Just a guess, but those few academics who do have credibility, in your opinion, say things that you agree with.
Recent politics has proven you right, for the most part. We have been spending 105% or more of revenues. Coming out of a severe recession that is to be expected, but it isn't good policy in boom times. There is no one that tninks that higher taxes per se are good for the economy. But there are times, such as now, when Congress can't get their act together long enough to adjust expenditures in less productive areas. It is petty bickering and failure of a majority in both parties to agree on an agenda and they get behind it and make it work efficiently. The carping in Congress is wasting all of our money. Spending 105% of revenues and cutting taxes on top of that is bad policy. We all want lower taxes and there is plenty of money to allow this. It's what we do with the money that needs revision. Other's comments to the contrary, my point, and no one here that has any understanding of economics can offer a reasonable refutation, is that cutting taxes does not pay for itself in increased revenue. When taxes are cut but spending is not, the result is increased debt and a shift of the tax burden from direct taxation to indirect. It is irresponsible to champion lower taxes, unless the cuts are coordinated with equivalent reductions in expenditures. I am not seeing that.
while I agree we should also cut spending... I need to give you an idea about where we may be on laffer curve and sort of a primer on real world numbers. We know you are a smart guy, I fear you may have been so thoroughly indoctrinated by pre fascists you have never seen the real numbers. 1. If after the Bush tax cuts... receipts went up and the budget deficit went down for 3 straight years... would you agree the tax cuts paid for themselves? If not why not? then tell us how much of your answers was nebulous to avoid admitting the truth a leftist can not handle? here is a hint... 04.... -412 05.... -318 06.... -248 07.... -160
Remember Rick Santelli's rant and the ''Santelli for President'' applause he got here on ET ? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Reporter Whose Rant Helped Launch Tea Party Gets Put In His Place. The CNBC reporter whose rant helped launch America's tea party movement was told off Monday amid -- what else -- one of his epic rants. As Rick Santelli shouted from the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade against the Federal Reserve's policies on "Fast Money Halftime Report," CNBC reporter Steve Liesman took him down a peg. "It's impossible for you to have been more wrong, Rick," Liesman said. "Your call for inflation, the destruction of the dollar, the failure of the U.S. economy to rebound... The higher interest rates never came, the inability of the U.S. to sell bonds never happened, the dollar never crashed Rick, there isn't a single one that's worked for you." "Every single bit of advice you gave would've lost people money," Liesman told Santelli. "There is no piece of advice you've given that's worked." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/15/rick-santelli_n_5586448.html
Yes, of course, I realize that. What would you expect, considering the reasoning of many of the participants in these lower reaches of ET Forums. If you know nothing of economics, you'll not be able to educate yourself here. You'll have to read widely elsewhere.