Quote:
Originally posted by smooth
Onetime, as an educated economist, most definately knows this.
He didn't dispute you because you support his viewpoint. But if you ask any other economist, or maybe even onetime in person, they will tell you that what you are citing as evidence of supply side tactics as proof of anything isn't worth beans.
|
Actually it supports my viewpoint in only a cursory manner. Put simply, when the economy grows (almost without regard to the reason) the government takes in more money. I didn't debate it because we've covered this ground before. The only question that was new, IMO, was if people were aware of the latest news about the lower than expected deficit.
But smooth, going by the typical rules of economic politics KMA is right about the fact that Bush should be making this podium pounding stuff. Since his opposition has been pounding him on the "weak" economy for the last year or more, the strengthening economy becomes a plus for the Bush campaign.
Additionally, by your own argument here, could it not also be said that we have no way of knowing how bad the economy would have been had the tax cuts not been enacted? I have my opinion (which is that they made no real difference) and others have theirs. In the end the discussions around economics on this board (and in the media in general) are way too warped around partisanship and Party agendas.
I suspect that the political reality is that Bush pointing to a "lower" deficit only draws attention to the still massive size of it. Also, it's always far easier to make something look bad in a few catch phrases than it is to explain the results of complex predictions, tax revenue projection, economic theory, etc.