Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
I'll stick with the findings of a recent study (pdf) by the Congressional Budget Office in which the CBO estimated the extent to which a 10 percent reduction in personal taxes might pay for itself. The conclusions confirm that the free-lunch mantra is just plain wrong. O n the most optimistic assumptions it, the CBO found that tax cuts would stimulate enough economic growth to replace 22 percent of lost revenue in the first five years and 32 percent in the second five. On pessimistic assumptions, the growth effects of tax cuts did nothing to offset revenue loss.
So..that means that from 68 to 78 percent of that lost revenue is not replaced....it is LOST!
Ironically, the director of the CBO at the time was Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who is now a senior economic policy advisor on the McCain campaign. |
Is this the same study that excluded the possible impact of economic growth in their analysis?
Quote:
ace, thanks for the advice 
But for the record, I probably speak to more business leaders, local government officials and leaders of community-based organizations in a week than you do in a year.
And I dont call people with whom I disagree either liars or ignorant in any of those conversations.
|
O.k. - Tell us why they are leaving states like California and New York?
Tell us why some business are moving jobs overseas?
Tell us what business owners with S corps. planning on doing when they are faced with a dramatic increase in social security tax under Obama?
Aagh, more rhetorical questions.
I would not call a person a liar or ignorant in a face to face conversation either. However, if that is what they are that doesn't change the facts. In this case you argue against my positions on supply side economics, the impact of tax and regulatory policy while not really engaging my points other than to say they are wrong. Do you believe that the tax and regulatory climate in California has no impact on middle class people and business owners leaving the state? If you answer that tax and regulatory policy has no impact - what am I to conclude?