Jon Huntsman takes another match to the bridge connecting him to the GOP

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Huntsman is so brave.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/02/1070070/-The-Myths-That-Are-Killing-Us

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Laffer curve is quite real, but it doesn't say that all tax cuts increase tax revenue.  The JFK tax cuts (from a top rate of 91% to 70%, bottom rate of 20% to 14%) and the first set of Reagan tax cuts (70% to 50% and 14% to 12%) were along the parts of the Laffer curve that increased tax revenue.  Since then, they've either been roughly neutral or revenue losers.

It's worth pointing out thought that in spite of the factual evidence to the contrary, many conservatives (and IIRC even Laffer himself) are arguing even today we're still operating "above" the optimum point of the curve.

As in to say taxes are still too high?

Yes, saying that taxes are still so high that cutting them would increase tax revenue.

The objective is not to increase tax revenue. The objective is to return as much income as possible to the rightful holders of said income (i.e., taxpayers) while maintaining a government committed to national defense, law/order, basic infrastructure, and promised obligations (e.g., Social Security/Medicare and long-term fiscal stability). There is a role for government, but that does not mean it is the be-all and end-all of our lives.

Of course having high middle class taxes or borrowing money to pay for tax cuts for the rich is perfectly OK.

Romney is going to cut taxes for every tax bracket by 20%, right across-the-board, so if you feel the middle class is being taxed too much right now you can blame Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress.

We are going to stop the debilitating game of borrowing $1+ trillion/annually and kicking the can down the road, onto the next president, once Mitt Romney is in the White House. Fiscal responsibility at the federal level will be restored via spending cuts and transfers to the states. Too bad if California and Illinois go bankrupt. Democrats in California and Illinois will have nobody to blame but themselves. Some people will vote with their feet. Other people will vote their Democrat politicians out of power in California and Illinois. Then the Romney Administration will help both states, and state Republicans will restore responsibility to these out-of-control liberal bastions.

Isn't passing the buck to the states basically the same as kicking the can down the road? That's not going to help the states. Cutting taxes while increasing military spending isn't a recipe for helping deficits. Bush was supposed to be some sort of fiscal conservative MBA and he turned surpluses into huge deficits.


OK, I'll blame myself for having a Republican President for most of the last decade and Propositions like Prop. 13 that restrict California's ability to balance a budget.

[Politico]

Huntsman is so brave.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/02/1070070/-The-Myths-That-Are-Killing-Us

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Laffer curve is quite real, but it doesn't say that all tax cuts increase tax revenue.  The JFK tax cuts (from a top rate of 91% to 70%, bottom rate of 20% to 14%) and the first set of Reagan tax cuts (70% to 50% and 14% to 12%) were along the parts of the Laffer curve that increased tax revenue.  Since then, they've either been roughly neutral or revenue losers.

It's worth pointing out thought that in spite of the factual evidence to the contrary, many conservatives (and IIRC even Laffer himself) are arguing even today we're still operating "above" the optimum point of the curve.

As in to say taxes are still too high?

Yes, saying that taxes are still so high that cutting them would increase tax revenue.

The objective is not to increase tax revenue. The objective is to return as much income as possible to the rightful holders of said income (i.e., taxpayers) while maintaining a government committed to national defense, law/order, basic infrastructure, and promised obligations (e.g., Social Security/Medicare and long-term fiscal stability). There is a role for government, but that does not mean it is the be-all and end-all of our lives.

Of course having high middle class taxes or borrowing money to pay for tax cuts for the rich is perfectly OK.

Romney is going to cut taxes for every tax bracket by 20%, right across-the-board, so if you feel the middle class is being taxed too much right now you can blame Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress.

We are going to stop the debilitating game of borrowing $1+ trillion/annually and kicking the can down the road, onto the next president, once Mitt Romney is in the White House. Fiscal responsibility at the federal level will be restored via spending cuts and transfers to the states. Too bad if California and Illinois go bankrupt. Democrats in California and Illinois will have nobody to blame but themselves. Some people will vote with their feet. Other people will vote their Democrat politicians out of power in California and Illinois. Then the Romney Administration will help both states, and state Republicans will restore responsibility to these out-of-control liberal bastions.

Isn't passing the buck to the states basically the same as kicking the can down the road?

Absolutely not. With the exception of Vermont, every state needs to balance its budget each year. In other words, the elected representatives of states will decide what is worth paying for and what is not. People will vote with their feet. It is the only fair way to find out what people are willing to pay for, and what they are not willing to pay for.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, if we were not coupling this with massive spending cuts elsewhere and transfers to the states. And the increases in military spending may not even happen. It will likely be a shifting of resources within the military so we have more of an emphasis upon research & development, where we can create lots of positive spillover effects for the economy in the medium/long-run (e.g., think of how the Internet, GPS technology, touch-screen technology, etc., all of which began with the military, have transformed our lives/economy).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bush is not on the ballot in 2012. Romney is a very different leader from Bush. This election is about Obama, not Bush.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

California does not know how to be fiscally responsible, and its day of reckoning will come sooner or later. Their way of doing things is, ironically, unsustainable. We might as well expedite the bankruptcy via state transfers. Then the state can be repaired by responsible Republicans, like the type you will find in many areas of Orange County.

[Chaddyr23]

Huntsman basically says he wasn't man enough to agree to 10:1 cuts and basically says yeah Romney will be better?! Sorry, but I'm going to call him for what he is: a chicken. He wasn't man enough to hold his own and defend the positions he believed in. Him and Charlie Crist should hang out together

[The Mikado]

Huntsman is so brave.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/02/1070070/-The-Myths-That-Are-Killing-Us

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Laffer curve is quite real, but it doesn't say that all tax cuts increase tax revenue.  The JFK tax cuts (from a top rate of 91% to 70%, bottom rate of 20% to 14%) and the first set of Reagan tax cuts (70% to 50% and 14% to 12%) were along the parts of the Laffer curve that increased tax revenue.  Since then, they've either been roughly neutral or revenue losers.

It's worth pointing out thought that in spite of the factual evidence to the contrary, many conservatives (and IIRC even Laffer himself) are arguing even today we're still operating "above" the optimum point of the curve.

As in to say taxes are still too high?

Yes, saying that taxes are still so high that cutting them would increase tax revenue.

At the end of the day, Laffer's statement isn't so much wrong as it is inane, considering that it ends up boiling down to "somewhere between 0% and 100% there is a tax rate that will get maximum revenue, more revenue than any point higher and lower."  Well, yeah.  But that gives no useful information in determining what that point is.

[LastVoter]

Huntsman is so brave.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/02/1070070/-The-Myths-That-Are-Killing-Us

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Laffer curve is quite real, but it doesn't say that all tax cuts increase tax revenue.  The JFK tax cuts (from a top rate of 91% to 70%, bottom rate of 20% to 14%) and the first set of Reagan tax cuts (70% to 50% and 14% to 12%) were along the parts of the Laffer curve that increased tax revenue.  Since then, they've either been roughly neutral or revenue losers.

It's worth pointing out thought that in spite of the factual evidence to the contrary, many conservatives (and IIRC even Laffer himself) are arguing even today we're still operating "above" the optimum point of the curve.

As in to say taxes are still too high?

Yes, saying that taxes are still so high that cutting them would increase tax revenue.

The objective is not to increase tax revenue. The objective is to return as much income as possible to the rightful holders of said income (i.e., rich) while still collecting enough tax revenue to maintain a government committed to keeping social order to prevent poors from overthrowing the rich. The endgame is for rich to own as much as they can.

There is a role for government, but that does not mean it is the be-all and end-all of our lives.

3 small fixes to help the reader understand the code.

[Politico]

Huntsman is so brave.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/02/1070070/-The-Myths-That-Are-Killing-Us

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Laffer curve is quite real, but it doesn't say that all tax cuts increase tax revenue.  The JFK tax cuts (from a top rate of 91% to 70%, bottom rate of 20% to 14%) and the first set of Reagan tax cuts (70% to 50% and 14% to 12%) were along the parts of the Laffer curve that increased tax revenue.  Since then, they've either been roughly neutral or revenue losers.

It's worth pointing out thought that in spite of the factual evidence to the contrary, many conservatives (and IIRC even Laffer himself) are arguing even today we're still operating "above" the optimum point of the curve.

As in to say taxes are still too high?

Yes, saying that taxes are still so high that cutting them would increase tax revenue.

The objective is not to increase tax revenue. The objective is to return as much income as possible to the rightful holders of said income (i.e., rich) while still collecting enough tax revenue to maintain a government committed to keeping social order to prevent poors from overthrowing the rich. The endgame is for rich to own as much as they can.

There is a role for government, but that does not mean it is the be-all and end-all of our lives.

3 small fixes to help the reader understand the code.

Democrats protect the rich via barriers whether they be in the form of taxation, regulations, protectionism, etc. The big lie pushed by Democrats is that the natural laws of economics can be legislated away (if only it were that easy). Instead, Democrats use legislation to protect and give preferential treatment to their wealthy donors, and then accuse their opponents of doing exactly that. In comparison, Republicans promote competition and choice in our economy, ensuring a higher level of economic freedom than otherwise. An unintended, but welcome, consequence is the possibility of greater economic mobility than under a system of barriers such as the one described in my first sentence.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The objective is not to increase tax revenue. The objective is to return as much income as possible to the rightful holders of said income (i.e., taxpayers) while still collecting enough tax revenue to maintain a government committed to national defense, law/order, basic infrastructure, and fulfilling promised obligations (e.g., Social Security/Medicare and long-term fiscal stability). The endgame is economic freedom, personal liberty, and a fiscally responsible, minimalist government.

There is a role for government, but that does not mean it is the be-all and end-all of our lives.

It all sounds nice, but it doesn't change the fact that the government is spending more than it is receiving taxes, and that Romney doesn't give any meaningful specifics on what spending he would cut.  We can no longer afford to play the usual game of tax cuts today, spending cuts to pay for them tomorrow, because tomorrow never comes.