Captives of the Supply Side »
Posted By deathray 1 year ago in Business & FinanceEvery candidate in today's GOP debate will probably embrace the myth that cutting taxes increases government revenues. At the very least, no one will denounce it as a falsehood.
Read Full Story at nytimes.com »
Submitted By:
deathray
Hm...summarizing a life...Investment banker, sailor, unintentional gourmet cook. Ex US Naval officer, also Foreign Service. Split my time between NYC and Miami Beach ...
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 138
-
0%
deathray1 year ago
Just last month President Bush insisted, yet again, that "supply-side economics yields additional tax revenues." Hardly an eyebrow was raised.
I thought that this might be an interesting reminder of the doublethink that is associated with much of the GOP economic/monetary/fiscal policy, in light of today's debate.
I heard that cutting taxes expAnds government receivables at least 6 times during the debate.
All these guys are worshipping at Grover Norquist's altar.
Reply-
0%
deathray1 year ago
FTA:
"Every major Republican contenderM Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney has said that the Bush tax cuts have caused government revenues to rise. No prominent Republican office-seeker dare challenge this dogma for fear of offending the economic far right.
Yet there is no more debate about this question among economists than there is debate about the existence of evolution among biologists. Most economists believe that it is theoretically possible for tax rates to be high enough that a reduction in rates could actually produce more revenues. But I do not know of any tenured economist in the United States who believes this is true of the Bush tax cuts."
Reply-
0%
deathray1 year ago
"Granted, economic growth sometimes causes revenues to rise faster than expected after a tax cut, as has happened since the 2003 tax cut. But sometimes revenues fall faster than expected after a tax cut, as they did after the 2001 tax cut. And sometimes revenues rise faster than expected after a tax increase, as they did after the 1993 Clinton tax increase."
Reply
-
-
0%
Natureboy1 year ago
Supply side economics is the ludicrous concept that if only the rich get richer the poor will somehow get richer too. It is mostly the rich who spout this, the rest of us know better.
There is no trickle down. Anybody who pays attention can see, you work your ass off at the bottom of the corporate pyramid, generating the actual goods but barely making ends meet. At the top is a fat bastard who barely knows what product the company sells, he owns five homes and flies on a private jet.
Any simpleton can see that the money trickles not down, but UP!
Reply-
0%
cowboygrandpa1 year ago
Natureboy: The only trickle down theory I have seen work is the pi*s that tricles down as they hose us. I tried the less is more theory at the store. Went hungry. I tried it at home. Wife got mad. Afraid to try it at work probably get fired. Not voo-doo economics. Stupid economics. Cater to the wealthy while middle class disappears. You are setting this country up for another Revolution. IMPEACH BUSH AND CHEYNEY NOW.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Beau78901 year ago
I'm hoping to see Paul Krugman, who's eminently qualified to address this topic, write about it in his column on Friday.
He's done it several times before. Here are two good ones:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/05/opinion/05kru...
Reply-
0%
deathray1 year ago
Among other topics, Mr. Krugman wrote about some of it here:
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2007/10/09/...
Although many are trying to revise history regarding Mr. Bush's devotion movement conservatism, there are many correlations between Mr. Bush's econoimic policies and those of, say, Ronbald Reagan.
Reply
-
-
0%
not2needy1 year ago
Taxes and Religion, republican's favorite campaign platforms. All the average worker sees in the repub tax breaks is a couple of dollars a week, unlike the ultra wealthy.
Reply-
0%
Beau78901 year ago
That's true about what the average worker gets from the Bush tax cuts. And what's worse, any windfall to business from cutting corporate tax rates that could possibly create greater wealth overall is taken by directors, top executives and stockholders.
Nothing ensures that any wealth created actually "trickles down," and in today's climate, it doesn't.
Reply-
0%
deathray1 year ago
I gotta tell you, the average CEO makes around 500 times the salary of the average worker, and in the hedge fund business, the average manager makes 2200 times the salary of the average worker, and we pay a nominal 15%-20%...and the House just today voted against raising that tax rate.
Many hedge fund managers just deal in arbitraging one risk vehicle against another, and don't really add anything concrete to the economy.
Reply
-
-
0%
cowboygrandpa1 year ago
not2needy: You see that much. Wow I'm impressed what you going to invest that in to help spur the economy on. Not picking on anyone here. Just trying to show the lunacy of the supply side economics. I think I'll save mine and treat the wife to a movie and dinner next year. LOL
Reply
-
-
-
0%
GHOSTWHOWALKS1 year ago
While that is true now, it might not be in the future. I say that in the hope that Ron Paul wins. His ideas are worth listening too. Most are at any rate. It would still mean a hard road but the end would come sooner than what will happen if we continue down the path we are on now.
Congress just passed a raise in what the government can borrow (Credit Limit). Isn't it nice that they can raise the credit limit and not even bother to ask the people who pay the bills?
Do they even care?
Reply
-
-
0%
deathray1 year ago
There were some really interesting comments on the debate that made the Republican candidates for President sound almost pro-union, as well as addressing fair trade, rather than unfettered free trade practices.
It was a bit like watching a dual personality....kinda made me feel like the Republicans were trying to pander to the middle class; a complete reversal of policy in many respects.
Reply-
-
0%
Natureboy1 year ago
This is the essential failing of "representative democracy." They only have to fool you once, then they get to bone you bow-legged for four years.
We should not have "representatives" or "officholders." We should have delegates appointed to articulate our wishes, nothing more, and the day they deviate from that, they should be replaced.
Reply
-
-
0%
NelsonR1 year ago
The day of reckoning is forthcoming and already apparent concerning the Bush economic doctrine. Most Americans will see their incomes diminish in spending power, their home prices depreciating yearly, astronomical debt inherited by us and our children, Depression. I say depression since the intrusion of the Fed and the outsourcing of Americas manufacturing base is not reversible. We are screwed and we can smile and wave to Bush as he parades before us with his fat pension plan and perks incomprehensible by the average American. Well done Georgie Porgie, you dolt.
Reply -
-
-
0%
cowboygrandpa1 year ago
Bkum: That is where the faces of Reagan, Bush and Cheyney belong on As*wipe. It would probably sell out daily and that is supply side economics. Then they would feel the trickle down theory they espouse. LOL.
Reply
-
-
-
-
catstevensComment removed: User banned.19 Replies
-
0%
icono11 year ago
Politicians, either left, right, middle of the road, in the basement, on the ceiling or out the window love MONEY. That is why they like politics.... Mo money for them and Less money for you/me and they write the laws that make it so.
There is no such thing as a good politician; they are all EVIL and money hungry.
Reply -
0%
uncle-dave1 year ago
Trickle down economics is a farce, that's how septic systems work. If more money is placed in the hands of the working poor and middle class by jobs programs and targeted tax breaks that money will eventually rise up through the economy and everyone will prosper not just those already at the top.
Reply -
0%
AnteUp1 year ago
My gray cells have never processed Economics very
efficiently - maybe that's why I enjoy Krugman's columns, I
often understand what he is saying. So, there's my
disclaimer if this sounds lame.......
But, I read that the states and counties are having major
shortfalls in their budgets due to reduced tax revenues
from the mortgage/foreclosure crisis.
Meaning cuts in services and higher property taxes for ALL.
"ALL", being people who have paid off their mortgages or
don't have outstanding loans and were feeling real bad
for the poor souls who did. Now it seems we will ALL share
the burden of making up the deficit caused from shoddy
lending practices and unscrupulous lenders!
I find this particularly galling since Democrats supposedly
never met a tax they didn't like and Republicans are honored
as fiscally responsible. Which party was bound and
determined to deregulate the banking and loan industries?
Isn't that how we ALL got in this mess?
Reply -
0%
Bkumm1 year ago
Supply side economics is bad. Demand side economics is bad. If either 'school' drives all monetary and taxation policy it's bad. I won't even get into margins, real wealth, real wages and proportional reserves, but I digress.
There is something to be said for both sides of the debate. Although supply siders seem to be more willing to go whole hog.
The real point here should be that taxes should not be driving monetary or economic policy. What should be driving economic and monetary policy is to do what is necessary to actually grow the economy rather than grow wealth. I think that is the mistake that many people are making. If the economy grows the country gets wealthier, if you let money from taxes get invested it makes the people that got the tax cut get wealthier and does nothing for the rest of us.
Reply -
0%
canadianrancher571 year ago
There used to be a time when I did agree that tax cuts did help the economy, but as the financial picture for individuals has changed it no longer applies. Tax reductions for the middle class whold have to be enormous to affect the economy, reducing the taxes for the rich has always been a popular subject among conservatives evan up here in Canada, but right now when it comes to business it is not taxes that is causing harm it is just the cost of producing and running the business, or trying to compete with offshore products. Reducing the capital gains tax was suposed to help the economy but capital gains is usually on things that really don't make a economy grow.
Reply-
0%
Obaku1 year ago
A low tax environment is good for any economy - but only IF it is also low debt. Substituting borrowing for taxes is a recipe for disaster, and you don't have to have a Ph.D. in 'Economics' to understand that. Low capital gains taxes lead to more efficient investment of capital, which if the government is high debt, corrupt, over-regulated, and biased towards monetizing debt, means that capital is invested away from said government's sphere of influence.
Reply
-
0%
getreal11 year ago
Bush's aim was to be a world leader and go to war. He more or less stated that during his campaigns for the presidential office. He said he wanted to abolish Social Security, Medicare. He put us back into a deficit to have control. As long as he continues to reverse money away from the average American pocket and keep it to the pocket of the rich few. He will keep that control even after office. He allowed the middle class to borrow and spend pass the worth of what they have bought. Now they are going broke. I thought that corn being used and grown here for ethanol would help to recover some of what Americans have lost, no dependence or less depend on foreign oil. His idea is to let the middle east grow it. So We stay dependant. He thinks in reverse because he knows if we use the ethanol to generate money from within the US that outsourcing will reduce. Have we not been poisoned enough?
Reply -
-
0%
deathray1 year ago
Bingo!
And the Chinese can fund our military for us too, and not a bad idea, since they make all the steel armor for our military vehicles!
Reply -
0%
AnteUp1 year ago
dunkirk ~
Well............somebody will. I shudder to think what the
rest of us will be rolling in!
What really irks me is when Democrats have been skewered
for proposing increased taxes - on anything - it's used
against them and that negative strategy works.
When Republican POLICIES create shortfalls and cuts to
vital services or increased charges to consumers - they
are somehow able to maintain their "fiscally responsible"
image. Because they didn't ASK to raise taxes (and lower our
standard of living) it's just their policies made it happen
..........it's okay?
If I am going to have to accept higher taxes for fewer
services? Frankly, I'd rather be ASKED before I have to
bend over!
Reply
-
