Thnx Gvng Prtng Thghts
November 25th, 2010 • Related • Filed Under
By jason330
1) Is it me or has Violent J descended into self-parody?
2) Dave contacted me through the ether, like how Dracula contacted Renfield, and aksed me to pass along this bit of Republican wisdom: “Tax cuts pay for themselves.”
3) My next holiday is tomorrow. It is a holiday of my our creation called, “Oh Tannebaum Tag” which means Oh Christmas Tree Day in German.
4) There is no #4.





Comment by Unstable Isotope on 25 November 2010 at 11:25 pm:
Who is Violent J?
Comment by socialistic Ben on 25 November 2010 at 11:33 pm:
insane clown posse REP-RE-SENT!
Comment by another-anon on 26 November 2010 at 12:20 am:
Fuckin’ magnets! How do they work?
ICP is/are retarded.
Comment by Geezer on 26 November 2010 at 9:34 am:
Anyone who says “tax cuts pay for themselves” misunderstands the Laffer Curve. SOME tax cuts pay for themselves — if the rates are over the hump of the curve. Conservatives never seem to realize that the curve has a high point, and if you cut taxes beyond that they bring in LESS revenue.
If they understood math they could figure out themselves that a zero tax rate brings in zero , a 1% rate doesn’t bring in much more, etc. That means there’s an optimum rate, a balance between taxation and growth, that maximizes government revenue. But Republicans/conservatives are mostly on the record saying they want to deny the government as much revenue as they can. With that in mind, why should anyone trust them to find that proper balance point at the top of the curve? They’re ON RECORD saying they want to go beyond that point so they can “starve the beast.”
So my shorter response to Dave is that tax hikes pay for themselves, too.
Comment by anonone on 26 November 2010 at 11:42 am:
++ Geezer. Using wingnut math, O% taxes would provide the government with infinite revenues.
Comment by anon on 26 November 2010 at 12:02 pm:
Don’t concede the premise that maximizing revenue is the highest policy goal. In reality we probably need to live somewhere near but not at the top of the Laffer curve.
Comment by Eau de Burrito on 26 November 2010 at 12:39 pm:
It was a joke, Geezer. An inside joke from long ago.