I'm all for cutting taxes. But there has to be some sort of spending cut to coincide with it as well. Kansas is an example of your theory not working. Brownback cut corporate taxes and the state basically went bankrupt. It didn't have the trickle down effect people were hoping for.
So where do you want to cut spending at? Are you in favor of Trump's wall? Do you want to cut military spending? Welfare spending? There has to be some balance here.
But if you are disagreeing. Most of this comes from the folks that are not for TDT, of course. But as the other side will claim, rightly so, it is not a closed system. There was/is a reason Kansas was put in this situation. There are also many examples of successes. So, even if one example did not work it would not make it something to totally abandon in all cases. But you have to examine whether or not it really did not work and/or if it was given a legitimate shot at success. You will always have folks that are gleeful to jump at any chance to denounce something they do not want to see work when it appears to struggle; but they rarely admit when they are pleasantly surprised at a time when it did work. It is just human nature, especially when something is not done in a lab-environment.
Here is a very simple article that retorts to one opinion piece about Kansas. Read it and follow through with researching what some of the Econ guys say online pro and con. Then let me know from a pro-standpoint --- not a con-view --- what you think.
I'm all for cutting taxes. But there has to be some sort of spending cut to coincide with it as well. Kansas is an example of your theory not working. Brownback cut corporate taxes and the state basically went bankrupt. It didn't have the trickle down effect people were hoping for.
So where do you want to cut spending at? Are you in favor of Trump's wall? Do you want to cut military spending? Welfare spending? There has to be some balance here.
But if you are disagreeing. Most of this comes from the folks that are not for TDT, of course. But as the other side will claim, rightly so, it is not a closed system. There was/is a reason Kansas was put in this situation. There are also many examples of successes. So, even if one example did not work it would not make it something to totally abandon in all cases. But you have to examine whether or not it really did not work and/or if it was given a legitimate shot at success. You will always have folks that are gleeful to jump at any chance to denounce something they do not want to see work when it appears to struggle; but they rarely admit when they are pleasantly surprised at a time when it did work. It is just human nature, especially when something is not done in a lab-environment.
Here is a very simple article that retorts to one opinion piece about Kansas. Read it and follow through with researching what some of the Econ guys say online pro and con. Then let me know from a pro-standpoint --- not a con-view --- what you think.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
