Ending the Bush Tax Cuts

[Pangloss]

I'm truly sorry if you think I'm being a jerk for pointing out a fact

 

I didn't say that. It isn't fact-pointing that makes you come across as a jerk.

 

 

they are different groups, and the Austrian school of economics \ne the Chicago school of economics.

 

The "23 noble prize winners" (speaking logical fallacies, that would be an appeal to authority right there) were of the CHICAGO school, NOT the Austrian school. They are different, despite some overlap, and your point was false.

 

Some overlap? Not only is that what they teach there, but that's the theory that their graduates go on to support and advocate in the field. How do you know that all 23 recipients aren't Austrian-style economists? The familiar story is that the University of Chicago's School of Economics produces Austrian-style economists, which is why they call it the "Chicago school" of thought. I have no reason to believe otherwise.

 

That having been said, perhaps we have some common ground here. There are certainly some economists who focus more on politics than economics, and, like that Wall Street Journal example I gave earlier, spin the numbers to frame an ideological message. You wouldn't know anybody like that, would you? Say... perhaps a certain Nobel Prize-winning economist who works for the New York Times and who frequently comments (e.g. Sunday talk shows) on political events that have nothing to do with economics?

 

At any rate, if you want to say that some Austrian-type economists push agendas, I have no beef with that. What I have a beef with is your assertion that they're like creationists.

 

 

 

Regarding the rest, numbers 3-6 are not examples of you asking me to support something, they're examples of you ignoring the relevance I already provided.

 

3.

How is this relevant?

 

Provided in the same post you selectively quoted.

 

4.

How is this relevant?

 

Provided in the same post you selectively quoted.

 

5.

How is this relevant?

 

Provided in the same post you selectively quoted.

 

6.

How is this relevant?

 

Provided in the same post you selectively quoted.

 

And I don't appreciate being flooded like that. But I will answer your more reasonable questions, now that you're attempting to be more polite.

 

2.

Or we plunged back into a recession again because of the New Deal, depending on which of the two schools economists we ask, neo-Keynesians or Chicagoans.

Do you have ANY evidence which might support this counter proposal? Any whatsoever?

 

Now, I know you think you've provided evidence in support of point 2 above, but as I've already called to your attention, the link you shared simply demonstrates that another view exists, not what data informs that view. I'm asking you for data. What data is there that the Keynesian view of the 1937 recession is mistaken?

 

By "opinion", do you mean this?

 

The [Federal Reserve] System failed to weigh the delayed effects of the rise in resere requirements in August 1936, employed too blunt an instrument too vigorously; this was followed by a failure to recognize promptly that the action had misfired and that a reversal of policy was called for. All those blunders were in considerable measure a consequence of the mistaken interpretation of excess reserves and their significance.

 

Milton Friedman won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1976, and if he's not an example of the Austrian/market/Chicago school, I don't know what is. And the message here was clearly Austrian. Do you think he's like a creationist?

 

But I didn't say he was right. I said that he has his view, and the Keynesians have theirs -- which opinion we get depends on which school of thought we ask. You're the one who's asking us to favor one group of scientists over another (and insulting one group by comparing them with creationists).

 

You ask me for data, but why should I go spend hours tracking that down when I have the opinion of a Nobel Prize-winning creati- sorry, I mean economist, available at hand? Perhaps he's wrong, I readily admit that. Perhaps your guy is wrong. Whatever?

 

You posted a more data-supported analysis? Good for you. Perhaps that does carry more weight than a mere opinion, even coming from a Nobel Prize-winning economist writing about his field of study. I'm not an economist so ultimately I can't accurately interpret your source's data either. So in the end all I can go by is their conclusion. But you haven't "established facts", you've just given us a great source. I thank you for passing along a data-supported analysis, and remind everyone that there are those who disagree (whom you say are like creationists, even though they win Nobel Prizes).

 

 

1.

Please share the precise quote which led you to this conclusion that "Krugman is promoting the expiration of ALL tax cuts." I'm not getting that from his articles. Clearly you're seeing something I'm not.

 

Sure. Let's take a look at a few quotes from the article you mentioned in the opening post, beginning with the very first sentence, which just shows that he's talking about all the of the cuts.

 

According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent, as opposed to following the Obama proposal, would cost the federal government $680 billion in revenue over the next 10 years.

 

Next we need to see support for my suggestion that he doesn't think they should be allowed to expire. We can find that in the article, in this quote here:

 

Why the cutoff date? In part, it was used to disguise the fiscal irresponsibility of the tax cuts: lopping off that last year reduced the headline cost of the cuts, because such costs are normally calculated over a 10-year period. It also allowed the Bush administration to pass the tax cuts using reconciliation — yes, the same procedure that Republicans denounced when it was used to enact health reform — while sidestepping rules designed to prevent the use of that procedure to increase long-run budget deficits.

 

Gosh, look at all that extra stuff about politics that has nothing to do with economics. Anyway, that bit at the start of that quote about it being fiscally irresponsible to have them (all of them) is support for my point.

 

But he's even more direct:

 

So what’s the choice now? The Obama administration wants to preserve those parts of the original tax cuts that mainly benefit the middle class — which is an expensive proposition in its own right — but to let those provisions benefiting only people with very high incomes expire on schedule. Republicans, with support from some conservative Democrats, want to keep the whole thing.

 

So he thinks the right thing to do is to allow all of them to expire, even the ones for the middle class. He does say at the end of the piece that he hopes the Obama administration stands firm against "this outrage", but the outrage he appears to be talking about there is what he calls in the previous paragraph the 'dysfunctional and corrupt political culture'.

 

So he explicitly criticizes the administration's proposal as "expensive ... in its own right", and the tax cuts as a whole "fiscally irresponsible". Granted he doesn't directly condemn the administration's proposal, but in my opinion it seems clear that his preference is to allow all of them to expire.

 

 

7.

unless the plan is to put everyone permanently to work for the government (ye olde socialist nirvana, which we all seem to agree is undesirable), stimulus for temporary job creation is not a useful long-term strategy.

I'll just ask you this one more time... Do you have ANY evidence which might support this point? Any whatsoever? You see... I ask, because I've shared multiple references throughout this thread which clearly demonstrate the contrary.

 

You mean for the bit about stimulus for job creation not being a useful long-term strategy, yes?

 

This is frequently in the news right now, citing, for example (as I mentioned earlier), the fact that Census workers only had temporary jobs, and when they became unemployed again following that job the number of unemployed in the country just went back up again. That's what I mean by not a good long-term strategy. You can put people to work building roads or taking down information for the government or whatever, but if at the end of that temporary job there's nothing waiting for them in industry, they just go back to being unemployed.

 

So the government hasn't "created" anything, it's simply giving them a temporary safety net.

[Mr Skeptic]

iNow, before your inevitable complaint that Pangloss didn't answer your "irrelevant" accusations, it would help to know what it is irrelevant to. As it is, I rather lost track of what you two are arguing about. Maybe you're both arguing about different things so what you each think relevant would be different.

 

For example, I think Pangloss showed how politics really does affect economics, with his example of how political factors modified a financial bill. An undeniable although indirect effect.

[iNow]

iNow, before your inevitable complaint that Pangloss didn't answer your "irrelevant" accusations, it would help to know what it is irrelevant to. As it is, I rather lost track of what you two are arguing about. Maybe you're both arguing about different things so what you each think relevant would be different.

First, it would not be a complaint from me, it would be a factual observation. Pangloss has failed at every turn to live up to the standards of this site for evidence and logical support of arguments, and for making relevant arguments to the discussion. I know you all like to lambaste me for my harsh tone, but how about some fucking accountability for a lack of logic and citations? How about that? He's a moderator here, FFS.

 

 

Now, to address your question (and thanks, Mr Skeptic, appreciate you stepping in)... I tried to summarize in bullet point form above my points. That is the heart of my argument, so the question is... How are his comments at all relevant to the argument I'm here putting forth?

 

That's rhetorical, btw. I know the answer. The answer is, they're absolutely NOT relevant.

 

 

Again... for review:

• The Bush tax cuts were scheduled to expire
  
• Letting them expire increases revenue to the government; Extending them increases deficits... Significantly... $680 Billion, most of which benefiting only the top 1 tenth of 1 percent of the entire US population
  
• Arguments that tax cuts are better for the economy than federal spending are neither supported by evidence nor history nor data... They are bald hollow assertions and little more
  
• Federal spending DOES help the economy in many multiplying way, and has regularly proven to improve the overall job situation, even beyond just federal jobs... and does so at a far greater "bang for your buck" "output per dollar spent" level than tax cuts. This argument has been supported by relevant data, references, and historical experience; Assertions to the contrary have NOT been supported, and should be dismissed accordingly
  
• Federal spending will take place anyway, regardless of what we do with the bush tax cuts, so we may as well limit the deficit caused by that spending by letting the tax cuts expire and bringing in more revenue to cover those expenditures

 

 

Now, I'm arguing a pure position here... Focused on logic and evidence... and comments about the politics of passing a bill, or fucking healthcare, or that unemployment is high due to improper training (which is also false), or that Obama agrees private sector job creation is important, or that letting the tax cuts expire won't single-handedly solve the deficit problems, or whatever else are completely fucking beside the point.

 

Tax cuts scheduled to expire.

Letting them expire brings in more revenue. Extending them increases deficit.

Tax cuts don't do what people say they do, and their stimulative effect is lower than the effect of federal spending.

 

 

 

Frankly, even if I ignore the irrelevant comments and Pangloss' failure to describe how they are somehow relevant, he has STILL failed to supply actual supporting evidence of his claims. He doesn't seem to have a clue what supporting evidence is, and I'm rather surprised I'm the only one in here taking him to task for it. Didn't this used to be a science site?

 

---

 

 

 

How do you know that all 23 recipients aren't Austrian-style economists?

Never claimed they weren't. I was pointing out that the Austrian school is [math]\ne[/math] to the Chicago school. The Chicago school uses evidence and empiricism, the Austrian school does not. They are NOT equivalent, and the source I shared in my very first reply demonstrated this clearly.

 

 

 

There are certainly some economists who focus more on politics than economics, and, like that Wall Street Journal example I gave earlier, spin the numbers to frame an ideological message. You wouldn't know anybody like that, would you? Say... perhaps a certain Nobel Prize-winning economist who works for the New York Times and who frequently comments (e.g. Sunday talk shows) on political events that have nothing to do with economics?

How is this relevant? My point has never been that there are economists who focus on politics.

 

 

 

At any rate, if you want to say that some Austrian-type economists push agendas, I have no beef with that. What I have a beef with is your assertion that they're like creationists.

Until they provide evidence in support of their assertions, then the parallels between them and creationists remain.

 

 

 

Provided in the same post you selectively quoted.

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to repeat or rephrase then? Obviously, I've missed the relevance of your comments, and could use your assistance in finding it.

 

 

By "opinion", do you mean this?

I'm not requesting opinions, Pangloss. That's the whole point. I'm asking for evidence and data, of which you've supplied none.

 

 

Milton Friedman won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1976, and if he's not an example of the Austrian/market/Chicago school, I don't know what is.

This is another appeal to authority, and another failure to provide the requested evidence and data on your part.

 

 

 

I said that he has his view, and the Keynesians have theirs -- which opinion we get depends on which school of thought we ask.

As has been pointed out to you before, you hold a point of view which has absolutely no valid home on a science forum. Not all opinions are equal. Opinions rooted in evidence and empiricism are ALWAYS better than those which are not. You can state otherwise until you're blue in the face, but evidence trumps opinion every day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

 

 

 

You ask me for data, but why should I go spend hours tracking that down

Because you've made claims, and you've been asked to support those claims with data. This is a science site, and that is a rule here (or, at least it used to be).

 

 

...when I have the opinion of a Nobel Prize-winning creati- sorry, I mean economist, available at hand?

Logical fallacies are also against the rules here, and as has been pointed out to you, this is little more than an appeal to authority. The onus is on you to provide data in support of your assertions, and thus far, you have continually failed to do so.

 

 

You posted a more data-supported analysis? Good for you. Perhaps that does carry more weight than a mere opinion,

Yes, good for me, indeed. It DOES carry more weight than opinion. You should try it sometime.

 

 

Btw... None of the quotes you shared from Krugman supported the point you made. Sorry you don't realize this.

 

You said:

 

"Krugman is promoting the expiration of ALL tax cuts."

 

I asked you to support that, and this is what you shared:

 

 

According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent, as opposed to following the Obama proposal, would cost the federal government $680 billion in revenue over the next 10 years.

 

It's not there. What about your other quote?

 

Why the cutoff date? In part, it was used to disguise the fiscal irresponsibility of the tax cuts: lopping off that last year reduced the headline cost of the cuts, because such costs are normally calculated over a 10-year period. It also allowed the Bush administration to pass the tax cuts using reconciliation — yes, the same procedure that Republicans denounced when it was used to enact health reform — while sidestepping rules designed to prevent the use of that procedure to increase long-run budget deficits.

 

Nope, not there, either. What about here?

 

So what’s the choice now? The Obama administration wants to preserve those parts of the original tax cuts that mainly benefit the middle class — which is an expensive proposition in its own right — but to let those provisions benefiting only people with very high incomes expire on schedule. Republicans, with support from some conservative Democrats, want to keep the whole thing.

 

Sorry, dude. That's three strikes. You're out.

[Mr Skeptic]

First, it would not be a complaint from me, it would be a factual observation. Pangloss has failed at every turn to live up to the standards of this site for evidence and logical support of arguments, and for making relevant arguments to the discussion. I know you all like to lambaste me for my harsh tone, but how about some fucking accountability for a lack of logic and citations? How about that? He's a moderator here, FFS.

 

Well he did support some of his points, especially after you encouraged him to. But keep in mind that economics is a complex field, and no one has really managed to prove much of anything. So much so that they joke that economics is the only field where you can share a Nobel prize for saying opposite things.

 

Now, to address your question (and thanks, Mr Skeptic, appreciate you stepping in)... I tried to summarize in bullet point form above my points. That is the heart of my argument, so the question is... How are his comments at all relevant to the argument I'm here putting forth?

 

That's rhetorical, btw. I know the answer. The answer is, they're absolutely NOT relevant.

 

Indeed, a few (but not all) of his points are not relevant to your argument. Maybe he thought your argument was something else though. Of your bullet points, 5 and 6 could be relevant depending on the structure of the stimulus, although they don't argue against a stimulus in general.

 

Again... for review:

• The Bush tax cuts were scheduled to expire
• Letting them expire increases revenue to the government; Extending them increases deficits... Significantly... $680 Billion, most of which benefiting only the top 1 tenth of 1 percent of the entire US population
• Arguments that tax cuts are better for the economy than federal spending are neither supported by evidence nor history nor data... They are bald hollow assertions and little more
• Federal spending DOES help the economy in many multiplying way, and has regularly proven to improve the overall job situation, even beyond just federal jobs... and does so at a far greater "bang for your buck" "output per dollar spent" level than tax cuts. This argument has been supported by relevant data, references, and historical experience; Assertions to the contrary have NOT been supported, and should be dismissed accordingly

That looks pretty solid to me even from a pure logic perspective. The comparison between tax cuts and federal spending could be questioned, and I don't think it is proven either way (I know you did support your claim), since the effects could go on for decades or more and could be masked by other factors. But it would stand to reason that stimulus spending had better be more stimulating than tax cuts. If you are arguing only for letting the tax cuts expire and using that money for stimulus, then you are arguing something more general than needed for your argument.

 

• Federal spending will take place anyway, regardless of what we do with the bush tax cuts, so we may as well limit the deficit caused by that spending by letting the tax cuts expire and bringing in more revenue to cover those expenditures

This I have to disagree with. I don't think we can solve our deficit by raising taxes, not with the current political atmosphere. We'd just ramp up spending to compensate. On the other hand, if we could somehow cut spending eventually we'd get a surplus and people would demand lower taxes.

 

 

Logical fallacies are also against the rules here, and as has been pointed out to you, this is little more than an appeal to authority. The onus is on you to provide data in support of your assertions, and thus far, you have continually failed to do so.

 

It may be a logical fallacy, but there's a reason for the popularity of this one. Sometimes the people involved cannot properly analyze the data, in which case I think an argument from authority would be superior to data. I know that even Nobel prize winning economists have great trouble with this, and I'm not going to pretend I'm more competent than they are.

 

Btw... None of the quotes you shared from Krugman supported the point you made. Sorry you don't realize this.

 

Well he did show Krugman saying that the tax cuts as a whole were irresponsible, and also that the only choices now were between the Obama plan which he said was expensive and did not say was worthwhile, and the Bush plan which was even more expensive and he expressly said was bad. While not proven I'd say the preponderance of evidence says he's mildly against the making permanent the tax cuts for the middle class.

So what's the choice now? The Obama administration wants to preserve those parts of the original tax cuts that mainly benefit the middle class — which is an expensive proposition in its own right — but to let those provisions benefiting only people with very high incomes expire on schedule. Republicans, with support from some conservative Democrats, want to keep the whole thing.

(bold added by me)

[iNow]

This I have to disagree with. I don't think we can solve our deficit by raising taxes, not with the current political atmosphere. We'd just ramp up spending to compensate. On the other hand, if we could somehow cut spending eventually we'd get a surplus and people would demand lower taxes.

I wasn't suggesting that we would solve our deficit by increasing taxes. I was arguing that extending the tax cuts makes the deficit worse. I was arguing that the cost/benefit analysis and historical data shows federal spending to have a greater net positive impact on the economy than tax cuts. I have shared evidence from numerous sources showing exactly this as pertains to the Bush tax cuts under discussion in this thread.

 

 

Obama acknowledged something similar earlier today at a business oriented town hall when he described that the "math just doesn't work" if you try to cut taxes AND decrease deficits:

 

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/09/20/president-obamas-town-hall-economy-business-and-middle-class

 

Here’s the basic principle. Here’s what I can’t do as President. I think I’ve worked pretty hard and I have a pretty big grasp of the challenges that we’re facing. But here’s what I can’t do. I can’t give tax cuts to the top 2 percent of Americans, 86 percent of that money going to people making a million dollars or more, and lower the deficit at the same time. I don’t have the math.

 

I would love to do it. Every -- anybody in elected office would love nothing more than to give everybody tax cuts, not cut services, make sure that I’m providing help to student loans, make sure that we’re keeping our roads safe and our bridges safe, and make sure that we’re paying for our veterans who are coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan. At some point, the numbers just don’t work.

 

So what I’ve said is very simple. Let’s go ahead and move forward on what we agree to, which is tax relief for 95 -- 97 percent of Americans. In fact, actually everybody would get tax relief, but just up to $250,000 a year more. And let’s get the economy moving faster, let’s get it growing faster. At some point in the future, if we want to have discussions about further lowering tax rates, let’s do so at a time when we can actually afford it.

 

 

Now, I'm still deciding for myself whether or not middle class tax cuts should be extended, but it's irrelevant to the point that extension of the cuts makes deficits worse, and allowing the cuts to expire makes deficits better. I have supplemented this point by showing that tax cuts are relatively ineffective at stimulating the economy, and how federal spending provides more payoff per dollar spent.

 

 

It may be a logical fallacy, but there's a reason for the popularity of this one.

Well, then frankly you've just committed a fallacy of your own, specifically with an appeal to popularity. The fact that it's popular doesn't make it somehow better. Pangloss has done little more than appeal to authority and then expected us to accept that this somehow debunks (or worse, which tries to pretend that it's somehow equivalent to) the numbers and evidence I've shared, and that's bullshit.

 

 

 

Well he did show Krugman saying that the tax cuts as a whole were irresponsible,

Which, as I stated in my very first reply to that point, is [math]\ne[/math] to Krugman opposing ALL tax cuts. It was a comment from Krugman specific to the Bush tax cuts which are the topic of conversation here.

 

 

 

While not proven I'd say the preponderance of evidence says he's mildly against the making permanent the tax cuts for the middle class.

 

And that's a valid opinion, but frankly the comment which you quoted from Krugman:

 

So what's the choice now? The Obama administration wants to preserve those parts of the original tax cuts that mainly benefit the middle class — which is an expensive proposition in its own right — but to let those provisions benefiting only people with very high incomes expire on schedule.

... was a mere statement of fact (he was describing what the administration wants to do, and merely saying that extending cuts per Obama's plan is also "an expensive proposition") and this doesn't by itself support your claims about him being opposed. You're both reading a lot into those words despite how you yourselves repeated call upon members here at SFN to "avoid reading into others words beyond what they actually say."

 

 

Further, the opinion that "Krugman seems mildly against the cuts" is hardly the opposition to "ALL tax cuts" asserted by Pangloss, and it's NOT the assertion I asked Pangloss to support with quotes.

 

 

He has failed to support that assertion, as well as several others in this thread. Perhaps soon he'll just man up and admit his mistake, apologize for his baseless insinuation, or finally provide the evidence which has been requested of him in nearly every response to his posts in this thread.

Edited September 21, 2010 by iNow

[Pangloss]

Lol, whatever, I guess I'm just not man enough, then. That must be it. But hey, it sure beats the silent treatment -- I'll take an active and crude iNow over a sullen and submissive one any day.

 

Thanks for trying, Skep. Was nice of you to do that.

[iNow]

. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~.,

. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,

. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,

. . . . . . . .. ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,

. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}...

. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}

. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./

. . . . . . ../. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./

. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./

. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/

. . . .. .{.._\;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, ..”; /. .. .}

. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../

. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../

. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”

. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\

. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__

,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..` ~-,

. .. `~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\

. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--

 

---

 

Now, I recognize some of the pot meet kettle quality of this next point since I am at fault for failure to follow many, but it's still important to point out why I suggest Pangloss is failing in his duties as a member, and especially as a moderator, of a SCIENCE site:

 

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/7813-science-forums-etiquette/

 

Give Sources

If you're telling us about a study or a theory that you've heard of, try to give links to a web site about it. If you're the only person saying it, not many people are going to believe you (many scientists are skeptics). Try to provide good links which support your point, and remember, dictionary.com is not a technical resource.

 

Don't Strawman

Don't strawman. It is quite annoying and you will lose your credibility, and seriously undermines any argument.

 

One Source Arguments

If you can't provide more than one source, don't try to argue that position. Substantiating an event/opinion/theory requires more than just one source, even if the source happens to be the President/Prime Minister.

 

Give Sources

If you are asking a question or making a point, give references and links so users can see what you are talking about. If they have context, they can better understand you.

 

Einstein is Wrong!

If you're going to try to disprove a major theory, or at least propose something that most people would never believe (there are a lot of sceptics on this forum), try to provide large amounts of evidence. Just because it "makes sense" doesn't mean it has to be right--much of science doesn't "make sense" to some people, but it has proved accurate.

 

 

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

 

2.4 - The use of logical fallacies to prove a point is prohibited. The use of fallacies undermines an argument, and the constant use of them is simply irritating.

 

2.5 - Posts should be relevant to the discussion at hand.

[jackson33]

I wasn't suggesting that we would solve our deficit by increasing taxes. I was arguing that extending the tax cuts makes the deficit worse. I was arguing that the cost/benefit analysis and historical data shows federal spending to have a greater net positive impact on the economy than tax cuts. I have shared evidence from numerous sources showing exactly this as pertains to the Bush tax cuts under discussion in this thread.[/Quote]

 

iNow; While I'm also confused on your direction and frankly have reached a point that discussion between the same half dozen posters in Politics, has become a waste of time, your IMO still not understanding where the separation of Politics and National Interest are or should be involved. If you truly interested in seeing 6 or more years of establishing policy, enactments of law or legislation that in themselves can be altered, then paying the cost in far too many ways to cover here, I can offer you no argument you would accept as rational...

 

If the CBO figured into there calculations (future deficits), the design of the BTC (to sunset 12/30/2010) or the Obama plan to sunset only those that in some manner effect those in the highest two brackets (still questionable, what taxes are involved), there should be no discernable differences in what was planned or are actual revenues, at least from taxable profits/incomes. My argument here are the other factors involved, those your not willing to included and there future cost.

 

As for "cost/benefit analysis and historical date" your simply arguing the "Keynesian economics", which is countered of course by Friedman (and other) theories. My argument here would be "artificial" bases set by what in essence is a termed Federal Government Influence (2-4 years) over that a the US Economical System "Free Market Capitalism", which naturally has peak periods/cycles and has adapted to them, but with a consistent controlling factor, that Government can't offer.

 

Now, I recognize some of the pot meet kettle quality of this next point since I am at fault for failure to follow many, but it's still important to point out why I suggest Pangloss is failing in his duties as a member, and especially as a moderator, of a SCIENCE site: [/Quote]

 

This sort of trash, IMO should be kept private or directed to "staff" with in this forum. First, every experienced poster or member of any forums staff, are going to see things differently on issues, even in Science areas. Second, members that accept the duties to moderate and the responsibilities (never have understood why anyone would), do so at a cost to their time and effort, with no possible personal gains involved, then third and most important to this thread, Pangloss has been addressing your discussion as a poster (not as a moderator). There has not been one comment made by any of you on this thread, I couldn't find some corroborating link with a google search and what bothers me most about your debate style, since you already know this is true.

[iNow]

Is nobody else here going to ask these posters to support their points with logic and evidence? Is nobody going to uphold the standards of this site being ignored by its own moderator?

 

---

 

 

 

I can offer you no argument you would accept as rational...

Jackson - I truly believe you can, you simply haven't yet.

 

 

 

As for "cost/benefit analysis and historical date" your simply arguing the "Keynesian economics", which is countered of course by Friedman (and other) theories.

And that's the point, Jackson. You guys keep asserting that it's been countered, but then failed to supply evidence supporting that counter. It's one thing to say that an argument has been countered, or that there is a different opinion, and it's quite another to support those opinions with facts and numbers.

 

I am simply unwilling to treat as equivalent an opinion not rooted in evidence with one which is, and if SFN and it's members/staff feel otherwise, they can go frak themselves. That's how science works. You support your points. It's not enough to suggest that said support exists, or that there are "other opinions."

 

 

 

 

This sort of trash, IMO should be kept private or directed to "staff" with in this forum. First, every experienced poster or member of any forums staff, are going to see things differently on issues, even in Science areas. Second, members that accept the duties to moderate and the responsibilities (never have understood why anyone would), do so at a cost to their time and effort, with no possible personal gains involved, then third and most important to this thread, Pangloss has been addressing your discussion as a poster (not as a moderator).

And still none of that negates my point that there is a requirement to support our arguments with evidence and logical points, both of which Pangloss has failed to put forth, despite REPEATED requests.

[iNow]

I'll just share some more data since nobody else is willing or able.

 

 

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/tax-cuts/tax-cuts-terminal.html

 

The tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush expire Dec. 31. President Barack Obama and most congressional Democrats want to renew all the measures, except those affecting the highest incomes. That proposal plus some new measures from Obama would cost about $3.3 trillion over 10 years. Republicans are pushing to extend all the cuts for all income levels. That would cost $4.3 trillion over 10 years.

 

Some observers including Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan say the U.S. can't afford either approach. Greenspan advocates letting all the cuts expire to help narrow the U.S. budget deficit.

 

 

There's quite a nice interactive chart at the link above providing details of all of the various proposals at play right now. Enjoy.

 

---

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-20/obama-soros-are-among-small-businesses-bearing-share-of-tax-on-wealthy.html

 

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell says President Barack Obama wants to subject half of all small-business income to a tax increase, a move that he says would strike a blow at the U.S. job-creation engine.

 

McConnell’s numbers add up only if you consider people like billionaire investor George Soros, most movie stars and Obama himself small-business owners, tax experts say.

 

That’s because the lawmaker is basing his figure on a broad definition of the term that experts say includes authors, actors and athletes who employ few if any workers. It also encompasses businesses that many people wouldn’t consider small, such as Soros’s hedge-fund firm and major law partnerships.

 

“Every student who is a part-time Web designer, partner in a law firm with a billion dollars of revenue and investor in a hedge fund gets lumped together in the data, along with real small businesses,” said Edward Kleinbard, a former staff director of the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation and now a law professor at the University of Southern California. “We are being over-inclusive in our use of small-business income.”

[jackson33]

The tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush expire Dec. 31. President Barack Obama and most congressional Democrats want to renew all the measures, except those affecting the highest incomes. That proposal plus some new measures from Obama would cost about $3.3 trillion over 10 years. Republicans are pushing to extend all the cuts for all income levels. That would cost $4.3 trillion over 10 years.[/Quote]

 

From your link iNow...Which looks to me like an endorsement of Obama Policy, from Federal Agencies...

 

Said another way, the annual cost to maintain all the BTC, opposed to OBAMA TARGETED CUTS", will be around 100B$ per year, which I've seen 60B$ as the average or if we simply revert back to the Clinton rates with Obama added cuts the real Federal Take from the private sector, would be 430B$ in 2011, if the ECONOMY improved to the expected levels (Not likely).

 

I've explained the major short term effects, several times, that most those involved in paying that estimated 60-100B$ will adjust whatever needed to get 2011 incomes into 2010 or cost (deductions for 2010) placed into the tax year 2011. As for long term, I'll leave it to the experts with the following link, suggesting they are far too optimistic, considering the International US Corporate Structure and it's ability to move operations (many already have), the expectations of borrowing money by the Federal to support the many Social Programs, long out of hand now growing at there fastest rates or including what interest rates might do into the future....by the way I've purposely not quoted from the article to validate any point I've made.

 

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/09/obama-tax-hikes-the-economic-and-fiscal-effects

 

 

Is nobody else here going to ask these posters to support their points with logic and evidence? Is nobody going to uphold the standards of this site being ignored by its own moderator?[/Quote]

 

I think you already know, this Staff is NOT ignorant of your past here or on other forums. While I've always felt you have some medical problems, that creates a split personality (pick your own words), your showing nothing new here. If any poster, moderator or ADMISTRATOR happens to cross you on one of those bad day's, they will receive the same treatment. As far as Pangloss is concerned, he has grown over time in both Political knowledge, his ability to articulate his points and if anything goes TOO far in referencing comments, IMO the EXACT opposite of what your inferring....

 

Now for your supporting "evidence" and mentioned previously. Think someone once challenged that argument with the analogy of an "Easter Egg Hunt" and who could find the most eggs. Add to that, it's far easier for me to argue the author of any Article, than any poster offering the link, since that poster is simply reflecting the views of that author, rarely does it validate anything other than the posters personal understanding of an issue.

 

Now for a confession; While you were on a rant, using Klugman, Romer and others to support your Keynesian Economics viewpoint, I was well aware of her and her husbands understanding of natural business cycles and how to generate growth, through the Private Sector. While I might disagree on the extent of FEDERAL involvement (regulation) she was/is not IMO and stanch Keynesian advocate, but had to speak as an advocate for her then employer. I'm thinking a good many of the original advocates for Obamanomics, felt he was simply ignorant of certain principles and felt THEY could conform his thinking to a constructive approach to the problems, almost the reverse of he (Obama) had been advocating his entire life. (point) Sometimes when you refer to a link or comment, that link or comment by and in itself is out of context with their true feelings, otherwise called POLITICS.

 

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/BusinessCycles.html

[iNow]

From your link iNow...Which looks to me like an endorsement of Obama Policy, from Federal Agencies...

No need to poison the well, Jackson. It was a link to Business Week, specifically, an objective overview of all plans under consideration.

 

 

Said another way, the annual cost to maintain all the BTC, opposed to OBAMA TARGETED CUTS", will be around 100B$ per year, which I've seen 60B$ as the average or if we simply revert back to the Clinton rates with Obama added cuts the real Federal Take from the private sector, would be 430B$ in 2011, if the ECONOMY improved to the expected levels (Not likely).

Explain what benefit we obtain from paying that cost. The analysis provided thus far suggests that the cost of extension of the cuts outweighs any benefit. I welcome you demonstrating otherwise with evidence and figures.

 

 

 

I've explained the major short term effects, several times, that most those involved in paying that estimated 60-100B$ will adjust whatever needed to get 2011 incomes into 2010 or cost (deductions for 2010) placed into the tax year 2011. As for long term, I'll leave it to the experts with the following link, suggesting they are far too optimistic, considering the International US Corporate Structure and it's ability to move operations (many already have), the expectations of borrowing money by the Federal to support the many Social Programs, long out of hand now growing at there fastest rates or including what interest rates might do into the future....by the way I've purposely not quoted from the article to validate any point I've made.

Please quote which parts support your point, because right now you're making another unfounded assertion.

 

 

 

I think you already know, this Staff is NOT ignorant of your past here or on other forums. While I've always felt you have some medical problems, that creates a split personality (pick your own words), your showing nothing new here. If any poster, moderator or ADMISTRATOR happens to cross you on one of those bad day's, they will receive the same treatment. As far as Pangloss is concerned, he has grown over time in both Political knowledge, his ability to articulate his points and if anything goes TOO far in referencing comments, IMO the EXACT opposite of what your inferring....

And despite all of that, I will remind you that the request for supporting evidence is not by any stretch of the imagination an unreasonable one to make on a science forum, and that is the only request which has been made of him in this thread.

 

I also request that you please refrain from further assumptions about my physical or mental health. Not only is it irrelevant, it's wrong, uncalled for, and has no place here. I don't respond to your posts telling you that I find you rather often totally incoherent, off topic, and rambling like a crotchety old man who's gone a touch senile yelling at kids to get off his lawn, do I? No, I don't, and nor would you appreciate it or find it relevant if I did.

 

 

 

Now for your supporting "evidence" and mentioned previously. Think someone once challenged that argument with the analogy of an "Easter Egg Hunt" and who could find the most eggs.

Well, by your own argument then, finding support of ones assertions is very easy to do, a completely easy and unchallenging task, which leaves open the question on why Pangloss is so resistant and reluctant to do so.

 

One is left to conclude only that Pangloss is unable to support his arguments with facts and numbers, that he is unwilling to openly stipulate this, and that his posts should be ignored for failure to live up to the burden of proof.

 

 

 

 

Now for a confession; While you were on a rant, using Klugman, Romer and others to support your Keynesian Economics viewpoint, I was well aware of her and her husbands understanding of natural business cycles and how to generate growth, through the Private Sector. While I might disagree on the extent of FEDERAL involvement (regulation) she was/is not IMO and stanch Keynesian advocate, but had to speak as an advocate for her then employer. I'm thinking a good many of the original advocates for Obamanomics, felt he was simply ignorant of certain principles and felt THEY could conform his thinking to a constructive approach to the problems, almost the reverse of he (Obama) had been advocating his entire life. (point) Sometimes when you refer to a link or comment, that link or comment by and in itself is out of context with their true feelings, otherwise called POLITICS.

Except, none of that is relevant because I have shared sources with numbers and historical evidence, despite your suggestion I was sharing only links with opinions. And how did Romer become relevant here now? And "Obamanomics?"

 

This site has gone to shit.

Edited September 23, 2010 by iNow

[divagreen]

This site has gone to shit.

 

Oh hush, even though I am a lurker and mostly just read the posts on this site, I still enjoy it immensely. Don't be so grumpy.

 

/end personal reply

 

 

I wonder what Joseph Stiglitz thinks about the current tax cut debate.

 

Wondering if anybody knows who he is and where a lot of this comes from...

[iNow]

I wonder what Joseph Stiglitz thinks about the current tax cut debate.

 

Well, if you listen to what he said last year in context of the tax cuts to be included in the stimulus, he's ALSO against extension of the cuts now, and would ALSO be in favor of letting the Bush tax cuts expire.

 

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a78e69a4-e30d-11dd-a5cf-0000779fd2ac.html

 

As news of the US economy worsens, worries about whether a stimulus could restart the economy are growing. ...

 

What is clear is that tax cuts will not help much. ... It has been surprising, then, to see President George W. Bush’s former economic advisers, including Greg Mankiw, argue that tax cuts are the way forward. ...

 

Tax cuts have increased our national debt. They encouraged America to live beyond its means, increasing our liabilities without commensurate increases in assets. Further tax cuts would do the same. Good accounting looks at assets and liabilities. Spending on infrastructure, education and technology create assets; they increase future productivity.

 

Some of the spending in the stimulus serves multiple ends. Increased unemployment benefits have the largest multiplier effects – cash-strapped families spend every cent given – and meet vital social needs.

 

 

In 2007, Stiglitz also wrote about the Bush tax cuts here.

[divagreen]

Well, if you listen to what he said last year in context of the tax cuts to be included in the stimulus, he's ALSO against extension of the cuts now, and would ALSO be in favor of letting the Bush tax cuts expire.

 

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a78e69a4-e30d-11dd-a5cf-0000779fd2ac.html

 

 

 

 

In 2007, Stiglitz also wrote about the Bush tax cuts here.

 

 

I did listen and don't you find it interesting that someone who first started off as the Reaganonmics love child for global economic order turned into such a pain in the arse economist?

 

I did not catch the first article, but the second one was pretty good, thank you.

[jackson33]

jackson33, on 22 September 2010 - 05:10 PM, said:

Said another way, the annual cost to maintain all the BTC, opposed to OBAMA TARGETED CUTS", will be around 100B$ per year, which I've seen 60B$ as the average or if we simply revert back to the Clinton rates with Obama added cuts the real Federal Take from the private sector, would be 430B$ in 2011, if the ECONOMY improved to the expected levels (Not likely).[/Quote]

 

by iNow; Explain what benefit we obtain from paying that cost. The analysis provided thus far suggests that the cost of extension of the cuts outweighs any benefit. I welcome you demonstrating otherwise with evidence and figures.[/Quote]

 

I'll try, but numbers are hard to explain in written form and your not the best at grasping such explanations...

 

If the entire BTC package were allowed to expire 1/1/2011, in theory revenues to the Federal would increase 430B$ for the 2011 taxing year, due 4/15/2012.

 

If only those effecting the top two brackets, including capital gains/dividends and misc. deductions/credits, are exempt from an extension of the entirety, the increase revenue IN THEORY, will be 60B$ (100B$, your link).

 

Since, for different reasons, we agree on the extensions for up to those 2 Brackets and I believe it should include them (you don't), any perceived benefits, opposed to the consequences if not, are subjective to the opinions author. In my case this means, the entire 430B$ remaining in the private sector, will at least maintain the current level of stability and for whatever time period granted. Not only can most those in those two brackets, have the ability to adjust incomes/expenses (control tax liabilities), they are also the ones that invest, finance and participate in what generates the economy...

 

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/09/obama-tax-hikes-the-economic-and-fiscal-effects

 

I really wish you had commented on this article, which outlines a scenario that should concern you. In order for Keynesian Economics to work, the result must be increased GDP or to the point the National Debt drops to acceptable levels, most say around 50% of GDP. If by 2020 National Debt is 20-22T$ (est. interest payments 800-900B$ annually), yet according to Heritage GDP, Growth has stagnated and the only conceivable outcome (IMO) is a 120-150 ratio and you know what that means, I hope.

 

I also request that you please refrain from further assumptions about my physical or mental health. Not only is it irrelevant, it's wrong, uncalled for, and has no place here. I don't respond to your posts telling you that I find you rather often totally incoherent, off topic, and rambling like a crotchety old man who's gone a touch senile yelling at kids to get off his lawn, do I? No, I don't, and nor would you appreciate it or find it relevant if I did. [/Quote]

 

Well, I was trying to show a little sympathy for your 6 year track record on science forums. You have been an asset to Science Forums for periods and then a destructive force. NOT knowing you personally, I've always felt a sense of personal insecurity in your comments and self analysis (your growth to 10,000 rep points on Hypo) but have only linked a potential problem to Childhood Diabetics in the past couple years. Actually in our earlier years, you used bigotry to argue my positions, which was more amusing than anything else, to me. Incoherence is always a concern for people over 60-70, but then grammar, language skills and articulation of thought can be a cause for not understanding another person. However, when ever your trapped with no apparent coherent response to anyone, your replies to them have generally been the same as any offered me.

 

 

One is left to conclude only that Pangloss is unable to support his arguments with facts and numbers, that he is unwilling to openly stipulate this, and that his posts should be ignored for failure to live up to the burden of proof.[/Quote]

 

Get off this path iNow, Pangloss, his attitudes and abilities to moderate, especially in Politics, are on par or better than anyplace and you darn well know it. If by change your complaint is 'bascule' moving on, no one was sorrier to see that happen than myself, yet probably my fault, not the forums.

 

This site has gone to shit. [/Quote]

 

All forums, under the format used here are having trouble and I frankly don't understand why. If you have some rational answers, start a thread in "Suggestions", which I'd probably join in...

 

I've enjoyed your post on 'Bush Tax Cuts', although I don't agree but this will be my last post

on this thread.

Edited September 23, 2010 by swansont
fix broken link

[iNow]

I'll try, but numbers are hard to explain in written form and your not the best at grasping such explanations...

Thanks, Jackson. I do sincerely appreciate the effort and attempt here, and I'm being genuine. I will state, however, that you really never addressed the question I asked. I was curious about what the projected economic benefit would be if we choose to extend the Bush tax cuts and accept this obvious loss of large revenues. AFAICT, your reply didn't address that.

 

 

Get off this path iNow, Pangloss, his attitudes and abilities to moderate, especially in Politics, are on par or better than anyplace and you darn well know it. If by change your complaint is 'bascule' moving on, no one was sorrier to see that happen than myself, yet probably my fault, not the forums.

I will just remind you that my challenges are not to Pangloss' attitudes or abilities to moderate. My challenges are in the fact that is making assertions and then refusing to support them with evidence and citations when it is requested of him. That is an obvious and indisputable violation of the rules and overall tone of this site, and ALL science related sites.

 

My comments about him being a moderator were peripheral only, as my sense is that a moderator on a science site should NOT be exempted from the rules they are explicitly asked to enforce. Specifically, he should not be allowed to continue making assertions or evade the requirement to support them with evidence, because that requirement applies to all members equally. Pangloss doesn't seem to get that, as evidenced by this thread and several others.

 

---

 

 

 

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/09/obama-tax-hikes-the-economic-and-fiscal-effects

 

I really wish you had commented on this article, which outlines a scenario that should concern you.

 

Okay. I've finally had a chance to review this article. A summary of my response: They make the same assertions as others in this thread without ever backing them up. More detailed reply below. The quotes shown are from the link above.

 

 

President Obama has advanced a plan that reverses the long-standing successful policy. <...> Those who will be most burdened if this plan becomes law are the millions of Americans just starting their economic lives and the millions more trying to find work after the worst recession in 60 years.

 

<...>

 

The current Congress will decide later this fall whether to continue this successful policy...

So here, they too assert that the Bush tax cuts were "successful" without ever defining "success," and further, without ever sharing numbers to support that assertion. Further, they are mistaken (as evidenced by 4 or 5 sources I've shared already in this thread) that "those most burdened" will be those "just starting" their businesses, since the chart I put forth on page one of the thread clearly demonstrates that only the very richest 1% of people in the US will be "most burdened."

 

It's hard to take an argument seriously when it is based on both strawmen AND flawed/inaccurate premises.

 

 

While the jury is still out on the overall economic effects of Bush-era tax relief, these two changes to tax policy, particularly the 2003 legislation, likely boosted economic activity and strengthened the macro economy.

Well, except the jury is NOT still out. We've got 7 years of clear economic data showing that the tax cuts did not boost the economy, and that the economy actually under-performed after the cuts were enacted (see graphic in post #2 of the thread).

 

Then, they again put forth a completely unsupported and baseless claim that the tax cuts "likely boosted economic activity and strengthened the macro economy." What's next? The gold of dark skinned leprechauns "likely boosted" the economy, too? Why not giraffes? How about them? Maybe they "likely boosted" the overall economy, too.

 

I'm just looking for the numbers to support this claim, especially since it serves as the foundation of their ENTIRE argument.

 

 

President Obama, however, has advanced a tax plan that reverses this tax policy.[3] Rather than continuing the pattern of tax reduction and reform, the President and his supporters in Congress and elsewhere are calling for tax increases, primarily on upper-income taxpayers and businesses. Many of these individuals are small-business owners, the primary job creators[4] in the country, whose income often fluctuates from year to year.

I'll just call your attention now again to earlier in the thread... Hell, I think it was the OP itself, which showed that only 2% of small businesses would be impacted. I will then call your attention to swansont's point, one which I later supported myself with an additional source, that they are being WAY over-inclusive of their population of "small businesses." In fact, authors with zero employees are being included (among others), so the percentage is actually lower than 2%.

 

So, given this, tell me again why I should accept the foundational premise of the Heritage Foundation that "many of" those "upper-income taxpayers" are "small-business owners" being negatively impacted by the Obama plan? (HINT: I shouldn't).

 

 

 

What then follows is a whole host of invalid conclusions resting in the assumption that expiration of the tax cuts for the richest 1 tenth of 1 percent will result in severe economic slow-down. Like this:

 

 

 

In short, the economic harm is significant and widespread. Individuals and households throughout the income distribution will bear the brunt of the economic slowdown, resulting in fewer employment opportunities, lower wages, lost consumption, and lower savings.

 

<...>

 

These adverse economic effects stem entirely from the interaction between President Obama’s tax plan and the economic lives of workers, investors, business owners, and retirees who, daily, create the U.S. economy.

 

 

Again, I'm totally willing to accept that those bad things happen if the tax cuts result in economic downturn, however, said downturn has hardly been established.

[iNow]

In case anyone out there has tuned out, or is struggling to follow along with the numbers, or just wants a simplified version of this whole issue, here is a pretty straight forward 2 minute video giving an account of it:

 

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/09/30/white-house-white-board-cea-chair-austan-goolsbee-explains-tax-cut-fight