Why worry about spending; all the Republicans need do is cut taxes again to pay for it. The supply-side argument that Republicans make that tax-rate cuts pay for themselves; that, after cutting taxes, the government actually ends up with more revenue—Right?

http://www.newyorker.com/images/2007...final_p233.jpg

I suppose that is how Mr. Bush has justified the biggest expansion in government spending since his fellow Texan, Lyndon Johnson.
I suppose that is why giving “the movement” what it wants: the invasion of Iraq for the neoconservatives who wanted it long before 9/11 and tax cuts for business while spending went through the ceiling…betraying conservatism's core principle: that government is the problem rather than the solution.:eek:

Hello DC:

You got it. In actuality, trickle down economics has been totally discredited. When the government cuts taxes, what happens is what you think happens. Yup, the government takes in LESS money. Whoda thunk that? Republicans do, with their voodoo economics. Bwa ha ha ha.

excon

Vodoo Economics? :)

One huge difference between Lyndon Johnson and George W. Bush is that Lyndon Johnson provided for a *BALANCED BUDGET* despite the VietNam War.

As a matter of fact, Presidents FDRoosevelt through Jimmy Carter ALL HAD BALANCED BUDGETS. Reagan started the terrible deficits with his tax cuts to the rich. Clinton balanced the budgets and provided for surplus. I imaging that the Democrats will bring up this point in the heat of the campaigning next year. :D

Bush has been disavowed by leading conservatives including George Will, Wm Buckley and others. Bush and his guys and followers are not conservatives, they are fascists.

Raise them taxes and let more companies leave for China, that solves a few other problems too like the USA being blamed for pollution. While the USA is blamed for the most pollution this is the list, but today they were saying that # 6 is quickly rising to the top of the list.

This Top Ten list was compiled by the Technical Advisory Board of the Blacksmith Institute, an environmental NGO based in New York. The criteria used in ranking the include the size of the affected population, the severity of the toxins involved, and reliable evidence of health problems associated with the pollution.

1. Chernobyl, Ukraine
The world's worst nuclear disaster took place on April 26, 1986.
2. Dzerzhinsk, Russia
A major Russian chemical manufacturing center, which produced Sarin and other deadly poisons during the cold war. Between 1930-1998, nearly 300,000 tons of chemical waste were improperly disposed of.
3. Haina, Dominican Republic
An urban area severely contaminated with lead from a now defunct automobile battery recycling plant.
4. Kabwe, Zambia
The country's second largest city is severely contaminated with lead from the mining industry.
5. La Oroya, Peru
Lead, copper, zinc, and sulfur dioxide from mining have contaminative the town.
6. Linfen, China
Severe air and water pollution from the coal, steel, and tar industries.
7. Maiuu Suu, Kyrgyzstan
This former Soviet uranium plant town is saturated with radioactive uranium mine tailings.
8. Norilsk, Russia
An industrial city in Siberia founded in 1935 as a slave labor camp, Norilsk is home of the world's largest heavy metals smelting complex and is plagued by severe air pollution.
9. Ranipet, India
About 1,500,000 tons of tannery waste has accumulated in this town over the past two decades.
10. Rudnaya Pristan/Dalnegorsk, Russia
Severe lead contamination from an old smelter as well as the unsafe transport of lead concentrate from the local lead mining site.


ACTUALLY IF THE GOVERNMENT (REP OR DEM) WOULD LEARN HOW TO SPEND REASONABLY MAYBE WE ALL WOULD PROFIT! $700. For a hammer $650. For a toilet seat??

Supply Tax Cuts And The Truth About The Reagan Economic Record a libertarian think tank

A lot of facts and figures to go over if you wish.

"In 1981 income tax receipts totaled $347 billion; in 1989 they totaled $549 billion, a 58 percent increase. In fact, income tax collections grew only slightly slower in the 1980s than in the 1990s[ to 96 ] despite income tax rate reductions in the Reagan years and increases in the Bush-Clinton years...

If the Reagan tax cut was not the major contributing factor to the increasing deficit in the 1980s, what was? There were two primary explanations: (1) a large and sustained defense build-up; and (2) the unexpected rapid decline in inflation and the recession in the early 1980s. "


Yes military spending increased, and in retrospect we know that was a major contributing factor in the fall of the USSR [ they could not compete economically ] and the "peace dividend" of the 90s.


And in the 90s was not it the Republican "contract with America" that helped restore a balanced budget? Clinton was smart enough to go along.

TDP - Tax Cut Revenue Rewards
"We have now had three major experiments with tax rate reduction in the last half-century, and each time both economic growth and tax revenues have surged, despite the fears and cries of the anti-tax-cut crowd. How much more evidence will they need to understand the difference between tax rates and tax revenues? Most everyone, including most members of Congress, can understand that properly structured tax rate reduction, by decreasing the impediments to working, saving and investing, will lead to a higher rate of economic growth. Why then is it so difficult to understand that a bigger economic pie can lead to more tax revenue rather than less?"


I agree that President Bush has not been a fiscal conservative [ Medicare part d]
And neither were the Republican congress[es?] of his terms.

Bigger government is not the answer.






Grace and Peace

The Republicans forgot the 2nd part of the equation ;controlling spending . If they had been disciplined in that then the little deficit that remains would already be surplus and they would still have the majority .

The Laffer curve Laffer curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and the supply side theories has proven time and time again to be correct . The problem people tend to have regarding the Laffer Curve is that they confuse economics with their political considerations. Many people have political reasons to desire high income tax rates on the rich. They wish to prevent the rich from earning more money, even if the resulting tax revenue is smaller than it would otherwise be, and the economy less productive . These people do not believe that the income tax on the rich can ever be "too high." They are willing to deprive the government of revenue and deprive the economy of the productivity of the rich, all for the sake of their politics.

But historically the theory has proven to be correct .
JFK ,Reagan ,and GWBush all cut taxes and periods of prosperity followed.

In all three cases however while Income taxes were lowered ;and tax revenues increased , neither the Democrat leadership in the 1960s or the Republican Reagan (with a Democrat majority in Congress)and Bush administrations (with a Republican majority ) lowered the rate of growth in federal spending. While the income tax revenues increased substantially, federal spending increased even more. Yes they can be blamed for their undisciplined spending ;but not for the tax rate reductions.

Hello again:

Well of course the righty's are going to say it works. They said we'd be greeted as liberators too. Bwa ha ha ha ha.

excon

Choux ,Carter left office with at the time a record deficit . He also left with double digit inflation and unemployment rates . The budgets he submitted became obsolete within months due to the effect inflation had on the economy. Yes he won election in 1976 based on a pledge of being fiscally responsible but once in office he spent like a drunken democrat.

There were in fact deficits every year since 1969 until we briefly had a surplus at the end of the Clintoon reign (as noted above primarily due to Gingrich revolution and a temporary tech bubble) . Johnson was a benificiary of the economic boom that came from the Kennedy tax cuts. But his spending on increased entitlements and social programs busted the budget by the end of his term.

Here's a dirty little secret however . Deficits are not the boogy man they are made out to be. We can easily live with them and prosper ;but it is better to shrink the size of the Federal Budget wherever possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Here's a dirty little secret however . Deficits are not the boogy man they are made out to be. We can easily live with them and prosper

---

Hello again:

See what I'm saying?? The country can borrow till its blue in the face and build up a HUGE - HUGE - HUMONGOUS debt, and it doesn't matter an iota.

That's about as voodoo as you get.

excon

Ex ;the economy expanded throughout the 1980s and again this decade .The current budget gap is a paltry 2.2% of GDP, which isn't that large. It is smaller than every budget deficit the country ran from 1980 to 1995. But I do agree that non-defense discretionary spending ;up 42 percent since 2001 is a growing problem ,and the Republicans were properly taken to task for it in the last election . This election the voters will realize that they voted in worse in 2006 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Deficits are not the boogy man they are made out to be. We can easily live with them and prosper ;but it is better to shrink the size of the Federal Budget wherever possible.

---

Well not for you 'cause you'll be long dead before the prosperity begins to decline.

U.S. CBO estimates $2.4 trillion long-term war costs | Politics | Reuters

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money, according to a study released on Wednesday.
With President George W. Bush indicating a large contingent of U.S. troops likely will be engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan for many years to come, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the total tab for the wars from 2001 through 2017.
CBO estimated that interest costs alone from 2001-2017 could total more than $700 billion.
So far, Congress has given Bush $604 billion for the two wars, with about $412 billion spent in Iraq, according to CBO, which is Congress' in-house budget analyst. In Iraq alone, the United States is spending about $11 billion a month, with costs escalating.
"To put it all on our credit cards with no accountability, with no plan to pay for it, I think is the height of irresponsibility," said Rep. James McGovern, a Massachusetts Democrat who serves on the budget panel and is an outspoken war critic. "It will be just one more toxic legacy of this disastrous war we will have to leave our kids to clean up."

---

I wonder how big that number would be when you to war with Iran...
I wonder who owns all that debt...

That is spit in the ocean compared to the fixed entitlement obligation coming at us which for some strange reason both parties think are untouchable and both parties work to expand.

The truth is that only 45% of the increase in spending has been defense and 9-11 related .Non-defense spending has increased 55% in that same time. During WWII non defense spending decreased by 11% . Truman signed budgets during the Korean War that reduced non-defense spending by 6 percent .

The truth is that currently only 4% of U.S. gross domestic product is spent for all military related issues . Historically, that level is far more in line with peacetime military spending. By comparison the defense budget under Clinton was 3% share of GDP from 1999-2001 and that was a postwar World War II low.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello DC:

You got it. In actuality, trickle down economics has been totally discredited. When the government cuts taxes, what happens is what you think happens. Yup, the government takes in LESS money. Whoda thunk that?? Republicans do, with their voodoo economics. Bwa ha ha ha.

excon

---

“Voodoo” is right…any simple housewife who handles the budget can see there is no “Free Lunch”.

The Economist magazine recently wrote, in response to the comment by Mr. Bush that, “tax cuts pay for themselves”: “Even by the standards of political boosterism, this is extraordinary. No serious economist believes Mr. Bush's tax cuts will pay for themselves”.

“The President's own Council of Economic Advisors concluded in its Economic Report of the President, 2003, that, “although the economy grows in response to tax reductions (because of the higher consumption in the short run and improved incentives in the long run) it is unlikely to grow so much that lost revenue is completely recovered by the higher level of economic activity.” The CEA chair at the time was conservative economist Glenn Hubbard.”

Council of Economic Advisors, Economic Report of the President, February 2003, pp. 57-58.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Here's a dirty little secret however . Deficits are not the boogy man they are made out to be. We can easily live with them and prosper ;but it is better to shrink the size of the Federal Budget wherever possible.

---

"... The idea that tax cuts can spur sufficient economic growth to pay for themselves sounds too good to be true because it is too good to be true. In tax policy, as in other aspects of policymaking, there is no “free lunch.”

"If deficit-financed tax cuts weaken economic growth, their long-run cost could be greater than conventional revenue estimates suggest, because they will reduce revenues not only directly (by lowering people’s tax bills) but also indirectly (by slowing the economy). A recent CBO study of the economic effects of a hypothetical 10 percent across-the-board cut in income tax rates found that under certain assumptions, the increased deficits resulting from the tax cut would be enough of a drag on the economy that the tax cut actually would lose more revenue than if one assumed it had no effect on the economy. In other words, deficit-financed tax cuts could be even more expensive than officially “scored,” rather than less expensive or costless."

Claim That Tax Cuts “Pay For Themselves” Is Too Good To Be True: Data Show No “Free Lunch” Here, Revised 7/27/06

How do you explain the record tax receipts after the tax cuts ?

Hello again:

The way out of the problem Bush has caused is to let the dollar weaken. That way everybody pays for it. They did, and we are.

excon

PS> Gold, silver, oil and most of the commodities are at record highs. Dollars are equal to the loon. We're in DEEP doo doo. The inflation of the 70's was only a precursor to the inflation that's just getting underway.

I wonder when wages will get on board. Of course, the wages of CEO's are inflated so much that there isn't room for the average worker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello DC:

You got it. In actuality, trickle down economics has been totally discredited. When the government cuts taxes, what happens is what you think happens. Yup, the government takes in LESS money. Whoda thunk that?? Republicans do, with their voodoo economics. Bwa ha ha ha.

excon

---

Excon,

Let's take an actual look at the numbers, shall we?

From the Historical Tables of the United States Budget for 2008.

Year Nat'l Income % Change
1970 192,807
1971 187,139 -3%
1972 207,309 11%
1973 230,799 11%
1974 263,224 14%
1975 279,090 6%
1976 298,060 7%
1977 355,559 19%
1978 399,561 12%
1979 463,302 16%
1980 517,112 12%
1981 599,272 16%
1982 617,766 3%
1983 600,562 -3%
1984 666,486 11%
1985 734,088 10%
1986 769,215 5%
1987 854,353 11%
1988 909,303 6%
1989 991,190 9%
1990 1,032,094 4%
1991 1,055,093 2%
1992 1,091,328 3%
1993 1,154,471 6%
1994 1,258,721 9%
1995 1,351,932 7%
1996 1,453,177 7%
1997 1,579,423 9%
1998 1,721,955 9%
1999 1,827,645 6%
2000 2,025,457 11%
2001 1,991,426 -2%
2002 1,853,395 -7%
2003 1,782,532 -4%
2004 1,880,279 5%
2005 2,153,859 15%
2006 2,407,254 12%

In 1981, Reagan passed ERTA, his first tax cut. In 1986, he passed the Joint Tax Reliefe Act, his second tax cut. The result was a 60% increase in government income during the 8 years of the Reagan era.

In 2001 Bush passed his first tax cut, EGTRR. In 2003 he passed his second tax cut, JGTR. The increase in government income since 2003 has been 32%. Prior to that we were suffering from the recession caused by 9/11. 2003 was the year we saw the turnaround from that recession... a turnaround that only happened as quickly as it did because of the tax cuts.

In both cases, Bush and Reagan, the economy was suffering from stagflation and recession. In both cases, the tax cuts resulted in a reversal of the recession, an end to the stagflation, increased GDP and overall sound economic improvement.

Incidentally, the same was true when Calvin Coolidge cut taxes in the 1920s and when JFK did it in the 60s. The result was increased government revenue, an improved economy and decreased unemployment. This has happened EVERY TIME we have seen tax cuts. Not just once or twice, but every time.

So... can you name a single time that tax cuts have resulted in a decrease in revenue for the government? On what basis do you claim that tax cuts result in a decrease in government income? It simply isn't true, as the numbers above prove.

Elliot

Hay….the proposition is “that tax-rate cuts pay for themselves” and not all these strawmen. Now logically if this is true and you follow to its end there would be no need at all for taxes. :D


EDIT: Bush is a simple minded idiot for saying this.

From my point of view, DC, there isn't. The government, by Contitutional authority, only has the right to impose taxes for 3 purposes: maintaining a military/police force, maintaining highways, and maintaining the mail service. (It can be argued that they could tax us to maintain the infrastructure necessary for electricity and for telecommunications, as these are essentially expansions of "roadways" and "mail systems".) No other taxes are Constitutionally authorized. Ergo, taxes shopuld only cover those three items, which would mean that our tax bills should be much lower than it is. Roughly 67% lower than it is, according to the 2007 budget.

So yes, I agree that there should be no real need for any taxes at all... or almost none.

However, the government does need to take in SOME form of income in order to maintain the items I discussed above. But the Laffer Curve clearly shows that after a certain point, raising taxes results in lower income for the government because more taxes means fewer jobs, lower incomes and thus fewer people paying lower levels of taxes despite the tax rate hikes. The Laffer Curve also shows that lowering taxes results in increased employment, increased productivity, increased income and thus increased income taxes for the government.

So yes, the tax cuts essentially pay for themselves... not if taxes are eliminated completely, because the government still needs some form of income. But if an equilibrium between productivity, revenues, and taxation is reached, government income, productivity and personal incomes all reach their highest efficiency. THAT is when the tax cuts pay for themselves. And this fact has been born out through history, as well as in theory. We've seen it at least 6 times in the past century.

Elliot