Whether or not you believe a word I say is irrelevant to me because all I see here is someone who spent most of their time with their nose in a book and is out of touch with reality and the real world. Doubt that you have added anything of value to the economy.
Your perception of me is irrelevant to this discussion. You have consistently disagreed on the basis of opinion, providing limited (at best) statistical analysis.
You provide a lot of generalities and never any specifics. What exactly has Fox News promoted that is inaccurate or perverted? I await for something of value from you.
In the red, you engage in the same manner of which i am being accused of. :lol: Political pundits on Fox News have repeatedly stated that increased payroll taxes increase the cost of labor. You claim to have ran a large business; if a person is making $40/hr and their tax bracket jumps by 3%, is the company paying anything more than $40/hr as a result of the payroll tax increase?
I have posted actual data from non partisan sites and you counter with some textbook answer that doesn’t relate to reality.
You have provided claims in regards to raw data, and your analysis in no way supports those claims. Time to step up!
Translation: I have spent my life buried in a textbook. What you ignore is that tax cuts allow people to keep more of their money and is not related to the govt. spending more money. Individuals have no control over what politicians spend and individuals don’t have the ability to cut govt. spending. Individuals do have the opportunity to spend more of their own money when the govt. allows them to keep more.
Typical response. Attack me on a personal level and then repeat the same old rhetoric. I never doubted that individuals have the opportunnity to spend more given tax cuts, only that increased private spending does not always result from tax cuts, e.g. the Bush Tax Cuts.
What I showed is that GDP growth occurs when people spend more of what they earn
You have yet to provide the forum with anything that supports the notion that tax cuts result in people spending more of what they earn. On the contrary, there is an amazing amount of literature showing that people save more when tax cuts are funded via deficits (cutting taxes while increasing spending).
and that when people get to keep more take home pay human behavior kicks in and that is shown in consumer spending, the largest by far component of GDP.
Do your best to provide data and analysis that contends that increases in consumer spending are the result of tax cuts. As a rule consumption increases, as real wages increase.
Tax cuts funded by deficit spending do not increase real wages.
That promotes higher corporate profits thus higher taxes and also promotes higher demand thus more jobs.
Only if you assume the nominal value of the tax cuts are spent in the real economy.
Something interesting to note; what happens when tax cuts are spent in the real economy, but the trajectory flows into an asset bubble such as real estate?
Nothing I posted was contradicted by my post. Govt. doesn’t have to make a profit, never has and never will.
Agreed.
It just prints more money.
Incorrect, money is created in banks.
There is no comparison between the U.S. Post Office and FedEx or UPS.
They operate in the same market, yet despite the fact that the post office does not have to show a profit, UPS ad FedEx do rather well.
The U.S. Post Office was created by the Federal Govt. and is funded by the Federal Govt. They answer to know one and constantly run in the red.
Agreed, but how does this support your statement?
No business is ever going to compete against a Federal entity as that would be like a duck competing with an alligator.
Incorrect. UPS and FedEx compete with the U.S. Post Office on a daily basis.
That is the goal of liberals and they are doing that incrementally by putting in place a healthcare program destined to fail.
This belongs in the conspiracy theory subforum. The goal of liberals is to harm people:shock:
When 30-40 million more people are unable to get quality service and that puts added pressure on an already burdened private system, these people will be crying of a govt. solution and thus here comes the single payer system.
A single payer system requires government to assume any and all health care costs for all citizens regardless of income. I am not arguing for such a system, so lay off of the red herring.
No, get out in the real world a little bit more and see what is really going on.
You are in no position to make a determination of what i do when i am not posting on this message board. Can you make it a point to refrain from bringing up your perception of me, and instead focus on the actual discussion? After all, it is the mature thing to do.
