From my post that originally had this chart - ronald reagan 100. now the truth. Then on the next page you reply with the idiotic answer showing you don't know how to read and interpret the graph, and I'm you still don't understand it now. Out of a recession, tax revenues can grow at the same pace but at a lower level - that's what the graph is showing. Tax cuts do not pay for themselves, they will create a budget deficit unless there are spending offsets!!!! If the tax cuts produced more revenue, the blue line would cross over the red line!!!!! This is basic logic. There really is no reason why the world should have republicans. They are easily as worse if not worst than the Taliban. These people are like the Taliban but only dumber.
Tax cuts "create or save" tax revenues. Without those tax cuts, revenues would have been lower. Hey, if that logic is good for the goose, it's good for the gander. And, if you are as intelligent as you clearly like to think you are, you will realize that your "the world would be better off without Republicans" feeling is entirely mutual from this side. Honestly, it's gotten to the point where I have zero interest in arguing with the other side (repeatedly slamming my head in a door sounds more enjoyable and productive) and I have zero interest in going along with any of your policy suggestions. We are, as they say, at an impasse. Now, since it's entirely impractical for either side of the political aisle to commit genocide on the other, the next best option is either federalism, where you live in your Democrat state, where you can tax yourself silly (and I'm sure you would) and leave me alone while I live in another state or two countries where we now have one. Of course, the obvious reason you people aren't advocating for that is because, deep down, you know who really are the productive in this country and it ain't the politicos, their scum-sucking hangers-on or their hapless welfare state clients. A "country" made up of Democrats only would look like the typical South American dictatorship model, with the self-proclaimed "beautiful people" making grand speeches and the urban proles who live the reality of shitty services and broken promises. Anyway, it's not like it's written in the stars that the United States has to be one country, especially when half of the voters in the country clearly want some other kind of governance model than the one that took the US from a colonial backwater to world superpower in less than 2 centuries. Which is fine, since, like I said, I don't care any more about your opinion than I do about the the average dude in any other country outside the US. Just because we happen to share the same piece of dirt on this planet doesn't mean I view you as anything other than what you are: my enemy.
It is interesting to observe that this is a strictly conservative idea. It has zero support amongst the libtards. The looters, the parasites realize that they need us but we do not need them.
Reagan did not cut taxes. Reagan raised taxes, and shifted the burden into the future. Smart policy for an old guy - not do smart for a young guy who will actually have to live in that future.
Stiglitz, with all due respect, is right in theory, but wrong in practice. Generalizations such as "austerity is always bad" are just wrong, since sometimes, depending on the situation, austerity is the only viable solution. The coalition (i.e. the Tories) in the UK, for example, embarked on the "austerity" course, because there was simply no alternative.
He is true to some extent. But http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window does not work every time.
Another Nobel Prize-winning moroff. Stiglitz is pro financial transaction tax, believing that all trading and most financial activity is "socially useless", meaning most financial activity should be towards enriching government. The USA's priority export should be most economists.
History also shows that it took over 200 years for the U.S. government to amass a $1TN debt. In less than 30 years since Reagan took office that debt is now 14 times larger. Cutting taxes before cutting spending is irresponsible.