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

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So basically he's Chuck Hagel? Another right-wing Republican who says some sane things sometimes.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[○∙◄☻¥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.