Forgot to Plug In Crystal Ball
Krugman gives us the picture that's worth a thousand words.
See the distance between the grey line and the black line? I have a name for that: The Credibility Gap.
When it comes to tax cuts, we know they're good for the GOP's political donors. They get the tax cuts (refunds provided by the social security fund, of course). What we've been told is that this is good for everyone, and results in a better situation for everyone. What we've been told is that these tax cuts would provide massive stimulation to the economy, which would result in more jobs.
Three years in a row Bush's economic team has predicted massive job gains because of tax cuts. They did this in spite of the fact that no serious economists agreed with them.
This leaves us with only two possibilities: Either Bush and friends are really piss-poor at predictions, or they're doing it deliberately. Are there other possibilities I haven't considered?
And let's dispense with the axis of 9/11-recession-war crap. All of that was known early to all parties, and Bush's team was the only one making these outlandish projections.
Left: "Earth is round."
Right: "Earth is flat."
Press: "Shape of Earth: Views differ."
on
| § 6
§ 6 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
"administration insists that
"administration insists that its economic program, which has relied entirely on tax cuts focused on the affluent"
I am not the affluent. I am getting a tax cut. Tax cuts are not good just because they are an economic stimulus - something that serious (have you met an unserious economist? A giddy economist?) they are good because they allow people to keep their money. This is good all by itself.
And in any event, recession, disruption to the economy as a result of the attack on the center of our financial world, and so on might have an effect on how the economy does overall. Maybe?
You really, really, really need to stop presuming malice and duplicity on the part of those you disagree with.
Left is right, Right is evil is a load of crap.
How about we play with
How about we play with numbers then? If I confine myself to that maybe I can avoid insensitive name-calling.
How much of a tax cut did you get? How much did those in the top bracket get?
For the first one I got my $300 check. Of course, this is just paying me back a bit of the surplus I helped generate in the social security system.
To what extent do you think the Administration should be held accountable for its predictions? What is your explanation for the divergence between prediction and result?
Ross,
Ross,
I take your point, summed up with the "Earth is round" conversation, and that the Dems grasp economic truth. I'm not well informed enough to believe it, but I get you.
If the conversation WERE really about the shape of the Earth, though, it might go like this:
Left: "Earth's shape is many things to many peoples. We must respect the diversity of opinion on the Earth's shape, because what is round to us might be square to another. And who are we to decide for all humanity the shape of our world? Only the UN can consider such matters."
Right:"Actually, the Earth IS round".
Press: "Republicans Press Roundophile Agenda; Jesse Jackson 'Outraged'; CAIR Demands Retraction"
Gl,
Gl,
you are too trusting of the right. there view should be: "the earth is a sphere, and it is not more complicated than that."
Ross:
Ross:
You continue to miss the point - taxation is taxation, social security is a Ponzi scheme. While you continue to blindly assert that the refunds "came out of the social security fund", you continue to avoid the issue, quite simply, that spending is too high.
The fact that refunds and tax reduction occurred, when used to assert that the rich are robbing the poor's social security, sounds intellectually lazy, as though you've not recently gotten a new set of talking points from the DNC.
The fact that the social security fund's present surplus is used as part of the federal budget is undeniable. But to claim that it should only be "counted" against when tax cuts are put in place is an argument that is vacuous in the extreme, and not worthy of you.
It would be like me claiming that, when you get a loan from a bank, then go out and spend it on coke and hookers, you're robbing my account at the bank. But the bank is the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, so it turns out there's really no money in my account at all. Yet I still want to complain about how you used the money you borrowed.
If you want to argue against deficits, do so. If you want to argue against tax cuts, do so. If you want to argue that social security is a rock-solid enterprise being destroyed by tax cuts, well, OK, do so. But don't expect to be taken seriously. And please don't pretend it has anything to do with personal income tax rates.
Come on, we know it's an
Come on, we know it's an oblate spheroid.