PDA

View Full Version : “charlatans and cranks”.



Qtec
04-17-2011, 06:35 AM
This quite aptly describes most of the peanut gallery on the board.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> How did supply-side economics bring these benefits? <u>First, it allowed conservatives to ignore deficits.</u> They could argue that, whatever the impact of the tax cuts in the short run, they would bring the budget back into balance, in the longer run. Second, the theory gave an economic justification – the argument from incentives – for lowering taxes on politically important supporters. Finally, if deficits did not, in fact, disappear, conservatives could fall back on the “starve the beast” theory: deficits would create a fiscal crisis that would force the government to cut spending and even destroy the hated welfare state.

In this way, the Republicans were transformed from a balanced-budget party to a tax-cutting party. This innovative stance proved highly politically effective, consistently putting the Democrats at a political disadvantage. It also made the Republicans de facto Keynesians in a de facto Keynesian nation. Whatever the rhetoric, I have long considered the US the advanced world’s most Keynesian nation – the one in which government (including the Federal Reserve) is most expected to generate healthy demand at all times, largely because jobs are, in the US, the only safety net for those of working age.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>True, the theory that cuts would pay for themselves has proved altogether wrong.</span> That this might well be the case was evident: cutting tax rates from, say, 30 per cent to zero would unambiguously reduce revenue to zero. This is not to argue there were no incentive effects. But they were not large enough to offset the fiscal impact of the cuts (see, on this, Wikipedia and a nice chart from Paul Krugman).

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Indeed, Greg Mankiw, no less, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under George W. Bush, has responded to the view that broad-based tax cuts would pay for themselves, as follows: “I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don’t.” Indeed, he has referred to those who believe this as <span style='font-size: 26pt'>“charlatans and cranks”.</span></span> Those are his words, not mine, though I agree. They apply, in force, to contemporary Republicans, alas,</div></div>

LOL


LWW has ALWAYS insisted, as have others, that tax cuts pay for themselves!


Charlatan or Cranks? You decide.

Q...lol... link (http://blogs.ft.com/martin-wolf-exchange/2010/07/25/the-political-genius-of-supply-side-economics/)

pooltchr
04-17-2011, 07:34 AM
One man's opinion. Nothing more.
Here's another.

Tax cuts and incentives are used to encourage new business. New business is good for jobs. (private sector) Jobs are good for the economy. Therefore, tax cuts and incentives are good for the economy.

Steve

LWW
04-17-2011, 08:00 AM
FWIW ... any author who makes a claim such as this:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Indeed, nothing may be done even if a genuine fiscal crisis were to emerge. According to my friend, Bruce Bartlett, a highly informed, if jaundiced, observer, some “conservatives” (in truth, extreme radicals) think a federal default would be an effective way to bring public spending they detest under control. It should be noted, in passing, that a federal default would surely create the biggest financial crisis in world economic history. </div></div>

has proven their self to be nothing more than a hyper-partisan idjit parroting the moonbat crazt left's smears.

Gayle in MD
04-17-2011, 09:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This quite aptly describes most of the peanut gallery on the board.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> How did supply-side economics bring these benefits? <u>First, it allowed conservatives to ignore deficits.</u> They could argue that, whatever the impact of the tax cuts in the short run, they would bring the budget back into balance, in the longer run. Second, the theory gave an economic justification – the argument from incentives – for lowering taxes on politically important supporters. Finally, if deficits did not, in fact, disappear, conservatives could fall back on the “starve the beast” theory: deficits would create a fiscal crisis that would force the government to cut spending and even destroy the hated welfare state.

In this way, the Republicans were transformed from a balanced-budget party to a tax-cutting party. This innovative stance proved highly politically effective, consistently putting the Democrats at a political disadvantage. It also made the Republicans de facto Keynesians in a de facto Keynesian nation. Whatever the rhetoric, I have long considered the US the advanced world’s most Keynesian nation – the one in which government (including the Federal Reserve) is most expected to generate healthy demand at all times, largely because jobs are, in the US, the only safety net for those of working age.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>True, the theory that cuts would pay for themselves has proved altogether wrong.</span> That this might well be the case was evident: cutting tax rates from, say, 30 per cent to zero would unambiguously reduce revenue to zero. This is not to argue there were no incentive effects. But they were not large enough to offset the fiscal impact of the cuts (see, on this, Wikipedia and a nice chart from Paul Krugman).

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Indeed, Greg Mankiw, no less, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under George W. Bush, has responded to the view that broad-based tax cuts would pay for themselves, as follows: “I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don’t.” Indeed, he has referred to those who believe this as <span style='font-size: 26pt'>“charlatans and cranks”.</span></span> Those are his words, not mine, though I agree. They apply, in force, to contemporary Republicans, alas,</div></div>

LOL


LWW has ALWAYS insisted, as have others, that tax cuts pay for themselves!


Charlatan or Cranks? You decide.

Q...lol... link (http://blogs.ft.com/martin-wolf-exchange/2010/07/25/the-political-genius-of-supply-side-economics/) </div></div>

Both!

If they're stupid enough to think that severely cutting revenues, like Bush did, with his tax cuts, and then expanding government, like Bush did, and launching two wars, one totally un-necessary, and bad for the country, and then spending us into a debt hole, like Bush did, and leaving the economy in a total crash, like Bush did, was all President Obama's fault, LMAO, what else could we expect from them????

Hey, we knew years ago, they can't bring themselves, to use critical thinking skills, it's too painful for them, given they way they voted in 2000, and 2004! Remember, they were parroting Cheney, back then, when he was yapping that the deficits didn't matter??? Yep, our resident genius economist, from North Carolina, was writing that, while his party was spending us into a ditch!

Unbelievable!



/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

pooltchr
04-17-2011, 09:42 AM
And the Dems, is telling us to raise the debt ceiling, are, in effect, telling us the deficits don't matter.

The fact that the Dems refuse to look seriously at cutting spending tells us that deficits don't matter.

The fact that the Dems will not consider working with businesses to create a financial environment where they can expand and create more jobs tells us they don't care about raising revenues. (Hint...more people working and paying taxes increases revenues.)

But you have no problem with that???????????


Steve

Gayle in MD
04-19-2011, 07:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This quite aptly describes most of the peanut gallery on the board.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> How did supply-side economics bring these benefits? <u>First, it allowed conservatives to ignore deficits.</u> They could argue that, whatever the impact of the tax cuts in the short run, they would bring the budget back into balance, in the longer run. Second, the theory gave an economic justification – the argument from incentives – for lowering taxes on politically important supporters. Finally, if deficits did not, in fact, disappear, conservatives could fall back on the “starve the beast” theory: deficits would create a fiscal crisis that would force the government to cut spending and even destroy the hated welfare state.

In this way, the Republicans were transformed from a balanced-budget party to a tax-cutting party. This innovative stance proved highly politically effective, consistently putting the Democrats at a political disadvantage. It also made the Republicans de facto Keynesians in a de facto Keynesian nation. Whatever the rhetoric, I have long considered the US the advanced world’s most Keynesian nation – the one in which government (including the Federal Reserve) is most expected to generate healthy demand at all times, largely because jobs are, in the US, the only safety net for those of working age.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>True, the theory that cuts would pay for themselves has proved altogether wrong.</span> That this might well be the case was evident: cutting tax rates from, say, 30 per cent to zero would unambiguously reduce revenue to zero. This is not to argue there were no incentive effects. But they were not large enough to offset the fiscal impact of the cuts (see, on this, Wikipedia and a nice chart from Paul Krugman).

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Indeed, Greg Mankiw, no less, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under George W. Bush, has responded to the view that broad-based tax cuts would pay for themselves, as follows: “I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don’t.” Indeed, he has referred to those who believe this as <span style='font-size: 26pt'>“charlatans and cranks”.</span></span> Those are his words, not mine, though I agree. They apply, in force, to contemporary Republicans, alas,</div></div>

LOL


LWW has ALWAYS insisted, as have others, that tax cuts pay for themselves!


Charlatan or Cranks? You decide.

Q...lol... link (http://blogs.ft.com/martin-wolf-exchange/2010/07/25/the-political-genius-of-supply-side-economics/) </div></div>

Q,
Did you see Meet The Press last Sunday, when Alan Greenspan stated that the Bush Tax cuts must be repealed?

Now, as we know, every former budget director all the way back to the Reagan Admiistration, both from the left, and the right, has stated that tax cuts for the wealthy, do NOT pay for themselves, including, Alan Greenspan, AND David Stockton.

Record debts and deficits from the Bush era, will always be the historical cause of our current economic problems, and the fact is, only the terminally stupid in this country, thought any president could turn this mess around quickly, when Bush, himself, made statements during the last months of his FUBAR, indicating that it could take over a decade, to get out of his mess.

I find it totally nauseating being exposed to RWers yapping about austerity!!!

REPIGLICANS CREATED THIS MESS!

But then, how could any group of Knuckle Dragging Neanderthals, the sort which would praise a nitwit like Palin, line up behind an egomaniac like Trump, vote for a stooge like Bush, TWICE, and still be trying to claim that the Civil War, wasn't about SLAVERY!!!! Or that tax cuts for the wealthy top one percent, create jobs!!!!

STUNNING IGNORANCE!

REPIGLICANS REPRESENT ON-GOING LIES, INTENTIONALLY DECEITFUL STATEMENTS, AND THEY ARE THE DIRTY MUD SLINGERS OF THE COUNTRY.

BLATANT CORRUPTION.

PROTECTION OF POLLUTERS.

A CONTINUING HISTORY OF THE MOST OFFENSIVE, BLATANT, SEXUALLY PREDATORY BEHAVIOR IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY, AS ONE AFTER ANOTHER HAS FALLEN IN THE FULL PUBLIC VIEW, THROUGHOUT THE BLANK CHECK CONGERSS, AND AFTER.

AND THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, WITH THE BLANK CHECK REPIGLICAN CONGRESS, ATTACKING OUR COUNTRY FOR SIX YEARS OF THE MOST IRRESPONSIBLE SPENDING AND BORROWING THIS COUNTRY HAS EVER SEEN.

GEORGE BUSH, AND THE REPIGLICAN BLANK CHECK CONGRESS, DESTROYED THIS COUNTRY!

Just as we lefties stated all along, that they would.

Hence, the vicious attacks on all of us HERE, who predicted the demise of America, as we knew it, WOULD SURELY FOLLOW GW BUSH AND THE REPIGLICAN BLANK CHECK CONGRESS.

End of The REAL Story, on forum peace! SORE LOSERS WHO BECOME VICIOUS WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN PROVEN WRONG, OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif