This Year's US Economics Nobel Winner: Bush Tax Cuts Too Small

[DanS]

Inapposite. Prescott's got a Nobel prize to his name.

[Dinner]

I'm all for tax cuts as long as we can pay for them. Unfortunately, the Republican controlled Congress spends money like a crack addict who broke out of rehab so any tax cuts now just balloon the deficit. The problem is borrowed money must be repaid plus interest so right now tax cuts equal long term tax increases.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by DanS
Inapposite. Prescott's got a Nobel prize to his name.

Well then, let's just go back to my earlier post & use common sense.

But "in the early nineties the economy was depressed by the tax increase in 1993 by about four percent, and it's right at that level now," Prescott said.

Prescott is under the impression that the economy was depressed by the tax increase of 1993. However, this was the beginning of the most sustained economic growth in human history. For him to be ignorant of this fact would be like a Nobel-winning historian not knowing what Columbus did in 1492.

[Shi Huangdi]

I wonder if the thread title was "Nobel Prize winnning Economist slams Bush Tax Cuts for increasing Deficits" the left would have been so quick to slam an entire Academic Discipline.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
I wonder if the thread title was "Nobel Prize winnning Economist slams Bush Tax Cuts for increasing Deficits" the left would have been so quick to slam an entire Academic Discipline.

Of course not! Because then he'd have been right!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Prescott is under the impression that the economy was depressed by the tax increase of 1993.

Um... if the economy was roaring along after 1993, do you really think the Republicans would have swept into power in Congress (for the first time in 40 years!!) in the 1994 election? Of course not. The economy didn't start to begin its assent until mid-late 1995.

I wonder if the thread title was "Nobel Prize winnning Economist slams Bush Tax Cuts for increasing Deficits" the left would have been so quick to slam an entire Academic Discipline.

IIRC, the left has used former Nobel Prize Winners who say Bush's tax cut was not right as evidence that it was a bad idea.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The economy didn't start to begin its assent until mid-late 1995.

Precisely! When the affects of the 1993 tax increase + the increase in the minimum wage kicked in...building consumer confidence.

[Ned]

Just another Nobel Laureate calling Bush stupid.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Precisely! When the affects of the 1993 tax increase + the increase in the minimum wage kicked in...building consumer confidence.

You're kidding? Have any facts to back up that BAM? There is nothing to suggest that tax increases improve economic performance.

I can easily assert that any building of consumer confidence would probably have resulted from the Republicans taking Congress.

[Shi Huangdi]

IIRC, the left has used former Nobel Prize Winners who say Bush's tax cut was not right as evidence that it was a bad idea.

You know Imran, I don't your know positions perfectly but I think I have been of the same mindset. I believe that the deficit spending of this administration has been too much, and the deficit was growing at an unacceptable rate. I belive that spending should try to be curtailed, but if that's not possible, taxes should be increased.

Unlike the Left, however, when a Nobel Prize Winning Economist Disagrees with me my automatic reaction is not that I must be right and the Nobel Prize Winning Economist must be wrong, and that the entire field of Economics must be wrong since a nobel prize winner at that field disagreed with me. What we are seeing here on behalf of the Left is the height of arrogance, pride, and intellectual dishonesty.

[Dinner]

Shi: Nonsense. I agree that in order to get the economic up tick the administration was looking for we would have needed a much larger tax cut. This is essentially what Prescott said; all I've said is that given our current budget deficit we couldn't afford to spend the kind of money needed to really jump start the economy post 9/11. I'm in full agreement with Dr. Prescott. The Bush tax cut was to small; only I bow to reality which says money doesn't grow on trees and I acknowedge that it was the largest tax cut we could hope for. What I don't like is how the Republican controlled Congress, fully backed by the Bush administration, has spent like a teenager with daddy's credit card. They've racked up the largest deficits in the history of humanity and they still want to spend more.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm also sure that Dr. Prescott wouldn't agree with the massive increase in spending that the Bush administration has engaged in (8.5% per year not including military spending, according to factcheck.org).

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[I can easily assert that any building of consumer confidence would probably have resulted from the Republicans taking Congress.

Naw, look what happened to consumer confidence when the Republicans took control of the White House.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Actually some studies show that Wall Street goes up immediately after Republicans win. That would help pump up consumer confidence.

[Dinner]

I'd say the republican win in the Congress had more to do with the Clinton Administration's fumbling then anything else.