"If we were only 14T in debt we wouldn't have near the problem we now have."
It is the topic of the day, i-node. Now I know you want to distract from that, but...
"But your paragraph reflects total confusion over the meaning of the numbers. You can't just add up all the tax cuts and say, "Okay, there's your deficit""
No confusion on my part, i-node. On yours I suspect you are so intent on pushing your ideology that you are willing to distort and make up stuff.
Case in point.
"Because, as we know (empirically, from cuts made under JFK, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush) tax cuts often cause economic growth, which causes increased revenue."
With JFK you have a point. But look at the tax rate. For the rest, not so much. For Reagan and Bush, they ran the highest deficits in history, at least up until their respective administrations. And we have a huge body of proof that it will stimulate the economy. Never enough to make up for the lost revenues. As even some Chicago School economists have admitted, and most reputable economists back.
"And tax higher tax rates often interfere with economic growth."
And, of course, you have no proof of this. It very well may be true that the economic growth was not as high as it might have been, and there are reasons to suspect it is true, but there is no proof whatsoever that it is a significant factor. Some of the best economic growth has occurred after a tax hike. Like after Clinton raised taxes.
But, continue with your spin... |
