ADVERTISEMENT

Repub appointed head of CBO-Tax cuts don't pay for themselves

THE_DEVIL

HB King
Gold Member
Aug 16, 2005
66,236
83,229
113
Hell, Michigan
www.livecoinwatch.com
Budget director: 'Tax cuts do not pay for themselves'
The director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), who was appointed by GOP lawmakers earlier this year, said Tuesday that tax cuts don’t pay for themselves.

At a press briefing, a reporter asked Keith Hall about that theory.

“No, the evidence is that tax cuts do not pay for themselves," Hall said. "And our models that we're doing, our macroeconomic effects, show that."

The briefing focused on a new report CBO released Tuesday detailing updated projections for the federal budget and economy over the next decade.
The CBO projected that the deficit for 2015 will fall to an eight-year low of $426 billion, or 2.4 percent of gross domestic product. It lowered its earlier projections because of higher revenue from corporate and individual income taxes.

Some conservatives argue that cutting taxes leads to more economic growth, and thus higher tax revenue from job and wage growth.

The majority-GOP Congress is requiring the CBO to use "dynamic scoring," which considers how a bill will affect the broader economy and how that might affect the federal budget. The CBO also uses the more traditional static scoring approach.

GOP lawmakers have argued that “dynamic scoring” would provide more accurate estimates. Hall said it does improve the quality of CBO’s scores, but he also warned that there is a lot of uncertainty involved.

Congressional Republicans decided earlier this year not to reappoint former CBO Director Doug Elmendorf, appointing Hall as his successor instead.
 
You did see where it said he is "nonpartison" right? Nonpartison, you do know what that means, right?
 
You did see where it said he is "nonpartison" right? Nonpartison, you do know what that means, right?

lol_vladimir_putin.gif
 
Tax cuts "do not pay for themselves", huh? I won't argue that point because as far as the federal government goes, they never happen: they're just talking points in the annual election cycle.
Are we to infer, then, that tax increases, printing & borrowing trillions, running a Ponzi scheme as a substitute for retirement savings and a policy of perpetual war will pay for itself then???

I'm glad I only go to church once a week or so. The around-the-clock government worship some of you people indulge in has got to be so damn exhausting. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkeye54545
Tax cuts "do not pay for themselves", huh? I won't argue that point because as far as the federal government goes, they never happen: they're just talking points in the annual election cycle.
Are we to infer, then, that tax increases, printing & borrowing trillions, running a Ponzi scheme as a substitute for retirement savings and a policy of perpetual war will pay for itself then???

I'm glad I only go to church once a week or so. The around-the-clock government worship some of you people indulge in has got to be so damn exhausting. :D
Did federal taxes not get cut in 2001 and 2003? Was that a figment of our imagination?
 
Did federal taxes not get cut in 2001 and 2003? Was that a figment of our imagination?
Bush should not be credited with cutting our tax burdens. He has engaged in tax shifting and in hiding the burdens of his expansions of the welfare and warfare state, and he has demonstrated that he's opposed to lowering our tax burdens. Deep into his second term, we have plenty of evidence to show that Bush should be blamed for increasing our tax burdens at a phenomenal pace.

The Republican Party claims to be the party of limited government and economic freedom. Don't believe it. Republicans have shown that when they are in power they are even more fiscally irresponsible than their Democratic counterparts, and that takes some doing.
https://mises.org/library/bush-has-not-cut-taxes

It wasn't a figment of your imagination sooner, just a bunch of BS propaganda :)
 
So in other words...

Taxes do not overcome government inefficiency.

Shocking.
Only if the Laugher Curve argument was: Cut taxes, cut spending, break even.

But of course he didn't sell it that way to Kansas, Brownback et al. The proposition is: cut taxes, grow the economy, break even.


And the CBO guy is laudably saying that doesn't happen.
 
To even frame the issue in this manner ... you are accepting that the money in question belongs to the government, and not to those who actually earned it.

Let's include some measure of the hardship that comes to the individual payers when more of their income is confiscated by the government.

Perhaps we could offset the lower government debt against the higher private debt that ensues.

The objective should be to reduce the overall combined deficit of the government sector and of the private sector.

The health of the private economy almost certainly improves with tax cuts ... and for now, the private economy is still larger than the government economy ... and the health of the private economy is what us Supply-Siders are concerned with. We want to improve the economic well-being of private sector workers; help them pay down their student loans, help them make mortgage payments, help them buy health care (insurance), help them fund their retirement, help them pay for a weekend in Las Vegas ... etc., etc., etc. Actually raising their taxes sharply restricts their ability to do any of these things and ultimately results in higher overall private sector debt.

...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 86Hawkeye
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT