Yeah, regulation cuts! That’s exactly what we need. What a brilliant economic strategy.
As to your claim regarding Paul Krugman, I’d like to see a cite.
Here’s what he said back in November:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/opinion/30krugman.html
Seems quite a bit different from a call for tax and regulation cuts.
I’m not buying the line either.
And now it’s been too much fun watching his frustration to just break down and tell him. It’d be a horrible anticlimax, and I don’t think he’d believe me anyway. Apparently he lacks the smarts to do any checking on his own? life is hard sometimes.
Now, now, little one. What I wrote was a direct commentary on you profoundly stupid post to Mr Smashy. Direct. I even thanked you and explained what I was thanking you for. Yes, I segued into pointing out what a doofus statement it was, as well.
The :rolleyes: was just dessert, hoping that the stupid that I shoved back in your mouth din’t leave too bad of an after taste, powerful as it was.
Oh, :D.
**Squink,
**
I responded to your post. Would you be kind enough to respond to mine? (Post 273)
Dumb, real dumb. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/28418678/the_death_tax_scam The death tax scam is a boon to multi millionaires and billionaires. How you can think sucking another 90 billion out of the tax base is a good idea amazes me. But it seems once you convince somebody that the rich are being exploited they will fight to save the poor exploited wealthy. i just don’t know how they get by. I suppose people like you make it easy. Idiocy is thinking huge estates gathered at the expense of the poor should be protected from the tax man.
No frustration. Have fun playing your game, I honestly mean that.
I guess we’re done then.
Hmmm, ok
Perhaps the most liberal economist in the country says that tax cuts lead to job growth. The only question is how many jobs, how much bang for the buck, as I posted 3 pages before.
Ahh, missed it.
Once we hammer the conservatives down for that expensive war they foisted off on us* we can go back to late 70’s, pre-Reagan rates. All that nonsense about Laffer curves and taxing at lower rates to to bring in more dollars for the feds needs expurgation.
We put a man on the moon with tax rates like that, invented the laser and the personal computer, became the economic powerhouse of the world. I’m not seeing any reason we couldn’t do the same again under similar taxes conditions. After the Bush years, we certainly need to do it again if we’re to retain any respect as a superpower.
OK, OK, maybe we don’t have to go all the way back to 78, but the goddam economy fell apart under tax conditions that every conservative must admit were *supposed to be *a heck of a lot more favorable to their economic growth hypothesis than anything we saw from the 50’s through the 70’s. Meanwhile the national debt exploded! Isn’t it time ya’ll did a reality check on the validity of Reaganomics?
*Don’t get all huffy over that, we penalize people for smoking pot, speeding and not curbing their dog, no reason we can’t do the same when a group uses their political power to buy themselves a useless and costly war.
I really think you are badly misrepresenting Krugman here. First, he’s not talking about the jobs bill, he was writing a year ago about the stimulus package, and talking about the benefits of tax cuts for stimulating the economy.
Second, he was not at all promoting tax cuts as a preferable approach to stimulating the economy, only one that the circumstances of not having enough “shovel ready” projects ready to go immediately. Here’s the title and introduction to the piece you linked to:
Third, when you consider this with what he wrote in the article I linked to, and contrast it with what you wrote, you are stretching your interpretation of Krugman’s opinion beyond the breaking point. This, in particular: “Perhaps the most liberal economist in the country says that tax cuts lead to job growth” is wrong and deceptive.
So cute to hear you try to refute it. No worries, let me explain in a way you’ll understand. His point is, federal spending (the stimulus bill in his context) creates jobs. But tax cuts also create jobs.
My point was: tax cuts create jobs. Your guy admits this. Best you do too.
I’ll say it for the 3rd time now: it’s a matter of bang-for-the-buck, which is better, tax cuts vs federal spending. But you and your buddy Squink, who (let’s face it) isn’t exactly bringing the potato salad to the mensa picnic, seem to want to refute this.
You may try to snark all you like, but his words speak for themselves, despite your selective quoting.
In Krugman’s outline for improving the jobs outlook, written a few months ago, he does not propose tax cuts once.
What he specifically says is:
You can repeat it as much as you like, with as many insults as you like, but Krugman has his own opinion. What does become more and more clear is that for some reason you have to try to misrepresent and co-opt a liberal economist to try to support your opinion. Maybe you should ask yourself why this is, and then come back and try again.
Aww, damn it’s not even original.
For a moment I thought there might be hope for you.
I much prefer original work, but if you must import stuff to try for a point, at least try to import highest Quality.
When’s the last time you saw anyone come close to cutting federal spending?
The typical left-wing mindset - allowing people to keep their own money is “sucking 90 billion out of the tax base”, as if this money was part of some public fund they’re stealing from.
No way I’m wading into this except to ask a factual question:
Doesn’t certain federal spending (e.g., infrastructure, unemployment) have higher economic multipliers (above 1.0) than tax cuts (which, IIRC, fall below the 1.0 mark)? If so, then federal spending gives a (much) higher bang-for-the-buck.
In some brief googling, I couldn’t find a good reference – surely, some one must have one bookmarked. Or do I mis-remember?
This is just conservababble for “allowing people to take a pass on servicing the debt they ran up conquering Iraq and suchlike”, to say nothing of paying off the principal.
This may come as a shock to you, but when you buy a house on credit, you encumber a sizeable chunk of ‘your’ income for a long period of time. Sure it’s still your money, but you owe it to someone else. That debt’s gotta be paid off, and the interest too, before your money can truly be called yours again. That’s the current situation.
Who do you think should spend their money paying for your folly, if not you? Don’t you think the cash in a Liberal’s pocket is their money, or do future generations somehow owe you a prosperous lifestyle despite your spendthrift ways?
Well, I can’t speak for the future, but the cash in my pocket belongs to me, and my house is paid off. You too should find some way to pay off your debts before claiming that the feds are unfairly appropriating ‘your’ money. They’re not, and they wouldn’t be, even if we took top tier income tax rates back to 50% as they were in 1978.
Nah, he’s just a graduate of the Sarah Palin School of Leadership.
“I don’t wanna do all this work! It’s too hard! I quit! Is there a Blue Dog speaking circuit, and are they less tight with their own money when it comes to speaking fees?”
-Joe
As an alternative to “letting people keep their own money,” how about “securing enough resources for society that there remains an infrastructure with which people, both presently and in future generations, can continue to earn money.”
Conservatives see government as some distinct entity which takes from them resources they’ve collected all upon their own.
I see government as an agency of, by and for society with the purpose of ensuring the ability for members of the society to seek life, liberty and happiness. Sort of like a home owners association for America.
I find the “my money” frame to be a bit solipsistic, since it’s almost never the case that people got their money completely independently of society. Perhaps people within a society are like a researcher working in a corporation. How do you decide intellectual property issues in a case like that? Our society provides you with the resources you need to produce your work and allows you to benefit from doing so. It is not in society’s interests to die out simply because you feel that the product of your work sprung up solely of your own devices.
It’s really more of a “cleaning out the joint checking account and then asking for your lunch money” thing with many conservatives.
-btw, I forgot to thank magellan for acknowledging that it’s important to get our financial house in order, and that taxes have a major role to play in that. The national dialog is constantly innundated with conservatives demanding that they get ‘their’ money back, so it took a bit of courage and thought on magellan’s part to come along as far as he has. No doubt he’d pay a heavy price for it if he were running for congress.
No offense young man, but Imus was saying that line 20 years ago