By Phaedrus
#547523
Good article, though I am surprised you would support the GDP ratio approach since conservatives are usually big on balanced budgets. Usually I am the one saying reducing the debt/GDP is a first step, or the deficit/ gov't expenditure.

I agree that there was a peace dividend, though the nominal decrease was slight. This is conceptually similar to the idea that government anti-poverty payouts decrease when the economy is improving.

it's also true that, from 1980 -2007, falling interest rates helped boost GDP as inflation was brought under control. This was an underlying weakness for attempts to boost the economy in the last recession and why Quantitative Easing was used to provide liquidity to the economy.

What was also in the study, however, was the role of tax increases during the Clinton years. This is where Supply-Side is a big lie. With constant or rising taxes, the economy will generate more government revenues with growth. The argument for Supply Side is that the government revenues inhibit growth to the point that if you cut taxes, the resultant growth will overcome the loss of foregone revenue to the point of actually increasing revenues, i.e. a tax elasticity >1. In addition, for the Supply Side argument to hold true it has to be shown that the revenue generated by tax cut X would be greater than if the government had borrowed and spent the amount foregone of tax cut X at prevailing tax rates. Note that low interest rates would also improve the outcome of a borrow and spend approach.

It has been shown, once, during the Kennedy administration that, given certain conditions a targeted tax cut can accomplish all these things. It may also be the case that tax cuts targeting specific sectors or industries can generate these results.

What is the truth is that just cutting taxes any old time, at any old level, across the economy will generate larger deficits.
User avatar
By norton
#547564
--- As the government increases in size and scope, tax money , one way or another, must be generated. Does not take much study to understand that never in the history of the world has a powerful central government been the friend of the common man.
The reason for the deficit is simply over spending on non essentials,,,,,. Corruption of our system. This is one way of the Left to undermine our nation and culture.
User avatar
By norton
#547671
Our only hpe for the present is President Trump. After him,,, our nation will be doomed. The Left are waiting in the wings to produce a Socialistic culture and use Islam to help destroy the little truth that remains. Beware of the Left.
#547801
Phaedrus wrote:Good article, though I am surprised you would support the GDP ratio approach since conservatives are usually big on balanced budgets. Usually I am the one saying reducing the debt/GDP is a first step, or the deficit/ gov't expenditure.

I agree that there was a peace dividend, though the nominal decrease was slight. This is conceptually similar to the idea that government anti-poverty payouts decrease when the economy is improving.

it's also true that, from 1980 -2007, falling interest rates helped boost GDP as inflation was brought under control. This was an underlying weakness for attempts to boost the economy in the last recession and why Quantitative Easing was used to provide liquidity to the economy.

What was also in the study, however, was the role of tax increases during the Clinton years. This is where Supply-Side is a big lie. With constant or rising taxes, the economy will generate more government revenues with growth. The argument for Supply Side is that the government revenues inhibit growth to the point that if you cut taxes, the resultant growth will overcome the loss of foregone revenue to the point of actually increasing revenues, i.e. a tax elasticity >1. In addition, for the Supply Side argument to hold true it has to be shown that the revenue generated by tax cut X would be greater than if the government had borrowed and spent the amount foregone of tax cut X at prevailing tax rates. Note that low interest rates would also improve the outcome of a borrow and spend approach.

It has been shown, once, during the Kennedy administration that, given certain conditions a targeted tax cut can accomplish all these things. It may also be the case that tax cuts targeting specific sectors or industries can generate these results.

What is the truth is that just cutting taxes any old time, at any old level, across the economy will generate larger deficits.


You made your 1st mistake labeling me conservative. You really ought stick to trying to predict things you know more about. You don't have a clue how cutting spending along with the tax cuts would work. Stay tuned over the next 6 years and you'll get to learn something new.
By Phaedrus
#547892
From 2002

President Mugabe on Wednesday declared that the dramatic probe into his election campaign amounted to "treason."

He said the probe, which culminated in clearing him of allegations, a "very dark period" and he appeared to threaten those he blames for the report with punishment.

"We can never allow this treasonous -- these treasonous acts to happen to another president. This was an attempted takeover of our government, of our country, an illegal takeover," he told a supportive interviewer.

He didn't say how he intended to make sure that a probe was not carried out in similar circumstances again, he stressed that if the shoe was on the other foot his opponents would follow with heavy penalties.

"You'd have 100 people in jail right now and it would be treason. It would be considered treason and they would be in jail for the rest of their lives," he said.

"It would be virtually the maximum sentence that you can find, no matter where you look in whatever legal book," he said later.

"We are getting to the bottom of it," he said. "Hopefully they won't get away with it."
#547909
Phaedrus wrote:E&B, I know exactly how cutting spending and taxes works. During a growth period you cut spending and then cut taxes. The other way doesn't work.

You're an ideologue.


Pay attention over the next 6 years and you'll learn how it really works.

Oh now we have to give another guess at identity. Otay buckwheat, I'll play.
You're a parrot.
  • 1
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15