TPS Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tax-increases-bull-markets-110001080.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 You're a supply sider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 From you article. No equivication here, eh? "I'm not going to pretend that tax increases always lead to bull markets or that tax cuts have no effect. I'm saying only that the relationship between taxes, on the one hand, and the economy and the stock market, on the other, is vastly more complex than simplistic Republican dogma would have us believe. Clearly, there are times when a tax increase sets in motion positive economic forces, like deficit reduction or a more expansionary monetary policy by the Federal Reserve, that overwhelm whatever negative effects may result from higher taxes. The precise impact can only be determined by careful analysis unencumbered by dogmatic beliefs not anchored in empirical results." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted January 8, 2013 Author Share Posted January 8, 2013 From you article. No equivication here, eh? "I'm not going to pretend that tax increases always lead to bull markets or that tax cuts have no effect. I'm saying only that the relationship between taxes, on the one hand, and the economy and the stock market, on the other, is vastly more complex than simplistic Republican dogma would have us believe. Clearly, there are times when a tax increase sets in motion positive economic forces, like deficit reduction or a more expansionary monetary policy by the Federal Reserve, that overwhelm whatever negative effects may result from higher taxes. The precise impact can only be determined by careful analysis unencumbered by dogmatic beliefs not anchored in empirical results." That's the point dude. Most of you right wingers are so dogmatic on this, and he's saying it's much more complex than "tax increases are always bad." You're a supply sider. Ah, more proof that you really don't know what you're talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 That's the point dude. Most of you right wingers are so dogmatic on this, and he's saying it's much more complex than "tax increases are always bad." Ah, more proof that you really don't know what you're talking about. No, he made a case for tax increases in every instance in a vacuum. He then backtracked by equivicating. Your example to back up your thread title really sucked, dude. Remember this? http://blog.chron.com/texassparkle/2011/07/pres-obama-was-against-tax-increases-before-he-was-for-them/ In August 2009, on a visit to Elkhart, Indiana to tout his stimulus plan, Obama sat down for an interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd, and was conveyed a simple request from Elkhart resident Scott Ferguson: “Explain how raising taxes on anyone during a deep recession is going to help with the economy.” Obama agreed with Ferguson’s premise – raising taxes in a recession is a bad idea. “First of all, he’s right. Normally, you don’t raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven’t and why we’ve instead cut taxes. So I guess what I’d say to Scott is – his economics are right. You don’t raise taxes in a recession. We haven’t raised taxes in a recession.” Todd reminded Obama that he had promised to raise taxes on “some of the wealthiest” Americans. Obama responded by reiterating his opposition to tax hikes during a recession and making an argument about timing. “We have not proposed a tax hike for the wealthy that would take effect in the middle of a recession. Even the proposals that have come out of Congress – which by the way were different from the proposals I put forward – still wouldn’t kick in until after the recession was over. So he’s absolutely right, the last thing you want to do is raise taxes in the middle of a recession because that would just suck up – take more demand out of the economy and put business further in a hole.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Ah, more proof that you really don't know what you're talking about Hardly. I assume you support stimulus spending? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted January 8, 2013 Author Share Posted January 8, 2013 Hardly. I assume you support stimulus spending? I support the use of government deficits to stabilize the macro economy when private sector spending is insufficient to push the economy toward full employment. While deficits increase automatically in recessions, I do support additional deficit expansion (whether it comes from tax cuts, increased spending or both) in severe downturns like the current one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 I support the use of government deficits to stabilize the macro economy when private sector spending is insufficient to push the economy toward full employment. While deficits increase automatically in recessions, I do support additional deficit expansion (whether it comes from tax cuts, increased spending or both) in severe downturns like the current one. Right... stimulus spending... Which is a supply side endeavor, unless you're advocating placing money directly into consumer bank accounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted January 8, 2013 Author Share Posted January 8, 2013 Right... stimulus spending... Which is a supply side endeavor, unless you're advocating placing money directly into consumer bank accounts. Maybe through your looking glass Alice, but not by any economists I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Maybe through your looking glass Alice, but not by any economists I know. That's because the economists you know are married to dead theories, and can't see the intellectual flaws in their reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted January 8, 2013 Author Share Posted January 8, 2013 (edited) That's because the economists you know are married to dead theories, and can't see the intellectual flaws in their reasoning. Once again, if that's what you believe is SS economics, then it says a lot about your lack of understanding and makes me wonder what sites provide you with those misunderstandings. Regarding the latest comment, from what I can tell you are influenced by Austrians, who rely on a few dead guys with dead theories... Edited January 8, 2013 by TPS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Once again, if that's what you believe is SS economics, then it says a lot about your lack of understanding and makes me wonder what cites provide you with those misunderstandings. Regarding the latest comment, from what I can tell you are influenced by Austrians, who rely on a few dead guys with dead theories... Yes, because all the economic "theories" from today's living economists bare such fruitful results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Once again, if that's what you believe is SS economics, then it says a lot about your lack of understanding and makes me wonder what cites provide you with those misunderstandings. Regarding the latest comment, from what I can tell you are influenced by Austrians, who rely on a few dead guys with dead theories... The fact that you've chosen to lable a cat as a dog, because you're not a cat person, but found one particular cat that you really like does not actually make your cat into a dog via handwavium and magic. As to your horseshit canard about any lack of understanding on my part, I used to think like you. Only then I opened up my mind and actually learned. That's why I sit on top of the hill, while you're locked away in your ivory tower ruining a world acadamia has insulated you from Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 You need two things for economic growth, money for demand and money for capital formation- right now the former is the problem not the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 (edited) You need two things for economic growth, money for demand and money for capital formation- right now the former is the problem not the latter. That's a bit too simplistic. This is sort of which came first, the chicken or the egg? kind of an argument. Right or wrong, two competing philosophies argue to which is the best way to create demand, "stimulus" spending, or through in your words "capital formation". Edited January 8, 2013 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted January 8, 2013 Author Share Posted January 8, 2013 The fact that you've chosen to lable a cat as a dog, because you're not a cat person, but found one particular cat that you really like does not actually make your cat into a dog via handwavium and magic. As to your horseshit canard about any lack of understanding on my part, I used to think like you. Only then I opened up my mind and actually learned. That's why I sit on top of the hill, while you're locked away in your ivory tower ruining a world acadamia has insulated you from You are the one who has a definition of supply side that is inconsistent with the rest of the world, so take a look in the mirror.And give me a break, the old "I used to think like you, but now I know everything" argument? Please.... I'm sure it is your view from atop the mountain that sees the coming of America's Weimar Republic moment, eh? Care to make any other predictions Mohamad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 I'm confused, Is it Alice or Mohamad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 (edited) You are the one who has a definition of supply side that is inconsistent with the rest of the world, so take a look in the mirror. And give me a break, the old "I used to think like you, but now I know everything" argument? Please.... I'm sure it is your view from atop the mountain that sees the coming of America's Weimar Republic moment, eh? Care to make any other predictions Mohamad? It's very far from inconsistent with the "rest of the world's" definition. It's only inconsistent with the definition provided by the the mass of pompous windbags, squeezing shut their eyes to the most basic manifestations of cause on effect, who are currently burning down the house we all live in for no other reason than their ego's won't allow them to admit their entire careers have been worked to the detriment of the world, and to who's church you are either disciple or apostle. Furthermore, I live on the hill, not atop the mountain; and it doesn't require a prophet to see the turmoil on our troubled horizon. It does, however, require a sanctimonious jackass to tout strawmen as reason; and to laud great failure as resounding success. Edited January 9, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted January 9, 2013 Author Share Posted January 9, 2013 It's very far from inconsistent with the "rest of the world's" definition. It's only inconsistent with the definition provided by the the mass of pompous windbags, squeezing shut their eyes to the most basic manifestations of cause on effect, who are currently burning down the house we all live in for no other reason than their ego's won't allow them to admit their entire careers have been worked to the detriment of the world, and to who's church you are either disciple or apostle. Furthermore, I live on the hill, not atop the mountain; and it doesn't require a prophet to see the turmoil on our troubled horizon. It does, however, require a sanctimonious jackass to tout strawmen as reason; and to laud great failure as resounding success. I agree with your first point, and FWIW I am not a "member" of the 95% of economists who adhere to the unrealistic models that have done nothing to solve real world problems. If you are influenced by Austrians, I am somewhat sympathetic to the approach because they also incorporate the use of debt and reject the equilibrum approach. That said, since you have a particular definition of what supply-side is, it might be useful for me to understand your positions if you explain what you think it means?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 You're asking the wrong questions. I'll help you. If you could, please describe the similarities that general supply-side theory and stimulus spending hold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts