Your point is that saying “democrats are liars” is equivalent to spoke’s statement that tax cuts are promoted as ‘magic bullets’ by the GOP (which seems precisely true, both the current administration and the Reagan administration)? And your (inappropriate, rude) epithet somehow points this out?
My irony meter must be set a little low today.
—I trust that you are not claiming that I thought it was!—
But you did seem to be claiming that a surplus and a recession couldn’t both be good reasons for a tax cut.
—A company can certainly be profitable even with long term debt. A person with a mortgage greater than his current income is not bankrupt.—
In this case, we are talking about a person with a future mortgage greater than the sum of all his current income can hope to cover.
—However, if your point is that an excellent use of a surplus is accelerating reduction of the debt, then I totally agree.—
Whether we pay off the national debt is a matter of indifference to me. It’s a matter of preferential financing: taxes now vs. taxes later. As I argued in my little Bill/Carol example, taxes later may be slightly more preferable if there’s consumer debt out there to be paid off. But regardless, the manner in which we pay off the ALREADY accumluated debt should not be a major concern to anyone. It is the level at which we take on more debt (spending) that we should be worried about.
—Those complaining that the tax-cut hasn’t worked yet, need look no further than the democrats to place blame. The democrats of course back loaded Bush’s plan so that the bulk of the cuts don’t take effect until 2005 and later.—
I hope this sort of historically inane charge doesn’t pass for actual debate here, not when history is out there to check it against.
Squeege:
Is it really necessary to do this? One of the most frustrating things about GD is the literalist nitpickers.
Obviously, they are not equivalent generalizations. That is also the point. It’s called hypebole. In this case I showed an exagerated form of Spoke’s argument that was obviously false in repsonse to his initial generalization. Since they are identical logic stuctures, it shows the falsehood of the original statement.
Doubtless you understood this and were familiar with the technique.
So why are you playing semantic games?
Or, are you just pretending, giving perhaps an uncomfortable level of truth to my hyperbole?
Scylla, no, I honestly thought your statement was rude and inappropriate and didn’t see that you were trying to counter what you thought was hyperbole. I wasn’t trying to nitpick for it’s own sake and I’m not trying to play games. Personally, what I find most tiresome in GD is rudeness.
I also don’t see the hyperbole in spoke’s statement: the GOP leadership does promote tax cuts (both to the electorate, and especially to business) as ‘magic bullets’ to stimulate the economy. Remember trickle-down economics?
Wasn’t the Bush tax cut a campaign promise?
“Elect me and I’ll give you a tax cut …”
Bush was elected.
Bush gave you a tax cut.
It makes no difference what happened – or did not happen – after that because Bush got what he wanted and screw everyone else. See #2 above.
yea, I know (now). Check out this thread wherein I explain (again), I have really bad vision. I set my browser windows to the largest font = I only see one part of each post at a time, often meaning when I’m replying, I’m not able to see the name unless I scroll up. So, unless I use the quote function exclusively (which hurts the hamsters) I rely on my faulty memory and even more faulty vision (sometimes e/o/a gets confused). Then, too, is the issue of my typing. So, my typo on Muad’s name was an accident, not intentional. His typing of “Klinton”, I assumed, was intentional.
( I know you added the smiley to indicate some level of joke, but I know folks sometimes around here intentionally misspell user names, I don’t do that. I unintentionally misspell them all the time, due to vision, bad typing, browser window and/or faulty memory. 
)
yea, I know (now). Check out this thread wherein I explain (again), I have really bad vision. I set my browser windows to the largest font = I only see one part of each post at a time, often meaning when I’m replying, I’m not able to see the name unless I scroll up. So, unless I use the quote function exclusively (which hurts the hamsters) I rely on my faulty memory and even more faulty vision (sometimes e/o/a gets confused). Then, too, is the issue of my typing. So, my typo on Muad’s name was an accident, not intentional. His typing of “Klinton”, I assumed, was intentional.
( I know you added the smiley to indicate some level of joke, but I know folks sometimes around here intentionally misspell user names, I don’t do that. I unintentionally misspell them all the time, due to vision, bad typing, browser window and/or faulty memory. )
Scylla ask’s;
Kinda seem’s that way, doesn’t it.
So why is that? Is it simply that the economy is cyclic, and the republicans happen to be there for the not-so-good swings? Or are the democrats better at taking credit for the republicans accomplishments?
I’ve even heard people say that Clinton wasn’t a real democrat. 
Sam makes two points.
The topic of this thread involves the anti-recession powers of W’s tax cuts. This is a short-run phenom.
More broadly, recall that a good portion of extra aggregate demand stimulated by an increase in government spending will invariably be private spending. That is, when the government buys a $1000 dollar hammer (inefficient spending), workers and CEOs are paid and they (in turn) stimulate a chain of hypothetically productive spending.
Sam claims, *If Bush hadn’t cut taxes, I think there would be probably a 500 billion benefit signed into law already. And I think there would have been more farm pork, and lots of other spending. What, you think Democrats awash in money wanted to just sit on it? *
Clinton was awash in money, and he basically just sat on it (remember those surpluses?). He did so, btw, via the political phrase, “Save social security first.” Incredibly, the government decided to run a surplus above and beyond the surpluses in the social security system. That discipline disappeared after W was elected.
That’s the missing factor that always crops up in these debates. It’s not a question of tax cuts vs big deficits - it’s a question of whether you want to get to the deficit through tax cuts and moderate spending increases, or higher taxes and insane spending.
I’m not sure what “it” is.
I tried to put forward straightforward aggregate demand analysis. Sorry if I wasn’t cogent. I trust that you understand the benefits of counter-cyclical government spending.
OTOH, perhaps you are advocating Ricardian Equivalence. Is that what you have in mind? I find your story to be a little, um, distracting.
Apos: “First of all, changes in tax policy take a LONG time to shake out, because their full effect is on long term incentives and often have to break through old habits and locked in plans.”
As this thread is about the recession-fighting aspects of the tax cut, we can limit our analysis to the short-run effects. (I’m dubious about the incentive argument, but that’s a separate matter.)
Scylla: So you were making a grammatical point I guess, right?
::Bangs head on the wall::
In the quote I provided Spoke uses the word “always.” He said:
The statement is hyperbolous. Sometimes Republicans sleep. At such times they are not advertising tax cuts as magic bullets.
Does this mean Spoke is a dirty rotten liar, or do you still think it’s literally true?
If you still think it’s literally true, how do you get around the sleeping thing, or the fact that instead of advertising tax cuts as magic bullets, this Republican is writing a post?
My generalization about democrats is only rude if you interpet it literally, and not as a counterargument to Spoke’s.
If you find it offensive, then you should take issue with Spoke, not me. When he said that Republicans are always advertising tax cuts as magic bullets he was calling all Republicans liars, as he has made it clear by context that his beleif is that tax cuts are not magic bullets, and that Republicans don’t think so either, so that when they are advertising they are in fact lying.
My quote was simply a more direct paraphrase of Spoke’s. So, if you think mine is objectionable, we are in perfect agreement. Spoke’s statement was rude and false. That’s why I responded as I did. To point it out.
It’s telling that you find yourself in agreement with Spoke’s rude statement, without recognizing it as such, yet take issue with mine, which is a direct paraphrase.
Perhaps you think it’s rude to call Democrats liars, but when you call Republicans the same it’s ok.
Now, I will go attempt to explain physics to fish.
Here is a rathersobering look at one aspect of GW’s tax cut.
First chance I get I’m going to get out last year’s IRS book and see how close I am to the line on the Alternative Minimum Tax.
Scylla - alternative interpretation to original comment (and I think it’s correct)
“Republicans always advertise tax cuts as magic bullets” =
“when Republicans talk about and campaign on tax cuts, they advertise them as magic bullets”.
I think to interpret the statement as you have “republicans do nothing other than advertise tax cuts as magic bullets” is an incorrect interpretation and frankly quite a stretch.
Wring:
Yes, but it’s literal, and Squeege is taking issue with the literal content of my response.
Hm. you claimed that you were merely extending the logical argument presented, and using another exaggeration to demonstrate the wrongness of the original.
however, if you misinterpreted the original, as it seems that you did, your logical extension becomes also wrong, and thus, objections to it would be correct, eh?
No. I don’t believe I misinterpreted it, it’s squeege who’s doing the misinterpretaion of mine, than I’m implying it backwards to Spoke’s original quote.
What you say may indeed have been what Spoke meant. I lead towards that interpretation as well. However, he couched it as a rather sweeping generalization as a knock at Republicans in general, suggesting habitual misrepresentation.
I am darkly suspicious of the whole idea of economics as a science, as compared with an academic study more like literature. In these very pages, I have heard intelligent arguments from (presumably) learned sources proving conclusively and unequivocally damn near everthing.
“Regulation helps!” “No, it hurts” “Deficits bad!” “No, deficits good!” “Tax cuts that favor the rich suck!” “No, tax cuts that favor the rich really suck”
Is there never an Econ 101 situation? Where a proposal as regards taxes, money, has been met with universal, hands-down, concensus from academic economicists?
I thought the closest they ever got was Reagans “Supply Side” scheme, with its Laughable Curve, and such? Is there a better example?
And which economic marvin has got the figures and mathematical models to prove that the very best thing for the economy is to stuff as much money as possible in the pockets of rich folks?
Surely our leaders consulted these experts. No doubt they were pleased and relieved to find solid academic theory to support thier proposals.
Scylla, I think the root of the confusion is this: I interpreted spoke’s statement to say “the Republican leadership always promotes tax cuts this way etc.”, where I think you’re taking it to mean “All Republicans always say such and so” (and therefore they’re dishonest).
Spoke was responding to your statement of “It [the tax cut] wasn’t a magic bullet. It wasn’t represented as such.” He obviously disagreed.
Whether someone thought that the way spoke phrased it was denigratory and an unfair sweeping generalization, or simply a disagreement with your assertion is open to reasonable interpretation.
I thought I interpreted it reasonably.
Your mileage did vary.
If you briefly accept my interpretation (republican leadership speaking on the topic) of spoke’s words , then the word “always” is accurate enough. The GOP has promoted tax cuts as economic stimulus for 20+ years, which is close enough to “always” for me. The only time I can recall when this wasn’t true was during the 2000 campaign, when tax cuts were framed as a response to the then-surplus. “Let’s give it back to the people” or words to that effect.
And, even to counter perceived hyperbole, I still maintain that your response was fairly over-the-top. At best it was (then) unclear what you were taking offense at.
And, no, I don’t think it’s OK to call anyone a liar. And I didn’t think spoke did. And I still don’t think so.
Have fun with the fish.
elucidator:
You are right to be suspicious. There’s a lot of truth in what you say. For any position you care to endorse, you can pretty much find an economist that’ll swear that it’s the only way to save the world.
This makes it little different from anything else.
For example, on these boards you’ll find somebody willing to take the other side of whatever argument you care to make. Usually the best way to go about making up your mind is to be educated enough, and skeptical enough to examine things and form your own opinion.
For example, on the tax cut and refund you have a couple of pretty clear positive effects. The refund benefitted the poor more than the rich since 3 or 6 hundred dollars means more to them than it does to Mizer Moneybags. Among the wealthy, the tax cut serves a couple of benefits. Business owners have more working capital to see their companies through a recession. They don’t necessarily have to lay off as much or cut back as much as they would otherwise. More money at hand encourages more purchases and more fiscal risk taking among everyone from workers up to business owners and corporations.
What benefits of the tax cut are to be seen (if any) have likely not materialized yet as generally agreed (which I guess would mean more than half would agree,) is that this kind of stimulus, like rate cuts takes 12-18 months to filter through the economy. There’s a lag between the action and the reaction. Secondly, the majority of the tax cut won’t take place until 2005, so it’s unlikely we’d see anything now.
It is almost certain that the refund had a beneficial short term economic effect. That $ was something we can loosely call a future surplus (and one unlikely to actually materialize.) Nevertheless that money would not have been spent if the refund were not given.
The government works under a budget, and pretty much spends that budget whether there’s a surplus or a deficit.
It’s false to say that $ would have been assigned to another use had it not been refunded. It’s not like the government works like a petty cash box where you just keep taking out until it’s empty and then stop.
So, that money was money added to the consumer economy that otherwise would not have been, and goods and services were surely purchased that otherwise would not have been, and therefore the net effect was beneficial in that it served to mitigate the recession.
On the other hand, the question is whether that beneficial effect was tangible enough to justify the cost, and whether or not we would have been better off not putting that money into the economy, but rather using it against the present and coming deficits.
Basic economic theory states (and virtually all economists will agree) that the way out of a recession is to spend your way out.
Since the refund surely increased spending, it’s pretty tough to argue that it wasn’t beneficial in a recession.
What can be argued was whether it was large enough to be meaningful for the economy, or whether it was a wasted arrow in a depleting quiver, and whether the timing was the best for such a stimulus.
I wouldn’t trust anybody that tells you they know for sure.
Consumer confidence figures cited earlier by me show a nice little bell curve after the tax-cut, as do retail sales. How much if any we can attribute to the refund is speculative, but some of it is probably there.
The effects of the tax-cut we won’t see until several years from now, so that’s really all we have to go on.
The bad news is that both Bush and the Democrats may have been wrong. If we do go into a double-dip recession as now seems possible we can argue that that the refund was given too soon by Bush and Co, and that the Democrats screwed the pooch by delaying the majority of the tax cut.
Hopefully we won’t get to have that argumetn.
So Jim Carey, the only person ever documented to talk out of his ass, is the only lying Democrat on the planet? Democrats never lie out of their mouths? Even as someone sympathetic to Democrats, I find this one hard to believe.
Someone needs to get his/her head out of the asses of others and start listening.
Gee, Scylla, you lend prop to my suspicions about academic economic arguments in support of political action, and then proceed to make one. Too many for me. I pass.
No wait! I get a glimmer here. Seems what we need, according to you, is for folks to spend more money! What we must then ponder who it is who will shoulder this burdensome civic duty.
Well, seems to me that poor folks are people most likely to spend money, since they are pretty much defined by thier inability to do so. Hence, a tax policy that positively gouges the rich and siphons that money directly to the poor is, by your argument, the most efficacious, as well as the most humane.
Scylla sez: Eat The Rich!
[sub]note to self: take his name off The List[/sub]