|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Economic theory.... Kansas edition
I live close enough to Kansas to be interested in what goes on there. They decided to prove a few years ago that cutting taxes and doing nothing else would prove that cutting taxes alone would turn around the economy.
Well, they were wrong. Other states have cut taxes and then gone on to do other things to help their economy and they seem to be fairing better than they were, but the cutting taxes alone seems to be a sure path to disaster. Who would have thought that cutting revenue without cutting spending would cause you to go into the hole? Change of Subject: Kansas matters: Update on the tax cut that Republican Gov. Sam Brownback said would be a shot of adrenaline to his state's economy |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
certainly not Congress or President.
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
You might want to do some research on how low the current deficit is for the Federal Government.
Obama let the Bush tax cuts expire for the upper 2%, which bought in more revenue, and has been cutting government costs which, for some strange reason, is making the deficit lower. There is nothing wrong with cutting taxes, but if a government thinks it can make more money by cutting its' revenue and then just sitting back and waiting for the cash to roll in...... Kansas is proof this is not a valid option. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Oh wait, you were talking about the deficit. In my opinion, deficits don't matter year-to-year. But deficits over decades, that's a problem. That's how we created the current insane debt level. It is the result of prolonged ineptitude of both parties, like moths to a lamp, cannot help themselves. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The point I was trying to make was Kansas went all in on the Republican theory of cut taxes and the economy will take-off and it failed to produce any of the results they predicted. When Kansas was warned that their stunt would put them deeply in the hole they ignored the warnings because, by golly, they were Republicans and they knew Reagan was right!
I don't think I was the one that bought up how well the money problems were going in DC. I didn't think it was fair to trumpet how Republicans had blown it big time while the Democrats were actually making some progress is reducing the deficit from the levels of the Bush years. But since the subject came up....... The numbers don't lie. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Bush took office in 1836 . . . or did it just seem that long?
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
You can't actually believe that hallucinatory bullpoop, can you?
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
wish they had that chart in constant dollars and another showing budget deficits in constant dollars for each administration. Comparing 1945 dollars to 2014 dollars always looks bad. And then you need a pair of charts showing debt and deficits as percentage of GNP. It starts to get complicated and takes longer to explain than 30 seconds so some folks are not interested. Yes, you have to have revenue. Kennedy showed you can cut taxes and increase revenue but you still should cut spending too. But with both parties buying votes with federal programs, kinda hard to cut spending.
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Hang it up guys. We've previously explained the difference between accumulated debt and annual deficit. Apparently without success.
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
LOL Kansas. Is that part of the United States of America or Murica?
__________________
CENSORED due to not family friendly words |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Their is nothing going on in the center of the country, fly over...
__________________
1999 SL500 1969 280SE 2023 Ram 1500 2007 Tiara 3200 |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Right. If by debt you meant deficit.
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
[QUOTE=BobK;3329154]wish they had that chart in constant dollars …./QUOTE]
Mr Google should be able to assist you in your pursuit. |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|