« A test of the "RATS" effect | Main | The NYT doesn't endorse Rudy »

January 23, 2008

Comments

constantly referencing the president's economists no longer adds anything to these arguments.

Hi Brendan,

You have alerted me to the speciousness of the supply siders claims. But I thought of this; is the data accurate enough to provide evidence as conclusive as you think it is. What if, but for Bush's tax cuts in 2003 (and Reagan's in 1982 forward), the economy would have entered into a recession or depression. If you hypothesize that, then theoretically, tax cuts might raise revenue RELATIVE TO WHAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN, i.e., relative to depression-era tax revenues. I don't think there is an economist in the world that would deny that at tax cut that thwarted an inchoate depression would be one that indeed did "raise tax reveune" all other things being equal. Do I have a point?

TOH

The comments to this entry are closed.