That should be the goal. Grow the economy faster than we grow the government. Lower tax rates grow the economy, produce more taxpayers, increase revenues and enable lower tax rates keeping more of that capital working in the economy. There is nothing "bad faith" about it.
I don't know how often I have to explain this to people. Revenue is supposed to go up when the economy is growing. That's the entire disingenuous claim by "fiscal conservatives", that because revenues are going up then that means the tax cuts work! Even though when you look at history tax revenue goes up during economic expansions even after tax rate increases. It's not a question of absolute increase, but rather a question of relative increases.
The goal should be what? To, after revenue and economic growth doesn't match up to what was promised, decide to not erase the problem of diminishing revenue growth but rather erase spending? Nah, that's bad faith.
Exactly what I said. Grow the economy faster than we grow the government enabling us to lower tax rates on the citizens. The government has no claim to a certain percentage of the economy or incomes earned.
Better yet, what did Jesus do for the poor and sick? Wasn't the idea here that we should try to emulate him?
Pardon my sarcasm. However, when I look at defense spending and what we get for our money, I can't help but see such spending as entitlements. Cost overruns, sub standard products, outrageously over-priced supplies, waste, waste, and more waste---it has to be entitlements.
There have certainly been a few too many RINO's elected but the shift is within the Democrat party where their new stars ran on HUGE increases in government spending and the ones that are now declaring for the Presidency are doing so on promises of HUGE spending increases and now they want to get rid of the debt ceiling altogether and PAYGO.
RINO's? I can't think of a more blatant example of a RINO than trump. What do you think are republican principles? Do you have any?
Hasn't that been the complaint from the Right for decades? How is that a shift? The Left is not supporting austerity in any way, but it is calling out the irony. The shift--the Right now doing an about face as far as debt and deficit spending--that's the irony of all this.
I see. So when you throw around terms like RINO to disparage republicans it really doesn't have any meaning at all other than you don't like them?
Some in the Republican party, but ALL in the Democrat party could care not a twit about deficits and debt as we see in the last mid-terms and their announce candidates for the Presidency. At least Trump has ordered his cabinet officials to put together plans for a 5% cut in their budgets. At least he and the Republicans passed the tax policies that have boosted the economy and brought in more revenues and that growth could continue if the Democrats would end the shutdown. At least Trump has made a good size dent in anti-business and anti-growth regulations. If you believe that we should look to the Democrats to lower the deficits and balance the budgets I would be most interested in what those policies are.
All I did was point out the irony. No need to turn it all back on the Democrats. But this order to create plans--will it balance out the increases in other areas?
Which Democrats in the mid-terms ran on at least slowing the rate of growth of government spending? Which of the announced Democrat candidates are running on fiscally conservative policies and reigning in government spending?
Oh really? Then why are people in construction here cutting jobs in one of the biggest housing markets in the country because they are fearing a slowdown?
Why would I give a rat's ass about something I'm not trying to argue? Democrats baaaaad...There, now can we move on to something related to what I did say?
It's a relevant question, which side is more likely to actually do something about the deficits are at least increases them less. You gotta vote for one or the other which is it?
You aren't claiming it is linear in those non recession years are you? Only if you don't understand tax policy and the economy which you don't. It's not a static equation, it is a dynamic economy. Cutting tax rates, increase revenue growth. Economics and economic history can be hard for some. The Democrats are at the top and overlapped the competition including Senator and then President Obama with their 10% spending increase in 2008, held to that only because Bush threatened to veto any more spending, and the after getting him out of the way their 20% spending increase in 2009. Taking the last Republican deficit in 2007 of just $161B to $1,400B in just two years and they BRAGGED about doing it. Gingrich and Kasich cut tax rates, tax revenues soar and the not only balance the budgets but produce surpluses. Bush43 gets tax rate cuts during the 2001 recession, once fully implemented in 2004 revenues start to soar deficit peaks at $400B and rapidly falls and they bring the deficit down to $161B Then the Democrats took the Congress January of 2007. How'd they do? The recession ended 6 months after he moved over to the White House, before any stimulus. The job loss rate bottomed out the month he moved to the White House he did nothing to turn that around. He did blow $800B on a failed stimulus which the unemployment rate blew right through the 8% he promised it would hold it an on to 10% and unlike his promise it would quickly fall to under 6% stayed over 8% for the next three years. We never got into recovery levels of growth, the labor force participation rate continued to fall and Obama announced those good paying jobs would never come back. He basic said "I give up don't blame me".
Huh? It is a mathematical impossibility to cut your revenue percentage and increase revenue. Repeatedly refuted this. [QUITE]Gingrich and Kasich cut tax rates, tax revenues soar and the not only balance the budgets but produce surpluses. Bush43 gets tax rate cuts during the 2001 recession, once fully implemented in 2004 revenues start to soar deficit peaks at $400B and rapidly falls and they bring the deficit down to $161B Then the Democrats took the Congress January of 2007. How'd they do?[/QUOTE] And this And this.
