One Mechanism Through Which Increasing Public Debt May Impact The Economy Is That The Resulting

What is the basic mechanism through which tax cuts increase government revenue?

Faith. It’s faith-based economics.The Laffer curve is trivially true; it basically says that at both 0% and 100% tax rates, the government will collect no revenue. Clearly there’s some point in between where revenue will be maximized.Perhaps I should say, at least one point. Laffer and the entire cohort of conservative economists who peddle this particular flavor of snake oil have never been able to demonstrate where the maximum would be, or even that there is a single maximum. Instead it’s an article of faith with them that the curve has a simple shape and that we always are somehow above the rate that will generate maximum revenue.In the world of these economists, cutting taxes — particularly on businesses and the top rates on personal income — will spur enough growth that the net amount taken in in tax revenue will increase. It’s like a business who’s selling 1000 units/month of a product at $10 each and cutting their sale price to $9 each on the theory that they’ll sell over 1111 units at the lower price and take in more total revenue.In practice, it’s like trying to push with a rope. In the real world, the cuts have never paid for themselves, and before Reagan nobody pretended they would. Republicans typically start spluttering “but, but, but JFK cut taxes!” Yes, he did. And JFK was a Keynesian, and he intended that the cuts would increase deficit spending, and that the spending would drive the economy. He never pretended they would increase revenue. There’s also the fact that there are a lot of different taxes and tax rates, and somehow the Laffer curve nonsense always gets talked about in the context of cutting the top individual rate (and often the corporate rate as well, though that’s usually justified with a different flavor of snake oil).The theory — cut rates, increase growth → increased revenue — sounds plausible. So did luminiferous ether. In practice, it’s been more like the underpants gnomes. At least the physicists stopped believing in the ether.

Which US president is responsible for the biggest increase of US national debt?

Unquestionably, and without a doubt, George W Bush, aka Bush 43.Cutting taxes was his first priority, and, because he inherited a budget surplus from Bill Clinton, his story was “we’re rewarding ourselves for a good job. Then the stock market crash in 2000/2001 and he changed the narrative to “We’re trying to spur the economy. The tax cuts had no positive effect on the economy, and the fear was that they were going to result in a yearly deficit of $0.5 Trillion.Then, as a response to 9/11, he muffed the opportunity to trade food to Afghanistan in exchange for Bin Laden, a deal Colin Powell was working on, and instead pursued the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, two of the most costly wars in American history.Speaking of history, studies have shown that the cost of a war continues to escalate even when the war is over, the actual yearly cost steadily increasing for 40-years as veteran care, educational benefits, you name it, continue to grow until the veterans begin to die off.The current budgetary debt is a direct consequence of the actions of one of the worst US Presidents ever, Bush 43.Even Trump (a man I do not admire) attributes at least $7 Trillion of the US debt (nearly half of the non-intragovernmental debt of some $15 Trillion) on the two wars, and Steve Bannon (another individual I do not personally like) attributes the entirety of the non-intragovernmental (over $5 Trillion) debt of some $16-$17 Trillion on the two wars. They have a point that’s hard to refute. And it’s all on Bush 43. Even his father, by way of some degree of apology for his son’s actions, has publicly stated that “he had bad advisors.” I’ll say. And I’ll add that he wasn’t the brightest bulb in the pack either, all on his own.