Remember during the Presidential campaign? Remember how then-candidate Obama said 95% of Americans would see a tax decrease?
One of the major disputes between Keynesian and Supply-Side economists is the relative roles of government spending and taxes. Both sides see tax decreases as expansionary, with the arguments over the size and mechanics of how tax decreases work to stimulate an economy. Supply-siders focus on incentives and rely on what is sometimes characterized as "trickle-down" while Keynesians argue that tax decreases increase disposable income, thereby increasing consumer spending (as influenced by the marginal propensity to consume).
I think both economic perspectives would see a tax increase as contractionary, not expansionary. Traditional Keynesians see a government spending increase accompanied by a tax increase as being only slightly expansionary.
In any event, despite claims during the campaign that his planned spending increases would necessitate tax increases which were adamantly objected to and refuted by the candidate, the President has now sent his top economic advisors on a round of Sunday talk shows to float the idea that middle class tax increases may be necessary. Let's see: unemployment is still rising and the recovery, if we have reached bottom, is weak, so let's raise taxes. Campaign on no tax increases, then increase taxes. Does anyone remember George H.W. Bush (Bush 41) and his statement "Read my lips, no new taxes"? After going back on that pledge, he became a one-term President as Bill Clinton pointed out over and over "It's the economy, stupid."
Those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it. Or is it merely hubris?
Posts
Impeach President Trump, again
3 years ago
I see it that we need to choose a side. Tax the hell out our population and give them everything, like in Norway or France or the UK or Spain or Germany or Switzerland or Italy or China, a socialist side, or we need to have as minimalist taxes as possible, only those which pay for 'the common defense,' like in Ireland and uh, no where else...
ReplyDeleteAnd as far as Obama possibly only serving one term, I think it may turn out to be true. But for wildly different reasons than you think.
ReplyDeleteJames K. Polk was a dark horse candidate back in the day as some of you may know. He also ran on the campaign promises of expanding territory (into oregon) and also SUCCESSFULLY leading the Mexican-American War, also he introduced the Walker Tariff, which brought an era of almost absolute free trade.
Polk, however, did not run for a second term. He had set an agenda, accomplished it, and then he retired. Egotistical yet elegant, no? I see this as being Obama's legacy, but of course we are all but men, and he could just as well be greedy like any other.
TRIPLE POST!
ReplyDelete"Those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it. Or is iot merely hubris?"
What about the Iraq War? You know invasion of a foreign country; known as liberators; put down the dictator; fighting a 'different kind of enemy;' foreign terrain.
Gee sounds like Vietnam to me.
Has everyone forgotten that George W. Bush was an absolute terrible president?
JS, I had agreed with you that some social welfare payments were appropriate and you take that to be only provide for the common defense? I'm looking forward to some discourse with thoughtfulness. This is not an either/or world.
ReplyDeleteI think the President's ability to accomplish his agenda has to deal with a reality of a Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid led Congress. Your analogy of Viet Nam to Iraq does not to me seem quite apt, but possibly I'm just dense and obtuse.
ReplyDeleteHaha comparing Iraq to Vietnam is laughable. East Asian countries right before Vietnam were not responsible for killing more Americans in one day than ever before in history like the Middle-Eastern Islam were. However... the East Asians were responsible for Pearl Harbor which is on the same level as 9/11, except they played within the rules of war and attacked a military base. Also (seeing as we lost the Vietnam war and suffered ridiculous death tolls) the Iraq war was much more successful. So if you're going to go ahead and make a comparison between Iraq and another war, make it WW2. And before you say there was no need for the Iraq war and it was complete waste of resources so that we could obtain oil, ask yourself.. would we have been there if 8 years ago civilians were not obliterated without warning on our own soil?
ReplyDeleteAlso, I seem to recall another President setting out a ridiculous unheard of agenda that challenged the Economic principles of the day. Except guess what? It worked, and he got elected for another term... probably because he was right (figuratively and literally). Obama will run for another term because his goals will not have been accomplished because even the most simplistic people understand when they have no money and no jobs that that's actually a bad thing, and he will lose because the american people wont want to take his crap anymore. They'll elect a more realistic president. One who's resume is a little more thick than a coloring book, and isn't affraid to produce a birth certificate ;] (that last part was a joke, just in case you were wondering)
Corwin: Iraq did not attack us. The people involved in 9/11 were not Iraqi. There is still no evidence of WMDs in Iraq. Your justification for attacking Iraq is based solely in the primary religion of the region, despite the fact that Iraq had a great deal more religious freedom before we invaded (and no, I'm not arguing that Iraq was puppy-candy land before we invaded, but there were a lot of things that were better before we got there).
ReplyDeleteJapan attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Vietnam did not (some twenty years later). They are completely different ethnic groups with completely different cultures and completely different countries. You cannot say that the "East Asians" attacked us in WWII (especially since China was an Allied power) any more than you can say that the French attacked us in the Revolutionary War (after all, both the French and the English are white and from the same continent, even if one is on an island and speaks a different, somewhat related language!).
Lumping marginally related groups together like that is racist - no more, no less.
Now, then.
What is the middle-class tax increase paying for?
As best I can tell, the tax cuts would be part of the general attempt to reduce the now more than a $Trillion budget deficits. I'm going to post very soon with some tax and tax revenue related information.
ReplyDelete