Tuesday, August 10, 2010

August Surprise

Does Obama think this pandering will work to electoral benefit in November? This would seem to back up the contrary. He, like most on the hard left, does not understand the work ethic and motivation of the American people.

58% Oppose Federal Mortgage Forgiveness Plan for Troubled Homeowners

In somewhat related news: A leftist actually acknowledging the existence/validity of the Laffer curve?

Where Does The Laffer Curve Bend

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Here's where I surprise you again.

I don't want Mortgage Forgiveness. I worked really hard to get myself out of debt, took every freelance job that came my way. If one doesn't have the money, DON'T spend.

It's never black or white with me.

--Melissa Joy

THE KRIS said...

Bush economist Mankiw says idea that increasing tax rates reduces revenues is not "credible"

Mankiw: "[M]ost economists" agree "supply-sider" claims are not "credible." In a May 2006 Wall Street Journal op-ed, N. Gregory Mankiw, Harvard University economics professor and former chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, wrote: "Some supply-siders like to claim that the distortionary effect of taxes is so large that increasing tax rates reduces tax revenue. Like most economists, I don't find that conclusion credible for most tax hikes, and I doubt [then-Treasury Secretary Hank] Paulson does either." Further, in a 2005 paper, Mankiw writes: "Most economists ... believe that taxes influence national income but doubt that the growth effects are large enough to make tax cuts self-financing."
Bush administration officials acknowledged cutting taxes decreases net revenue

Paulson: "I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves." During his June 2006 confirmation hearing, then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson said, "As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves." The financial information website MarketWatch reported this statement as "echoing the opinion of most economists."

Nussle: Tax cuts do not "totally pay for themselves." According to a November 15, 2007, Washington Post editorial, Jim Nussle, then the director of the Office of Management and Budget, told reporters, "Some say that [the tax cut] was a total loss. Some say they totally pay for themselves. It's neither extreme."

Viard: "No dispute" revenues lower than they would have been without Bush tax cuts. In an October 17, 2006, article, the Post quoted Alan D. Viard, a former Council of Economic Advisers senior economist under Bush, saying that "[f]ederal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the [Bush] tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that."

it goes on and on here: http://mediamatters.org/research/201004120057

Ocho said...

I like the plucky spirit The Kris, but Media Matters?? really?...don't get me started on that outfit :)

Supply siders and the laffer curve itself ILLUSTRATE quite clearly that tax cuts do not pay for themselves. There are optimal rates, and that is the crux of the debate not whether tax cuts pay for themselves. Anyone that does say that doesn't quite understand the full effect of tax cutting. All of these guys you quoted agree with me which is kind of funny especially Mankiw, he's great. As Media Matters is prone to do, they quote stuff with no context and like most leftist outlets have little to no understanding of economics or desire to debate on the merits of such theories. If the right embraces it, it must be evil is the mantra over at that website...you are too smart for the Soros crew :)

Let me suggest you read the economists and their FULL philosophies or read anything Dan Mitchell writes (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/08/11/when-keynesians-attack-part-ii/) over at the Cato Institute, a think tank that is well versed in free market (which this country still is last time i checked, quite against the wishes of Progressives who wish to make it a command economy) principles. Targeted tax cuts do increase economic growth, indisputable. They do NOT pay for themselves and no credible economist of the last 25 years has said that it does. Also check a blog I'm following called 'Free Market Economics In a Story'.

I just threw that link in my post there because it cracks me up that NOW people like Ezra Klein want to bring up the actual merits of the Laffer curve. They (meaning the left) ignored it and derided it for decades. Thanks for the debate as always K.

Post a Comment