Clearly further tax cuts would have made the deficit worse, and allowing the auto companies to go under and public sector employees to be laid off would have increased unemployment, so those arguments are non-starters.

Clearly. Since you said it is “clear” and a “non-starter” it must be true.

But of course, you are completely wrong. Just b/c you believe something is true, does not make it so.

In fact, while no one — not even liberals — likes paying taxes, there is no serious evidence that at U.S. tax levels tax cuts have much effect on anything (though low- and mid-income tax cuts can provide a short-term Keynesian boost). And they certainly don’t pay for themselves, something all you born-again deficit hawks should take to heart.

geeze, I guess the fact that every time taxes are cut, revenues rise means nothing. the actual factual evidence is entirely against your theory here.

And, quoting that idiot Keynes, whose every idea has basically been proven wrong over time – does not help your case.

And, of course it would never occur to you, but spending cuts also work to bring the deficit down. You don’t always have to raise taxes. You can actually cut spending sometimes.

I know, I know, you believe in “priming the pump” and the gov’t spending to help the economy. god forbid we simply let people keep more of their own money to spend and prime the old pump. You do realize that FDR’s programs actually prolonged the great depression? Even liberal economists now recognize that.

Monkeytoe on August 25, 2009 at 11:43 AM

The creative destruction argument is an interesting one, but I am not persuaded that, say, the collapse of the banking system would wrought any improvement out of the vast destruction that it would have caused. The same system and incentives that created the collapse would have still been in place, but tens of millions of people would have been wiped out.

Economics as practiced is not really a science, and confusing economic with morality (as the communists did) is always dangerous. Some you need to tinker with the theory.

Gee, then why are the leftists always talking about punishing people who make too much money (i.e., windfall profits) or taxing the rich more? It is the left that confuses economics with morality, not the right. But that is b/c their theories all stem from Marx.

And where is your proof that letting some banks fail or the auto companies fail would have led to “tens of millions of people would have been wiped out.”?

That is nothing more than an unprovable theory, and not a very persuasive one at that.

You don’t seem to know a lot about economics.

Monkeytoe on August 25, 2009 at 11:47 AM

WashJeff,

Has the increase in student loans made college more affordable?

I was thinking about this the other day. The two areas in life where costs always rise way more than inflation are higher education and health care.

And, the two areas in life where people usually don’t really pay directly for the produce is health care and higher education.

it seems to me that the 3rd party payer problem is pretty solidly demonstrated by this.

The real solution to health care costs would be to get rid of health care insurance completely and only have catastraphic illness insurance, and make people pay out-of-pocket for health care (i.e., doctors visits, prescriptions, tests). I think that would bring health care costs down very quickly and steeply.

Unfortunately, since everyone is used to not paying directly for health care, it would be next to impossible to do this.

Monkeytoe on August 25, 2009 at 11:54 AM

through the tax system, “eat the rich” has never really been a rallying cry in the mainstream left. We tax the rich not because we hate them, but because that’s where the money is. And because rich people’s actual taxes as percent of money earned is much lower than is believed in some circles.

Complete and utter lie.

Yes, Clinton, by a republican congress, and after his leftward tilt until losing congress in 1994, was forced to a) balance the budget; b) pass welfare reform and c) cut some taxes.

None of those things were things Clinton would have done had he kept congress and had his poll numbers not gone down. So citing this as some kind of “moderation” of the left is ridiculous.

the left, every election, goes after the rich and plays class warfare, ALWAYS calling for the rich to be taxed more. Always complaining about oil company profits, or health insurance profits, or what have you.

for you to claim otherwise is so dishonest as to be laughable.

And, the “rich” is not where the money is for tax revenue. Do some homework. The middle class is where the money has to come from. Unless of course, you, like Obama, define rich as earning more than $100k a year.

Well, since Obama’s stupid policies are causing catasrophe as we speak – 10% unemployment, unbelieveable defecits, etc., I think I have proof that his policies cause problems.

You, on the other hand, have no evidence that NOT bailing out the auto companies would have made things worse than they now are. And, my tax $$ wouldn’t be going to Obama’s bribes to the unions, which is all it was.

Monkeytoe on August 25, 2009 at 12:02 PM

I love how leftists all revere Clinton as the greatest president ever, but will argue that everything he did was horrible when we suggest it be done now:

A. Cut taxes
B. reform entitlements
C. Balance the budget / cut spending.

I know, I know, things are different now – but as I recall, Clinton got elected by claiming at the time that America was suffering from teh worst economy since the depression.

Monkeytoe on August 25, 2009 at 12:08 PM