A promise?

[spence]

If there was bi-partisan confidence the Bush tax cuts would have worked the Byrd rule wouldn't have been a factor. The simple fact is the Republicans didn't have enough votes and had to compromise on a bill that they could pass with a simple majority...because many people don't believe in magic tax cut fairy dust.

As for the wars and credit bubble...that's the variability that proves tax cuts alone don't work.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

If there was bi-partisan confidence the Bush tax cuts would have worked the Byrd rule wouldn't have been a factor. The simple fact is the Republicans didn't have enough votes and had to compromise on a bill that they could pass with a simple majority...because many people don't believe in magic tax cut fairy dust.

As for the wars and credit bubble...that's the variability that proves tax cuts alone don't work.

-spence

Right, the Dems were vehemently opposed to the tax cuts and the Repubs had to do what they could to get them passed. And so the magic tax cut fairy dust is now also believed in by the Dems.

That tax cuts alone don't work, does not mean they don't help. Which is why, I guess, the Dems want to continue the fairy dust. Now, what everybody seems to agree on, seems being the operative word, is that spending cuts would be another policy that would add to tax cuts so that they "alone" won't have to do all the work. Interesting to see if that actually transpires, and if so, if there will be meaningful cuts, or just smoke and mirror, magic spending cut fairy dust.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Right, the Dems were vehemently opposed to the tax cuts and the Repubs had to do what they could to get them passed. And so the magic tax cut fairy dust is now also believed in by the Dems.

Tax cuts impact different people in different ways. You're generalizing...

That tax cuts alone don't work, does not mean they don't help. Which is why, I guess, the Dems want to continue the fairy dust.

Do tax cuts always help? For top earners the Bush tax cuts had a significant negative impact on deficit spending and yet didn't seem to drive economic expansion nearly as much as cheap credit.

Now, what everybody seems to agree on, seems being the operative word, is that spending cuts would be another policy that would add to tax cuts so that they "alone" won't have to do all the work. Interesting to see if that actually transpires, and if so, if there will be meaningful cuts, or just smoke and mirror, magic spending cut fairy dust.

I think we'll get some movement this year but I'm not sure either side right now is honest about significant spending cuts...even many in the GOP.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Tax cuts impact different people in different ways. You're generalizing...

I checked what I said--it seemed rather specific. Your response, on the other hand was rather vague . . . one might say "you're generalizing . . ."

Do tax cuts always help?

Do they? Or is this just a general question? Is there anything that "always" helps? Depends on a whole lot of specifics (and opinions). Rather vague . . .

For top earners the Bush tax cuts had a significant negative impact on deficit spending and yet didn't seem to drive economic expansion nearly as much as cheap credit.

I would hope that tax cuts WOULD have a significant negative impact on deficit spending. The less deficit spending the better. Isn't it peculiar that the more "revenue" the government gets, the more it deficit spends. Kind of a goofy Keynesian relationship.

The cheap credit is still hanging around but doesn't seem to be driving much economic expansion. Maybe its just not having a significant negative impact on the increasing deficit spending.

Maybe deficit spending kind of has a life of its own, or of politician's preference, rather than necessarily having a connection to revenue or credit.

I think we'll get some movement this year but I'm not sure either side right now is honest about significant spending cuts...even many in the GOP.

-spence

Isn't it amazing how we can repeatedly say "even many in the GOP" yet it is the other's in the GOP, like tea partiers or "conservatives," that are marginalized and painted as kooks? It is true, I think, that many in the GOP are not much different than Dems. But they're supposed to be the good ones. So we keep getting deeper in debt, but happily so since the good guys are winning.