Supply-Side Economics

[whell]

Originally Posted by Chicks

Seriously? Did you miss this very obvious credit right at the top of the article? Obviously they all agree with the contents, or they certainly wouldn't have put their name on it. Are you really this dense?

By Martin Neil Baily, Jason Furman, Alan B. Krueger, Laura D'Andrea Tyson and Janet L. Yellen

Yup, went right past it. My bad. Was actually looking specifically for the text you quoted.

Still, the point remains that they failed to cite where the text your quoted from their opinion piece came from. Not good. I suspect its from the forward - looking CBO analysis, and as was pointed out their record on forward looking stuff isn't that great.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Only because it works every time it has been tried.

Huge tax cuts pay for themselves every time they're tried? In which alternate universe?

The GOP establishment is fortunate to have ignorant, misinformed constituents like you. They get to give tax cuts to the wealthy while you still believe that this somehow benefits you and your children. It's kinda like you're suffering from an economic Stockholm syndrome.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Huge tax cuts pay for themselves every time they're tried? In which alternate universe?

The GOP establishment is fortunate to have ignorant, misinformed constituents like you. They get to give tax cuts to the wealthy while you still believe that this somehow benefits you and your children. It's kinda like you're suffering from an economic Stockholm syndrome.

Go back and look at Treasury receipts for the 1980's, and you'll find out you're the one who is ignorant and misinformed, though you're likely to f'ing arrogant to consider the possibility. You'll see that tax receipts went up nearly every year in the face of a reduction in tax rates. In fact, we've covered this point already, so it apparent that you were too ignorant to understand it.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Go back and look at Treasury receipts for the 1980's, and you'll find out you're the one who is ignorant and misinformed, though you're likely to f'ing arrogant to consider the possibility. You'll see that tax receipts went up nearly every year in the face of a reduction in tax rates. In fact, we've covered this point already, so it apparent that you were too ignorant to understand it.

According to a 2003 Treasury study, the tax cuts in the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 resulted in a significant decline in revenue relative to a baseline without the cuts, approximately $111 billion (in 1992 dollars) on average during the first four years after implementation or nearly 3% GDP annually... During Reagan's presidency, the national debt almost tripled and the U.S. went from being the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor in under eight years ...President Reagan raised taxes eleven times over the course of his presidency, all in the name of fiscal responsibility.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

The bottom line - you believe in a myth that has become an article of faith in the GOP, despite all the evidence to the contrary. You sound like a snake-handling Pentacostal preacher praising the Godly benefits and safety of snake-handling (supply-side economics) in the wake of his two predecessors dying of snake bites (Reagan, Dubya).

The more you argue, the more obtuse and intellectually bankrupt you become.

[Chicks]

Trump’s push to redo $1.3T spending bill he signed sparks GOP revolt

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...blicans-516856

Whell’s party of Keystone Cops. You can’t make this stuff up!

Ultimately, 90 House Republicans backed the spending bill, in part because they were promised cover by the White House.

But Trump’s 180-degree reversal on that deal left the Republican lawmakers who backed the omnibus feeling spurned. Trump further infuriated members of his own party after he threatened to veto the bill and accused GOP leaders of choosing to “waste money” in the bill.

Those same Republican leaders have sharply disputed Trump’s claim that there was no close scrutiny of spending. “When you put together a $1.3 trillion bill, you look into all these accounts,” Frelinghuysen said in defense of the bill.

“You don’t throw your friends under the bus who did exactly what you wanted them to do,” Cole said, calling it a “hare-brained scheme.”

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Chicks

Trump’s push to redo $1.3T spending bill he signed sparks GOP revolt

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...blicans-516856

Whell’s party of Keystone Cops. You can’t make this stuff up!

Ultimately, 90 House Republicans backed the spending bill, in part because they were promised cover by the White House.

But Trump’s 180-degree reversal on that deal left the Republican lawmakers who backed the omnibus feeling spurned. Trump further infuriated members of his own party after he threatened to veto the bill and accused GOP leaders of choosing to “waste money” in the bill.

Those same Republican leaders have sharply disputed Trump’s claim that there was no close scrutiny of spending. “When you put together a $1.3 trillion bill, you look into all these accounts,” Frelinghuysen said in defense of the bill.

“You don’t throw your friends under the bus who did exactly what you wanted them to do,” Cole said, calling it a “hare-brained scheme.”

Yet another example of supply-side economics that Whell so admires and believes in. Don't worry, Chick. We'll grow our way out of it.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

The bottom line - you believe in a myth that has become an article of faith in the GOP, despite all the evidence to the contrary. You sound like a snake-handling Pentacostal preacher praising the Godly benefits and safety of snake-handling (supply-side economics) in the wake of his two predecessors dying of snake bites (Reagan, Dubya).

The more you argue, the more obtuse and intellectually bankrupt you become.

From your own link, genius:

Regarding the "Treasury study" you refer quoted:"

Other tax bills had neutral or, in the case of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, a (~+1% of GDP) increase in revenue as a share of GDP. It should be however noted that the study did not examine the longer-term impact of Reagan tax policy, including sunset clauses and "the long-run, fully-phased-in effect of the tax bills".[57] The fact that tax receipts as a percentage of GDP fell following the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 shows a decrease in tax burden as share of GDP and a commensurate increase in the deficit, as spending did not fall relative to GDP. Total tax revenue from income tax receipts increased during Reagan's two terms, with the exception of 1982–83.[

The only thing that's "obtuse and intellectually bankrupt" is you and your over-inflated sense of superiority....

But you seem to have a keen ability to quote information out of context if it serves your needs.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Only because it works every time it has been tried.

So, are you saying you still believe this silly shit, along with Mnuchin's assertion that the December tax bill will pay for itself?

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

So, are you saying you still believe this silly shit, along with Mnuchin's assertion that the December tax bill will pay for itself?

I believe that facts, but I guess facts are what you want to characterize as "silly shit". That includes the facts that you kindly provided in your link above.

Fact: the US Treasury announced that Tax revenues for March 2018 were up $26 Billion versus the same period last year, and may have set a record for tax receipts for a month.

Concurrently, the deficit increased. If this doesn't drive home the point that the we don't have a revenue problem - we have in actuality a spending problem - then I suspect nothing will.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Concurrently, the deficit increased. If this doesn't drive home the point that the we don't have a revenue problem - we have in actuality a spending problem - then I suspect nothing will.

Tax cuts are considered spending (or more accurately tax expenditures) by tax gurus. The bottom line is that Republicans always want tax cuts, but have never cared about spending by Republican administrations. They only care about spending by Democrats.