Feels like deja vu all over again …
I can’t tell you how disappointed I am in this guy.
I linked this in Post #56: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-13/rich-americans-save-money-from-tax-cuts-instead-of-spending-moody-s-says.html
The wealthy save money they get from tax cuts.
Will they spend a little more? Probably. Is that economic stimulation? Sure.
Point is it is a drop in the bucket and not money well spent by the government. You’ll get a much better bang for the government buck doing something else.
Indeed when taxes went up the S&P did better (per that article). When taxes went down the S&P did worse.
I don’t doubt your conscience, you most likely would not be here pulling on the same end of the rope as me if your heart wasn’t screwed in right.
And I cannot fairly argue about principle, I’m not sure I have any left. Modesty went first, principles put up more of a fight. If I had one left, and it stood in the way of my helping a fellow American who desperately needs that help…well, what the hell, the other guys got lots of principles and they’re totally full of shit.
Anyway, I could steal one if I find it useful.
Maybe they would have caved, that would be wonderful. Maybe they always intended to, and the only way disaster would have befallen the helpless would be if they blundered their way into a principled position they couldn’t untangle themselves from.
Today is Dec. 7th. A good day to remind us that people will do some amazingly stupid things. When they know they are right, and God is on their side. On principle.
The 99 ers, those who have exhausted their unemployment benefits, will not be saved by this deal. In order to extent benefits to them a Tier 5 would have needed to be added to the unemployment structure. This deal doesn’t add Tier 5.
The new ‘compromise’ deal only protects those who are still recieving benefits that are about to expire and doesn’t rescue the ones whose benefits expired this month.
If my esteemed colleagues have not been able to explain this to you so far, I doubt I can either.
I grasp many things over the course of a day.
Either way, here is text from GWB’s 2001 SOTU address in February 2001.
In Bush’s defense, he did beat the growing surplus problem.
When it comes to wars, 1 out of three ain’t so good a record.
Maybe they’ll invest in government bonds and drive the price up for those darn Chinese.
Or maybe invest in the stock market and help all of our retirement plans.
Hopefully the filthy rich with a liberal tilt will write some big voluntary checks.
I’m sorry facts don’t line up with your ideology. Maybe you could change the your ideology to fit the facts?
I don’t know why the Republicans would have blinked rather than wait and force the issue again in January.
…And then promptly taken ALL the credit for tax cuts and such.
A question I mused on in the Pit thread on this subject: I wonder how many voters out there, on all sides of the fence, particularly care about tax cuts to the rich, as long as they get theirs? A heck of a lot of people appear to be willing to sacrifice their own to pay down the debt, fund other projects, stick it to the Republicans, or whatever. I just wonder to what extent they represent the majority, or large numbers, or what have you.
There’s probably a poll out there somewhere I can’t find. Still, unless the majority is huge…
Those of you who think the GOP would have caved are nuts. They would have loved to see Obama preside over a middle class tax hike and watch Dems hopelessly whine about GOP obstruction. And you think Obama is naive about the GOP?
Everyone wants to reduce the deficit. Nobody wants it enough to support a tax hike, or cuts to the programs that benefit them.
The Tea Party is just less concerned about accusations of hypocrisy than everyone else.
Then the Democrats need to start fighting back. The Democrats should have introduces a bill extending only the middle-class tax cuts and then dared the Republicans to vote against it.
“What? I thought you guys liked tax cuts? So how come when we tried to cut taxes you voted against it? Because it wasn’t tax cuts for millionaires?”
It’s a messaging problem.
-
GOP cut taxes under Bush and blew a colossal hole in the deficit.
-
Dems want to maintain the tax cuts for 98% of Americans.
-
GOP wants tax cuts to remain for the other 2% which will blow a colossal hole in the deficit.
Why the Dems can’t get that most basic of points across is beyond me. I get it.
Polls have most Dems against Obama on this. So Obama’s own constituency has figured it out. Republicans clearly won’t vote for him anyway no matter what so I am not sure what the problem is.
The fact is that the paper doesn’t even say what Sam Stone thinks it says. For example it explicitly finds that tax increases which reduce deficits don’t have the negative impact that they find for other tax increases. The paper also doesn’t provide evidence against a fiscal stimulus during a recession and of course one of the authors of the paper Christina Romer has been a strong proponent of the stimulus inside and outside the Obama administration. This has been pointed out several times but Sam keeps invoking it every opportunity he gets along with the Rogoff/Rheinhart paper. At least that second paper does say what Sam thinks it does; however its US data points come from the 40’s and have no relevance to the situation in the US today.
You said ‘supply side’ tax cuts That would be things like capital gains taxes and dividend taxes and investment tax credits and the like. Income tax cuts are not supply side.
But I also missed that you specifically said “UI spending”. That was a bit of misdirection on your part, since I was talking about general stimulus. I happen to agree with you about UI spending, which is why I’ve always supported that. If you go back and look at everything I’ve said about stimulus, I’ve specifically said that any stimulus should come in the form of tax cuts and UI benefits to those who don’t have jobs.
I support UI extensions because it’s not only a worthwhile social goal, but because in recession the moral hazard component isn’t as big (as someone pointed out, when unemployment is high it’s not like the unemployed have much choice). Also, it’s the most effective stimulus because it goes straight to idle resources, and if the extension isn’t made they’ll wind up on social assistance anyway, or they’ll lose their homes and help depress the market. So I’ve got no problem with that.
My comment was more specifically aimed at cutting payroll taxes. There won’t be much stimulus out of that because it’s money going to people already employed. But at least it’s broad-based and not targeted at specific regions and industries. It’s more like a ‘helicopter drop’ than the last stimulus, and I think that’s a good thing. But the tax cuts will do more to stimulate the economy than the payroll cuts will.
However, I don’t think any of it will help much with job creation. For that, the country needs to repair balance sheets and achieve some long-term fiscal and regulatory stability. This actually makes that worse by increasing the deficit. So I don’t expect it will help much. At best, it may avoid a big hit to the economy in January and help maintain the status quo.