What you knew anyhow. Why the Spending Stimulus Failed

[Dawg]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... lenews_wsj

Mr. Obama wants more spending, especially on infrastructure, and higher tax rates on income, capital gains and dividends (by allowing the lower Bush rates to expire). The intellectual and political left argues that the failed $814 billion stimulus in 2009 wasn't big enough, and that spending control any time soon will derail the economy.

vs. the last two major tax cuts—President Reagan's in 1981-83 and President George W. Bush's in 2003—boosted growth. They lowered marginal tax rates and were longer lasting, both keys to success. In a survey of fiscal policy changes in the OECD over the past four decades, Harvard's Albert Alesina and Silvia Ardagna conclude that tax cuts have been far more likely to increase growth than has more spending.

Conversely, a tax increase is very damaging. Mr. Barro and Bain Capital's Charles Redlick estimate large negative effects of increased marginal tax rates on GDP. The best stimulus now is to stop the impending tax hikes.

Its a long read (the link, but even slick should be able to understand)

[callmeslick]

yup, without a doubt, the best way to keep the economy humming is the cut unemployment benefits, stop spending on infrastructure and keep taxes low on millionaires. Works every time.

[Dawg]

yup, without a doubt, the best way to keep the economy humming is the cut unemployment benefits, stop spending on infrastructure and keep taxes low on millionaires. Works every time.

ah, cut and paste from the DNC handbook I see.

prove, please anything you just typed is accurate.
links to examples when increasing tax on anyone, spending during debt worked?
85% of everyone interviewed on unemployment said they didn't lift a finger to look for work till the last THREE weeks of benefits were about to run out....

STFU or links

[callmeslick]

prove, please anything you just typed is accurate.
links to examples when increasing tax on anyone, spending during debt worked?

sure, that's easy. In the 1950's, the Eisenhower administration spent, via deficit spending and still paying off a sizeable national debt due to war and postwar international aid, huge amounts for development of an Interstate Highway system. Taxes at the time topped out at 90% for all income over $400,000. What happened? A burst of economic development that paid dividends for 20 years.

Further, massive government spending on space exploration, paid dividends in the high-tech fields for decades.

85% of everyone interviewed on unemployment said they didn't lift a finger to look for work till the last THREE weeks of benefits were about to run out....

STFU or links

indeed. I'd love to see the data on this. Won't really ask you to STFU, but if you wish.......

[Buzz]

They can shove the stimulus where the sun don't shine.

In the last two years the seniors have gotten nothing, zero, zip, nada.

The cost of living goes up for us too.

Now please don't some asshole say "go to work."

[callmeslick]

They can shove the stimulus where the sun don't shine.

In the last two years the seniors have gotten nothing, zero, zip, nada.

you want nothing? Just wait. Have you read some of the deficit reduction plans floating around?

The cost of living goes up for us too.

Now please don't some asshole say "go to work."

those will be the charitable ones. The mean spirited ones will suggest you just die, quietly.


Folks don't realize what the country will be like if you really adopt the concept of low taxes and a balanced budget. How would life look, Buzz, without social security, or Medicare? Or, for that matter, without national parks, national forests or the like, and any decent trout stream on posted private land, a la England?

[callmeslick]

oh, and speaking of stimulus, one casualty of the post-election stupidity looks like the Obama tax cuts. You know, the ones that gave $1200 to single working mothers, and lowered taxes on private pension income if it was less than $15,000. But, heaven forbid we not extend the 15% tax rate for stock dividends, or the lowered tax rates for folks making over $250,000 per year. They could suffer permanent harm. What the fuck kind of heartless nation do we have that allows a termination of Federal Unemployment during the second-worst recession in our history, and contemplates extending tax cuts for millionaires at the same time?

[Buzz]

Hopefully, you don't think I agree with it.

I have no sympathy for the rich. They've had it too easy for too long.

[Dawg]

slicks playbook: make some claim, then when asked to produce links, put quote marks around your opinions, and demand proof from those who asked for proof in the first place.....


buzz, tax the rich? how about a flat tax, do you realize 15% tax on everything (not income, or savings, or profit from selling, say you bought x for 2. and sell it for6.) from coke to gas to cars would still be CHEAPER than the way it is now? AND illegals and drug dealers and welfare babies would pay their fair share.

[callmeslick]

slicks playbook: make some claim, then when asked to produce links,

here's a link for you...note the top rates throughout the 1950s. Of course, they had war and other debts to pay off, and realized certain parts of the country needed serious building and modernization, so folks then had the good sense to collect revenues accordingly:
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

buzz, tax the rich? how about a flat tax, do you realize 15% tax on everything (not income, or savings, or profit from selling, say you bought x for 2. and sell it for6.) from coke to gas to cars would still be CHEAPER than the way it is now? AND illegals and drug dealers and welfare babies would pay their fair share.

still, while I agree with the Flat tax idea, you don't address the fact that I clearly proved what I wrote about historical precedents. Also, I'm still waiting for the almighty link to the ridiculous statement about 85% of the unemployed. I'd love to see the numbers, sample size of survey, etc.