That depends on whether the tax rate cuts (not “tax cuts”) grow or shrink the economy….

correct. there is a place on “the curve” where tax increases shrink the economy (ie to increase taxes is to decrease the amount of capital which can fuel the economy) and then there is a place on the curve where decreasing taxes does little or nothing to increase the amount of capital available for economic activity, and indeed inhibits that ability because it decreases the infrastructure available for business to operate in.

The reason “tax cuts” dont work as a remedy for The Republic’s ills today is many fold. Not the least of which is that “insufficient capital” among the people and corporations who benefited from the Bush “tax policies” is NOT the reason that the economy is not expanding. All reports are that the major banks, major corporations have 1-2 trillion dollars of “cash” that they are hording and not spending.

Worse as the government has been forced into deficit spending to maintain the desired infrastructure (like NASA HSF programs or a few wars or drug benefits or whatever), the infrastructure TODAY and tomorrow has been affected. One may argue that things like a senior drug care benefit are not infrastructure that The Republic as a government should have (I would!) but the fact is that these things are such that they are probably not politically reverseable.

As business have failed to spend the economy has continued its extraction with the tied up capital doing nothing.

Robert G. Oler

That depends on whether the tax rate cuts (not “tax cuts”) grow or shrink the economy.

What you are arguing is good right wing rhetoric

Despite your paranoia about “right wingers” (did one scare your mother when you were in the womb?), it’s not “right wing rhetoric” — it’s economics 101.

Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 22nd, 2010 at 11:03 am <- Don't be so hard on yourself. Facts are stubborn things,…

the very thing I was thinking as you refused to acknowledge you quoted me wrong.

Along with "this person is goofy"

Robert G. Oler

Rich businessmen with discretionary income support jobs through purchases of caviar, yachts, etc. But more importantly their excess discretionary income supports job creation through investment..

two points.

That is the rhetoric but its never been more then that.

The “job creation” that is done has value to thepeople who get the job but little to the economy in general. A job building high end yachts for instance has more value to the economy then a contractor at USA…ie they pay taxes not require that the taxes create their job.

But there is no real data to indicate (and a lot to dispute) that the investment does things like create SpaceX or industry that levers the economy.

Second…and most importantly the cuts kill tax revenue which directly is used to improve (in theory) the infrastructure of The Republic for ALL of us.

What you are arguing is good right wing rhetoric but there is no real data to support it, it is like the nutty claim that those on unemployment dont want to work and would rather collect unemployment.

nutty

Robert G. Oler

Wrong again Oler just like you have been throughout this whole debacle.

Even commercial space needs government spending before they go any further with development. Both SpaceX and Boeing have made that very clear…

no they have not, at least not SpaceX is committed to go to crewed flight even without government “involvement”.

You are doing strategic analysis on what is happening tactically.

Two points

First NASA programs are collapsing. that is inevitable and what will be there to pick up the pieces is Musk and maybe Boeing.

Second there is a customer base in government outside of NASA both in and out of the US and both Boeing and Musk are pursuing it. Boeing is at a major airshow now (points if you know which one) along with Bigelow busily trying to convince countries that want a space (human) program but dont have the NASA dollars…that there are ways to do it cheaper… There are other customers for human spaceflight besides the NASA. Bigelow is working with the DoD on this. I cant tell you how I know that and you can happily dismiss this as nonsense…but they are. There are at least three colleges (that I know of) who are talking with Bigelow about having their people fly on his station and do research.

The ground is shifting.

NASA HSF is dying and will be dead shortly.

Robert G. Oler

Both SpaceX and Boeing have made that very clear.

SpaceX has said no such thing. In fact, they have said the opposite. They said they will continue developing Falcon 9/Dragon regardless of NASA funding. Government money only speeds their timeline. No more and no less.