You are spot on with that one at least…
“The governor needs to learn, and I think a lot of the people in the legislature needs to learn, when you cut taxes in the manner that they have, you need to also cut spending.”
Read a little closer and see if this sounds like what you have been arguing for. You linked an article contradicting much of what you say will happen:
the deficit resulted in large part from Brownback’s own “real live experiment” in supply-side economics—sharp cuts in income tax rates and a huge exemption for owners of small businesses.
The most he would do was freeze the rates, and the result was a plan that will place an even heavier tax burden on the poor, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.
In that respect, the outcome in Kansas recalls the complaints of conservatives during the George W. Bush administration, when taxes went down but the government—and the deficit—grew. Modest tax increases, spending restraint, and economic growth have helped cut down the gap, but it is far from closed. Kansas may be facing a similar future. Brownback “has sold the Legislature a bill of goods,” Hensley lamented. “Consequently,” he added, “we are going to have a budget shortfall for years to come.”
But hey why worry? Deficit was only something you posted about with Obama. And Trump said we could default on it if we need to. And if he doesn’t release his tax returns and personally profits a bunch who cares? Why does corruption matter from Trump? It’s not like he’s a democrat.
I have to get out of this thread before I vomit all over my phone.
I think the great cost of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars pretty much destroyed any chance for the Bush tax cuts to work.
I didn’t think that the left cared about corruption. I mean we can look at the Clinton Foundation and the many other democrat scandals that are unfolding before our eyes but why bother? As always it doesn’t matter what happens if it is your team that does it. I am guilty of this and so are you.
And something that not many on the left were concerned with under Obama. Growing the deficit from 9 trillion to 20 trillion didn’t bother any on the left. Yet, the tax cuts which will grow the economy, we can debate about how much. Yet, it bothers the left to no end. Odd? No it’s politics.
What needs to happen and what will never happen as long as politics exists is to have a frank talk about what honestly will help the country.
I am just a tad curious about what you would do to push the country forward if you were King for a day. Perhaps you could tell me after you are finished vomiting on your phone.
No, this is irrelevant - the argument the GOP is pushing is economic growth. What you’re talking about - the “rightness” or “wrongness” of whether the government should be doing something - has no bearing in the economic growth argument.
Yeah, it would on the demand side. A dollar spent in the economy by the Department of Transportation is the same as a dollar spent by Joe Smith. The effect is the same.
As for the other events on the supply, you’ve moved the goalposts - the claim isn’t “some will” invest…the claim it’s going to happen across the board and we’ll see great economic growth as a result. Why not simply tell the truth? That some companies will use the tax money to invest, but a bunch of them won’t, and it’s unlikely to see a big bump in GDP from the investment side?
Very much correct. And you clearly recognize it is a mistake, hence your quote, and yet our federal legislature makes the exact same mistake, and you support the mistake.
2 Likes
It matters a great deal as the larger government the more people that they employ. It’s not just a matter of rightness or wrongness as you say, it’s a matter of dollars and sense which are spent to expand the economy as opposed to expanding the government.
It is not really the same as I have pointed out the taxpayer is paying government workers (who may not be needed) to make a government purchase (that may not be needed). I understand your point that a truck sold is a truck sold. But beyond that a bloated inefficient government costs the taxpayers and that doesn’t help the economy.
And this is exactly what I said in one of my very first posts. Scroll back. But again either way it helps the economy. As I’ve previously stated some will use the money to expand, some to hire new people, some will use it to give employees raises or bonuses. And still others, usually pass through Corps, will use it to purchase something.
It’s all good.
But I do have one question for you. How would you have structured the tax cuts…or would you not have pushed for tax cuts at this time.
Your thoughts?
No, we don’t need tax cuts right now, especially not for the reason Republicans have advertised - that businesses need that money because they are short of capital to expand and the economy is being held back as a result. That’s not true at all - there’s plenty of capital at the moment, on balance sheets, through borrowing, and raising money in markets. Thus, from a economic “boost” argument, there’s no need for tax cuts.
But if I were to do tax cuts, in this environment (meaning tax rates are not really high and crowding out investment, like they were in JFK’s era), step one is you eat your veggies before you have dessert. You cut spending, then you see where you are and whether you can afford a tax cut. And then, decide if there is a way to cut certain taxes while raising others in order to remain revenue neutral - as in get an income tax cut by raising a tax (or closing a tax expenditure) somewhere else.
But it’s the height of fiscal irresponsibility to start with a tax cut. It’s not and never has been fiscal conservatism. Fiscal conservatives know tax cuts have to be paid for.
6 Likes
And all this shows that supply-side economics is ideological, not economic. The GOP’s philosophy is anti-government - thus they begin with a premise that virtually all spending commitments on the part of the government is illegitimate.
Starting from that premise, they completely ignore the fact that spending is set by law and can’t be wished away - they are our nation’s bills - but they hate it, refuse to abide by the common-sense fiscal principle that if you have a spending commitment, that drives your need for income and revenue. This is the same principle anyone would teach a young person about having a car payment or rent - hey, you want these things, you have to find ways to bring in money to pay for them.
Republicans hate that we have to pay for these things, so they concoct theories of magic why we don’t have to worry about matching income to expenses in the world of public operations. They love tax cuts so much they’ve come up with a magical theory that tax cuts don’t need to be paid for - the norms of accounting can be suspended, because ideology.
Knowing that people in the real world view this with skepticism - because nowhere else does that magic theory work, not in business or households - Republicans have to double down as to how this dangerous experiment actually generates some public policy that makes everyone win, namely that we’ll experience massive broad-based growth we wouldn’t otherwise have without the tax cuts, and the growth will be so awesome that they will pay for the deficits they create.
Not true in the slightest, but they had to come up with some “public” interest being served by rewarding their donors.
It’s all ideology, all the time, and it’s all bunk, and the real world experiment of Kansas shows it in its full failure.
3 Likes
So @zeb1, what’s the explanation for this? You acknowledge it’s a bad idea to do this, yet you support this bad idea, and at the highest level, no less. Why?
What are you talking about the left? What are you two? “Yeah but the team I don’t like sucks so why not that? Why talk about Trump? Find the posts defending the Clinton foundation. What in the hell does any of that have to do with the discussion? It doesn’t but hey whatever to deflect from your hypocrisy. And don’t tell me what I’m guilty of. Just because you suck off the elephant doesn’t mean I do to the donkey.
Here comes that fictional left you are always talking to. Am I missing something? Are you quoting someone on t-nation known as the left? I’m talking about you directly and no one else. I’m talking about you flipping out about Obama and constantly mentioning the debt. Yet no mention now. No mention of Trumps vacations like Obama’s.
Trump ran as a Republican. If he had ran as a Democrat it would be fiscally irresponsible, shouldering future generations with debt, can’t believe his vacations and idiotic tweets.
Zebs been doing this so long now it’s not even worth pointing out. The issue for him is the letter. R idea=good. Life really is that simple.
After all…the left.
2 Likes
I need to see where you’re getting this notion from: 48,000-86,100 receive approximately $980 tax cut and incomes over 700,000 recieve around 50,000. That’s looking at an analysis of the tax policy center so maybe I’m missing something. But my guess is you pulled that statement straight from your ass.
You are accusing Trump of being corrupt. But I don’t recall you pining away about the left’s potential corruption. Your team!
And I’m talking about you not mentioning Obama’s 20 trillion debt pile up. And since YOU brought up the topic I don’t recall you complaining about all of Obama’s vacations.
No, actually as I posted earlier I am looking forward to handing out bonuses, raises and expanding my business with the taxes that the government will NOT be taking from me in 2018. If you think I’m wrong for being excited about this I have no problem with that.
This is so pointless…it’s like a never ending merry-go-round. I’m going to jump off here before the name calling begins. If memory serves it’s only about 3 or 4 posts away (not necessarily from you).
Have a nice Christmas H maybe I’ll pop in again in 2018.
@zeb1, here you are complaining about the debt and claiming it (along with other reasons) was the reason the nation shouldn’t vote for Hillary:
*This is a much larger issue than left vs. right.
20 trillion in debt, the Middle East falling apart Russia on the rise. The growing threat of Isis. More people on food stamps than ever before. About 96 million Americans out of work some no longer counted in the unemployment statistics. There are other issues but my point is that America may be doomed with a Hillary win. And of course that is the point of the article.*
Trump wins, and now you back tax reform that is making that debt figure far worse.
Why on this as well?
Nope done that before on the forum. And back then when I said I tend to vote third party for that reason you would say I was throwing away my vote. But if you remember posts of me defending your examples like the Clinton foundation please show me but they don’t exist.
Nope talked about the national debt before but mainly pointing out your silence on it here. You got me on the vacations I don’t remember ever saying much about it whether it was GWB or Obama. But my point again was how troubled you were by these two things on this forum then and now no mention.
That it is. I’ve pointed out these hypocrisies of yours over and over and nothing changes. I have no idea why I do it or have done it so many times. I guess I’ve always figured one time you might realize the hypocrisy of your blind cheerleading but we’ve moved on from that. Now you don’t have a problem saying you just don’t care. Doesn’t really matter you know exactly what you stand for…whatever the Republican Party supports at the time. If that changes to be something completely different you have no problem following suit. Shouldn’t make me scratch my head you’re just a loyal foot soldier.
Have a great Christmas 
1 Like
Why does it even matter? Neither Bill nor Hillary will ever hold public office again. We might as well dig up Reagan and throw his corpse in prison for the Marines who were killed in Beirut, the invasion of that great superpower Grenada for distraction, the stupidity of Just Say No, Iran-Contra, allowing drugs to be brought into the inner cities coupled with escalating the law enforcement side of the war on drugs, and much more.
1 Like
It matters because someone doesn’t want to talk about the actual President so they say but Hilary!!!
2 Likes
In what universe do you think spending cuts are politically realistic prior to a tax cut? The economy needs to be absolutely booming for people to feel at all comfortable even discussing entitlement reform. I agree the spending cuts should come first but there is just no way politically that will happen under any President or party…
1 Like
I agree with most of what you wrote. But remember that Kennedy had to deal with a Gold Standard. Back then you could literally vote on government policy by demanding gold in exchange for paper notes.
Everyone after Nixon is playing with monopoly money. The game is changed.