis on federal monetary policy, deregulation, and expansion of free trade created a sustained economic expansion creating America's greatest sustained wave of prosperity ever. The American economy grew by more than a third in size, producing a $15 trillion increase in American wealth. Every income group, from the richest, middle class and poorest in this country, grew its income (1981–1989). Consumer and investor confidence soared. Cutting federal income taxes, cutting the US government spending budget, cutting useless programs, scaling down the government work force, maintaining low interest rates, and keeping a watchful inflation hedge on the monetary supply was Ronald Reagan's formula for a successful economic turnaround. The last principle Ronald Reagan incorporated was the realization that immigrant workers are a key and vital component of the US economy

The number of Americans below the poverty level increased from 29.272 million in 1980 to 31.745 million in 1988, which means that, as a percentage of the total population, it remained almost stationary, from 12.95% in 1980 to 13% in 1988.[21] The poverty level for people under the age of 18 increased from 11.543 million in 1980 (18.3% of all child population) to 12.455 (19.5%) in 1988.[22] In addition, the situation of low income groups was affected by the reduction of social spending. Inequality also increased. The share of total income going to the 5% highest-income households grew from 16.5% in 1980 to 18.3% in 1988 and the share of the highest fifth increased from 44.1% to 46.3% in same years. In contrast, the share of total income of the lowest fifth fell from 4.2% in 1980 to 3.8% in 1988 and the second poorest fifth from 10.2% to 9.6%.[23]

U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Poverty Tables, table 7.
U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Poverty Tables, table 3.
U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Income Tables, table H-2.