have the tax cuts caused tax revenues to go up?

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

The funny thing about this recent tit-for-tat with the perfesser is his claim could be correct. .

Same as it ever was...

It is correct. Same as it was when I first made it, months ago.

REAL government revenues (after adjusting for inflation and population growth) have declined 4.7% since the end of the Clinton adminstration. The accumulated revenues under the Bush administration are $14.09Trillion, whereas if the revenues during the last Clinton year had continued just at the same level (not even inflating or increasing due to population growth) the accumulated revenue would be $14.18Trillion.

So that's what you mean when you wrote:

"if the value of the $ and population growth are accounted for..... real revenues have NOT gone up."

Silly me for not reading your mind and inferring you meant that if the historic bull market of the 90s had continued, thus generating record revenues year after year, then the sum total of those revenues for the last six years would be greater than actual revenues of the last six years.

Silly me for not getting all that from "real revenues have not gone up".

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Silly me

True, very true.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

that lends credence to the argument that HIGHER tax rates improve the economy, by increasing economic activity in one of its larger sectors.

Yes, the old school FDR crowd called it "priming the pump." Investment of government money into industry is like adding water to a pump - you need water to pump water.

But an entity controlling a large part of the economy was tried with monopolies and trusts, and it didn't seem to work. When one participant has too much power it knocks the economy out of whack.

It's even worse when the participant has the ability to suck you dry. Protection rackets actually had a lot to do with neighborhood economies, as well. They were vital parts - in many cases the largest single member of the economy - but nobody ever seemed to argue that anyone was better off except for the protection racket, who did well.

Quote

If you went entirely to deficit spending while increasing governmental spending you'd be able to bolster the economy a great deal - indeed, we're seeing some of that now. Unfortunately it's not a sustainable model.

It can be sustained by increasing taxes - so goes the argument. Deficit spending is necessary at times. It's how businesses often get started.

BUT - the problem with deficit spending is seen with credit cards. People often use credit cards wisely - to build credit and even pay for that emergency car repair, etc. But too often people use credit cards because the open credit is there.

"I need new shoes. $219.99 for 4 pairs. Nice. But I need new belts, too. Etc." Which turns into a $900.00 spree. "I'll pay later."

Well, the US Govt. is the same way. The Homeboys of the Homeboy Shopping Network were masters of this - they would have made find legislators! You can find their advice on government policy in their book, "How to Make Mo Money Without Using Yo Money.", "But whose money should I use? Who has mo money than dey knows what to do wit'? Da Gub-MENT."

"But how can I use dat knowledge to work for me?"

If you're the government you say,"But how can I git mo money? Raise de taxes!"

My wife is hotter than your wife.