Why is it so hard to understand that TAX cuts INCREASES tax revenues?

[dudmuck]

I know, I know... it is very hard to keep from dealing with FACTS when it is SO easy to get them!
But the FACTS are when people decry Reagan's "spending" they have NO IDEA of the reality at that time!
Inflation 13%... Unemployment 10% Treasuries 16% Prime rate 20%!
Folks is it ANY wonder that under Reagan the spending "doubled"!
YET... when he left office: unemployment down. Prime down.. Inflation down!
And still we have dummies that don't simply use the internet BEFORE they make dumb ass comments!

Reagan also left office having raised taxes numerous times after initial tax cuts. Why? Because he has seen the rivers of red ink they caused and it's too bad you are still stuck in 1980.

And you are so ignorant about the 80s ...inflation 13% that doesn't inflate government spending?
Treasuries 16% rate... and that doesn't become an expense? GEEZ are you really that stupid?
Finally 10% unemployments means DUMMY people don't pay payroll taxes! GEEZ just amazes me why idiots who make fun of the FACTS as I provided!
Get your head out of the MSM bullcrap and think for once !

According to Reagan's economists, reagans tax cuts are irrelevant to today's economy. Instead, all you need to look at for bush tax cuts is the CBO scoring. For laffer, just look at the Kansas failure. The laffer curve is an over simplification; you need to add a 3rd dimension with different income levels drawn onto this dimension. Its all about whether the economy is constrained by demand or supply. Is the economy limited by people unable to buy stuff, or producers unable to make stuff?

 

[healthmyths]

I know, I know... it is very hard to keep from dealing with FACTS when it is SO easy to get them!
But the FACTS are when people decry Reagan's "spending" they have NO IDEA of the reality at that time!
Inflation 13%... Unemployment 10% Treasuries 16% Prime rate 20%!
Folks is it ANY wonder that under Reagan the spending "doubled"!
YET... when he left office: unemployment down. Prime down.. Inflation down!
And still we have dummies that don't simply use the internet BEFORE they make dumb ass comments!

Reagan also left office having raised taxes numerous times after initial tax cuts. Why? Because he has seen the rivers of red ink they caused and it's too bad you are still stuck in 1980.

And you are so ignorant about the 80s ...inflation 13% that doesn't inflate government spending?
Treasuries 16% rate... and that doesn't become an expense? GEEZ are you really that stupid?
Finally 10% unemployments means DUMMY people don't pay payroll taxes! GEEZ just amazes me why idiots who make fun of the FACTS as I provided!
Get your head out of the MSM bullcrap and think for once !

....dummy what you said in no way responded to my post, so not sure why you even bothered posting it.

Everything you said has to do with MONETARY, not fiscal policy.

Yes, Reagan raised taxes, clearly this means he DID NOT believe at that point that lowered taxes were self-financing let alone brought in more revenue. Nothing about inflation can refute that.

NOT one FACT in your presentation! I on the other hand present links! That's why I don't believe a shi...ting you write! All personal opinion! NO sources. No links!
Prove to me because at this point you are just repeating what you think you have heard but you've not looked at any real data or facts.
Reagan had 13% inflation! You don't think that jacked up the spending? He had unemployment 10%... YOU are crazy if you don't think payroll taxes aren't part of the revenue stream! Treasuries 16%! How much interest do you think the government spent that cost way more then inflation.
See people like didn't live through that! I did! My credit card interest was over 21%! Today less then 13%! And you don't think that had a bearing??
Monetary issues had a direct affect on the expenditures of the government.
You can spout that off but the NET affect was higher costs of government during Reagan which did then double the spending. But hidden in that was the
pure FACT that today we don't have 13% inflation...10% unemployment, 20% prime! AND THOSE ARE THE FACTS! YOU can't deny that!

 

[healthmyths]

OK... growth revenue population growth. So all those people don't spend any money which grew the economy which increased revenues. Wow... what a concept! population growth spent everything on taxes. That's the only attribution. Of course spending increased and I for one totally decry federal government spending on non-defense of country issues! I mean that is a given! The point is even Arthur Laffer says there is a point where taxes must be paid... but not 90%!

The laffer curve is an economic joke.

And who are YOU to say that? My opinion of you is YOU are a JOKE!

Empirical facts and the fact you don't know them.

How about this "empirical" fact? Let's assume your position which is WITHOUT any substantiation i.e. that the Laffer Curve is a "joke"!
So according to you our country would thrive, grow and prosper at the same rate we have for the last 200 years, i.e. for example in 1980 there was one millionaire for every 51,000 people...in 36 years i.e. 2016 there are one millionaire for every 30 people... if the Government tax rate was 100%?
You firmly believe Laffer curve is a joke then you have NO problem with 100% Federal tax rate? Talk about "empirical" i.e. "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic" FACTS... That is a fact. Laffer Curve shows a tax of 100%.
But being the knowledgeable "practical" empirically minded person... YOU must admit a 100% tax rate is shown on the curve!
AND THAT IS AN EMPIRICAL fact!
Here let the "empirical" FACTS prove!
View attachment 149404
The Laffer Curve suggests that, as taxes increase from low levels, tax revenue collected by the government also increases. It also shows that tax rates increasing after a certain point (T*) would cause people not to work as hard or not at all, thereby reducing tax revenue.
Eventually, if tax rates reached 100%, shown as the far right on his curve, all people would choose not to work because everything they earned would go to the government. Governments would like to be at point T*, because it is the point at which the government collects maximum amount of tax revenue while people continue to work hard.

Read more: Laffer Curve Laffer Curve
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

Are you able to see on the Laffer curve that as taxes are lowered revenues fall?

Are you crazy? You don't seem to understand the simple chart.
The vertical line is tax revenue... the horizontal line is percent of income tax.
So from zero % on the left to 100% on the right.
Meaning if you have 100% tax i.e. on the far right... there is NO TAX revenue because people don't want to work to pay taxes! That simple!

 

[healthmyths]

It seems that many people primarily uninformed people don't see HOW the correlation between reducing taxes can increase revenue.
The primary reason they don't understand is fundamentally they don't know:
1) simple arithmetic.
2) that don't know what happens to money.
View attachment 149122

Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue?

Why according to the above chart does receipts increase as marginal tax decreases?
1) Simple arithmetic.
If taxable income grows tax receipts increase. Simple.
$1,000 taxable income 90% tax $900.
But if taxable income grows to $2,000 and tax is 70% $1,400 versus $900. Simple.
Now some people say "well if the tax was still at 90% it would be $1,800! WRONG!
Because there was NO reason for the taxable income to grow if all it did was pay more taxes!
2) Don't know what happens to money.
Most naive and uninformed people I honestly believe think that people that have excess money:
a) put the money in a mattress or bury it in the backyard. Seriously! They don't seem to comprehend
b)the excess money is
1) spent on consumer goods, more cars, more clothes, more housing, more food.
2) or save putting into the bank which by the way then the bank lends to people to spend..
3) or invest in business to hire more people, spend more money

It is that simple.
The economic multiplier states for every $1 million spent, IT is multiplied by 1.18 or the economy grows with that $1 trillion to $1.2 trillion.
• $1.188 million in total economic activity takes place for every $1 million spent..
• Each $1 million spent provides $205,829 in labor incomes
• Each $1 million represents 7.7 workers and assuming 35% (payroll taxes, FICA, FUTA, Medicare, SS)
http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13143.pdf

Greg Mankiw, who was the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under Bush, has estimated that for every $1 in income tax cuts, government revenue declined by 83 cents.

"Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves" - GOP Economists

That's because government refused to cut also.
Tax and government cuts promote growth.

This is standard reply by people who know nothing on subject.

I know economics and our history about the subject.

Your statement proves something for sure. You are proving how little you really know! Prove to me with facts and LINKS like I do. Not bulls...t statements.
Prove to me! Do some work rather than pontificating!

 

[NYcarbineer]

The laffer curve is an economic joke.

And who are YOU to say that? My opinion of you is YOU are a JOKE!

Empirical facts and the fact you don't know them.

How about this "empirical" fact? Let's assume your position which is WITHOUT any substantiation i.e. that the Laffer Curve is a "joke"!
So according to you our country would thrive, grow and prosper at the same rate we have for the last 200 years, i.e. for example in 1980 there was one millionaire for every 51,000 people...in 36 years i.e. 2016 there are one millionaire for every 30 people... if the Government tax rate was 100%?
You firmly believe Laffer curve is a joke then you have NO problem with 100% Federal tax rate? Talk about "empirical" i.e. "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic" FACTS... That is a fact. Laffer Curve shows a tax of 100%.
But being the knowledgeable "practical" empirically minded person... YOU must admit a 100% tax rate is shown on the curve!
AND THAT IS AN EMPIRICAL fact!
Here let the "empirical" FACTS prove!
View attachment 149404
The Laffer Curve suggests that, as taxes increase from low levels, tax revenue collected by the government also increases. It also shows that tax rates increasing after a certain point (T*) would cause people not to work as hard or not at all, thereby reducing tax revenue.
Eventually, if tax rates reached 100%, shown as the far right on his curve, all people would choose not to work because everything they earned would go to the government. Governments would like to be at point T*, because it is the point at which the government collects maximum amount of tax revenue while people continue to work hard.

Read more: Laffer Curve Laffer Curve
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

Are you able to see on the Laffer curve that as taxes are lowered revenues fall?

Are you crazy? You don't seem to understand the simple chart.
The vertical line is tax revenue... the horizontal line is percent of income tax.
So from zero % on the left to 100% on the right.
Meaning if you have 100% tax i.e. on the far right... there is NO TAX revenue because people don't want to work to pay taxes! That simple!
View attachment 149456

Uh, dumbass, every move to the left of the T* (aka tax cuts) results in lower revenues.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The laffer curve is an economic joke.

And who are YOU to say that? My opinion of you is YOU are a JOKE!

Empirical facts and the fact you don't know them.

How about this "empirical" fact? Let's assume your position which is WITHOUT any substantiation i.e. that the Laffer Curve is a "joke"!
So according to you our country would thrive, grow and prosper at the same rate we have for the last 200 years, i.e. for example in 1980 there was one millionaire for every 51,000 people...in 36 years i.e. 2016 there are one millionaire for every 30 people... if the Government tax rate was 100%?
You firmly believe Laffer curve is a joke then you have NO problem with 100% Federal tax rate? Talk about "empirical" i.e. "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic" FACTS... That is a fact. Laffer Curve shows a tax of 100%.
But being the knowledgeable "practical" empirically minded person... YOU must admit a 100% tax rate is shown on the curve!
AND THAT IS AN EMPIRICAL fact!
Here let the "empirical" FACTS prove!
View attachment 149404
The Laffer Curve suggests that, as taxes increase from low levels, tax revenue collected by the government also increases. It also shows that tax rates increasing after a certain point (T*) would cause people not to work as hard or not at all, thereby reducing tax revenue.
Eventually, if tax rates reached 100%, shown as the far right on his curve, all people would choose not to work because everything they earned would go to the government. Governments would like to be at point T*, because it is the point at which the government collects maximum amount of tax revenue while people continue to work hard.

Read more: Laffer Curve Laffer Curve
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

Are you able to see on the Laffer curve that as taxes are lowered revenues fall?

Are you crazy? You don't seem to understand the simple chart.
The vertical line is tax revenue... the horizontal line is percent of income tax.
So from zero % on the left to 100% on the right.
Meaning if you have 100% tax i.e. on the far right... there is NO TAX revenue because people don't want to work to pay taxes! That simple!
View attachment 149456

Tell us where on the Laffer Curve we are currently, and prove to us how you know that.

 

[AntonToo]

I know, I know... it is very hard to keep from dealing with FACTS when it is SO easy to get them!
But the FACTS are when people decry Reagan's "spending" they have NO IDEA of the reality at that time!
Inflation 13%... Unemployment 10% Treasuries 16% Prime rate 20%!
Folks is it ANY wonder that under Reagan the spending "doubled"!
YET... when he left office: unemployment down. Prime down.. Inflation down!
And still we have dummies that don't simply use the internet BEFORE they make dumb ass comments!

Reagan also left office having raised taxes numerous times after initial tax cuts. Why? Because he has seen the rivers of red ink they caused and it's too bad you are still stuck in 1980.

And you are so ignorant about the 80s ...inflation 13% that doesn't inflate government spending?
Treasuries 16% rate... and that doesn't become an expense? GEEZ are you really that stupid?
Finally 10% unemployments means DUMMY people don't pay payroll taxes! GEEZ just amazes me why idiots who make fun of the FACTS as I provided!
Get your head out of the MSM bullcrap and think for once !

....dummy what you said in no way responded to my post, so not sure why you even bothered posting it.

Everything you said has to do with MONETARY, not fiscal policy.

Yes, Reagan raised taxes, clearly this means he DID NOT believe at that point that lowered taxes were self-financing let alone brought in more revenue. Nothing about inflation can refute that.

NOT one FACT in your presentation! I on the other hand present links! That's why I don't believe a shi...ting you write! All personal opinion! NO sources. No links!
Prove to me because at this point you are just repeating what you think you have heard but you've not looked at any real data or facts.
Reagan had 13% inflation! You don't think that jacked up the spending? He had unemployment 10%... YOU are crazy if you don't think payroll taxes aren't part of the revenue stream! Treasuries 16%! How much interest do you think the government spent that cost way more then inflation.
See people like didn't live through that! I did! My credit card interest was over 21%! Today less then 13%! And you don't think that had a bearing??
Monetary issues had a direct affect on the expenditures of the government.
You can spout that off but the NET affect was higher costs of government during Reagan which did then double the spending. But hidden in that was the
pure FACT that today we don't have 13% inflation...10% unemployment, 20% prime! AND THOSE ARE THE FACTS! YOU can't deny that!

...what do you want a link for?

Reagan signing off on raising taxes? Seriously? You don't know that fact?

 

[Toro]

The laffer curve is an economic joke.

And who are YOU to say that? My opinion of you is YOU are a JOKE!

Empirical facts and the fact you don't know them.

How about this "empirical" fact? Let's assume your position which is WITHOUT any substantiation i.e. that the Laffer Curve is a "joke"!
So according to you our country would thrive, grow and prosper at the same rate we have for the last 200 years, i.e. for example in 1980 there was one millionaire for every 51,000 people...in 36 years i.e. 2016 there are one millionaire for every 30 people... if the Government tax rate was 100%?
You firmly believe Laffer curve is a joke then you have NO problem with 100% Federal tax rate? Talk about "empirical" i.e. "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic" FACTS... That is a fact. Laffer Curve shows a tax of 100%.
But being the knowledgeable "practical" empirically minded person... YOU must admit a 100% tax rate is shown on the curve!
AND THAT IS AN EMPIRICAL fact!
Here let the "empirical" FACTS prove!
View attachment 149404
The Laffer Curve suggests that, as taxes increase from low levels, tax revenue collected by the government also increases. It also shows that tax rates increasing after a certain point (T*) would cause people not to work as hard or not at all, thereby reducing tax revenue.
Eventually, if tax rates reached 100%, shown as the far right on his curve, all people would choose not to work because everything they earned would go to the government. Governments would like to be at point T*, because it is the point at which the government collects maximum amount of tax revenue while people continue to work hard.

Read more: Laffer Curve Laffer Curve
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

Are you able to see on the Laffer curve that as taxes are lowered revenues fall?

Are you crazy? You don't seem to understand the simple chart.
The vertical line is tax revenue... the horizontal line is percent of income tax.
So from zero % on the left to 100% on the right.
Meaning if you have 100% tax i.e. on the far right... there is NO TAX revenue because people don't want to work to pay taxes! That simple!
View attachment 149456

Estimates of the Laffer Curve having a positive effect on tax revenues are cuts in income tax rates somewhere around rates of 80% to 90%.

 

[Toro]

It seems that many people primarily uninformed people don't see HOW the correlation between reducing taxes can increase revenue.
The primary reason they don't understand is fundamentally they don't know:
1) simple arithmetic.
2) that don't know what happens to money.
View attachment 149122

Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue?

Why according to the above chart does receipts increase as marginal tax decreases?
1) Simple arithmetic.
If taxable income grows tax receipts increase. Simple.
$1,000 taxable income 90% tax $900.
But if taxable income grows to $2,000 and tax is 70% $1,400 versus $900. Simple.
Now some people say "well if the tax was still at 90% it would be $1,800! WRONG!
Because there was NO reason for the taxable income to grow if all it did was pay more taxes!
2) Don't know what happens to money.
Most naive and uninformed people I honestly believe think that people that have excess money:
a) put the money in a mattress or bury it in the backyard. Seriously! They don't seem to comprehend
b)the excess money is
1) spent on consumer goods, more cars, more clothes, more housing, more food.
2) or save putting into the bank which by the way then the bank lends to people to spend..
3) or invest in business to hire more people, spend more money

It is that simple.
The economic multiplier states for every $1 million spent, IT is multiplied by 1.18 or the economy grows with that $1 trillion to $1.2 trillion.
• $1.188 million in total economic activity takes place for every $1 million spent..
• Each $1 million spent provides $205,829 in labor incomes
• Each $1 million represents 7.7 workers and assuming 35% (payroll taxes, FICA, FUTA, Medicare, SS)
http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13143.pdf

Greg Mankiw, who was the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under Bush, has estimated that for every $1 in income tax cuts, government revenue declined by 83 cents.

"Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves" - GOP Economists

That's because government refused to cut also.
Tax and government cuts promote growth.

Austerity does not promote growth in the near term.

The Laffer Curve does not consider government spending.

 

[AntonToo]

The laffer curve is an economic joke.

And who are YOU to say that? My opinion of you is YOU are a JOKE!

Empirical facts and the fact you don't know them.

How about this "empirical" fact? Let's assume your position which is WITHOUT any substantiation i.e. that the Laffer Curve is a "joke"!
So according to you our country would thrive, grow and prosper at the same rate we have for the last 200 years, i.e. for example in 1980 there was one millionaire for every 51,000 people...in 36 years i.e. 2016 there are one millionaire for every 30 people... if the Government tax rate was 100%?
You firmly believe Laffer curve is a joke then you have NO problem with 100% Federal tax rate? Talk about "empirical" i.e. "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic" FACTS... That is a fact. Laffer Curve shows a tax of 100%.
But being the knowledgeable "practical" empirically minded person... YOU must admit a 100% tax rate is shown on the curve!
AND THAT IS AN EMPIRICAL fact!
Here let the "empirical" FACTS prove!
View attachment 149404
The Laffer Curve suggests that, as taxes increase from low levels, tax revenue collected by the government also increases. It also shows that tax rates increasing after a certain point (T*) would cause people not to work as hard or not at all, thereby reducing tax revenue.
Eventually, if tax rates reached 100%, shown as the far right on his curve, all people would choose not to work because everything they earned would go to the government. Governments would like to be at point T*, because it is the point at which the government collects maximum amount of tax revenue while people continue to work hard.

Read more: Laffer Curve Laffer Curve
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

Are you able to see on the Laffer curve that as taxes are lowered revenues fall?

Are you crazy? You don't seem to understand the simple chart.
The vertical line is tax revenue... the horizontal line is percent of income tax.
So from zero % on the left to 100% on the right.
Meaning if you have 100% tax i.e. on the far right... there is NO TAX revenue because people don't want to work to pay taxes! That simple!
View attachment 149456

Wow you seriously are retarded or something, left half of the graph shows reduced revenues with tax-cuts.

You have now been asked multiple times around what rates inflection happens and why you think that. You just can't seem to answer.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Uh, dumbass, every move to the left of the T* (aka tax cuts) results in lower revenues.

I think the question is what percentage does T represent? And how is that translated into a progressive taxation system?

 

[JimBowie1958]

The Laffer Curve does not consider government spending.

Yes, and we have had record Federali revenues and the Feds still SPEND MORE THAN THEY TAKE IN.

Obviously the problem is not with the tax rate but with the spending rate.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It seems that many people primarily uninformed people don't see HOW the correlation between reducing taxes can increase revenue.
The primary reason they don't understand is fundamentally they don't know:
1) simple arithmetic.
2) that don't know what happens to money.
View attachment 149122

Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue?

Why according to the above chart does receipts increase as marginal tax decreases?
1) Simple arithmetic.
If taxable income grows tax receipts increase. Simple.
$1,000 taxable income 90% tax $900.
But if taxable income grows to $2,000 and tax is 70% $1,400 versus $900. Simple.
Now some people say "well if the tax was still at 90% it would be $1,800! WRONG!
Because there was NO reason for the taxable income to grow if all it did was pay more taxes!
2) Don't know what happens to money.
Most naive and uninformed people I honestly believe think that people that have excess money:
a) put the money in a mattress or bury it in the backyard. Seriously! They don't seem to comprehend
b)the excess money is
1) spent on consumer goods, more cars, more clothes, more housing, more food.
2) or save putting into the bank which by the way then the bank lends to people to spend..
3) or invest in business to hire more people, spend more money

It is that simple.
The economic multiplier states for every $1 million spent, IT is multiplied by 1.18 or the economy grows with that $1 trillion to $1.2 trillion.
• $1.188 million in total economic activity takes place for every $1 million spent..
• Each $1 million spent provides $205,829 in labor incomes
• Each $1 million represents 7.7 workers and assuming 35% (payroll taxes, FICA, FUTA, Medicare, SS)
http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13143.pdf

Greg Mankiw, who was the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under Bush, has estimated that for every $1 in income tax cuts, government revenue declined by 83 cents.

"Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves" - GOP Economists

That's because government refused to cut also.
Tax and government cuts promote growth.

Austerity does not promote growth in the near term.

The Laffer Curve does not consider government spending.

The government can raise revenues by borrowing more money and putting that money into the economy,

so with a tax cut accompanied by higher deficits, you have to factor out the revenue increase from deficit spending to get to whether the tax cut alone produced higher revenues.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Laffer Curve does not consider government spending.

Yes, and we have had record Federali revenues and the Feds still SPEND MORE THAN THEY TAKE IN.

Obviously the problem is not with the tax rate but with the spending rate.

It's not an either/or situation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Uh, dumbass, every move to the left of the T* (aka tax cuts) results in lower revenues.

I think the question is what percentage does T represent? And how is that translated into a progressive taxation system?

In 2014 taxes were raised when the top rate cut in the Bush tax cuts expired. Since then we've had increased revenues and lower deficits.

Without claiming as fact cause and effect, if that tax increase did in fact impact revenues, by increasing them,

that would imply that we are currently on the left side of the Laffer curve (assuming here the Laffer curve theory is legitimate in the first place).

 

[JimBowie1958]

Yes, and we have had record Federali revenues and the Feds still SPEND MORE THAN THEY TAKE IN.
Obviously the problem is not with the tax rate but with the spending rate.

It's not an either/or situation.

No, it most certainly IS.

The Feds need to reign in their bullshit.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Uh, dumbass, every move to the left of the T* (aka tax cuts) results in lower revenues.

I think the question is what percentage does T represent? And how is that translated into a progressive taxation system?

In 2014 taxes were raised when the top rate cut in the Bush tax cuts expired. Since then we've had increased revenues and lower deficits.

Without claiming as fact cause and effect, if that tax increase did in fact impact revenues, by increasing them,

that would imply that we are currently on the left side of the Laffer curve (assuming here the Laffer curve theory is legitimate in the first place).

I think T is closer to 25% for the top income rates and closer to 10% for the middle class, as the higher rates can more easily afford to pay and so T would be much higher than for people living paycheck to paycheck.

 

[rightwinger]

You mean, fiscal responsibility. Since, you agree that spending and revenue should be in the same "ball park".

No, but I agree that there should be no talk of taxation until real progress is made on defining 'legitimate' spending by the Federal government and their abuse of the States.

It simply cannot be argued with any voracity that tax cuts do not create stimulus. However, it also cannot be stated that tax cuts without a corresponding level of spending cutes will create a stimulus. What it (spending) does is burden future generations with unimaginable taxation to cover the lack of responsible spending and mature priorities of government.

Excuse Me, but today I'm making a batch of watermelon wine and I can't spend all day discussing economics 101. Have a nice day.

We have a general welfare clause and a common defense clause. It seems simple, to any federalist.

The general welfare clause does not specifically address individuals. Any careful reading of the Constitution will tell you that the general welfare is in reference to the overall health and security of the nation.

Enjoy.

Very true

And sometimes helping one group is good for the entire country

The general welfare clause is general, not major or specific or common.

Yes it is general....in good for the country as a whole

Programs that help investment only help a small portion of the country but are deemed an overall good
Same goes for programs to help those that are struggling. They are an overall good for the country

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes, and we have had record Federali revenues and the Feds still SPEND MORE THAN THEY TAKE IN.
Obviously the problem is not with the tax rate but with the spending rate.

It's not an either/or situation.

No, it most certainly IS.

The Feds need to reign in their bullshit.

When Bush cut taxes twice despite facing the costs of 2 wars that was a tax cutting problem.

 

[JimBowie1958]

When Bush cut taxes twice despite facing the costs of 2 wars that was a tax cutting problem.

Agreed. I am speaking of normal peace time.

War time expenditures should have some funding mechanism, IMO, but Keynes would disagree with us both and his antiquated ideas still have dominance inside the Beltway.