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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (613960)	5/31/2011 6:06:12 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576704

Uh, Tim, it extends over the past 30 years. Considering 3 decades rather than one strengthens my point. Go back to 1981. The federal government is spending $678 billion per year. Now its over three trillion a year more than that, and most of that increase is not interest on the debt. So much of the interest we pay right now is because of tax cuts. Spending increases are more than enough to cause all of the deficit. So in a certain sense none of the interest we pay now is because of the tax cuts (esp. when you consider tax increases in between). But I don't actually think that's a very important sense. More reasonably you could look at static analysis of the revenue lost under tax cuts, discount it by about half (probably more for Reagan's cuts which cut from very high rates while also reforming the tax system and eliminating deductions) for the positive revenue effects from tax cuts (extra growth, less tax avoidance, less tax evasion), and compare that to the additional spending. The additional spending is much larger, even without the discounting