Posted on 08/13/2015 11:41:01 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
This was Neal Cavuto last night.
Steve Forbes will teach him how to stare down opponents.
Good that Trump is beginning to consult and develop some more detailed plans, but I hope he doesn’t buy into Laffer’s notions about tariffs.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3314120/posts?page=1
If Trump is going to tackle bad trade deals, then tariffs will inevitably need to be considered in some situations,
If it were actually done, it would be more than government has been cut in my lifetime. You have to start somewhere, which nobody has done since 1946 or so as far as I know. Maybe you can enlighten me if you know of any department cut from the federal government in the last 50 years by anybody, including Reagan?
If the younger crowd are not familiar with Laffer they can
check him out here.
http://www.laffercenter.com/the-laffer-center-2/the-laffer-curve/
Compared to W Forbes would have been a great president
I don’t think, in your case, it would matter much to know the details. You would snivel about it anyway.
Ha ha.
Ha!
I too would like to hear more from Trump on that. My first choice is Cruz. I feel he would strive to steer our Republic back towards Liberty.
That said, Trump is better than the remaining candidates.
And let us all remember what happened then. Reagan got lower rates in exchange for doing away with several deductions (or loopholes, as Democrats call them). As soon as the Democrats could, they raised the rates, but the deductions didn’t come back. Surprise, surprise... as Gomer Pyle used to say.
Unless the income tax and the IRS are abolished, rates can always go back up when the Democrats have the chance to raise them.
The Tax Code is a shell game, lower some taxes here raise some there, no one even knows.
You understand economics about the same way a Democrat does. That is: taking $1 away from some thing here merely translates into a single dollar's savings somewhere else. Your economic myopia is a consequence of a perspective shaped through a zero-sum prism.
If you lived through the Kemp-Roth tax cuts (which I suspect from what you've written, you may be too young to remember, if you were even born then) that in no small part kick-started the Reagan-era 1980's economic expansion + military supremacy restoration, you'd likely understand better the positive dynamic effect of what cutting back the funding (and with it the regulatory overstretch) of gov't agencies would prove to be.
You fail to understand that cutting ~$100B expenditure burden targeting EPA, DOE and IRS will free American business and American education to thrive in ways it has not done so in years. This is what Supply-side theory is all about.
Cutting tax rates causes economic expansion far in excess of the actual dollar value of the revenue unrealized at the higher rate. This is Laffer's and Forbes' position. Trump appears inclined to hear that view.
Cutting the named gov't Agencies reduces the burden on industry and education far in excess of the mere $100B saved on paper. The reduction of burden translates into an increase in profitability and productivity which is now dis-incentivized by current regulation.
That increase in productivity and profitability results in higher tax revenues than would exist with all those regulations in place and Agencies funded to crank out the mandates unchecked. Can you not see that?
It will also likely spark a more competitive educational deliverable closer to what I received in my college years in the late '70's and early '80's that has me earing $1/2MM a year today for a total ed. cost of under $25,000 for 4 years of undergrad. at a state university (Virginia Commonwealth Univ.).
Steve Forbes was the commencement speaker when I graduated from VCU in 1982. It was quite a barn-burner of a speech too - standing ovation. When was the last time you saw something like that for a conservative speaker at a state university?
FReegards!
I think there is only one real candidate and that's Ted Cruz. I would lump the rest together without a whole lot of difference among the group.
Let's just say I'm not big on fairy tales and pixie dust, which seems to be his solution for most anything.
Though, as Trump correctly pointed out, you can’t get rid of the IRS completely—because someone has to collect the taxes.
Yes, and the more they get, the more they spend. Catch 22 - if rates are lowered, the government gets a lot more money, but politicians spend that and then some. Until a way is found to downsize government and restrict its spending, tax cuts will not stop the march over the fiscal cliff.
Cut the spending first, then we’ll talk about the taxes.
“...fairy tales and pixie dust...”
Trump has written 16 books. The last one details what he is going to do as President. Why not try educating yourself?
Booosh Sr called it voodoo economic because he thought like an bookkeeper.
Call it dynamism or the multiplier effect or wherever, it's real. Think compound interest or exponential growth.
This is how economies work. And they work in the reverse with Presidents like Barry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.