Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012
Economic theory has generally ruled that statement to be true through trial and error, but it is a poor writing technique to just assume your reader is fluent in economic theory and move on.
It's not hard to defend a statement like that; a little effort would be nice.
|
I'm not sure what you mean by "trial and error". I found a few links discussing it, but it's mostly places like the Heritage Foundation, from whom I expect no less (see
these comments):
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm1835.cfm
Factcheck.org says it was a combination of reducing the deficit, oil, and the internet boom:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...the_1990s.html
This was a pretty balanced review of the 1990s economy (although it could be raving lunacy for all I know):
http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TotW/clinton.html
I did find one study that suggested the deeper the tax cuts in the 1990s the deeper budget problems and economic stress during the downturn:
http://www.cbpp.org/1-12-05sfp-pr.htm
The important takeaway according to the study was that tax cuts have to be affordable (which means cutting programs). That would support the opposite conclusion of tax cuts increasing revenue.