Posted on 02/05/2016 5:24:49 PM PST by central_va
It's disappointing that a national news commentator is so ignorant of basic economics. Then again this is BOR that I speak off. In a "gotcha" cheap shot attempt BOR tried to get Donald Trump to say taxes need to be raised to help with the deficit.. The Donald, much to his credit, tried to explain and educate that a robust economy will increase revenues dramatically. It is a basic concept that BOR can't seem to understand. Raising taxes actually decreases tax revenues because most economists believe the USA's federal tax rates are on the right side of the laffer curve inflection point. Then again BOR is probably incapable of even grasping what an inflection point actually means.....
Yep....and a thousand likes for your post.
Make government smaller. We’re taxed enough, already.
Space-waster of a post.
Sometimes he is a Pinhead. I was being facetious because he uses that term a lot.
Thanks for wasting time and space on my waister post. This post is as much about Trump as it is about Oreilly. Very topical, very apropos. I guess you are jealous that you didn’t think of it.
I think the word is out on Faux News that Rubio is their guy.
Stupidity is dangerous but Trump handled it well.
Current Report.
That said, Mister Trump (who is operating on INHERITED wealth,) supports SOCIALIZED MEDICINE.
Socialized medicine eats a nation's economy faster than anything.
.
Is that the same Art Laffer who says that he voted for Clinton and Obama? I thought so. People seem to think he is a Reagan conservative despite his own admissions to the contrary.
” because most economists believe the USA’s federal tax rates are on the right side of the laffer curve inflection point”
Much as I like Trump and despise BOR you aren’t going to find any economists saying anything like that because they don’t use the ‘Laffer Curve’. No one does because it’s just a teaching device and not a real tool. No one has plotted out a ‘Laffer Curve’ and attached numbers to it, not even publicity hound Art himself. All you ever see is a nice regular parabola.
And there is a great deal of misunderstanding about tax cuts like Reagan’s. No one in Reagan’s team predicted more tax revenue would result from his tax cuts. What they said was that growth would recoup about 2/3 of the revenue loss predicted by using static analysis and that’s what actually happened. If you recall they had requested spending cuts from Tip O’Neill that they didn’t get. The budget deficit increased and Reagan later had to raise taxes to address it.
Moreover the Reagan tax rates were set to promote optimum private sector economic growth and not optimum tax revenues. The two optimum rates are not the same. The government will get higher tax receipts at a higher tax rate, but the private sector will stagnate. At a lower rate the economy can grow but tax receipts are lower. The sole instance where this didn’t prove to be true under the Reagan cuts was in regard to capital gains taxes, and ironically those cuts were made by Jimmy Carter.
That was pretty disgusting - if O’Reilly doesn’t understand that just growing the economy brings additional tax revenues which will help pay down the debt (as well as bring jobs to get those on welfare off the public teat and further reduce government expenses) he sort of flunks Econ 101 right off the bat.....
Singapore, which is an economic powerhouse, has a debt to GDP ratio almost as high as the USA. 99 vs our 105
With cBS I suppose that was. BOR should have learned back then tax cuts stimulate the economy to grow and in-turn increases tax receipts for government.
BOR doesn’t do his taxes.
He’s been a wealthy NY’er so long that numbers are handled elsewhere by someone he pays.
Don’t ever forget that the BOR show is has as its primary mission the exhibition of Bill’s ego. He is a narcissistic blowhard who could not pass Econ 100 at a junior college. He is living proof of the speculation that income is inversely proportional to IQ. ;)
...
Russert
Breitbart
Hastings
That is factually incorrect. Revenues increased throughout the 80's. Just like they did in the 60's following Kennedy's tax cuts.
Revenue:
FY 1988 - $909 billion. FY 1987 - $854 billion. FY 1986 - $769 billion. FY 1985 - $734 billion. FY 1984 - $666 billion. FY 1983 - $601 billion. FY 1982 - $618 billion. FY 1981 - $599 billion.Current U.S. Federal Government Tax Revenue
At a lower rate the economy can grow but tax receipts are lower.
Simply not true. In the future please do research before posting on one of my threads. If you make declarative statements please back it up with facts and not hot air.
Thanks central_va.
I agree. BOR has said that he has an MBA degree, yet he can’t grasp basics of economics.
Trump tried a couple of times to educate Bill that by creating a growing business/mfg. environment and putting more Americans to work we would be able to start retiring the debt, but he was unable to get the words out that the income tax revenue would increase and be used to pay down the debt.
BOR kept interrupting with his stupid question of “How would that reduce our debt?” ..........I was screaming at the TV.
“O’Blowhard is an idiot about many more things than just economics.”
While I can’t stand either of them, the day is not far off when Megyn Kelly is going to leave O’Gasbag’s jockstrap torn and bloody on the floor! She has her track shoes on and she’s going to roll right over this hapless turd!
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.