All Hank, all the time.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Clinton? He wanted to create a National health care system. the fact that he didn't get to doesn't mean he was crazy for thespending.

You're confusing him with his wife. She came out in favor of nationalized health care, was beaten like a gong on the issue, and then sent scurrying (as fast as her thinghs allowed) back to her lair. Bill wanted nothing to do with that lead zeppelin.

But he wisely knew letting her float the idea was the best way to ensure she'd never float another while he was running the country.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
But that doesn't ,mean "Starving the Beast" doesn't work.

I thought that's what this guy did his analysis for:

Niskanen has crunched the numbers between 1981 and 2005, testing for a relationship between tax cuts and government spending, and controlling for levels of unemployment, since these affect spending and taxes independently. Niskanen's result punctures his own party's dogma. Tax cuts are associated with increases in government spending.

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.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You're confusing him with his wife. She came out in favor of nationalized health care,

when she did she still held the post of co-President. NB didn't say which President clinton.

[Hank Chinaski]

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.

what if the Dow were approaching it's highest point ever, or at least "ever when people weren't spending billions for IPOs of companies that had never made a dime."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Split government. Checks and balances, baby.

Agreed. The best you get is both sets of idiots handcuffed by each other.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

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.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
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.

STB requires only tax cuts. Otherwise it would be called "The Beast On A Self-Imposed Diet."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
STB requires only tax cuts. Otherwise it would be called "The Beast On A Self-Imposed Diet."

Think of it this way- say if a money manager says "fringe we're going to budget you to only $4.00 a day for breakfast." that would be one way to reduce-

but another way is to start only giving you 2 pieces of bacon instead of 3 or 4.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Does it need to be said that cutting taxes while increasing govt spending will not decrease govt spending?

We may very well be at the point where that needs to be said. Repeatedly. In fact, every legislator proposing (1) a new tax cut (including, for those keeping score, Chuck Schumer and the we-feel-your-gas brigade on the Dem side) and/or (2) increased spending on any government program, including defense, should be forced to state the entire phrase out loud and explain in fifty words or less exactly how his or her proposal will not (1) create more debt and/or (2) increase overall government spending. No credit will be given for the use of the phrase "the Laffer Curve."

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Split government. Checks and balances, baby.

I heard an argument the other day that I thought was rather strong that if Gore had been elected then the budgets would not have been so bad. Not that Gore is not a tax and spender, its just that in this partisan atmosphere anything a Dem president offers will be immediately rejected by the Repubs, and anything the Repubs offered would be rejected by the Dem pres. This is what happened during the Clinton presidency. Every time Clinton came out with a budget the Repubs would say it is DOA because it spends to much.

That is what kept spending down during the Clinton administration, the Republicans just never accepted anything Clinton wanted and Clinton never went along with what the Republicans wanted to spend money on.

With Bush being a Republican he has to go along with whatever the Republican Congress dishes up (he doesn't have to but seems to want to).

But from what I understand, Federal Spending (even if you take out Homeland Security and Defense - really) has incrased more under Bush than under Clinton.

Anyway just a thought.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ironweed
We may very well be at the point where that needs to be said. Repeatedly.

if we don't intend to pay it, is it really spending? like in college, were late night dine and dash breakfasts "increasing my spending" in your economic model?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
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.

Actually, the theory, of which Niskannen was one of the original architects, was that spending cuts would naturally follow from tax cuts. Forgetting that the gov't owned the printing presses at the mint, they naively thought that if they simply took in less revenue, then they would be forced to spend less.

It would actually be kind of cute if the theory had been advanced by a kindergarten class instead of a bunch of Ph.D.s and other people who calimed to know what they were talking about.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
if we don't intend to pay it, is it really spending? like in college, were late night dine and dash breakfasts "increasing my spending" in your economic model?

Not really, because the bail fund was a segregated account.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ironweed
We may very well be at the point where that needs to be said. Repeatedly. In fact, every legislator proposing (1) a new tax cut (including, for those keeping score, Chuck Schumer and the we-feel-your-gas brigade on the Dem side) and/or (2) increased spending on any government program, including defense, should be forced to state the entire phrase out loud and explain in fifty words or less exactly how his or her proposal will not (1) create more debt and/or (2) increase overall government spending. No credit will be given for the use of the phrase "the Laffer Curve."

Shit. PJ O'Rourke nailed this issue back in the early 90s in Parliament of Whores. His observation that there is no way to curb wasteful govt outlays without term limits still remains the only true solution to the problem. 99.9% of the waste is generated by people putting the purchase of votes above the charge of their office.

Why not apply the two term limit enforced against the President on every Senator and Congressman?

[SlaveNoMore]

Hank Chinaski
Clinton? He wanted to create a National health care system. the fact that he didn't get to doesn't mean he was crazy for thespending.

That was Hillary.

You know, the leading Dem candidate for the 2008 race - you may have heard of her.