jmog;1350892 wrote:You are changing the story to fit your beliefs.
The conservatives have NEVER said that only deficits matter regardless of how you get them.
They have said over and over that spending needs cut and taxes need to stay low to stimulate the economy/confidence.
NO ONE EVER said that spending cuts along with raising taxes on pretty much every tax payer was a good idea. You and I both know that but you are now trying to twist the story to make conservatives look bad (doesn't surprise me that you would though).[
I think you're incorrect here. Go read articles from say the WSJ editorial page, National Review, Forbes, the Weekly Standard, etc. These economic arguments about deficits have been made multiple times by multiple offenders.
Obviously, the wall street journal editorial page prefers low spending and low taxes. However, they
nevertheless have argued that large deficits...however they're caused being clear...would cause the bond vigilantes to strike, destroy confidence and discourage private spending and investment.
Of course the WSJ doesn't say "let's raise taxes to close the deficit!" but they blather on about how bad the deficit is in and of itself. You can't have it both ways and they indeed have tried to.
You're acting like conservative publications have argued there is something inherently bad about a deficit caused by increased spending and lower tax revenue (as our current deficit is) that will bring about the bond vigilantes and deter confidence and deter private spending and investment unless spending is cut immediately.
There is nothing special about a deficit caused solely by less tax revenue, a mix of lower tax revenue and higher spending, or higher spending and that claim was never made. A deficit is a deficit.
It follows, that in some possible world where the deficit is closed by increased taxation or a mix of spending cuts + taxation or only increased spending cuts...that it would deter the bond vigilantes, inspire confidence and encourage private spending and investment if that is true a consequence of deficit reduction in any world...otherwise it is incoherent.
It almost sounds like you're accepting this incoherence and just arguing that spending cuts only is correct despite it being incoherent.
Either that, or you're conflating the economic arguments against deficits with the philosophical/ideological arguments for low taxes and low spending.
Obviously they prefer it be done with low taxation and only spending cuts and not raise taxes to close the deficit...but that is philosophical/ideological. If we take the economic arguments at face value...the fiscal cliff achieves their desired economic result of reduced deficit from which is supposed to yield great things.
A pragmatic conservative who genuinely cares about the supposed economic casualties of large deficits more than philosophical purity of lower taxes and lower spending that are hard to achieve with a democratic president would welcome the fiscal cliff. And some have like John Cochrane from U of Chicago who doubts the CBO's keynesian projections for recession from the fiscal cliff.
But, the reason that is not happening by and large is because really folks like yourself are just clamoring on about philosophical things it seems. Because, the economic arguments being made about the harm of deficits were just window dressing for a philosophical and moral opposition to taxes and spending.
If I am wrong here in my analysis of your post which I think incorrectly sums up the arguments that conservatives have made over the last couple of years please explain why a conservative might believe coherently the following at the same time;
1. Deficit reduction by means of spending cuts only deters bond vigilantes, inspire business, consumer and investor confidence in the short run and thereby increase gdp in the short run
2. Deficit reduction by means of tax cuts only does not deter bond vigilantes, does not inspire business, consumer and investor confidence in the short run and thereby does not increase gdp in the short run.
3. Deficit reduction by means of a mix of tax cuts and spending cuts does not deter bond vigilantes, does not inspire business, consumer and investor confidence in the short run and thereby does not increase gdp in the short run.
You can't tell a story about aggregate demand because that's just keynesianism, a story about incentive effects is a medium to long run story and not a short run story. Veronique De Rugy has made arguments about spending cut austerity only but she still acknowledges the truth of the other scenarios althoug they're not her philosophical preferences.
Believing one and not the others appears to be incoherent and that is why I say this is all about philosophical issues. If you're so inclined please tell me where I am wrong.
