Comments on: Just Change His Name To Cracky McCrackerton

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 23:01:01 +0000

OK, Quaker, I will put the ball back in your court: Exactly where and when has the question of tax decreases ever revolved about anything else but their ability to raise revenues (an increase in revenues thereby representing an improved economy)?

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Sun, 15 Jan 2006 02:01:51 +0000

And no, Frank the question has not always Won t reducing tax rates reduce revenues .

Farris’ assertion was “supply side works as evidenced by…the evidence.” That’s the question under discussion here.

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Sun, 15 Jan 2006 02:01:12 +0000

The question has alway been: Won t reducing tax rates reduce revenues , and the answer to that question, when there have been tax rate reductions, has always been No.

And the opposite is true also. Raising tax rates often results in record high revenues. So Farris’ “evidence” isn’t evidence of anything.

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Sat, 14 Jan 2006 21:01:55 +0000

Record high revenues over 50 years must needs include far too many variables to discuss here: Changes in Minimum and Maximum Tax, changes in filing statuses (i.e., Head of Household, the ability to itemize deductions for children in college), differences in taxable pensions, partial taxation of unemployment, etc., etc., etc.

The question has alway been: “Won’t reducing tax rates reduce revenues“, and the answer to that question, when there have been tax rate reductions, has always been “No.”

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 19:01:24 +0000

You may trust that I’ll examine your “evidence” dispassionately.

Haw.

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 19:01:14 +0000

Supply-side works. As evidenced by & the evidence!

“Record high revenues” is not evidence. As I have already mentioned, the federal government has achieved record highs 45 times since 1950, in times of rising taxes, falling taxes, and unchanging taxes.

If you have been otherwise misled by supply-side hucksters into accepting their quackery in place of actual evidence, please feel free to reveal the depths of your gullibility.

By: SaveFarris

SaveFarris — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 13:01:58 +0000

Well, no one person speaks for “the right”. We’ve got such a big tent when everyone from Arnold Scharzenegger & Rudy Gulianai to Ralph Reed & Ann Coulter is included, so it’s hard, if not impossible, to speak for everyone when there’s so many stances on a multitude of issues. It’s much easier to find spokesmen for “the left” because yall’s tent is small and getting smaller (if the ‘throw out Lieberman’ drive is any indication).

And yes. Supply-side works. As evidenced by … the evidence!

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 23:01:43 +0000

So, just because there s no longer any evidence to back up the assertion that tax cuts for the rich are causing deficits , you now say the issue is lame ?

You’d have to take that up with the Congressional Budget Office. When they estimated the impact of the tax cuts, they caluclated a significant negative impact on the budget deficit.

Or were you trying to argue that “supply-side” hooey?

Anyway…

“member of” is not the same as “speaks for.” When I said the people on that list “don’t speak for the right,” I was just trying to remember what I had heard. Seems like whenever anybody is held up as typical of conservative thinking, someone will say, “Well, you don’t really think he speaks for the right, do you?”

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 21:01:56 +0000

Instapundit
National Review
Michael Barone
Hugh Hewitt
Real Clear Politics
Little Green Footballs
Scott McClellan (speaking for Bush)

I know those names from somewhere….

Oh yeah! Aren’t those the people who “don’t speak for the right”?

By: SaveFarris

SaveFarris — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 21:01:47 +0000

So, just because there’s no longer any evidence to back up the assertion that “tax cuts for the rich are causing deficits”, you now say the issue is “lame”? Where were you when the argument was originally made? Hmmm??

(Yes, we’ve officially wandered WAY off topic. I’d love to expound in another thread, if only Oliver could find a shred of evidence that the economy might not be doing gangbusters and build a post around it. [I know, it's hard nowadays with all the fantastic news...])

Anyway…

Insta doesn’t speak for “the right”, though that never stops lefties from saying he does when it’s convenient. Anyone who thinks NR and Hugh don’t track with the “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” is out of their gourd.

And Bush isn’t a member of the right? Try telling the owner of this website.

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 21:01:18 +0000

C’mon Farris…

“Revenues hit an all-time record”? Lame.

Revenues have hit an “all-time record” in 46 out of the last 55 years. (For bonus points: Four of the years when we didn’t hit a new record came under which president?)

By: SaveFarris

SaveFarris — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 21:01:09 +0000

While I await moderation, Google will tell you that the following Righties have weighed in on the “good” Rev.:

Instapundit
National Review
Michael Barone
Hugh Hewitt
Real Clear Politics
Little Green Footballs
Scott McClellan (speaking for Bush)

While you’re Googling those, keep in mind that all those tax cuts for Paris Hilton and Bill Gates … worked!

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 20:01:50 +0000

our disavowel of Pat Robertson

Deal. Be sure and let us know when that happens.

By: SaveFarris

SaveFarris — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 19:01:14 +0000

We’ll consider your disavowel of Mayor Marion … just as soon as you recognize our disavowel of Pat Robertson.

By: factcheck

factcheck — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 18:01:19 +0000

“I’m not a racist but I play one at Oliverwillis.com”

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 17:01:52 +0000

I wouldn t want to be accused of racism, but I ll bet I can tell you why he s untouchable.
Can you say O.J.?

*cough*

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 17:01:37 +0000

OK, factcheck, I ll say it, Marion Berry is untouchable because he he is B-L-A-C-K.

*urk!*

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 15:01:15 +0000

Factcheck, changing the subject doesn’t make you right.
I said Berry is getting a free ride, because he is black.
I’m sure if he were about 20 years old, and his father was a working stiff, he’d be in jail, whether he was white or black.
So put the big “racist paint brush” away. I’m not wearing it, thanks.

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 14:01:34 +0000

OK, factcheck, I’ll say it, Marion Berry is untouchable because he he is B-L-A-C-K.
Call me a racist, call me a sweet potato, I don’t care.
If he was white, he’d be history.

Dick Morris was caught with a prostitute, not even smoking crack, and he had to resign.

By: factcheck

factcheck — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 14:01:09 +0000

Yea, Frank, those black people always escape conviction for their crimes. That’s why there are no black people in prison.