yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip

*BOOT*
yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip

 

Do you seriously want to use the 1920s as your test case? Really? Or do I need to educate you about what happened in 1929?

Just read the study, and learn. And peruse this graph for a few moments...

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast...gn=Feed: andrewsullivan/rApM (The Daily Dish)

 

And How is America going to keep attracting people from overseas when there is a much higher tax rate here if you guys get your way. This isn't the 30's or the 70's.

If America loses its appeal its finished, the H1B visa is what is keeping America alive.

 

It is not only that. He did not document his assertions. I documented my rebuttals of those assertions.

Although ace's n 8's did not say so, he copied and pasted his assertions from the following Heritage Foundation website:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1996/07/bg1086nbsp-the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax

That is where he got this assertion: "Across-the-board tax rate reductions in the 1920s reduced the top rate from 71 percent to 24 percent. The economy boomed, growing by 59 percent between 1921 and 1929."

The Heritage Foundation has more intellectual integrity than Rush Limbaugh and FOX News, which is to day that to the best of my knowledge it does not deliberately lie. Nevertheless, it does not document the "59 percent" figure for economic growth from 1921 to 1929.

Using data collected by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis I calculated that the rate of growth in the per capita gross domestic product in terms of 1996 dollars was 17.26 percent, and lower than the 33.7 percent figure for Franklin Roosevelt's first four years in office.

 

The rich will always try to avoid paying taxes. Why do you think Mitt Romney has not published his tax returns, despite the fact that his father published his when the top tax rate was 70 percent?

A high top tax rate makes it more difficult for the rich to avoid paying taxes, and gives the government more control over their economic behavior.

 

H1B visas, like all immigration, benefit employers at the expense of employees who are American citizens. The computer field has become very specialized and very competitive. An end to H1B visas would give employers the incentive to train employees with technical education and experience at their expense.

Also, taxes are already quite a bit lower in the United States than in nearly every other affluent democracy.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/09/tea-party-taxes-opinions-columnists-bartlett.html

 

I think everyone, from both sides of the discussion, should get some lessons in both descriptive statistics and inferential statistics. Because everyone seems to drawing conclusions without sparing for a single moment to consider the pretty endless list of confounds that have a significant impact on economic growth. There is a very important concept within the world of statistics "Correlation does not imply causation". A factor that has been ignored by just about everyone.

 

That's not a statistics concept. It's an any field concept.

I don't know about the others but I'm definitely not ignoring anything. My area had been dying since the 19th Century, and was particularly hard hit by each of these examples so I've had no choice but to understand them.

 

Consider the path of confundation.

CNBC reports on a "study" executed by an organ of Congress, on the commission of the Obama Administration. To justify execution of a campaign promise that the Administration had made prior to the commission of the "study."

The only mistake Aces made was to attempt to argue the drivel on its so-called merits.

One should not even bother reading it, much less argue against it. Burn it. Use it for fishwrap. Spit on it. Piss on it. Sheesh.

 

Conveniently neglecting to point out that the CRS is a highly-respected, nonpartisan organization, and that the House of Representatives is currently run by Republicans. This is just another case of Republicans being hostile to facts, especially the ones that torpedo their fondest fantasies.

 

Highly respected. Just like the organ of government that rushed the Angiledes report off the presses.

And you've conveniently neglected to investigate the date when the report was commissioned. Besides, what difference does it make that Republicans run the House now, if the commission is non-partisan?

By all means, let's pillage the Treasury. Heck, the national debt is pushing 100% of gross domestic product and will soon exceed the total worth of the nation's assets, if that little milestone hasn't happened already. If we taxed "the rich" and corporations at 100% of income, we still would not make a dent in the debt. But yeah. Let's do some more stimulus, and spur growth by dictat.

I used to think liberals were myopic. Then I decided they were blind. I have since come around to the conviction that they are suicidal.

 

So, DL, if you had the power to, what would your tax structure be, and what would you do with all the money.........besides pay down the deficit.

 

I would restore the top tax rate to at least fifty percent, and pay down the deficit, which was being paid down before Reagan was elected. Also, I would start government work projects like the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Federal Writers' Project to put people back to work.

 

I have already demonstrated in arguments I composed myself using the internet only to document my factual assertions that tax cuts for the rich do not lead to as much economic growth as tax increases for the rich. I say "as much" because the economy usually grows.

Tax cuts for the rich have usually lead to more job creation, more economic growth, and more tax receipts than tax cuts for the rich.

That is my assertion. If you disagree, present your argument and document it.

 

Ha! The article doesn't anything about national debt. Your extrapolating based on nothing related to it. In fact, it summarizes with this statement:

"In other words, cutting taxes on the rich may not grow the economic pie. But the study found that those cuts can affect “how that economic pie is sliced.”

In other posts you talk about about higher taxes on the rich spurring growth and your article says this:

"Do higher taxes on the rich lead to faster economic growth? Not necessarily. The paper says that while growth accelerated with higher taxes on the rich, the relationship is “not strong” and may be “coincidental,” since broader economic factors may be responsible for that growth."

 

Darn it!
You beat me to it, showing yet another example of DL'S cherry picking of facts...........

 

Now, how you gonna pay down the deficit AND create government work projects at the same time?

And remember this; you start a Federal job program, and when the economy is booming again (in your scenario) you find yourself with yet another federal program you can never kill; you have to just keep funding it.

And, on top of that, I thought that was what all that Federal Stimulus money was for; funding "shovel ready" public works programs.

 

Hey Shootsera I've got another question for you and it should be a really easy yes or no answer.

Is there any evidence where tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% have resulted in job growth?

Yes or no there bud.;

 

You know what, DL? The big corporations screwed the United Stated and our dependence on foreign oil and the oil wars are not helping.

Ok, Mr. Facts, what was it like 50 years ago in corporate America? People went to work for big companies, worked 30 to 40 years, and retired with pensions. Not only that, these corporations took care of people by giving them medical coverage, 401K accounts, ...

What happened, Mr. Facts? The United States stopped producing, corporate scandal after corporate scandal, layoffs and more layoffs, outsourcing and more outsourcing, ....

People don't get the medical coverage anymore, the jobs that were left suck and pay like shit. The united didn't need the social programs so much 50 years ago and it definitely helped to spur the economy with tax cuts on the wealthy and the big corporations because they were providers.

They are NOT providers now rather greedy fuckers who have gotten fat screwing the United States. Not only that, shitheads in congress continuously vote themselves big raises.

It has come back to bite them. People need the medical and other benefits in the United States because the greedy fuckers sent them overseas. We need to get OFF foreign oil, produce more somehow, and start providing for our own.

 

Tax cuts on the wealthy have never helped to spur the economy.

Companies have also never taken care of their employees. Everything employees have had at any point, workers had to fight for and even pay for with their blood or their lives.