That might be the case, but the way he invokes "the rich" as an argument against Bush's tax cut is very unconvincing. He's just preaching to the choir, I know. I think everyone agrees that offsets in spending would be better. But I think tax cuts w/o offsets is better than doing nothing.
I think some advocate any tax cut at any cost without considering spending offsets--glad you consider both. Personally, I'd support a 330 billion tax cut bill IF 1) the military/homeland defense was cut maybe 500 billion over that period and 2) the tax cut included at least equal parts payroll tax cut relative to capital gains cuts--but that wasn't the bill that was presented.
Krugman's piece is too much of a rally cry for class warfare for me, but I agree with some of the sentiments. I want tax cuts and think they're a good idea, but in this climate there also has to be some spending controls in place. Every time I open up a newspaper or go online, it seems like Bush is pledging $3 billion for something else. Today it was the AIDS stuff. Worthy cause, and I can't argue against that, but sometimes you have to pick and choose where the money goes. I'm very concerned about this apparent freewheeling budget approach that this administration has. I think Bush deserves a pass for the current budget situation due to the 9/11 emergency spending stuff, but I would love to see a longterm plan in place to make sure the country isn't in debt for the rest of my life.
Sigh. Krugman is notorious for advancing his social agenda of income redistribution through his 'economic' rants. I read one of his books a while back, Peddling Prosperity, and it is nothing more than liberal propaganda using distorted economic rationale. He does more of the same with this commentary. No hard facts, a serving of hyperbole, and large helping of demagoguery. There is a reason this guy is at MIT right now -- to be closer to other lunatic fringe liberals like Ted Kennedy. Surely Krugman is not arguing for higher taxes and decreased spending during a trough in the business cycle. This is economic suicide. The Bush Administration is making a good faith effort to stimulate the economy by putting money in the hands of consumers. The headline of the day was the May Consumer Confidence figure coming in at a 6-month high. The signs of economic recovery are starting to appear. Tax cuts and rate cuts take time to work their way through the economy. Acting now will help ensure our economy's emergence from the post-bubble hangover. I continue to maintain that the best way out of this economic downturn is higher equity valuations (rise in the stock market). This will allow greater access to capital by corporations and greater capital spending -- something that fueled the boom of the late 90's. Now that 50% of American families own stocks, a rise in equity valuations will also spur a wealth-effect driven surge in demand. Wall Street has embraced the President's financial package. They, and millions of other investors, have voted with their money, as the market has reacted very favorably to announcements surrounding the fiscal policy.
Didja notice something different about the tax return you filed in April? Was it about $300 or $600 higher? Strange. Because the famous $300/$600 "tax cut" you and I got two years ago wasn't a tax cut. It was a loan. You paid it back this year, whether you know it or not. Go back and check the tax forms. And it did NOTHING to turn the economy around. Since that "cut," we've lost another 1.2 million jobs. Giant corporations reaped hundreds of billions from the cut, but not one job was created, as was promised.
This sounds like some right wing lunatic rubbish. We need the late 90s stock market runup to happen again. That's the ticket.
with or without the corporate fraud?? with or without the fraudulent inflation of companies' real worth??
9/11. Its the answer to all of the tough questions Bush faces. Why does the economy suck? Why did we invade Iraq? Why isn't there more debate about our new PNAC foreign policy? Why are the people who have more money than they need getting the bulk of the tax cuts? etc.
99% of the companies were not fraudulent in their earning statements, or do you know something that I do not?
i was actually kidding...then i got confused by pgabriel's post...now i'm confused again. so i retract my statement.
I'm sorry, I guess I should crawl under the rock, his statement did look sarcastic, but I guess it wasn't.
pgabriel was correct. I was bludgeoning TJ a large helping of sarcastism. MM, I thought that you were replying "maybe in this market runup we won't have the corporate corruption that plagued the last runup". For the record, I am not in favor of policies that lead to a runup in market valuations. Such runups apply extreme pressure to ethically challenged corprorate leaders to keep the good news coming, in spite of the contrary. Such valuation runups don't really favor the long term investors and can actually hurt the short term investor. MM, if all is not clear: Nevermind
OK, I will bite today Blah blah blah, attack the messenger. You just wasted 20 seconds of my life with this. He knows a lot more about economic than I do, and he knows a lot more than your JV wannabe economist, bschool self. Next No he's not. Where did you read this in the article? It does not appear in it at all. For the record, he has advocated, in his previous writings, payroll tax holidays as a remedy for the present difficulties. Quit tilting at windmills, it only undercuts your point. THis is the exact same song and dance that you and others were singing at this time last year. There were a few scraps of modestly good economic news last spring too. Now we are a year later, and the Federal Reserve chairman is talking about deflation. I notice that you didn't, of course, mention unemployment stats, which continue to climb. Nothing like a jobless recovery! Apparently this must include the Bush administrations first giant tax cut of 2001 huh? I'm still waiting on the benefits of that one, other than changing the surplus to a deficit. (Don't say it was only because of the economic downturns, even the CBO believes this) This doesn't even mean anything. I thought the business cycle was going to do that. So you're saying if things were more valuable, we would have more money. Well, Can't argue there!. Of course an increasingly insolvent federal government may temper my enthusiasm and wealth effect, as well as crowd out investment in business. Furthermore, most of that stock ownership is concentrated in the top few percentage points, and the wealth effect would be dissipated on them. But hey, it's worth it when you're uh, helping the business cycle along. ] Reallly? They embraced it by showing short term gains? Well by that line of argument, they were positively orgasmic over balanced budgets of Rubinomics during the Clinton years. I await your case closing with baited breath.
