Tax Cuts and Revenue

Who is Jim Grant? Is that the publisher of the interest rate report? Can you get his resume for me please, or do you want me to pick without knowing exactly who he is? I could draw straws.

 

Tell you what. I am going to predict you're going to die. The evidence is getting stronger every day that I am right about this. In fact I'll go out on a limb and say i'm almost certain that I'm right. I'm saving this prediction, and you might want to too if you think you can prove me wrong. I'm going to gloat plenty when it comes true. I'm pretty sharp when it comes to guessing the future!

 

1. So how do you - cut taxes - increase spending - and still reduce the deficit... if tax cuts did not pay for themselves?
I invite you and the other piezoe type leftists to look at the real numbers (not models) for 2004, 05, 06 and 07.

look at the numbers for those years... the deficit went down after the tax cuts.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Summary...
My thesis that lowering taxes also increased the tax revenues and paid for themselves at least for a few years.
I have always acknowledged there is no way to know for sure in a real world dynamic economy, which is why I always say tax cuts are followed by revenue increases... I do not say caused.

 

To whom it may concern:

... the "ownership" of the Reserve Banks by the commercial banks is symbolic; they do not exercise the proprietary control associated with the concept of ownership nor share, beyond the statutory dividend, in Reserve Bank "profits." ... Bank ownership and election at the base are therefore devoid of substantive significance, despite the superficial appearance of private bank control that the formal arrangement creates.^*

in Scott v. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, et al., the distinction between the Federal Reserve Banks, which are federally created 'instrumentalities,' and the Board of Governors, which is a federal agency, is made..^**
__________________________________
^* Michael D. Reagan, "The Political Structure of the Federal Reserve System," American Political Science Review, Vol. 55 (March 1961), pp. 64–76

^**Kennedy C. Scott v. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, et al., 406 F.3d 532 (8th Cir. 2005).

 

as if Piezoe has some sort interest rate resume that could hold a candle to Jim Grant.
Piezoe the private shareholders would have to pick you because you are a pre fascist statist.... no offense.

 

do you deny the Fed Reserve is a private bank... you just saw it is privately owned.
lets compare your snippet from some unknown author from 1961 with case law....



2. Here is what the courts have to say on the matter...

Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)

...

"H.R. Report No. 69 Cong. 1st Sess. 18-19 (1913).

The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the Act. In United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 96 S.Ct. 1971, 48 L.Ed.2d 390 (1976), the Supreme Court held that a community action agency was not a federal agency or instrumentality for purposes of the Act, even though the agency was organized under federal regulations and heavily funded by the federal government. Because the agency's day to day operation was not supervised by the federal government, but by local officials, the Court refused to extend federal tort liability for the negligence of the agency's employees. Similarly, the Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks. Unlike typical federal agencies, each bank is empowered to hire and fire employees at will. Bank employees do not participate in the Civil Service Retirement System. They are covered by worker's compensation insurance, purchased by the Bank, rather than the Federal Employees Compensation Act. Employees travelling on Bank business are not subject to federal travel regulations and do not receive government employee discounts on lodging and services.

The Banks are listed neither as "wholly owned" government corporations under 31 U.S.C. Sect. 846 nor as "mixed ownership" corporations under 31 U.S.C. Sect. 856, a factor considered is Pearl v. United States, 230 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1956), which held that the Civil Air Patrol is not a federal agency under the Act. Closely resembling the status of the Federal Reserve Bank, the Civil Air Patrol is a non-profit, federally chartered corporation organized to serve the public welfare. But because Congress' control over the Civil Air Patrol is limited and the corporation is not designated as a wholly owned or mixed ownership government corporation under 31 U.S.C. Sub-Sect. 846 and 856, the court concluded that the corporation is a non-governmental, independent entity, not covered under the Act.

Additionally, Reserve Banks, as privately owned entities, receive no appropriated funds from Congress. . . .

Finally, the Banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own name. 12 U.S.C. Sect. 341. "

 

I don't disagree, so there is no argument. It's not the same type of discussion by any means, no matter how much you try to pretend that it is.

 

Just reinforces my viewpoint that you're an academic who never even bothered to look outside of those sources you find go hand in hand with your own viewpoint. If it doesn't agree with your view, it doesn't exist!

http://www.grantspub.com/about/jim.cfm

Jim has been invited to speak at the Federal Reserve before as well.

After you read this, please tell me. Who would be more qualified to lead the Fed, you or Mr. Grant?

 

He'll avoid answering the question, just watch.

 

Well, you would need something like a bubble's growth.

Fair enough. I'm satisfied to leave it here, we're both somewhere in the middle on this now I think.