I highly doubt that it will crash the economy after all Clinton reversed Ronnies take cuts and the economy went into high hear for years and years! Besides, look what paper this came from, the kind of the tax cuts.

growinthings: I highly doubt that it will crash the economy after all Clinton reversed Ronnies take cuts and the economy went into high hear for years and years!

No, Clinton did not "reverse" Reagan's tax cuts by any stretch of the imagination. He's referring to the fundamental overhaul of the tax code that happened during the Reagan administration that slashed a number of tax rates and also revamped the myriad of deductions. Prior to the Reagan administration, the tax code was even far more complicated and convoluted than it is presently, with a maze of deductions and extremely high tax rates at the high end. Anything that Clinton did was a mild tweaking compared to the sweeping reforms that Reagan undertook.

Here, if you want to read about Clinton's 1993 tax increase, this is from FactCheck.org (new window) It's just a quick rundown of how it was not the "largest in history" as the Republicans at the time claimed.

Yet he seems little considered about the economic effects of speculators on crack in the oil futures market. Funny that.

When Mr. Mundell is not in New York City - where he's a professor at Columbia University and occasionally appears on David Letterman's late-night TV show (reading from Paris Hilton's book, listing the top 10 ways winning the Nobel has changed his life) - he's often in Tuscany at his 500-year-old castle, "Palazzo Mundell," restored in part with his Nobel winnings.

The one area which I have to hand it to Obama is his group of economics advisors. Those guys are pretty smart (new window). The only thing that freaks me out a bit is that Obama wants to aggressively alter the balance of who pays what in taxes.

One of the fundamental principles of economics is the awareness of unintended consequences. Obama seems to only be looking at the primary effects of a large tax increase on the upper-middle class and the wealthy. In the short term, no doubt tax revenues will increase. In the long run, secondary effects will start to appear, which may include slower GDP growth, more unemployment, less domestic investment, and potentially the need for tax increases on the middle-class as tax revenues start to wain.

IMHO, *both* candidates need to start looking at the major effect the government is having on this economy: it's voracious spending on worthless pork projects and pointless bureaus and departments. If we could just lock the budget at the current level for the next eight years, we would enjoy major payoffs down the line.

They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say, let it crash.

Economists are the second best-paid retards in professional business.

Dr.Zom: When Mr. Mundell is not in New York City - where he's a professor at Columbia University and occasionally appears on David Letterman's late-night TV show (reading from Paris Hilton's book, listing the top 10 ways winning the Nobel has changed his life) - he's often in Tuscany at his 500-year-old castle, "Palazzo Mundell," restored in part with his Nobel winnings.

Sounds to me like he has a very personal interest in keeping the tax cuts in place, since letting them lapse will obviously raise his personal taxes.

The Beacon Man
FTFA: Democratic nominee Barack Obama regularly professes disdain for the Bush tax cuts, suggesting that those growth-spurring measures may be scrapped. "If that happens," Mr. Mundell predicts, "the U.S. will go into a big recession, a nosedive."


Now Fark's legions of Barack Hussein Obama worshipers will come in and explain how this is all wrong - with every explantion either being:

A) A hate-filled tirade.

B) Reams of links (Party Boy style) 'disproving' it.

C) Some variation of b-b-but 'the rich'!



Look! It's Sean Hannity, ranting and raving about things that have not occurred.

What is this, a pre-emptive concern troll?

IndyGemini
In the short term, no doubt tax revenues will increase. In the long run, secondary effects will start to appear, which may include slower GDP growth, more unemployment, less domestic investment, and potentially the need for tax increases on the middle-class as tax revenues start to wain wane.

And what sort of effect would be had by not wiping our collective ass with money vis-a-vis the interest on the national debt? Oooh, but that money stimulates teh economy, because it's like giving free money to people who hold bonds, and they invest it! And we all know that only rich people invest- no one else has saving accounts or mutual funds, and also only the rich buy goods and services.

I'm feeling surlier than usual today.

growinthings: I highly doubt that it will crash the economy after all Clinton reversed Ronnies take cuts and the economy went into high hear for years and years! Besides, look what paper this came from, the kind of the tax cuts.

1. The "reversed" claim is completely incorrect.
2. Post hoc ergo propter hoc error.

FAIL.

DrMcNinja: They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say, let it crash.

HA!

Malbar: I knew it wouldn't be long before some dimwit trotted out the old argumentum ad hominem.

While you are correct that it coming from a Murdoch owned paper does not inherently render the argument false, it does reveal a particular set of subjective filters which will be in place. A better expression of Sammy Jenkins' idea would be: "It's not surprising that an article published in a Murdoch owned paper advocates for a conservative economic policy."

As to the argument's veracity, I suspect the world economy is sturdy enough to survive even the complete collapse of the US economy. It's like when people talk about the planet being destroyed by global warming. The planet will be fine, but we're farked.

As far as the economic system goes, there could be worse things that happen than our current exploitative system collapsing. Currently, the American economy subsists on border-line to de facto to explicit forms of slave labor. Basically, those of us in the industrialized world live at the expense of the people who live in the 2/3 world. That doesn't seem right to me, even though I benefit from it every day (and continue to choose to do so). I would prefer in some ways to keep my nifty toys, but I don't think I could find it in me to cry too hard for too long over the collapse of that system.

The Beacon Man: FTFA: Democratic nominee Barack Obama regularly professes disdain for the Bush tax cuts, suggesting that those growth-spurring measures may be scrapped. "If that happens," Mr. Mundell predicts, "the U.S. will go into a big recession, a nosedive."


Now Fark's legions of Barack Hussein Obama worshipers will come in and explain how this is all wrong - with every explantion either being:

A) A hate-filled tirade.

B) Reams of links (Party Boy style) 'disproving' it.

C) Some variation of b-b-but 'the rich'!

The correct rebuttal is simple: it's the WSJ commentary, idiots. Facts need not apply.

Is "sopshiaticated" an American euphenism for European gaylord?

The Beacon Man:

Now Fark's legions of Barack Hussein Obama worshipers will come in and explain how this is all wrong - with every explantion either being:

A) A hate-filled tirade.
B) Reams of links (Party Boy style) 'disproving' it.
C) Some variation of b-b-but 'the rich'!

I do not profess to be a nobel prize winning economist, but in the article it states that he is "one of the original supply-side" economists.

I very much disagree with the supply-siders, mostly because they all seem to be ideologues... and I fervently disagree with ideologues on all sides. Dumbshiats like Lawrence B. Lindsey, who got the Bush tax cuts initiated in the first place, is a perfect example of such. His sole economic tool was cutting taxes; and in doing so right before going to war is what caused Paul O'Neill (the HUGE pinko-liberal he is) to resign and the old (as in previous) McCain to call shenanigans.

So while I can't argue that this guy is obviously brilliant, there are Nobel prize winning economists on Obama's side too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk8XpLHG_4A (sorry no HTML skills, and no this ain't no rickroll).

...As well as Warren Buffett, who I consider to be the smartest man in Business today.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/16/america/NA-POL-US-Obama-Buffett.php

The Beacon Man: Reams of links (Party Boy style)

damn that internet, with all that linkable evidence and shiat.

/out the door

The Beacon Man: FTFA: Democratic nominee Barack Obama regularly professes disdain for the Bush tax cuts, suggesting that those growth-spurring measures may be scrapped. "If that happens," Mr. Mundell predicts, "the U.S. will go into a big recession, a nosedive."


Now Fark's legions of Barack Hussein Obama worshipers will come in and explain how this is all wrong - with every explantion either being:

A) A hate-filled tirade.

B) Reams of links (Party Boy style) 'disproving' it.

C) Some variation of b-b-but 'the rich'!

Being the first person in a thread to bring up Obama and then calling other people "worshipers" = FAIL

I love how The Beacon Man was able to predict that people who disagreed with the article would either say it was stupid and move on, or give evidence stating why it is wrong.

He should start a 900 number where he gives people their furure for only 4.99 a minute

The Beacon Man: B) Reams of links (Party Boy style) 'disproving' it.

just like every argument against B Hussein O - they've ALL been "refuted"...

/I lol
//every time

Man, the economy must have been unspeakably awful during the Eisenhower administration, when the marginal tax rate for income over $200,000 was 91%.

The Beacon Man: FTFA: Democratic nominee Barack Obama

FAIL

/1700-1600 until Denver
//unless the "democratic" party disallows a floor vote

>> Rescinding the Bush tax cuts would crash the world economy

As far as most people are concerned there is nothing left to crash.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/

Bush handling of the economy

approve 23% - disapprove 73%

The Beacon Man: FTFA: Democratic nominee Barack Obama regularly professes disdain for the Bush tax cuts, suggesting that those growth-spurring measures may be scrapped. "If that happens," Mr. Mundell predicts, "the U.S. will go into a big recession, a nosedive."


Now Fark's legions of Barack Hussein Obama worshipers will come in and explain how this is all wrong - with every explantion either being:

A) A hate-filled tirade.

B) Reams of links (Party Boy style) 'disproving' it.

C) Some variation of b-b-but 'the rich'!

You know its been mentioned before, I find it amusing that these Obama fans do the exact same things they accused Bush fans of doing way back when.

/Likes Obama
//Would never vote for him because his beliefs about economics and policy are almost exactly the opposite of mine
///That and he is a secret muslim :P

Bob16: Bush handling of the economy

approve 23% - disapprove 73%

is this from the same americans who y'all doubt will be "smart" enough to vote for buraq hussein?

The Beacon Man: Now Fark's legions of Barack Hussein Obama worshipers will come in and explain how this is all wrong - with every explantion either being:

I can toss aside the argument made in the TFA without any of that if you're interested.

Lawnchair: the economy must have been unspeakably awful during the Eisenhower administration, when the marginal tax rate for income over $200,000 was 91%.

Thing is there were so many loopholes and such that no one actually paid that.

Rescinding the Bush tax cuts would add inches to your waistline, reduce your gas mileage, decrease your bust size, wrinkle your clothing, foul your breath, yellow your teeth and shrink your penis. Penis.

SherKhan: Rescinding the Bush tax cuts would add inches to your waistline, reduce your gas mileage, decrease your bust size, wrinkle your clothing, foul your breath, yellow your teeth and shrink your penis. Penis.

8/10

(you forgot to say penis)

The enslavement of other races that will ensue when Obama gets the presidency will, no doubt, slightly exaggerate the issue further.

slobarnuts: The enslavement of other races that will ensue when Obama gets the presidency will, no doubt, slightly exaggerate the issue further.

he's gonna elslave races he isn't a member of? man, the blacks just can't catch a break, can they?

Malbar: Sammy Jenkins: I'm sure if it's reported in a Murdoch owned newspaper, it must be true!

I knew it wouldn't be long before some dimwit trotted out the old argumentum ad hominem.

"Dimwit" is actually the only ad hom in the above text, technically. It's not a logical fallacy to consider the source of info or argument. So let's consider the source - a Nobel prize winning economist. Sounds pretty solid to me.

Or does it? If there's one thing Fark has taught me, it's that when someone supports a policy of John McCain, he's trolling. Tsk tsk, I expected more from a Nobel laureate.

Miles D Davis Jr.: (sorry no HTML skills, and no this ain't no rickroll)

See those buttons just above the text box. The third button from the left gives the HTML for a clicky-poppy link. The fourth button from the right gives the HTML for a simple link. The second from the right is for images. In each instance all you need to do is input the appropriate link in after http://.

>> this from the same americans who y'all doubt will be "smart" enough to vote for buraq hussein?
______________________

Actually it seems like they been bashed with the 2X4 enough to figure it out. It took a lot of hits though.

Newsweek poll: Obama leads McCain by 15 points

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ijClHoidEl8XEJMJoUooHU1R_nmgD91E30RO1

WhyteRaven74:
Lawnchair: the economy must have been unspeakably awful during the Eisenhower administration, when the marginal tax rate for income over $200,000 was 91%.

Thing is there were so many loopholes and such that no one actually paid that.

There was some payment at that rate. But, yes, loopholes. Plus a whole lot of investment-in-your-company instead of massive executive pay.

But, yeah, even after Kennedy (didn't take effect till LBJ) closed a lot of loopholes, the marginal tax rate at $100k+ was still 70%. Built a lot of roads, dams, bridges, schools, rural electric, etc., that way.

captain_napalm: slobarnuts: The enslavement of other races that will ensue when Obama gets the presidency will, no doubt, slightly exaggerate the issue further.

he's gonna elslave races he isn't a member of? man, the blacks just can't catch a break, can they?

wat?

Ron Paul Revere:
- Bush's tax cuts relied on an overly optimistic view of the economy continuing to grow and grow, never plateauing or regressing.

Which is how the minions of Supply Side economics see the world. It's like the folks who said the housing market would never crash or that the Fed lowering interest rates to 1% would bring us prosperity forever and ever and ever.

FTFA: Countries like Iran may be pushing for the pricing of oil in another currency, "but it wouldn't happen unless Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states moved in that direction, and I don't see any way in which they would do this," Mr. Mundell says. "It would be very damaging to the relations between the United States and the Gulf countries. There's an implicit defense alliance between those, and that's what overrides as a top priority."

Don't forget about Russia.... a ton of oil and they are planning on selling it only in rubles soon.

captain_napalm:

man, the blacks just can't catch a break, can they?

That's very odd. They're normally so good at catching.

/I'm Hell bound borne on a on raft of my profoundly unfunny jokes

Bob16: Newsweek poll: Obama leads McCain by 15 points

meanwhile, reputable polling organizations have them oscillating, with B Hussein O up 2-6% at this point.

captain_napalm: reputable polling organizations

In other words, polls whose numbers I like better.

log_jammin: I love how The Beacon Man was able to predict that people who disagreed with the article would either say it was stupid and move on, or give evidence stating why it is wrong.

He should start a 900 number where he gives people their furure for only 4.99 a minute

I can't believe I'm coming up empty for jokes about a Fuhrer you can rent for 4.99 a minute. Anybody wanna help me out?

/ftgw
/for the godwin

>> Bob16: Newsweek poll: Obama leads McCain by 15 points

>> meanwhile, reputable polling organizations have them oscillating, with B Hussein O up 2-6% at this point.
_____________________________

Notice the lack of any proof that Newsweek's poll was faulty.

Fart_Machine: In other words, polls whose numbers I like better.

riiight... I guess the 7 or 8 that have it 46-42, 47-43, 43-41, and such are the outliers, and the one that talks about their leading candidate on a first-name basis is the REAL number.

/also dukakis, you moron

Bob16: >> Bob16: Newsweek poll: Obama leads McCain by 15 points

>> meanwhile, reputable polling organizations have them oscillating, with B Hussein O up 2-6% at this point.
_____________________________

Notice the lack of any proof that Newsweek's poll was faulty.

we can start with the fact they polled more Is then Rs, and finish with their criteria (i.e. registered vs. likely voters... the middle can be up to you, because after november, you won't have your way for at least four years.

Fart_Machine: captain_napalm: reputable polling organizations

In other words, polls whose numbers I like better.

Pretty much no matter how you spin it, that Newsweek poll is an outlier. So unless all the others start to catch up with it, we're safe in assuming it's the flawed one.

/And polls this early mean shiat, etc.

captain_napalm: Fart_Machine: In other words, polls whose numbers I like better.

riiight... I guess the 7 or 8 that have it 46-42, 47-43, 43-41, and such are the outliers, and the one that talks about their leading candidate on a first-name basis is the REAL number.

Yup, it's all some huge conspiracy by Newsweek. So in other words I was right the first time - it's the numbers you like better.

/also dukakis, you moron

Because the Dukakis campaign is exactly like Obama's. Wow, you really are an idiot.

Fart_Machine: Yup, it's all some huge conspiracy by Newsweek. So in other words I was right the first time - it's the numbers you like better.

they had Kerry up a whole bunch, too - how did HIS presidency turn out?

Asking an economist, ANY economist, Nobel Prize or not, to predict the result of a single policy change is foolhardy at best. It's about like asking a Nobel-winning physicist what we will find on a manned mars expedition.

That said, I like how he's predicting doom if Bush's temporary tax cuts, which both current presidential candidates opposed at the time, are allowed to expire as planned. He thinks there will be a dramatic difference between a 30% and a 35% marginal top tax rate. It's hilarious that this interview was conducted in a country that is doing pretty well while having one of the highest marginal tax rates in the world, about double the US.

>> we can start with the fact they polled more Is then Rs,

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Gee i wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that there are more Independents than Republicans and more Democrats than Republicans in the country now.

The Repubs have been shedding members like a dog sheds hair in summer.