Thanks faith, it's always a breath of fresh air here when someone wants to discuss rather than attack.
As I've said, anything that increases the deficit provides a stimulus to economic growth. Spending programs like the Obama stimulus are temporary and designed to provide a short-term kick-start to the economy. Permanent tax cuts reduces the share of revenues (relative to GDP) taken in for a given "state of the economy." That is, the only way to seriously compare the impact tax changes have on the personal revenue-to-GDP ratio is to compare the different tax regimes at similar levels of unemployment.*
My argument is the tax cuts will stimulate an already buoyant economy next year and we'll probably see growth between 3.5-4%, but with an economy at 4.1% unemployment already, we'll see the rate fall below 4% which will trigger faster wage gains and inflationary pressures. The Fed's priority is maintaining inflation around its 2% target, and it is expected to raise rates (I believe) 4 more times next year, but faster growth will push them to raise rates faster and higher, triggering the next slowdown, most likely in 2019, if not earlier. That's when the deficit **** will hit the fan again. Next year will be affected by one-time impacts of repatriating profits, so the 2018 deficit will probably be slightly higher than 2017, which should be around $700 billion. I don't expect the Reps to make cuts in 2018, because it's an election year. If my scenario plays out, and deficits approach $1 trillion in 2019, then they could use that to support their desire for cuts at that time. We'll see...
I'll try to address the debt and interest rate burden with another post.
* Wanted to be clear here. When you change tax rates, the revenues taken in over the course of a business cycle are lower for the regime with lower tax rates. This is why the CBO projects an increase in the deficit of $1-1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. This also means it creates a greater stimulus effect over the cycle as well because of the bigger deficits.