And why is that - why can’t it happen politically? Is it because the people don’t want them cut?
No generally people don’t want them cut…but people really don’t want them cut when there is any doubt in the economy.
If someone is less optimistic on the future of their 401k they might be a little more friendly to Social Security.
If someone thinks they may lose their job they may see medicaid in a little brighter light.
It may not be a good way for people to act as a country but it makes sense at an individual level.
So the thinking is first you need to cut taxes and then turn around and say we have to cut spending because we just cut taxes?
You don’t need to do anything. GWB didn’t. I highly doubt serious spending cuts come next. When has the President talked seriously about spending cuts? His campaign was more military, more tax cuts, and nothing you like gets touched. Obamacare reform but no one loses coverage, etc.
Politically Republicans can do whatever they want they have all the power. But cutting spending isn’t the next step. Unless the President wants to do something he hasn’t pushed for. May I remind you:
“I was the first & only potential GOP candidate to state there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid. Huckabee copied me.”
I mean politicians never lie… so I’m sure they’ll follow through here. (and no they can’t “politically” do whatever they want because it could very well kick half of them out of office.)
Either Trump is a two faced opportunist that will say anything to advance his own prospects or a rigid ideologue that wont deviate from his fundamental values? Which is it? My guess is towards the former…
You might be right but then again…
If I was a betting man it would be on Trump saying a big infrastructure bill like he ran on. Way more potentially popular than entitlement reform. Trump has never gave the impression cutting spending is something he’s interested in. He talked about defaulting on the debt. I could be wrong and predicting Trump is a lost cause but still. I’ll go with what he has said all along over now he’s changed to a fiscal conservative deficit hawk.
Stuff like that has to happen in the last two years of the term to get the blue collar/union votes in the next election. If you spring that too soon people will have forgotten about the hand that feeds by the time they get to the voting booth.
2 Likes
So, with that understanding, instead of cutting taxes randomly and untethered from basic accounting norms, what needs to happen is one of two things: (1) honor the will of the people and set taxes to pay for the spending currently requires or (2) go to the people and make the case that spending needs to come down, and after succeeding, cut spending, and then cut taxes.
You said it yourself - the people don’t want to cut spending. Ok, well, then, pay for it until the people are convinced spending needs to come down and then it becomes politically feasible. But till then, pay the damn bill.
And one other thing I’d point out for those interested in reducing spending (as I am) that seem to be lost on “conservatives” and “libertarians” - nothing is more effective at making people get serious about cutting expenditures in a budget as when they start feeling the direct costs of it.
Nothing would get a national conversation on getting serious about spending reduction faster than passing a bill that raises taxes to essentially balance the budget - because right now, everyone is getting a free lunch paid for by the next generation.
End the free lunch, and spending hawks will start getting some traction.
Problem is, Republicans aren’t interested in such prudent public management. They simply don’t care - their goal is using government to reward the short-term desires of the wealthy of this country. That’s never been more transparent than with the passing of tnis tax bill.
1 Like
Irrelevant to the issues of his tax cut and deficit spending.
Oh, it’s changed, but not on account of movong away from the gold standard. It changed in the 1980s, when the GOP went all in on “deficits don’t matter” and divorced themselves from any fiscal discipline that the books had to balance.
That’s strangely partisan of you. Considering Obama added more to the debt than any other president.
No, it isn’t. Obama was not good on this either. But he wasn’t the one who changed it, which was the point.
And the (dreaded by “conservatives” and “libertarians”) expansion of the welfare state by Obama and the Democrats was a prime result of the GOP’s dangerous theory. Obama and the Democrats said, well, deficits don’t matter, aye, so what’s good for the goose is good for the gander - we can expand government till our heart’s content and never have to find ways to pay for it. Obama and the Democrats took a look at the GOP philosophy on deficits, etc. and found a great new avenue to expand entitlements.
Thus, the GOP are the very enablers of the government expansion they claim to hate. Don’t believe me? Perfect example - if the ACA had to be funded prior to passage (under traditional norms), it wouldn’t be law right now.
Obama was not good on this, and himself enabled the next round of fiscal irresponsibility we’re seeing right now. But it started with the GOP.
Exactly.
2 Likes
Sure am glad we’re sticking it to the elites.
2 Likes
1 Like
Saw this while back home over Christmas. Parents are some of those weirdos who still get a physical paper.
For background the Capital-Journal is typically pretty conservative. One of the few papers in the state that supported Brownback’s re-election. Pretty sure they came out after that and said they messed that one up.
1 Like
To be fair, it’s a hella brilliant PR move. Hand out bonuses that were probably mostly going out anyways to distract from laying off a thousand people right as you praise a tax cut for being a jobs bill.
Good thing ATT truly believes this is going to be a great tax bill for jobs. I feel so silly for not believing Zeb about lower taxes. Supply side is where it’s at.
3 Likes
(From the Capital-Journal article that @H_factor posted):
House Speaker Paul Ryan thinks the GOP tax plan will pay for itself:
“We do fundamentally believe that this tax code and this tax reform will give us faster economic growth. Faster economic growth helps raise the economy, which raises revenues. And that helps us tackle the deficit.”
There’s just one problem: From the Reagan tax cuts to the Bush tax cuts to the Brownback tax cuts…this never happens…
Serious question (I really can’t find a clear answer):
Where did the theory of “trickle down” actually start?
Was it actually Reagan…or was it a theory started my someone else, and make “famous” by Reagan?
Having no knowledge of this, I’m putting my guess on Rockefeller. Someone come use history knowledge to tell me I’m right.
Origins
The first reference to trickle-down economics came from American comedian and commentator Will Rogers, who used it to derisively describe President Herbert Hoover’s stimulus efforts during the Great Depression.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/trickledowntheory.asp#ixzz52QOhfaza
1 Like
Wow, @EyeDentist…Will Rogers…!
(Wouldn’t you just LOVE to hear what he would have to say about Trump?)
(From the article):
“…All trickle-down policies, however, transfer wealth and advantages from all taxpayers towards an already wealthy few…”