Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Extraordinary Cardplay | Main | More On "An Army of Hiltziks" »

April 24, 2006

Comments

boris
Give me a credible number for the difference in economic gain vs interest payments.

Hard to say

That's not credible.

keeping deficits low helps future economic growth

Not if the method used is tax increases. By your own simplistic logic the recession that immedietly followed low deficits disproves that claim.

It is pointless debating economics with the left. They're ture believers, it's morality to them.

boris

If you have a number, I'm happy to look at it

No you wouldn't. The only answer you would accept is one you get for yourself.

Doesn't have to be a "number", just estimate the following ...

Which is larger, the estimated GDP benefit of the Reagan expansion of the economy or the extra interest now paid for the debt difference during his term?

Even if you could figure or find it, you don't want to know because then you would "get it".

kim

We wouldn't want any of that understanding to trickle down and dilute the pure stream of morally correct economic faith.
===================================

Foo Bar

Nobody's reading, but for posterity:

Hiking taxes did not result in a robust economy (as you claimed earlier),

Well, Cecil, you're obviously a very intelligent guy with a lot of valuable intelligence/national security experience, and I learn things from your comments sometimes, so I have to say that I find this line of argument regarding what it means to "hike taxes" to be beneath you. You're better than that.

I note with interest your failure to address my point that based on your definition of what it means to "hike taxes", we can conclude that the deficit reduction from '04 to '05 that the Bush administration is so proud of was achieved entirely by a "tax hike" (in the Cecil Turner sense) since the government's revenue share of GDP went from 16.3% to 17.5% and spending as a percentage of GDP went up a bit (19.9% to 20.1%).

But hey- you're a smart guy. I'm not surprised that you would avoid the question rather than acknowledge that your logic has led you to an uncomfortable conclusion.

Also, note any income tax policy with progressive brackets will generally collect a larger share of GDP during a strong economy than during a weak one. Assume for the moment that the government's tax laws remain constant. Even if the economy were to go through a boom and then a bust for reasons entirely unrelated to tax policy, it will be true that the government's share of GDP was rising during the boom, so when the bust happens after the boom it will of course be true that an uptick in the government's share of GDP preceded the bust. Doesn't mean it caused the bust. Correlation is not causation.


Boris:


No you wouldn't. The only answer you would accept is one you get for yourself.
...
you don't want to know because then you would "get it".

Actually, I am on record on this blog as having acknowledged multiple instances in which right wing blogs changed my mind about something. I wonder if you can say the same thing about left wing blogs. Who knows? Maybe you can.


boris

Left wing blogs taught me that moonbats have BDS. Now ... which is larger, the estimated GDP benefit of the Reagan expansion of the economy or the extra interest now paid for the debt increase during his term?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame