Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The ad also doesn't state whether the people listed are actually economists. They could be political scientists at the universities listed for all we know.> I googled a handful of the names, with their universities, and all came up as working in their school's economics department. If you want to show that some of them aren't economists, you're free to do that.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Meanwhile, the Obama administration just delayed allowing off-shore drilling, and so delayed creating american jobs and american wealth.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Cato economists?>> <What does that mean? Are you claiming they're paid by Cato?> No, only that they're economists cited by Cato. Cato isn't going to cite economists who disagree with their bias. <<That ad simply disagrees with Keynesian stimulus in theory; it doesn't speak to whether tax cuts or food stamps, say, provide more bang for the stimulus buck, let alone provide research.>> <It says, "To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth." If their research actually showed that food stamps provided more boost than tax cuts, I doubt they'd say the opposite.> First, they don't cite ANY research to show that. They merely assert it. It's the mantra of a certain school of economist. On the other hand, Zandi DID show how he came up with his numbers. The Cato crowd simply didn't speak to whether food stamps provide more boost than tax cuts, and it's no wonder why - the actual research and the numbers contradict their mantra.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <No, only that they're economists cited by Cato. Cato isn't going to cite economists who disagree with their bias> And Obama won't even admit that they exist.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 He's well aware they do. He also knows they're in the minority now, so although I know what you're getting at, saying something akin to "the best economic minds in the country agree we need to do this" or whatever it was he said, is pretty much par for the course. GOP presidents have done the same thing when selling their plans.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth. >> Didn't we just try the lower taxes scheme with Bush? And the end result is? Total economic collapse? Maybe these economists feel that you need to completely destroy the economy in order to boost growth again? I'd like to see just one of these economists get out and talk face to face with someone on the unemployment lines in Michigan to find out how those Bush tax cuts stimulated their economy.
Originally Posted By hopemax The thing is, even if you believe the Laffer curve is real, there is a point where tax cuts no longer result in increased revenue. But I have never seen a proponent of the theory suggest that we could ever approach the point where the benefits would stop. We've gone from 90%+ taxation during WWII down to 35% and still no "Hey, maybe we overshot this."
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Didn't we just try the lower taxes scheme with Bush? And the end result is? Total economic collapse< to a point - what we did was lower tax rates than dramatically increase spending -- not hard to see why that doesn't work.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Meanwhile, the Obama administration just delayed allowing off-shore drilling, and so delayed creating american jobs and american wealth." We don't need off shore drilling to create jobs. What we need is a clean energy plan and reduce our need for fossil fuels.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <We don't need off shore drilling to create jobs. What we need is a clean energy plan and reduce our need for fossil fuels.> We need all three.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <the actual research and the numbers contradict their mantra.> Of course. They only believe what they believe because of ideology, because you are unaware of their research.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Didn't we just try the lower taxes scheme with Bush? And the end result is? Total economic collapse?> It wasn't lower tax rates that led to our current economic difficulties.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <We need all three.> That's right. And right now, only one will pay us. The other two will cost us.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<the actual research and the numbers contradict their mantra.>> <Of course. They only believe what they believe because of ideology, because you are unaware of their research.> That article pointed to zero research. Let alone showed why Zandi's numbers are wrong. Things they share with you.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I'm sure anyone who wants to spend an hour googling would find lots of studies that contradict Mr Zandi.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I'm sure anyone who wants to spend an hour googling would find lots of studies that contradict Mr Zandi.> You're welcome to find them, rather than your usual "I'm sure they exist out there" thing. At any rate, given the extensive research and formulas given to back up his theses it would be surprising indeed if anyone could find numbers to, say, show that the long-term tax cuts that returned 30 cents on the dollar in Zandi's study really were more valuable than the food stamp extensions that returned about $1.70. There's just too much of a gap.
