[WOBBLY BOB]

Minnesota's own Ed LottoBS at it again.

[martin_fierro]

Sigh.

[Natural Law]

Please disregard the empirical data, academic opinion is all that matters.

[little jeremiah]

How ‘bout this, Ed?

Cut taxes. So what if it cuts government revenue, that’s a GOOD THING!

Cut government revenue means less unconstitutional spending and funding of junk that is ruining our country.

I say cut all fedgov spending except what is enumerated in the Constitution.

[Oklahoma]

These clowns in academia often suffer from confusing words and phrases. A tax rate isn’t the same as a tax. A tax rate cut isn’t the same as a tax cut.

[big'ol_freeper]

As someone who was an economics major I can say this article is total BS.

[Ol' Sparky]

Then why did tax revenue double in the 1980s after substantial tax cuts?

Tax cuts result in economic growth. Citizens make more money and, even though they are paying at a lower rate, pay more total dollars to the government.

[Track9]

Sometimes thinking can elevate you to the heights of our maker and sometimes it can bury you in a rat hole. This guys digging for China.

[avacado]

Bush Tax Cuts of 2003, federal revenue was $1.7 trillion, by 2006 federal revenue was $2.5 trillion.

That author is full of it!

[OldMissileer]

Pioneer Press!? Should be the Young Pioneer press. Commie rag.

The professor was from U of M. “Nuff said.

[FrankR]

"Economists agree: Tax cuts don't create revenue, "

This is very reminiscent of the typical headline "SCIENTISTS AGREE: GLOBAL WARMING WILL KILL US ALL"

These "economists" obviously graduated from the algore school of manipulated facts.

They can tweak adn squeak the figures all they want, but at some point common sense enters the room and shows them to be frauds as big as the "warmers".

More jobs = more tax revenue; taxes that prohibit profit to employers - less jobs; less jobs = less revenue.

Every salesman worth his salt knows it is better to have 25 smaller clients than only one, big client. If the big client goes under, there goes 100% of your income; if one of the small ones goes bust, you only lost 1/25th of your income.

The problem with socialism is, it gobbles up all 25 of the smaller clients, putting them out of business with exhorbitant taxes and regulations, if each has 10 employees, 250 people are out of work,(no tax revenue); if they turn to the big guy to make up the tax loss, he just picks up and moves overseas...1000 more Americans out of work, no tax revenue.

While these "economists" may be whizzes at working a spreadsheet, few have ever really run a business, and like most college geeks, rely solely on theory taught to them by hard left professors who hate capitalism.

So put this theory into the "global warming trash can" and continue on with your day.

[orinoco]

Lotterman, prove it! Where is your data?

Check the data. Whenever taxes are cut people have more to spend. Is that so hard to understand! Forget Keynesian BS. When people have more to spend that circulates more money in the economy. This results in job and wealth creation. It has been shown over and over again.

EDWARD LOTTERMAN

Lotterman, you are blinded by your socialist ideology!

[Wuli]

“Tax cuts don’t pay for themselves! Period!’ Hardly any economist would disagree.”

“Hardly Any” - translation; “Hardly any whom the author selectively chose to speak or refer to.”

[Beagle8U]

A liberal economist is like a push poll, you get whatever result you want in how you frame the questions.

[mjp]

Many in the general public and many Republican elected officials believe lowering tax rates would help reduce the deficit. Virtually all economists disagree,

Maybe the government should cut taxes and CUT SPENDING TOO, to balance the budget. sheesh

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Oh yes, raising taxes and “spreading the wealth” are proven remedies for economic growth. That’s why we have 10% unemployment and rising.

[SonOfDarkSkies]

Economists agree: Tax cuts don't create revenue

And in other news, using sales commissions to reward salesmen does not increase sales.

/s

[Nateman]

[techcor]

NeoClassical, New Classical, Rational Expectations, Monetarist, Keynesian, Austrian or New Institutional economists.

So no Supply side economist or Friedman or any non-Marxist. When only poll Keynesian flavored economist you get poop flavored outcome.

[Tzimisce]

Well it’s good that we’re following this guy’s advice right now then. :)

[PIF]

So-called economists who say things like tax cuts/tax rates do not generate revenue are making the back case for raising same. The are then followed by some politician who duly raises those rates, and the public nods....

When lower taxes bring in more revenue, these economists point out that there isn't enough money to supply some essential service... that the politicians have spent it all on their projects doesn't count, and the cycle repeats while the public nods (off)...