>> Correlation is not causation. There were lots of other factors, not the least of which was the massive deficit spending that occurred at the same time.
No, it isn't. Yet, you find correlation to be causation when it is convenient for YOUR position.
I would argue, correctly, that the fact GWB was president when the economy collapsed in no way suggests causation (the cause was, of course, Clinton policy that happened to take several years to manifest itself). Yet, most of the liberals, and many others, in this country today believe GWB CAUSED the collapse because he happened to be there.
In fact, Obama won reelection by convincing the voters that nothing was his fault. You guys are totally all over the place on the correlation/causation issue.
The bottom line is correlation implies causation if and only if it supports your position.
As to the topic at hand, it is an utterly stupid supposition.
If, as the Left has suggested, GWB's tax cuts CAUSED deficits, there is simply no way revenues should have gone up when the tax cuts went into effect. If revenues went up, there is no scenario where one can logically blame the increased deficits on tax cuts. I suppose your argument is that revenue would have gone up WITH or WITHOUT the tax cuts, except for the fact that they had not in the previous two years.
The correlation/causation adage is vastly over used by leftwingers today -- once again, a copout to try to cover for the fact that there have been a STRING of SUCCESSIVE incidents where tax increases killed the economy and tax cuts improved it. At some point, you have to conclude that either tax cuts CAUSE economic growth or they are covariant with something that does, and if that is the case then so be it. It works.
At what point do you just just admit you're wrong? Ever? How many times do we have to cut taxes and see economic growth result before you go, "Damn. I guess they were right?" And how many times must we waste money on failed Keynesian policy before you go, "Damn. I guess it doesn't work?" |
