Supply-Side Economics

[Chicks]

3 myths about the Trump tax cuts
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/3-myt...155801290.html

The TCJA paid for itself.
It almost certainly didn’t, which means tax savings for individuals and businesses were mostly financed by additional federal borrowing. But the COVID pandemic muddled this story and gave supply-side tax-cut advocates a bit of cover for claiming the TCJA produced an economic windfall.

MAGA Myths.

[Chicks]

GOP shredded for still pushing discredited Reagan-era economic theory
https://www.rawstory.com/republicans-laffer-curve/

Repukes are going to push this nonsense on rubes like Whell because it still works to get votes from these idiots.

[Rajoo]

^^Looks like a setup rather than a serious effort especially in this economy.

Looks like they are goading Biden's administration, and they say no, they will use this in the 2024 elections by promising tax cuts (for the middle class of course).

[whell]

Originally Posted by Chicks

GOP shredded for still pushing discredited Reagan-era economic theory
https://www.rawstory.com/republicans-laffer-curve/

Repukes are going to push this nonsense on rubes like Whell because it still works to get votes from these idiots.

Speaking of rubes, hope you had a great Thanksgiving, Chickie.

Thanks for this article as well, because it calls out the one item that the left keeps coming back to:

Arthur Laffer, the Reagan-era guru of trickle-down economics, was unchastened by the deficit explosion back then, which effectively disproved his theory that cutting taxes on the rich would increase government tax revenue.

The Keynesians keep lying about what Supply-Side is. I've stated many times that the theory has nothing to do with government spending, but the Keynesian crowd unfailingly attempts to describe Supply-Side in terms of the deficit, which is a function of spending.

The failure, if you want to call it that, was not in the theory itself. The theory worked, and tax revenue tracked pretty much the same as a percentage of GDP from 1970 - 1990: https://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/...n_20th_Century

The ideology has a kernel of truth to it in that taxation generally reduces economic activity; however, there has never been any evidence U.S. taxes were high enough to begin with to depress economic activity beyond the returns to government revenue.

It's an irrelevant point because there's never been any agreement - at least in recent history - about the appropriate role, size, and required funding level for the US Gov't. In fact, the left likes to refer to a reduction in a percentage of budget increase for a department of the function of the Federal bureaucracy as a budget cut. So, the author might have a point, but he gets out over his skis and fails when he refers to the deficit.

Here's where the train went off the rails: https://www.usgovernmentspending.com...ecent_Spending

Spending MORE THAN DOUBLED during that period of time, yet tax revenue as a % of GDP remained flat. It was, and still is, the SPENDING that is not sustainable, which has nothing to do with Supply Side theory.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

The Keynesians keep lying about what Supply-Side is. I've stated many times that the theory has nothing to do with government spending, but the Keynesian crowd unfailingly attempts to describe Supply-Side in terms of the deficit, which is a function of spending.

What you seem to be deliberately avoiding is that Supply-Side theory says that tax revenue goes up with a decrease in the tax rate (at least on the only half of the Laffer curve that Supply-Siders care about) and that, accordingly, spending can remain the same (or even go up) without an adverse impact upon the deficit.

As I've said a time or two before, supply-side economics is best understood as "You can have everything you want, but you have to pay for it with tax cuts." It's sophistry, pure and simple and provides a scheme by which Republicans can provide tax cuts for the rich while avoiding spending cuts that would negatively impact their base. A win-win for cynical dishonesty.

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by whell

The Keynesians keep lying about what Supply-Side is.

Speaking of liars, when do you think your Dear Leader, the Orange insurrectionist crime boss Russian asset, will be behind bars where he so rightfully belongs?

[bobabode]

What is that smell?

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

What you seem to be deliberately avoiding is that Supply-Side theory says that tax revenue goes up with a decrease in the tax rate (at least on the only half of the Laffer curve that Supply-Siders care about) and that, accordingly, spending can remain the same (or even go up) without an adverse impact upon the deficit.

Again, supply-side theory has nothing to do with spending. You also ignored the info posted above. Here's the most straightforward (watered down just for you), non-politicized description I can find about what supply-side is: https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/g...ide-economics/.

Note the absence of any reference to spending. This is because supply-side is a plan for economic stimulus, not spending stimulus. Spending as a stimulus, particularly deficit spending, is advocated by the Keynesian crowd.

There's no question that deficits increased in the 80's. They continued to increase in the 90's, '00's and '10's. Here we are in the '20's and ballooning deficits are a way of life. Why? Because spending has drastically increased.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

There's no question that deficits increased in the 80's. They continued to increase in the 90's, '00's and '10's. Here we are in the '20's and ballooning deficits are a way of life. Why? Because spending has drastically increased.

Since the 1980's, deficits have climbed sharply under Republicans and fell under Democrats. The sharp increases in deficits were almost universally associated with supply-side inspired tax cuts by Reagan, Dubya and Trump.

Conservative "deficit hawks" only really seem to care about deficits when Democrats control the government, apparently thinking that the tax cuts they support and enact while they're in power will grow our way out of deficit spending (which they never do). And then they blame the subsequent Democratic administration for the increased deficits that their discredited "voodoo economics" is responsible for.

You need to come to terms with fact that supply-side economics is a sham deliberately designed by conservatives to rationalize tax cuts for the wealthy without the need for concurrent spending cuts (due to their promise of significant economic growth actually increasing revenue despite lower tax rates (which it has never done)).

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by finnbow

.....
You need to come to terms with fact that supply-side economics is a sham deliberately designed by conservatives to rationalize tax cuts for the wealthy without the need for concurrent spending cuts (due to their promise of significant economic growth actually increasing revenue despite lower tax rates (which it has never done).

The reason being there is no compulsion on the beneficiaries of these mega tax cuts to reinvest in the economy to create jobs. This is why it has failed every time.