Liberal Forum

RichClem » 19 Oct 2014 10:09 pm » wrote:
2) You don't know what one is.

The Difference Between Keynesian Stimulus And Supply Side Tax Cuts
February 26, 2001
Although both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush proposed tax plans which cut marginal income tax rates across the board, the philosophy underlying them is different. While the Reagan plan was based on supply-side economics, the Bush plan owes much more to Keynesianism.
In the Keynesian model, consumption spending by individuals and investment spending by businesses drive the economy. The government can add to total spending by running a budget deficit, either by purchasing goods and services or by reducing taxes.
Throughout most of the postwar era, whenever the economy slowed down, Congress usually increased public works outlays, but occasionally cut taxes. Beginning in the 1970s, supply-siders argued the Keynesian focus on spending was misplaced because it ignored the role of incentives, particularly the marginal tax rate -- the tax on each additional hour worked or dollar earned.
Bush says he shares Reagan's vision. However, his arguments -- putting dollars in people's pockets, increasing disposable income and countering an economic slowdown -- are closer to the old-fashioned Keynesian model than supply-side economics.
Bush should stress the supply-side argument about the long-term benefits of lower marginal tax rates, which can help defuse concern his plan will extinguish the surplus. He should point out that faster growth will lower the budgetary cost of his tax cut.
Harvard University economist Martin Feldstein estimates faster growth will reduce the actual revenue loss from Bush's tax plan from $1.6 trillion to $1.2 trillion over 10 years. A new Heritage Foundation study finds even stronger feedback effects, with faster growth recouping almost half the static revenue loss (see figure).
Bush does not need to stop talking about how his tax plan will help average people and perhaps counter a recession. But he should not neglect the supply-side argument.
Source: Bruce Bartlett, senior fellow, National Center for Policy Analysis, February 22, 2001.

RichClem » 19 Oct 2014 10:45 pm » wrote:
Oh gosh, the troll who has evaded every single question I've asked is going to whine that I haven't answered his stunningly easy question?

Here's a hint. What subject do I most often debate other than politics?

You get three guesses, and the first two don't count.

RichClem » 19 Oct 2014 10:42 pm » wrote:
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap

RichClem » 19 Oct 2014 6:55 pm » wrote:

Cannonpointer » 19 Oct 2014 10:47 pm » wrote: Okay, funny boy. I found out the difference between a supply side tax cut and a Keynesian tax cut.

RichClem » 19 Oct 2014 10:45 pm » wrote:
Oh gosh, the troll who has evaded every single question I've asked is going to whine that I haven't answered his stunningly easy question?

Here's a hint. What subject do I most often debate other than politics?

You get three guesses, and the first two don't count.

RichClem » 19 Oct 2014 6:55 pm » wrote: I never claimed the "issue" was minor. His role on it was unquestionably minor.

Cannonpointer » 19 Oct 2014 10:55 pm » wrote: This is you, clemmie. Lie, dance, back-peddle, suck; Lie, dance, back-peddle, suck; Lie, dance, back-peddle, suck.

Cannonpointer » 19 Oct 2014 10:51 pm » wrote:Your whine that Obie's tax cut is a Keynesian" tax cut - which I now know means it's a tax cut that he didn't talk about in a pleasing manner -

RichClem » 19 Oct 2014 10:57 pm » wrote:
Thanks for admitting you didn't know what one was.

RichClem » 19 Oct 2014 11:02 pm » wrote: Wow, your grasp of Economics is so impressive!

RichClem » 19 Oct 2014 10:59 pm » wrote:
You jump into the middle of someone else's exchange, babble some bulls***, make a point so insignificant it's barely noticeable, the bleat more idiocy.

What, how impressive.

RichClem » 19 Oct 2014 10:42 pm » wrote: bla bla bla

I "don't know" what a Keynesian tax cut is?

RichClem » 19 Oct 2014 10:09 pm » wrote:
Yes, you did try that.

Here, try again.

1) You didn't cite when I've supported a Keynesian tax cut

2) You don't know what one is.

3) And you're wrong about me not wanting to help, shades of Marxism, "laborers.

So you're zero for three.

RichClem » 19 Oct 2014 10:57 pm » wrote:
Thanks for admitting you didn't know what one was.

Cannonpointer » 19 Oct 2014 11:02 pm » wrote: I still don't.

Looks to me like it's just a tax cut by a democrat. No matter what they do - even if it's what you say, - you reserve the right to complain, even if you have to make a false distinction which you have now gone 20 posts refusing to clarify.

It is clear that you do npot know what a Keynesian tax cut is. If you did, you'd have said.

If you now say what it is, I will not read it. I will not respond to it. I will not debate it. The subject of Keynesian tax cuts is not something I will discuss with a scared little queer who USES the word but cannot explain what it means.

RichClem » 19 Oct 2014 11:02 pm » wrote: Wow, your grasp of Economics is so impressive!

RichClem » 19 Oct 2014 11:07 pm » wrote:
Can't explain what it means? It's one of the simplest concepts in basic Economics.

You almost never debate unless you think the deck is stacked in your favor. If not, you disappear or evade and lie.

You write endless babbling bulls***, tell endless lies and rave in psychotic manner.

Why would I possibly care?

Brattle Street » 19 Oct 2014 11:09 pm » wrote:
we see is you continuing to refuse to commit to YOUR definition of Keynesian tax cuts

RichClem » 19 Oct 2014 11:07 pm » wrote:
Can't explain what it means

RichClem » 19 Oct 2014 11:07 pm » wrote: You almost never debate unless you think the deck is stacked in your favor.

RichClem » 19 Oct 2014 6:55 pm » wrote: I never claimed the "issue" was minor. His role on it was unquestionably minor.