I addressed a couple things.

You are just weakly parroting 'spend and consume as fast as possible on anything = good, save and invest = bad, who cares about producing and accumulating anything real?' theory, (while misrepresenting what happens to money not paid in taxes, and making sweeping false claims about tax cuts not supported by most economic studies as i mentioned..) thats been contested and attacked and debated at length by other, legitimate economists for decades.
Conveniently you manage to leave this stuff out and declare it the one true god of economics.
we're not going to be able to sort this out for mankind here.

(especially when you are primarily concerned with alinskyite tactics rather than actual understanding)

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Dec 4 2017 05:10pm

he actually argued against income taxes by citing sales taxes
his effort there should he applauded

Hoo boy that's a lot of shit skinned never said.

Almost like you're building a Steadman

Just like Oprah did

source? if tax cuts works so well why not go all the way like kansas did?
kansas was a failed experiment in precisely this kind of policy and even kansas republicans are telling the country not to repeat their mistakes https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/tax-trump-kansas/542532/
and look there's even a mises article with libertarian apologetics reframing it as a success by ignoring the impact to the citizenry and blaming the govt
https://mises.org/blog/why-kansass-tax-cut-failure-really-success

its almost like its possible to make inferences from what someone says and know the theories they are talking about and have a pretty good idea of where thet are coming from after years of discussion :thinking emoji:

I'm building a snowman

lol

Nah, any time anybody makes even the slightest inference from what you say, you go balistic.

You're doing exactly to him what you hate others doing to you, and doing it worse since you're going off far less.

example:
https://taxfoundation.org/what-evidence-taxes-and-growth/


Kansas didn't go 'all the way'. they had a small decrease in state income tax and some other carve outs.



If you define the success or failure of an economic policy and concept as wide ranging as tax rates based on whether one state government has a short term deficit/problem or not regardless of other factors you are doing it wrong.
The success of government revenue raising is not the same thing as good/bad economic policy.
Cutting some forms of taxes isn't the sole determinant of prosperity and everything nice. Kansas doesn't prove that tax cuts are inherently bad, just that you might run a deficit if you cut taxes and increase spending, and some other related points.

the mises article is there for anyone to read. dismissing it as 'apologetics' doesnt make what it says any less true.


oy.. not the whiny false equivalence BS again..
if skinned feels something is catastrophically misinterpreted i encourage him to clarify it.

im pretty sure skinned and I both have a pretty good idea of whats going on

i read the mises article but i'm not religious so i don't buy into the hack piece failure to own the results of policies they support, hell the article boldly states the tax cuts were good for economic growth - just not economic growth for kansas - which begs the question why the fk should kansas consider slashing taxes like that in the first place if they won't get the benefits?
an economic policy calling for wide ranging tax cuts leading to shortfall in tax revenue leading to schools being closed due to a lack of funding is an abominable failure in economic policy

This post was edited by duffman316 on Dec 4 2017 06:19pm