"“Conceived during Bush's 2000 presidential campaign as a means to return what were then huge government surpluses to taxpayers, the cuts were approved by Congress in the midst of a recession, which worsened after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Though the recession was mild, the recovery was sluggish and hampered by a deep decline in employment. Productivity ultimately rebounded robustly, but national savings plunged, and the country racked up a large trade deficit. Critics look at that record and say the cuts were ineffective. Advocates say the economy would have fared worse without them. Most analyses split the difference, finding that the cuts probably stimulated growth in the short run but reduced it over time. Why would tax cuts hurt the economy? Because their one very clear effect was to increase the budget deficit. Combined with spending on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a huge new prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients, the cuts helped drive the annual deficit to a peak of nearly $413 billion in 2004. Last year, it dwindled to $162 billion. But the nation's cumulative debt has nearly doubled since Bush took office and now exceeds $9 trillion. "If tax cuts aren't paid for, the extra debt hurts the economy more than any direct benefit from the tax cuts," said Jason Furman, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton who is now at the Brookings Institution. "If you cut taxes without cutting spending, you're just shifting taxes to the future." There is little disagreement among most economists on that point. Even the Bush Treasury Department found that failing to cut government spending commensurate with the tax cuts would leave the cuts with a "negligible effect" on the economy, Carroll said.
I'm way-right economically. See my intro thread "Ecofarm" (it's closed). I'm a "national defense force only" kinda guy, economically.You think it is the role of the govt. or the private sector to create jobs? Who pays for the public sector jobs?
I believe tax cuts not only create jobs but also growth and eventually revenue. Further, they create innovation and helping a society to avoid technological and cultural stagnation.
Tax cuts are so good, we should have them all the time and if the government runs out of money it can stop providing services (the private sector will take care at appropriate levels, no worries).
Last edited by ecofarm; 10-29-10 at 11:15 AM.
Obama has increased the debt 3 trillion in two years, where is your outrage?
Yes, in a country where the government provides everything for its citizens, a la communism, raising taxes is necessary. In your world, unemployment is irrelevant because who needs to work anyway.
But in a country where you want citizens to work and succeed, you need government to get out of its way. You cut taxes and take pressure off of industry, which in turn can hire people, who can spend money, which will raise revenue for the very same industries.
That means more workers to tax and more revenue to tax. So tax cuts actually lead to much, much, much higher tax revenue collected.
Again, would you rather have 35 percent of $100 bucks, or 20 percent of $1,000. That is really the argument.
When are you or anyone else going to actually address the issues and govt. spending. You blame the wars for the deficits yet refuse to tell us how much those wars cost on a yearly basis since deficits are yearly.