Supply-Side Economics

[whell]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

So why give a tax break to those who don't need it since you argue that my second home, or for that matter primary home need not be subsidized? Even worse is calling it a "Middle class tax cut" while only the top 1%, actually the top 0.1% benefited. And where did the money come from?

I'm not espousing or denigrating favorable tax treatment of mortgage interest. It's an example of using the tax code for social engineering, period.

At some point, it was determined in DC that incentivizing home ownership was a good thing. Fine, it's a nice idea. But to use the tax code as the vehicle for incentivizing home ownership is crazy. That's not what the tax code is for. Using the tax code in this manner begets arguments about who "needs a tax break" and who doesn't. Those types of debates are the symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.

The disease is the tax code itself, and the carriers of the disease are our elected representatives. They've convinced us that taxes need to both fund the government, but also "use" the tax code to accomplish specific objectives, most of which are self-serving. They then invite debates about "tax fairness" because such debates distract from the bigger picture issue of the dysfunctional tax system.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

I think tax cuts are PART of the answer.

Only when running a surplus. Or are you a member of Trickle & Truss think tank.

[Dondilion]

I wish to thank Whell for his input here, especially post #735.

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Here's an interesting, informative piece spelling out the intellectual bankruptcy of supply-side economics:

Modern conservatism is built around the promise of supply-side economics — an economic philosophy that claimed to allow Republicans to cut taxes, maintain popular social programs, robustly fund defense and balance the budget. The problem: Supply-side economics hasn’t actually worked as promised, but the GOP refuses to abandon it.

And that, more than hypocrisy, is the real problem facing Republicans — they have principles; those principles just don’t work.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ed-principles/

I found this in reference to "Trickle-down" economics.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Here's an interesting, informative piece spelling out the intellectual bankruptcy of supply-side economics:

Modern conservatism is built around the promise of supply-side economics — an economic philosophy that claimed to allow Republicans to cut taxes, maintain popular social programs, robustly fund defense and balance the budget. The problem: Supply-side economics hasn’t actually worked as promised, but the GOP refuses to abandon it.

And that, more than hypocrisy, is the real problem facing Republicans — they have principles; those principles just don’t work.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ed-principles/

A ridiculous and slanted definition of supply side economics by WaPo, but coming from them I'm not surprised. At best, this is an opinion piece, but here it is in their News section Typical.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

I wish to thank Whell for his input here, especially post #735.

You're very welcome.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

A ridiculous and slanted definition of supply side economics by WaPo, but coming from them I'm not surprised. At best, this is an opinion piece, but here it is in their News section Typical.

Your name calling refutes nothing. BTW did you not notice that the piece is labeled "perspective," or did you just choose to ignore that so you could dishonestly further your narrative of slanted news?

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

A ridiculous and slanted definition of supply side economics by WaPo, but coming from them I'm not surprised. At best, this is an opinion piece, but here it is in their News section Typical.

Show me where in the article there is a 'slanted' definition of supply side economics. From the article:

The 1970s witnessed the emergence of a new strain of Republican economic orthodoxy. Economist Arthur Laffer famously sketched a curve on a cocktail napkin to demonstrate how cutting taxes might actually raise government revenue — a win-win that would prevent any need for tough choices. Journalist Jude Wanniski helped popularize this new theory — supply-side economics — arguing that Republicans needed to become the “Santa Claus” of tax cuts (in contrast to the Democrats’ Santa Claus of government spending), abandoning the idea of fiscal discipline and the practice of balanced budgets that Republicans like President Dwight D. Eisenhower had been promoting for decades.

Isn't this what Reagan adopted and began the era of deficit funding of government, except he called it Trickle Down Economics. IIRC, Bush1 called it Voodoo economics. Then Bush2 and Trump adopted this Voodoo economics and more tax cuts for the wealthy ensued and deficits soared.

The way I see it, Bill Clinton righted the economic disaster Reagan caused which Dubya promptly blew it up with his tax cuts and his search for WMDs. Then Obama came along and fixed Dubya's economic miracle and then the Moron happened, tax cuts ensued.

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Your name calling refutes nothing. BTW did you not notice that the piece is labeled "perspective," or did you just choose to ignore that so you could dishonestly further your narrative of slanted news?

I thought you weren't responding to my posts anymore 'cuz I made you all mad? Did you forget?

Look at the link. It tells you where the article is posted. If it was posted in the "opinion", it would be visible in the link. Example: one of the latest from your girl Jennifer Rubin:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/11/08/biden-trump-2024-election/

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

I thought you weren't responding to my posts anymore 'cuz I made you all mad? Did you forget?

Look at the link. It tells you where the article is posted. If it was posted in the "opinion", it would be visible in the link. Example: one of the latest from your girl Jennifer Rubin:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/11/08/biden-trump-2024-election/

So your argument is that if it's not in the opinion section, it's supposed to be hard news. Either typical overly-categorical conservative thinking, or a stupid point that you know is stupid, but you're a troll so stupid is a feature for you. Either way, it is perspective, it is labeled perspective, and your objection is ridiculous.

Not responding to your dumbfuckery is simply my considered and rational policy. I'm free to make exceptions as I may wish. But I still think you are playing a stupid game while the Republic burns, so don't expect many exceptions.