Posted on 10/02/2018 8:57:46 AM PDT by Kaslin
Congress absolutely refuses to live within it’s means.
STILL WINNING!
The Laffer curve holds true about aggregate tax income rising in the presence of tax cuts. It is the spending side of the equation that is going to get us.
The Keynesian train rolls on. Low taxes with massive Government spending. Ya can’t cut debt doing that.
And he can get it, if only he can prevent the Fed from raising interest rates every quarter.
For years now I’ve been pointing out that more spendthrift Republicans are able to go along with their conservative bretherin when they are in opposition to a Democrat POTUS but when a Republican is in the White House they soon find their oats and start spending freely, often joining forces with the ever eager to spend Democrats (who know the Republican base will blame a Republican President for out of control spending).
Because of the never Trump phenomenon it took nearly a full year before they realized they no longer had a partisan reason to oppose spending and so the transition that took only a few weeks under W (when the so-called moderates realized that they held the cards, resulting in no vetoes till after the Republicans had lost Congress) was thankfully delayed.
Forget it, he’s on a roll.
“A Trillion-Dollar Blunder”
Obama was a multi-trillion dollar blunder.
The CBO never gets numbers right. By their own policies, they can’t do real investigation and calculations. They have to abide by whatever algorithms given to them by the person making the request.
So if I liberal asks the CBO to analyze a tax policy, it’ll use a static tax perspective like Dims think. If a libertarian/fiscal conservative asks the CBO to analyze the same tax policy, it’ll use a dynamic model (respecting the Laffer curve) because that’s how it’ll be asked to do it.
That’s why in the pre-lude to Obamacare, the CBO would one day say it’s horrible then the next day say it’s awesome. It always depends on who makes the request of the CBO and how the calculations are asked to be done.
“CBO found the economy was stronger last year than previously estimated, and that puts a higher price tag on the tax cuts because more people would otherwise be paying higher rates this year.”
That really is incredible! The tax cuts “cost” the government more money than it would have gotten if they kept taxes high but the growth magically appeared anyway??
By this logic college costs much more than you think, because you give up 4 years of income you would have made if you got the same higher-earning job without going to college.
No.
You see Keynes postulated that in good times spending should be decreased. His biggest failure as an economist was not realizing that all politicians etc would hear from him is “spend”. They loved his ideas because they rubber stamped more spending. But they were simply bound to never apply the flip side.
Even when Nixon infamously said we’re all Keynesians how the actual expression of Keynes’ ideas had shifted away from him towards what I call Keystone Keynesianism (think Keystone Cops for the reference).
Keystone Keynesians see bad times as the demand for more spending and good times as opportunities to spend more. They cease from just pump priming to graduate to habitual economic whacking off and distort the economy and government in a way not unlike how a sex freak distorts pleasure.
The loons in D.C. aren’t really Keynesians. Keynesians would be an improvement. They’re worse than Keynesians.
Keynes’ failure to understand people in power invalidates his ideas because economics is ultimately about people, about philosophy.
As I sometimes say, whatever you say against him, Smith based his ideas on how people actually act and what makes them likely to prosper on their own, and that’s why he was largely correct (even his “free trade” was mercantilist, one that was to benefit the nation, not just free trade for free trade’s sake) where so many modern economists want to propound on rational economies, political economies, economies that make sense ... and that’s why they fail.
“Trump’s tax cut is only 9 months old so it is too early to say it is paying for itself. But already well over half the projected cost has evaporated because of higher growth. If we stay on this 3 to 4 percent path for another couple of years, the flood of added revenues will mean smaller deficits and much smaller debt levels relative to GDP.”
I don’t care how much someone likes or dislikes Trump as a person, or how much they agree or disagree with his cabinet picks, judicial picks, etc. NO ONE can seriously dispute that this businessman extraordinaire understands how to get the economy moving - because he has already proven that he’s better at it than any President in living memory.
True. The debt will always be with us. Even when revenues rise because of increased economic activity, Congress will match spending to consume it. Those increased revenues will never be used to spend down the debt. There is no votes to be purchased there.
Notice how burgeoning tariff revenue IS NOT EVEN MENTIONED.
Lowering taxes(rates) actually HELPS to cut debt due to increased revenue but you are intellectually incapable of grasping that simple concept for some reason.
You keep expecting a different result from repeating the same things. This is Reagan 2.0. Massive .gov spending with lower taxes. Without reducing spending, we will ‘enjoy’ more deficits.
Exactly what I said would happen.
I love it when a plan comes together.
I know, I've repeated that many times. Even Keynes wanted a balanced budget, with outsets for bad times. We don't even have that these days.
p
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.