"Voodoo" Economics Working Like Magic

Discussion in 'Economy' started by Adam's Apple, Jun 21, 2006.

  1. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    The Wonder of Voodoo Economics
    By Rich Lowry, National Review
    June 20, 2006

    Who says you can’t cut taxes, increase spending, and reduce the federal budget deficit all at the same time? That’s what the Bush administration has managed to do. Two decades after then-presidential candidate George H.W. Bush characterized Ronald Reagan’s idea that tax cuts would spur revenue-generating economic growth as “voodoo economics,” the witch doctor is again at work.

    When President Bush pledged in 2004 to cut the deficit in half by 2009, critics guffawed. The Boston Globe headlined a story, “Bush’s plan to halve federal deficit seen as unlikely; higher spending, lower taxes don’t mix, analysts say.” “Fanciful,” “laughable” and “all spin,” said the critics.

    Well, it turns out that 2009 might be coming early this year. The 2004 deficit had been projected to hit $521 billion, or 4.5 percent of gross domestic product. Bush’s goal was to cut it to 2.25 percent of GDP by 2009—not exactly as stirring a national goal as putting a man on the moon, but one that was nonetheless pronounced unattainable. This year, the deficit could go as low as $300 billion, right around the 2009 goal of 2.5 percent of GDP.

    The key to the reduction is revenue growth, which has been stoked by economic growth. Government revenues are up 12.9 percent in the first eight months of this year over the same eight-month period last year—without any tax increases. When individuals, investors, and corporations have more cash in a growing economy, they send more to the federal government in tax payments.

    This, despite—or, more accurately, because of—a couple of rounds of Bush tax cuts that were supposed to have been fiscally ruinous. The Bush tax reductions played some role in the economic expansion and therefore are responsible, partly, for the increased revenues. This doesn’t mean that tax cuts “pay for themselves,” as their most fervent advocates say. But they certainly can offset some of their own cost.

    for full article:
    http://author.nationalreview.com/latest/?q=MjE1NQ==
     
  2. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    I will never understand how some people can think Ted Kennedy can spend MY money more efficiently then I can.
     
  3. 1549
    Offline

    1549 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Messages:
    676
    Thanks Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    New Jersey
    Ratings:
    +59
    Interesting sidenote...

    Without even adjusting for inflation, Reagan's federal budget was the highest in U.S. history.

    Just an interesting little 'did you know' fact.
     
  4. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    That is Bush's fault.
     
  5. PsuedoGhost
    Offline

    PsuedoGhost Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    206
    Thanks Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +15
    This article should be titled, the wonder of a cyclical market. Its no surprise that government revenues are spiking in contrast to previous years, especially when you acknowledge that we were in the pit of a deep recession in the last four years. Again, until we see some concrete proof that trickle down tax cuts work, I will be extremely skeptical.
     

Share This Page