NYT Op-Ed: Eliminate corporate tax rate, but not because of supply-side nonsense

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: NYT Op-Ed: Eliminate corporate tax rate, but not because of supply-side nonsense

    You might find that implementing this idea would probably have massive positive unintended consequences.

    Therefore, it will not be done.

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: NYT Op-Ed: Eliminate corporate tax rate, but not because of supply-side nonsense

    Kudos, even the private sector -bashing NY Times realizes that tax reform of our insane system is essential.

    "I, like many economists, suspect that our corporate income tax is economically self-defeating — hurting workers, not capitalists, and collecting precious little revenue to boot."

    So what? It made liberals feel good  to make those greedy corporations pay with those high rates, didnt it? 

    The author can feel free to delude himself into believing he isnt supporting any crazy  "supply side" economics or anything....but what he is saying is, let the private sector make business decisions free from the idiotic confiscatory tax rates that encourage business to locate overseas...sounds conservative...shhhhh.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: NYT Op-Ed: Eliminate corporate tax rate, but not because of supply-side nonsense

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    The author can feel free to delude himself into believing he isnt supporting any crazy  "supply side" economics or anything....but what he is saying is, let the private sector make business decisions free from the idiotic confiscatory tax rates that encourage business to locate overseas...sounds conservative...shhhhh.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    He isn't making a supply side economics argument. You simply did not read or are incapable of understanding what he wrote.

     

    Supply side's position would be that eliminating the corporate tax rate and doing nothing else would spur investment so much that government would gain revenue and corporations would raise peoples' salaries because they're so nice like that.

    In contrast to a supply-sider, the author recognized that eliminating or reducing the tax would cause government to lose revenue. That's why he/they modeled multiple ways of mitigating it with other tax increases.

     

    You'll have to make your way to the second half of the article for that

    [/QUOTE]

    He makes a declarative statement that this is not a supply side move, then doesn't back it up.  He does say the impact is the result of high elasticity of lowering the tax to zero, leading to greater private sector investment, which sounds like a probable result predictable using the Laffer Curve to me, but let's put that aside.

    Let's call it "Other than Demand Side" economics.  Works for you?

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: NYT Op-Ed: Eliminate corporate tax rate, but not because of supply-side nonsense

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    And ...business sector "free to make decisions" without a "confiscatory tax"?

     

     You do realize that governments need money to run, right? That they have to rely on taxes as opposed to voluntary donation?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The author was smart enough to spoon feed the sensitive Government-worshippers who read the NY Times.....they could stomach a proposal to lower tax rates to greedy private sector business, but only if they immediately are informed their beloved Nanny State cant lose a penny of its revenue...if not , the public sector union protesters would be outside the NY Times office in a heartbeat, whining about 'saving the children'.... 

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: NYT Op-Ed: Eliminate corporate tax rate, but not because of supply-side nonsense

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    And ...business sector "free to make decisions" without a "confiscatory tax"?

     

     

     

    You do realize that governments need money to run, right? That they have to rely on taxes as opposed to voluntary donation?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yah, but our government is running on China's money, so who cares?

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: NYT Op-Ed: Eliminate corporate tax rate, but not because of supply-side nonsense


    I would support eliminating corporate taxes if they forgo claiming certain constutitional rights such as the right to contribute to political campaigns.

    And raising the capital gains tax rate.  the argument in the past for a low capital gains tax rate was that the money had already been taxed at the corporate level. 

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: NYT Op-Ed: Eliminate corporate tax rate, but not because of supply-side nonsense


    Arguing that elimation of the tax would yield higher wages seems like trickle down to me.  We're doing it now, and it aint working.  The opposite is happening.....poverty is trickling down.

    I wonder if this professor has plugged in the tax rates for the 30 years after WW2 into his model?  We know from history (not theories) that this period was prosperous.  And the prosperity came at a time of very high tax rates on corporations and individuals.  If his model doesn't spit out a result of prosperity on that simple test, then you know his model is bogus.

     

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from twelve_angry_men. Show twelve_angry_men's posts

    Re: NYT Op-Ed: Eliminate corporate tax rate, but not because of supply-side nonsense

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:



    He makes a declarative statement that this is not a supply side move, then doesn't back it up.  He does say the impact is the result of high elasticity of lowering the tax to zero, leading to greater private sector investment, which sounds like a probable result predictable using the Laffer Curve to me, but let's put that aside.

    Let's call it "Other than Demand Side" economics.  Works for you?




    WOOOOSH.

    I guess you missed this paragraph.

    Making, rather than just stating, this case requires constructing a large-scale computer simulation model of the United States economy as it interacts over time with other nations’ economies, and then seeing how the model reacts when you change the American corporate income tax. I’ve developed such a model with three colleagues through the Tax Analysis Center, a nonpartisan research group. Our findings make a very strong, worker-based case for corporate tax reform.


    It's amazing how much information people miss when they read everything through the prism of partisan politics.

     

     

    And you do a mighty fine imitation of Guliani: A noun, a verb and the Laugher curve.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: NYT Op-Ed: Eliminate corporate tax rate, but not because of supply-side nonsense

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     sounds like a probable result predictable using the Laffer Curve to me

    [/QUOTE]


    Predictable using the Laffer Curve? 

    Hahahahaah! Oh man. Just the other week, you admitted that the laugher curve says only that at 0 and 100% tax rates there is zero government revenue, and somewhere inbetween, there is maximum government revenue.

    There is nothing remotely resembling agreement on the optimal point. Positions range from 15 to 70+% tax rates.

    You cannot predict anything with such a non-model.

     

     

    He said he wasn't making extreme "voodoo" supply-side assumptions, which is what supply siders generally do. That is, he isn't going to assume that the tax cut alone is going to generate so much wealth that it will offset the revenue loss. Hence the multiple paragraphs on other new taxes that would have to compensate it.

    He believes his models accurate, and he is reporting that overall things would be better by offsetting a removed corporate tax rate with other tax increases. That's not a supply-sider argument.

    [/QUOTE]

    Don't be thick.

    Eliminating the corporate tax means corporte tax is 0%, right?  Is not the government take at that point ZERO?

    So, in this case, no careful analysis is needed, right?  

    As far as the "voodoo" statement:  Let me know when "voodoo" has a specific economic term/definition.  Until then, my point stands.  He provides no back up.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: NYT Op-Ed: Eliminate corporate tax rate, but not because of supply-side nonsense

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    [QUOTE]

    He makes a declarative statement that this is not a supply side move, then doesn't back it up.  He does say the impact is the result of high elasticity of lowering the tax to zero, leading to greater private sector investment, which sounds like a probable result predictable using the Laffer Curve to me, but let's put that aside.

     

    Let's call it "Other than Demand Side" economics.  Works for you?

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    WOOOOSH.

    I guess you missed this paragraph.

    Making, rather than just stating, this case requires constructing a large-scale computer simulation model of the United States economy as it interacts over time with other nations’ economies, and then seeing how the model reacts when you change the American corporate income tax. I’ve developed such a model with three colleagues through the Tax Analysis Center, a nonpartisan research group. Our findings make a very strong, worker-based case for corporate tax reform.


    It's amazing how much information people miss when they read everything through the prism of partisan politics.

     

     

    And you do a mighty fine imitation of Guliani: A noun, a verb and the Laugher curve.

    [/QUOTE]

    Partisan politics, which is just what you and this so-called economist are doing.  He does exactly what supply side economics prescribes, and then declares that he didn't use any of that "voodoo" supply side economics?

    Talk about partisan.  I guess only people like you think that paragraph you posted makes sense in that it exonerates him from supply side economics BECAUSE HE TOLD YOU SO.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from twelve_angry_men. Show twelve_angry_men's posts

    Re: NYT Op-Ed: Eliminate corporate tax rate, but not because of supply-side nonsense

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     sounds like a probable result predictable using the Laffer Curve to me




    Predictable using the Laffer Curve? 

    Hahahahaah! Oh man. Just the other week, you admitted that the laugher curve says only that at 0 and 100% tax rates there is zero government revenue, and somewhere inbetween, there is maximum government revenue.

    There is nothing remotely resembling agreement on the optimal point. Positions range from 15 to 70+% tax rates.

    You cannot predict anything with such a non-model.

     

     

    He said he wasn't making extreme "voodoo" supply-side assumptions, which is what supply siders generally do. That is, he isn't going to assume that the tax cut alone is going to generate so much wealth that it will offset the revenue loss. Hence the multiple paragraphs on other new taxes that would have to compensate it.

    He believes his models accurate, and he is reporting that overall things would be better by offsetting a removed corporate tax rate with other tax increases. That's not a supply-sider argument.

    [/QUOTE]

    Don't be thick.

    Eliminating the corporate tax means corporte tax is 0%, right?  Is not the government take at that point ZERO?

    So, in this case, no careful analysis is needed, right?  

    As far as the "voodoo" statement:  Let me know when "voodoo" has a specific economic term/definition.  Until then, my point stands.  He provides no back up.

    [/QUOTE]

    Dude, seriously? Are you reading the same OP the rest of the world is?

    His model lays out scenarios, which always entail shifting the tax burden into another sector of the economy, and shows the resulting economic gain.

    The scenario of 0% corp taxes includes raising taxes on the shareholders enough to offset the loss revenue, which could be a substantial tax increase for some people.

     

     

    The size of the potential economic and welfare gains are stunningly large and don’t reflect any extreme supply-side (a k a, voodoo economics) assumptions. Fully eliminating the corporate income tax and replacing any loss in revenues with somewhat higher personal income tax rates leads to a huge short-run inflow of capital, raising the United States’ capital stock (machines and buildings) by 23 percent, output by 8 percent and the real wages of unskilled and skilled workers by 12 percent. Lowering the corporate rate tax to 9 percent while also closing loopholes is roughly revenue neutral and also produces very rapid increases in capital (by 17 percent), output (by 6 percent) and real wages (by 8 percent).

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: NYT Op-Ed: Eliminate corporate tax rate, but not because of supply-side nonsense

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Arguing that elimation of the tax would yield higher wages seems like trickle down to me.  We're doing it now, and it aint working.  The opposite is happening.....poverty is trickling down.

    I wonder if this professor has plugged in the tax rates for the 30 years after WW2 into his model?  We know from history (not theories) that this period was prosperous.  And the prosperity came at a time of very high tax rates on corporations and individuals.  If his model doesn't spit out a result of prosperity on that simple test, then you know his model is bogus.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Well, I couldn't say whether his models are accurate or not without more training in econ and math, and then actually reviewing the analysis. But, as to your last few sentences, I have to disagree somewhat.

    The trouble with every model is the vast degree of factors at play, and the massive differences in result that occur when something is factored in or out.

    So, for example, it is true that we were doing stellar with very high rates of top-level taxation. (It is also true that people still found ways to pay a lower effective tax rate).

    But the time period is very important here. WWII wiped out infrastructure all across Europe, etc. Proportionally, (and feel free to check for validity), European countries/Japan/Russia lost far greater percentages of their youth than we did.

    So coming out of the war, we had an intact infrastructure, we had women already pushed into non-traditional areas of the workforce, and we had a higher percentage of young men coming back home. We hit the ground running. 15+ years later the boomer generation was entering the workforce.

    Basically, we were situated in a way better positions v. the rest of the world then, then we are now. Which is a very long way of saying that the model for today's conditions isn't necessarily proved defective if it spits out a different result for the tax & economic numbers back then.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    We also had a sober appreciation that all humans mattered after WW2......no doubt a result of the cumulative horrors of the war crystalized into everyone's psyche.  There was a feeling even among the wealthiest aristocrats that the 99% still mattered....that the non-rich were humans too.

    That feeling is long gone, and has been replaced by greed.

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from twelve_angry_men. Show twelve_angry_men's posts

    Re: NYT Op-Ed: Eliminate corporate tax rate, but not because of supply-side nonsense

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    [QUOTE]

    He makes a declarative statement that this is not a supply side move, then doesn't back it up.  He does say the impact is the result of high elasticity of lowering the tax to zero, leading to greater private sector investment, which sounds like a probable result predictable using the Laffer Curve to me, but let's put that aside.

     

    Let's call it "Other than Demand Side" economics.  Works for you?

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    WOOOOSH.

    I guess you missed this paragraph.

    Making, rather than just stating, this case requires constructing a large-scale computer simulation model of the United States economy as it interacts over time with other nations’ economies, and then seeing how the model reacts when you change the American corporate income tax. I’ve developed such a model with three colleagues through the Tax Analysis Center, a nonpartisan research group. Our findings make a very strong, worker-based case for corporate tax reform.


    It's amazing how much information people miss when they read everything through the prism of partisan politics.

     

     

    And you do a mighty fine imitation of Guliani: A noun, a verb and the Laugher curve.

    [/QUOTE]

    Partisan politics, which is just what you and this so-called economist are doing.  He does exactly what supply side economics prescribes, and then declares that he didn't use any of that "voodoo" supply side economics?

    Talk about partisan.  I guess only people like you think that paragraph you posted makes sense in that it exonerates him from supply side economics BECAUSE HE TOLD YOU SO.

    [/QUOTE]


    The premise of the op-ed is shifting the tax burden, not eliminating it.

    The Fed gets revenue from both corporate and individual taxes.

    His argument is to shift the burden from corporations to the individual shareholders. It raises the individual rates while lowering the corporate rate. It is redistributing the tax burden, not eliminating it.

     

    It's particularly hilarious for you to question his computer models after how badly you lost the last Laugher curve argument.

    If nothing else, you got some chutzpah kid.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: NYT Op-Ed: Eliminate corporate tax rate, but not because of supply-side nonsense

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    [QUOTE]

    He makes a declarative statement that this is not a supply side move, then doesn't back it up.  He does say the impact is the result of high elasticity of lowering the tax to zero, leading to greater private sector investment, which sounds like a probable result predictable using the Laffer Curve to me, but let's put that aside.

     

    Let's call it "Other than Demand Side" economics.  Works for you?

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    WOOOOSH.

    I guess you missed this paragraph.

    Making, rather than just stating, this case requires constructing a large-scale computer simulation model of the United States economy as it interacts over time with other nations’ economies, and then seeing how the model reacts when you change the American corporate income tax. I’ve developed such a model with three colleagues through the Tax Analysis Center, a nonpartisan research group. Our findings make a very strong, worker-based case for corporate tax reform.


    It's amazing how much information people miss when they read everything through the prism of partisan politics.

     

     

    And you do a mighty fine imitation of Guliani: A noun, a verb and the Laugher curve.

    [/QUOTE]

    Partisan politics, which is just what you and this so-called economist are doing.  He does exactly what supply side economics prescribes, and then declares that he didn't use any of that "voodoo" supply side economics?

    Talk about partisan.  I guess only people like you think that paragraph you posted makes sense in that it exonerates him from supply side economics BECAUSE HE TOLD YOU SO.

    [/QUOTE]


    The premise of the op-ed is shifting the tax burden, not eliminating it.

    The Fed gets revenue from both corporate and individual taxes.

    His argument is to shift the burden from corporations to the individual shareholders. It raises the individual rates while lowering the corporate rate. It is redistributing the tax burden, not eliminating it.

     

    It's particularly hilarious for you to question his computer models after how badly you lost the last Laugher curve argument.

    If nothing else, you got some chutzpah kid.

     [/QUOTE]
    Have to start at grade school level with progressives...

    So, you are accepting that  high corporate tax rates have an impact on business? And high tax rates impact whether a new business starts up at all? Whether the business succeeds? Where it locates its business? How many employees it hires?

    Previously twelve angry men told me that business start ups are not impacted by taxes, they would do exactly what they would do, regardless of tax rates....quoting the seer and soothsayer Warren Buffet. 

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from twelve_angry_men. Show twelve_angry_men's posts

    Re: NYT Op-Ed: Eliminate corporate tax rate, but not because of supply-side nonsense

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Arguing that elimation of the tax would yield higher wages seems like trickle down to me.  We're doing it now, and it aint working.  The opposite is happening.....poverty is trickling down.

    I wonder if this professor has plugged in the tax rates for the 30 years after WW2 into his model?  We know from history (not theories) that this period was prosperous.  And the prosperity came at a time of very high tax rates on corporations and individuals.  If his model doesn't spit out a result of prosperity on that simple test, then you know his model is bogus.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    He is not 'eliminating' the tax, he is shifting the tax to the shareholders.

    The period after WW2 was an anomaly and no economic theory can account for such wholesale destruction to world economies.

    The other thing about the period after WW2 is that the US was the only industrialized nation whose infrastructure was unscathed by the war. In fact our manufacturing sector had been greatly modernized and improved through the necessity of large scale production needed to mobilze the country for war.

    As the only industrialized nation in such a circumstance, we became the exporter to the world for literally everthing. We had no competition and unfettered access to both Europe and Asia markets. It was a monopoly of epic proportions. That is how we could have tax rates approaching 100%, a debt of 140% of GDP and still have a thriving economy: We ruled the industrial world both militarily and through our unchallenged dominance in manufacturing.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from twelve_angry_men. Show twelve_angry_men's posts

    Re: NYT Op-Ed: Eliminate corporate tax rate, but not because of supply-side nonsense

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

     

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:



    He makes a declarative statement that this is not a supply side move, then doesn't back it up.  He does say the impact is the result of high elasticity of lowering the tax to zero, leading to greater private sector investment, which sounds like a probable result predictable using the Laffer Curve to me, but let's put that aside.

     

    Let's call it "Other than Demand Side" economics.  Works for you?

     

     




     

     

    WOOOOSH.

    I guess you missed this paragraph.

    Making, rather than just stating, this case requires constructing a large-scale computer simulation model of the United States economy as it interacts over time with other nations’ economies, and then seeing how the model reacts when you change the American corporate income tax. I’ve developed such a model with three colleagues through the Tax Analysis Center, a nonpartisan research group. Our findings make a very strong, worker-based case for corporate tax reform.


    It's amazing how much information people miss when they read everything through the prism of partisan politics.

     

     

    And you do a mighty fine imitation of Guliani: A noun, a verb and the Laugher curve.

     



    Partisan politics, which is just what you and this so-called economist are doing.  He does exactly what supply side economics prescribes, and then declares that he didn't use any of that "voodoo" supply side economics?

     

    Talk about partisan.  I guess only people like you think that paragraph you posted makes sense in that it exonerates him from supply side economics BECAUSE HE TOLD YOU SO.

     




    The premise of the op-ed is shifting the tax burden, not eliminating it.

     

    The Fed gets revenue from both corporate and individual taxes.

    His argument is to shift the burden from corporations to the individual shareholders. It raises the individual rates while lowering the corporate rate. It is redistributing the tax burden, not eliminating it.

     

    It's particularly hilarious for you to question his computer models after how badly you lost the last Laugher curve argument.

    If nothing else, you got some chutzpah kid.

     


    Have to start at grade school level with progressives...

     

    So, you are accepting that  high corporate tax rates have an impact on business? And high tax rates impact whether a new business starts up at all? Whether the business succeeds? Where it locates its business? How many employees it hires?

    Previously twelve angry men told me that business start ups are not impacted by taxes, they would do exactly what they would do, regardless of tax rates....quoting the seer and soothsayer Warren Buffet. 




    No, taxes have no impact on start-ups ... unless that company "starts-up" as a global company operating in multiple countries from the outset. If you can name one 'start-up' that is in this situation then please share it.

    Start-ups are only concerned about the niche that they operate in and the taxes paid in that niche.

    As a start-up, I wasn't concerned with the tax rate paid by companies in Europe or Asia or S America or TX, FL or TN. It had no influence on how I ran my business, none. I wasn't looking for tax havens and cheap labor, I was looking for the best labor and only that a tax system that was equitable across my sector. Why do you think that the east and west coasts are the ground-zeroes' for high tech start-ups? Surely these companies, because of technology, could relocate anywhere ... but they don't because they know that talent drives innovation not lower taxes.

     

    Like I said, show me one person who doesn't want to be wealthy because the taxes are too high, or one investor who would pass up an opportunity to make money because the taxes on the profit was 'unfair'.

     

     

     

    *edit

    That's the problem with neo-cons, they wear blinders when it comes to business. They think that taxes are the end-all for business when in fact it is one of the least important. Sure CLC could run around and find a wingnut website showing how a few companies TX was able to poach from another state through tax bribes but those are anecdotes. Texas needs to poach companies because they can't compete any other way. They don't have the talent necessary for home-grown innovation.

    Innovation doesn't come through lower taxes it comes through talent and talent cares little about taxes and more about their product, the challenges and quality of life issues. Most innovators do it for the challenge and love of the work, not how much they pay in taxes. If you keep chasing lower and lower tax havens you become a CPA, not an innovator.

    That's why the red states, with their "lower taxes" mantra are the true takers, not only in federal welfare, but also in the fact that they can only chase companies and try to bribe them to relocate because they lack the infrastructure to develop homegrown talent.

     

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: NYT Op-Ed: Eliminate corporate tax rate, but not because of supply-side nonsense

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

     

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:



    He makes a declarative statement that this is not a supply side move, then doesn't back it up.  He does say the impact is the result of high elasticity of lowering the tax to zero, leading to greater private sector investment, which sounds like a probable result predictable using the Laffer Curve to me, but let's put that aside.

     

     

    Let's call it "Other than Demand Side" economics.  Works for you?

     

     




     

     

    WOOOOSH.

    I guess you missed this paragraph.

    Making, rather than just stating, this case requires constructing a large-scale computer simulation model of the United States economy as it interacts over time with other nations’ economies, and then seeing how the model reacts when you change the American corporate income tax. I’ve developed such a model with three colleagues through the Tax Analysis Center, a nonpartisan research group. Our findings make a very strong, worker-based case for corporate tax reform.


    It's amazing how much information people miss when they read everything through the prism of partisan politics.

     

     

    And you do a mighty fine imitation of Guliani: A noun, a verb and the Laugher curve.

     



    Partisan politics, which is just what you and this so-called economist are doing.  He does exactly what supply side economics prescribes, and then declares that he didn't use any of that "voodoo" supply side economics?

     

    Talk about partisan.  I guess only people like you think that paragraph you posted makes sense in that it exonerates him from supply side economics BECAUSE HE TOLD YOU SO.

     




    The premise of the op-ed is shifting the tax burden, not eliminating it.

     

    The Fed gets revenue from both corporate and individual taxes.

    His argument is to shift the burden from corporations to the individual shareholders. It raises the individual rates while lowering the corporate rate. It is redistributing the tax burden, not eliminating it.

     

    It's particularly hilarious for you to question his computer models after how badly you lost the last Laugher curve argument.

    If nothing else, you got some chutzpah kid.

     


    Have to start at grade school level with progressives...

     

    So, you are accepting that  high corporate tax rates have an impact on business? And high tax rates impact whether a new business starts up at all? Whether the business succeeds? Where it locates its business? How many employees it hires?

    Previously twelve angry men told me that business start ups are not impacted by taxes, they would do exactly what they would do, regardless of tax rates....quoting the seer and soothsayer Warren Buffet. 

     




    No, taxes have no impact on start-ups ... unless that company "starts-up" as a global company operating in multiple countries from the outset. If you can name one 'start-up' that is in this situation then please share it.

     

    Start-ups are only concerned about the niche that they operate in and the taxes paid in that niche.

    As a start-up, I wasn't concerned with the tax rate paid by companies in Europe or Asia or S America or TX, FL or TN. It had no influence on how I ran my business, none. I wasn't looking for tax havens and cheap labor, I was looking for the best labor and only that a tax system that was equitable across my sector. Why do you think that the east and west coasts are the ground-zeroes' for high tech start-ups? Surely these companies, because of technology, could relocate anywhere ... but they don't because they know that talent drives innovation not lower taxes.

     

    Like I said, show me one person who doesn't want to be wealthy because the taxes are too high, or one investor who would pass up an opportunity to make money because the taxes on the profit was 'unfair'.

     

     

     

    *edit

    That's the problem with neo-cons, they wear blinders when it comes to business. They think that taxes are the end-all for business when in fact it is one of the least important. Sure CLC could run around and find a wingnut website showing how a few companies TX was able to poach from another state through tax bribes but those are anecdotes. Texas needs to poach companies because they can't compete any other way. They don't have the talent necessary for home-grown innovation.

    Innovation doesn't come through lower taxes it comes through talent and talent cares little about taxes and more about their product, the challenges and quality of life issues. Most innovators do it for the challenge and love of the work, not how much they pay in taxes. If you keep chasing lower and lower tax havens you become a CPA, not an innovator.

    That's why the red states, with their "lower taxes" mantra are the true takers, not only in federal welfare, but also in the fact that they can only chase companies and try to bribe them to relocate because they lack the infrastructure to develop homegrown talent.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You are living in a fantasy world. Here are some inconvenient facts:

    While the U.S. lost 2.5 million net new jobs over the past five years, Texas created 530,000 net new jobs. Over the last 10 years, one state, Texas,  created 33 percent of the net new jobs nationwide.

    Were all these jobs "poached" through tax bribes? 

    Northeastern liberalism has resulted in bad private sector economies in northern blue states. Especially ture in inner cities whihc have been ruined by high taxes and corrupt political machines., aka Detroit.

    Red State private sector economies are growing at a faster rate. 

     

     

     

     

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: NYT Op-Ed: Eliminate corporate tax rate, but not because of supply-side nonsense

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    The author can feel free to delude himself into believing he isnt supporting any crazy  "supply side" economics or anything....but what he is saying is, let the private sector make business decisions free from the idiotic confiscatory tax rates that encourage business to locate overseas...sounds conservative...shhhhh.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    He isn't making a supply side economics argument. You simply did not read or are incapable of understanding what he wrote.

     

    Supply side's position would be that eliminating the corporate tax rate and doing nothing else would spur investment so much that government would gain revenue and corporations would raise peoples' salaries because they're so nice like that.

    In contrast to a supply-sider, the author recognized that eliminating or reducing the tax would cause government to lose revenue. That's why he/they modeled multiple ways of mitigating it with other tax increases.

     

    You'll have to make your way to the second half of the article for that

    [/QUOTE]


    Nice to see that you can define supply-side to suit yourself. 

    Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomics that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as lowering income tax and capital gains tax rates, and by allowing greater flexibility by reducing regulation. According to supply-side economics, consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices. Typical policy recommendations of supply-side economists are lowermarginal tax rates and less regulation.[1]

    Nothing about increasing tax revenues, promising higher salaries or any of your bullshiite. You confuse opportunity with outcome, perhaps deliberately so.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from twelve_angry_men. Show twelve_angry_men's posts

    Re: NYT Op-Ed: Eliminate corporate tax rate, but not because of supply-side nonsense

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

     

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:



    He makes a declarative statement that this is not a supply side move, then doesn't back it up.  He does say the impact is the result of high elasticity of lowering the tax to zero, leading to greater private sector investment, which sounds like a probable result predictable using the Laffer Curve to me, but let's put that aside.

     

     

    Let's call it "Other than Demand Side" economics.  Works for you?

     

     




     

     

    WOOOOSH.

    I guess you missed this paragraph.

    Making, rather than just stating, this case requires constructing a large-scale computer simulation model of the United States economy as it interacts over time with other nations’ economies, and then seeing how the model reacts when you change the American corporate income tax. I’ve developed such a model with three colleagues through the Tax Analysis Center, a nonpartisan research group. Our findings make a very strong, worker-based case for corporate tax reform.


    It's amazing how much information people miss when they read everything through the prism of partisan politics.

     

     

    And you do a mighty fine imitation of Guliani: A noun, a verb and the Laugher curve.

     



    Partisan politics, which is just what you and this so-called economist are doing.  He does exactly what supply side economics prescribes, and then declares that he didn't use any of that "voodoo" supply side economics?

     

    Talk about partisan.  I guess only people like you think that paragraph you posted makes sense in that it exonerates him from supply side economics BECAUSE HE TOLD YOU SO.

     




    The premise of the op-ed is shifting the tax burden, not eliminating it.

     

    The Fed gets revenue from both corporate and individual taxes.

    His argument is to shift the burden from corporations to the individual shareholders. It raises the individual rates while lowering the corporate rate. It is redistributing the tax burden, not eliminating it.

     

    It's particularly hilarious for you to question his computer models after how badly you lost the last Laugher curve argument.

    If nothing else, you got some chutzpah kid.

     


    Have to start at grade school level with progressives...

     

    So, you are accepting that  high corporate tax rates have an impact on business? And high tax rates impact whether a new business starts up at all? Whether the business succeeds? Where it locates its business? How many employees it hires?

    Previously twelve angry men told me that business start ups are not impacted by taxes, they would do exactly what they would do, regardless of tax rates....quoting the seer and soothsayer Warren Buffet. 

     




    No, taxes have no impact on start-ups ... unless that company "starts-up" as a global company operating in multiple countries from the outset. If you can name one 'start-up' that is in this situation then please share it.

     

    Start-ups are only concerned about the niche that they operate in and the taxes paid in that niche.

    As a start-up, I wasn't concerned with the tax rate paid by companies in Europe or Asia or S America or TX, FL or TN. It had no influence on how I ran my business, none. I wasn't looking for tax havens and cheap labor, I was looking for the best labor and only that a tax system that was equitable across my sector. Why do you think that the east and west coasts are the ground-zeroes' for high tech start-ups? Surely these companies, because of technology, could relocate anywhere ... but they don't because they know that talent drives innovation not lower taxes.

     

    Like I said, show me one person who doesn't want to be wealthy because the taxes are too high, or one investor who would pass up an opportunity to make money because the taxes on the profit was 'unfair'.

     

     

     

    *edit

    That's the problem with neo-cons, they wear blinders when it comes to business. They think that taxes are the end-all for business when in fact it is one of the least important. Sure CLC could run around and find a wingnut website showing how a few companies TX was able to poach from another state through tax bribes but those are anecdotes. Texas needs to poach companies because they can't compete any other way. They don't have the talent necessary for home-grown innovation.

    Innovation doesn't come through lower taxes it comes through talent and talent cares little about taxes and more about their product, the challenges and quality of life issues. Most innovators do it for the challenge and love of the work, not how much they pay in taxes. If you keep chasing lower and lower tax havens you become a CPA, not an innovator.

    That's why the red states, with their "lower taxes" mantra are the true takers, not only in federal welfare, but also in the fact that they can only chase companies and try to bribe them to relocate because they lack the infrastructure to develop homegrown talent.

     

     



    You are living in a fantasy world. Here are some s:

     

    While the U.S. lost 2.5 million net new jobs over the past five years, Texas created 530,000 net new jobs. Over the last 10 years, one state, Texas,  created 33 percent of the net new jobs nationwide.

    Were all these jobs "poached" through tax bribes? 

    Northeastern liberalism has resulted in bad private sector economies in northern blue states. Especially ture in inner cities whihc have been ruined by high taxes and corrupt political machines., aka Detroit.

    Red State private sector economies are growing at a faster rate.    



    It's not an "inconvenient fact", in fact it's not really a 'fact' at all.

     

    So your premise is that lower taxes creates jobs.

    Then how do you explain an actual fact that Nevada has no income tax at all, yet one of the highest UE rates in the country?

    The same for TN, no taxes but among the highest ue rates.

    How do you explain the fact that Alaska not only doesn't have any income tax, it literally pays people to live there, and yet no one considers it a nub of innovation.

    If it's all about taxes then why does TX have a higher ue rate than HI, one of the highest tax states in the union?

     

    So ya see, it's not a 'fact', it's an anomaly, the opposite of a 'fact'.

     

    And making such vague and unproven statements as 'red states grow faster neener, neener, neener' is just more obtuse rhetoric without fact.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from twelve_angry_men. Show twelve_angry_men's posts

    Re: NYT Op-Ed: Eliminate corporate tax rate, but not because of supply-side nonsense

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

     

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

     

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

     



    He makes a declarative statement that this is not a supply side move, then doesn't back it up.  He does say the impact is the result of high elasticity of lowering the tax to zero, leading to greater private sector investment, which sounds like a probable result predictable using the Laffer Curve to me, but let's put that aside.

     

     

     

    Let's call it "Other than Demand Side" economics.  Works for you?

     

     




     

     

    WOOOOSH.

    I guess you missed this paragraph.

    Making, rather than just stating, this case requires constructing a large-scale computer simulation model of the United States economy as it interacts over time with other nations’ economies, and then seeing how the model reacts when you change the American corporate income tax. I’ve developed such a model with three colleagues through the Tax Analysis Center, a nonpartisan research group. Our findings make a very strong, worker-based case for corporate tax reform.


    It's amazing how much information people miss when they read everything through the prism of partisan politics.

     

     

    And you do a mighty fine imitation of Guliani: A noun, a verb and the Laugher curve.

     



    Partisan politics, which is just what you and this so-called economist are doing.  He does exactly what supply side economics prescribes, and then declares that he didn't use any of that "voodoo" supply side economics?

     

    Talk about partisan.  I guess only people like you think that paragraph you posted makes sense in that it exonerates him from supply side economics BECAUSE HE TOLD YOU SO.

     




    The premise of the op-ed is shifting the tax burden, not eliminating it.

     

    The Fed gets revenue from both corporate and individual taxes.

    His argument is to shift the burden from corporations to the individual shareholders. It raises the individual rates while lowering the corporate rate. It is redistributing the tax burden, not eliminating it.

     

    It's particularly hilarious for you to question his computer models after how badly you lost the last Laugher curve argument.

    If nothing else, you got some chutzpah kid.

     


    Have to start at grade school level with progressives...

     

    So, you are accepting that  high corporate tax rates have an impact on business? And high tax rates impact whether a new business starts up at all? Whether the business succeeds? Where it locates its business? How many employees it hires?

    Previously twelve angry men told me that business start ups are not impacted by taxes, they would do exactly what they would do, regardless of tax rates....quoting the seer and soothsayer Warren Buffet. 

     




    No, taxes have no impact on start-ups ... unless that company "starts-up" as a global company operating in multiple countries from the outset. If you can name one 'start-up' that is in this situation then please share it.

     

    Start-ups are only concerned about the niche that they operate in and the taxes paid in that niche.

    As a start-up, I wasn't concerned with the tax rate paid by companies in Europe or Asia or S America or TX, FL or TN. It had no influence on how I ran my business, none. I wasn't looking for tax havens and cheap labor, I was looking for the best labor and only that a tax system that was equitable across my sector. Why do you think that the east and west coasts are the ground-zeroes' for high tech start-ups? Surely these companies, because of technology, could relocate anywhere ... but they don't because they know that talent drives innovation not lower taxes.

     

    Like I said, show me one person who doesn't want to be wealthy because the taxes are too high, or one investor who would pass up an opportunity to make money because the taxes on the profit was 'unfair'.

     

     

     

    *edit

    That's the problem with neo-cons, they wear blinders when it comes to business. They think that taxes are the end-all for business when in fact it is one of the least important. Sure CLC could run around and find a wingnut website showing how a few companies TX was able to poach from another state through tax bribes but those are anecdotes. Texas needs to poach companies because they can't compete any other way. They don't have the talent necessary for home-grown innovation.

    Innovation doesn't come through lower taxes it comes through talent and talent cares little about taxes and more about their product, the challenges and quality of life issues. Most innovators do it for the challenge and love of the work, not how much they pay in taxes. If you keep chasing lower and lower tax havens you become a CPA, not an innovator.

    That's why the red states, with their "lower taxes" mantra are the true takers, not only in federal welfare, but also in the fact that they can only chase companies and try to bribe them to relocate because they lack the infrastructure to develop homegrown talent.

     

     



    You are living in a fantasy world. Here are some inconvenient facts:

     

    While the U.S. lost 2.5 million net new jobs over the past five years, Texas created 530,000 net new jobs. Over the last 10 years, one state, Texas,  created 33 percent of the net new jobs nationwide.

    Were all these jobs "poached" through tax bribes? 

    Northeastern liberalism has resulted in bad private sector economies in northern blue states. Especially ture in inner cities whihc have been ruined by high taxes and corrupt political machines., aka Detroit.

    Red State private sector economies are growing at a faster rate. 

     



     

     

    Here's a FACT: Of the 13 states with a per capita GDP higher than the nat'l average, 8 of them are decidely Dem states, 3 are neo-con states and the last two are purple states.

    Per capita GDP is one of the best metrics of innovation, competitiveness and production.

    In fact that liberal bastion MA, with it's high taxes and 'everyone-is-on-welfare' society still beats TX!!!

    In case you were unaware, GDP/capita is an after-tax calculation so how low does TX have to go to remain competitive? They're in a race to the bottom and they still can't beat Tax-achussetts. Sad and very instructive.

     

                                      GDP     %US gdp  Pop.  gdp/capita

    Delaware                 62,700       0.43     0.9     69,667     2
    Alaska                     45,600        0.31     0.7     65,143     3
    Connecticut           233,400     1.61     3.6     64,833     4
    Wyoming                  38,200     0.26     0.6     63,667     5
    Massachusetts      377,700     2.60     6.5     58,108     6
    Texas                  1,458,300     8.92     25.1     58,099     7
    New York             1,156,500     7.68     19.4     57,423     8
    New Jersey              497,000     3.42     8.8     56,477     9
    Virginia                     427,700     2.95     8.0     53,463     10
    Washington             351,100     2.42     6.7     52,403     11
    Colorado                 259,700     1.79     5.0     51,940     12
    California             2,080,600     13.34     37.3     51,914     13
    Maryland                  300,000     2.07     5.8     51,724     14

               United States           16,202,700     100.00     316.8     51,144    

     

     

    Another FACT is that of the few deep 'red states' that do make the cut, all rely on natural resources as the driving factor of their economies. In other words, their success depends on where they live, not on any form of politics, policies or tax system and especially not on any far reaching innovations.

    If they didn't live over a oil reserve or a pocket of copper, they would be completely unproductive as a state entity.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from twelve_angry_men. Show twelve_angry_men's posts

    Re: NYT Op-Ed: Eliminate corporate tax rate, but not because of supply-side nonsense

    The bottom of the per capita GDP list are all neo-con strongholds.

     

    21   Tennessee 250,300 1.72 6.3 39,730 41 13   Michigan 372,400 2.57 9.9 37,616 42 28   Kentucky 161,400 1.11 4.3 37,535 43 49   Montana 37,200 0.26 1.0 37,200 44 34   Arkansas 105,800 0.73 2.9 36,483 45 25   Alabama 174,400 1.20 4.8 36,333 46 38   New Mexico 75,500 0.52 2.1 35,952 47 27   South Carolina 164,300 1.13 4.6 35,717 48 40   West Virginia 66,600 0.46 1.9 35,053 49 43   Idaho 54,800 0.38 1.6 34,250 50 36   Mississippi 98,900 0.68 3.0 32,967 51
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: NYT Op-Ed: Eliminate corporate tax rate, but not because of supply-side nonsense

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

     

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:



    He makes a declarative statement that this is not a supply side move, then doesn't back it up.  He does say the impact is the result of high elasticity of lowering the tax to zero, leading to greater private sector investment, which sounds like a probable result predictable using the Laffer Curve to me, but let's put that aside.

     

     

    Let's call it "Other than Demand Side" economics.  Works for you?

     

     




     

     

    WOOOOSH.

    I guess you missed this paragraph.

    Making, rather than just stating, this case requires constructing a large-scale computer simulation model of the United States economy as it interacts over time with other nations’ economies, and then seeing how the model reacts when you change the American corporate income tax. I’ve developed such a model with three colleagues through the Tax Analysis Center, a nonpartisan research group. Our findings make a very strong, worker-based case for corporate tax reform.


    It's amazing how much information people miss when they read everything through the prism of partisan politics.

     

     

    And you do a mighty fine imitation of Guliani: A noun, a verb and the Laugher curve.

     



    Partisan politics, which is just what you and this so-called economist are doing.  He does exactly what supply side economics prescribes, and then declares that he didn't use any of that "voodoo" supply side economics?

     

    Talk about partisan.  I guess only people like you think that paragraph you posted makes sense in that it exonerates him from supply side economics BECAUSE HE TOLD YOU SO.

     




    The premise of the op-ed is shifting the tax burden, not eliminating it.

     

    The Fed gets revenue from both corporate and individual taxes.

    His argument is to shift the burden from corporations to the individual shareholders. It raises the individual rates while lowering the corporate rate. It is redistributing the tax burden, not eliminating it.

     

    It's particularly hilarious for you to question his computer models after how badly you lost the last Laugher curve argument.

    If nothing else, you got some chutzpah kid.

     


    Have to start at grade school level with progressives...

     

    So, you are accepting that  high corporate tax rates have an impact on business? And high tax rates impact whether a new business starts up at all? Whether the business succeeds? Where it locates its business? How many employees it hires?

    Previously twelve angry men told me that business start ups are not impacted by taxes, they would do exactly what they would do, regardless of tax rates....quoting the seer and soothsayer Warren Buffet. 

     




    No, taxes have no impact on start-ups ... unless that company "starts-up" as a global company operating in multiple countries from the outset. If you can name one 'start-up' that is in this situation then please share it.

     

    Start-ups are only concerned about the niche that they operate in and the taxes paid in that niche.

    As a start-up, I wasn't concerned with the tax rate paid by companies in Europe or Asia or S America or TX, FL or TN. It had no influence on how I ran my business, none. I wasn't looking for tax havens and cheap labor, I was looking for the best labor and only that a tax system that was equitable across my sector. Why do you think that the east and west coasts are the ground-zeroes' for high tech start-ups? Surely these companies, because of technology, could relocate anywhere ... but they don't because they know that talent drives innovation not lower taxes.

     

    Like I said, show me one person who doesn't want to be wealthy because the taxes are too high, or one investor who would pass up an opportunity to make money because the taxes on the profit was 'unfair'.

     

     

     

    *edit

    That's the problem with neo-cons, they wear blinders when it comes to business. They think that taxes are the end-all for business when in fact it is one of the least important. Sure CLC could run around and find a wingnut website showing how a few companies TX was able to poach from another state through tax bribes but those are anecdotes. Texas needs to poach companies because they can't compete any other way. They don't have the talent necessary for home-grown innovation.

    Innovation doesn't come through lower taxes it comes through talent and talent cares little about taxes and more about their product, the challenges and quality of life issues. Most innovators do it for the challenge and love of the work, not how much they pay in taxes. If you keep chasing lower and lower tax havens you become a CPA, not an innovator.

    That's why the red states, with their "lower taxes" mantra are the true takers, not only in federal welfare, but also in the fact that they can only chase companies and try to bribe them to relocate because they lack the infrastructure to develop homegrown talent.

     

     



    You are living in a fantasy world. Here are some inconvenient facts:

     

    While the U.S. lost 2.5 million net new jobs over the past five years, Texas created 530,000 net new jobs. Over the last 10 years, one state, Texas,  created 33 percent of the net new jobs nationwide.

    Were all these jobs "poached" through tax bribes? 

    Northeastern liberalism has resulted in bad private sector economies in northern blue states. Especially ture in inner cities whihc have been ruined by high taxes and corrupt political machines., aka Detroit.

    Red State private sector economies are growing at a faster rate. 

     

     

     

     

     

     




     

    Here's a FACT: Of the 13 states with a per capita GDP higher than the nat'l average, 8 of them are decidely Dem states.

    Per capita GDP is one of the best metrics of innovation, competitiveness and production.

    In fact that liberal bastion MA, with it's high taxes and 'everyone-is-on-welfare' society still beats TX!!!

                                      GDP     %US gdp  Pop.  gdp/capita

    Delaware                 62,700       0.43     0.9     69,667     2
    Alaska                     45,600        0.31     0.7     65,143     3
    Connecticut           233,400     1.61     3.6     64,833     4
    Wyoming                  38,200     0.26     0.6     63,667     5
    Massachusetts      377,700     2.60     6.5     58,108     6
    Texas                  1,458,300     8.92     25.1     58,099     7
    New York             1,156,500     7.68     19.4     57,423     8
    New Jersey              497,000     3.42     8.8     56,477     9
    Virginia                     427,700     2.95     8.0     53,463     10
    Washington             351,100     2.42     6.7     52,403     11
    Colorado                 259,700     1.79     5.0     51,940     12
    California             2,080,600     13.34     37.3     51,914     13
    Maryland                  300,000     2.07     5.8     51,724     14

               United States           16,202,700     100.00     316.8     51,144    

     

     

    And lets not pretend that the base economy of Texas is anything more than just sucking off the federal teat.  No state has benefitted more greatly from our current wars and security state boodoggles than Texas. 

    If we put the equivalent of Fort Hood, Fort Bliss, Fort Sam Houston and five air force bases as well as a bunch of defense industries, as well as a preferential retirement taxation picture for military retirees in any state of the US, they would just fine too. 

    When Texas Republicans caterwaul about reducing government, what they certainly do NOT mean is downsizing anything related to the Department of Defense.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from twelve_angry_men. Show twelve_angry_men's posts

    Re: NYT Op-Ed: Eliminate corporate tax rate, but not because of supply-side nonsense

    It's amazing the chilling effect facts and reality has on some partisans.

     

Share