 |
|
06-25-2008, 12:19 PM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 12,209
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wow
Spoken like a true non-motivated person. Good job!  |
1) My guess is that what I said was way over your head anyway. So don't sweat it.
2) Do you want to compare your 'motivation' to mine? ROTFLMFAO |
06-25-2008, 12:22 PM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 12,209
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncensored2008
Could be, but George seem even more dense than Pat. Pat will generally answer simple questions. George knows he's been caught, and is stalling.
|
>>>"Voodoo economics is supply side economics." BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH |
06-25-2008, 12:50 PM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,588
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by George O Well
>>>And just look at those growth rates now, eh? What you supply siders fail to grasp is 1) that feeding the supply side when demand is flat is plain stupid, and 2) feeding the supply side in the sad hope of increasing employment and tax revenue is doubly flat stupid. But it does buy votes from people with broken toaster ovens.
Your supply-side theory has been proven to be voodoo twice in the last 30 years.
|
George, this is probably a tad above you, but I will try anyway.
Supply side allows for a lower break even point for products in addition to increasing supply. This allows the supply curve to be shifted to the right on a supply and demand curve. This will stimulate demand because prices for the same product will be lower. Which in turn will increase employment because companies are still making a profit at these lower costs.
In an economy with an increasing population, supply side is better than demand side.
As for tax revenues, if the tax cut encourages an increase in transactions, then tax revenues will increase. This goes back to Management 101 and the importance of throughput.
As for having been proven wrong. Show how.
|
06-26-2008, 12:00 PM
|
|
Political Junkie
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 175
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noibn
I wouldn;t put much past Casey about anything, legal or otherwise, but I doubt even he meddled in this one. You have your silly conspiracy horses and straw men and others have theirs.
It seems that the Shah's death and the Russian invasion of Afghnaistan moved Iran off their POV.
"Shortly after the election, the lame duck Carter administration, with the assistance of intermediaries such as Algerian diplomat Abdulkarim Ghuraib, opened fruitful negotiations between the U.S. and Iran. In exchange for the unfreezing of 8 billion dollars worth of Iranian assets and immunity from lawsuits Iran might have faced, the hostages were to be freed. On January 20 1981, minutes after President Reagan's inauguration, the hostages were formally released into U.S. custody, having spent 444 days in captivity."
Iran hostage crisis: Information and Much More from Answers.com |
You forgot about the arms that Reagan agreed to sell to the Iranians, as one of the conditions for the release of the hostages. Carter, in accordance with US policy, refused to negotiate with terrorists. Reagan had no such qualms. While Carter was still president, Reagan's people not only negotiated with them, but sold them weapons. The release of the hostages just minutes after Reagan's inauguration address was as well-scripted as any movie he ever made.
|
06-26-2008, 12:06 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: West Virginia ( Gods Country)
Posts: 6,590
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by George O Well
>>>I simply don't understand how one light-in-the-loafers rightwing ideologue and a small coterie of pirates can take a country of 300,000,000 people and fuck it up so badly in the space of 8 short years.
|
Well said George.
George for president.
Hell any old george would be better as president than George Bush, the worst president in the history of America. |
06-26-2008, 12:08 PM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: West Virginia ( Gods Country)
Posts: 6,590
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TakuanSoho
Ah, now I get it. You usually don't say anything because when you do you sound like a complete idiot.
"Voodoo economics" was coined by G Bush when he was running for President against Ronald Reagan in 1980 and as such was BEFORE supply side had even been implemented. So your time line, much like most of your knowledge, is backwards.
As for it "not working". Sure buckeroo, this is why most countries have adopted it.
|
You really lack knowledge of the world don't you Soho?
Most countries have Capitalism , mixed with a lot of regulation and some socialism. IE the United States is the only modern nation not to have Universal health care for its people. Even Iran and the Saudi's have Universal health care because it makes sound economic sense that is if you value life as a economic resource which its apparent the US does not. |
06-26-2008, 12:11 PM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: West Virginia ( Gods Country)
Posts: 6,590
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by herby
You forgot about the arms that Reagan agreed to sell to the Iranians, as one of the conditions for the release of the hostages. Carter, in accordance with US policy, refused to negotiate with terrorists. Reagan had no such qualms. While Carter was still president, Reagan's people not only negotiated with them, but sold them weapons. The release of the hostages just minutes after Reagan's inauguration address was as well-scripted as any movie he ever made.
|
Ah your telling the truth Herby. The Republicans on this forum just cannot tolerate the truth you'll upset that dream world they live in. |
06-26-2008, 12:13 PM
|
|
Political Junkie
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 175
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by George O Well
>>>I'm sorry, Skippy, but you've just revealed the extent of your knowledge, and your knowledge has been found to be lacking. Supply side economics is simply supply side economics. It became "voodoo" when the world figured out it doesn't work.
|
It became "voodoo economics" when George H W Bush used the term to describe Reagan's economic policies, while campaigning against him. |
06-26-2008, 12:14 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,377
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TakuanSoho
As for tax revenues, if the tax cut encourages an increase in transactions, then tax revenues will increase. This goes back to Management 101 and the importance of throughput.
|
Even more important, if the tax revenues encourage investment in infrastructure, then jobs and output increase - again resulting in an increase in tax revenues.
Folks like George are convinced that tax cuts are only given to Monty Burns who sticks the money in his vault so that he can wallow in it.
In real life - capital is reinvested making the entire economy move.
Last edited by Uncensored2008; 06-26-2008 at 12:21 PM.
|
06-26-2008, 12:23 PM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,377
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wvpeach
Well said George.
George for president.
|
Peach, You're the poster child for requiring IQ tests in order to vote. |
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
