Art Laffer is opposite

Art Laffer is awry

; ),Does that even sound realisticBaby boomer? You of all of the folks on this forum have the least room to criticize anyone else's critical thinking skills, Exactly how is a BLOG anything like facts. When the blogger can't even explain the Laffer Curve correctly what's that say about the other percentage of his OPINION piece? Aside from trotting out all the looney lib talking points? - "Reagan bred taxes 11 times, blah, blah, blah, If he is so stupid to not know that Presidents CANNOT raise OR lower taxes them selves and conveniently overlooking that Dems controlled Congress during those hikes ( Which Reagan agreed to hesitantly because the Dems PROMISED - but never mailed - using spending cuts. Those are the actual facts, Oerdin. Prove me erroneous.

Fact is that the only metric indeed matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. By this calculate, Total federal bottom line fell from 19.6 per of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 amount of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 by simply Reagan (Overtax bill cut) Strategies, Bartlett blogged.

What is more, Bartlett observed, The Congressional Budget Office recently figured the tax cuts of the George W. Bush era reduced federal proceeds $2.8 trillion ranging from 2002 and 2011.

Brian S. Wesbury, A noted economist and Forbes writer, Also debunks the notion that higher tax rates automatically spell recession and revenue collapse. The fact is that, During the Clinton white house the exact opposite happened, He said: GDP moved 3.7% at an annual rate in the better half of 1993 and then 4.2% for the entire year of 1994. No financial. END design web design: Bbcode_quote -->

hahah, Let's make that NOT enjoyable facts. Since there's no real economic law or principle that says tax revenue has to be a specific percentage of GDP the first thing you bolded it's essentially a "Just what, The second only would be true IF the economy could have grown the same with or without Bush's rate reductions - a very suspicious assumption, At right.

Goodness me, And Clintons rates in 1993 and 1994 aren't rather impressive since he was coasting on the post recession upswing. Go to the article on Forbes, Look at all five pages, once, And notice how every major point is accompanied by a link with that link being to a primary source which itself links to data. It's all cited and annotated could be prefer not to click the links and follow it up. It's just hilarious that you claimed it wasn't backed up by creditable sources and it's very backed up by the very same sources you said you thought were creditable. You just hadn't even bothered to look before you made up your nonsense questions because it's all there; Normally employing the same sources you said they should have linked to.

Tend to be wrong, Of no great surprise there. Go to the initial article on Forbes, Look at all five pages, once, And notice how every major point is accompanied by a link with that link being to a primary source which itself links to data. It's all cited and annotated it's possible to prefer not to click the links and follow it up. It's just hilarious that you claimed it wasn't backed up by creditable sources and it's completely backed up by the very same sources you said you thought were creditable. You just hadn't even bothered to look before you made up your nonsense questions because it's all there; Normally employing the same sources you said they should have linked to.

; ), Changing the overall game again, Correct? And only by design OR intention misrepresenting what I said about the sources. It THEN goes on to say that its numbers PROBABLY are accurate or meaningful in assessing outcomes of the stimupoop.

You're able to, As I have pointed out Laffer's work doesn't mean tax cuts for the rich.

Here's an indicator - associated with trying to tell me how I work, What about you provide HARD DATA to prove me wrong - keep in mind, On the phone to because I'm not, But give it a go. And furthermore, Never any, A cherry selected blog, With historical Reagan stories, Is easy DATA - as a science tecnistions I'd have expected you to know that, But apparently party line purity is critical than intellectual honesty to you.

You wrong, No great surprise there. Go to a unique article on Forbes, Look at all five pages, once, And notice how every major point is accompanied by a link with that link being to a primary source which itself links to data. It's all cited and annotated that you could prefer not to click the links and follow it up. It's just hilarious that you claimed it wasn't backed up by creditable sources and it's very backed up by the very same sources you said you thought were creditable. CBO's monthly budget pdf, And making predictions - which it's essentially Scientific Wild *** Guessing. Absolutely, While I rely heavily on the DATA, I'm more closely skeptical about their projections using models and historial analysis. During the years The Most Comprehensive On-line Ventriloquism Course Ever Created. 36 Time Released Lessons That Consist Of Videos, Written Instruction, Homework And Practice Sessions, Presented By A Professional Ventriloquist! Learn Ventriloquism after 2003 when Bush's tax rate reductions went into full effect they regularly underprojected revenue. CBO's monthly budget information, And making predictions - which is actually Scientific Wild *** Guessing. very, While I rely heavily on their own DATA, I'm some more skeptical about their projections using models and historial analysis. During the years after 2003 when Bush's tax large canvas art rate reductions went into full effect they regularly underprojected revenue. The particular, During summer of 2007 they projected that we'd be having a small budget surplus by now