Disagree, but have to put the kids to bed...I'll reply later.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
WHO DO YOU LIKE for Pres ... ???
- Thread starter A4sForever
- Start date
I disagree that tax cuts will spur growth enough to pay for themselves. However, since I’m just a dumb operator, and am in no way, shape or form an economist I’ll put in this column by Sebastian Mallaby from the WP: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/14/AR2006051400806.html
In it he cites the work of three different economists…the experts on this stuff. They are N. Gregory Mankiw of Harvard who was hired by Bush and Cheney to chair the Council of Economic Advisers in the Bush White House, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, another conservative economist who worked in the Bush White House and who went on to run the Congressional Budget Office, and finally Richard Kogan of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Quick and dirty: Mankiw says cuts on capital taxes generate enough growth to pay for half (that is right, only half) of lost revenue. The CBO under Holts-Eakin did an estimate on the extent a 10% reduction in personal taxes would pay for itself…the best estimate is it would replace 22% in the first five years and 32% in the second five. And the work you should really read is Richard Kogan’s work; in it he shows little chestnuts like this:
Supply side economics is certainly not Economics 101…it is just a way to sell trickle down (the idea that improving conditions for the wealthy and big business will trickle down to the lower classes). Don’t believe me? How about Reagan’s own director of the OMB, David Stockman in the Atlantic Monthly:
And this economy during Reagan's was not that great...under Carter 2.3 million private sector jobs were created, under Reagan it was 1.8 million. His job growth per year was not that great either:
Pres....Job growth per year
Johnson ...3.8%
Carter ....3.1
Clinton ....2.4
Kennedy.... 2.3
Nixon.... 2.3
Reagan ....2.1
Bush 41.... 0.6
(Based on data fm the Bureau of Labor Statistics)
I'll take a pass on huge deficit spending to spur growth, thank you.
I apologize for this incredibly boring stuff, btw.
In it he cites the work of three different economists…the experts on this stuff. They are N. Gregory Mankiw of Harvard who was hired by Bush and Cheney to chair the Council of Economic Advisers in the Bush White House, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, another conservative economist who worked in the Bush White House and who went on to run the Congressional Budget Office, and finally Richard Kogan of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Quick and dirty: Mankiw says cuts on capital taxes generate enough growth to pay for half (that is right, only half) of lost revenue. The CBO under Holts-Eakin did an estimate on the extent a 10% reduction in personal taxes would pay for itself…the best estimate is it would replace 22% in the first five years and 32% in the second five. And the work you should really read is Richard Kogan’s work; in it he shows little chestnuts like this:
Supply side economics is certainly not Economics 101…it is just a way to sell trickle down (the idea that improving conditions for the wealthy and big business will trickle down to the lower classes). Don’t believe me? How about Reagan’s own director of the OMB, David Stockman in the Atlantic Monthly:
And this economy during Reagan's was not that great...under Carter 2.3 million private sector jobs were created, under Reagan it was 1.8 million. His job growth per year was not that great either:
Pres....Job growth per year
Johnson ...3.8%
Carter ....3.1
Clinton ....2.4
Kennedy.... 2.3
Nixon.... 2.3
Reagan ....2.1
Bush 41.... 0.6
(Based on data fm the Bureau of Labor Statistics)
I'll take a pass on huge deficit spending to spur growth, thank you.
I apologize for this incredibly boring stuff, btw.
Well, you're mixing a whole lot of apples and oranges in your post. Admittedly, it's a complex issue, but the concept in and of itself is pretty much the conventional wisdom within economist circles. Of course, the devil is in the details of how one chooses to apply it, but it remains as a sound economic tool for policy makers.
Brett
Brett
greysword
Boldly lick where no one has licked before
Herc, sir, the information you take into account includes real life forces outside of the basic premise. Taxes were cut and raised in specific areas, instead of across the board, with differing results.
In addition, the US economy as measured in the 1980s and 1990s also has outside forces effecting it such as trade and the economic stability of other nations. World affairs as well as the age and spending habits of the baby boomers in these specific decades also have a different effect. As Brett said, spending needs to be held constant as well.
Breaking it down Barney style, the basics of tax cuts versus a tax and spend policy will yield different results, with cutting taxes eventually bringing more funds into the coffers and generating more jobs. This is the foundation that all of the other factors are built on.
In addition, the US economy as measured in the 1980s and 1990s also has outside forces effecting it such as trade and the economic stability of other nations. World affairs as well as the age and spending habits of the baby boomers in these specific decades also have a different effect. As Brett said, spending needs to be held constant as well.
Breaking it down Barney style, the basics of tax cuts versus a tax and spend policy will yield different results, with cutting taxes eventually bringing more funds into the coffers and generating more jobs. This is the foundation that all of the other factors are built on.
Breaking it down Barney style, (and let us hope this is the last time either of us see this phrase on this forum): I disagree. The two conservative economists show how anemic the returns are from the tax cuts and I've yet to see a serious paper on how bringing in less money to the Gov't coffers yields more money, other than the mantra about generating more jobs. You can't say "Cutting taxes equals more growth" and when shown evidence to the contrary say "Well there are a lot of factors that go into it".
I'm all for cutting spending; however this was certainly not the case in the 1980's (look at the deficits it brought us). But cutting taxes on the wealthiest is unwise in a time we are running up massive debts and fighting an expensive war. Why not cut spending and cut taxes on the middle and lower classes?
And it certainly is not conventional wisdom w/in economic circles. Shortly after Laffer sketched out his curve on a napkin in some New York pizza joint there where around 12 out of the 18,000 members of the main organization of professional economists, the American Economic Association, that took supply-side seriously. The rest knew it was an oddball theory. Eight years that gave us crippling debt and a large recession beginning July 1990. Obviously the revisionists are trying to convince some that this is good. They have their work cut out for them.
All right, this thread is getting duller by the minute.
As long as you insist on talkin' taxes and economics ... it will be....this thread is getting duller .
Death & taxes = life's inevitable ....
Death & taxes = boring as a result ....
That's probably the best advice. You can lead a horse to water... The Fed Chair gave some very interesting testimony to the Sennate on some of these very issues last week. I'm sure CSPAN has it archived and would be instructional for certain posters in this thread.
Brett
Hillary in Quotes from pro-war hawk to anti-war activist.
I think this is one of my biggest beefs with Democrats lately. Many of them voted for the war, but now they are against the war???
Last year they said "The President is a dumbass because he didn't have a plan to send in enough troops" this year it's "We can't let the President send in more troops!"
October 10, 2002. Mrs. Clinton addresses the Senate on the use-of-force resolution. "The facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt," she declares, citing Saddam's record of using chemical weapons, the invasion of Kuwait, and his history of deceiving U.N. weapons inspectors. "As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets," she continues, adding that Saddam "has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members."
While she expresses her preference for working through the U.N. if possible, she adds, "I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 U.N. resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998."
December 18, 2006. Her march left gains speed. On NBC's "Today" show, Mrs. Clinton renounces her war vote unequivocally for the first time: "I certainly wouldn't have voted that way."
--
Re: Taxes; I generally hold it to be evident that the government will waste any amount of money given to it.
This is why despite higher tax revenue, the government is still unable to live within it's means. Often the govt simply throws money at a problem in order to fix it - which does not work at all (Dept. of Education ring a bell?)
--
Herc: "Job Growth" statistics are almost worthless. Without quantitative data regarding population growth, immigration, emmigration, and any of numerous other factors, it is a meaningless percentage.
I have noticed that people who often quote "Job Growth" and "Job Creation" shy away from raw unemployment numbers. For example, in the height of our post 2000 recession, people touted that Bush wasn't "creating jobs" (as if the President has a magic wand to make employers hire employees) but unemployment rates remained relatively low.
America is closer to have too LOW of an unemployment rate than too HIGH of one. During our pre-2000 boom, Unemployment was clearly too low to account for cyclic and frictional unemployment properly.
And if you think Reagan was a bad President, Carter was so bad they created a brand new statistic for his Presidency - the misery index.
I think this is one of my biggest beefs with Democrats lately. Many of them voted for the war, but now they are against the war???
Last year they said "The President is a dumbass because he didn't have a plan to send in enough troops" this year it's "We can't let the President send in more troops!"
October 10, 2002. Mrs. Clinton addresses the Senate on the use-of-force resolution. "The facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt," she declares, citing Saddam's record of using chemical weapons, the invasion of Kuwait, and his history of deceiving U.N. weapons inspectors. "As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets," she continues, adding that Saddam "has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members."
While she expresses her preference for working through the U.N. if possible, she adds, "I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 U.N. resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998."
December 18, 2006. Her march left gains speed. On NBC's "Today" show, Mrs. Clinton renounces her war vote unequivocally for the first time: "I certainly wouldn't have voted that way."
--
Re: Taxes; I generally hold it to be evident that the government will waste any amount of money given to it.
This is why despite higher tax revenue, the government is still unable to live within it's means. Often the govt simply throws money at a problem in order to fix it - which does not work at all (Dept. of Education ring a bell?)
--
Herc: "Job Growth" statistics are almost worthless. Without quantitative data regarding population growth, immigration, emmigration, and any of numerous other factors, it is a meaningless percentage.
I have noticed that people who often quote "Job Growth" and "Job Creation" shy away from raw unemployment numbers. For example, in the height of our post 2000 recession, people touted that Bush wasn't "creating jobs" (as if the President has a magic wand to make employers hire employees) but unemployment rates remained relatively low.
America is closer to have too LOW of an unemployment rate than too HIGH of one. During our pre-2000 boom, Unemployment was clearly too low to account for cyclic and frictional unemployment properly.
And if you think Reagan was a bad President, Carter was so bad they created a brand new statistic for his Presidency - the misery index.
thull
Well-Known Member
Nah...its just your herpes acting up again....oh...I thought you said itchy...my bad.
Seriously though...you have to give me a little bit more to go on there. He's a politician...I wonder about all of them. What is it that you are getting at.
ha ha.. not the dreaded mahocas. Nah, just read that he's rediculing Cheney, saying he's been wrong in all his predictions, that he'd probably forecasted sun today (cloudy day), etc. I understand ya gotta fight, but seems like he's dropping some low blows right off the bat early on in the campaign. Just not sure if he's being very tactful, and that makes me wonder a little about his character.