Quote:
Originally posted by KMA-628
read my second to my last paragraph, I have no desire to repeat myself over and over
Did I say that my conclusion was 100%
No.
Is it possible that my conclusion is right.
Yes.
Offer up a better reason than less people cheating on their taxes and I would continue the discussion.
Otherwise, what is your point?
Do you have to be contradictory to everything stated?
Like I said, more than once. You have predictions. The outcomes were very similar to the predictions. It is not 100% but it is possible to come to the conclusion that the closely matched predictions may have been right.
If you actually paid attention to my post you would know that:
a) I pull from the entire article. What is your point about gleaning info from one paragraph. You say this but it isn't even remotely accurate. Does it make the argument easier for you if you cheapen the debate?
b) You talk about income going up and nobody knows why. How did you add to the debate by making this statement? Other than looking for an argument, what is your point? Let me see, "I don't know why this happened but since I disagree I am just going to say that you are wrong and say that I have demonstrated this. I wouldn't want to cloud this discussion with any meaningfull information. No, I think I don't know why is the best answer."
c)
OMG, this information and other information came from a different paragraph. Now that I am thinking about you early comment. Why post something so blatently false? Why make a silly comment like that when it is easy to prove that not only is the comment out of line but it is a useless way to denegrate the argument?
d) I dunno. I will have to do some research on your "cheating" theory. It sure sounds a lot better and more informative than mine.
and...
by merely stating, at the end of your post, that nothing was demonstrated, you prove nothing, absolutley nothing.
Especially when you start you argument with false comments and assertions and end your comment with the brilliantly quoted theorem: Less cheating is the answer to increased tax revenue after tax cust have been implemented.
I will send word to Laffer, Wanniski and Mundell right away.....
|
I feel like I'm on the right track here. Your combative tone only reinforces my belief that you're imposing a theory you like onto something you've observed, and have in the process ignored a number of reasonable and perhaps more likely causes.
When I quote the CBO report for the second time, I provide
their explanation of the slightly higher tax receipts. Strangely, they don't mention supply side economics working their magic. Call me crazy, but that got me thinking that you might be wrong.
Perhaps my favorite argument you've made is this (I summarize):
If you deny that supply side economics has caused the increase in revenues, you necessarily concede that an increase happened. This opens up the possibility that supply side economics has caused the increase.
More precisely, here's what you said:
Quote:
Could something else have caused the recent economic growth?
Sure.
But by admiting to this you have to also admit that the outcomes followed predictions close enough that it is entirely possible that this was the result of the cuts.
|
What, then, were the predictions? Tax cuts will strengthen the economy? Sounds like a vague prediction to me. If all it takes for this to come true is tax cuts and economic growth, its value as a prediction is practically zero. Saying the economy is going to grow is kind of like saying the sun is going to rise in the morning, or that Americans will celebrate Christmas on Dec. 25th.
That leaves us with the errors in the predictions made by the CBO.
Quote:
|
Less than projected, huh?
|
Though some might raise their eyebrows when an economic prediction turns out to be incorrect, a rational observer is bound to realize that the economy is unpredictable, and that our predictive capabilities are often unreliable.
In short, as noted above, although it's
possible that supply side economics is working, the evidence shown to prove it is clearly inadequate.