cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board  

Go Back   cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board > non-Sports > Politics
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-21-2005, 01:03 AM   #11
Archaea
Assistant to the Regional Manager
 
Archaea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
Archaea is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Disagree with Chino

First, if you pick a select group of economists, you may get them to agree that income tax rates has no affect upon growth, but intellectually I can't agree.

Let's look at Scandanavia, France and Germany which have high levels of costs, including income taxes, and I argue those rates do impact growth. The reason I argue that is that growth is often stimulated when they are reduced. It's plain if more money is taken out of commerce there will be less to invest.

Clinton's "accomplishments" are not something I've seen documented, but how much was Clinton and how much was due to a Republican controlled Congress is another question.

The Fed's members are nominated by the President, thus insofar as he selects the members and the chair he impacts fiscal policy. There are other controls as well. Let's not be that simplistic.

I do agree government can stimulate some aspects of research and development, but generally disagree with Chino's other statements.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα
Archaea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2005, 05:06 PM   #12
ChinoCoug
Senior Member
 
ChinoCoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 3,005
ChinoCoug is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Response to SoCal and Archea

3 major interpretations of growth years under Clinton on CB, 1) the success is owed to Bush Sr, 2) [most absurd] Clinton ran it down to the ground to get results, and 3) success is owed to GOP Congress.

Let's do look at Scandinavia; they grew just as fast as everyone else in W. Europe. From what I understand, the diversion of resources away from investment doesn't occur until the govt spends the money. It's the size of govt that matters. With taxes resources don't move. And again, Clinton held spending under control. The taxes were used for deficit reduction.

When the govt runs a deficit, it borrows lots of money and kicks up the interest rate; then the interest rate becomes a tax anyway.

The Fed was designed to insulate the moneyprinters from political pressures. The president appoints the chair only once every 14 years. Reagan appointed Greenspan.

Bush Sr's adm said that "it doesn't matter whether you make computer chips or potato chips" which ticked off traditionally-Republican Silicon Valley, and allowed Clinton to wrest it from the GOP.
__________________
太初有道
ChinoCoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.