Quote:
Originally posted by ironweed
I thought that's what this guy did his analysis for:
If you think economics is a science, and you have a theory like "cutting taxes forces reduced government spending," and you test that theory by comparing tax cuts to government spending, and you control for the relevant variables (maybe he didn't?), and the results directly contradict your theory, don't you have a problem?
It's a different thing to say that politicians shouldn't spend like drunken sailors. But for quite a while now we've heard how politicians can spend like drunken sailors while still cutting taxes because cutting taxes reduces government spending generally -- FACT.
|
Does it need to be said that cutting taxes while increasing govt spending will not decrease govt spending?
The article suggested "Starving the Beast" doesn't work. But then it admitted that STB has actually never really been tried. STB by definition requires two prongs - tax cuts and spending cuts.
I agree with you that any Republican suggesting you can spend like madmen as Bush has, and still cut govt spending, is being absurd. But thats not STB, and the author of the article shouldn't confuse that sort of spending and taxing (I don't know what to call it) with STB.
STB hasn't been tried, but if it was, it would cut govt spending. That it hasn't highlights the fact that a whole lotta folks calling themselves conservatives are only so until the benefits cut affect them.
