Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Why? Plausibly, with a Democratic House the military will have more support in its battle with Rumsfeld, and will have a better chance of prosecuting the conflict the way it sees best.

Again, believing your own hype. If you assume that Rumsfield is not giving the military what they want, that could only mean they want more soldiers and more material. Is a Democrat Congress going to assign more funds for the war and provide more troops for the war.

Are you kidding? They will just pull people out. The Democrats take the side of the military. Please.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Economists almost univerally agree that lowering taxes has spurred growth some, but not nearly enough to make up for the revenue lost through the tax cuts.

This is an incredibly stupid statement. If tax cuts lead to any growth, they will eventually pay for themselves. If you don't understand that you need to retake remedial math.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If "the Supply side argument" is contrary to this, it is bullshit. Economists know as much. The only people touting it are politicians and their ilk.

Almost every Economist I have ever met or talked with agrees that if tax cuts provide any growth at all they will pay forthemselves. The only way for the anti supply side argument to work is if the tax cuts provide absolutely no growth.

If tax cuts lead to any growth, then the supply side theory works.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Ah, hope. Eternal hope.

It also means what he actually said -- that the tax cuts brought in less revenue than the prior tax rate structure would've brought in over the last 6 years.

If the tax cuts brought in any growth they will eventually pay for themsevles. Do you understand that. The Supply Side argument is bogus if the tax cuts bring in absolutely no growth. Some, but very few economists, argue that. But once you admit that the tax cut brought in growth then you have agreed the tax cut work. This is basic math. It is not that complicated.

Originally posted by Gattigap
Careful, Spanky. Bush would like to agree with you more than anyone else, yet even Bush has proclaimed that in the long run, we're all dead.

etft -- t.s.

The Supply Side argument is that tax cuts bring growth. The anti supply side argument is that tax cuts don't lead to growth. Once you have agreed with the first sentence the argument is over.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Economists almost univerally agree that lowering taxes has spurred growth some,

And every Economist that thinks that is agreeing with the Supply Side argument. The Supply Side argument is that cutting taxes leads to growth. Full Stop.

Growth is the key to everything. Growth is the key to increased revenue. Growth is the reason our government pulls in more tax revenue per year than the entire GNP of the nation thirty five years ago.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Again, believing your own hype. If you assume that Rumsfield is not giving the military what they want, that could only mean they want more soldiers and more material. Is a Democrat Congress going to assign more funds for the war and provide more troops for the war.

Are you kidding? They will just pull people out. The Democrats take the side of the military. Please.

Rumsfeld and Bush have left a pro-military void waiting to be filled. If the Democrats take back either side of the Capitol, someone's going to fill it, but I'd be very surprised if Republicans like Warner, McCain and Hagel don't make it a bipartisan thing. Which would be all for the good, frankly.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
If tax cuts lead to any growth, then the supply side theory works.

Please point me to a reputable economist arguing this on-line. I'm curious.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
The Supply Side argument is that cutting taxes leads to growth. Full Stop.

This is a little like saying that the pro-life argument is that fetuses are alive. Full Stop.

Burger can have my proxy on this issue.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Please point me to a reputable economist arguing this on-line. I'm curious.

It would be like asking an economist if they believe in Supply and Demand. It is so obvious it is painful. Growth is the holy grail of economics. The biggest arguments are over how you get growth.

The Supply Side argument is that tax cuts give you growth if the government is soaking up too many taxes.

Other economic theories argue that tax cuts do not lead to growth. In fact sometimes they lead to problems, especially if they create a big deficit. The larger deficit will lead to crowding out of the private sector and the crowding out will actually hamper growth, not lead to more growth.

A small minority of economists would argue that Clinton tax raise of 94 led to growth because it help tackle the deficit. The Supply Sider would argue that the Reagan Tax cuts lead to the growth.

A small minority of economists would argue that Bush's tax cuts did not lead to any growth, and in fact if the tax cuts were not implemented and the debt was paid down, threre would have been more growth. So the tax cut actually reduced growth.

But if the tax cuts actually caused growth then their benefit and the Supply Side argument has won. Once you admit the tax cuts lead to growth the argument is over. The Holy Grail was achieved.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
It would be like asking an economist if they believe in Supply and Demand.

Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to find something published by someone reputable.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Rumsfeld and Bush have left a pro-military void waiting to be filled. If the Democrats take back either side of the Capitol, someone's going to fill it, but I'd be very surprised if Republicans like Warner, McCain and Hagel don't make it a bipartisan thing. Which would be all for the good, frankly.

Yes Pelosi and Rangel are going to take a pro-military position. Rangel already said he will cut off funding. Pelosi has already said she wants a definite timetable for withdrawal. You can dispute many things, but there is no question the military does not want a timetable set for withdrawal. A Democrat takeover will not help the military in any way.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to find something published by someone reputable.

Find me an article by a published mathmatician that says two plus two equals four. Shouldn't be too hard.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This is a little like saying that the pro-life argument is that fetuses are alive. Full Stop.

Burger can have my proxy on this issue.

No it is like saying two plus two equals four. Full Stop.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Spanks --

You seem to think that I disagree with the proposition that reducing taxes will tend to encourage growth. I don't. With that in mind, go back and re-read our exchange.

Yr pal,

T.S.

[Spanky]

The Keynsian argument was that to maximise growth you cut taxes during a recession and you raise taxes during a growth spurt. That is the best way to achieve sustained growth. Deficits are good in a recession because they will stimulate the economy and they are bad in a growth period because they will suck up private investment damaging growth. So tax cuts in a growing economy can lead to less growth.

The Supply Sider would argue that as long as the government is sucking up too much revenue from the population it always better to cut taxes. So one should cut taxes if you are above a certain level of taxation regardless of whether you are in a recession or a growth spurt.

So in a recession both the Supply Siders and the Keynsian would argue for a tax cut. So you could argue from a Keynsian perspective the tax cut was the right idea, but only because we were in a recession. So from a Keynsian perspective you might say that the growth just confirms Keynsian theory and not Supply Side, but then again, the Keynsian would still argue that the cut was the right thing to do. Now that we are growing the Keynsian would argue for a tax increase to reduce the deficit.

The economists that argue against the tax cut, argue that the deficit created is so bad that any growth the tax cut might create would be nullified by the crowding out. In other words the tax cut would lead to less growth because of the crowding out caused by the resulting deficits. They would argue that the growth we have achieved is part of the natural cycle and would have been even more pronounced if we hadn't had the tax cut. So the tax cut reduces growth.

But if you agree that tax cut lead to more growth then it was a success because we were in a recession and the most important thing was to pull us out of the recession. All economists would agree on that. The issue is did the tax cut helps us out of the recession.

Milton Friedman thinks growth mainly depends on the monetary supply and regulation. Too much money in the system and too much regulation equals less growth. So he is more for cutting government spending than in cutting taxes. I don't know what Milton Friedmans position was, but I doubt he was a big fan of the tax cut because without the concomitant spending cuts he probably wouldn't think it is good for the economy. Keynes argues that in a recession you cut taxes and spend more to intentionally create deficits. Friedman never thinks that increased spending, and increased deficits, is a good idea. But as for his position on the recent tax cuts, that is just speculation on my part.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Spanks --

You seem to think that I disagree with the proposition that reducing taxes will tend to encourage growth. I don't. With that in mind, go back and re-read our exchange.

Yr pal,

T.S.

No - I understand that you think that reducing taxes will encourage growth. That is the whole point. You just don't appreciate how important growth is. Once you have agreed that cutting taxes encourages growth that shows that you are a supply sider (unless you think it only works in a recession then you might be a Keynsian). But once you admit the Bush tax cut created growth, as an Economist that means you are saying the tax cuts were beneficial.