At least when it comes to taxes. Now, it is your blog, and if you want to post ignorant comments, fine. But when it gets published and others read it and believe that drivel, then it becomes my business. America has enough uneducated morons believing so much crap that just isn’t so that it falls upon those of us with the time, education and inclination to show how wrong you really are. From your pathetic little blog “Why Tax Cuts Don’t Work” with my comments in italics:
“Tax rates are the lowest they’ve ever been for the upper one percent of people.” [Wrong, they were 7% on any income over $500k shortly after the 16th Amendment was passed which allowed an income tax.] …. And all the tax cuts did was raise the budget deficit to staggering amounts [funny people like you don’t care so much about “staggering deficits” when it comes to Obambi’s Porkulus Spending Act], which will make recovery even harder [But Obambi’s Porkulus Spending will make recovery easier? Heh, I’ve got some oceanfront property to sell you. In Kansas.]. But the super rich do not spend more when their tax rates are cut more. They already can afford to buy whatever they want and need. And they already have their investment plans in place. Tax cuts don’t influence them to spend more money on those things. When they get back tax money, they simply put it in savings because it’s excess money. And that doesn’t stimulate the economy. [The “Super Rich” run businesses and employ people, and produce things of value, unlike people like you.]”
[Here Anonymous thinks, “Well, I’ll just show those Wascalwy Repubwicans that tax cuts don’t weally work! HaRumph!]
“Well, the American public is not composed of dolts, just people who have been fed a bunch of misinformation [misinformation from places like your blog ya mean?], from conservative politicians and corporate owned mainstream media, for so long they no longer know what to believe. It’s time to illustrate exactly why tax cuts won’t work. But first, let me assure you that no less a federal agency than the Department of Treasury admitted as much back in July of 2006, when it released a study called “A Dynamic Analysis of Permanent Extension of the President’s Tax Relief.” [Er, the report did no such thing, if Ignorant is a Woman would have bothered to read the report. She read what some liberal website wrote about the report, instead of the report itself. I took the time to read the report. See below for excerpts of the report with my pithy comment included at no charge.]
Ms. Anonymous then goes on to cite an article from Newsweek, as if that rag had any credibility, to support her theory that tax cuts won’t work in our current economic crisis:
“….So, what happens if you cut this worker’s payroll taxes (assuming she’s on somebody’s payroll and isn’t a contractor or self-employed)? Well, she might spend the increased cash flow [No shit, Sherlock? Somebody who gets MORE money from their paycheck and who is in debt up to her eyeballs might spend it? Well, that would be the obvious conclusion, but Newsweek and Ms. Anonymous know better!]. But given everything that’s going on, a fearful [now wait just a damn minute–who has been telling us this is an “ECONOMIC CRISIS” and “The worst recession since the Great Depression”? Oh, yeah, that would be the Dumbass in Chief with the big ears and the corrupt friends!] but still rational person might not rush out to spend or invest the money. She might be far more likely—and well-advised—to save it, to build up a cash hoard that would allow her to remain solvent should she lose her job, or to prepare for the eventuality that she might have to buy her own health insurance. Or she might start shoveling that extra $100 per week into her 401(k) to make up for some of the huge losses she’s suffered.
“As Mr. Gross [The author of the Snewsweek article] points out, psychology plays a role in our economic behavior. So does rationality. So, tax cuts, which might make sense in some scenarios, don’t work here. [First, will you liberals keep your stories straight? The Pelosi/Reid/Obambi Porkulus plan has tax cuts–$13 a week it has been reported for the average worker. If “tax cuts don’t work here” then why did the idiots in charge of the Dem party add them to the Porkulus plan?]
Here is a clue, for you morons out there: CUT TAXES. Let people make their own decisions about how to spend our own money. As I have previously written in a prior article, if every family were just given the damn money from the porkulus plan instead of having the Government spend it, each family would get over $20,000 to spend as they see fit. If you are so damned stupid to see that THAT would stimulate the economy, then all I can say is DON’T BREED–the DNA pool is clouded enough with morons without you adding to it.
Portions of the report taken DIRECTLY from the report, not from some liberal website written about the report:
Even before the United States entered the Second World War, increasing defense spending and the need for monies to support the opponents of Axis aggression led to the passage in 1940 of two tax laws that increased individual and corporate taxes, which were followed by another tax hike in 1941. By the end of the war the nature of the income tax had been fundamentally altered. Reductions in exemption levels meant that taxpayers with taxable incomes of only $500 faced a bottom tax rate of 23 percent, while taxpayers with incomes over $1 million faced a top rate of 94 percent. These tax changes increased federal receipts from $8.7 billion in 1941 to $45.2 billion in 1945. Even with an economy stimulated by war-time production, federal taxes as a share of GDP grew from 7.6 percent in 1941 to 20.4 percent in 1945. Beyond the rates and revenues, however, another aspect about the income tax that changed was the increase in the number of income taxpayers from 4 million in 1939 to 43 million in 1945. [My comment: top tax rates were 94% after WWII. Then JFK cut taxes and that stimulated the economy. Then liberals raised taxes, and stagflation occurred under Jimmy Carter, and along came the Reagan revolution…]
…. As inflation came down and as more and more of the tax cuts [The Reagan Tax cuts for you ignoramuses out there] from the 1981 Act went into effect, the economic began a strong and sustained pattern of growth. Though the painful medicine of disinflation slowed and initially hid the process, the beneficial effects of marginal rate cuts and reductions in the disincentives to invest took hold as promised. [Emphasis added. Oooops. I thought that “tax cuts don’t work” eh Ms. Anonymous?]
….The 2001 tax cut [The GWB tax cut for Ms. Anonymous] will provide additional strength to the economy in the coming years as more and more of its provisions are phased in, and indeed one argument for its enactment had always been as a form of insurance against an economic downturn. [WHAAAAAT??? ANONYMOUS IS A WOMAN TOLD ME TAX CUTS DON’T WORK! And that this report proves her point! OMG! I’ve been duped! Halp me John Doe to learn the truth!] However, unbeknownst to the Bush Administration and the Congress, the economy was already in a downturn as the Act was being debated. Thankfully, the downturn was brief and shallow, but it is already clear that the tax cuts that were enacted and went into effect in 2001 played a significant role in supporting the economy, shortening the duration of the downturn, and preparing the economy for a robust recovery.
The analysis presented here suggests these policies will result in substantially more economic activity if they are financed by a future reduction in government spending than if they are financed by future tax increases. If the tax relief is financed by future tax increases – that is, if the aggregate amount of tax relief is temporary – then it may result in lower output in the long run. For that reason, the Administration has emphasized permanence for the tax relief and spending restraint in its Budgets. [page three of thirty.]
Tax relief can be important when the economy is performing below its full potential [BUT I THOUGHT TAX CUTS DON’T WORK! DOH!], and can increase its potential in the longer term. In 2003, real GDP was below its potential level and the unemployment rate was elevated. The tax relief enacted in 2001 and 2003, together with reductions in short-term interest rates by the Federal Reserve, helped stimulate economic growth and move the economy out of the 2001 recession more quickly [BUT ANONYMOUS IS A WOMAN SAID…]. Previous Treasury analysis using the Macroeconomic Advisers macro-econometric model estimated that without the tax relief passed in 2001, 2002, and 2003, as many as 3 million fewer jobs would have been created by the end of 2004 and real GDP would have been as much as 3.5 to 4.0 percent lower. [But Ignoramus, er I mean Anonymous said…]
Beyond this short-term economic stimulus, the President’s tax relief [that’s George W. Bush’s tax relief for you ignoramuses who can’t keep up] also helps encourage economic growth in the longer term by increasing the after-tax reward from work, saving, and investment. [But Anonymous is a Woman said!…] The lower tax rates enable workers to keep more of their earnings, which increases work effort and labor force participation. The lower tax rates also enable innovative and risktaking entrepreneurs to keep more of what they earn, which further encourages their entrepreneurial activity. The lower tax rates on dividends and capital gains lower the cost of equity capital and reduce the tax biases against dividend payment, equity finance, and investment in the corporate sector. All of these policies improve incentives for work, saving, and investment by reducing the distorting effects of taxes. Capital investment and labor productivity will thus be higher, which means higher output and living standards in the long run. [4 of 30]
The analysis reveals that the long-run effects of these policies depend crucially on how they are eventually financed and are sensitive to assumptions on underlying parameters. The issue of how, or even if, these policies need to be financed remains a source of discussion among economists. The analysis presented here suggests these policies will result in substantially more economic activity if they are financed by a future reduction in government spending than if they are financed by future tax increases. If the tax relief is financed by future tax increases – that is, if the tax relief is temporary – it may well result in lower output in the long run [In other words, for you dolts and for Ignoramous is a Woman, IF THE TAX CUTS ARE REPEALED BY IGNORANT LIBERALS who raise taxes in the future instead of by reductions in spending the tax cuts may lower economic output in the future. So the solution is simple: Don’t let liberals increase taxes in the future. Duh.]. In effect, the temporary tax relief must be paid back with interest through future tax increases, which implies that future tax rates increase compared to current law. For that reason, the Administration has emphasized permanence for the tax relief and spending restraint in its Budgets. The sensitivity of the results to financing and parameter assumptions is described in detail below. 5/30
CONCLUSION: [Hey, Anonymous, here is the conclusion to the paper that you claimed supported your theory that “tax cuts don’t work.”]
The analysis presented in the paper suggests that permanently extending the President’s tax relief enacted in 2001 and 2003 likely would lead to a long-run increase in the capital stock and an increase in national output in both the short run and the long run. If the revenue cost of that tax relief is offset by reducing future government spending, the increase in output is likely be about 0.7 percent under plausible assumptions. If, instead, the tax relief is extended only through the end of the budget window (i.e., it is temporary) [When liberals let the tax relief expire instead of making them permanent they mean, poor Ms. Ignoramous], the tax relief would increase national output in the short run, but long-run output would decline as future tax rates increase [i.e., future tax rate increases would ruin the good that the tax cuts created]. The analysis also suggests that if only the portions of the President’s tax relief that primarily reduce marginal tax rates are extended (i.e., the lower rates on dividends, capital gains and the top four ordinary income brackets), it is likely that output would increase regardless of whether the revenue cost of the relief is financed through a future reduction in government spending or a future increase in tax rates, although the increase would be considerably larger if government consumption is reduced. [Even if liberals raise taxes in the future or let these tax cuts expire, the reduction of the top four income tax brackets and the tax cuts for dividends and capital gains tax will likely INCREASE ECONOMIC OUTPUT! Read it and weep for your own ignorance, Ms. Anonymous!] 17/30