Skewering of Leftist Economic "Conventional Wisdom"

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

You claim it won't pay for itself, with your fixed pie economy point of view. Others, including the former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, thinks it will. I'll take Mr. Holtz-Eakin's Ph.D in Economics from Harvard - informed opinion on this.

Holtz-Eakin is a dedicated supply-sider and the president of a right-wing think tank, the American Action Network. He's about as credible as your Dear Leader's other Alt-Economist, Stephen Moore. There's not a single, credible non-partisan economist or economic think tank who believes that this tax cut will pay for itself.

If you believe this tax cut will pay for itself, you likely also gullible enough to believe that your Dear Leader isn't a liar and a racist.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Holtz-Eakin is a dedicated supply-sider and the president of a right-wing think tank, the American Action Network. He's about as credible as your Dear Leader's other Alt-Economist, Stephen Moore. There's not a single, credible non-partisan economist or economic think tank who believes that this tax cut will pay for itself.

If you believe this tax cut will pay for itself, you likely also gullible enough to believe that your Dear Leader isn't a liar and a racist.

I think this is hilarious. First, I need to catch myself before fall into the absurd talk track that a corp tax reduction - or tax reduction of any sort - must "pay for itself". If for no other reason that the totality of our tax code is made up of so many moving parts that a singular event like a relatively modest reduction in corporate income tax - which accounts for only about 10% of total tax revenue - is going to somehow send the US government into fiscal distress.

Second, to "pay for itself", we'd need to sustain on average an increase in economic growth of 1% over the current CBO projection of 1.9% for 10 years. Since economic growth rates over the past 10 - 15 years are at historic lows, and most economics suggest the economy is poised for a period of sustained growth, are we really saying that economic growth of 2.9% per year is an unreasonable estimate? (And I don't necessarily but the idea that since we're nearing "theoretical full employment" the prospects for economic growth are compromised).

Even if its 2.5%, we can certainly take steps to "pay for" the a tax rate reduction in other ways. The federal budget is a cesspool of overspending and opportunities to reduce the scope of "paying for" a tax reduction are everywhere.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

...The federal budget is a cesspool of overspending and opportunities to reduce the scope of "paying for" a tax reduction are everywhere.

They are indeed and they were either untouched by this package or Trump promised to leave them untouched.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

They are indeed and they were either untouched by this package or Trump promised to leave them untouched.

Untrue. Remember this from earlier in 2017. The House keeps kicking a budget deal down the road, so we've not gotten to the spending part yet.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...t-details.html

So, more to come on the spending side of the equation.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Untrue. Remember this from earlier in 2017. The House keeps kicking a budget deal down the road, so we've not gotten to the spending part yet.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...t-details.html

So, more to come on the spending side of the equation.

Are you saying it is untrue that Trump promised not to touch Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare? Here are some facts, though facts might make your head explode.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...cuts-medicare/

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Are you saying it is untrue that Trump promised not to touch Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare? Here are some facts, though facts might make your head explode.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...cuts-medicare/

No, that's not what I'm saying. Of course you would know that if you looked at what I linked to. One does not have to mess with entitlements to reduce federal spending. Addressing the growth of entitlement spending should be looked at as well.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

One does not have to mess with entitlements to reduce federal spending. Addressing the growth of entitlement spending should be looked at as well.

So, curtailing the growth of entitlement spending is not messing with entitlement spending? Who knew? I guess that makes perfect sense to the dying sparks of sputtering synapses inside your head.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

No, that's not what I'm saying. Of course you would know that if you looked at what I linked to. One does not have to mess with entitlements to reduce federal spending. Addressing the growth of entitlement spending should be looked at as well.

Ryan has long wanted to enact reforms to entitlement programs — which usually takes the form of cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. But at an event in Wisconsin on Friday, he said entitlements wouldn't be addressed by Congress this year.

"I don’t see us tackling it this year," Ryan said.

https://www.aol.com/article/news/201...2018/23332196/