Skip to main content

View Diary: EPI analysis: Simpson-Bowles proposal would cost 4 million jobs (180 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No, what is BS is (0+ / 0-)

    trying to reduce the deficit now by raising taxes or reducing spending.  

    Raising taxes on the rich is fine if you increase unemployment benefits by the same amount, but I have never heard any "tax the rich" proponents talk about increasing spending correspondingly.  Instead, like Obama, they always talk about the supposed need to cut the deficit.

    •  Nope -- you were way overbroad (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Roger Fox

      with your comment

      Increasing taxes reduces demand

      That's the line that disingenuous right-wingers use to justify immorally low tax rates for the wealthy. The reality is that the monies collected from taxing upper income brackets would do virtually nothing to "increase demand" if it were left in the pockets of the wealthy.

      •  Virtually nothing is not nothing (0+ / 0-)

        Reducing demand in any way is completely wrong now. Case in point: Chelsea Clinton's wedding on which Bill and Hill spent millions for a single day.  Obviously, they increased work opportunities for many locals in New York and elsewhere.

        Increasing taxes on the rich must be offset with increased spending for the poor and middle class, but Obama has never said anything like that.  Instead, he talks about reducing the deficit which is complete BS.

        •  What's BS (0+ / 0-)

          is your defense of the hideously low tax rates of the wealthy.

          •  Raising taxes on the rich is fine with me (0+ / 0-)

            but those increases need to be offset with increased spending on unemployment benefits or other spending for the poor and middle class.

            Your complete disregard of the job killing aspects of reducing the deficit now is hideous.  You couldn't care less about the millions of unemployed who are really suffering.

            •  Glad to see you've walked back (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Roger Fox

              your incredibly stupid defense of keeping tax rates low for the wealthy.

              Have a good weekend.

            •  wrong, raising taxes in the depression (0+ / 0-)

              did not stifle demand.

              Pent up demand is like potential energy, unleashed demand from massive job creation is like kinetic energy. THe demand is still there.

              At the end of WW2 many on the right thought we would go right back into a depression, they were wrong because they did not account for pent up demand. YOu seem to have failed in taking the 2 basic forms of demand into account, while couching your tax comments in demand side talk.

              FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

              by Roger Fox on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 04:03:43 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You disregard the liquidity preference (0+ / 0-)

                which Keynes explained clearly in The General Theory.  Pent up demand is irrelevant when the liquidity preference is high, as it has been for the past two years.

                Interesting that you bring up WWII, which was the reason that the Great Depression ended.  Only the massive demand created by the war spending was enough to overcome the liquidity preference that built up in the 1930s.  Also, your facts are wrong:  there was a major recession in 1948 and two more in the next ten years due to insufficient demand.

                Raising taxes, without spending offsets, reduces demand and produces permanently high unemployment.  Why this is not obvious to you is incomprehensible.

        •  you fail to account for pent up demand (0+ / 0-)

          and the difference between that and unleashed demand born of massive job stim.

          FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

          by Roger Fox on Fri Nov 26, 2010 at 03:58:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Where was the pent up demand (0+ / 0-)

            during the 1930s?  For more than a decade, everyone waited for the "Invisible Hand" of the market in the form of pent up demand to end the Great Depression.  It never appeared and millions suffered waiting for that phantom.

            •  1936 (0+ / 0-)

              gnp was higher than 1929, Chevy set a record for selling cars, L. Armstrong set a record for selling records.

              FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

              by Roger Fox on Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 10:03:28 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  And what about 1938 or 1939? (0+ / 0-)

                All of your "pent up demand" simply vanished and the Great Depression was back in full force.  Unemployment in 1938 was still nearly 20% and did not fall under double digits until 1942.

                •  s'what happens when you cut job stim by 60% (0+ / 0-)

                  you get RECESSION just for trying to cut the deficit. darn.

                  FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

                  by Roger Fox on Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 03:36:37 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Right, exactly what Obama and his deficit (0+ / 0-)

                    reduction commission want to do now.  That is the point of this diary.  Reduce government demand, increase unemployment.  "Pent up demand" is just BS.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site