Tax revenues, JFK, Ronald Reagan, this President.
We're back to the tax facts, having given those damned postal employees a good thrashing for two schizoid days. But Mallard's still arguing with his correspondents.
I don't have the time to look up tax revenue history, so I'll stipulate to Mallard's "fact". Even so, revenue is just a part of the equation, you also have to look at expenditures. Just ask any first year Business School student. Hell, ask any biped with a brain.
In that vein, only one President in history has
8 comments:
Who's "this President" supposed to be?
Millard Fillmore?
His fact makes NO FUCKING SENSE. How does the government get more money if money isn't coming in?
I took high school economics, I don't remember anything about how wars just pay for themselves while the rich and corporations keep all their money and they fleece the middle-class and poor, who are the ones FIGHTING in the FUCKING WARS.
I don't see Bruce over there...
It's interesting that Tinsley thinks increased tax revenue automatically constitutes "paying for things." Tax revenue has indeed increased in the last few years, but government spending has also increased by a much larger amount, so the increased revenue isn't really "paying for things" at all.
Can Tinsley be contained?
funny.. we AREN'T 'paying for things.' just look at our enormous deficit and think about owing trillions (thats 9 zeros folks) to countries like China. Its tax time so think about owing trillions in debt and compounding interest on that. Plus, theres a lot of 'off the books' military spending going on due to creative techniques used by the Pentagon in the name of the Global War on Terror.
This President is the idiot that should be contained.
The theory (or one I've heard from a pro-tax cut person)
Less taxes means more small independent companies stay afloat. For the bigger company, it means more employees can be hired.
What this means is more folks overall employed who can pay taxes and buy consumer goods (also taxed).
Better to have 300 pay you a dollar than 100 people pay you two dollars.
But... heh. That's a world long gone, back in the days when people were employed for life by major corporations, and Mom'n'Pop Grocery Stores weren't eaten alive by the likes of an unregulated company giants who pay their employees next to nothing.
Lowering the taxes won't bring back the jobs from Mexico and India or convince CEOs that a billion dollar profit line is better spent on employing people than buying yachts.
i think you meant this president lowered taxes, not raised them...
Tinsley didn't really answer his rhetorical queston, did he?
Is he afraid of saying "George Bush"? Can't blame him.
I saw a clip on Fox News once when some tool was spouting the "lower taxes = increased revenue" line, and Bem Stein started yelling at him that he was an idiot.
Dude, When you lose Ben effing Stein from your right wing talking point? You're wrong.
Post a Comment