Dude you are not very bright. Your fellow communists just posted an article from Paul Krugman (Nobel prize winner in economics) saying that deficits don't matter. So what point are you arguing? Are you contradicting for the sake of contradiction? What should the tax rate be? What the communist say? According to you, should we raise taxes every time a communist decides that the government should pay for something? Have you considered the opposite? Cut taxes first, and then figure out how to cut spending to match revenue. That is what I believe. Waiting until the world is perfect is not good because it may never happen. The democrats use this strategy, pass healthcare bill that was not good to then claim we need government healthcare for everyone. Pass net neutrality laws to get government in control of the internet and then pass laws/presidential decrees to control the content. BTW, what you posted below is not a fact. It is a liberal opinion. If liberals knew or cared to fix the deficits/economy, and *if* they are are smart as they say they are, we would not have any issues.
Tyrone ReXXXing wrote:
Hardloper wrote:
The tax cuts did not contribute to the debt because revenue increased, not decreased. The increased spending contributed to our debt - thank goodness he thought accelerating the Soviet Union's collapse was more important than paying off the debt.
Lol. Tax cuts more than pay for themselves by actually raising revenue, eh?? Boy, you are still really buying into that Voodoo/doodoo economic nonsense, huh? What do ACTUAL economists think of that?
Well firstly, almost all of the recent scoring of the current proposed tax cuts, EVEN WITH very generous dynamic scoring (i.e., assuming very positive economic effects from the tax cuts), believe that total revenue will be lost, and lost substantially.
Next let's look economists general views on the subject-
"In that Chicago survey of economists, 71 percent either disagreed or strongly disagreed that tax cuts would lead to higher revenue in the next five years. Meanwhile, zero percent agreed that cutting taxes would raise revenue in the next five years."
And:
" [A tax cut] won't pay for itself. You're not going to cut taxes by a dollar and get a dollar back in revenue from the growth," said Doug Holtz-Eakin, former director of the CBO. " (and certainly a conservative economist)
And now for some historical facts on the matter-
-----
" A Treasury Department study on the impact of tax bills since 1940, first released in 2006 and later updated, found that the 1981 tax cut reduced revenues by $208 billion in its first four years. (These figures are rendered in constant 2012 dollars.) The tax reform act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue neutral, reduced revenues by less than $1 billion four years after enactment."
-----
Moore directed us to a paper he co-wrote in 1996 while at the Cato Institute, .....the paper says it was “an enduring myth” that Reagan officials believed tax cuts would pay for themselves. “This was nonsense from day one, because the credible evidence overwhelmingly indicates that revenue feedbacks from tax cuts is 35 cents per dollar, at most,” the paper says, noting that “the Reagan administration never assumed that the tax cuts would pay for themselves.”
---
"Bartlett wrote that he considers the 1981 tax cut to be a success because “it not only didn’t raise inflation, as almost all economists thought it would, but it also helped the economy transition from high inflation to low inflation at a remarkably low economic cost.” But he said it clearly resulted in less revenue.
--
"Reagan’s own 1990 budget, his last one, conclud(ed) that the 1981 tax cut lowered revenues. This estimate was made in 1988, meaning it incorporated whatever growth occurred in the 1980s"
Still not convinced you're wrong?? Of course you're not, this is the era of Trump, where facts are not important, experts are idiots, and you make up the reality you want. The era of Trump.