Anyhow, tax cuts for the sake of tax cuts is just as worthless as minimum wage hikes for the sake of minimum wage hikes. Unless a case can be made that there are indeed programs worth cutting because they add no value to the country as a hole, then, cutting taxes is a just as much of a gimmick. But, no politician wants to be the one that decreases funding to Medicare or Social Security (or doesn’t increase the funding by the promised amounts).

When can we get some politicians that actually have the courage of their convictions, on either side of the aisle? Don’t run on “fair taxes”, run on “raising taxes to pay for the enormous deficit”. Don’t run on “lowering taxes”, but on “cutting the fat from the government”. The duplicity does nothing for the country.

If Congress makes the tax cuts permanent, the major economic benefits begin in 2011. For example,

However, these benefits become economic losses if Congress fails to make the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent. What is the cost of failing to act? Over one million lost jobs each year between 2011 and 2014; over a hundred billion dollars less in economic output per year; slower wage and salary growth; slower savings growth; and so on. The need for Congress to make the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent is clear.

The left-leaning Economic Policy Institute paints a different picture: Changes in tax law since 2001 reduced federal government revenue by $870 billion through September 2005. Supporters of these tax cuts have touted them as great contributors to growth in jobs and pay. But, in reality, private-sector job growth since 2001 has been disappointing, and a closer look at the new jobs created shows that federal spending—not tax cuts—are responsible for the jobs created in the past five years.

So, truism? You’re right, it’s my own opinion, not a truism, regarding the Bush tax cuts. I think there is a basis for the larger point as a truism, though; economics is not a zero-sum game and a rising tide lifts all boats…

What evidence have you of this? Remember, you say “working poor” here, which means people who are actually working. I’m assuming you mean 40 hours per week? You think a decrease in taxes of a few percent would benefit them as much as an increase in wages of 10-20%? Or are you arguing that more people are becoming employed because of the larger tax decreases seen that frees up capital and that more people can become “working poor”. I guess it could be argued that the benefit to the “working poor” would be that now there are more “working poor” so now they can make friends with each other.

Also, is there any evidence that suggests that raising minimum wage would put many of these “working poor” people out of work? Is your sole argument that some small companies couldn’t afford to pay them more than the fixed income they were already paying them? Perhaps they could decrease their hours and give them the same amount of money. Then, the hours that are freed up could be put in somewhere else? Also, if wages increase, would demand not increase for various goods/services? If this happens, supply must increase to facilitate, so companies begin making more goods/service or new companies appear and hire any workers that were displaced and could not find employment elsewhere.

I just don’t understand how you believe your statement to be a truism. Tax cuts need to be coupled with fiscal discipline, otherwise, we’re stealing from the future and these same “working poor” are going to be burdened by even tax raises (as will the rich) to pay off the interest of the money that is being borrowed.