Professor Mark J. Perry's Blog for Economics and Finance
Posted 4:39 PM Post Link
Links to this post
Well, I wouldn't go quite so far as to say that time-limited cuts don't do well, too. Look at the Bush cuts from several years ago -- they stimulated the economy quite well, even though, at the time, it wasn't certain that they would last for more than a couple years.It's more a matter of cuts being at least for an extended time as opposed to a one-time payout. If multiple paychecks for months benefit, that's different from one or two paychecks looking better.And you'll have better luck pounding that kind of idea (sustained, at least for a time) through a libtard opposer's head than you will "permanent" cuts, even if that's your long term (and sensible) goal.
It seems that most Obama voters have absolutely no idea what they are voting for. When given a choice, they reject his plans in favor of tax cuts.
According to the BEA:GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT: SECOND QUARTER 2008 (FINAL) Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and propertylocated in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 2.8 percent in the second quarter of 2008, (that is, from the first quarter to the second quarter), according to final estimates released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the first quarter, real GDP increased 0.9 percent.The acceleration in real GDP growth in the second quarter primarily reflected a larger decrease in imports than in the first quarter, an acceleration in exports, a smaller decrease in residential fixed investment,an acceleration in nonresidential structures, an upturn in state and local government spending, and an acceleration in PCE that were partly offset by larger decreases in inventory investment and in equipment and software.National Economic Trends-Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis shows from the first quarter of 2008 to the second quarter of 2008, Final Sales increased from 0.89% to 4.33%; Inventories fell from negative 0.02% to negative 1.50%; Consumption increased from 0.61% to 0.87%.
@ Anon 11:30pmDude, how old are you? Seriously? Aren't you the guy who used to get picked on and have your ass whipped on a regular basis when you were in school? That would explain your bitterness, your misplaced arrogance, and why you're so willing to insult others from behind an "anonymous" facade. Let the hurt go, man. Noone can take your lunch money here. A civil counterargument will suffice.
It is disturbing that a qualified economist believes tax cuts are the end-all be-all solution for poor economic times. Mark Perry certainly is unwavering. Of course tax cuts make sense if you deny there is a problem with the current economic situation. What I'd like to hear from this blog are the things that tax cuts can't solve. Is there ANYTHING tax cuts can't solve? When you only want tax cuts it's easy to make those the solution for everything. Fortunately, this view is not universally respected in government.
" Is there ANYTHING tax cuts can't solve?"Tax cuts can't solve wealth distribution problems. It's hard to "spread the wealth around" if you can't take money from productive members of society who do pay taxes and give it as "tax rebates" to less productive members who don't.
Thanks for this chart, Mark! I know we all appreciate the great work all those Bush tax cuts did for our economy. Things are awesome now! If it were a just world, Mark and all the people who think like him would live under the Bush economy. The rest of us, and the people caught in the middle through no fault of their own, could live in the Clinton economy.
"If it were a just world, Mark and all the people who think like him would live under the Bush economy."I'm not sure where the Bush/Clinton comparison is valid. In fact, the article the host posted refers to a tax rebate that was issued during the Bush administration. I know it's a lot easier to make it a Republican/Democrat thing as if all economists are Republican (actually, Tyler Cowen has some interesting research which reveals that most economists are moderate Democrats). Plus, doing it your way means you don't have to do all that cumbersome and irritating critical thinking. I think the consensus is that both the legislative and executive branches in the last 8 years have spent money like a sailor in a whore house. Now I may just be a dumb old country boy, but I don't believe anyone here thinks that MORE government spending is somehow going to undo that.
Hey anon, do some homework: Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts
Post a Comment
Create a Link
Dr. Mark J. Perry is a professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan.
Perry holds two graduate degrees in economics (M.A. and Ph.D.) from George Mason University near Washington, D.C. In addition, he holds an MBA degree in finance from the Curtis L. Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. In addition to a faculty appointment at the University of Michigan-Flint, Perry is also a visiting scholar at The American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.
View my complete profile