Facts are stupid things
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
Facts are stupid things
Thanks to the holiday and the altered work schedule, I got to see Sunday's "60 Minutes" and its report on House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. Most of it was actually fairly predictable, but it was hard to ignore this moment near the end:
In what was overall a pretty softball interview with Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, there was one pretty telling moment to illustrate the type of toxic political environment we're living in, due primarily to Congressional leaders like Eric Cantor and that is the unwillingness to even admit facts.
When asked about his image of being someone who is unwilling to compromise and the fact that the man he claims is his hero, Ronald Reagan, was willing to compromise on taxes and work with Democrats, Cantor denied that Reagan ever "compromised his principles." When Leslie Stahl pointed out the obvious, that not raising taxes was one of his principles, Cantor's press secretary interrupted the interview, yelling from off camera that what Stahl was saying wasn't true.
The moment had all the qualities of a 9-year-old boy protesting the existence of the Easter Bunny. The reality, of course, is that Reagan, by the most accurate accounting, raised taxes 11 times as president; he did. of course, slash top marginal rate for the wealthy, but in particular his deal to RAISE payroll taxes for Social Security, a non-progressive tax cut if there ever was one, meant that a typical blue collar worker paid more of his income to the government after Reagan left office than before he came in. This is what the modern GOP has come to. It's one thing, arguably, to dispute the widely accepted science on global warming -- at least in that case there's something to debate, however weakly. But now GOP officials -- not the rank and file voters but the House Majority Leader and his press spokesman -- dispute known facts and figures in cold type. For the love of God, tear down this myth.
Comments (66)
Fisher almost every one of your points is nonsense. Where to start? Tax laws make saving not important? Remind us of the capital gains tax again? What is the tax treatment of that Roth IRA? What of 401k contributions -- ? "We tax income and not spending" -- uh, what? "Our monetary policy" -- monetary policy has a dual mandate, and one can argue definitively that inflation expectations are a huge part of capital investment. "We borrow too much -- to expect positive results" -- this is vague beyond doubt. Who could venture to guess what it means?— Murrayman- Funny, you understand nothing and have read less. Economist on both sides, agree with all of these points. The effective tax rate from withdrawing at retirement from your 401k/Roth is nearly twice if you saved privately, thus not a real reason to save. PA has a tax rate, but as a country we do not have VAT to discourage usage of resources or protect our industries. We borrow to much, with poor results is concise. Your let's spend for OWS to have a party, is a bad reason to fund police, sanitation and other social services. One of the many examples of poor spending since JFK. — Fisher
- @msl- Clinton only proved that given the right other economic circumstances (ie low oil costs and technology/dot.com bubble) it doesn't really matter what is done with taxes. However, without that outside uncontrolled economic benefit, it is difficult if not impossible to do. Clinton along with many other presidents on both sides of the aisle were simply in the right place at the right time. To ascribe too much credit is as silly as assigning blame.
To argue that Clinton's tax increase had a causal effect on the economy 3-4 years after the increases were enacted is ludicrous.— Wiseman6 - Libs softball what happened to HW Bush when he agreed to raise taxes in return for cuts....no cuts and the Libs used it against him.."read my lips"...fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice.... ain't going to happen!!!— sarah89
- Wiseman, Clinton's early attack on the deficit, paid in large part by raising taxes on the wealthiest, helped lower interest rates and spur growth in Clinton's first term. The dot.com bubble arose in his second term, spurred by lower interest rates. Oil costs had been lower from the mid-80s, and falling oil prices had helped get Reagan out of his recession, along with a tighter money supply started by Carter's Fed chairman Volcker. Facts.— montani semper liberi
- I guess Will's point is that Cantor is uninformed about Reagan's record on taxes, or that raising taxes means creating jobs? The article is correct, but leaves out the fact that Reagan was promised $2 in cuts for every $1 of ax increase, and in typical Dem fashion, the increase came, but the deductions didn't. Also, note that he cut rates for "rich" as Will put it, and we had 8 years of job creation and economic growth. Obama wants to raise them, which should have the opposite effect. Why doesn't Obama run on his record if it so great? All he and his surrogates like Will do is attack the Republican candidates. Obama needs to tell us why he should be voted for, as well as the Republicans. the attacking is not productive, and will further divide the country, no matter who wins. That goes for the GOP as well.— Bush3
- Sorry Bush3, Reagan got a cut of almost 10% in discretionary domestic spending during his first term, but he increased defense spending by over 26%. Clinton oversaw huge reductions in defense spending in his first term, which helped reduce the deficit considerably.— montani semper liberi
- @msl- the Internet/Dot-com bubble is generally defined as the period 1995-2000. What were the Clinton years again? The Left's Reagan rode that wave and cheap oil for all he was worth. I would argue that Clinton's run would have been BETTER, had he not raised tax rates...
Let me ask you, which party controlled Congress for the majority of Clinton's term? Similarly, do you think that the fall of the Soviet Union and the reduction in military spending from 5% of GDP to 3% of GDP had anything to do with Clinton's perceived success and deficit reduction the left crows so much about? How much of that did he have to do with?
You mention that Clinton's "staunch deficit reduction" position led to reduced interest rates and spurred growth in his first term. The US Prime rate was 6% in 1993 and rose to 9.23% in 2000 before falling to 6.91% in 2001. Whatever it was Clinton was doing it certainly didn't have the desired effect on interst rates. Or maybe you are going with the Obama argument that it COULD have been MUCH worse, which of course is impossible to prove.
Clinton was in the right place at the right time.... FACTS.— Wiseman6 - @msl- And why exactly was Clinton able to reduce military spending? You make it sound like Clinton actually had something to do with the end of the Cold War that allowed military expenditures to fall. Do you give Clinton credit for the sun rising too every day from 1993-2001? Unbelievable.— Wiseman6
- "Do you give Clinton credit for the sun rising too every day from 1993-2001? Unbelievable." . . . . LOL, wow, that really changes the facts...not. The economy was back in full swing even before 1995 (when the dot.com bubble was just beginning), wiseman. You can desperately give the credit to whatever and whomever else you want, it still don't change the facts. One more time. Clinton raised taxes on the rich in 1993 and lowered them on the poor. Recession in 1994? No. Over 4% growth in GDP in 1994? Yes. Reagan signed the largest tax increase in history in 1982 in the midst of a severe recession. Depression in 1983? Nope. Over 4% growth in GDP in 1984? Yes. Facts.— montani semper liberi
- "Economist on both sides, agree with all of these points. The effective tax rate from withdrawing at retirement from your 401k/Roth is nearly twice if you saved privately, thus not a real reason to save". Fisher I shouldn't even bother replying to your nonsense, but for sake of levity and any readers here curious to the virtues of saving using a Roth, for example, here goes: Roth contributions are after-tax, meaning contributions are not tax deductible. Transactions within the account do not incur tax liability, and withdrawals are tax-free. The notion that "effective tax rate from withdrawing at retirement from your 401k/Roth is nearly twice if you saved privately" is complete nonsense. In other words, Fisher has no assets, doesn't save, and suggests you do the same by bsing about very clear savings incentives. Another incentive to save via a tax is the reinvestment of dividends, which are of course taxed as income. Roll em over.— Murrayman
- MSL -- the technology sector was beginning it's huge push (with tons of US labor) around 1990, right in the middle of Bush 1's presidency. We hit a cyclical economic downturn combined with egregious behavior from Wall Street (read Barbarians at the Gate & Den of Thieves), which caused the economy to appear worse than it actually was. I give Clinton ZERO credit for the economy from 1990-2000 -- he did nothing that I can see that helped spur it along. The real question here is: In the present economic circumstances, will raising taxes on "the rich"/corporations lead to an improvement in economic conditions, unemployment, wages for the middle class. This has nothing to do with "social justice", or "wealth redistribution", as our liberal friends like to refer to. If you believe that raising taxes on the "rich"/corporations will end up creating more jobs, then you should be screaming for the government to do it. I, on the other hand, think that raising taxes on the "rich"/corporations, given our present economic circumstances will do more harm than good: Companies will CEASE hiring for a period of 3-5 years in order to keep their profit targets where they are. Companies will raise PRICES on goods sold to keep revenue targets. The rich will invest LESS because they will have LESS, leading to fewer startup companies, tech/bio-med R&D. All of this will come SAILING back at the middle class in the form of: more unemployment, lower wages, and HIGHER PRICES. The middle class will be hurt by the very actions that were meant to help them.— IggleFan68
- @msl- Please explain Clinton's role in the fall of the Soviet Union, his hard work in reducing oil prices and how he single handedly engineered the technology revolution....
One cannot look at Clinton's tax increases in a vacuum and ignore all of the other positive circumstances (none of which were controlled or caused by him)and come to the conclusion that it was Clinton's tax hikes that played an instrumental role in his administrations economic success.
Taxes are but one aspect of an economy but it is one that the president can control. If you really think it was Clinton's tax policy and not the internet boom, cheap oil and the fall of the Soviet Union, I can't help you.
Maybe if Obama prays really hard for $20/bbl oil, the fall of terrorism and for Al Gore to create the next internet to go along with his tax hikes, he too could foist prosperity on the masses before the election......
One more time-- Clinton was in the right place at the right time.— Wiseman6 - All opinion, but no facts, Iggle. Anyway, I'm not arguing tax increases on the wealthy spur growth by themselves. I gave you facts. Clinton proved that if a fair tax increase is part of a meaningful deficit reduction plan that includes major defense cuts, it can actually lower interest rates and spur the economy - even when its sluggish. Indeed, he was picking up where daddy Bush left off, and daddy Bush could have been re-elected had he not bound himself to that silly Norquist pledge not to raise taxes in the first place.— montani semper liberi
- @msl--
"Clinton raised taxes on the rich in 1993 and lowered them on the poor. Recession in 1994? No. Over 4% growth in GDP in 1994? Yes. Reagan signed the largest tax increase in history in 1982 in the midst of a severe recession. Depression in 1983? Nope. Over 4% growth in GDP in 1984? Yes. Facts."
That sounds an awful like arguing that "tax increases on the wealthy spur growth by themselves" to me. Maybe its that cause/effect style you chose to post in.....
I agree that the Norquist pledge is/was a stupid thing to align ones self with. To do so is to ignore the realities of the job many of which cannot be known in advance. However, we have gotten ourselves too close the the edge of the cliff to not demand significant spending cuts BEFORE tax increases get to the table. Sigificant cuts that will hurt but in the long run will help this country get back on the right track.— Wiseman6
Popular Posts
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- Andrew Sullivan
- Blinq
- Blogorrhea
- Blonde Sagacity
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- James Taranto
- ScrappleFace
- The Corner
- Buzzmachine
- Eat the Press
- Editor and Publisher
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Media Bloodhound
- Mickey Kaus
- Pressthink
- Romenesko
- The Inksniffer
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Above Average Jane
- BlankBaby
- Citizen Mom
- Keystone Blog
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- Phawker
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philly Future
- Phillyblog
- Phillyist
- The Clog
- The Next Mayor
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Young Philly Politics
- Afro-Netizen
- All-Spin Zone
- Atrios
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- Booman Tribune
- CorrenteWire
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- iFlipFlop
- Kiko's House
- MyDD
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Rowhouse Logic
- Slacktivist
- Suburban Guerilla
- Tattered Coat
- upyernoz
- AmericaBlog
- Andy Borowitz
- BuzzFlash
- Crooks and Liars
- Cursor
- Daily Kos
- David Sirota
- Drudge Report
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Fire Dog Lake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hullabaloo
- Jesus' General
- Jon Swift
- Josh Marshall
- Juan Cole
- Kevin Drum
- Mad Kane
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Oliver Willis
- Raw Story
- Swing State Project
- Talk Left
- Taylor Marsh
- TBogg
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Think Progress
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- A Citizen's Blog
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Beer Leaguer
- Dick Polman
- Phillies Nation
- Philling Station
- Shallow Center
- The 700 Level
- The Good Phight
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: