SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (821319)12/7/2014 4:53:33 PM
From: i-node  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1584956
 
>> Tax cuts that are not stimulative drives up the deficit.

That may well be; however, that is not the fault of tax cuts; rather, it is the fault of a government which has no budgetary self-control.

As the ACA showed us, if a faction wants to increase deficit spending it will do so; if necessary, it will simply have CBO lie about the projections. Which Harry Reid and Barack Obama did in 09 and 10. But a competent government would evaluate the available revenue and limit spending accordingly.

My view at this point is that government will continue spending as long as lenders will lend. Lower taxes, even if not stimulative, will hasten us along to the point where borrowing isn't possible. From my point of view, the sooner we reach that point in America the better off future generations will be. That is, frankly, my sole consideration.

>> Not that even stimulative tax cuts can pay for themselves in anything like a reasonable time frame, non-stimulative tax cuts are even worse.

Stimulative tax cuts can pay for themselves, but they don't always do so, particularly if there comes along some economic event which stops them. The Bush 03 cuts were definitely paying for themselves, until the Clinton housing crisis hit in 07-08, which no amount of tax cuts could have pushed us through. They were stimulative, but that doesn't mean they solve all problems.