Maybe you are too young to remember the 1980's, but supply-side does NOT work. IT DOES NOT WORK.
That is, if your goal is a fair society in which everyone's life is improved. If you prefer that the rich become richer and the poorer then, yes, supply-side works.
David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director, actually admitted that helping the rich was the goal all along:
He admitted this in 1981 when discussing the Reagan tax cut: "[It] was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top [tax] rate It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' So the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."
The source is:
William Greider, "The Education of David Stockman," The Atlantic Monthly, December 1981, pp. 46-47
We won't always BE in "an era of surpluses". Reducing the debt when you can afford it saves your ass for the times when you CAN'T afford it. At the end of fiscal year 1999, the US publicly-held debt was $3.6T ($5.6T total debt). The interest on this came to $230B, or about 14% of total government outlay. That $230B will still be an expense (for which you have to issue debt-increasing bonds) when there is no surplus, unless you reduce the capital.
As to how you "pay down the debt", well, you buy back available outstanding bonds, as the treasury has proposed to do.
After you have paid off the maturing bonds for a given year, reducing spending alone doesn't change the debt at all unless you redirect the additional unspent money towards buying back MORE available bonds. Unless you are in deficit spending (80's) when reducing spending will limit the increase in debt.
And finally, can't we face the fact that the supply-side idea that lower taxes = growth didn't work? Making the rich richer doesn't help anyone, especially if the estate tax is removed.... Is it really fair that millionaires should be allowed to make additional millions of unrealized capital gains (ie, money that is NOT taxed twice) without any tax burden? Why should the bottom 99% have to shoulder the $28B estate tax burden of the top 1%? Thats about $100 a head for us poor folks.
I agree. I foolishly jumped in without examining it too closely. I liked that they would provide dns service for free and weren't pushing a bunch of other services on you, but they don't even list an email address to get in touch with their tech support! How do I change my registration? What security do they provide?
They have potential, but they need to invest in their own system before I would recommend them.
Slashdot Mirror
You're so wrong on so much here. I don't have the energy to get into it right now, but CATO does a pretty good job clarifying your supposed f
M
A Rs.htm
acts.
See also THESE studies:
http://equity.stern.nyu.edu/~nroubini/SUPPLY.HT
http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/1THE_REAGAN_YE
Maybe you are too young to remember the 1980's, but supply-side does NOT work. IT DOES NOT WORK.
That is, if your goal is a fair society in which everyone's life is improved. If you prefer that the rich become richer and the poorer then, yes, supply-side works.
David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director, actually admitted that helping the rich was the goal all along:
He admitted this in 1981 when discussing the Reagan tax cut: "[It] was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top [tax] rate It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' So the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."
The source is:
William Greider, "The Education of David Stockman," The Atlantic Monthly, December 1981, pp. 46-47
We won't always BE in "an era of surpluses". Reducing the debt when you can afford it saves your ass for the times when you CAN'T afford it. At the end of fiscal year 1999, the US publicly-held debt was $3.6T ($5.6T total debt). The interest on this came to $230B, or about 14% of total government outlay. That $230B will still be an expense (for which you have to issue debt-increasing bonds) when there is no surplus, unless you reduce the capital.
As to how you "pay down the debt", well, you buy back available outstanding bonds, as the treasury has proposed to do.
After you have paid off the maturing bonds for a given year, reducing spending alone doesn't change the debt at all unless you redirect the additional unspent money towards buying back MORE available bonds. Unless you are in deficit spending (80's) when reducing spending will limit the increase in debt.
And finally, can't we face the fact that the supply-side idea that lower taxes = growth didn't work? Making the rich richer doesn't help anyone, especially if the estate tax is removed.... Is it really fair that millionaires should be allowed to make additional millions of unrealized capital gains (ie, money that is NOT taxed twice) without any tax burden? Why should the bottom 99% have to shoulder the $28B estate tax burden of the top 1%? Thats about $100 a head for us poor folks.
That was positive, right?
I agree. I foolishly jumped in without examining it too closely. I liked that they would provide dns service for free and weren't pushing a bunch of other services on you, but they don't even list an email address to get in touch with their tech support! How do I change my registration? What security do they provide?
They have potential, but they need to invest in their own system before I would recommend them.
Try telneting to the IP address....
Trying 128.119.41.46...
Connected to 128.119.41.46.
Escape character is '^]'.
Digital UNIX (eternity.cs.umass.edu) (ttyp3)
login:
--------------
unless this guy implemented Digital Unix in 256 words too.....