Thank you SO much for two straight years of tax rebates.

The BBQ Pit
21

Um, for those of you who have never picked up an Economics book (Friedo and Taste), let me help you:

TAX CUTS SLOW DOWN THE ECONOMY!

They always have and always will. So the Bush tax cuts were stupid. Everybody who had even a minor knowledge of economics (including myself) predicted what actually happened: Recession, unemployment, etc. And regardless of whether we were headed in that diection anyway, the tax cuts definitely made things worse. I can’t blame Bush, since everyone knows that the man has no clue. But he has financial advisors who should’ve told him not to do it.

I’ll take Clinton and his BJs over the current fools any day!

22

To quote P.J. O’rourke, if you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it’s free. Here in Tennessee, the state-sponsored health care initiative has turned into a literal black hole for money, and everybody, administrators, patients, and providers, hates it.

Nope, and I’ll gladly pay for those, since that’s something government has some business doing, IMO.

Nope. I want UPS, FedEx, DHL, or whatever entity might spring up to do it faster, cheaper, more reliably, and with less god-damn surliness.

I don’t, but I bet some people would be thrilled with the option of doing it to save some money. (Remember, there are currently lots of people with more time than money on their hands right now, kaylasdad99 being a prime example–no offense, I hope.) In any case, I would be more than happy to directly contract with the local waste management company, since a big portion of our town’s pickup is contracted to them anyway. Again, cheaper, friendlier, etc.

You’re damn right I do. That’s why I’m saving now, and investing my money according to my own intelligence, preferences, and tolerance for risk.

Bullshit. The whole leftie philosophy consists of this false dichotomy where the government either does something, or it doesn’t get done at all. What a load. If the government would just leave me the fuck alone, I could get most of the services you just mentioned cheaper, better, and in a manner that better suits my preferences. What about that smacks of a decrease in quality of life?

On preview, I see that Jackknifed Juggernaut is proudly parading his “minor knowledge of economics.” Well, sport, you’re wrong. Ceteris parabis, a tax cut will have no effect on the economy (by which I assume you mean the GDP and GDP growth rate.) Now, if that tax cut were accompanied by an equal decrease in government spending, and no increase in private spending, that might have a negative effect on GDP. But, funny thing about people and money, they tend to spend it, so the net effect is the same, if not positive. I would love, Love, LOVE to see you present evidence that an increase in M1 in public hands actually slows down the economy. I’ll save you some time searching, though: It ain’t out there.

23

This is not a danger in Minnesota. When I lived there a new freeway into downtown Minneapolis was completed. Within 8 months it was being re-paved. Your Minnesota tax dollars at work.

24

Syzygy

What? You’re in the wrong rant. This is regarding Minnesota state taxes. My state taxes do little or nothing to control the cost of my health care. They do not deliver my mail. They do not pay for my garbage. Finally my state taxes do not support my retirement. Quit confusing the issue.

Yes, or we want to get equivalent services per dollar as almost any other country.

25

Now we’re getting into the “neener-neener, my vision of government is right and you’re an idiot” bit.

Who brought popcorn?

26

In what universe does Fedex carry the mail cheaper than the USPS?

27

I work, and I pay taxes. I did not get a rebate, and neither did several people in my family. Not everyone did.

Plus, the “rebate” was a refund ADVANCE for the following year (in preparation for lower taxes), not for the past year. I hope that my income level is high enough that I will get that money after filing taxes even though I did not get it during the summer (and I could really have used it then and can use it now, to put against my debt).

28

Really? IIRC, GDP consists of C + I + G + X. When you cut taxes, what happens to I?

I’ll answer that for you: I (or net investment in the economy) gets crowded out. This means that companies stop investing --> People lose their jobs --> People can’t buy things --> Less tax revenue for the government, yada, yada, yada.

I’m really just expanding on your point that even when taxes are cut, the government doesn’t stop spending. For this reason, interest rates must rise at some point which slows down our economy. So Mr. Greenspan can keep rates artificially low only up to a point.

Bush is falling into the same idiotic trap that Reagan got himself into when he butchered our economy. And anyone with even a minor knowledge of economics predicted this.

I guess “minor knowledge” is all relative, isn’t it?

29

Ummm, I thought BushOne raised taxes. At least that’s what all the crybaby asshole liberals in Congress claimed. Remember the castigation he got for reneging on the "Read my lips,’ promise? It certainly wasn’t for cutting taxes.

Your memory is faulty.

As for the bald statement, “TAX CUTS SLOW DOWN THE ECONOMY!” please explain the expanding economy after the Reagan tax cuts.

Not only is your memory faulty, your declarations are false.

30

Butchered? Butchered?

What fucking revisionist nirvana do you live in? The Carter era (Remember him? Guy who held the presidency just prior to Reagan? Ringin’ any bells?) held double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment, and a top marginal income tax rate of 70%. There wasn’t anything left of the economy to butcher. Don’t be such an idiot.

31

Oh please. Opinions are always divided, especially among economists. You’re defining “knoledgeable” as “those who predicted correctly.”

32

I thought that referred to Bush* fils*, not Bush* pere*, who did, indeed, raise taxes. Tax cuts can be a useful tool to help jumpstart the economy during a recession, but they are not always a desideratum. Cnservatives, for example, can have a strong military or tax cuts, but not both.

33

I know marginal rates were lowered, but after most of the tax loopholes were closed, how much of a reduction in taxes was there really?

There was also a large amount of deficit spending during the Reagan years, and that, in the short run, helped boost the economy.

34

Re-reading that I see your interpretation is likely the correct one, gobear. I guess I jumped to the conclusion that JJ was speaking of the father. His laying the recession, rising unemployment, and etc. at the door of the son’s tax cuts mislead me as these events were already underway when the son took office, well before the tax cut package was enacted.

35

Let’s take your argument to its logical conclusion: if government were to quit taxing altogether, the wheels would totally fall off investment. Even though they suddenly had, like, a billion extra dollars, GM would only keep building cars until a belt on the assembly line broke, and then they’d just close up shop. Even though consumers suddenly had more disposable income, Starbucks would (gasp!) quit opening new stores. Warren Buffett would curl up in the fetal position under the bed and suck his thumb.

On the other hand, the more the government takes, the more business invests and individuals prosper. One need look no further than Cuba to see the blinding truth of that statement.

Are you starting to get the idea of how ridiculous you’re being?

If not, answer this: where do businesses get the money to invest? Business either borrows from banks or from individuals (in the form of corporate paper). More money in private hands means either more money to buy corporate paper directly, or more money to put in the bank, which the bank in turn has to do something with–namely lend it to businesses. Empirical studies show that investment is directly related to private savings (Japan’s monstrous growth in the 1990’s was due in large part to the fact they had one of the highest rates of private savings in the world.)

So to summarize, when taxes get cut, C goes up, I goes up, and not much at all happens to G. GDP, then, goes up. Futhermore, it keeps going up, because investment is the engine that makes it do so.

To summarize further, you’re a dip. And you still don’t know anything about economics.

Maeglin, the reason a stamp only costs $.34 is because the post office is charging you, as best I can tell, less than the marginal cost of delivering a piece of mail. For the fiscal year 2001, USPS revenues fell short of budget by $751.8 million. I’m pretty sure that if FedEx were directly subsidized by taxpayers to the tune of three quarters of a billion dollars and could operate tax-free, they could deliver mail for the same price or less. You pay that cost, whether you lick it and stick it to an envelope or not. I betcha FedEx is cheaper in the wash.

To everybody else, sorry to go all econo-dorky in a perfectly good pit thread. I promise I’ll make it up by swearing some in GD.

36

Lotsa good stuff here. First, if as you claim, many loopholes were closed, then why the outcry about how these tax reductions were a gift to the wealthy? You seem to be saying there was no net reduction in taxes.

Second, I hope you are not making the claim that deficit spending is a good solution to a shrinking economy. Else, there should be no complaints about BushTwo’s tax cuts. Smaller revenues for government entities would seem to lead to increased deficit spending and by many peoples’ analysis, deficit spending will help slow a recession, or even generate expansion.

Sounds like tax cuts are good all around; a magic bullet, if you will. They generate more capital spending by businesses, more consumer spending, and governmental deficit spending. Win, win, win. So, what’s the problem here?

37

UncleBeer, I know your last post wasn’t directed at me, but I feel the need to respond to it. Constant deficit spending as a policy is not a good idea. (Am I getting whooshed here?)

Otherwise, I think you’re spot on about capital investment and consumer spending/savings.

38

I guess that the problem is the fact that there is a Republican in the White House, but who knows?

39

UncleBeer- Since you’re mostly ranting, all I can tell you is that the economy was going to rebound anyway under Reagan. There’s no evidence that his tax cuts did anything except create unprecented debt that we had to maneuver through.

Tennessee Ben - Please do me a favor and pick up a Macroeconomics book and read about the “crowding out” effect on investment that tax cuts have. I really don’t have the time to teach you to walk right now. You’ve got to want to do it on your own. And stop talking out of your ass. I understand that this is the PIT, but it’s still not fair to people who really want to learn. I don’t want people reading your posts and actually believing your bullshit.

BTW, your hypothetical examples are myopic and I don’t have to time to address stupid questons. This is the PIT. If we were in GQ, I’d be forced to spoon-feed you.

40

So, you ignore other peoples’ responses, act like an inflammatory jerk, and still don’t provide any kind of cite? I’m sorry, but you have not proven your knowledge to any of us, merely shown that you are a disrespectful jerk.

Give us a cite supporting your position, or it will be our turn to ignore you.

This is my favorite. So, since this is the pit, you’re allowed to spoon-feed ignorance?