Being A Republican Means Never Having To Be Right About Anything
…just keep saying “tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts” like Eric Cantor and Dave Burris.
Connect
Connect with us on the following social media platforms.
…just keep saying “tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts” like Eric Cantor and Dave Burris.
Connect with us on the following social media platforms.
“Tax increases are highly contractionary.”
-Christina Romer, Chairman-designate, Council of Economic Advisers for President-elect Barack Obama. (link)
I guess you didn’t bother listening to Cantor’s whole line of BS..?
Why would you? You know it by heart.
Tax cuts are not as effective as tax simplification and a tax system which promotes savings, growth and investment is the direction we should pursue.
If you want to reduce 50% of the corruption in government get rid of the present tax code and realize payroll taxes are the bane of middle class.
Burris!
You fucking
anti-christ! 👿
Link to the paper in question which is most certainly not a defense or a justification of the supply-side idiocy which is apparently the stupid reporting du jour.
This paper looks at the the effect of tax increases legislated for multiple reasons, including deficit reduction, of which the conclusion is Panel (d) shows that the point estimates for the effect of a deficit-driven tax increase of 1% of GDP on GDP are consistently positive. However, there are too few tax changes of this type for the effects to be estimated precisely. The maximum impact is a rise in GDP of 2.48% (t = 1.03).
Did you think I wouldn’t read the paper?
“Our results indicate that tax changes have very large effects on output. Our baseline specification implies that an exogenous tax increase of 1% of GDP lowers real GDP by almost 3%. Our many robustness checks for the most part point to a slightly smaller decline, but one that is still typically over 2.5%. We also find that the output effects of tax changes are much more closely tied to the actual changes in taxes than to news about future changes, and that investment falls sharply in response to exogenous tax increases.”
You didn’t, since that bit you posted from the conclusions certainly did not contradict the piece I posted.
The thing is 59 pages plus math. Take your time. It isn’t a defense of supply side tax cuts.
You’re citing one portion of the whole. I cited the thingy with the technical name “Conclusions.”
You are on the right track, even though you are there for the wrong reasons.
“You are on the right track”
You could get on the wrong side of your fellow bloggers for talking like that.
The issue isn’t whether you’re right or I’m right — it’s that were even having the conversation in the first place about Obama’s CEA nominee, no?
Plus, consider the stupid of the trickle-down economics we have suffered from since Reagan in its ever-increasing investment outside of our country.
In the name of avoiding (primarily) environmental protections, we have allowed our manufacturing base to leave while embracing a big pharma and insurance industry that confounds healthcare costs. We, the richest of all countries have allowed ourselves to be sliced off below the knees.
Stay the tax-cuts that encourage outsourcing of jobs and constrain the generosity we have yeilded to our corporation’s stockholders if it isn’t too late in this new world economy.
Why shouldn’t we have a conversation?
The point, really, is that there is a piece of misinformation being spread about a serious piece of academic research to try to bolster an already failed bit of economic ideology. If you are going to still defend that mess, then don’t do it misusing other people’s work.
Funny how this joker cited the same part.
Obama may be looking to keep the tax cuts in place a while but I imagine that he is not backing off of enforcing incentives and rewriting the tax laws to encourage investments and job growth here where we sorely need them.
Free market theory is a bunch of hooey and no one should get their panties in a twist over a shift to ‘protectionist’ policy.
I guess I should read the link…
A guy who has been wrong about everything quotes an economist who has been wrong about everything.
Way to close the circle Dave.
And instead of looking for “experts” to tell you what the paper says, you should just read it.
That joker quoted the same bit you did, which, again, does nothing to contradict the point I’ve made here.
Jason is right, too — in fact, Krugman wrote a piece today largely taking to task all of the economists who insisted that nothing has been wrong for the past 3 or 4 years. Mankiw got his panties in a bunch over that.
“an economist who has been wrong about everything.”
Yeah. What are they doing allowing him to teach economics at Harvard?
Hack
Actually, Mankiw gave Krugman quite the smackdown about it.
Mankiw is a joker, just ask Calculated Risk.
http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2008/11/hoocoodanode.html
Basically, any economist who has worked for Bush has ruined their reputation.
It isn’t much of a smackdown when all you can do is point out that you are in the same talent pool as those who are being selected to govern.
A smackdown would have been something authoritative on why Mankiw and his Bush crew weren’t as wrong as Krugman notes.
Mankiw is a hack. Just look at the blog Calculated Risk, post titled “Hoocoodanode?” It’s about how economist who were wrong about anything are still not being honest about their role in the disaster.
“It’s about how economist who were wrong about anything are still not being honest about their role in the disaster.”
How could they? It’s not their fault. It’s mine.
And Krugman mea culpaed:
“I was actually thinking mainly about Tim Geithner versus John Snow, not about you.”
(I’d agree in that case, too.)
FSP ‘runs’ away again.
I hope Obama listens to the Nobel Prize guy”Krugman goes on to argue that the Obama Administration should not put off financial reform; “The time to start preventing the next crisis is now.”
http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2008/11/hoocoodanode.html
Krugman’s main point:
Seriously, isn’t it amazing just how impressive the people being named to key positions in the Obama administration seem? Bye-bye hacks and cronies, hello people who actually know what they’re doing. For a bunch of people who were written off as a permanent minority four years ago, the Democrats look remarkably like the natural governing party these days, with a deep bench of talent.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/the-grownups-are-coming/
Mankiw got rolled by ideology — he didn’t do much to red flag, much less avert the signs that trouble was coming, but still.
Bruce Bartlett makes a similar point as Krugman and recalls the comparisons of the Bush Admin to the Mayberry Machiavellis.
Mankiw might be smarter than most of the Bush hacks but he was still selling the same snake oil.