Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
But they're not, so it's not part of this discussion. Left to do what they like, the Dems would spend more. But you don't see me criticizing them for that here, in this finite discussion.
|
The topic under discussion was, should a deficit hawk prefer one party or the other. The Dems might spend more, but under Paygo rules, which should be OK for a deficit hawk.
Here is the point in the conversation where it becomes clear that many people who pretend to be deficit hawks are really just using that language as cover for opposition to government spending.
Quote:
|
That's a projection you cannot support. You have no idea what the removal of that money from the economy would do in terms of decreased economic activity. This economy is amazingly fragile. The negative multiplier effect of any pullback in consumption could create a decrease in revenue far exceeding the tax cuts. This is why even Obama and the Dems, no doubt suppressing a gag reflex, are open to an across the board extension. (By saying this, I am not arguing that tax cuts pay for themselves. I don't buy that any more than you do. But I think this is a unique instance where the lapse of a tax cut could have disastrous results.)
|
Oh, come now. Enough of the Devil's advocacy. We agree that tax cuts don't pay for themselves.
If you think that tax cuts would have a uniquely bad effect right now, I would like to hear the economic theory behind that.
Quote:
|
If you agree with my last point, how do reach the conclusion we nevertheless need to roll back all of the Bush tax cuts? (Keep in mind, I'm not GOP Orthodox on this... I personally think that the safe play is to raise the bar to $500-750K.)
|
I think the politics of the situation have left Democrats in favor of continuing the tax cuts for all but those making more than $250K.
