Supply-Side Economics

[Pio1980]

Compared to the predator in chief?

[Chicks]

Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030
World leaders urged to act as anger over inequality reaches a ‘tipping point’

https://www.theguardian.com/business...ing-point-2030

[finnbow]

America’s deficit is growing sharply and will surpass $1 trillion per year by 2020, the Congressional Budget Office reported Monday.

The federal deficit will hit $804 billion in fiscal year 2018, a 21 percent increase from 2017’s deficit of $665 billion, CBO said.

President Trump and congressional Republicans in December passed a new tax law projected to cut government revenue by more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years. In March, members of both parties approved a funding measure to increase military and domestic spending by nearly $300 billion over the next two years.

Together, the new measures will add $1.6 trillion to deficits over the next decade, CBO reported.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...9f0_story.html

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

America’s deficit is growing sharply and will surpass $1 trillion per year by 2020, the Congressional Budget Office reported Monday.

The federal deficit will hit $804 billion in fiscal year 2018, a 21 percent increase from 2017’s deficit of $665 billion, CBO said.

President Trump and congressional Republicans in December passed a new tax law projected to cut government revenue by more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years. In March, members of both parties approved a funding measure to increase military and domestic spending by nearly $300 billion over the next two years.

Together, the new measures will add $1.6 trillion to deficits over the next decade, CBO reported.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...9f0_story.html

...as a result of protected overspending decisions. Which has nothing to do with supply side economic theory. Still don't understand the basics, do ya?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

...as a result of protected overspending decisions. Which has nothing to do with supply side economic theory. Still don't understand the basics, do ya?

Yes it does. It has always been a feature of supply-side economics, from Reagan to Dubya to Trump. Republicans cut taxes and spend like drunken sailors when in power insisting that tax cuts will somehow magically provide the requisite revenue (something it has never done(because it can't)). Then they proclaim the need for austerity when Democrats take over. It has always been thus. They had a chance to show they could do it otherwise, but failed miserably.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politic...-debt-deficit/

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Yes it does. It has always been a feature of supply-side economics, from Reagan to Dubya to Trump.

No, its not (your and others attempts to mis-characterize it not withstanding).

[Chicks]

No, tax cuts do not pay for themselves

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...or-themselves/

Much of what the White House said about the president’s tax bill was not true. It was not aimed at the middle class; the majority of the tax savings went to corporations. The lion’s share of the corporate tax breaks were not going to boost workers’ pay; they were used for things like tax buy-back schemes. No misrepresentation was more pervasive or departed further from economic reality, however, than the assertion that the tax cuts would pay for themselves. It was nonsense when Republicans said it, and now the fantasy is plain for all to see.

Like clockwork, Republicans are trying to make further cuts through the rarely-used “rescission” process. Soon will come the plans to cut Medicare and Medicaid. The debt problem, however, is largely a function of a tax plan based on exaggerated claims of economic growth and blatant dissembling on revenue loss. “Based on CBO’s numbers, those who claimed the tax cut would pay for itself should be hiding under a rock about now,” says Jared Bernstein, former chief economist for vice president Joe Biden. “The tax plan seriously whacks revenues, especially over the next few years, which is exactly what we don’t need given CBO’s points about the cost of maintaining Social Security and Medicare as our population ages.”

[donquixote99]

It's a brilliant theory. It allows those cutting taxes to claim they have a plan to help the economy, when their actual goal is just to cut taxes, economy be damned.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

It's a brilliant theory. It allows those cutting taxes to claim they have a plan to help the economy, when their actual goal is just to cut taxes, economy be damned.

"their actual goal is just to cut taxes": So correct!

[Chicks]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...226_story.html

The primary reason the deficit in coming years will now be higher than had been expected is the reduction in tax revenue from last year’s tax cuts, not an increase in spending. This year, revenue is expected to fall below 17 percent of gross domestic product — the lowest it has been in the past 50 years with the exception of the aftermath of the past two recessions.

Sorry, Whell, you are the one who just doesn’t get it.