Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (61119)	4/23/2008 3:09:56 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 543604

What the budget office found, as study after study has shown, was that any new revenue that tax cuts brought in paled in comparison with their cost. This is why the deficit jumped under the last two tax-cutting presidents (Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush) and fell under the last two tax-raising presidents (George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton). This strikes me as intuitively so obvious that I cannot for the life of me understand why people don't just get it. Interesting article. Fascinating how McCain the straight-shooter keeps leaping around on taxes. And how, somehow, he doesn't seem to pay any price for it.

To: JohnM who wrote (61119)	4/23/2008 4:17:51 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543604

"This is why the deficit jumped under the last two tax-cutting presidents (Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush) and fell under the last two tax-raising presidents (George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton)." This is not entirely true and is misleading in any case. After the Reagan tax cuts took effect, the federal deficit fell in nominal and real dollar terms, and as a percent of GDP. It only rose in his first two budget years, before the tax cuts hit, because of recession and rebuilding Jimmy Carter's weakened military. Bush 41's deficit was essentially flat - if anything, a little larger at the end than the beginning. Clinton's did shrink, but it is dubious, at best, to attribute that to tax hikes. For one thing, Clinton cut capital gains taxes. More importantly, his budget benefited greatly from the so-called "peace dividend" of military cutbacks after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Bush 43, meanwhile, saw rising deficits before his tax cuts took effect, first because of the recession he inherited and then because of the slow recovery and post-9/11 military spending. His tax cuts finally took effect in FY2003. Deficits rose only a little in 2004 and then fell roughly in half relative to GDP through 2007.