alan1
Gold Member
You can incorrectly call that a truth all you want to, but it doesn't make it one.Sounds nice and I'm sure it sells well with the "pass the buck" generation.
But the truth is, while tax cuts have inevitably lead to trillions in debt, our economy has shown no significant correlation in terms of lower taxes and better economic growth. If anything, the opposite is the case.
So, no thinks. While I can see the argument for temporary fiscal stimulus for the recession (and the stimulus bill does in fact contain hundreds of billions in tax relief) in the long term creating more debt is not better for the country.
We need to raise revenues, not cut them.
Somehow, our country managed to function just fine when the top tax rate was 91% in the 1950s and 70% in the 1960s. In fact, it was doing a lot better then than it did in the 00s with the tax cuts.
Debt is created by spending money you don't have. Key word is spending.
If I had to take a 50% cut in pay, but kept spending as if I didn't, then I would end up in debt to.
Ah, another graduate of the Limbaugh school of economics:
Limbaugh Principles of Economics 101.
(Liberals and other thinking people, please first take copious amounts of barbituates before continuing, otherwise there is no hope of any of the following making sense to you.)
1. Deficits = spending. Revenues are irrelevant. A surplus therefore cannot exist, since spending cannot be negative. That explains why there was no surplus under Clinton. See point 4.
2. Cutting taxes increases govt revenues (even though they are irrelevant see point 1). Thus, by lowering the tax rate to .0001%, the Govt will have quadrillions in tax revenues. Not that it would matter.
3. Higher tax rates do not increase revenues (which are irrelevant, see point 1) but do cause slower growth. The 1950s and 1960s and during Clinton when tax rates were higher and growth was stronger, and the 00s and during Reagan/Bush1 when taxes were lower but growth was subpar, are just anomolies to this undisputed rule.
4. Clinton never had a surplus. It's all a myth. There is no such thing. Even though all the Government records say he did. See point 1. Because if we acknolwedge that he did, it blows all our other BS out of the water.
There will be a test on this next Monday. Mountainman, you're excused as you've demonstrated superior knowledge of the principles.
I don't know who Limbaugh is, but point #1 is incorrect, it states, Deficits = spending.
Obviously a fallacy, as debt = spending more than you have. If i have a dollar, and I spend a dollar, then I'm not in debt. I don't reach debt until I spend more than the dollar I have. Your attempt at creating a strawman argument has failed you, because I said nothing even remotely similar to what you are presenting.
Last edited: