Kushinator;1062065482]Incorrect. Paying down debt is not the same as spending, and therefore does not generate economic expenditure.
Where exactly does that go, out of circulation?
There is not a causative relationship between paying down debt and increased lending activity. If anything, the data shows otherwise. Saving money (that would have otherwise been spent) only diminishes GDP growth. This is simply a matter of fact.
Where does that money go and where do banks or businesses get the money to lend? Your data tells you only part of the story. Again, you obviously are very book smart but you really need to get out more. Business investment is part of a GDP Component.
Large cash balances do not lead to job creation.
Who said they did? What is preventing businesses from spending that money now is Obama and his economic policy. If you had a business would you spend excess cash now? Have you ever hired an employee? Any idea as to the costs of hiring and yes, firing?
Depends. Do people purchase heavily inflated real estate? Or, do people purchase a new washer/dryer for their existing home?
Either way it is personal choice. Do you have a problem with personal choice? Any spending helps the economy and has a ripple effect
Where does investment capital go?
I am making the argument that tax cuts do not necessarily lead to sustainable economic growth. The evidence supports my position.
Your opinion noted, not necessarily leaves room for a difference of opinion and different outcome. A tax cut that was implemented in July 2003 isn't going to be effecting in July 2013. It needs to be reinforced along with positive economic policies
Nope! It depends on the individuals consumption/saving propensity. Consumption generated by tax cuts is highest for low income individuals, or those who possess the least amount of liquid assets. The question then becomes; does the amount of consumption generated meet or exceed the income generated when the government makes purchases from the private sector, e.g. when it builds a new bridge or repairs an old one? Empirical research suggests otherwise.
Again, you have no idea what people do with their money but the textbooks tell you that tax cuts generates the highest consumption by low income people many of whom pay no net FIT. Govt doesn't invest, it spends. There is no requirement for a return on that investment and the record shows we have an almost 17 trillion dollar debt today because of that govt. spending and lack of revenue due to poor economic policies. You see people cannot print money and aren't going to spend based upon uncertainty or poor consumer confidence
Bracket creep is a phenomenon that requires persistent inflation!
Thus the need for a flat tax
Sure! But does that necessarily mean that the person will spend more? It depends on a plethora of other factors.
People with more spendable income need less of that so called govt. help. I prefer people having the money vs. the govt. taking it and wasting it on social engineering.
Real estate prices increased rather dramatically following the Bush tax cuts. It turned into an asset bubble.
You don't seem to understand why. The free market is always going to create bubbles, how those bubbles are handled is what matters. This Govt. hasn't done a good job handling bubbles.
Of course. However, housing price gains outpaced the growth of income 5:1.
Yes, and what is your solution, control of the cash? So what that housing price gains outpaced the growth of income. Seems the market will correct itself.
Bad choices made by the few cannot be allowed to spillover into the lives of the many. People have still yet to recover (in terms of purchasing power) wealth declines from the great recession.
Enough social engineering and govt. micromanaging the private sector economy. The govt trying to legislate equal outcome and not equal opportunity is what causes the problems we have today. Promoting individual wealth creation is what made this country great, demonizing it destroys it