Quote:
Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Not all cuts are created equal in spurring growth (sorry to take the discussion beyond bumper sticker level) - for example, Clinton focused many of his cuts on investment incentives, including some particularly targetted toward venture capital. Those cuts are more effective at spurring growth than simple rate reduction. In particular, a rate differential oriented toward particular investment can have an impact disproportionate to cost.
|
This is true. I never said this wasn't ture.
Quote:
Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy And, failure to raise sufficient revenue can deter growth - part of what attracts grown is infrastructure, and someone has to pay for it. Likewise, our economy is increasingly focused on and dependent on an educated workforce, and someone has to pay for that education. Spanky's made these points himself before.
This is a balancing act; the Democrats acknowledge that, and debate the balance. Many R's, however, deny it, and simply push for every cut they can get. While, of course, still spending like drunken sailors. All you have to do is compare records.
|
I don't care what the lay people say. We were talking about Economists. The debate among economists is when are tax cuts effective at producing growth. There is a tension between tax cuts and deficits. The goal is maximum growth, and the argument is where spending and taxation produce the optimal result. Supply Siders just think deficits are not as bad at detering growth as other economists. They also think tax cuts spur growth in more circumstances than other economists.
But the goal is always growth. Once you have admitted that a certain economic policy on balance has produced more growth than would have occurred with out it, then you are saying that policy was a good thing. The only effective economic argument against the Bush tax cuts is that on balance the tax cuts did not produce as much growth as would have occured without them. In other words, the resulting deficits crowded out so much private investment that growth was hurt and we would have pulled out of the recession quicker absent the tax cuts.
But once you concede the tax cuts brought in more growth than would have occurred without them, from an Economists perspective, the debate over the utility of Bush's tax cuts is over.
