Is President Obama playing an April Fool's joke on us?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ah right, so when he's saying something you agree with he's an expert in the field, but when he isn't he becomes a greedy liar with no honour? Interesting..

Interesting. When someone like, Mitt Romney completely and drastically reverses his POV, he's a untrustworthy "flip-flopper", but when Krugman does it, its ok?

Also, you do realize that Krugman's Noble Prize (and economic specialty) come from the field of international trade, right?

Also, in 2005, when the NY Times' ombudsman left, he wrote this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/weekinreview/22okrent.html

Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults.

[PLATO]

The issue is that if you impose austerity now you won't have a robust increase in revenues at all.

Read my post. It started..."Austerity is not what I'm talking about"

I think that a tax cut that went away after the recession got better would be a good thing. As long as it went away.

I have no problem with a temporary tax cut eithier. It is far preferable to increased spending and increased taxes...which is what the administration is doing.

Of course, due to Fiscally Responsible people that had to be ended because now we are being forced to deal with the deficit.

Ending the payroll tax cut was a consequence of the higher tax policy of the current administration.

A tax cut that happened right when we started paying off our debt and continued through two expensive wars is a stupid thing.

Nice, non-relevant to the current issue, comment. (Although perhaps a valid comment. )

[Jon Miller]

I think taxes should be done in such a way that:

Revenue as % of GDP stays constant (And is selected by Congress)

Ratio between different types of taxes are kept constant (and could be selected by Congress). By this I mean sales/consumption taxes, property/asset/wealth taxes, income taxes, corporate taxes. Nothing finer.

Details are determined by the bureaucracy.

JM

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think the main issue with temporary tax cuts is that they tend to become permanent (or at least people fight to keep them permanent). After all weren't the Bush tax cuts originally supposed to be temporary. And then there were a huge battle to make them permanent. I think it'd be easier to have that idea of cutting taxes during economic hardship if it was assured that during good times the rate would rise back up to replenish of the coffers.

[PLATO]

I think taxes should be done in such a way that:

Revenue as % of GDP stays constant (And is selected by Congress)

Ratio between different types of taxes are kept constant (and could be selected by Congress). By this I mean sales/consumption taxes, property/asset/wealth taxes, income taxes, corporate taxes. Nothing finer.

Details are determined by the bureaucracy.

JM

I don't disagree with this really...as long as spending is kept to the same parameters. Only exception is "declared" war?

[PLATO]

I think the main issue with temporary tax cuts is that they tend to become permanent (or at least people fight to keep them permanent). After all weren't the Bush tax cuts originally supposed to be temporary. And then there were a huge battle to make them permanent. I think it'd be easier to have that idea of cutting taxes during economic hardship if it was assured that during good times the rate would rise back up to replenish of the coffers.

This is and always has been the problem with the "taxing authority" being elected. It does, however, beat any of the alternatives that I know.

[Hauldren Collider]

I think the main issue with temporary tax cuts is that they tend to become permanent (or at least people fight to keep them permanent). After all weren't the Bush tax cuts originally supposed to be temporary. And then there were a huge battle to make them permanent. I think it'd be easier to have that idea of cutting taxes during economic hardship if it was assured that during good times the rate would rise back up to replenish of the coffers.

The bush tax cuts were never supposed to be temporary. That was just to get it through the senate filibuster.

Also, spending increases are so much harder to reverse than tax cuts.

[Jon Miller]

The administration could not have the stimulus it desired. It thought (and is right) that some of the stimulus should be removed via taking away tax cuts and some by cutting spending and not just by cutting spending.

The government already spends too little on things that are public goods, and the US is loosing competitively due to this (worse infrastructure (transportation, informational, health, etc), worse population capital, worse R&D, and so on).

JM

[Hauldren Collider]

The stimulus always was nothing more than a liberal wishlist Jon. It was a spending increase, increasing the role of government, it was never supposed to be a real stimulus. Please.

[Jon Miller]

I don't disagree with this really...as long as spending is kept to the same parameters. Only exception is "declared" war?

Or recession.

JM

[Imran Siddiqui]

The bush tax cuts were never supposed to be temporary. That was just to get it through the senate filibuster.

Um... changing the law to "get it through the senate filibuster" means they became temporary by design - you know because you need enough votes to pass a bill.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Ah right, so when he's saying something you agree with he's an expert in the field, but when he isn't he becomes a greedy liar with no honour? Interesting..

Point is its hard to find a time in his career when he wasn't a greedy liar with no honor, except perhaps that Enron gig of his.

[PLATO]

Um... changing the law to "get it through the senate filibuster" means they became temporary by design - you know because you need enough votes to pass a bill.

The now sad reality for Republicans is that they probably could have gotten permanent tax cuts of a lesser amount through back then. They gambled on the bigger cuts and thought they could make them permanent later.

[DaShi]

The stimulus always was nothing more than a liberal wishlist Jon. It was a spending increase, increasing the role of government, it was never supposed to be a real stimulus. Please.

To be fair, all government spending that isn't defense is considered liberal by conservatives.

[MrFun]

Didn't know that the budgets for the departments of education, health & human services, and housing and urban development didn't qualify as "public/social spending". Would it be okay to slash those budgets since the money apparently isn't for public/social welfare?

I gave a couple examples, not an exhaustive list.