quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

You may not be aware of it, so I'll clue you in. I'm special.

No...you aren't,not in the least.....but run with it if that's what floats your boat.
Hell more power to you if you have Firm convinced of that too.....lol

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Excuse me Miss Special,no need to use the "they did it first" defense.....how about the "You do it,so kettle meet pot defense ?
See Your first quoted post ?
See your use of the phrase "leftist"?
Lose that habit before ever again bitching about tea baggers......lest someone call you a hypocrite instead of "special"

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Excuse me Miss Special,no need to use the "they did it first" defense.....how about the "You do it,so kettle meet pot defense ?
See Your first quoted post ?
See your use of the phrase "leftist"?
Lose that habit before ever again bitching about tea baggers......lest someone call you a hypocrite instead of "special"

Sorry... Leftist is not a derogatory term. Nor is rightist. They are descriptors indicating to which side of the political spectrum one leans.

If you wish to take offense, so be it. However, I'd suggest you've gone a little off the deep end to do so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Man, but you are going to have an awful hangover on November 7, Mike.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Thank your pal Firm for that
As for my opinion...if that the case you had no need to point it out to me ,did you ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Whose benefit was it for ?
See I was just jumping to conclusions and figuring you were trying to be helpful,certainly you weren't trying to be snarky ?
Firm has already told us all what he feels about those who employ snark here(I think,to paraphrase,the feeling is he looks down on those who resort to it)so you wouldn't be doing that would you ?

Why... you, I and Firm are not the only ones reading this thread. Perhaps you didn't notice?

You may not be aware of it, so I'll clue you in. I'm special.

quote:


Interesting, well reasoned article you might enjoy. Kinda math packed, so I doubt "our friends across the aisle" will spend much time on it :

quote:

ORIGINAL: goldn321

I rarely discuss political issues, but as a mathematician I cant pass on the opportunity to defend the math supporting tax cuts.

The US GDP is roughly 13.5 trillion dollars. Let us consider raising income taxes across the board by 1% (e.g. 35 to 36 percent). It is unequivocal that this increase in taxes will decrease spending/increase saving behavior, as well as slow investment (reference: any economics textbook ever written). The question is by how much? Under the current tax plan, the GDP is growing at ~2.5%. Let's say behavior reduces this to 1.5%, still .2% above where it was earlier this year. The result is roughly break even.

So no harm no foul, particularly since the GDP might not fall so much, right? Wrong. While we annually now only take 1% more than we would of the GDP we are depriving ourselves a compounding percentage of taxable GDP by stalling the economy's growth. Let us consider this example ten years out. 13.5 trillion would become 17.28 and 15.66 trillion under the current and suggested tax plans, respectively. 35% of 17.28 is 6.1 trillion and 36% of 15.66 is 5.6 trillion. Thus, we witness an increase in tax revenue due to tax cuts, sans magic.

This example represents a tremendous simplification of the tax code, and the numbers can, of course, be disputed. In fact, the only dispute about this is where the dials really lie. Historically, (and feel free to check) the tax-cut method can be supported by data, while there has not been a graphic correlation shown between tax increases and revenue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: goldn321

I rarely discuss political issues, but as a mathematician I cant pass on the opportunity to defend the math supporting tax cuts.

The US GDP is roughly 13.5 trillion dollars. Let us consider raising income taxes across the board by 1% (e.g. 35 to 36 percent). It is unequivocal that this increase in taxes will decrease spending/increase saving behavior, as well as slow investment (reference: any economics textbook ever written). The question is by how much? Under the current tax plan, the GDP is growing at ~2.5%. Let's say behavior reduces this to 1.5%, still .2% above where it was earlier this year. The result is roughly break even.

So no harm no foul, particularly since the GDP might not fall so much, right? Wrong. While we annually now only take 1% more than we would of the GDP we are depriving ourselves a compounding percentage of taxable GDP by stalling the economy's growth. Let us consider this example ten years out. 13.5 trillion would become 17.28 and 15.66 trillion under the current and suggested tax plans, respectively. 35% of 17.28 is 6.1 trillion and 36% of 15.66 is 5.6 trillion. Thus, we witness an increase in tax revenue due to tax cuts, sans magic.

This example represents a tremendous simplification of the tax code, and the numbers can, of course, be disputed. In fact, the only dispute about this is where the dials really lie. Historically, (and feel free to check) the tax-cut method can be supported by data, while there has not been a graphic correlation shown between tax increases and revenue.

No,in fact the tax-cut method can not be supported by data....but feel free to check that with actual history(I really hope you do,it is a shame that you have ,heretofore,been so misled)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Excuse me Miss Special,no need to use the "they did it first" defense.....how about the "You do it,so kettle meet pot defense ?
See Your first quoted post ?
See your use of the phrase "leftist"?
Lose that habit before ever again bitching about tea baggers......lest someone call you a hypocrite instead of "special"

Sorry... Leftist is not a derogatory term. Nor is rightist. They are descriptors indicating to which side of the political spectrum one leans.

If you wish to take offense, so be it. However, I'd suggest you've gone a little off the deep end to do so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

(isn't that how you self identify,as a tea bagger Firm....oh I'm sorry,isn't this civil enough conversation for you ?)

They refer to themselves as the Tea Party. Tea PARTY. Tea P-A-R-T-Y.

"Tea Bagger" is a derogatory term used by leftists to denigrate and marginalize those who claim to be a member of the Tea Party by evoking connotations of sexual impropriety.

Do you think that's civil? Respectful of someone else's ideology and point of view? You know... behavior that might facilitate meaningful discussion and compromise?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u


No,in fact the tax-cut method can not be supported by data....but feel free to check that with actual history(I really hope you do,it is a shame that you have ,heretofore,been so misled)

Harding (supported by Coolidge), JFK, and Reagan.

quote:

Well, reagan put us into deeper debt with his tax cut

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: goldn321

I rarely discuss political issues, but as a mathematician I cant pass on the opportunity to defend the math supporting tax cuts.

The US GDP is roughly 13.5 trillion dollars. Let us consider raising income taxes across the board by 1% (e.g. 35 to 36 percent). It is unequivocal that this increase in taxes will decrease spending/increase saving behavior, as well as slow investment (reference: any economics textbook ever written). The question is by how much? Under the current tax plan, the GDP is growing at ~2.5%. Let's say behavior reduces this to 1.5%, still .2% above where it was earlier this year. The result is roughly break even.

So no harm no foul, particularly since the GDP might not fall so much, right? Wrong. While we annually now only take 1% more than we would of the GDP we are depriving ourselves a compounding percentage of taxable GDP by stalling the economy's growth. Let us consider this example ten years out. 13.5 trillion would become 17.28 and 15.66 trillion under the current and suggested tax plans, respectively. 35% of 17.28 is 6.1 trillion and 36% of 15.66 is 5.6 trillion. Thus, we witness an increase in tax revenue due to tax cuts, sans magic.

This example represents a tremendous simplification of the tax code, and the numbers can, of course, be disputed. In fact, the only dispute about this is where the dials really lie. Historically, (and feel free to check) the tax-cut method can be supported by data, while there has not been a graphic correlation shown between tax increases and revenue.

No,in fact the tax-cut method can not be supported by data....but feel free to check that with actual history(I really hope you do,it is a shame that you have ,heretofore,been so misled)

Harding (supported by Coolidge), JFK, and Reagan.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
Actually, the term "Teabagger" was initially used by members of the TEA party to refer to themselves.