Is there anything tax cuts CAN'T fix?

[HappySqurriel]

Akvod said:

HappySqurriel said:

Akvod said:

mrstickball said:

Akvod said:
GDP=Consumption Spending.
Government consumption/spending=Consumption/Spending

*pats hands*

We have plenty of credit flowing around (due to the Fed's infusion of it into the banks and the increased spending by American consumers). Ending the tax cuts for the rich won't kill investment.

If you don't want to end the tax cuts for the rich in return for increased spending, at least do it in return for a larger tax cut for the lower and middle class.

Keep tax cuts for the poor and middle class, end the Bush tax cuts, increase spending, rebuild our infrastructure (has to be done anyway, might as well use this as an opportunity), impose modest reformations on Medicare and Medicaid and BOOM! You fucking fix the economy, and solve America's long and short term debt problems.

51% of Americans paid no taxes last year. Exactly how much more should you lower taxes on them?

Income Tax=/=All taxes

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/zombie-tax-lies/

Just as a side note, Paul Krugman is one of the most intellectually dishonest economists out there and after repeately getting "schooled" on his inaccurate heavily biased blog posts by average people making comments he closed his blog to comments. At many points in time these commentors demonstrated that his views on economics depended mostly on what the Democrats or Republicans were doing at the time, and he has repeatedly been found to condemn an approach taken by the Republicans and then support the same approach when taken by the Democrats.

Or to put it another way, listening to Krugman on economics is kind of like listening to a nutritionist that has been hired by McDonalds on whether fast food is good for you.

Ad hominem. And if you want to play that game, I can always point to his shiny Nobel Prize.

He's been heavily critical of Obama BTW, and he is basing his views on what he said 10 years ago after his studies on Japan (liquidity trap). He did criticize the Obama stimulus and even predicted the political implications (it's failure would lead to discredit stimuluses in general and prevent a proper one being proposed).

 

Mentioning the Nobel Prize is an appeal to authority ... and not even a good apeal to authority. After all, Nobel prizes are given out for political reasons more than anything else, as can be seen by the Nobel Peace prize won by Obama.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/paul_krugman_gives_up_1.html

"..."

"For example, Robert Barro, the distinguished Harvard economist, noted that Krugman "just says whatever is convenient for his political argument. He doesn't behave like an economist." The New York Times ombudsman Daniel Okrent observed that Paul Krugman has "the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults." James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal, after listing the falsities in Krugman's latest piece on climate last week, hazarded that perhaps "Krugman makes himself ridiculous merely to make our job easy.""

"..."

"For example, when Krugman a month ago drew one of his famous "trend lines" based on a single point, a blogger named rjh immediately responded, "These trend lines you are drawing all over the place. Pardon my French, they are complete garbage." And nearly half of Krugman's commenters joined to point out that Krugman was arguing junk. Krugman was forced to make two defensive replies; both were immediately refuted."

"..."

"But things got worse for the professor. Matching Krugman's repeated claim that the "stimulus" was too small, Sean produced peer-reviewed economic science from Alesina, who examined 92 attempts at stimulus since 1970 in OECD countries and found that tax cuts, but not spending, stimulated. Krugman stammered a reply, but the damage was done; his acolytes had learned that economic science existed that contradicted Krugman's claim (central to Obama's "stimulus" legislation) that government's spending your money helps an economy."

"..."

"Krugman's blog commenters were especially relentless in pointing out his inconsistencies. In one post, Krugman admitted that "politicians will always find ways to shield the powerful." Posters piled on, pointing out that Krugman's universal policy prescription gave politicians more power under the assumption that they would defend "the proletariat." Krugman replied that he was "sure that there's a large literature" on government cronyism and corruption. Secure in his big-government ideology, he admitted that he had never read that literature. But like the ideologue that he is, Krugman then expressed his faith (the only word appropriate) that "bureaucracy will do a heckuva job" if it is not "downgraded and devalued." Bloggers responded by citing the latest economic science showing the impossibility of Krugman's "utopian dictatorship-by-bureaucracy.""

"..."

"Krugman had also had enough. On July 23, Krugman showed that he was clearly no longer "in love" with his commenters. Now he called them "ranters" and "trolls." On July 28, Krugman changed his comment moderation policy. Claiming that "ranters ... say the same thing every time," Krugman announced that he was going to throw away posts longer than "three inches." His thinking must have been thus: Three inches are sufficient to write "Krugman is brilliant," but not sufficient to present a documented and persuasive rebuttal to whichever of Krugman's standard arguments he was peddling that day.

"Within 24 hours, those outside the Times had taken notice. Stephen Spruiell at the NRO noted the absurdity of Krugman's complaint that bloggers might use the same responses to rebut Krugman's repeated statements of the same ideology. Wrote Spruiell:

"This [is] from the guy who has spent the entire summer rewriting the same blog post", Spruiell went on to point out that "Krugman's sycophants ... also say the same thing every time." "Krugman's policy seems geared to limit comments to "Yay Dr. K!" "Way to go!" "Keynes was right!" etc."

"..."

Listening to Krugman on economics is kind of like listening to the Pope talk about religion. There is no doubt what he will say, and there is no amount of contradictory information that would ever get him to reconsider his beliefs.