Hey PP and JayB, a question for yous

[chucK]

Peter Puget, JayB, any other trickle down supporters,

 

You guys seem much more confident in your knowledge of in-depth economics than I. The statements below seemd pretty clear-cut and damning of the Bush tax cuts. Do you basically agree with the statements (bolded ones especially) or are they closer to more of that terrible liberal media bias? or other?

 

Just wondering.

 

From Washington Post:

 

"According to Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist who joined the American Enterprise Institute, "Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that." Viard said in October there was "no evidence" that Bush's tax cuts come anywhere close to paying for themselves, a conclusion shared by economists at the Treasury Department and the nonpartisan CBO, Washington Post staff writer Lori Montgomery reported.

 

The Congressional Research Service has estimated that economic growth fueled by the tax cuts is likely to generate revenue worth about 7 percent of their total cost, which amounts to about $1.1 trillion since 2001."

[Winter]

you're just a paranoid schizoliberal that can't quote from obscure academic literature. please go back to writing a manifesto and hiding out in a Montana outhouse.

[ClimbingPanther]

That doesn't surprise me one bit. Who really thought that every cent of that extra money would find its way back to the federal government? Was that really the point anyway? The point was to increase the national debt and push down the value of the dollar, possibly in hopes of curbing the trade deficit. At least I hope that was the point because there wasn't much else it could have done.

[chucK]

That's quite an understatement. 7 percent is a long way off from "every cent".

 

I guess that your point is that this was never supposed to be budget neutral. You're saying that our govt. is buying something and only paying 93 cents on the dollar. That sounds pretty good from that respect. So I guess my next question is, what are we buying for our $1.1 trillion? (other than financial security for the people who loan money to the US government)

 

(That wasn't a rhetorical question, by the way)

[Peter_Puget]

Double post.

Edited January 3, 2007 by Peter_Puget

[Peter_Puget]

ChucK –

 

Not much free time but…

 

1) Didn’t Bush have several set of tax reductions? Do tax cuts pay for themselves instantaneously? If not then the week after a tax cut is enacted I could claim that the tax cuts have not paid for themselves and be strictly speaking accurate.

 

2) Wasn’t the economic downturn several years ago on of the smallest on record despite 9/11, high oil prices and corporate scandals from the Clinton years.

 

3) Wash Post Quote: “A robust economy and a strong stock market deserve the bulk of the credit, the economists said, but tax collections are growing far faster than the economy as a whole, so those factors cannot completely explain the Treasury's good fortune or suggest how long it might last.” Those favoring the tax cuts would argue that the robust economy and strong stock market are to a material degree the result of the tax cuts!

 

4) Hasn’t the household survey of employment been growing quite robustly? This might be because of strong growth LLC and Subchapter S companies – entrepreneurs unleashed by the tax cuts.

 

5) In the past I have linked to several studies from respected organizations showing that the tax cuts have been successful.

 

6) You might find it interesting to look at CBO projections of several years ago.

 

By the way I am not a trickle down guy. I am for everyone have as much freedom as possible! Free minds and free markets!

 

[billcoe]

Hey, if you're going to get all pissy, how the hell can they get the weath concentrated in a few hands?

 

BTW, pull up some Alan Greenspan quotes, he's been against the Bush tax cuts from day 1.

 

But what the hell does he know? We've been able to borrow the money from the Chinese quite sucessfully to cover the missing difference to ensure that your kids will be paying the interest so that a small group of folks can pad their bank accounts.

[ClimbingPanther]

One point about the economy, especially the stock market, is that it's based on perceptions to a significant degree. Giving the perception of more consumer spending power by lowering taxes could have had enough of a mental impact on consumer confidence to make up for the clearly small impact it had on the actual amount of money in our pockets. Just some conjecture.

 

A more scary thought... what's with this negative savings rate that's being reported? That CAN'T be good!!! Only a matter of time until we really do get a dramatic depression.

[Peter_Puget]

BTW, pull up some Alan Greenspan quotes, he's been against the Bush tax cuts from day 1.

 

No time to pull up quotes but I am pretty sure Greenspan was for both the 2001 cuts and 2003.

 

He was for the 2001 cuts pretty much without reservation and wanted spending limits imposed as a condition of the 2003 tax cuts.