See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #101
   On February 24th, 2009 at 2:22 pm, chapoutier said:

   The Laffer curve still is true as much as libs don’t want to acknowledge it.

   Do you even understand what the laffer curve is saying?

2. #102
   On February 24th, 2009 at 2:23 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

   On February 24th, 2009 at 2:08 pm, white said:
   Obama will multiply federal deficits like Reagan.

   You left off “noise” in your moniker.

3. #103
   On February 24th, 2009 at 2:23 pm, 24Klady said:

   AmericanPatriot#67
   I hadn’t seen your link – thanks for posting. Good grief almighty, who raised these people that spew such vile hatred? Did they never read The Constitution or Bill of Rights? Somehow though, I’m thinking a lot of their ideas are going to be introduced as necessary to improve our social cohesion. Scary indeed.

4. #104
   On February 24th, 2009 at 2:29 pm, white said:

   On February 24th, 2009 at 2:23 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

   On February 24th, 2009 at 2:08 pm, white said:
   Obama will multiply federal deficits like Reagan.
   You left off “noise” in your moniker.

   Are saying Obama will not multiply deficits like Reagan ?

5. #105
   On February 24th, 2009 at 2:30 pm, nail49 said:

   Obama is not fulfilling his duty as commander in cheif and is refusing to follow his orders.

   GaMidnightRider: Actually, the soldier is saying he cannot follow the orders of a Commander in Chief who is not qualified to be Commander in Chief (i.e., not a naturally born citizen).

   If PBO meets the simple qualifications called for in Article II, Section 1:

   “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”

   Then he should simply make available his birth certificate with a raised seal such as is required to obtain a passport. After all, isn’t this “the MOST transparent” Administration ev-ah!

6. #106
   On February 24th, 2009 at 2:32 pm, BlameAmericaLast said:

   Sorry, Barry ain’t no Reagan, and Michelle ain’t no Jackie O.

   Money can’t buy class.

7. #107
   On February 24th, 2009 at 2:35 pm, nail49 said:

   Are saying Obama will not multiply deficits like Reagan ?

   white: Repeat after me, “Congress passes the budget, not the President. If the budget exceeds federal revenues, there is a deficit.”

   Granted, Reagan signed those budgets, but he wanted to keep the country running.

   With Pelosi, Reid and Obama in charge, the only thing running is our economy, but it’s only being run into the ground!

8. #108
   On February 24th, 2009 at 2:39 pm, white said:

   On February 24th, 2009 at 2:35 pm, nail49 said:

   Are saying Obama will not multiply deficits like Reagan ?

   white: Repeat after me, “Congress passes the budget, not the President. If the budget exceeds federal revenues, there is a deficit.”

   Granted, Reagan signed those budgets, but he wanted to keep the country running.

   With Pelosi, Reid and Obama in charge, the only thing running is our economy, but it’s only being run into the ground!

   Are you saying he should not be held accountable for the budgets he signed ? Did he not have guts to fight the congress and stand for conservative principals ?

9. #109
   On February 24th, 2009 at 2:41 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

   Do you even understand what the laffer curve is saying?

   I do. It says that revenues increase with the tax rate, UP TO A POINT. Then further increases in the tax rate results in decreased revenue due to the negative effect on work, output and employment.

   “Over the past 100 years, there have been three major periods of tax-rate cuts in the U.S.: the Harding-Coolidge cuts of the mid-1920s; the Kennedy cuts of the mid-1960s; and the Reagan cuts of the early 1980s. Each of these periods of tax cuts was remarkably successful as measured by virtually any public policy metric.”

10. #110
    On February 24th, 2009 at 2:41 pm, ajmontana said:

    Only thing Odopey has in common with President Reagan is the stuff that came out of his horses rear end, then they’re identical twins.

11. #111
    On February 24th, 2009 at 2:44 pm, graysonret said:

    He’s the anti-Reagan.

12. #112
    On February 24th, 2009 at 2:45 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

    It says that revenues increase with the tax rate, UP TO A POINT.

    Oh, and I meant to say, we’re past that point. Reductions in the marginal tax rates result in INCREASED revenues, as illustrated by the above examples, and GWB’s tax cuts.

13. #113
    On February 24th, 2009 at 2:52 pm, Lan Astaslem said:

    On February 24th, 2009 at 1:09 pm, undresiege said:
    The Reagan analogy only applies to the ability to communicate effectively and be charismatic.

    uhhh…. errr….ummm…..ahhhhh….errrr…

    REALLY?? You really think so? Somehow, I just can’t envision the words “Honey, I forgot to duck,” or “I hope you’re all Republicans” coming out of PBHO’s mouth. And before any of our trolls have a fit, I’m not, in any way, suggesting any harm come to our president. I am, however, referring to RR’s amazing abililty to remain graceful and eloquent in the most extreme circumstances. Whereas PBHO cannot string a sentence together without stuttering unless there is a teleprompter in his face.

14. #114
    On February 24th, 2009 at 2:53 pm, chapoutier said:

    Oh, and I meant to say, we’re past that point. Reductions in the marginal tax rates result in INCREASED revenues, as illustrated by the above examples, and GWB’s tax cuts.

    Then you support the largest tax cut in history that was included in the stimulus package?

15. #115
    On February 24th, 2009 at 2:54 pm, AlohaGuy said:

    Then you support the largest tax cut in history that was included in the stimulus package?

    Marginal rates went from what to what?

16. #116
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:02 pm, chapoutier said:

    Marginal rates went from what to what?

    Does it really matter if it is a credit against current marginal rates, for example, or a direct reduction?

17. #117
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:04 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

    Then you support the largest tax cut in history that was included in the stimulus package?

    You mean the $13/week?

18. #118
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:04 pm, white said:

    So everyone here OK with Reagan’s Amnesty of illegals ?

    Some of the things Reagan did were great some not so great. If can not acknowledge both good and bad, then we are treating him like Messiah (sort of like libtards treat their own leaders)

19. #119
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:09 pm, chapoutier said:

    You mean the $13/week?

    Not sure where you get $13 per week. There is a $800 tax credit per family under one part of the tax cut. How many people here would like to knock $800 dollars off their tax bill this April 15 (or get an additional $800 return)?

    And agian, that represents less than half of the tax cuts in the package.

20. #120
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:12 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

    And agian, that represents less than half of the tax cuts in the package.

    I think the problem most of us have is with the Massive spending on non-stimulative patronage projects that is the bulk of the bill. There should have been MORE tax cuts!

21. #121
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:14 pm, Flyoverman said:

    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:04 pm, white said:
    So everyone here OK with Reagan’s Amnesty of illegals ?

    Given the original plan, yes.

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18399

22. #122
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:17 pm, Salt said:

    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:12 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

    I think the problem most of us have is with the Massive spending on non-stimulative patronage projects that is the bulk of the bill. There should have been MORE tax cuts!

    Only in Washington would increasing spending while decreasing income make sense.

    Trying to do both is the worst possible scenario for our debt.

    This is about political power and government control. If the “people” feel good about getting a little money back now, they won’t realize the size of the bill they will have to pay later.

23. #123
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:19 pm, Salt said:

    On February 24th, 2009 at 2:53 pm, chapoutier said:

    Then you support the largest tax cut in history that was included in the stimulus package?

    I assume you’re bounding that by 2 years.

24. #124
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:20 pm, wighttrasch said:

    a$$clowns on this site

    Aw, undreseige…are there some clowns cutting into your, um, territory?

25. #125
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:21 pm, chapoutier said:

    I assume you’re bounding that by 2 years.

    Of course. The biggest 2 year tax cut.

26. #126
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:21 pm, BlameAmericaLast said:

    Not sure where you get $13 per week. There is a $800 tax credit per family under one part of the tax cut. How many people here would like to knock $800 dollars off their tax bill this April 15 (or get an additional $800 return)?

    And agian, that represents less than half of the tax cuts in the package.

    And let’s not forget anyone making over $250K gets nothing, still gets screwed by the Alternative Minimum Tax, and the tax rates remain as they were (no cuts there). So the folks who pay the majority of income taxes in this country are still footing the bill…

    And those that pay NO income taxes will get a welfare check.

27. #127
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:22 pm, white said:

    Given the original plan, yes.

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18399

    What part of the original plan makes the amnesty of the illegals palatable to you ?

28. #128
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:23 pm, txvet2 said:

    Granted, Reagan signed those budgets, but he wanted to keep the country running.

    I don’t think so. I seem to recall that the budget is not law, and doesn’t require the President’s signature. What he did sign was omnibus appropriations bills that were sent to him at the last minute, and included spending for multiple agencies, some of which he felt he could not allow to be shut down by a confrontation with Congress. They pulled the same thing with Bush ’41.

29. #129
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:24 pm, txvet2 said:

    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:09 pm, chapoutier said:

    You mean the $13/week?

    Not sure where you get $13 per week. There is a $800 tax credit per family under one part of the tax cut. How many people here would like to knock $800 dollars off their tax bill this April 15 (or get an additional $800 return)?

    And agian, that represents less than half of the tax cuts in the package.

    If this the cut I read about before, they aren’t cutting checks for $800, they’re adjusting withholding, which works out to about $13 a week.

30. #130
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:27 pm, single stack said:

    The Marxist punk is unworthy to sweep up Ronaldus Magnus’ toenail clippings.

31. #131
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:28 pm, Salt said:

    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:21 pm, BlameAmericaLast said:

    And let’s not forget anyone making over $250K gets nothing, still gets screwed by the Alternative Minimum Tax, and the tax rates remain as they were (no cuts there). So the folks who pay the majority of income taxes in this country are still footing the bill…

    And those that pay NO income taxes will get a welfare check.

    It wouldn’t be a Democratic plan if it didn’t include class warfare in a vain attempt to increase their constituency, right? Big Government can’t compete with Big Business, so they target the leadership.

32. #132
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:31 pm, flmom said:

    We have a shape-shifter for President.

    So that’s what he meant by change. “Today, I’m going to change into my Lincoln outfit, tomorrow I’ll change into my Reagan outfit.”

33. #133
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:31 pm, sonofdy said:

    Not sure where you get $13 per week. There is a $800 tax credit per family under one part of the tax cut.

    Do you understand the difference between tax credits and tax cuts??? Clearly you don’t or you wouldn’t have called this the biggest tax “cut” in history.

34. #134
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:32 pm, chapoutier said:

    So that’s what he meant by change. “Today, I’m going to change into my Lincoln outfit, tomorrow I’ll change into my Reagan outfit.”

    So long as he avoids the Taft outfit.

35. #135
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:32 pm, flmom said:

    Oops wrong thread, sorry.

36. #136
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:33 pm, BlameAmericaLast said:

    I believe the biggest tax CUT was Reagan’s…top rate from 70% down to 28%…and that’s where it should’ve stayed.

37. #137
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:34 pm, chapoutier said:

    Do you understand the difference between tax credits and tax cuts??? Clearly you don’t or you wouldn’t have called this the biggest tax “cut” in history.

    It is a cut in the amount of taxes you owe. How hard is that to understand? Whether its done through a cut in the marginal rate, an increase in credits, acceleration in deductions, you end up owing less (i.e. a cut) in your taxes.

38. #138
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:34 pm, John Deaux said:

    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:28 pm, Salt said:

    It wouldn’t be a Democratic plan if it didn’t include class warfare in a vain attempt to increase their constituency, right?

    Well, if poor people vote 3-1 Democratic, then by making “rich” and middle class people poor, the will increase their base threefold while weakening their opponents.

    /lgm

39. #139
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:36 pm, chapoutier said:

    BAL,

    That may have been the biggest cut in a particular tax rate. Not the same as the biggest cut in taxes.

40. #140
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:37 pm, flmom said:

    So long as he avoids the Taft outfit.

    He’d need a fat suit for that.

41. #141
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:39 pm, PKAmmoTroop said:

    On February 24th, 2009 at 2:08 pm, white said:
    Obama will multiply federal deficits like Reagan.

    

    Another “history major”

    Get your degree from a bumper sticker?

    EVERY SINGLE BUDGET REAGAN PROPOSED WAS A BALANCED BUDGET. It’s you freaking back stabbing Democrats that ran up the budget by lying about spending cuts.

    Reagan was too much of a humanitarian and a gentleman and realized that some people depend on government and wouldn’t veto a budget for purely partisan reasons (Like Bill Clinton) because that would diminish the stature of the office of the President (Like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton did)

42. #142
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:41 pm, sonofdy said:

    It is a cut in the amount of taxes you owe.

    That is true of only those who pay taxes.

    How hard is that to understand? Whether its done through a cut in the marginal rate, an increase in credits, acceleration in deductions, you end up owing less (i.e. a cut) in your taxes.

    The difference is that a tax CREDIT means if you pay no taxes, you get a handout. A real tax cut would not affect those already paying no taxes.

    We saw last year how little handouts help. We saw in the early years of bush how much tax cuts help.

    If you ask my opinion, obamas massive spending and small tax cuts are worse than doing nothing at all. The tax “cuts” he has put in place will do little more than buy a big mac happy meal for a couple each week and pay off his special intrest buddies.

43. #143
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:44 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    Over 200 comments about the following over at HotAir:

    Easterling, however, is subject to enemy fire and certainly would have a reason to need to know the legitimacy of his orders, she argued.

    “Until Mr. Obama releases a ‘vault copy’ of his original birth certificate for public review, I will consider him neither my Commander in Chief nor my President, but rather, a usurper to the Office – an impostor,” his statement said.

44. #144
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:45 pm, txvet2 said:

    Chapoutier said:

    Then you support the largest tax cut in history that was included in the stimulus package

    I sincerely doubt that.

45. #145
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:48 pm, txvet2 said:

    In any event, whatever tax cuts there might be in that bill, they will be dwarfed by the massive anti-business tax increases that are forthcoming.

46. #146
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:50 pm, white said:

    Another “history major”

    Get your degree from a bumper sticker?

    EVERY SINGLE BUDGET REAGAN PROPOSED WAS A BALANCED BUDGET. It’s you freaking back stabbing Democrats that ran up the budget by lying about spending cuts.

    Reagan was too much of a humanitarian and a gentleman and realized that some people depend on government and wouldn’t veto a budget for purely partisan reasons (Like Bill Clinton) because that would diminish the stature of the office of the President (Like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton did)

    All insults aside, the presidents dont have to sign any budget they dont like. A gentleman/humanitarian does not saddle future generations with debt. And if democrats lied to him and got away with it repeatedly, does he not share blame for trusting them ? What happened to trust but verify.

    BTW not all critics of Reagan are democrats.

47. #147
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:50 pm, conservativesRus said:

    On February 24th, 2009 at 2:41 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

    Thank you for taking the time to respond. I was going to explain to Chap that when I was a grad student, I had no trouble explaining not only what the Laffer curve was, but also it’s theoretic basis, and the empirical evidence showing it is true. Further, I challenged in every class I taught, whether engineering or business, if any student could show any of the material to be false, an automatic A, as well as recommendation to graduate school of their choice. Of course, I was teaching kids with reasoning abilities. Quite different than those who can not reason.

48. #148
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:51 pm, txvet2 said:

    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:36 pm, chapoutier said:

    BAL,

    That may have been the biggest cut in a particular tax rate. Not the same as the biggest cut in taxes.

    Yes it is, if you consider that they are still at least partially in effect, which means that the tax savings continues – as opposed to a one-time reduction in withholding in the current legislation.

49. #149
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:51 pm, chapoutier said:

    The tax “cuts” he has put in place will do little more than buy a big mac happy meal for a couple each week and pay off his special intrest buddies.

    That little tax cut represents a 10% reduction in the average person’s tax liability.($32,000 with effective rate of 12.6% and $400 credit).

    The difference is that a tax CREDIT means if you pay no taxes, you get a handout. A real tax cut would not affect those already paying no taxes.

    People that work, but don’t pay income tax still pay payroll taxes.

50. #150
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:51 pm, behiker said:

    Notice the mere mention of “Reaganesque” and stocks have gone up today?

51. #151
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:54 pm, chapoutier said:

    I had no trouble explaining not only what the Laffer curve was, but also it’s theoretic basis, and the empirical evidence showing it is true.

    The issue with the Laffer curve is not the theory itself, but 1) whether or not maximization of government revenues is the end of the question and 2) what exactly the ideal tax rate is for such maximization.

52. #152
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:55 pm, Tazed and Confused said:

    In few ways are the two alike… President Reagan’s mental loss can be attributed to a terrible wasting disease. Whereas Obie was born without a brain…

53. #153
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:55 pm, Salt said:

    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:31 pm, flmom said:

    So that’s what he meant by change. “Today, I’m going to change into my Lincoln outfit, tomorrow I’ll change into my Reagan outfit.”

    What is interesting to me is that he’s selecting Republican presidents to emulate.

    What? No Carter sweaters? No Clinton cigars?

    We know he’s off to a rocky start to attempt to emulate JFK’s “Camelot” administration.

54. #154
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:56 pm, conservativesRus said:

    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:09 pm, chapoutier said:
    There is a $800 tax credit per family under one part of the tax cut. How many people here would like to knock $800 dollars off their tax bill this April 15 (or get an additional $800 return)?

    Chap – how come the highest performers in our country get nothing? (my reading of the bill phases out every break above certain incomes).
    Giving people who don’t pay taxes money in the form of a tax credit is not anything but a bribe.
    Giving a very specific “tax break” to purchase a purple house but no “tax break” for someone who wants an airplane is just social engineering.
    Please read the bill before you spout more nonsense about tax cuts.
    Quite frankly, the bill is punitive to the most productive.

55. #155
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:57 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:41 pm, sonofdy said:

    The difference is that a tax CREDIT means if you pay no taxes, you get a handout. A real tax cut would not affect those already paying no taxes.

    We saw last year how little handouts help. We saw in the early years of bush how much tax cuts help.

    If you ask my opinion, obamas massive spending and small tax cuts are worse than doing nothing at all. The tax “cuts” he has put in place will do little more than buy a big mac happy meal for a couple each week and pay off his special intrest buddies.

    Indeed. The Democratic Socialists have found a way to
    “Spread the wealth” to people who pay no taxes,
    and call it a “tax cut” at the same time.

    Funny that you should mention burgers…

56. #156
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:57 pm, txvet2 said:

    BTW not all critics of Reagan are democrats.

    No, but they’re all liberals.

57. #157
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:59 pm, kthomas8268 said:

    Do you get the feeling this administration is just … oh I don’t know… winging it.

58. #158
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:59 pm, txvet2 said:

    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:51 pm, behiker said:

    More likely they’re reacting to Bernanke.

59. #159
    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:59 pm, kthomas8268 said:

    Maybe clueless is a better word. Yes that describes it

60. #160
    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:00 pm, white said:

    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:57 pm, txvet2 said:

    BTW not all critics of Reagan are democrats.

    No, but they’re all liberals.

    OK . By that logic all those who criticize amnesty are liberals. Makes sense ..

61. #161
    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:01 pm, txvet2 said:

    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:55 pm, Salt said:

    What is interesting to me is that he’s selecting Republican presidents to emulate.

    I wonder when he’s going to get to Nixon or Ford.

62. #162
    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:02 pm, txvet2 said:

    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:00 pm, white said:

    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:57 pm, txvet2 said:

    BTW not all critics of Reagan are democrats.

    No, but they’re all liberals.

    OK . By that logic all those who criticize amnesty are liberals. Makes sense ..

    Exactly backwards.

63. #163
    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:03 pm, conservativesRus said:

    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:54 pm, chapoutier said:
    The issue with the Laffer curve is not the theory itself, but 1) whether or not maximization of government revenues is the end of the question and 2) what exactly the ideal tax rate is for such maximization.

    I would argue you strike out on both of those questions. If maximization is not the end of the question, what is?
    I don’t know what the exact number is for maximization of revenue – but I do know that the empirical evidence certainly supports the position that our present tax rates are past the maximization point.

64. #164
    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:03 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    Hey Usurper Obama!

    Want to be “Reaganesque”?

    Then say, believe, and act in accordance with this:

    In this present crisis,
    government is not the solution to our problem;

    government IS the problem.

    -President Ronald Reagan
    January 20, 1981

65. #165
    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:06 pm, white said:

    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:57 pm, txvet2 said:

    BTW not all critics of Reagan are democrats.

    No, but they’re all liberals.

    Are all critics of Bush also liberal ?

66. #166
    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:06 pm, conservativesRus said:

    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:00 pm, white said:

    On February 24th, 2009 at 3:57 pm, txvet2 said:

    BTW not all critics of Reagan are democrats.

    No, but they’re all liberals.

    OK . By that logic all those who criticize amnesty are liberals. Makes sense

    Please give white a break here. white is suffering from a cranial (you fill in the blank) inversion.

67. #167
    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:07 pm, chapoutier said:

    Chap – how come the highest performers in our country get nothing? (my reading of the bill phases out every break above certain incomes).

    I said it was the biggest tax cut in history (subject to certain caveats). I am sure many here feel those cuts should be allocated differently. As many felt Bush’s cuts should have been aloocated differnetly.

    Giving people who don’t pay taxes money in the form of a tax credit is not anything but a bribe.

    Everyone who works (legally) pays payroll taxes. I will concede that there may be a miniscule percentage of people that get back in credits more than they pay in in payroll and income taxes.

    Giving a very specific “tax break” to purchase a purple house but no “tax break” for someone who wants an airplane is just social engineering.

    Please. Our tax code is full of incentivizers. Would you call changes to the code that accelerate depreciation on newly purchased business equpment “social engineering”? What about a tax credit for each new employee a small business hires?

68. #168
    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:08 pm, conservativesRus said:

    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:06 pm, white said:
    Are all critics of Bush also liberal ?

    Bush was no conservative.

69. #169
    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:09 pm, txvet2 said:

    Hey Usurper Obama!

    Want to be “Reaganesque”?

    Nah. He’s going to comb his hair into a Pompadour and talk about “morning in America”. It doesn’t matter what he says. He’s a liar. Liars lie. It’s just what they do. Therefore, nothing he says is to be believed.

70. #170
    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:10 pm, txvet2 said:

    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:08 pm, conservativesRus said:

    Thanks. You beat me to it.

71. #171
    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:11 pm, chapoutier said:

    I would argue you strike out on both of those questions. If maximization is not the end of the question, what is?

    I would guess a lot of people here would disagree with the notion that the government has the right to take as much revenue as it possibly can.

    I don’t know what the exact number is for maximization of revenue – but I do know that the empirical evidence certainly supports the position that our present tax rates are past the maximization point.

    I would like to see the studies, controlled of course, to account for any other factors that affect revenue flow.

72. #172
    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:12 pm, behiker said:

    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:01 pm, txvet2 said:

    I wonder when he’s going to get to Nixon or Ford.

    He didn’t mention him by name, but he has already had his “Ford” moment when he cracked his head on the helicopter!

73. #173
    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:15 pm, Major O said:

    I’m eager to see what the “biggest tax cut in history” does for the economy. It has to be a significant tax cut for the majority of the PRODUCERS in order to “stimulate” the economy. If this is what Obama is doing, then, in my estimation, he’s on the right track and will deserve credit for the ensuing pick up. If not, it’s just semantics in order to be able to say the phrase “tax cut.”

74. #174
    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:15 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    If maximization is not the end of the question, what is?

    I would say that under ideal circumstances, optimization, not maximization, should be the goal. If there are surpluses, refund those back to the people or reduce the rate further.

    However, with deficit spending, maximation is forced to be the goal.

    Unless you are a Marxist who believes in “redistribution of wealth”, and then the goal becomes to rob from the rich to give to the poor. “Robin Hood” is really “Robbing Hoodlum”.

    I don’t know what the exact number is for maximization of revenue – but I do know that the empirical evidence certainly supports the position that our present tax rates are past the maximization point.

    Correct.

    I believe in tithing (that is, contributing 10% of my gross income to the local church) and giving on top of that.

    I believe that the government, collectively in all forms (federal, state, and local) has no right to expect more money than that (10% of my gross income).

75. #175
    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:15 pm, 24Klady said:

    Salt – make that a cocky start rather than rocky. He prances, struts, tells his little funnies with chagrin, woos and smoozes with his audiance of whatever makeup. Then breaks into a scold and lecture – all the while telling them/us “I won” and “it’s the most serious situation we’ve seen since the depression.”

    I’m a grown-up adult and don’t need to be lectured, pandered to, nor scolded. Act like the President of the United States of America. We needed a man of dignity and honor. We got an impersonator instead. He’s play acting, and thinks he just got the starring role.

76. #176
    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:19 pm, John Deaux said:

    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:03 pm, conservativesRus said:

    I don’t know what the exact number is for maximization of revenue – but I do know that the empirical evidence certainly supports the position that our present tax rates are past the maximization point.

    And that would be why things will really get better in 2013 when President Jindal takes office.

77. #177
    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:25 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    He’s a liar. Liars lie. It’s just what they do. Therefore, nothing he says is to be believed.

    He’s been practicing Taqiyya so long and so consistently that it is hard for him not to lie.

78. #178
    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:26 pm, lgm said:

    PKAmmoTroop said (#141):

    EVERY SINGLE BUDGET REAGAN PROPOSED WAS A BALANCED BUDGET.

    That’s not what David Stockman says, and he was there writing those proposed budgets. He left the Reagan administration is disgust because Reagan was not serious about cutting spending. Reagan grew the government more than Carter or Clinton — but not as much as Bush, Jr.

79. #179
    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:28 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

    I would guess a lot of people here would disagree with the notion that the government has the right to take as much revenue as it possibly can.

    I can’t argue with you there! The government should have a Constitutional budget that “provides for the common defense” and takes care of some infrastructure… and little else. Any revenue collections above that should be refunded to the People and the rates adjusted down accordingly. The ‘Commerce Clause’ has been twisted and stretched and mangled into something unrecognizable by our Founders.

80. #180
    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:31 pm, RedDog said:

    The economy will rebound, if it can, not because of government spending but in spite of it. This exercise will only temporarily forstall the inevitable bankruptcies and adjustments and will leave us with massive debt and inflation. Stagflation is guaranteed. Economies can only prosper if they get shed of “secular progressive” governments.

    Government spending provides no core foundational growth building in the body economic. Instead of a balanced meal provided by the broader marketplace, the government is force feeding the economy huge doses of high-frutose corn syrup via an enema bag. It is humiliating as well as toxic.

81. #181
    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:34 pm, Andy said:

    Ugh… Gag me with a soup ladle. There is no Reaganesque in BHO.

82. #182
    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:35 pm, conservativesRus said:

    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:07 pm, chapoutier said:
    Please. Our tax code is full of incentivizers. Would you call changes to the code that accelerate depreciation on newly purchased business equpment “social engineering”? What about a tax credit for each new employee a small business hires?

    YES – I would. Both are social engineering. What is magic about a piece of business equipment? Why should it be taxed at all? What if it’s a piece of equipment that reduces labor content, should it be taxed differently than one that adds labor?
    If a company is in need of hiring a person do you honestly think they won’t because they don’t have a tax credit? If they don’t need a person, will they hire one just because of a tax credit?

83. #183
    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:37 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

    Instead of a balanced meal provided by the broader marketplace, the government is force feeding the economy huge doses of high-frutose corn syrup via an enema bag.

    Yeesh! Gross (but apt) analogy.

84. #184
    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:37 pm, chapoutier said:

    What is magic about a piece of business equipment? Why should it be taxed at all?

    I didn’t say the piece of equipment was taxed. I said the depreciation can be used to offset the company’s taxes.

    If a company is in need of hiring a person do you honestly think they won’t because they don’t have a tax credit? If they don’t need a person, will they hire one just because of a tax credit?

    It sounds as if you are saying that taxes play no role in business decisions. Not sure many would agree with you.

85. #185
    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:38 pm, sonofdy said:

    Reagan grew the government more than Carter or Clinton

    That is a complete lie there.

86. #186
    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:39 pm, usa_usa said:

    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:31 pm, RedDog said:

    The economy will rebound, if it can, not because of government spending but in spite of it. This exercise will only temporarily forstall the inevitable bankruptcies and adjustments and will leave us with massive debt and inflation. Stagflation is guaranteed. Economies can only prosper if they get shed of “secular progressive” governments.

    Government spending provides no core foundational growth building in the body economic. Instead of a balanced meal provided by the broader marketplace, the government is force feeding the economy huge doses of high-frutose corn syrup via an enema bag. It is humiliating as well as toxic.

    It is not government’s job to prevent recessions. Recessions are normal part of business cycle and goverment can not do anything to change that fact.

87. #187
    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:40 pm, sonofdy said:

    I will concede that there may be a miniscule percentage of people that get back in credits more than they pay in in payroll and income taxes.

    miniscule???

    Really???

88. #188
    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:41 pm, Salt said:

    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:26 pm, lgm said:

    That’s not what David Stockman says, and he was there writing those proposed budgets. He left the Reagan administration is disgust because Reagan was not serious about cutting spending. Reagan grew the government more than Carter or Clinton — but not as much as Bush, Jr.

    Are you clear on the point you’re trying to make? Are you for or against big government? Or will your point shift to cover whatever appears to be anti-Republican?

    Assuming that you’ll hold static to this point, you do realize that Pres. Obama is on trajectory to leave all of these presidents in the dust with regards to government spend. Is that when you’ll declare victory?

89. #189
    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:42 pm, white said:

    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:38 pm, sonofdy said:

    Reagan grew the government more than Carter or Clinton

    That is a complete lie there.

    http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488

90. #190
    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:43 pm, kayfromcarroll said:

    Anybody else get the impression from the photo that “The Prez” would rather be a cabaret act?

    …and all that jazz….

91. #191
    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:47 pm, conservativesRus said:

    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:37 pm, chapoutier said:
    I didn’t say the piece of equipment was taxed. I said the depreciation can be used to offset the company’s taxes.

    Are you suggesting then that a company should be allowed to deduct the full cost in the year of acquisition? Or should companies not be allowed to deduct the equipment as part of their cost of making a product – that only the raw materials and labor are the costs?

    Secondly – of course business takes into account tax effects all the time in their decisions. I’m simply suggesting that this tax proposal in fact makes America less productive – not more. If there is a business situation that requires more work – the business could hire a person to do it or buy a machine – the tax effect makes the person more cost effective to the company – but America as a whole is less productive. That is social engineering.

92. #192
    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:55 pm, chapoutier said:

    Are you suggesting then that a company should be allowed to deduct the full cost in the year of acquisition? Or should companies not be allowed to deduct the equipment as part of their cost of making a product – that only the raw materials and labor are the costs?

    I am suggesting that tax policy can have consequences on whether or not companies buy new equipment, which would spur economic growth, or stick with old equipment.

    I’m simply suggesting that this tax proposal in fact makes America less productive – not more.

    I did not follow you on this paragraph.

93. #193
    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:55 pm, bigterpfan said:

    Isn’t all “tax policy”, i.e., the decision to call certain things deductible and not others, and the decisions to accord tax credits for certain things, forms of social engineering?

    When one thinks about it, isn’t the very existence of a tax deduction for mortgage interest, a huge form of social engineering?

94. #194
    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:57 pm, Flyoverman said:

    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:26 pm, lgm said:

    That’s not what David Stockman says, and he was there writing those proposed budgets. He left the Reagan administration is disgust because Reagan was not serious about cutting spending. Reagan grew the government more than Carter or Clinton — but not as much as Bush, Jr.

    You are partially correct. There were budgets with deficits as we set out to destroy the USSR. That was by design. That earned the peace dividend of the 90′s that Bill Clinton richly and unfairly took credit for, when we reduced the military back to pre-1980′s levels, because forces of that size were unneeded.

    Reagan did not grow government during his term. The Democrat Congress grew the government for the most part over Reagan’s objections, which he virtually could not veto.

    Jindahl or Palin with a Conservative Congress….. now you’re talkin’!

95. #195
    On February 24th, 2009 at 5:08 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

    Jindahl or Palin with a Conservative Congress….. now you’re talkin’!

    True. It’s just too bad GWB wasn’t conservative, Denny Hastert was a crook, and Bill Frist had no balls. We wouldn’t be careening down the path toward Socialism right now.

96. #196
    On February 24th, 2009 at 5:14 pm, Major O said:

    I readily confess that economics is not my strong suit whatsoever so I tread lightly here, HOWEVER… LOL

    Seriously, though, I thought at its most basic, the idea is to allow scarce resources (in the case in point, money) to be allocated to its most productive use. When the government taxes producers, it takes resources that would normally be allocated to more efficient usage into inefficient usage.
    Does Obama’s “stimulus” plan reduce the tax burden for producers so that their monetary resources are freed up for saving, investing, or purchasing raw materials…or whatever the more efficient use is? That’s what I don’t hear a clear answer to.

    Also, even if it does, how does that reconcile with the “make work” part of the plan, which is taxpayer funded, so it simply drains the taxpayers monetary resources on production that isn’t subject to market forces? Again, a redirection of resources into a less efficient use. And it doesn’t mitigate it that it is borrowed against future taxpayers–it still seems to be unhelpful.

97. #197
    On February 24th, 2009 at 5:16 pm, Major O said:

    When one thinks about it, isn’t the very existence of a tax deduction for mortgage interest, a huge form of social engineering?

    I think you’re absolutely right. It is a way of encouraging home ownership. As another for instance, so are marriage-friendly tax laws.

98. #198
    On February 24th, 2009 at 5:33 pm, conservativesRus said:

    On February 24th, 2009 at 4:55 pm, chapoutier said:

    Chap – if the equipment improves their their bottom line independent of tax consequences – then they should buy it. If it improves their bottom line ONLY because of tax consequences, then they are being subsidized by others.
    My second point: If a company hires a person instead of buying equipment to accomplish a necessary task because of the “stimulus”/tax credit/whatever else you want to call it, then the company has in fact made a rational economic decision. However, that rational economic decision substitutes labor for a machine – which is seldom optimal productivity. So in fact, government has gotten in the way of increasing the value of USA.

99. #199
    On February 24th, 2009 at 5:39 pm, txvet2 said:

    On February 24th, 2009 at 5:33 pm, conservativesRus said:

    Interesting debate, but it ignores a basic point. If the corporate/business tax rate were zero, as it should be, none of this would be a consideration.

100. #200
     On February 24th, 2009 at 5:42 pm, undresiege said:

     On February 24th, 2009 at 3:39 pm, PKAmmoTroop drooled with glazed, teary eyes:

     Reagan was too much of a humanitarian and a gentleman and realized that some people depend on government and wouldn’t veto a budget for purely partisan reasons (Like Bill Clinton) because that would diminish the stature of the office of the President (Like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton did)

     What is this? Is it a Messiah Complex? Is it idol worship? Does it show extreme signs of immaturity, and intellectual dishonesty. Is it all of the above?

     White responds:

     All insults aside, the presidents dont have to sign any budget they dont like. A gentleman/humanitarian does not saddle future generations with debt. And if democrats lied to him and got away with it repeatedly, does he not share blame for trusting them ? What happened to trust but verify.

     I doubt I agree with White’s politics, but he’s smart and honest on this thread. Hey PKAmmo, please respond to post #146 if you dare.