Mitt Romney Sent Millions to Mormon Church

Like I said: "But then of course to you the only economist worth their salt - is one that agrees with you. "

 

Apparently, there's a simple numerical explanation for jem's incomprehension:

 

If you choose to remain a fool, then who am I to stand in your way?

 

A Canadian whose opinion on these matters means NOTHING to begin with.

 

And there it is: a capitulation/denial cocktail with a twist.

 

Is that what you flaming liberals call an indisputable fact these days?

 

If you are analyzing for causality...fine
I did not rely on models.

I said after tax cuts - revenues went up. That is a fact - no models required. even slate acknowledged that fact in a soft way.

Slate used models and "baselines" to argue revenues would have gone up more if the cuts had not happened.

 

That's actually two facts. The implication that the first caused the second is the model.

But I could add a third fact, that taxes went up five years previously. Maybe I'll try to emphasize the (new) implied conclusion by saying they went up more than the total of the cuts that followed. Don't laugh, this kind of reasoning is common here, it happens to be a favorite of, for example, Petsamo's.

 

Look you and I know its hard to make conclusions about causation in dynamic systems... but the reality is that... if you allow the economy to grow (not to mention inflation caused by a private bank and overspending) ... unless you cut taxes to near zero... an expanding economy will eventually cause tax revenues to grow.

So,

1. As a citizen I do not care to maximize tax revenue. I think we would want to maximize economic health.

2. When ignorant fools argue that tax revenues did not go up after tax cuts... they must be disabused of their stupidity.

 

I gather you must be referring to Greenspan.