A Better Press Corps Please
Obama did fine in his press conference tonight, but good grief . . . what an embarrassing performance by the White House press corps.
First, there wasn't a single question asked about the Geithner plan which the administration rolled out yesterday. It's kind of a big deal. The fate of the world's financial system more or less hangs in the balance, and there are all sorts of important questions that need to be asked. And I bet that Obama spent considerable time today preparing to answer those questions. But I guess that was time wasted. The White House press corps doesn't care.
Second, while I hate to pick on Chuck Todd, his question was really dumb. We're in the middle of the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression. Millions of people are losing their jobs, losing their homes, losing their health care, every day. And he asks why the President isn't asking the American people to sacrifice? Huh? What exactly did Todd have in mind? Should we be offering human sacrifices to appease the Gods?
By far the dumbest question of the night, however, was the very first one, asked by the AP's Jennifer Loven. Here it is in its full splendor:
UPDATE: Well, the hactacular Ron Fournier is at it again. His write-up of the Obama press conference is headlined "Analysis: Teleprompter Telegraphs Obama's Caution." Here are some of his key bits of "analysis":
The truth is, Fournier is a hack. The only reason to use the word "teleprompter" five times in a 100 word write-up of a presidential press conference is in order to push a meme, a meme that just happens to be popular right now on right wing blogs. As usual, Fournier's agenda is transparent.
First, there wasn't a single question asked about the Geithner plan which the administration rolled out yesterday. It's kind of a big deal. The fate of the world's financial system more or less hangs in the balance, and there are all sorts of important questions that need to be asked. And I bet that Obama spent considerable time today preparing to answer those questions. But I guess that was time wasted. The White House press corps doesn't care.
Second, while I hate to pick on Chuck Todd, his question was really dumb. We're in the middle of the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression. Millions of people are losing their jobs, losing their homes, losing their health care, every day. And he asks why the President isn't asking the American people to sacrifice? Huh? What exactly did Todd have in mind? Should we be offering human sacrifices to appease the Gods?
By far the dumbest question of the night, however, was the very first one, asked by the AP's Jennifer Loven. Here it is in its full splendor:
Thank you, Mr. President. Your Treasury secretary and the Fed chair have been -- were on Capitol Hill today, asking for this new authority that you want to regulate big, complex financial institutions. But given the problems that the financial bailout program has had so far -- banks not wanting to talk about how they’re spending the money, the AIG bonuses that you mentioned -- why do you think the public should sign on for another new, sweeping authority for the government to take over companies, essentially?Good lord, what a jumbled mess of nonsense. First, the authority that Geithner and Bernanke were asking for was not the authority to "regulate big complex financial institutions." Rather they were asking for the authority to take over failing non-bank institutions, like AIG, in much the same way the FDIC takes over failing banks. As Obama immediately pointed out in response, the reason the bailout of AIG has been such a mess is precisely because the government lacks the power to simply take it over. The same goes for Citibank. Much of its operations are currently outside of the jurisdiction of the FDIC. The whole point is to give the government the power to handle the failure of these major financial institutions in a more effective way.
UPDATE: Well, the hactacular Ron Fournier is at it again. His write-up of the Obama press conference is headlined "Analysis: Teleprompter Telegraphs Obama's Caution." Here are some of his key bits of "analysis":
What kind of politician brings a teleprompter to a news conference?So this is what passes for "analysis" now at the A.P.? No wonder the newspaper industry is dying. It's apparently hugely significant that Obama used a teleprompter to deliver his opening remarks (which were several minutes long). I'm not sure what Fournier thinks is so unusual about that. Do presidents typically memorize speeches? Read them off cue cards? If so, can he cite a single example of this? And given that Obama gave an hour long press conference in which he gave long substantive answers to questions that were not pre-screened, how is it even remotely relevant that he delivered his opening remarks with the assistance of a teleprompter? How big a "crutch" can it really be?
A careful one.
President Barack Obama took no chances in his second prime-time news conference, reading a prepared statement in which he took both sides of the AIG bonus brouhaha and asked an anxious nation for its patience. . . . .
It was a carefully modulated statement, and Obama — relying on a familiar crutch — read it off a flat-screen monitor perched at the back of the East Room.
The teleprompter was no help during the question-and-answer session (reporters don't signal their intentions), but Obama was no less careful during that give and take. . . .
One of the few times he summoned raw emotion came after a reporter demanded to know why it took him so long to express outrage over the AIG executive bonuses.
"It took a couple of days because I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak."
Even better, he likes to have it up on the teleprompter.
The truth is, Fournier is a hack. The only reason to use the word "teleprompter" five times in a 100 word write-up of a presidential press conference is in order to push a meme, a meme that just happens to be popular right now on right wing blogs. As usual, Fournier's agenda is transparent.
posted by A.L. at 9:44 PM
44 Comments:
Hard to blame the press corps overall when Obama seemed to have a prepared list of people that were to ask him questions, they were given a heads up and were moved in the seating arrangements.
As we have seen from the campaign trail, this is Obama's usual approach to crisis management -- appear to shut down for several days while actually huddling with advisors and coming up with a plan. While I do think it's better to come up with a coherent plan than to fly by the seat of your pants, most people want their leaders to show immediate action in a crisis, even if it is just to appear on TV and spout a bunch of platitudes.
I have to wonder what would have happened if 9-11 would have happened on Obama's watch.
Better things.
911 wouldnt have happened on obama's watch.
By far the dumbest question of the night, however, was the very first one, asked by the AP's Jennifer Loven.
It may not have been a perfect question, but it was actually a very good question.
Rather they were asking for the authority to take over failing non-bank institutions, like AIG, in much the same way the FDIC takes over failing banks.
That's what bankruptcy (restructuring) is for. AIG as a conglomerate would have been fine, and only the entity that was involved would have fallen to the wayside had the proper process been used by both the Bush and Obama administrations. Instead, both threw billions upon billions of federal dollars at AIG without actually doing anything to make them change their business practices. Now, Obama wants to run a protection racket with taxpayer money. That isn't anywhere in the Constitution. And under normal circumstances, racketeering is a crime.
Loven wasn't the problem.
Of course the American people have to be prepared to sacrifice, to do without things like health care or food safety or even a home, so that the MOTUs can continue to make out like the bandits they are and take more advantage of the desperate.
Have you been channeling Glen Greenwald?
Seems to me that the problem with Loven's question is also probably the reason no one asked about the Geithner plan-- the subject is too complicated to have a meaningful exchange at a press conference.
Except for the question about race, which was a complete waste, the questions were at least attempting to get at important issues.
I interpret Chuck Todd's question as this-- although Obama talks about sacrifice, discipline, responsibility and hard choices, his budget does not reflect any of those things.
Perhaps another way of getting at the issue would be to suggest that Obama's budget is based on the proposition that a lot more government spending on health care, education and energy will generate the economic growth that will produce tax revenues to pay for themselves, as well as for other spending increases and tax cuts. This is very similar to the supply side argument that AL so often decries, except that Obama's theory has less empirical or theoretical support behind it.
MLS,
"has less empirical or theoretical support" (than "supply-side economics").
a) no, nothing can have less than zero support.
b) I think Keynes would disagree. Also Krugman.
Perhaps you could support your assertion with all the world-class economists who have published peer-reviewed papers giving the theoretical and empirical foundations for "supply-side" economics. For my part, I am not an economist, but I find Keynes and Krugman rather convincing.
MLS,
Did you just compare supply-side voodoo economics to basic Keynesian economics?
There's a pretty big difference there. Virtually every economist (conservative or liberal) believes that the government needs to spend during a steep economic downturn.
This just isn't the time try to balance the budget. But if we're ever going to do anything about health care, energy, and education, we've also got to act now. Obama knows that if he doesn't act now, the window of opportunity for reform will close.
He's knows that, down the road, tough budget choices will have to be made. Taxes will have to go up. Ways to cut spending will have to be found. He's not blind to that. He just knows that right now is not the time to try balance the budget.
That's very different than the supply side con artists on the right who are selling free lunch, i.e., tax cuts forever with no consequences. Obama's not pretending that the bill won't come due some day.
Funny, I thought the worst question was obvious. It was the one about whether race had entered into any of the discussions in the White House.
What did they expect him to answer, "Yes, several senators have called me the N-word, and they keep bringing me fried chicken as a gift."
That was the biggest waste of a question I have ever seen.
Blogger dualdiagnosis said...
"Hard to blame the press corps overall when Obama seemed to have a prepared list of people that were to ask him questions, they were given a heads up and were moved in the seating arrangements."
You mean the questioners were tipped off and they still came up with such lame questions. I think that makes it even easier to blame the press corps...
AL:
Virtually every economist (conservative or liberal) believes that the government needs to spend during a steep economic downturn.
Virtually every conservative economist says government spending is needed, but not the way Obama and the Dems have done it, by bankrupting future generations of taxpayers. Plus they also say real tax cuts, not the fake ones in Porkulus, are also needed.
But if we're ever going to do anything about health care, energy, and education, we've also got to act now.
Now, as in immediately without hearings and studies and whatnot? There's been no debate on any of these things, especially since the left refuses to listen to any opinion other than their own.
He's knows that, down the road, tough budget choices will have to be made. Taxes will have to go up. Ways to cut spending will have to be found.
The miniscule cuts in defense spending being offered aren't spending cuts, and there is no way Obama has any interest in cutting the real spending problems plaguing the country (which have now gotten worse). Like Clinton, he will have to raise the taxes of everyone who doesn't have the capability of burying their income from the IRS, as will be the case with the wealthiest Obama supporters; those people the left lumps into what they call the middle and lower classes will, as is usual with Democrats in power, have to foot the bill for years thanks to Obama and the Democrats' irresponsibility. They are the con artists.
Steveil,
Please give the citations to back up your assertion that "every conservative economist" thinks the stimulus is all wrong, and that tax cuts are the answer.
C2H50H WROTE: "Please give the citations to back up your assertion that "every conservative economist" thinks the stimulus is all wrong, and that tax cuts are the answer."
I don't know that every conservative economist thinks the stimulus is wrong but Steveil is certainly correct that most of them think that more tax cuts are the answer. But that's only because most conservative economists seem to think that tax cuts are the answer to every question. Economy up? Tax cuts! Economy down? Tax cuts! Two wars to fight? Tax cuts! And of course we all know that we'd have none of our current economic problems if only the Bush administration had enacted tax cuts.
AL- I agree that Keynesian theory calls for deficit-spending now (whether the theory is correct or whether everyone agrees with it is another question). I don’t think that it would support deficit-spending that continues long after the economy recovers, which is what Obama’s budget calls for.
Regardless, this is irrelevant to the point I was making. My point has to do specifically with the claims Obama has made with regard to spending on health-care, education and energy. Although he sometimes conflates these with short-term stimulus spending, he usually makes a fairly clear distinction that these are long-term “investments” that will pay for themselves and more. In other words, if we failed to increase spending in these areas, our budget deficit would be larger over the long-run (he claims) than if we do so, assuming everything else is held constant. So just as some supply-siders believe that tax cuts will actually produce positive net revenue (as opposed to merely producing economic growth that offsets some of the revenue losses), Obama believes that spending increases in these areas will produce positive net revenue (as opposed to merely producing economic growth that offsets some of the additional spending). If this is not what Obama believes, he is certainly conveying that impression.
Your attempt to juxtapose Obama’s acknowledgment of “hard budget choices” that must be faced “down the road” with supply-siders who promise an unlimited free lunch is just a cheap rhetorical trick. If you can point to a supply-sider who claims that tax cuts will pay for unlimited government spending, I will happily concede that this person is an idiot. But all real politicians, including George Bush, acknowledge that there are hard budget choices that will have to be made in the future (just not by them). You are free to believe that Obama is more sincere about this than all other politicians. But, again, this is an entirely different question than whether Obama is correct about the impact of his “investment” spending.
Please give the citations to back up your assertion that "every conservative economist" thinks the stimulus is all wrong, and that tax cuts are the answer.
The phrase was "virtually every conservative economist", not "every conservative economist; I used the same language used by AL.
Here's what was said by a few hundred economists who agree lower tax rates and a reduction in the huge amount of additional government spending is the right way to go (this is the where the link above originally came from).
The whole right-wing obsession with the teleprompter (and yes, they cleverly leave out that the dastardly teleprompter wasn't actually feeding him info during his answers to the questions) is part and parcel with an ongoing multi-pronged racial dog-whistle campaign.
1. The teleprompter is meant to imply that Obama isn't really that smart and is pretending to put on airs about his intellectual capacity. Hell, Southern Republicans have even called him uppity.
2. Whenever it is pointed out that Obama graduated near the top of his class at an Ivy League school, right wing pundits like to play the "affirmative action" card.
3. Every other day or so, a right wing pundit, blogger, or talk radio host goes after Michelle Obama as being "angry", "bitter", "hates America". I don't even think Hannity realizes how much he reflexively invokes these points whenever her name is mentioned. This plays into the hands of the low information crowd who insist that racism isn't really an issue in the US while simultaneously projecting a fear that all black people hate white people.
4. The increasingly incessant conflation of Obama and Robert Mugabe. Hell, Limbaugh called Obama "Barack Ogabe" yesterday.
5. While Michael Steele is a buffoon, he was actually correct that the GOP needs to attract minority voters or risk extinction (I wouldn't have used the phrase "hip hop Republican"). The pushback at minority outreach from the far right, including a particularly pissy denunciation by Sam the Plumber was pretty striking.
Take any of these individual incidents by themselves, you could write them off as isolated occurances. Take them TOGETHER and track the sheer frequency in which they are all occurring, you seem more of a pattern.
Either the Republicans honestly think that they can win elections being an all-white party, or some of its members are deliberately ginning up extremists with no regards to the consequences.
I have a crisp $100 bill that says within one calendar year, a prominant Republican will be caught on mic or video dropping the N-bomb about Obama. I'll even wire this blogger the money.
JWB,
Steveil said "virtually all", and now you say "most" "conservative economists" think more tax cuts are the answer.
Publishing the names of a few hundred "economists" who signed something at the Cato Institute does not constitute proof of the assertion.
This is standard denialist methodology, as pioneered by the Tobacco Institute in denial of the health effects of tobacco, and currently practiced by Discovery Institute in denial of the scientific theories of evolution, and Heartland Institute in denial of AGW.
What proportion of the total number of economists do these names represent? For example, there are somewhere around 100 economists at the University of Minnesota, yet only five signed the Cato "petition." That is statistically insignificant.
This does not support -- in fact, it disproves -- the assertion that "virtually all" or even "most" "conservative economists" fall in with the Cato petition. While universities are predominantly "liberal", that means "by a 60 to 40 ratio", not 90 to 10 (and certainly not at Minnesota.)
What people have to understand is that there are tens of thousands of economists, and the "tax cuts are always the answer" are a tiny and insignificant fraction.
Please note: none of this is to be taken as endorsing any economist. I simply do not have faith in any "science" that can't do controlled experiments. Still, when a whole lot of smart people have thought a whole lot about something,
there's generally something to the results.
Steveil: As part of the stimulus package, what is most likely the biggest tax cut in our history was passed. http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/02/the_biggest_tax_cutter.php
If you can point to a supply-sider who claims that tax cuts will pay for unlimited government spending, I will happily concede that this person is an idiot.
MLS, I can't remember how many times I've heard from Republican politicians that cutting taxes actually raises revenue. In a Republican debate last year, Rudy Giuliani was asked how he would pay for needed infrastructure improvements. His answer as that he would cut taxes, thereby raising government revenue. The other candidates agreed.
That level free lunch idiocy dominates Republican talking points on taxes.
By contrast, it's at least possible that green energy investments, education spending, and health care reform could pay for themselves over the long term. Will they? It depends on a lot of contingencies. The energy investments are the most obvious. They could lead to a "green boom" like the internet boom of the 90s. Education is also pretty easy to understand. If our future generation of workers are more competitive, so will be our economy. But it's true of health care too. Our hodge-podge crapola health care system is horribly inefficient. People don't get preventative care; they get treated in the ER; there are no cost containment measures in place; billions are wasted on paperwork and overhead. If health care reform is done right, it really could save the government significant money over the long haul.
Whether these reforms will eventually pay for themselves depends on how well they are crafted. But it's at least possible that they'll pay for themselves. Tax cuts will never pay for themselves. That's the difference.
C2H50H:
Name for me a single prominant GOP member, Congressman, Governor, or pundit that DIDN'T call for tax cuts as a first option. Hell, find me a single GOPer who was ever in favor of raising a single tax, ever, under any circumstances.
You and your ilk are missing the bigger picture. Republicans can't balance a budget with tax cuts or even domestic spending cuts, because they are pathologically unable to rope in defense spending. The cultists of St. Ronnie always manage to ignore that deficits actually exploded under HIS watch because he damn near quadrupled the defense budget, eradicating the benefits of any of his domestic spending cuts.
It goes without saying that Bush II probably wouldn't have run the gigundo deficits that he did if he had not consciously decided to fund an elective war in Iraq exclusively with loans from China.
Tell you what, supply siders. In the off chance you ever win the White House again, I want you to pledge RIGHT NOW that when the decision is made to invade Iran, that you fund this elective war only with revenues raised in the US. That means war bonds. That means rationing. That means sacrifice. None of this, "the oil contracts from a friendly government in Iran will pay for this". Unless your "fiscal responsibility" includes military spending, then shut your fucking mouths.
Anonymous,
Your aim is off. I have no "ilk" here, and if you are confusing me with Steveil, I think both of us would take some serious umbrage at that.
C2H50H, in an earlier comment:
Please give the citations to back up your assertion that "every conservative economist" thinks the stimulus is all wrong, and that tax cuts are the answer.
I gave you the list (after correcting what you thought I said).
Then in your more recent comment:
Publishing the names of a few hundred "economists" who signed something at the Cato Institute does not constitute proof of the assertion.
You asked for a citation, I gave you one, and you still didn't like the answer, justifying your disagreement by changing what you wanted to ask. And that was after you misquoted what I said in the first place.
I'll make it easy. If you reply to a comment I make, I won't reply back. Even when you misquote me.
Chuck Todd was using 'code'. Sacrifice actually means eliminating 'entitlement' programs like Welfare, SSI, and pensions.
Mold
For any fan of the previous administration to complain about teleprompters and prepared lists of journos to call on is the height of hilarity.
Actually, the worst question was whether Obama wanted a world currency. WTF? Fortunately, his answer was short and to the point. Except that of course, he said it "wasn't needed", which means the right-wingers can probably argue that he really really wants one, it's just not needed.
C2H50H
I think we agree on the larger issue. My point is that "most conservative economists"—change that to "virtually all prominent conservative economists"—have been drinking the tax cut Kool-Aid for so long that Steveil would find little trouble rounding up a lengthy list of citations. And, personally, I don't recall a conservative economist who supported the administration's stimulus plan; and those who did support some sort of stimulus I remember as advocating exclusively tax cuts.
The problem is that conservative economists—especially those coming out of Chicago—have become lazy and stupid. Many apparently don't believe in multipliers; many apparently don't believe that government spending is stimulative. Go back and read some of Brad DeLong's blog around the time of the stimulus debate, where he went through some of the alternate universe of conservative economic thinking. It's surreal. I can't imagine that Milton Friedman would be pleased with his intellectual offspring.
That's why I believe that Steveil's "virtually all," while probably exaggerated, is not as wide of the mark as you seem to think. I also think it is scary that conservative economic thought has allowed itself to become so deranged.
We should distinguish between deficit-financed tax cuts, which are indeed Keynesian (although a very weak form); and tax cuts matched with budget balancing, which is Mellonism.
SteveIL's CATO link also makes the laughable claim that FDR's policies didn't get us out of the Great Hoover(R) Depression. It most certainly did, but the dogmatic TaxCuts'R'Us pundits at CATO will never admit it.
What did end the Great Hoover(R) Depression? The CATO page doesn't say. But I'm sure they'll use the ol' "WWII" ploy. Yeah, that's the ticket. An attack against America and its territories got us out of the Great Hoover(R) Depression! By that "logic," employment and GDP should have skyrocketed after 9/11/01.
WWII helped to end the Great Hoover(R) Depression because it extended FDR's Keynesian policies on a large scale by injecting huge amounts of government funds into the war machine - this employed millions of people and put spending money in their pockets.
As for the CATO list itself, I'm impressed. It's not every day that someone of the stature of Thomas Simmons, of Greenfield Community College, or Joseph Zoric of the Franciscan University of Steubenville, is placed in intellectual opposition to the president of the United States.
Attaboy, Jo!
Attaboy, Tom!
JWB,
It seems that Steveil has given up trying to prove his "virtually all" assertion after I pointed out that a few hundred of many thousands isn't "virtually all", but rather "insignificantly few".
I'm still waiting for any real evidence that even "most" "conservative" economists think that, at the present time, tax cuts as opposed to stimulus spending is justifiable based on the theory.
Call me old-fashioned, but I prefer actual evidence, as in a poll, or a survey article in a respected journal, to a "petition". If you can give me some, since Steveil has abandoned the attempt, I would look at it. Until then, I reserve my right to wonder what you folks are smoking.
Gnarly,
The problem is that the supply-siders take great pains to exempt all defense spending from any discussion about balancing the budget. We could eliminate conceivably the entire social safety net (which to be fair, is the ultimate goal of the supply siders), and still be running a tremendous national debt because of our inability not to invade every country that looks at us cross eyed.
Additionally, what the supply siders also ignore in their tax cuts=wealth for all mantra is that a cursory study of real wages in the last 30 years shows that the middle class has been shrinking at an alarming rate. The rich have become richer, the poor have become poorer, and due to the decline of the middle class, you're more likely to join the latter instead of the former.
Countries that have only a moneyed class and a poverty class with nothing in between run into large systemic problems. Take a look at Mexico for instance.
Supply siders, much like libertarians, have enough personal wealth to insulate themselves from the disastrous results of their own ideas.
@C2H50H
As I said, take a look at Brad DeLong's blog from the time of the stimulus debate. Here is a link to the January archive: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/01/index.html
See, for instance:
"In Which We Love Some But Not All Stimulus Spending Skeptics..."
"More Head-Wall Pounding..."
"DeLong Smackdown Watch (Slope-of-the-LM-Curve Edition)"
"What Are Chicago's Economists Thinking?"
"Time to Bang My Head Against the Wall Some More (Pre-Elementary Monetary Economics Department)"
Follow his links to the sources.
Not trying to defend tax cut proponents; merely pointing out that what *most* (here we go again) GOP politicians are calling for is Keynesian stimulus via tax cuts (a horribly inefficient vehicle for stimulus).
That's very different from what the Chicago school economists are promoting. As DeLong has been documenting, they're using some very bizarre and long disproved pre-1929 economic assumptions.
Some are even using assumptions that they disavowed before the crisis began, which leads one to wonder if they have goals other than ameliorating the present crisis in mind.
gnarlytrombone.
Yes, but what C2H50H was asking for was citations to economists not politicians. And in my reading the Chicago school has been the most vocal group in opposing spending and so also the stimulus. The politicians have in fact picked up on that line of attack in opposing the spending portion (i.e., spending is not stimulative). Fortunately, their argument is not just wrong but also quite counterintuitive, so it never got much traction with the public.
The Chicago economists also have not, to my knowledge, opposed the calls for tax cuts, which I think they believe to be an inherently good thing.
On the other hand, I don't doubt that C2H50H could find conservative economists, even a lot of them, who acknowledged the economic reality the rest of the world lives in; it's just that they've either been silent or unable to express themselves in visible ways. In any case, I've yet to read a conservative economist who acknowledges that a short-term spending stimulus can be a good idea. At best, you might get: "historically, stimulus packages don't work because they arrive too late, after the down turn has already reversed, and so wind up only being inflationary." That has the advantage, at least in my reading, of being more or less consistent with fact. On the other hand, most recessions do not confront the threat of deflationary spirals and zero interest boundaries that renders the normally far more efficient monetary policy utterly ineffective.
AL - Thanks for the post. I'm going to add it to my list of regular blogs to follow.
JWB,
Thanks for the links. I am now convinced that Economics is no more scientific than voodoo.
If a person were to assert that "many economists, and a few prominent ones" believe that stimulus spending will not help, and the only way to bring the economy around is to cut taxes, then nobody, and least of all me, will disagree.
Since the assertion that "many economists, and a few prominent ones" also believe that all the rest of the economists in the world are smoking crack on any economics issue imaginable, the assertion doesn't say much, except about the fact that economics really doesn't say much definitively about anything.
And, while I thank you for your suggestions, I regard the assertion that "virtually all" or even "most" "conservative economists" are opposed to stimulus spending in favor of tax cuts as not justified by the available information.
C2H50H
If you want to play the wise guy, then how about some links to conservative economists who favor stimulus spending or are even willing to consider it. That would be far better and even by your own criteria more persuasive than the stupid logical parsing of all, most and many.
In a forum like this, I prefer Steveil's trolling to your ever so precious logical precision, since his overstatement allows me to see his point. Your particular statement may well be trivially true, but the point has been completely lost. Unless, perhaps you think sharp points, badly aimed, make for a dangerous world.
JWB,
If you don't see the difference between "virtually all", "most" and "some", then I have to say that your concern for the truth is lacking.
I'm not interested in attempting to convince you or Steveil of anything. My goal is to point out when assertions cannot be justified, and to reveal who is talking out of the back of their neck. Steveil's trail of half-truths, delusional bullshit, and outright incoherent babbling has littered the comment section of this blog for a long time. I really don't think most people find his cant acceptable. Amusing, perhaps.
If the truth hurts, I do regret it. I've been wrong enough to know what if feels like. But in the future, do understand that, if you cannot back up your assertions, and having your inability pointed out will hurt your feelings, then don't assert them.
AL- if one is high enough on the Laffer curve, a lower tax rate will, in all likelihood, generate more tax revenues. I think even Paul Krugman would admit that.
Now you may believe that it is unlikely that tax reductions from current levels would pay for themselves. But impossible? For example, why couldn’t lower taxes lead to the development of the green technology that you believe is waiting to be discovered? Dogmatic assertion that lower taxes can never pay for themselves is not an argument.
I agree that Giuliani’s claim that lower taxes would pay for higher infrastructure spending was far-fetched. But this is exactly my point. If Giuliani had claimed, instead, that higher infrastructure spending would pay for lower taxes, I would view the claim as equally far-fetched, if not more so. You, on the other hand (at least if you want to be logically consistent), would have to say that if an infrastructure plan was properly designed and executed and the circumstances propitious, it would be possible that increased infrastructure spending would produce more revenue than it cost. All of which may be true, but doesn’t change the fact that the claim would be far-fetched.
Having said all that, and returning to the original point of this post, if the press corps had been able to get Obama to admit that it is only possible, not certain, that his investment spending will pay for itself, this would have been an enormous step forward.
MLS,
The Laffer curve is a joke. It's based on a simplistic predator-prey equation, but nobody knows the parameters of that equation -- and they change with every change in the wind, since economics is based largely on psychology.
It seems to me that the problems we have today are more a result of a "tragedy of the commons" phenomenon, in that the wealthy do not feel a connection with the populace (except as resources for the accumulation of more wealth). Lowering taxes, especially on the wealthy, will not reverse this problem. Raising taxes and reducing the distance between the wealthy and the populace would.
@C2H50H
What truth have you convinced me of?
Still waiting for that list of links to conservative economists who supported the stimulus.
JWB,
That's pathetic. You can't support the assertion you made, so you try to turn it around and make me provide proof of the opposite?
Another classic denialist tactic. The atheist says: "I see no proof god exists." The deist says: "so show me proof he doesn't."
Do you see the dishonesty in your method?
MLS said "if one is high enough on the Laffer curve, a lower tax rate will, in all likelihood, generate more tax revenues."
With regard to the Laffer Curve, it's not a matter of being "high enough" on it, it's a matter of being to the left or right of the peak.
- To the right of the peak, lowering taxes, in theory, will spur economic activity and increase the amount of revenue, via taxes, brought into the government's coffers.
- To the left of the peak, lowering taxes actually decreases the amount of revenue brought into the government's coffers.
Even before 2008, evidence (budget deficits, public debt, combined with the wealthiest percentage of citizens expanding their wealth at an unprecedented rate while the middle class stagnated and the poor slipping back) indicates that we've been to the left of the peak for some time. Further reductions in the tax rates will not increase revenue to the government but will result in diminishing returns.
The right-wingers like to trumpet JFK's tax cuts as an example of how tax cuts can boost the economy, but maybe it's that JFK hit the sweet spot, the peak, of the Laffer Curve. Maybe we should try structuring the tax rates as they were after JFK's tax reduction - around 70% on income and gains over $250k.
The problem with the Laffer Curve is that you never see any numbers on it. Is the peak at a tax rate of 50% or 70%? No one knows, or at least no one is saying. Some right-wingers always assume that, not only are we on the right side of the curve, but that there is NO left side - that tax cuts ALWAYS stimulate the economy and increase revenues to the government.
Clearly, a tax rate of 36% is a good bit to the left of the peak, and 90% is probably a good bit to the right of the peak. But when I hear someone who is still parroting the wing-nut "taxcuts taxcuts taxcuts" mantra who refuses to put a number to the peak of the Laffer Curve, I treat them with a level of seriousness and respect they deserve: 0.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home