How do people get so partisan?

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by jay santos

3. Anti-anti-immigration: probably Obama or Clinton?

Uhhh...none of the candidates are anti-immigration. What are you getting at? That Obama and Clinton are the most pro-illegal immigration? Is that what you want in a candidate?

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat

Uhhh...none of the candidates are anti-immigration. What are you getting at? That Obama and Clinton are the most pro-illegal immigration? Is that what you want in a candidate?

Yes, after watching the Republicans slobber over each other to see who would destroy the economy the fastest by booting 10M illegals, I'm thinking I'll go with the Dem's on this issue.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by woot

Both of the remaining dems fit all 5 of your criteria. Your post is just another example of the results of mindless partisanship.

Which ones?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I don't think there are any credible economists that believe in Laffer curve anymore. It's a true principle, but tax rates would have to be much higher to put us on the right hand side of the curve and make it so that tax cuts would increase revenue. This is true for both now and the Reagan era.

Pelagius, what's your view?

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...VhMDdhMjViZmQ=

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I don't think there are any credible economists that believe in Laffer curve anymore. It's a true principle, but tax rates would have to be much higher to put us on the right hand side of the curve and make it so that tax cuts would increase revenue. This is true for both now and the Reagan era.

Pelagius, what's your view?

You seem to contradict yourself. First, you state as a declarative statement, that no credible economists believe in it, then you state in your next sentence that it's a true principle.

In reality, other principles also influence markets and capital flow in addition to taxation rates, so it's difficult to single out one factor alone to determine market behavior.

It seems availability of capital, consumer confidence, taxation rates, status of economy all play significant roles in the development and course of the economy. Increasing taxation rates does not occur in a vacuum, so it's difficult to single out that factor. However, the Laffer curve expresses a concept which should be true in a vacuum.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Tex

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...VhMDdhMjViZmQ=

I'm skeptical.

I can tell you one thing for sure. When Guliani said he would cut the corporate tax from 35% to 30% and GROW tax revenues I nearly did a Norcal Cat LMAO! WHAT A FRICKIN IDIOT!! LOL!!! That would mean corporations would grow revenues 17% (real growth above what it would have been with the same 35% tax rate). Sorry dude, not gonna happen.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You seem to contradict yourself. First, you state as a declarative statement, that no credible economists believe in it, then you state in your next sentence that it's a true principle.

In reality, other principles also influence markets and capital flow in addition to taxation rates, so it's difficult to single out one factor alone to determine market behavior.

It seems availability of capital, consumer confidence, taxation rates, status of economy all play significant roles in the development and course of the economy. Increasing taxation rates does not occur in a vacuum, so it's difficult to single out that factor. However, the Laffer curve expresses a concept which should be true in a vacuum.

Laffer curve principle is certainly true. If you're on the right hand side of the curve and increase taxes, you get less revenue or if you decrease taxes you get more revenue. That's a no-brainer.

What I'm saying is not true is that US tax rates now or in the Reagan era were ever such that we were on the right hand side of the curve.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Laffer curve principle is certainly true. If you're on the right hand side of the curve and increase taxes, you get less revenue or if you decrease taxes you get more revenue. That's a no-brainer.

What I'm saying is not true is that US tax rates now or in the Reagan era were ever such that we were on the left hand side of the curve.

With that I can agree.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Archaea

With that I can agree.

Sorry I meant right hand side in my last sentence.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Sorry I meant right hand side in my last sentence.

Although I have read many economists agree with you, I'm not certain I agree.

The reason it's impossible to verify is the difficulty of isolating that factor.