FWIW, I am not necessarily attached to supply-side economics. I just believe that the Federal Government is too big, and we don't need to raise taxes on anyone.

 

 

I agree that the Federal Government is way too big. Unfortunately, based on recent history, neither party has given any indication that they will tackle the problem. The Republicans have shown that they are just as likely to increase the size of government as the worst of the "tax and spend" Democrats. Maybe if the Republicans get trounced during this election, they'll return to their roots of small government/fiscal responsibility.

I agree that the Federal Government is way too big. Unfortunately, based on recent history, neither party has given any indication that they will tackle the problem. The Republicans have shown that they are just as likely to increase the size of government as the worst of the "tax and spend" Democrats. Maybe if the Republicans get trounced during this election, they'll return to their roots of small government/fiscal responsibility.

I haven't used this because I feel like a condescending jerk, but you ain't talking to no Republican here- Bob Barr '08 for me!

I haven't used this because I feel like a condescending jerk, but you ain't talking to no Republican here- Bob Barr '08 for me!

 

 

Hey, I voted for Perot in 1992, so I understand the non-mainstream vote thing. I think if Barr gets enough votes (and McCain loses) there will be some long overdue soul searching in the GOP.

Has history not proven that when taxes are cut on the wealthy, tax revenue goes up and the economy gets stronger?

Between 1935 and 1981 the top marginal tax rate never dropped below 60%. Today the top marginal tax rate is in the low 30's.

 

Between 1935 and 1981 economy grew and got stronger.

Between 1935 and 1981 the top marginal tax rate never dropped below 60%. Today the top marginal tax rate is in the low 30's.

 

Between 1935 and 1981 economy grew and got stronger.

That is a ridiculous summary of events. The 1972 through 1980 period under Nixon, Ford, and Carter was a horrible time for our economy. The economy boomed in the 80s after Reagan slashed the top marginal rates. During much of the period that you lumped together, our economy was competing against economies that had been obliterated by war.

 

What both you and H are conveniently overlooking is the fact that in many ways, Bill Clinton was a moderate and many facets of Clinton's economic program were the result of negotiations with a very conservative Congress.

 

Barack Obama is not a moderate and neither are Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi. Obama has no intention of returning this nation to the 90s.

Supply vs. Demand: Assuming Obama wins, there will be many of his supporters making demands in regard to distribution of wealth. However, I have no intention of supplying anything to the cause. I would hope others who will be expected to supply the bounty act in a like fashion.

That is a ridiculous summary of events. The 1972 through 1980 period under Nixon, Ford, and Carter was a horrible time for our economy. The economy boomed in the 80s after Reagan slashed the top marginal rates. During much of the period that you lumped together, our economy was competing against economies that had been obliterated by war.

 

What both you and H are conveniently overlooking is the fact that in many ways, Bill Clinton was a moderate and many facets of Clinton's economic program were the result of negotiations with a very conservative Congress.

 

Barack Obama is not a moderate and neither are Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi. Obama has no intention of returning this nation to the 90s.

In 1972 the GPD was 1,240 billion in 1980 the GDP was 2,795 billion. Growth can occur under higher marginal tax rates than those being offered by Obama. My point was that if that is Socialism, than we have been socialist most of the last century.

In 1972 the GPD was 1,240 billion in 1980 the GDP was 2,795 billion. Growth can occur under higher marginal tax rates than those being offered by Obama. My point was that if that is Socialism, than we have been socialist most of the last century.

And my point is that what Obama is promising to do to this economy is nothing like the actions that Nixon, Ford, or Carter took. The Democratic Congresses of that era would have impeached Carter if he had proposed bankrupting the coal industry and nationalizing the health care system.

And my point is that what Obama is promising to do to this economy is nothing like the actions that Nixon, Ford, or Carter took. The Democratic Congresses of that era would have impeached Carter if he had proposed bankrupting the coal industry and nationalizing the health care system.

 

 

The economic policies you are advocating have failed. Pure and simple. That is why the Republicans stand to have their butts handed to them today.

 

The economic policies you are advocating have failed. Pure and simple. That is why the Republicans stand to have their butts handed to them today.

We will see how the economy fares if Obama carries out his threat of bankrupting the coal industry. I suggest investing in the candle business. Horses and buggies might be also be good bets.

Seems to me they would continue investing aggressively to make up for the chunk of money "lost" to taxes.

 

Just as there is no guarantee that a less-heavy tax burden automatically increases investing, there is also no guarantee that a bigger tax burden decreases it.

 

 

Capital knows no geographic boundary. If country A taxes income at 50% and company B taxes income at 25% where do you think the invested capital (and the jobs created by that capital) are going to go? A bigger tax burden decreases investment it is simple economics.