There's nothing in Krugman's figures that disproves trzaska's point, on the contrary.
I wonder if we look at Krugman's number the same way. trzaska's point was that tax cuts were so successful that we've seen jump in revenue (or in revenue grows, or whatever) and so we need to continue this experiment.
Krugman proved it to be wrong - tax cutes resulted in decline of revenue grows. The grows that trzaska's was so exciting about resulted from nothing more than population and inflation grows. According to Krugman's number, if we didn't cut the taxes, we would've seen even bigger grows than that. This kinda defeats the whole point trzaska's was trying to make.
This message last edited by Skeeve the Great on 16/04/2011 at 11:37:53 PM
Several basics facts about US Debt and Spending.....
16/04/2011 04:41:55 AM
- 1127 Views
Guess we should have okay'd those death panels for old people then. Big money saver. *NM*
16/04/2011 03:38:00 PM
- 331 Views
Balancing our budget would be easy.
16/04/2011 06:46:32 PM
- 580 Views
Several of those aren't as easy as you make it sound, but the import tax is a big no-no.
16/04/2011 07:34:30 PM
- 803 Views
Also on the buying drugs from Canada idea
16/04/2011 08:17:26 PM
- 691 Views
Funny you mentioned WWII and 1968. Can you put tax rates at these times as well?
16/04/2011 07:50:09 PM
- 1071 Views
Not really. Even if you can substantially raise tax revenue, the entitlement problem remains. *NM*
16/04/2011 08:25:26 PM
- 289 Views
Re: Not really. Even if you can substantially raise tax revenue, the entitlement problem remains.
16/04/2011 09:19:40 PM
- 735 Views
Have you ever looked at those projections for a decade or two hence?
16/04/2011 10:13:12 PM
- 676 Views
Yes I have
16/04/2011 10:44:50 PM
- 805 Views
Erm, and you think total health care spending is not getting out of control? I'm a little confused.
16/04/2011 11:02:52 PM
- 736 Views
Exactly. Cutting back on fraud and waste doesn't really put much of a dent in those projections. *NM*
17/04/2011 02:31:13 AM
- 271 Views
Sorry, but that is a stupid opinion.....
16/04/2011 08:38:35 PM
- 643 Views
Sounds like another bull.
16/04/2011 09:31:05 PM
- 912 Views
Dude, the data is the data.....tax revenue increased all three times.
16/04/2011 09:47:37 PM
- 852 Views
As I suspected, it's a bull.
16/04/2011 10:02:05 PM
- 785 Views
Stop being a fool - read and react to the data provided, posting something.....
16/04/2011 10:14:11 PM
- 545 Views
Response is
16/04/2011 10:19:00 PM
- 766 Views
Good lord.....it's like talking to a brick. I really hope you are 12 or 13.
16/04/2011 10:28:44 PM
- 761 Views
Re: Good lord.....it's like talking to a brick. I really hope you are 12 or 13.
16/04/2011 10:47:24 PM
- 722 Views
I take it you mean "rate of revenue growth decreases".
16/04/2011 11:11:19 PM
- 621 Views
Additional point
16/04/2011 11:37:17 PM
- 774 Views
It's not remarkable that revenue increased after the Reagan cuts.
17/04/2011 07:21:47 PM
- 944 Views
I've just noticed that you've provided charts from Heritage Foundation! Are you f.. kidding me?
16/04/2011 10:13:46 PM
- 643 Views
All the data is via CBO - do you know that the CBO is?
16/04/2011 10:16:08 PM
- 653 Views
Re: All the data is via CBO - do you know that the CBO is?
16/04/2011 10:27:01 PM
- 768 Views
Nice try.....care to explain why the same exact thing happened.....
16/04/2011 10:35:44 PM
- 581 Views
Re: Nice try.....care to explain why the same exact thing happened.....
16/04/2011 10:49:33 PM
- 711 Views
Krugman is a shill for the Obama administration.
17/04/2011 02:34:50 AM
- 594 Views
Re: Krugman is a shill for the Obama administration.
17/04/2011 03:50:24 AM
- 817 Views
Some obesrvations by Republican economists
18/04/2011 12:27:04 AM
- 951 Views
You mean the Keynesian economist who wrote The Failure of Reaganomics
18/04/2011 04:00:52 PM
- 583 Views
Re: You mean the Keynesian economist who wrote The Failure of Reaganomics
18/04/2011 05:36:44 PM
- 572 Views
You use Krugman and then complain about the Heritage Foundation! Are you f.. kidding me? *NM*
18/04/2011 02:46:47 AM
- 305 Views