Re your fantasy claim: "Reagan proved beyond all doubt: There is no negative effect of ANY deficit if it is caused by reductions of marginal tax rates and taxes on capital formation. The economic growth created by those tax reforms repays any deficit in spades, and taxes need to be cut yet again to give back the resultant overcharge."
>>> Really? This Laffer Curve Voodoo Economics effect works at ALL POINTS ON THE CURVE? Ad infinitum? Even if taxes are at 0.005%, and reducing them to 0.004% produces a deficit?
>>> Deficits have 'no negative effect' even when they force the debasement of the currency to bay back the borrowed money?
>>> Hey, I'll be with you in saying that taxes are WAY to high, and that high taxes are a depressant to growth. No problem with that.
>>> But you are INSANE if you think 'deficits don't matter'! If the Federal Government had to operate under a Constitutional amendment mandating a balanced budget (like many of our States do!) then we could have the best of both Worlds: when the Government cuts tax rates, they would have to balance the ledger by cutting GOVERNMENT SPENDING too... which is the real reason taxes are high.
>>> Deficits work the same as taxes in the long run, because they force debasement of the currency and that takes spending power out of the pockets of the taxpayers... the same as taxes. If you cut tax rates (but leave Government spending and thus deficits high), they will get the spending power out of your pocket just the same, by debasement.
>>> About Reagan being responsible for all that is good in the economy... for all time <G>, too bad he never got a handle on either SPENDING or DEFICITS (unlike his campaign promises) and pissed away most of the benefits resulting from his CORRECT conclusion that too-high taxes were a depressant to growth.
>>> The economic statistics clearly illustrate this.
--------------------------------------------------------
Re: "Clinton's economic "numbers" were CREATED by Reagan."
Yeah, too bad though they couldn't show up until long past his two terms (and even past the succeeding Bush I term, and into the second Clinton term).
So, I guess if Bush II follows the Reagan economic plan (promise to eliminate the federal budget deficit and instead run up HUGE deficits and the largest taxpayer-financed bailout in history) then the 'good economic numbers' will wait to show up round about 2014 or 2015... and whomever is President then can take 'the credit'. :) |
