[Robert Drobot]

Supply-siders are madly clicking their heels to no avail. They're arguments are bankrupt, and their bookkeeping would make Al Capone proud.

[ChessExpert]

"Supply-siders are madly clicking their heels to no avail. They're arguments are bankrupt, and their bookkeeping would make Al Capone proud."

Advertising a 25% off sale, filling the store, and increasing revenues is not bookkeeping. It's economics.

Similarly, reducing the cost of economic activity (tax cut), and getting more economic activity is not bookkeeping. It's economics.

Almost all budget analysis (from either party) is bookkeeping. It's not economics. Incorporation of a sensible economic response to tax cuts is sometimes called voodoo economics, because it is not the simplistic bookkeeping that is almost universally practiced by budget analysts.

Bookkeeping and green eye-shade accounting is fine. But sometimes, it's not enough. It's not realistic. People respond to changing prices. This includes the after-tax price of their time, or the after-tax return on their investments. The bookkeeper does not consider these responses.

[Toddsterpatriot]

They're arguments are bankrupt, and their bookkeeping would make Al Capone proud.

The author of this post should not accuse others of phony bookkeeping!!!

[remember]

Supply-siders are madly clicking their heels to no avail. They're arguments are bankrupt, and their bookkeeping would make Al Capone proud.

I do find it strange how many (not all) supply-siders seem to believe that recent cuts in the marginal rate have increased revenues when I can find no budget document or credible economic study that purports to show that to be the case.