Tweet
Democrats need to understand that tax increases are equivalent to spending cuts in this crucial way: they are contractionary. A fiscal contraction from the federal government is exactly what our present economy does not need. That is why we should all be thanking Grover Norquist for his “no tax hikes” agenda.
We should all be thanking Grover Norquist |
|
| By: Tyler Healey Tuesday November 22, 2011 7:43 am | |
19 Comments
The stimulus of the payroll tax cut and the UE extension will end, but the war spending that is a major part of the one+ trillion deficit will continue – but I don’t see that money as “stimulus”.
Better would be the Clinton tax rates offset by the same extra money in infrastructure and UE Extended benefits and the payroll tax cut – but that is not going to happen in 2012.
Austerity has never led to economic well being – but then large deficits are also a disaster.
It will be interesting to see if any will try to sell in 2012 the Clinton tax rates for all (with child credit increase and 10% bracket re-passed in 2013) with real stimulus and real trade changes to save jobs (tariffs). We know Obama will not sell that package.
We should all be thanking Grover Norquist -
agreed.
Obvious that we should not be thanking Obama unless one wanted Social Security/Medicare cuts added to the Medicaid cuts.
Going back to the Clinton tax rates would constitute a tax increase, which would be bad for the economy. All tax increases and all spending cuts are contractionary, meaning they serve to shrink the economy rather than grow it.
Do not feed the trolls (e.g., this diarist).
There’s quite a few on this site doing this sort of name calling. I wish they would grow up. If you don’t like what someone has to say then state your reasons why. When you just call names you end up sounding like an immature twit.
And maybe YOU should study MMT before you quote James Galbraith out of context, as you did on another thread.
There is no such thing as “government spending,” Mr. Know-It-All. There is a huge difference between the government budget and your family budget, namely, your family DOESN’T PRINT MONEY. The government DOES, and therefore has a responsibility to regulate the money supply. Taxes are not the demon you and others make them out to be. They are nothing more than one type of regulatory tool, used to safeguard and expand public infrastructure, from roads and bridges to fire and police protection to the social safety net.
Moreover, by citing Keynes and others who practiced when we were on the gold standard you relegate your arguments – and those of your hero, Grover – to irrelevance.
This Greatest Depression (and history will show it to be nothing short of that) was created – and is being extended – by a very few, very wealthy people who refuse to contribute their fair share to the greater good. That refusal has taken numerous (economically disastrous) forms: Refusal to pay higher taxes, refusal to begin hiring again, in short, refusal to stop CONSTRICTING the money supply by sitting on huge cash reserves.
Now, please: Tell me again how thankful we should be for Grover. Or perhaps you meant Cookie Monster, Mr. Sesame Street Economist?
Take your little self-promoting diary, and your friends Big Bird and Mr. Snuffalupagus, and go back to your virtual sandbox.
James Galbraith, 2010: “Today some decry President Obama’s decision to allow the top-tier Bush tax cuts to lapse, arguing that ‘one should not cut spending in a recession.’ And it’s true: jobs will be lost.”
Yeah, good luck with that, you out-of-context-quote-posting troll.
Here’s the quote, in context, from Galbraith’s full NYT column, showing how you’ve FALSELY tried to USE HIS WORDS AND REPUTATION to support your DISPROVED NORQUIST-LOVING bullshit:
The “spending” Galbraith refers to is discretionary spending BY THE WEALTHY on items FOR THEMSELVES. Galbraith is saying that IF they are made to pay more in taxes, THEY will not have as much to spend ON THEMSELVES, and goes on to say that their ability to do so is far less important and creates far fewer jobs than public infrastructure projects.
AND YOU KNEW THIS WHEN YOU CLAIMED GALBRAITH WAS SAYING THE OPPOSITE, something you have done repeatedly elsewhere on the web (yeah, I looked it up, troll).
So, welcome to the Lake, Tyler, where we actually require you to TELL THE TRUTH. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, and rest assurred that if you come back, I’ll link readers to this diary as evidence of your comfort with LYING in attempting to promote your Sesame Street bullshit.
And I wish you, cal222, would determine whether the things diarists are quoting as fact are indeed facts, before you decide that they are not trolls. See the proof of this particular diarist’s real stripes in the comments and link above, then tell me again – exactly who is the immature (and deceitful) twit?
You’re welcome – and Happy Thanksgiving.
Anthony,
I did not quote Galbraith out of context. In the part of his article I quoted, his point was that jobs will be lost if taxes are increased. He says nothing in the rest of the article to refute that claim.
Here is a quote from Dean Baker, from his blog, Beat The Press: “[S]pending cuts and tax increases slow growth by pulling money out of the economy.”
Jesus christ, Tyler, did you read the rest of the quote? Full stop, nothing! It’s called English Composition (maybe you took a course in it once?), and it builds on each prior point to make a larger one.
In the case of the Galbraith column you quoted from – out of context – his point was that while a few jobs serving the personal spending proclivities of the wealthy might be lost, many more jobs, of much greater social import, would be created through raising taxes on the rich and using that money to fund infrastructure projects.
I’ve seen your anti-tax rants elsewhere, and frankly Tyler, your silver spoon is showing. That shit don’t play here.
And oh yes, I’ve see that Baker piece, and have already refuted your out-of-context quote on his current FDL diary. Don’t pretend you don’t understand what you’re doing, sir – or make the mistake of believing I won’t call you on it every time.
The truth is that raising taxes removes money from the American people, which hurts the economy.
I can’t believe you’re wasting your time here either, Tyler. I think you meant to visit redstate.com. Your argument that tax increases on the rich are not both long overdue and sorely needed will gain no traction here, and you are about to piss off two highly noted economists (Baker and Galbraith) by intentinoally misrepresenting their work.
Galbraith’s point in the words I quoted was that tax increases cost jobs. Baker’s point in the words I quoted was that spending cuts and tax increases slow growth.
Again Tyler, you’re not fooling anyone. Both these men are consistently on the record in support of increasing tax rates on the rich, and by quoting them out of context to claim the opposite is true, you are lying – it’s that simple.
I never said they do not support raising taxes on the rich.
Please. Just look at your headline.
Unless you’re stating here – for the record – that you, too, support tax increases on the rich?
I don’t support raising taxes on anyone. I quoted Galbraith and Baker to show that they admit tax increases slow growth.
They’re distinguished economists, and every distinguished economist understands that tax increases slow growth.
Which is not what they said, troll.
We’re done here. And you are too.