Posted on 08/11/2021 5:18:47 AM PDT by Sir_Humphrey
The bipartisan infrastructure legislation moving through Congress could end up on President Biden’s desk before we know it. The $1 trillion bill has reportedly cleared major hurdles in the Senate and will soon land before the House of Representatives. The president would almost certainly sign the bill, which has his support, and its bipartisan passage would represent a political victory for the Biden administration.
At least, at first.
The promised long-term economic benefits from the sweeping $1 trillion expenditure will likely never materialize, according to a new Ivy League analysis. This runs directly against the president’s promises that it would create jobs and stimulate the economy. Indeed, Biden has insisted that the government spending plan will “create millions of good-paying jobs.”
(Excerpt) Read more at fee.org ...
His timing sucks.
“”Obama’s TARP was supposed to do the same thing. All I remember is Solyndra making a half billion dollars disappear and then taking millions In bonuses after going bankrupt.””
YEP - $831 billion and no one wants to remind Biden of that...As I recall, he was put in charge of managing that “slush fund.” We never did get an accounting. All we got for it were signs on highways that construction was under way under the Recovery Act when anyone who wasn’t blind could see there wasn’t and never was any construction happening.
Bingo. Also taxing the low rungs of society with inflation, most of whom are ignorant of the fact that inflation acts like a tax. CommieRats are evil.
It’s a big wet kiss to the construction unions. This is the payoff to the unions for swinging their endorsement from Donald Trump to Joe Biden at the 11th hour. So be it. That’s politics. But lets not kid ourselves. Just like Obama’s “Shovel Ready Jobs” the things that really need to get fixed — roads & bridges — will get done in their own time and with pretty much the same companies & construction crews. There will be no real expansion in employment and no real benefit to the economy.
Yep. Inflation is a very regressive tax.
And when you cut cashflow without cutting spending then you increase borrowing.
I hope all the GOP fluffers who insisted we had to keep re-electing Assistant Democrats are happy now that they are assisting the Democrats to destroy the country.
CommieRats are evil.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So are their assistants, the Bush League Republicans.
Correct. That ship sailed decades ago.
Tax cuts are meaningless in the long run now. They help in the short run.
Don’t mean squat until you cut spending.
Out of curiosity, how does a government create a job, other than a government job? Are these millions of jobs going to be civil service jobs?
Cutting the tax rate can and often does lead to increased tax revenue. Happened with the Mellon tax rate cuts a hundred years ago, JFK's tax rate cuts sixty years ago, and Reagan's rate cuts thirty years ago.
If you look at inflation adjusted tax revenue, you'll see tax revenue dips for about the first year after the cuts, and then the GDP expands, bringing in more revenue than before the cuts. Larger revenue from a smaller cut of the larger economy.
Look at tax revenue after tax rate increases as well. It often increases for the first year before contracting. Bigger cut of a smaller economy. It's like a self-correcting system. Like it has a built-in feedback mechanism.
Regardless of tax rates, the government's take is remarkably stable when compared to percentage of the GDP. While income tax rates swung wildly up and down between 90% to 28% over the years, tax revenue stayed between 15% and 20% of the GDP during the same years. The best way to bring in more tax revenue is to promote growth.
Regardless, deficit spending is always a spending issue, not a tax rate issue.
But would tax revenue have increased even more if the tax rate had not been cut? That's the unknown in the equation.
It all depends on whether or not the economy expanded and by how much. I'd argue that the tax rate cuts are what led to rapid growth in the 1920s, 1960s, and 1980s. Revenue dipped immediately after those major cuts, but then increased year over year above the year prior to the cuts and kept increasing.
Immediately prior each of those three major cuts, there was either a recession or "stagflation" so I doubt the economy would have expanded much or at all, or that tax revenue would have increased as much had the tax rate remained constant.
Also note that the Mellon tax cuts also coincided with a tremendous cut in spending. That will never happen again. Too bad, because in came the roaring twenties.
“ You are half right.
Really? What spending bill led to all the new jobs claimed?”
The other half, doodle.
correct.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.