Supply-Side Economics

[whell]

Originally Posted by Chicks

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...226_story.html

The primary reason the deficit in coming years will now be higher than had been expected is the reduction in tax revenue from last year’s tax cuts, not an increase in spending. This year, revenue is expected to fall below 17 percent of gross domestic product — the lowest it has been in the past 50 years with the exception of the aftermath of the past two recessions.

Sorry, Whell, you are the one who just doesn’t get it.

I think not. I think actually you can't understand what you read. First, you site an "opinion" column as your source for your conclusion. I'll leave aside the fact that this "opinion" comes from WaPo, and it specifically a response to a Hoover Institute study about entitlement funding and not written as a broader commentary specifically about government spending or revenue policy.

The specific quote that you site is not sourced: we don't know from where the author draws his/her data to support that statement. I suspect it comes from the CBO. The CBO info is an "estimate" based on projections from reductions in revenue versus as static model. The foresight can therefore not be based on actual receipts.

In other words, the story isn't written yet. For example:

Government receipts totaled $3,315 billion in FY 2017. This was $48 billion higher than in FY 2016, an increase of 1.5 percent, below expectations from both the Budget and the MSR. As a percentage of GDP, receipts equaled 17.3 percent, 0.4 percentage point lower than in FY 2016 and 0.1 percentage point below the average over the last 40 years. The dollar increase in receipts for FY 2017 can be attributed to higher social insurance and retirement receipts and net individual income taxes, partially offset by lower deposits of earnings by the Federal Reserve.

Outlays grew in FY 2017, but by less than expected in the Budget and the MSR, and decreased slightly as a percentage of GDP. Outlays were $3,981 billion, $128 billion above those in FY 2016, a 3.3 percent increase. As a percentage of GDP, outlays were 20.7 percent, 0.1 percentage point lower than in the prior year, but above the 40-year average of 20.5 percent.

That was the result of the fiscal 2017 budget, which was laid out in 2016. Revenues less than expected, but in actuality Uncle Sam spent less than what was budgeted. The CBO didn't accurately predict this result. We also know that the CBO's predictive ability isn't that great, particularly with multi-year projections.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

I think not. I think actually you can't understand what you read. First, you site an "opinion" column as your source for your conclusion...

You overlook the fact that they're all renowned and accomplished economists and all former chairs of the White House Council of Economic Advisers and that they have access to real data and real experts, not to mention decades of experience.

Conversely, there isn't a single credible economist alive who believes that the recent supply-side tax cuts will actually grow our way out of the deficit. The more you dig in supporting supply-side theory, the more ignorant and delusional you look. There has never been a real world example of it working and, in fact, every attempt at it has been a dismal failure. If you're so fond of this discredited theory, move to what should be your land of milk and honey - Kansas.

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by finnbow

You overlook the fact that they're all renowned and accomplished economists and all former chairs of the White House Council of Economic Advisers and that they have access to real data and real experts, not to mention decades of experience.

Remember, we’re talking to a Donny sycophant here, proof that he’s not terribly bright. He’s so dull that he offered a Koch brothers funded “research” paper as “proof” that global warming is a lefty fantasy, lol. He’s not playing with a full deck, obviously.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

You overlook the fact that they're all renowned and accomplished economists and all former chairs of the White House Council of Economic Advisers and that they have access to real data and real experts, not to mention decades of experience.

Who are you referring to? The folks that wrote the WaPo article?

Originally Posted by finnbow

Conversely, there isn't a single credible economist alive who believes that the recent supply-side tax cuts will actually grow our way out of the deficit.

You're arguing about an assertion that no one is making. Trump hasn't made that assertion, and I don't think anyone in the current administration has stated that they plan to "grow their way out of the deficit".

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Who are you referring to? The folks that wrote the WaPo article?

Yep. Martin Neil Baily, Jason Furman, Alan B. Krueger, Laura D’Andrea Tyson and Janet L. Yellen are all former chairs of the White House Council of Economic Advisers.

You're arguing about an assertion that no one is making. Trump hasn't made that assertion, and I don't think anyone in the current administration has stated that they plan to "grow their way out of the deficit".

April 2017: “The tax plan will pay for itself with economic growth.” – Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin

Trump Promised to Eliminate National Debt in Eight Years.

Give up. You just embarrassing yourself now.

[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.

[Chicks]

Trump cultist Whell telling anyone to “wake the hell up” is hilarious.

[Chicks]

Says it all in a nutshell. Whell, you're just embarrassing yourself. Time to pull your head out of Donny's ass.

Kudlow’s core doctrine is that upper-bracket tax rates are the primary driver of economic growth, and that even minor changes in the level of taxation on the rich have enormous consequences on growth. In 1993, when Bill Clinton proposed an increase in the top tax rate from 31% to 39.6%, Kudlow wrote, “There is no question that Presdient Clinton’s across-the-board tax increases…will throw a wet blanket over the recovery and depress the economy’s long-run potential to grow.” This was wrong. Instead a boom ensued. Rather than question his analysis, Kudlow switched to crediting the results to the great tax-cutter, Ronald Reagan. “The politician most responsible for laying the groundwork for this prosperous era is not Bill Clinton, but Ronald Reagan,” he argued in February, 2000.

By December 2000, the expansion had begun to slow. What had happened? According to Kudlow, it meant Reagan’s tax-cutting genius was no longer responsible for the economy’s performance. “The Clinton policies of rising tax burdens, high interest rates and re-regulation is responsible for the sinking stock market and the slumping economy,” he mourned, though no taxes or re-regulation had taken place since he had credited Reagan for the boom earlier that same year.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Chicks

Says it all in a nutshell. Whell, you're just embarrassing yourself. Time to pull your head out of Donny's ass.

Kudlow’s core doctrine is that upper-bracket tax rates are the primary driver of economic growth, and that even minor changes in the level of taxation on the rich have enormous consequences on growth. In 1993, when Bill Clinton proposed an increase in the top tax rate from 31% to 39.6%, Kudlow wrote, “There is no question that Presdient Clinton’s across-the-board tax increases…will throw a wet blanket over the recovery and depress the economy’s long-run potential to grow.” This was wrong. Instead a boom ensued. Rather than question his analysis, Kudlow switched to crediting the results to the great tax-cutter, Ronald Reagan. “The politician most responsible for laying the groundwork for this prosperous era is not Bill Clinton, but Ronald Reagan,” he argued in February, 2000.

By December 2000, the expansion had begun to slow. What had happened? According to Kudlow, it meant Reagan’s tax-cutting genius was no longer responsible for the economy’s performance. “The Clinton policies of rising tax burdens, high interest rates and re-regulation is responsible for the sinking stock market and the slumping economy,” he mourned, though no taxes or re-regulation had taken place since he had credited Reagan for the boom earlier that same year.

Clinton was one lucky bastard. He managed to take credit for the dot-com boom, and then managed to deflect credit for the dot-com bust. He pushed through a gas tax hike just at the outbreak of pronounced fighting and cheating between the OPEC nations drove down gas prices. Luckily Hillary's attempt to take control of the health care industry crashed and burned avoiding the huge budget / debt hit that would have caused, ushering in budget-minded Congress in 1994, allowing for reduction of the deficit.

He was also just smart enough to leave Greenspan in charge of the Fed.

Kudlow wasn't wrong, but Clinton was more lucky than good.