- Joined
- Nov 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,950
- Reaction score
- 19,685
- Location
- Rocky Mtn. High
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
the Laffer curve takes into consideration human factor
yes, what is your point?
the Laffer curve takes into consideration human factor
yes, what is your point?
which is why i want to cut their power by repealing the 17th amendment
So 2 + 2 = 4 is a "cherry picked" fact?
Um, that was an "example" MR uses all the time.....and Incisor isn't around to explain that to you or to respond in any manner. In short, this was a miss-targeted and pointless post.As if things like macroeconomics extrapolated from something so mundane as 2+2. It doesn't take things like the chaos that is human behavior into account. Your example is unhelpful, not applicable, and dishonest.
Um, that was an "example" MR uses all the time.....and Incisor isn't around to explain that to you or to respond in any manner. In short, this was a miss-targeted and pointless post.
Nor were you able to see he has been banned, apparently words are beyond comprehension.Sorry I wasn't able to use my psychic abilities to know your bff was gone.
No one said it was, non-sequitur. The point was that MR uses meaningless comments like that ALL THE TIME, and it was used as a device to show the hypocrisy of MR's fact avoidance.That aside, the topic isn't 2+2.
No kidding.....and you think Incisor did not know that?It's more complicated than that.
I never knew that "unfunded liabilities" were a means to "stimulate economic growth". Do you often find that such dazzling incongruity wins debate?However, if you want to look at things like our unfunded liabilities, instead of predicted what may or may not stimulate economic growth, then 2+2 becomes much more relevant.
False, revenues often fall, completely independent of tax rates.Fact is, government revenues have always gone up, even if taxes are lowered.
OK, yes, but that doesn't support yer previous line that "revenues have ALWAYS gone up".The cyclic booms and busts have more of an effect of (sic) government revenues than taxes.
The point was that MR uses meaningless comments like that ALL THE TIME, and it was used as a device to show the hypocrisy of MR's fact avoidance.
No kidding.....and you think Incisor did not know that? I never knew that "unfunded liabilities" were a means to "stimulate economic growth". Do you often find that such dazzling incongruity wins debate?
False, revenues often fall, completely independent of tax rates.OK, yes, but that doesn't support yer previous line that "revenues have ALWAYS gone up".
Beyond this, Incisor was debating the Housing Crash...
Uh, yeah, correctly too. What is yer point?You're attributing what someone said to someone else.
Apparently you didn't even read a post or two further on where MR once again post his identity BS. I'll excuse not knowing MR, I won't excuse your inability to see something on the same page used again.No one made said banned person post that so they are speaking for themselves. You're false attribution to MR is noted.
He wasn't using it as a macro device, he was using it as a device to show MR's hypocrisy.I was simply pointing out what areas of the economy where 2+2 would be more applicable.
I'm not into you like that, so find another.......and yer basic problem is the shallowness of your understanding of what was being done.Nothing more, nothing less. Don't read too much into it, sugar.
It is FALSE, we have many examples of revenue declines.No, not false. Revenues always go up.
Good grief, you just shot down yer absolute.....but you insist:There can be things the (sic) temporarily reduce it
Your absolute was false, your qualifier makes no difference.but, again, those are due to booms and busts and not the tax rate.
Again, yer absolute was false. Admit it and move on.Ultimately, the temporary setback stops and revenues go up. Federal revenues are now higher than they've ever been.
Again, yer absolute was false. Admit it and move on.