Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But if politicians who insist that the way to reduce deficits is to cut taxes, not raise them, start winning elections again, how much faith can anyone have that we'll do what needs to be done? Yes, we can have a fiscal crisis. But if we do, it won't be because we've spent too much trying to create jobs and help the unemployed. It will be because investors have looked at our politics and concluded, with justification, that we've turned into a banana republic.
Of course, flirting with crisis is arguably part of the plan. There has always been a sense in which voodoo economics was a cover story for the real doctrine, which was "starve the beast": Slash revenue with tax cuts, then demand spending cuts to close the resulting budget gap. The point is that starve the beast basically amounts to deliberately creating a fiscal crisis, in the belief that the crisis can be used to push through unpopular policies, like dismantling Social Security.
That is pretty much what they had in mind. Problem is it would cut too much of their sponsers revenue so they never went thorugh with all of the plan. The results hurtm the Have None more than the Have Mores.
But if politicians who insist that the way to reduce deficits is to cut taxes, not raise them, start winning elections again, how much faith can anyone have that we'll do what needs to be done? Yes, we can have a fiscal crisis. But if we do, it won't be because we've spent too much trying to create jobs and help the unemployed. It will be because investors have looked at our politics and concluded, with justification, that we've turned into a banana republic.
Of course, flirting with crisis is arguably part of the plan. There has always been a sense in which voodoo economics was a cover story for the real doctrine, which was "starve the beast": Slash revenue with tax cuts, then demand spending cuts to close the resulting budget gap. The point is that starve the beast basically amounts to deliberately creating a fiscal crisis, in the belief that the crisis can be used to push through unpopular policies, like dismantling Social Security.
Do you even know what you are talking about? Do you hear certain buzz words and judge that it's good or bad without knowing the process?
From the article...
Senate minority leader, confirmed that Kyl was giving the official party line: "There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy.
This is true. Check the stats. Increased economic activity brings in more tax money. Tax cuts increase economic activity.
-----------------
Now there are many things one could call the Bush economy, an economy that, even before recession struck, was characterized by sluggish job growth and stagnant family incomes;
Sluggish job growth?? We had 95%+ employment. How much more can you grow?
------------------
It's not true, of course. Ronald Reagan said that his tax cuts would reduce deficits, then presided over a near-tripling of federal debt.
It's not taxes only. It's both income and outflow. So even if the policies bring in more tax revenues, if Congress spends it like a drunken sailor - then yeah, there will be deficits.
------------------
Stronger cost control for Medicare plus a moderate rise in taxes would get us most of the way there.
This suggestion of theirs is as much voodoo as anything else - especially when gov't employees are making way more in income that the people in private business who pay their salaries.
The solution is revenue and spending - both should be included in any talk of reducing deficits and debt.
So trickle-up poverty is a defensible economic policy? Really?
More fear-mongering from desperate Democrats.
It's not poverty up, it's average working americans up. You can't build a house from the roof down. Clinton proved this with the biggest surplus in US history.
Also there is no trickling down going on now. The stock market is booming showing the big corporations and rich are doing well. Instead of "trickling down" they are hording it for themselves.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Republicans want to redo voodoo economics: Be afraid
Want some fear mongering?
