I take on another economic conservative

Right-wing letter writer Murel Fisk repeats the claim that tax cuts lead to more revenue. My response, thanks to Ezra Klein @ the Washington Post for the numbers:

Murel Fisk (Feb. 6), in response to my letter of Jan. 25, repeats the false claim that tax cuts increase revenue ---- challenging me to produce evidence to the contrary. No problem at all.

Mr. Fisk is unaware of one simple, but key, fact: Tax revenues go up in nominal terms almost every year. They went up almost every year in the 1980s. They also went up every year in the 1990s, despite Bill Clinton's tax increase. This fact nullifies his argument. He claims, for instance, that the Bush tax cuts increased revenue from $1.8 trillion to $2.7 trillion. This statement is completely misleading ---- he is committing the post hoc fallacy (i.e., event A precedes B, therefore event A caused B). Here's a more accurate breakdown of the effect of the tax cuts on revenue (courtesy of Ezra Klein of the Washington Post ---- "The GOP's tax delusion," July 11, 2011):

In 2001, taxes revenues were 19.5 percent of the gross domestic product. In 2002, they fell to 17.6 percent of the GDP. In 2003, 16.2 percent of the GDP. In 2004, 16.1 percent of the GDP. Some of that is the 2001 recession. But at no point in Bush's presidency, and at no point since, have taxes returned to 19 percent of the GDP.

Jack Davis

Vista 

His original letter:

Reagan tax cuts produced an 80 percent increase in government revenue. Bush tax policy increased annual revenue from $1.8 trillion to $2.7 trillion. Clinton-era capital gains reduction brought balanced budget. The simple fact that Democrats don't understand ---- economic activity increases when obstruction and burdens decrease.

If Jack can present credible information to the contrary, present it. ( I did).

Murel Fisk

Stupid conservative "arguments"

The guy at this conservative site http://cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/watch-and-youll-never-have-talk-liberal-again#disqus_thread makes a mocking video of some of liberalism' silly talking points. It's pretty funny. I could make a countervideo, though,with stupid conservative "arguments"
1. Government spending doesn't create jobs, except for military spending. 
2. If we lower taxes on the rich, we'll bring in more money! 
3. The average American doesn't realize what a  profound thinker Michele Bachmann is because of the lies of the sexist liberal media. 
4. Government spending is bankrupting us; the government needs to stop spending so much on foreign aid and Planned Parenthood. But don't touch my Medicare or I'll scream "rationing"!
5. Once Obama is replaced by a Republican, we can all breathe easy. The economy will flourish like it did under George W.
6. The problem with our banking and health care systems is that we have any regulations at all. 
7. NPR and PBS and CNN are incredibly biased; Fox News tells us the truth.
8. Obama's a socialist (repeat at least four times a day). 
9. Atheists are bad, except for Ayn Rand and Christopher Hitchens--after all she hated the government and he supported the Iraq war.
10. Keith Olbermann's an obnoxious ideologue; Mark Levin and Michael Savage are just telling it like it is. 
11. Paul Krugman's not a real economist, but Peter Schiff and Art Laffer and anyone from the Cato Institute are. Real economists always support tax cuts and deregulation.
12. The 2008 collapse was all the fault of Barney Frank! No one else!
13. The EPA's attempts to regulate carbon emissions is one step away from Nazism.
14. A fertilized egg is a person because there's a small chance it could develop into one someday.


Responses at the site to my 14 points were not very friendly, I have to say. The word idiot was one of the kindest.

The payroll tax and Social Security

Critics of the recently passed payroll tax decrease have denounced it as a threat to Social Security.  Their argument is simple: payroll tax cuts lower the money in the "Trust fund" which allegedly covers only Social Security payments. Therefore, the lower payroll taxes will reduce the amount of money available to pay Social Security debts. This argument is incorrect, as it is based on a a misunderstanding of how Social Security payments are funded. The alleged "trust fund" is not some magical entity that pays Social Security benefits; the alleged fund is simply a part of the U.S. treasury. The only relevant issue is whether the national government has the money to pay Social Security benefits. The tax cut is no better or worse for Social Security recipients than the Bush tax cuts of last decade. Don't believe me? Former budget director Maurice Stans explained it succintly (1975):

"Social Security payments rest upon the general credit of the Government of
 the United States, upon its taxing power, and not upon any
 accumulations in a trust fund." 

In my view, the payroll tax cut is a bad idea, but not because it takes money directly out of a Social Security "trust fund." The problem with the cut reduces government revenue in a time when there is a huge debt. That's the objection opponents of the cut should be making.

On a side note: it is not meaningful or logical to describe Social Security as "bankrupt." That concept has no coherent meaning when describing a  government program. A government program may be wasteful or inefficient, but it can't be bankrupt. The U.S. government has the authority to reduce benefits at any time, raise taxes, or increase the money supply in order to keep making payments.

Defenders of Tim Tebow are missing the point | ViewsHound

Defenders of Tim Tebow are missing the point | ViewsHound

My new article on Viewshound

Not everything can or should be compromised:

http://www.viewshound.com/politics-usa/2011/12/18/we-may-not-be-able-to-work-together-no-offense-int

My criticism of 99%? movement on viewshound

Feel free to comment (you must have a FB account to log in): http://www.viewshound.com/politics-usa/2011/12/2/why-you-shouldnt-support-the-99-movement

My new article on Viewshound

Five government programs I think should be abolished:

http://www.viewshound.com/politics-usa/2011/11/29/five-federal-programs-we-dont-need?utm_campaign=article&utm_medium=achievement&utm_source=Facebook

He's not quite ready for the Hall of Fame

A huge fan of Tim Tebow's excellence makes this supposed devastating great point--From the WSJ.com (subscription required):

Yes, Tim Tebow beat the Miami Dolphins, the Oakland Raiders, the Kansas City Chiefs, the New York Jets and the Chargers of San Diego.


Call me cynical, but none of these teams are going to make anyone forget the 1985 Bears, the 1989 Niners, the 70s Steelers, et al. I watch the Chargers every week; their crappiness has a lot more to do with their loss to the Broncos than anything Tebow did.