tax cuts cause deficits

Q. - Why does ekim call everyone else the same nicknames they give to him?

A. - Monkey see, monkey do!


Originally Posted by lustylad

Why do lemmings call me ekim? Is it because they are brain dead?
Monkeys are smarter them they are.

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/arti...rs_103005.html

if tax cuts cause deficits, explain the obama years which which had no tax cuts, but had deficits. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Recently the opinion pieces of the "RealClear" website have become nearly identical to "Politico."

No, spending too much causes deficits.

No, spending too much causes deficits. Originally Posted by Beaum3tx2

People not working who want to work and pay taxes cause "deficits" because of the people who are not working because they don't want to work and need money to pay for their shit!

That’s why Trump is demanding other countries pay their fair share you jackass.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/06/29/p...ing/index.html Originally Posted by bambino

2 separate issues.

That's has no bearing what so ever on the total amount we spend on our military. If they pay more to nato, that will not cause of to significantly reduce if any at all our overall military budget.

If a recent college grad opened a line of credit and maxed out that card, and rather than tightening the belt or working extra shifts in order to pay off that card, he instead opened another line of credit and kept spending, we would all say that's irresponsible.


This tax bill does exactly that.

Love tax breaks. However, gotta cut spending to equal them though. Otherwise it's not a sustainable plan.

Ted Cruz voted for this bill. He also shut down the government because he was unwilling to pay for the credit card bill.

Dumbass wants it both ways. Cannot happen.

We will see demand failure and a shrinking economy because of the tax bill.

If a recent college grad opened a line of credit and maxed out that card, and rather than tightening the belt or working extra shifts in order to pay off that card, he instead opened another line of credit and kept spending, we would all say that's irresponsible.


This tax bill does exactly that.

Love tax breaks. However, gotta cut spending to equal them though. Otherwise it's not a sustainable plan.

Ted Cruz voted for this bill. He also shut down the government because he was unwilling to pay for the credit card bill.

Dumbass wants it both ways. Cannot happen. Originally Posted by grean

This plan is a debit card and it isn't doing the spending.

We will see demand failure and a shrinking economy because of the tax bill. Originally Posted by grean

The only thing failing is your brain. Tax cuts BOOST demand. The only thing economists disagree on is by HOW MUCH a specific tax cut should be expected to stimulate the economy.

Simple Keynesian 101 economics, of which you obviously know nothing.

Now go stand in the corner with ekim.

The only thing failing is your brain. Tax cuts BOOST demand. The only thing economists disagree on is by HOW MUCH a specific tax cut should be expected to stimulate the economy.

Simple Keynesian 101 economics, of which you obviously know nothing.

Now go stand in the corner with ekim. Originally Posted by lustylad

I think you're confused. This is the old trickle down , reaganomics, that has been disproven time and time again.

Demand is created at the bottom not the top.

Keynes says you grow an economy bottomy to top, not top to bottom.

While this does give some money back to lower incomes families, it by far gives the most benefit to wealthy families.

But that's not the point I am making. As our deficit increases, the dollar is pushed downward. The dollar becomes worth less and we then have to pay more in interest to investors. Higher interest slows economic growth, blah blah....vicious circle.....boom we are now Greece! Do you want us to end up like Greece?

We must control our debt. I have no issue with the tax cut. My issue is that they did nothing to reduce the deficit but reduced our ability to pay our debt down.

1 billion tax cut should require 1.5 bIllion in spending to be cut as well.

I think you're confused. This is the old trickle down, reaganomics, that has been disproven time and time again.

No, you're the one who is confused! Talking points about "trickle down reaganomics" won't hide your confusion either. I'll defend Reagan's economic record any time you're ready.


Demand is created at the bottom not the top.

Wtf does that mean? Higher income earners don't spend their money? Or they do spend it but it doesn't create demand? You're making no sense!


Keynes says you grow an economy bottom to top, not top to bottom.

Hahaha... I've read Keynes, so I call bullshit. Where does he say anything like that? How about a direct quote from his General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money? Or any of his other tomes?


While this does give some money back to lower incomes families, it by far gives the most benefit to wealthy families.

Another phony DNC class warfare talking point which I already addressed here:
https://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=106...7&postcount=31.
The WSJ says it hurts the GOP's most loyal (high-income) supporters.


But that's not the point I am making. As our deficit increases, the dollar is pushed downward. The dollar becomes worth less and we then have to pay more in interest to investors. Higher interest slows economic growth, blah blah....vicious circle.....boom we are now Greece! Do you want us to end up like Greece?

Hahaha... such an elegant analysis! The last guy who warned us we're on the road to Greece was Mitt Romney in 2012. Did you buy that facile comparison back than?

As for the deficit impact, it is scored at between $1.0 trillion and 1.5 trillion over 10 years. That's an increase of $100-$150 billion a year. (Our annual spending deficit is already running at $500 billion in an economy of over $19 trillion.) And it's based on an (overly pessimistic IMO) assumption the economy will grow by an average of only 1.9% a year in real (inflation-adjusted) terms. If we raise growth to 2.6%, the negative impact on the deficit melts away. During Reagan's last six years, the economy expanded by 4.4% a year. I don't like deficits any more than the next guy, but the risk in this bill is worth taking.


We must control our debt. I have no issue with the tax cut. No issue? Then why did you whine that it all goes to the "top"? My issue is that they did nothing to reduce the deficit but reduced our ability to pay our debt down. The only way we can manage our massive public debt is to grow our way out of it, like we did after WWII. This bill is pro-growth. Do you prefer stagnation? Originally Posted by grean

Gee, it's not every day that I run into an eccie poster who can cite John Maynard Keynes! Find that quote for me, ok?

Gee, it's not every day that I run into an eccie poster who can quote John Maynard Keynes! Find that quote for me, ok? Originally Posted by lustylad

Tell ya what. You find a single sentence written by him that said to cut taxes. He wrote the gospel on public spending. We spent our way out of the great depression in WWII.

If it takes 1 worker to build 10 units, and only 8 units are demanded, why would a company that received a tax deduction add an additional worker when they are not at full capacity? Where was the demand created by giving a bigger tax break to the company?


On the other hand, if individuals were given a bigger tax increase people would want more units, perhaps the demand in the above example increases to 12. Now maybe the 4 isn't quite enough to add a headcount but perhaps OT would be now justified...

That worker in turn takes his wife out for dinner. The waiter gor more tips now. You see where I am going?

Keynes was all about spending and increasing consumption to grow economy. Middle class will spend more if given more. wealthy just invest. They don't just create a job without demand to support it.

At some point relief needs to go to the top. Now isn't the time.

No, spending too much causes deficits. Originally Posted by Beaum3tx2

People not working who want to work and pay taxes cause "deficits" because of the people who are not working because they don't want to work and need money to pay for their shit! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Both are correct. If the govt didn't spend more than it took in, we wouldn't have deficits, and a LARGE portion of that imo, is cause we have so many welfare loafers..

Both are correct. If the govt didn't spend more than it took in, we wouldn't have deficits, and a LARGE portion of that imo, is cause we have so many welfare loafers.. Originally Posted by garhkal

You are correct.