Abunai! wrote:
I apologize; I am tired, and a plethora of other meaningless excuses.
Quote:
So, the govt spending too much = tax cuts are bad?
I like how you automatically assume the government must be spending too much if there are deficits. It's the sort of thing that makes me think a person is too stuck within their own assumptions to do anything but rationalize.
Or the simple idea that you shouldn't spend more than you take in, and if you take in less then, uh, you should spend less?
I know Visa told you otherwise, but its true.
Abunai wrote:
However, it was my argument (as much as that overview of history was an argument) that Bush Sr.'s method of taxation as well as his apparent economic and fiscal policy. Additionally, I was criticizing the younger Bush on similar points, as well. However, judging by the elder's "no new taxes," I would not say I am criticizing tax cuts, per se. I am, however, criticizing supply-side economics.
Well, apparently your entire argument seems to be based on deficeits, which are bad (though you havn't made a concrete case for why they should be avoided, but lets go for the sake of argument.) Alright. However, the only actual case this argues for is government spending ignoring this lack of revenue that stops via tax cuts: in this sense, the execution of supply-side economics (wherein you cut taxes, which as you said works, but then keep spending the same amount of money,) is wrong/bad for the government.
Abunai wrote:
Quote:
Riding on a wave of high GDP =/= good monetary policy. Similarly, tax cuts do not magically make a recession based in real world things - oil, war, etc - go away. But it helps. I have shown this, pretty clearly, here.
I concur: tax cuts do help the economy. However, it is my argument against supply-side economics that there are more and less efficient ways to implement them, and times when implementing them aren't needed (e.g. the times when Americans say they feel less taxed than ever).
What ways are these...? Data etc.
Abunai wrote:
I also feel that Clinton did not ride on a wave of high GDP for 8 years. While the business cycle always goes up and down, it pays to keep in mind that we can affect it in a variety of ways, and we aim for stability.
Such as...?
It'd be nice to have something to rebut etc.
Abunai wrote:
It is in the interests of stability that I promote a stable government (i.e. one not likely break deficits records until banks refuse to do business with it).
I am unaware of this ever happening to the USA. Have I missed something...?
Abunai wrote:
As you have said before, the government can only do so much about the business cycle, so I recommend one its primary concerns being to keep itself going and doing its job, preferably with surpluses so it can afford to protect us from terrorists, et cetera.
I agree. So, if tax cuts are done, the logical thing to do is to spend less in accordance, is it not?
Abunai wrote:
Reagan managed to keep deficits generally where they were, Bush Sr. managed to fail, Clinton (and that amazing Treasury Seceratary of his) managed <i>surpluses</i>, and Bush Jr. managed <b>immense, record</b> deficits.
The comparisons are somewhat faulty, given that Reagan was in the middle of an arms race, Bush Sr. invaded a country with the US military in the middle of nowhere (not cheap,) and Bush Jr. had to deal with 9-11, the war on terrorism, etc etc. Clinton faced no budget-draining initiatives in his term, so saying that the surplus was due to his fiscal policy is somewhat erroneous, I think. Apples and oranges, in other words, at least in this category.
Abunai wrote:
It would seem, then, that both Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. failed in their capacities as monetary overseers. Bush Sr. implemented taxes that decreased deficits (possibly without dealing with the underlying problem), but Bush Jr. has no help. Thus, we have deficits that will affect what our government can do for years to come.</rhetoric>
And? This is not an implication against supply-side economics in general, it is (if anything, it is somewhat erroneous to compare two wartime president's spending records to a peacetime one's) a (possible) implication on Bush Sr and Jr. 's specificalities in handling how tax cuts were done.
Abunai wrote:
While it would be nice to cut taxes to nothing, and help the economy that way, we <i>have</i> to be realistic, and balance it with the (economic) need for a government, and help that way.
Hold...
Abunai wrote:
Quote:
<b>Second to l</b>astly, my professor with a Ph.D. in economics trumps your gold faggy award in environmentalist economics. Nobody indeed.
I wish to assuage your doubts as to the validity of the award, since it apparently matters enough to you to attach petty insults to it. The competition in question is neither minor (e.g. they had a shitty movie made about them), nor at all environmental (e.g. they like to have themes every year, and the year of the gold was "America, Growth of a Nation," a "celebration of exploitation" as another person called it). It's fagginess is also doubtful, seeing as it gave the medal to a man who likes girls almost as young as you do. Speaking of the man himself, I am actually glad he doesn't have his Ph.D. yet; considering the time it takes to get a Ph.D. in order to teach teenagers economics, his knowledge might be out of date.
Additionally, it would be better for you to assume my friends to be conservative with libertarian leanings. For that is the sort I am surrounded by, here, as you, I believe, have mentioned.
It was something of a joke, but to address it specifically: your friend's instructors have not been...uhm...very nice.
Abunai wrote:
Quote:
I question as well the "three times" figure, the tax revenue being only (iirc) 15% or so (with variations according to the specific period) of the US govt's budget.
Feel free, kiddo.
Abunai wrote:
While the wars play a significant part in the growing deficit, tax-cuts cost three times as much as the wars and the increased homeland security and rebuilding after Sept. 11 put together.
How much have homeland security and rebuilding cost, again?
-MiB