No More Tax Cuts

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Economy

Those aren’t my words. They’re the words of one of the lead economists in Washington…and thereby the world…

From the NY Times:

As director of the Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Holtz-Eakin has been Congress’s top economist, handpicked by the Republican leadership. Recently, he had some advice for lawmakers – mostly Republicans – who insist that more tax cuts will foster economic growth and raise tax revenue: “Don’t even think about it.”

The occasion was the release of the agency’s long-term outlook, which shows huge unending deficits. “You can’t grow yourself out of this problem,” said Mr. Holtz-Eakin. “It’s just too big.”

Still believe in the miracle of supply side economics? Still believe what John Snow believes?

I certainly don’t. But hey…that’s just me.


This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 27th, 2005 and is filed under Economy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

9 Responses to “No More Tax Cuts”

  1. Noodles Says:

    You certainly dont believe in supply side economics eh? You guys keep harping on how our debt is an unprecidented 8 trillion dollars! The sky is falling! (you never seem to mention how our economy is an unprecidented 12 trillion though).

    So it is now proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that economic growth will never result in increased tax revenue. Why? because the NY Times says so? and they found one “lead economist in washington” who agrees with them. Please.

    look at the following chart. note that the growth estimates are quite conservative considering it was created before last quarters 4.3 % GDP numbers were reported:

    http://www.optimist123.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/deficittrend200511.gif

    We are DOOMED!!! … oh wait, is that a balanced budget i see in the future? maybe even during bush’s presidency?

  2. ford4x4 Says:

    I’m with you until your last statement, Noodles.

    Bush never met a spending bill he didn’t like. We won’t see a balanced budget under him. The next clown we elect will behave the same way,
    no matter which party he/she comes from, we have elected a group of about 700 people that think spending is the only way to reelection.

  3. Justin Gardner Says:

    So it is now proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that economic growth will never result in increased tax revenue. Why? because the NY Times says so? and they found one “lead economist in washington� who agrees with them. Please.

    Yeah, just because the NY TImes says so. And if they told me to jump off a bridge, I’d do that too…heh…

    No, I don’t believe in supply side economics because it didn’t work the first time either under Reagan, and yet Cheney and company say that it did. Yes, it has the appearance of working, but then a big recession came and guess what Bush Sr. had to do? Yes, raise taxes. And what did Clinton have to do? Raise taxes. You can’t your cut revenue by cutting taxes and then raise spending.

    And now we’re doing the same thing again because we’re driving our debt through the roof and raising the ire of the IMF…with little regard for what that means in the long run. Sure, the economy is growing, but you have to appreciate how it’s growing. Essentially money is being shifted around for the chosen few, but the average wage is dropping. Yes, that’s right. Wealth isn’t being spread around. And the housing bubble is near bursting.

    In the end, doesn’t history prove out that the same economic strategy that worked under Reagan to put money in the hands of the rich and didn’t do anything for the other 98% is doing the exact same thing now.

    But hey, I’m just a liberal, hippie, NY Times loving robot…right Noodles? ;-)

  4. Clint Says:

    I agree ford.

    You cannot balance a budget while signing on to massive spending bills full of pork, like the transportation bill earlier this year, or by calling for permanent tax cuts when continued spending on the war and disaster relief is guaranteed. That is not fiscal discipline.

  5. TM Lutas Says:

    Actual spending and receipt trend lines trump theory in my book and the chart link looks very good. We seem to be turning the corner. If we can figure out how to improve government efficiency as well as remove from government responsibility entirely certain unnecessary expenditures, we’d be in remarkably good shape.

  6. TM Lutas Says:

    oops, that should be certain entirely unnecessary expenditures.

    Examples would be found in a great many district earmarks.

  7. Noodles Says:

    Other than Lutas, I don’t think any of you clicked the link on my post. according to conservative estimates (i mean conservative literally, not Sean Hannity’s estimates) We are destined to balance the budget by mid 2008. Our deficit is being reduced, but our debt will continue to grow in raw dollars. However, our debt BURDEN which is the % of debt per GDP has hovered between 60-70% over the past 20 years. That is a low number relative to europe (80%) or Japan (160%).

    I personally don’t care what the gap between rich and poor is. I care about how the poor are suffering. If everyone in the world adopted your marxist-egalitarian wealth-distributing ideals in 1853 when the manifesto was published, then today in 2005 people would still be riding around in horse-drawn carriges, using candles to light their homes, and dying of gang green every time one stepped on a rusty nail. However, there would be no gap between rich and poor. Everyone’s life would suck.

    Supply side economics means economic growth which means new innovations in technology which makes technology in general cheaper for the poor which alliviates the suffering of the poor.

  8. Justin Gardner Says:

    I personally don’t care what the gap between rich and poor is. I care about how the poor are suffering. If everyone in the world adopted your marxist-egalitarian wealth-distributing ideals in 1853 when the manifesto was published, then today in 2005 people would still be riding around in horse-drawn carriges, using candles to light their homes, and dying of gang green every time one stepped on a rusty nail. However, there would be no gap between rich and poor. Everyone’s life would suck.

    Haha, yeah…I hope you’re not serious…

    Supply side economics means economic growth which means new innovations in technology which makes technology in general cheaper for the poor which alliviates the suffering of the poor.

    Supply side economics is a dangerous game that we had to pay for in the late 80s and the early 90s otherwise our economy wasn’t coming out of its nose dive. Now, do supply side economics stimulate our economy? Of course. But does that mean it’s sound economic policy? Absolutely not.

    Now I looked at the graph you linked to and what it shows me is that if the percentage of our tax receipts needed to pay interest on debt trends downward, it’ll be balanced. However, if you look at the additional graph what does it show? That since Bush took office, the steep decline of Clinton’s last years have been slowed to less than half of that rate in his first three years. Think some of that was spill over from Clinton’s economic policy? Also, in the past two years that downward trend has leveled off and actually looks like it’s starting to rise again. That doesn’t bode well for balancing the budget.

    And by the way, if you care about the poor’s suffering, then you should care about that gap. The two are obviously linked.

  9. DosPeros Says:

    I’m not sure what is meant by “supply side” exactly — beyond tax cuts. Today I had to go get tags and register a new vehicle and in order to do that I had to pay my slightly delinquent property taxes. I left city hall, went home and curled up in a fetal position in the shower because I had just gotten RAPED!!!!!!!!

    And what do my property taxes go to — a public school system I wouldn’t in my worst nightmare consider sending my daughters to, a police force that tazers 60 yr. old women, roads with potholes requiring wheel re-alignment every 3 month, and subsidies for the fucking Chiefs that can’t even do the common man the favor getting into the playoffs.

    So Justin, if “supply side” economics even closely resembles “don’t tax the hell out of DosPeros” — I’m all for it.

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: