The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Investing/Strategies / Armchair Economists
|Subject: Re: So, how about that||Date: 11/1/2011 4:09 PM|
|Author: willisworn||Number: 1997 of 2001|
Posting about how unhappy I was about the overspending during 2003-04 in his first term [if not earlier, but circa 2003ish], and also posting about how unhappy I was about the Prescription Drug benefit, and also writing letters to the WH complaining about them, in addition to posting all those complaints right here at TMF.
You've never posted anything critical of Bush.
The difference, is under Bush the deficit was a trivial percentage of GDP, not 10% year after year.
Yeah, Obama inherited a recession. How can you possibly compare the two? Please don't embarrass yourself further by bringing up 2001 again.
We've even been over this before a few months ago:
Which I ignored because you didn't address the question, which was about tax avoidance.
It is theoretically IMPOSSIBLE for tax cuts to generate more revenue without relying on tax avoidance loopholes. Even Reagan's biggest defenders will allow that "increased revenues" had something to do with reporting more income.
If it's not, answer me this: what does the velocity of money have to increase in order to offset a n% decrease in tax rates?
|Copyright 1996-2013 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|