It has become tiresome again to point out the numbskullery of George Will’s arguments. As he often does, today he misrepresents the positions of Bush’s tax cut objectors and asserts that the tax cuts in precisely the way Bush (and Reagan, of course) envision them have made the economy grow.
The first:
>Last Sunday, eight Democratic presidential candidates debated for two hours, saying about the economy . . . next to nothing. You must slog to Page 43 in the 51-page transcript before Barack Obama laments that “the burdens and benefits of this new global economy are not being spread evenly across the board” and promises to “institute some fairness in the system.”
>Well. When in the long human story have economic burdens and benefits been “spread evenly”? Does Obama think they should be, even though talents never are? What relationship of “fairness” does he envision between the value received by individuals and the value added by them? Does he disagree — if so, on what evidence? — with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke that “the influence of globalization on inequality has been moderate and almost surely less important than the effects of skill-biased technological change”?
Someone with madder internet skillz than me ought to do a Nexis search for how many times Will writes “Well period” after quoting someone ought of context. I suppose Obama has only those sound bites to offer–no explanation behind them or anything. Just for the record, the complaint about the tax cuts consisted in their uneven distribution. Critics argued that they would have been more effective had people who could spend the money gotten more, and people who don’t spend or don’t need gotten less. That’s the argument–I’m not having it now, so don’t comment on it–so Will ought to deal with that claim. Instead he makes it sound like the Democrats were against any tax cuts or endorsed only the most Robin Hood of tax schemes. Aside from that, he makes it sound like the avoided the topic of the economy at the debate. Well. At the debate, they’re not the ones asking the questions. Besides, the one who did most of the talking was Wolf Blitzer.
The second:
>In the 102 quarters since Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts went into effect more than 25 years ago, there have been 96 quarters of growth. Since the Bush tax cuts and the current expansion began, the economy’s growth has averaged 3 percent per quarter, and more than 8 million jobs have been created. The deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product is below the post-World War II average.
Post tax cuts ergo propter tax cuts.
Either way, Obama’s thoughts on our economy are inconsistent, and often, entirely wrong. To begin with, the reason the tax cuts were more dramatic for wealthier Americans is because they pay more in taxes. Obama’s comments are completely misguided. We do not have a flat tax rate in this country. (Ron Paul is right to believe that we should) It’s really hard to deny the positive impacts of Bush’s tax cuts, at least as far as national investment goes. We’ve seen surges in Tax Revenue, and our ecnonomy has showed remarkable resilience throughout the housing slump. Meanwhile, unemployment has been kept at a minimum, due to job-creation and increasing productivity. For what it’s worth, I’m going to have a tough time supporting a President who won’t renew these important cuts.
It’s hard to deny that the picture of the economy in this column is one only a child would believe–and the picture of the democratic candidates only one Karl Rove would believe.
isn’t war also an important economic motivator that will is ignoring? i mean it stands to reason that an increase in defense spending towards new weapons technology, increased privatization of military bases, plus a surge in production for the military contractoirs would stimulate ecnomic growth in a significant manner. i think that oftentimes when pundits discuss the effects of the tax cuts, they fail to properly account for the effects of an ongoing, two-front war effort.
The economy is too complicated to be reduced to “tax cuts make it better.” Perhaps those who make such arguments about tax cuts (like Will) could bother to show with specificity how the tax scheme as Bush envisions it produces this specific kind of growth (and that no better or more equitable alternative is compatible with the same amount of economic benefit to all). Perhaps another tax arrangement might have spurred even more growth.
Besides, will is claiming that Obama would get rid of all of the tax cuts. Which he hasn’t claimed. Speaking of war, imagine Will, the conservative’s conservative, arguing in favor of the party that has abandoned everything thing conservative except tax cuts (for the richest 1 percent or slightly more). Let’s say the party who advocates that policy also advocates the belligerent posture with Iran, rollback of civil rights, undercutting of environmental protection, worker protection, and so on. Are tax cuts for the very wealthy that important? I would say that tax cuts for myself aren’t that important–and I’m not wealthy.
George Will’s position on tax-cuts is simply a regurgitation of decades of economic theory and research. Taxes are, and will always be, a hindrance to growth. They produce inefficiencies in the market, and work to curve productivity and growth. Thus, any decrease in the overall tax rate, will stimulate growth. As I’ve said, copious amounts of research has affirmed this position. Lower taxes increase personal disposable income, which increases investment and spending, which temporarily creates economic profit for firms, which stimulates capital investment, which leads to higher employment, and finally increased production.
At a time when global growth is outpacing national growth, American are firms finding it more critical to invest in foreign markets. Unfortunately, the always bothersome ‘corperate gains tax’ combines with international tarriffs to create a large tax burden. European governments provide stipends to their firms, where America does not. That makes the tax burden on American firms more than 10 percent higher then what their European companies face. The most obvious solution has come out of the Bush administration which is to basically slash the corperate earnings tax. I, like most pro-growth economists, support this position.
“Are tax cuts for the very wealthy that important? I would say that tax cuts for myself aren’t that important–and I’m not wealthy.”
Often times, people make the mistake of failing to see the big picture. Tax cuts always increase disposable income. While it might not be a dramatic increase for you personally, when we consider the millions of citizens who all benfit from the cut, the impact becomes more pronounced.
The effects of tax cuts are well documented. Barack Obama’s position on the economy is entirely inconsistent. One day, I heard him advocating price controls on health care! We spent the next day in Economics, berating this ridiculous idea. He’s also said that he wants to increase domestic funding, voted against free-trade agreements, and has said foolish things about our relationship with China. He is blithely ignorant on the matter of the economy.
I’ve always hated that ignorant line, ‘for the wealthiest 1%’ about the tax-cuts. The tax cuts are more dramatic for the upper class, because they pay more to being with. It’t really that simple. Bush’s tax cuts are a big part of the reason that our economy is still growing, that unemployment is low, and that the government defecit is actually shrinking.
“It’s hard to deny that the picture of the economy in this column is one only a child would believe–and the picture of the democratic candidates only one Karl Rove would believe.”
Unless of course, you’re an economist. Then spend your free time mocking those Democrats and their theories on the economy, like most of my professors do.
*Then you spend… sorry for the error.
\”…like most pro-growth economists…\”
Do you mean pro-growth economists as opposed to anti-growth economists? Or are you simply claiming that any economist that disagrees with your conclusions or your professors research findings (you know, like non-Milton Friedman fans) are just wrong, so they must be opposed to economic growth.
I am continually amazed how the disciples of the Chicago school consistently teach economics as if there are no dissenting opinions that are above a joke. No wonder so many outside economics, especially in the natural sciences, consider economics to be nothing more than a pseudo-science. The discipline doesn\’t seem to operate as a science of any kind (natural or social) and seeing as Friedman and his associates so blatantly mislead the American public about their \”achievements\” in Chile, I\’m not sure if the discipline is even operating rationally. (I, long ago, linked, in one of the posts on this board, to a professional article that supported my claim about Chile; perhaps jcasey can find it.)
Here is my one question to the \”pro-growth\” economists: Do you believe that ethics is reducible to economics or in other words, that economic claims always trump ethical ones? I wonder if any economist has stopped to think that perhaps that there are ethical claims that morally obligate us to choose an economic strategy that does not agree with the pro-growth strategy. But, perhaps they truly believe that the free market is the ultimate form of justice in the world, and thus, all the ethics we need is found in the market. Could this be what jcasey refers to when he mentions 8 year olds? I don\’t wish to put words into his mouth though.
*update: fixed above.
There is a crucial error in the above post. It should read…
“…economic strategy that does NOT agree with the pro-growth strategy.”
Sorry about that!
Thanks, Matt, for the analysis. And I think you’re basically right. Here’s the link you were talking about:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=20&ItemID=11615
I also fixed your post to reflect the error you mentioned.
But I’d just like to reiterate that the point of the post was this. The view that tax cuts make economy good and all other views wrong is silly and wrong. It’s silly because it oversimplifies a complicated reality, such as the economy, and it ignores the various kinds of tax arrangements (other than the “Bush tax cuts”). Why not cut taxes, but in a different way, for instance? Why must we have the Bush cuts? Why is it that anyone who is against the Bush cuts, for George Will and apparently Steve, a communist or a moron? This view–expressed in Will’s piece–is wrong because it dishonestly represents the positions of those who disagree with the Bush tax cuts. The rhetorical strategy varies little from this one: “those who are against the surge are against the troops. . . “.
Well, as someone who subscribes to Chicago-style economics, I’m only speaking to what it is that I’m familiar with.
‘And I think you’re basically right’
He’s basically right? I simply argued that taxes are hindrances to growth. Now that isn’t exactly an exclusively Chicago idea, now is it? (calling Economics a pseudo-science’, I’m sure he met the burden on that one, Casey)
And please stop strawmanning my post. I was only talking about economic growth, seperating it from other ethical concerns. Of course, economists must consider the social repercussions of certain policies, which is why, tax cuts aren’t always the right choice.
‘hat economic claims always trump ethical ones’
Obviously, not.
‘ The discipline doesn\’t seem to operate as a science of any kind ‘
Another blatant falsehood. Any other gems you’d like to share?
‘Bush cuts, for George Will and apparently Steve, a communist or a moron? ‘
Because, I follow economic indicators, Mr. Casey. You know (GDP Growth, CPI, Unemployment, Market indices, trade statistics…..). When did I use either of those words? It’s just that they rarely cite evidence for their opinions, that’s all. Kind of like the person who talks about ‘other tax arrangements’ so abstractly.
Now, here’s an article worth reading.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110008699
You know, from a financial publication.
Does anyone have any conclusive evidence that could demonstrate how the Bush tax cuts haven’t been some of the most wildly successful in our country’s history? Hmmm….
Not GDP
Not GNP
Not Unemployment
Not Budget Defecit
Not CPI
Not DJI
Not Inestment
Not Housing ….
I wonder what’s left
To repeat, Steven, you treat those who disagree with the idea of tax cuts in the specific way Bush has made them, as communists or morons. No has in fact denied that tax cuts might be helpful to the economy, they’ve objected to Bush’s tax cuts. That those are different claims should be obvious to you. Matt K claimed that abstracting tax cuts from moral considerations (or using them to trump them) is problematic. After all, you suggested above that there was a moral component to Bush’s tax policy. And I think that can be reasonably questioned. Finally, you ask them to prove the tax cuts have not been successful. It’s up to you to prove that (a) they have been successful; (b) they are equitable or fair; (c) they couldn’t be better than they are. Among other things. Those are the things they’re objecting to. So stick to the point please.
here’s an interesting piece:
http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=19921
i found this item particularly intriuging:
“In a low-key speech last week Greenspan admitted that US consumption has been driven by tax cuts and “equity extraction”. This is the practice of taking on more debt on the back of rising house prices.
Indeed, the Bush administration predicts that by 2010 the US current account deficit will have amounted to a cumulative $1.257 trillion. By the same year the Bush administration tax cuts, as estimated by them, will have amounted to a cumulative $1.290 trillion.”
“To repeat, Steven, you treat those who disagree with the idea of tax cuts in the specific way Bush has made them, as communists or morons.”
If that were the case, I would hardly take the time to address the point with much detail and time.
“No has in fact denied that tax cuts might be helpful to the economy, they’ve objected to Bush’s tax cuts. ”
No one on this thread, including you Professor Casey, has made even attempted to counter the evidence that I have put forward. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that the Bush tax cuts have been remarkably successful, and I think that I have share much of that evidence with you. If you would like to counter that claim, please provide evidence to the contrary.
” That those are different claims should be obvious to you.”
That’s why I’ve considered them independent of each other.
‘After all, you suggested above that there was a moral component to Bush’s tax policy. And I think that can be reasonably questioned.”
The moral component of tax-cuts, is greater productivity. Increasing productivity is directly linked to higher living stanards, lower unemployment, and larger earnings.
“Finally, you ask them to prove the tax cuts have not been successful. ”
I believe I’ve already have. But if you would like further evidence:
The market indicies all have reached 5, 6, or 7 year highs over the past 12 months
These are the all areas which have seen direct improvement since the Bush cuts:
Government tax-revenue has surged
Living standards have risen
The rise of corperate earnings
Low Unemployment
Sustained GDP Growth
Unprecedented Capital Investment,
The problem with people who disagree with the Bush Tax-Cuts, isn’t that my partisan lens prevents me from hearing what they have to say. Instead, it’s that there is little evience in the way of economic data to suggest that the tax cuts aren’t working. Democrats right now are succeeding at making the Bush Tax Cuts a wash. Like Obama they accuse them of not being equitable, or poorly conceived…. etc, without actually bothering to back that positition with evidence. Our econonomy has been growing despite a slump in housing, we lower lower unemployment, tax revenue is up, an living standards have improved. That’s the evidence that I cite when I make my argument. Democrats, refute these claims with the line ‘wealthiest 1%’ when in reality we all benefit from a more robust economy.
Once again, taxes are a hindrance to growth. They create allocative ineffiecicies and counter competitivness on the global market. Reducing them will always stimulate the economy. The question at the moment, is whether or not the Bush Cuts have been successful. I will posit that not every tax cut is a good tax cut. They condition of the economy needs to warrant it, and the government needs to implement them properly. Bush has done a remarkable (even admirable) job of implementing the cuts, and as a result the economy has flourished.
Mr. Casey, I have provided ample evidence to show the effectiveness of the Bush Tax Cuts.
Where is the deficiency of evidence?
“To repeat, Steven, you treat those who disagree with the idea of tax cuts in the specific way Bush has made them, as communists or morons.”
If that were the case, I would hardly take the time to address the point with much detail and time.
“No has in fact denied that tax cuts might be helpful to the economy, they’ve objected to Bush’s tax cuts. ”
No one on this thread, including you Professor Casey, has made even attempted to counter the evidence that I have put forward. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that the Bush tax cuts have been remarkably successful, and I think that I have share much of that evidence with you. If you would like to counter that claim, please provide evidence to the contrary.
” That those are different claims should be obvious to you.”
That’s why I’ve considered them independent of each other.
‘After all, you suggested above that there was a moral component to Bush’s tax policy. And I think that can be reasonably questioned.”
The moral component of tax-cuts, is greater productivity. Increasing productivity is directly linked to higher living stanards, lower unemployment, and larger earnings.
“Finally, you ask them to prove the tax cuts have not been successful. ”
I believe I’ve already have. But if you would like further evidence:
The market indicies all have reached 5, 6, or 7 year highs over the past 12 months
These are the all areas which have seen direct improvement since the Bush cuts:
Government tax-revenue has surged
Living standards have risen
The rise of corperate earnings
Low Unemployment
Sustained GDP Growth
Unprecedented Capital Investment,
The problem with people who disagree with the Bush Tax-Cuts, isn’t that my partisan lens prevents me from hearing what they have to say. Instead, it’s that there is little evience in the way of economic data to suggest that the tax cuts aren’t working. Democrats right now are succeeding at making the Bush Tax Cuts a wash. Like Obama they accuse them of not being equitable, or poorly conceived…. etc, without actually bothering to back that positition with evidence. Our econonomy has been growing despite a slump in housing, we lower lower unemployment, tax revenue is up, an living standards have improved. That’s the evidence that I cite when I make my argument. Democrats, refute these claims with the line ‘wealthiest 1%’ when in reality we all benefit from a more robust economy.
Once again, taxes are a hindrance to growth. They create allocative ineffiecicies and counter competitivness on the global market. Reducing them will always stimulate the economy. The question at the moment, is whether or not the Bush Cuts have been successful. I will posit that not every tax cut is a good tax cut. They condition of the economy needs to warrant it, and the government needs to implement them properly. Bush has done a remarkable (even admirable) job of implementing the cuts, and as a result the economy has flourished.
Mr. Casey, I have provided ample evidence to show the effectiveness of the Bush Tax Cuts.
Where is the deficiency of evidence?
“Those are the things they’re objecting to. So stick to the point please.”
And they’ve all been refuted.
Did you read the link I posted? As you posted your reply 5 minutes after mine, I highly doubt it. I read your posts/links before commenting. Perhaps you could extend to me the same courtesy.
Here’s more evidence from the link I posted.
“In the 2 1/4 years before the 2003 tax cuts, economic growth averaged 1.1% annually; in the three years since it has averaged 4% per year, and in the first quarter of this year it was 5.6% on an annualized basis. Inflation-adjusted per capita GDP has grown 7.8% from 2003 through the first quarter of this year.
According to the government’s establishment survey, in the 36 months since the tax cuts became law, 5.3 million new jobs have been added to the economy. According to its employment survey, 288,000 jobs were added in May and 387,000 in June. The unemployment rate dropped from 6.1% when the bills were signed to 5.4% at the end of 2004 and 4.6% today, and the rate has gone down for men, women, blacks and Hispanics. Hourly wage rates for workers are up 3.9% in the past year, and they increased at an annualized rate of 4.6% in the second quarter of this year, the highest quarterly rate in nearly 10 years.
Incomes are up too. As Stephen Moore noted in The Wall Street Journal, “the percentage of Americans earning more than $50,000 a year rose from 40.8% to 44.2%” between 2002 and 2004. As for very wealthy families, the portion of total income “captured by the richest 1%, 5% and 10% of Americans is lower today than in the last year of the Clinton administration.”
All this has been good news for the government. Federal tax receipts increased by 15%– $274 billion–last year and 13%– $206 billion–in the first nine months of this fiscal year, which, as the Journal points out, means the nine-month increases for the past two years represent the highest growth rates in 25 years. Looking ahead to the end of this fiscal year, total inflation-adjusted government receipts will likely be 23% above 2003 when the Bush tax cuts were signed into law.
Reducing the capital gains tax rate from 20% to 15% increased capital gains tax receipts by 79% from 2000 to 2004. Cutting the dividend tax rate by more than half–from 39.6% to 15%–increased dividend tax receipts by 35% from 2002 to 2004. And corporate tax receipts have nearly tripled since 2003, reaching $250 billion for the past nine months, 26% higher than the same period last year.”
Hmm, sure looks like evidence to me, mate.
and here’s more
So there is still economic work to be done in the White House and Congress. But President Bush’s tax reductions have been the most successful economic growth and opportunity work of any president in a quarter of a century. To paraphrase JFK, tax rate reduction is indeed a rising tide that lifts all individuals to greater opportunity.
i’m oddly reminded of Wagner, from Marlowe’s “Faustus”
So, I’m a conjurer, then?
Faustus, Vlades, and Cornelius were the conjurers….
Steven,
you fail to understand the nature of the issues being discussed here. The issue of the initial post is this: Will’s argument against Obama, et alia, is a straw man. His simple faith in the tax cut idea (and his believe in its unique causal efficacy) is unwarranted (on that evidence). If you have other evidence, fine. He didn’t.
It is possible to address other posistions on a forum, right? As you’ve stated the issue, I would offer no dispute. But, isn’t an anaylsis of the Bush Tax Cuts an interesting topic for discussion?
Then again, you might be only addressing that point, but the others have had the gravitas to make some other, contentious claims. Matt calling Economics a Pseudo-science, for example.
Of course, I can just simply agree with your assessment, and the discussion could stop. I get carried away sometimes when debating ecnonomics. Wouldn’t you be incensed if some attacked your discipline?
*someone
Steven–
The topic of this blog is logical analysis of political media. There are good reasons, of course, for the policies of the administration. That they’re not being well represented or defended is the problem I’m pointing out. Conservatives ought to do better than Will’s cheap shots and straw man arguments.
Finally, I don’t think Matt K “attacked” your discipline. He claimed that some take such oversimplified nonsense to be representative of the science of economics.
One last point. The opinion journal and the Wall Street journal are separate entities. Don’t think that the former endorses the latter. It doesn’t.
Fair enough.
But, Obama has really made some huge blunders on the economy. In fact, I have no idea what he would do with them were he elected. I think that the way the Democrats have attacked the President’s Tax Cuts, could be considered an approriate item for discussion. They’ve (especially Obama and Edwards) have attacked them repeatedly without any really evidence to support their positions. If you ask me, that’s a false conclusion in the making.
‘the discipline doesn’t seem to operate as a science of any kind’
That’s more than a critique of a single theory or pracitioner, right? I see that comment as a blatant attack on the status of economics as a science. Feel free to state otherwise.
Consider that I’ve been responding to what you’ve been posting:
Are tax cuts for the very wealthy that important? I would say that tax cuts for myself aren’t that important–and I’m not wealthy.
That’s not an easy question to answer without anaysis of economic data.
Steven,
First, those are worthy topics of discussion in another forum. Go have that argument there.
Second, you’ve taken Matt K out of context. Here’s what he said:
>I am continually amazed how the disciples of the Chicago school consistently teach economics as if there are no dissenting opinions that are above a joke. No wonder so many outside economics, especially in the natural sciences, consider economics to be nothing more than a pseudo-science. The discipline doesn\’t seem to operate as a science of any kind (natural or social) and seeing as Friedman and his associates so blatantly mislead the American public about their \”achievements\” in Chile, I\’m not sure if the discipline is even operating rationally. (I, long ago, linked, in one of the posts on this board, to a professional article that supported my claim about Chile; perhaps jcasey can find it.)
he was referring specifically to some unsupported assertions of the “Chicago School” and the impression that creates in the minds of others.
Third, the topic here is the argument made in the paper. That argument blew. You’re being able to gin up another argument for the same conclusion doesn’t make Will’s argument any better. Whether your argument is a good one or not is a separate matter for another forum. It’s always the assumption that a good argument can be made for most if not all of the conclusions of the arguments we discuss on this site, but that doesn’t make the argument we criticize any better.
The topic here, again, is argument. Stick to that. If you think our criticisms of Will’s argument or whatever are unwarranted, then by all means, say so. But they’re not unwarranted because some econ prof of yours has laughed at democratic tax policy. Their economists can laugh too.
Are tax cuts for the very wealthy that important? I would say that tax cuts for myself aren’t that important–and I’m not wealthy.
Those were your words, and not mine.
Whether Matt K was speaking of the practices of the Chicago school or the entire discipline, is hard to say, but either way, his position isn’t well supported. It’s a gross gneralization on his part. I hardly think that a brief mention of Friedman hardly justifies meets the evidenciary burden his claim.
Once again, I posited my argument after you made this comment
” It’s up to you to prove that (a) they have been successful; (b) they are equitable or fair; (c) they couldn’t be better than they are. ”
You asked me to prove that the Bush Tax Cuts have been beneficial, and that’s what I set out to do.
I might add:
I refuse to concede to you that Will has made his attack on Obama without the needed evidence. Let’s take a closer look at this quote from the article:
“In the 102 quarters since Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts went into effect more than 25 years ago, there have been 96 quarters of growth. Since the Bush tax cuts and the current expansion began, the economy’s growth has averaged 3 percent per quarter, and more than 8 million jobs have been created. The deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product is below the post-World War II average.”
Obama has attacked the merits of the Bush Tax cuts on many occassions. Will attacks Obama’s position, citing various pieces of economic data. Those lines summarize the copious amounts of evidence availble to give support to the Bush Tax Cuts. He could have provided more, but it’s a column and not a paper. Obama has repeatedly displayed absolute ignorance on the way the economy works, and how to manage it. Will is just echoing the complaints of many economists who are watching this primary election.
Economists (and not just those of the Chicago School) have long affirmed their position that GDP growth is the best indicator of the wellnes of an economy. Citing 3 percent growth, (which is what Bernacke has predicted for next year), is an excellent way to demonstrate the effectiveness of a particular policy.
He has cited evidence. Where is that evidence lacking?
Again, no one is inviting you to make arguments that tax cuts are good. Those observations are meant to underscore the minimal kinds of things one would have to take into account.
In the Will piece, we have simple temporal precedence. First tax cuts, then growth. That hardly establishes (1) that one was the cause of the other; or (2) that there isn’t some other way to achieve similar goals (a different tax break structure, for instance); or (3) the job creation and growth have not been without negative consequences.
Will also suggests, as I pointed out above, that Obama is some kind of bumbling communist moron:
>Well. When in the long human story have economic burdens and benefits been “spread evenly”? Does Obama think they should be, even though talents never are? What relationship of “fairness” does he envision between the value received by individuals and the value added by them? Does he disagree — if so, on what evidence? — with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke that “the influence of globalization on inequality has been moderate and almost surely less important than the effects of skill-biased technological change”?
All of those are mean-spirited rhetorical questions meant to make Obama look like a Bozo. Maybe Obama is against Bush’s tax cuts, but not against tax cuts in general. He may, in fact, advocate even deeper cuts, but spread around differently. After all, how the tax cut is structured is part of the tax cut.
I mention this not because I want to hear more of your economics arguments, but rather to point out that Will’s argument about growth is grossly oversimplified and it caricatures the views of those who disagree. He ought to do better.
“I mention this not because I want to hear more of your economics arguments, but rather to point out that Will’s argument about growth is grossly oversimplified and it caricatures the views of those who disagree. He ought to do better.”
Once again, I apologize for my libertarian apologetics. I’m often impressed with the level of discussion on his forum, which is a rare quality in an online forum.
‘I mention this not because I want to hear more of your economics arguments’
Well you won’t have to, then. Of course, as the economy is an imporant subject , which is often discussed in the political media, they can be difficult to avoid. Of course, I have a bit of a personal gripe with the tone of that comment. If I were really derailing a focused, active discussion, then I could see your comment, but lately, this forum has been rather quiet. So, if my arguments are tangential to the topic at hand, I don’t see why expending a little energy on your part to refute them, is a lot to ask.
With the exception of PM comment about Dr. Faustus, our exchange has formed the principle dialog on this thread.
In one of your previous comments you accused me of not being able to understand what it is being discussed. Could it be that seeing no dissent in your primary claim, I simply addressed one of your side comments, instead?
For example:
To repeat, Steven, you treat those who disagree with the idea of tax cuts in the specific way Bush has made them, as communists or morons. ”
You, Professor Casey, are not afraid to make contentious claims about my arguments, and I appreciate that. But, at the same time, when you say such things, a person must be given an opportunity to defend himself. As my inital reaction tried
to clarify, you’ve completley strawmanned my point. I preceeded to provide ample evidence for my positions. You once laughed when I mentioned that I was a libertarian, and kept walking. If you don’t want extraneous comments about economics, stop attacking my positions on these issues.
On a side-note, I’m glad that you read the article linked in my post. I am aware that the Opinion Journal and the Wall Street Journal are seperate entities. You would be guilty of an Ad Hominem fallacy, if you thought this somehow discredited what they say there.
What was your response? “That argument blew”. Well, I’m glad you entertained an exhaustive argument on the topic. (communicating sarcasm isn’t always easy online)
This was your initial response to my first post:
‘It’s hard to deny that the picture of the economy in this column is one only a child would believe–and the picture of the democratic candidates only one Karl Rove would believe.’
The notion that tax-cuts stimulate growth (and can do so on their own), is not an immature notion. That’s why I preceded to comment further on the topic.
Since you fail to understand what’s going on here, I’ll say this one more time. Here’s my point. You write:
>The notion that tax-cuts stimulate growth (and can do so on their own), is not an immature notion. That’s why I preceded to comment further on the topic.
No one is disputing that. No has disputed that. Will suggests that those who are against certain specific tax cuts are therefore against growth–when they’re neither against tax cuts nor against growth. That argument, to repeat what I said above, blows.
Discussion is fun and I appreciate criticism. But only when it’s relevant. No one is attacking your libertarian positions. The question is whether the arguments put forward by Will do anything to establish their conclusions. They don’t. They’re childishly oversimplified and dishonest.
Maybe you have better ones. Go make them somewhere else.
Since you fail to understand my posts, I will try to clarify my position for you, one last time.
If I demonstrate that the Bush Tax Cuts have stimulated growth in our economy, then one could consider them to be pro-growth policies. Going against a policy which has been shown to stimulate growth, is an anti-growth policy. Obama has denied the positive effects of the Bush Tax cuts. And until he understands why they are helpful, his opinions on the economy will remain childish. That’s how I interpreteded Will’s post. Please convince me otherwise.
I believe this is relevant..
i’m oddly reminded of Wagner, from Marlowe’s “Faustus”,
Now there’s a relevant comment.
Enter two SCHOLARS.[44]
FIRST SCHOLAR. I wonder what’s become of Faustus, that was wont to make our schools ring with sic probo.
SECOND SCHOLAR. That shall we know, for see, here comes his boy.
Enter WAGNER.
FIRST SCHOLAR. How now, sirrah! where’s thy master?
WAGNER. God in heaven knows.
SECOND SCHOLAR. Why, dost not thou know?
WAGNER. Yes, I know; but that follows not.
FIRST SCHOLAR. Go to, sirrah! leave your jesting, and tell us where he is.
WAGNER. That follows not necessary by force of argument, that you, being licentiates, should stand upon:[45] therefore acknowledge your error, and be attentive.
SECOND SCHOLAR. Why, didst thou not say thou knewest?
WAGNER. Have you any witness on’t?
FIRST SCHOLAR. Yes, sirrah, I heard you.
WAGNER. Ask my fellow if I be a thief.
SECOND SCHOLAR. Well, you will not tell us?
WAGNER. Yes, sir, I will tell you: yet, if you were not dunces, you would never ask me such a question; for is not he corpus naturale? and is not that mobile? then wherefore should you ask me such a question? But that I am by nature phlegmatic, slow to wrath, and prone to lechery (to love, I would say), it were not for you to come within forty foot of the place of execution, although I do not doubt to see you both hanged the next sessions. Thus having triumphed over you, I will set my countenance like a precisian, and begin to speak thus:– Truly, my dear brethren, my master is within at dinner, with Valdes and Cornelius, as this wine, if it could speak, would[46] inform your worships: and so, the Lord bless you, preserve you, and keep you, my dear brethren, my dear brethren![47] [Exit.]
I see, attacking me by way of literary metaphor.
not an attack at all. wagner comes out on top. he gets everything he ever wanted, while faustus goes to hell and the two scholars get aped, one quite literally, by mephistopheles. wagner just makes it his practice to shame everyone he meets by way of eristic. read the play. it’s quite wonderful and there’s a marvelous economic metaphor about making deals with the devil…
Thanks for the suggestion, I’ll be sure to check it out.
I think I’ve understood your post perfectly. Only I guess I have been too charitable. You write:
>Since you fail to understand my posts, I will try to clarify my position for you, one last time.
>If I demonstrate that the Bush Tax Cuts have stimulated growth in our economy, then one could consider them to be pro-growth policies. Going against a policy which has been shown to stimulate growth, is an anti-growth policy. Obama has denied the positive effects of the Bush Tax cuts. And until he understands why they are helpful, his opinions on the economy will remain childish. That’s how I interpreteded Will’s post. Please convince me otherwise.
>I believe this is relevant..
(1) If you demonstrate that the Bush tax cuts have stimulated growth, then they’re pro-growth policies.
Fine.
(2) Challenging such a policy is anti-growth.
Nope. You need to establish that Bush’s tax policy is the only way to stimulate growth. If that were true, which it isn’t, you’d be right. But it’s not true. And to present the matter as you have (to go against Bush is to be anti-growth) is just plain silly.
I recommend at this point you drop it.
I need to rephrase something:
Going against a policy which has been shown to stimulate growth, is an anti-growth policy.
To:
(2) Increasing taxes will always slow growth.
(3) Reversing Bush’s Tax Cuts, means raising taxes.
If 2 and 3, than (4)
(4) Reversing the Bush Tax Cuts will slow growth.
I could easily prove (2), and (3) is a matter of definition, so isn’t (4) true?
If (4) is true, then reversing his tax cuts will slow the economy. If an anti-growth policy is defined by one that does not promote growth, then couldn’t (4) the phrase, ‘is an anti-growth policy’ be used in place of (4)
Example:
(5) Reversing Bush’s Tax Cuts would slow-growth
(6) A policy that slows growth does not promote growth.
By definition, an Anti-Growth policy is one that does not promote growth.
If (5) and (6), then (7)
(7) A policy which reverses Bush’s tax-cuts would be an anti-growth policy.
(8) Obama wants to repeal Bush’s tax cuts
If (7) and (8), then (9)
(9) Obama favors an anti-growth policy.
I realize that from what we have, it is impossible to affirm (8), because there is no evidence to indicate that Obama would repeal the cuts. Obama has proposed new spending, without promising to keep the cuts in place.
If “reversing” means “do the dead opposite of what Bush does” and what Bush does promotes growth, and doing the opposite of that won’t promote growth, then yes. But that’s no one’s position. And this is just a variation on what you’ve already said. There are more ways to cut taxes than the Bush way and the opposite of the Bush way. I still recommend you drop it.
Let’s suppose that Obama decides to raise spending (he’s already proposed an expensive domestic program). Then, he decides to raise taxes but pulling back on the tax-cuts. Lets say he decides to restore to the level that they were at before Bush’s taxes went through. Then he hasn’t lowered taxes, but raised them. Then my argument works.
You can alter it slightly.
(8) Obama wants to increase domestic spending.
(9) In order to increase spending, you must either borrow or increase taxes.
(10a) Obama raises taxes to pre-Bush cut level.
(11a). The tax level before Bush cut taxes is higher than the current level
(If 10a and 11a, then by definition, Obama will be raising taxes)
(12a) (referring to 2) Increasing taxes will always slow growth.
If 10a, 11a, and 12a, then 13a)
(13a). Obama’s (tax-spend) policy would slow growth.
(14a) Obama favors an anti-growth policy.
Of course, you can always borrow to raise revenue, but that too will curb growth.
(10b) Obama borrows money from foreign lenders to pay for domestic program.
(11b) When the government borrows money from other nations, it increases the demand for loanable funds, and drives the costs of borrowing funds up, making it more expensive for firms to borrow.
(12b) More expensive capital, reduces production, and national productivity, slowing economic growth.
If 10b and 11b, and 12b, then 13b
(13b) Obama’s policy (borrow-spend) slow growth
(14b) Obama favors an anti-growth policy.
Hope that works.
(12b)
you’re not getting the point.
If Obama is serious about new domestic spending, then he has to accept anti-growth policies. Either we borrow or he raises taxes.
I wrote this earlier. But you still don’t get it. So here it is again:
>Since you fail to understand what’s going on here, I’ll say this one more time. Here’s my point. You write:
>The notion that tax-cuts stimulate growth (and can do so on their own), is not an immature notion. That’s why I preceded to comment further on the topic.
>No one is disputing that. No has disputed that. Will suggests that those who are against certain specific tax cuts are therefore against growth–when they’re neither against tax cuts nor against growth. That argument, to repeat what I said above, blows.
>Discussion is fun and I appreciate criticism. But only when it’s relevant. No one is attacking your libertarian positions. The question is whether the arguments put forward by Will do anything to establish their conclusions. They don’t. They’re childishly oversimplified and dishonest.
>Maybe you have better ones. Go make them somewhere else.
I just provided you with a careful argument detailing why Obama isn’t being honest. I’ve logically deconstructed what it is that he saying, and concluded (like Will) that Obama is being dishonest on the economy.
So Will made a crappy argument, so what? That doesn’t mean that he’s reached a false conclusion. I’m trying to do a better job than Will of deconstructing Obama’s remarks on the economy. Doesn’t that also involve ‘A logical analysis of the political media”? Why must the discussion here be so limited?
Arguments containing logical fallacies are easy to refute. Why deal with a strawmanned version, when you can deconstruct a much stronger argument? Let’s test the conclusion by positing the strongest argument. When you can refute that, then you’ve defeated the position. If you don’t want to deal with that, then I suggest you rename the mission of this forum.
I have posited a significantly stronger argument than Will’s. Look it over, seriously, and you’ll see what I mean.