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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (43292)	5/18/2010 5:02:34 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Re: [How it failed to reduce government spending as a percentage of Gross National Product, yes] "Its failed to be applied consistently (or even well defined, is every tax cut in the context of a deficit or impending deficit "starve the beast?, only those intended to serve that purpose?, only ones that meet some other criteria?)" Now THAT doesn't make any SENSE at all, Tim! A "tax cut" is a tax cut. The tax cuts HAPPENED. The only problem is that government SPENDING was not cut at the very same time. So, OF COURSE, the portion of the American economy that is represented by government never fell! (The amount of additional economic growth that was produced by lowered tax rates was --- unfortunately!!!!!!!!!!! --- but a FRACTION of the revenue that was forgone by those lowered tax rates.) Therefore, without spending cuts to accompany the tax rate reductions the government CONTINUED TO DEFICIT SPEND and simply BORROWED in the credit markets whatever it needed to fund it's ongoing spending. Therefore, in the short-run government's SIZE remained large... while in the long-run government and deficits got EVEN LARGER. (Consistently. Over eight years of Reagan/Bush, over four years of Bush I --- where the situation got very much worse! --- and later on over eight years of Bush II.) Tax cuts are not 'magic'. If your goal is reduced size of government then spending cuts and elimination of deficit borrowing are of at least equal importance, and must be at least roughly contemporaneous with lowered rates! (No 'putting off for tomorrow' the hard choices....) Re: [Showed that the ever-so-slight-reduction, (still within the margin or error or normal fluctuations), of government spending that occurred across the eight Reagan/Bush Presidency years was completely swamped by the MUCH LARGER reduction of government spending that the eight years of the Clinton Presidency produced....] "Which is evidence of just about nothing...." Unless your eyes are closed it proves at least one thing: that ONE of those economic approaches posted great success toward achieving it's stated goal of 'reduced size for the government sector' while the other did not....