Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama: Extend middle-class tax cuts, forget borrowing for the rich (414 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Tax cuts for the wealthy (7+ / 0-)

    Am I missing something? We have had the Bush tax cuts in effect for about 7 years and the economy tanked and we lost jobs.  Apparently the tax cuts were not a good idea so we should end them on the top 2%. It is insanity to keep them in effect and expect different results.

    Republicans must be asked "why do you  think that the tax cuts will now help help the economy and create jobs when they were an absymal  failure up to the present?"  They must not be allowed to dodge the question.

    •  Hate to say it, but (0+ / 0-)

      this is not tight economic reasoning. You haven not shown (nor likely could it be shown in a space like this discussion board) that the Bush tax cuts caused the economy to tank. At best, you note a temporal correlation. I could blame it on the rise of Lady Gaga to fame in the same period. And even on the assumption that those particular tax cuts were partial causes, someone would still need to specify precisely to what extent they were contributory. How do they stack up next to, say, the failure of the subprime mortgage market, or the collapse of bank warrant rollovers? The Republican you want to quiz would simply reject your assertion of "abysmal failure" as unproven. We would all be better off with charges we have a fair chance of demonstrating.

      •  tax cuts are why we have a big deficit (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ravenwind, abraxas

        and the big deficit is one reason we didn't have a bigger stimulus. And the smaller stimulus is a reason the economy sucks so badly.

        Because of the Bush tax cuts (all of them - the middle class ones cost $2T for the upper class $0.7T), we have less flexibility in dealing with the recession.

        Basic economics.

        •  Not basic economics (0+ / 0-)

          because there is nothing self-evident about this, only a kind of plausibility that is only as on-the-surface as plausible as 3 or 4 other scenarios. Here's  the simplest kind of comeback from a tax-cutter:

          "No, you are mistaken. The tax cuts put more money in people's pockets and kept the economy afloat longer than it would have otherwise. But the collapse was due to other causes entirely."

          I'm not saying this is a great reply, but it has at least as much initial plausibility as your version. Neither version is what passes for self-evident economic explanation.

          •  it's Keynesian economics (0+ / 0-)

            For fuck's sake.

            •  Not really (0+ / 0-)

              It's what passes for Keynes via a popularized account in blogs and in the press. And even if it were "real" Keynes, it would still need a defense of its application in this particular place and under these particular times and circumstances. And even then you'd get three different economists, all self-professed Keynesians, explaining what the other two got wrong.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site