Showing posts with label voodoo economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label voodoo economics. Show all posts

Saturday, October 11, 2014

News digest / Catching up on news (10.11.2014)

I've been busy lately for personal reasons, but also my laptop was out of commission for a week thanks to my 2-year-old (see photo), so below are some stories that deserved more attention than I was able to give them. If you've read these then you know (some of) what I do. Enjoy!

It took her about 2 minutes to do that. God love her, the little s--t.

"Scott Walker lost his fight for voter ID. He's still everything that's wrong with the GOP," By Arvina Martin, October 10, 2014, Guardian. URL: http://gu.com/p/42a3m  ANOTHER MAD TEA PARTY EXPERIMENT BLOWING UP IN THEIR FACES... CONTAINED AT THE STATE LEVEL, THANKFULLY.


"Bill de Blasio: From Education to Poverty, Leadership by Example," By Richard (RJ) Eskow, October 9, 2014, Huffington Post. URL: http://huff.to/1vR5knB



"Time for a Guaranteed Income?" By Veronique de Rugy, March 2014 issue, Reason. URL: http://reason.com/archives/2014/02/19/time-for-a-guaranteed-income  WATCH OUT, THE LIBERTARIANS ARE TALKING SOCIALIST REDISTRIBUTION!


"Some Americans Boosted Charitable Giving In Recession; The Rich Did Not," By Bill Chappell, October 6, 2014, NPR. URL: http://n.pr/1CPvxHk  CHARITY WORKS THE LEAST WHEN IT'S NEEDED MOST -- TIME TO STOP RELYING ON IT, IT'S JUST A FEEL-GOOD OUTLET FOR THE FORTUNATE.

"Why would anyone want to talk on the phone ever again?" By Jess Zimmerman, October 6, 2014, Guardian. URL:http://gu.com/p/426qh  AGREED: PHONES ARE ANNOYING AND INTRUSIVE.

"Firestone Did What Governments Have Not: Stopped Ebola In Its Tracks," By Jason Beaubien, October 6, 2014., NPR. URL: http://n.pr/1COVoPL  UMM... NOT SURE WHAT TO THINK ABOUT THIS ONE. KUDOS TO THE COMPANY FOR WANTING ITS WORKERS NOT TO DIE?  WELL OK THEN.

"How the Russian Orthodox Church answers Putin's prayers in Ukraine," By Gabriela Baczynska and Tom Heneghan, October 6, 2014, Reuters. URL: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0HV0MH20141006   KBG AND NOW FSB COLLABORATORS.

"Voodoo Economics, the Next Generation," By Paul Krugman, October 5, 2014, New York Times. URL: http://huff.to/1s49pG2  DYNAMICALLY SCORE THIS!

"Oceans Getting Hotter Than Anybody Realized," By John Upton, October 5, 2014, Climate Central. URL:http://www.climatecentral.org/oceans



"Even if we defeat the Islamic State, we’ll still lose the bigger war," By Andrew J. Bacevich, October 3, 2014, Washington Post. URL: 
http://wapo.st/1vlnuxk    NOBODY GETS THIS.  IT'S LIKE TALKING TO A BRICK WALL.

"Regarding political differences, just blame biology," By Cynthia M. Allen, October 3, 2014, McClatchy DC. URL:http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/10/03/242055/cynthia-m-allen-regarding-political.html   KIND OF DEPRESSING, ACTUALLY. WHY DO I BOTHER?


"China’s explanation for the Hong Kong protests? Blame America," By Anne Applebaum, October 3, 2014, Washington Post. URL: http://wapo.st/1py9Y5S   JUST LIKE PUTIN DOES, BLAME AMERICA.  GEE, WHO KNEW WE WERE SO POWERFUL?? (YET WE CAN'T TAKE OUT A BUNCH OF YAHOOS IN THE DESERT??...)


"Big Food more effective than Big Government in tackling obesity," By Richard Williams, October 3, 2014, McClatchy-Tribune. URL: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/10/03/242079/big-food-more-effective-than-big.html   I'LL RAISE MY DIET COKE AND OLESTRA CHIPS TO THAT!


"Russia ends US student exchange in part over 'friendly relations' of gay men," By Alec Luhn, October 2, 2014, Guardian. URL: http://gu.com/p/42568  WELL IF YOU DON'T WANT YOUR KIDS TO BE GAY THEN DON'T SEND THEM TO THE U.S. OBVIOUSLY. JEEZ.

"Europe, facing common jihadi threat, has no common security policy," By Matthew Schofield, October 2, 2014, McClatchy DC. URL: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/10/02/241856/europe-facing-common-jihadi-threat.html   EUROPE IS INFURIATING IN ITS SLOWNESS AND DIVISION IN THE MIDST OF SO-CALLED UNITY.

"Your baby looks like your ex? This research is scarier than Alien," By Daisy Buchanan, October 2, 2014, Guardian. URL:http://gu.com/p/424kt    YES INDEED, DAISY, YOUR BABY WITH TOM LOOKS JUST LIKE GATSBY!



"Putin Supports Project to ‘Secure' Russia Internet," By Andrew E. Kramer, October 2, 2014. New York Times. URL:http://huff.to/1rPXsUi


"The White House Could Be Made A Fortress, But Should It Be?" By Ron Elving, October 1, 2014, NPR. URL:http://n.pr/1oAUG01   THE U.S. PRESIDENTIAL INAUGURATION USED TO BE AN OPEN HOUSE PARTY... WHO COULD IMAGINE IT NOWADAYS?!

"The 9 Biggest Myths About ISIS Debunked," By Andrew Hart, October 1, 2014, Huffington Post. URL: http://huff.to/YH0xKH

"Putin’s view of power was formed watching East Germany collapse," By Mary Elise Sarotte, October 1, 2014, Guardian. URL: 
http://gu.com/p/4249a   DAS IST KAPUT!

"Is The New AP U.S. History Really Anti-American?" By Emmanuel Felton, October 1, 2014, Huffington Post. URL:http://huff.to/1rM7XrO  CRITICAL THINKING IS INHERENTLY ANTI-AMERICAN, DUH.

"Obamacare's First Year: How'd It Go?" By John Ydstie, October 1, 2014, NPR. URL: http://n.pr/1ozUXR2   IT WENT PRETTY F-ING WELL: I GOT HEALTH INSURANCE AND SO DID MY REPUBLICAN UNCLE T.  'NUF SAID.

"Is America on the ISIS Hit List?," By Graham Allison, September 30, 2014, The National Interest. URL:http://nationalinterest.org/feature/america-the-isis-hit-list-11372   I'LL SAY IT AGAIN: THERE'S NO BETTER LOCATION TO STAGE A TERRORIST INVASION OF AMERICA THAN THE SYRIAN DESERT, NO SIR.

"Federalization as a ’Terrorist’ Act," By Halya Coynash, September 30, 2014, Human Rights in Ukraine. URL:http://khpg.org/index.php?id=1411869882   WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE GOOSE WILL GET THE GOOSE COOKED, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT....


"Earth lost 50% of its wildlife in the past 40 years, says WWF," By Damian Carrington, September 29, 2014, Guardian. URL:http://gu.com/p/42vvx  SCARY. SCARY.  DID I SAY SCARY?


"Neoliberalism has brought out the worst in us," By Paul Verhaeghe, September 29, 2014, Guardian. URL:http://gu.com/p/42v9g


"Europe’s Austerity Zombies," By Joseph E. Stiglitz, September 26, 2014, Project Syndicate. URL: http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/joseph-e--stiglitz-wonders-why-eu-leaders-are-nursing-a-dead-theory   EUROPE IS WEIRD.

"The Economic Case for Paternity Leave," By Gwynn Guilford, September 24, 2014, The Atlantic. URL:http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/09/the-economic-case-for-paternity-leave/380716/   THE WORLD MUST BE PEOPLED! 
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, October 4, 2012

Romney was a lying sack of s--t last night

Romney may have "won" last night's debate according to snap polls, (I watched the first 15:00 then I couldn't take Romney's lying anymore), but he proved once again that he's willing to say anything to get elected, promising us that we can have our cake ($4.8 trillion in tax cuts) and eat it too (zero deficits).

Welcome back, Big Government Conservatism!  How ya been, Voodoo Economics!


Seriously, we've been through this GOP charade how many times already?  And Republicans just keep on trying it.  You know, like when Dubya cut taxes and it was supposed to grow our economy, not the deficit.  Instead, from 2002-2009, Dubya increased our national debt 91 percent or  $5.9 trillion!

Now here's the truth. This is what the non-partisan Tax Policy Center said in August about Romney's proposed 20 percent across-the-board tax cuts, on top of a permanent extension of Bush's tax cuts:

The basic arithmetic of revenue neutrality requires eliminating $360 billion worth of tax expenditures [in 2013] to offset $360 billion of [Romney's proposed] tax cuts. [...] Thus, in order to offset $360 billion in cuts, one must eliminate 65 percent of all of the available $551 billion in tax expenditures.

TPC says these cuts will total $480 billion by 2015.  Total this up over 10 years, as the Obama campaign did, and you get $4.8 trillion that must be made up for somehow.  PolitiFact confirmed it.  

Romney refuses again and again to tell us what tax expenditures he'll end and which loopholes he'll close.  Where's the money going to come from?  Don't worry, he's a business pro, he'll find it, that's what we're supposed to believe!  (Maybe it's hiding in Romney's couch cushions... or in the couches in his offshore banks).  

And it gets worse: Romney wants to increase military spending by $2.1 trillion. That brings the total of unfunded tax cuts and spending hikes to $6.9 trillion, as President Obama correctly pointed out last night.  

(I guess when you calmly call somebody on his B.S. like Obama did to Romney last night, it's considered a losing tactic.  I suppose Obama should have been screaming, jumping up and down, and accusing Romney of being a pants-on-fire charlatan while doing the "you're crazy" finger twirl next to his temple?....)

   

Anyhow, here's how Romney responded to Obama's telling it like it is:  

I'm not looking for a $5 trillion tax cut.  What I've said is I won't put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit.  That's part one.  So there's no economist can say Mitt Romney's tax plan adds $5 trillion if I say 'I will not add to the deficit with my tax plan.'  Number two, I will not reduce the share paid by high-income individuals.  [...Romney makes a joke about how often his own children lie to him...]  I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans.  And number three, I will not under any circumstances raise taxes on middle-income families.  I will lower taxes on middle-income families.  

Exactly.  I mean... huh-what?!?  [Double take.]  Mitt Romney just promised us that he would reject his own tax plan!

The Tax Policy Center's Howard Gleckman summed it up thus: "Romney’s problem is he cannot possibly achieve all of these goals. He is doomed by both political reality and simple mathematics."

Folks, seriously, do the arithmetic.  It's not hard.  Then decide if you want to be deceived or not.  If you want to be lied to then, by all means, vote for Romney.  This guy is an empty suit stuffed with deceit and calumny.  

 UPDATE:  Paul Krugman pointed out in the NYT how Mitt also lied his ass off that his healthcare plan covers pre-existing medical conditions, which is just flat untrue. Romney lied many, many more times during the night, but I'd say these were the biggest two whoppers.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, May 2, 2010

Townhall: 'Starve the beast' doesn't work, never has

Republicans and teabaggers, please file this article written by one of your own away in your brain so that your "BS" alert light goes off whenever you hear Palin or anybody preaching "starve the beast!"

The hard truth is that after 8 years of Reagan and another 8 years of Dubya, it's going to take a combination of tax increases (including on the middle class) and spending cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Defense to balance the federal budget and pay off the debt. Economic growth would also help immensely, but please don't fall for that supply-side "dynamic scoring" crapolla, aka "voodoo economics," i.e. that cutting taxes indirectly increases federal revenues more than the direct loss in tax receipts. Two supply-side GOP administrations have provided ample evidence that this is false.

Sarah Palin says, "Nuh-uh, no more taxpayer cookies for you!"


How Starving Government Gets Fat
By Steve Chapman
May 2, 2010 | Townhall.com

Sarah Palin may hunt moose with a rifle, but when she's out for bigger game, she relies on an unorthodox approach to bring down her quarry: Deprive it of food. "Please, starve the beast!" she recently implored a Tea Party Express rally in Boston.

[There's nothing "unorthodox" about GOP candidates parroting Reagan's stupider statements. That's par for the course. - J]

The critter in question is the federal government, which has been expanding like an oil spill in recent years. Palin's idea, a favorite among small-government advocates, is that the best way to shrink Washington is a permanent regimen of low taxes.

The theory is worth assessing as the president's debt commission grapples with ways to stop the gusher of red ink in Washington. It traces back to President Ronald Reagan.

"We can lecture our children about extravagance until we run out of voice and breath," he said in 1981. "Or we can cure their extravagance by simply reducing their allowance." With that in mind, he pushed through cuts in federal income tax rates.

What he neglected to consider is how much kids would curb their consumption if they could circumvent that restriction with Dad's credit card. Under Reagan, spending rose 22 percent (adjusted for inflation) and the government debt tripled. But Republicans have stuck to the strategy ever since.

When they began, this approach seemed worth a try. But 30 years later, confirmation is hard to find. Like Reagan, George W. Bush reduced income tax rates. In spite of that, inflation-adjusted federal outlays this year are 60 percent higher than they were the year Bush became president.

Advocates could write off this experience as a fluke or claim that without tax cuts, Big Government would be Ginormous Government. But new studies from economists at opposite ends of the political spectrum leave little doubt that even on half-rations, the beast never fails to feast.

The first documentation of this phenomenon came from the most unlikely source -- William Niskanen, who chaired the president's Council of Economic Advisers under … Ronald Reagan. In 2006, he examined the evidence and mournfully admitted that "starve the beast just does not work."

Last year, University of California, Berkeley economists Christina Romer (now head of President Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers) and David Romer undertook an even more extensive review of the data and came to a similar conclusion.

"Following long-run tax cuts, government spending does not fall," they wrote in the Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. "Indeed, if anything, spending rises." In time, "tax cuts tend to lead to tax increases."

Tea partiers will not put much stock in the findings of scholars who hang out in notorious outposts of the counter-culture or in the Obama White House (assuming the two are not the same thing). They may find it harder to ignore University of Alabama political scientist Michael New, an adjunct scholar of the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington.

Writing in the Cato Journal, he reports that "federal expenditures grow faster when revenues are relatively low." Even nondefense discretionary spending -- which excludes military costs and fast-growing entitlements -- experiences a growth spurt when taxes are cut, according to New.

This really shouldn't be surprising. In the first place, cutting taxes doesn't deprive the government of funds as long as it can tap the credit markets on a vast scale. Locking up the ice cream does no good if there's an endless supply of burgers and fries.

In the second place, cutting taxes instead of spending is seductively pleasant. It lets citizens enjoy more government services at no extra cost on April 15.

Forced to pay for everything they get, right away, Americans would undoubtedly choose to make do with less. But given the opportunity to party now and pay later -- or never, if the tab can be billed to the next generation -- they find no compelling reason to do without.

Think of it this way. If you want people to consume more of something, you reduce the price. If you want them to consume less, you raise the price. For most of the last 30 years, federal programs have been on sale, and they've found lots of buyers.

That's how the low-tax strategy has worked in practice. So if we are going to reduce the size of the federal government, we can't rely on starving the beast. We will have to tackle it and wrestle it to the mat.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)