Posted on 09/27/2010 7:26:32 AM PDT by WebFocus
Your addition to the headline is very misleading. The author is saying that these particular tax cuts aren’t effective, but that across-the-board tax cuts would be.
BI = Business Intelligence
I think they may have also had other names recently including IBI.
It would be no different than everyone paying the sales tax when they buy something.....everyone pays the same %.
Excellent. One more former Reaganite I can put on the “no longer listen to” list, along with Dame Noonan and other traitors.
Aaaahhh Mr Bruce point of interest, it is NOT the Governments Damn Money!!
Harvard economist Dale Jorgenson, who is highly respected by supply-siders, put it more succinctly. When asked by The New York Times last year to name some positive aspects of Bush’s economic policies, he replied, “I don’t see any redeeming features, unfortunately.”Bartlett and Jorgenson may have some valid points about aspects of Bush's tax cuts being ineffective, but when Jorgenson makes a statement like this he is just as far out in left field as Dopey Joe Biden. The reductions in marginal tax rates across the board featured in the 2003 tax cuts are beneficial. The elimination of the death tax is beneficial. The reductions in dividend tax rates and in capital gains tax rates are beneficial. All of these aspects of the Bush Tax Cuts were beneficial and are the same kinds of policies that Bartlett (and presumably Jorgenson) argue are needed. Go ahead and criticize the aspects that did nothing to stimulate the supply side to grow the economy all you like, but don't make idiotic false statements that there was nothing in the Bush tax policies that has a stimulative impact.
Your addition to the headline is very misleading.
The site : REALCLEARMARKETS was the one I referred to.
See here : http://www.realclearmarkets.com/ Under today’s Off the Street section.
They captioned the article with their own headline :
Bruce Bartlett: More Tax Cuts Won’t Help Growth
Is Bruce Bartlett dying? Is this a death bed confession? After all these years.
OK. I saw on your profile that you work in the software field, so I thought your screen name might be related to the BI product.
Bartlett supported Obama in 08 and dissed the Tea Parties as racist.
“
Bruce Bartlett: Bush tax cuts a flop (Former Reagan adviser —
more tax cuts won’t help economy)
“
Looks like somebody didn’t watch Laffer on the John Stossel special
that aired this weekend on FOX News Channel.
It amazes AND saddens me that our nation has UN-learned the lessons of
the Reagan era.
(Of course, reducing taxes also means an accompaning cut in spending,
e.g., killing wasteful or even useless programs. When will we ever re-learn?)
A deficit is a successful way to fight socialism. Barky is setting back the socialist cause for a generation.
President Bush looked at the man. "I don’t ever want to hear you use those words in my presence again," he said. "What words, Mr. President?" "Bad policy," President Bush said. "If I decide to do it, by definition it’s good policy. I thought you got that." The adviser was dismissed. The meeting was over.
That reads like a bad Hollywood movie script. It's not believable.
RE: Bartlett supported Obama in 08 and dissed the Tea Parties as racist.
Are you aware of any PUBLIC comments Bartlett has made since then, either spoken or written, regarding Obama’s economic policies?
In other words, why is he harping on the previous administration when it is the present one he should be focusing on?
The following article should be of interest to posters here:
Keynes vs. Hayek: The Great Debate Continues
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704738404575347300609199056.html
Bartlett is right here. if you look at inflation adjusted figures, revenue went sharply down for years. Only the increase in the size of the economy and monetary supply (which always increases over years) brought the government’s revenues back up. But the economy didn’t grow faster than normal.
Pandering to the administration the media talks endlessly about “tax cuts” rather than rate cut extensions being made permenant or extended. Spending is never mentioned.
Nothing will happen to the debt without spending being cut and the size of the Federal Government curtailed. The deficit is now so dependent on interest paid on the debt that we must begin to have surplus thinking rather than balanced budget thinking to ever get us straight.
Since the total national debt went up every year under Clinton, there wasn’t a real surplus. The government just borrowed money from trust funds instead of from the public, called the borrowed money income, and claimed to have a surplus.
Just CUT SPENDING.
Why doesn’t anyone talk about cutting government spending?
The federal fungus keeps expanding regardless of tax rates or policy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.