re: Want Proof Tax Cuts Don't Stimulate the Economy? Look at Kansas

quote:

---

So revenue fell drastically on the local, state and federal levels after the crash of 2008, yet you contards never take that into consideration when speaking of the debt.

---

That makes it even worse. Revenues fell, but gov spending decrease did not match. That is why during the first few years of Obama's term there was a record deficit. Do you know the difference in deficit and debt?

Also contard just doesn't sound right. There has to be a better term for you lefties to use.

quote:

---

That said, there's a fundamental difference in the way the two sides believe this should be handled. On the federal level the stimulus was 28% tax cuts, about a third in help to local and state govts with their deficits and the rest in various actual "stimulus" projects.thats another thing you guys don't mention.

---

It was a complete failure. We spent a almost a trilion $'s and still exceeded the projected unemployment of not spending the $ and had a slower recovery than predicted if we didn't spend it. We should have just sat back, put some more funds into unemployment plans, but not all the extensions.

quote:

---

You and I can argue which is the best approach, but for it to be an honest debate, you'd have to acknowledge what really happened and that Democrats were not actually practicing "economic terrorism" as Sentrius (and others) claimed.

---

We can argue, but if you can't see how the dramatic decrease in ag products are going to have more of a negative impact on Kansas's budget than tax cuts have there is no point. It would be like Louisiana's budget having a huge hole if oil prices fell from $100/barrel to $50/barrel in 2 years.