Reply With Quote
[redteam] something something nytimes liberal agenda something something.....................[/redteam]
WASHINGTON — The Congressional Research Service has withdrawn an economic report that found no correlation between top tax rates and economic growth, a central tenet of conservative economy theory, after Senate Republicans raised concerns about the paper’s findings and wording.
Article here
[redteam] something something nytimes liberal agenda something something.....................[/redteam]
"Don Stewart, a spokesman for the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said Mr. McConnell and other senators “raised concerns about the methodology and other flaws.”
Translated: How can a report be credible if it doesn't give us the answer we're looking for?
Republicans have misplayed this whole tax issue so badly. It would have been so easy for them to agree to some token tax cuts and then turn around and ask Obama to come up with the 3x spending cuts he said he would back during the debt ceiling circus. Instead they decided to try portraying themselves as fiscal conservatives while simultaneously drawing a line in the sand over millionaires. Hasn't worked.
Aides to Mr. McConnell presented a bill of particulars to the research service that included objections to the use of the term “Bush tax cuts” and the report’s reference to “tax cuts for the rich,” which Republicans contended was politically freighted."
Point.
Jared Bernstein, a former economist for Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., conceded that “tax cuts for the rich” was “not exactly academic prose,” but he said the analysis did examine policy time lags and controlled for several outside factors, including monetary policy.
Couterpoint.
ideology-based Repug economics, the same as ideology-based Repug science.
If the facts don't fit Repug ideology, the facts are wrong.
The author of a study that says tax cuts on high-incomes and small businesses have little to no impact on economic growth has personally donated at least $3,400 to President Obama since 2008—a fact that the media outlets touting the study have failed to disclose.
The author, Thomas L. Hungerford, also gave at least $2,450 to Democratic campaign committees during that same period.
Hungerford is a public finance specialist at the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the nonpartisan agency that provides “policy and legal analysis” for members of Congress.
“CRS is well-known for analysis that is authoritative, confidential, objective and nonpartisan,” reads the CRS website. “Its highest priority is to ensure that Congress has 24/7 access to the nation’s best thinking.”
The CRS study, released on Sept. 14, was timely campaign fodder for the president. Obama wants to raise taxes on individuals and small businesses earning at least $200,000 a year, while his opponent Mitt Romney, who wants to lower tax rates on all levels of income.
Hungerford and CRS director Mary Mazanec did not immediately return requests for comment
Obviously if you have any of your own political beliefs, you are incapable of being a professional.
The Congressional Research Service can withdrawn their report, but you can't withdraw all of the studies that say the exact same thing.
The myth that lowering personal income taxes from their current levels lead to business investment and economic growth has been dispelled with basic economic fundamentals and with high-level econometrics. The proponents of the myth like to tout "it's the common sense approach" that leads them to their conclusion, which unfortunately is still not an acceptable scientific justification for anything, especially when the argument comes from the same people who's "common sense" leads them to believe the world was created by an invisible zombie 6,000 years ago.
Repugs still pushing their repeatedly debunked lie, going back to St Ronnie's voodoo economics, that trickle down economics lifts everybody's boats, creates jobs, stimulates growth.
Worked out pretty well for us Dimmocraps.
Seriously though. I used to really respect and trust the Republican party for its fiscal responsibility.
They used to be a needed and good counter to the worst excesses of Democratic desire to fix everything with government.
That went out the window though, when they so obviously became the party of "borrow and spend".
I wish they would grow some ing backbone, and get real about problems instead of being too afraid to raise taxes when that is what is needed.
Reagan had the nuts to do that. The current crop... not so much.
As a Democrat, I am willing to give en lement reform in return. That appears to be required.
Sorry... /rant.
YOU LIE! GFY!Worked out pretty well for us Dimmocraps.
Seriously though. I used to really respect and trust the Republican party for its fiscal responsibility.
They used to be a needed and good counter to the worst excesses of Democratic desire to fix everything with government.
That went out the window though, when they so obviously became the party of "borrow and spend".
I wish they would grow some ing backbone, and get real about problems instead of being too afraid to raise taxes when that is what is needed.
Reagan had the nuts to do that. The current crop... not so much.
As a Democrat, I am willing to give en lement reform in return. That appears to be required.
Sorry... /rant.
That does not compute...
Why would republicans kill it? In the conclusions, it implies the lower tax rates for the rich generate more tax revenue by them. This is something the liberals would target I think.
"lower tax rates for the rich generate more tax revenue by them"
WTF?
Look at the data they cite. A tax rate about 1/2 as much for the rich made three times as many rich, at those taxation percentages.
If I have a marginal rate of 70% for 4% of the population, but a marginal rate of 35% for 12% of the population...
One thing the report implies is that tax rates tend to increase or decrease the number of rich. raising tax rates will decrease the number of rich tax payers!
WC
All those extra rich tax payers explains why dubya'a and St Ronnie's tax cuts on the rich REDUCE the tax revenue by many $Ts.
We are in agreement on this.Worked out pretty well for us Dimmocraps.
Seriously though. I used to really respect and trust the Republican party for its fiscal responsibility.
They used to be a needed and good counter to the worst excesses of Democratic desire to fix everything with government.
That went out the window though, when they so obviously became the party of "borrow and spend".
I wish they would grow some ing backbone, and get real about problems instead of being too afraid to raise taxes when that is what is needed.
Reagan had the nuts to do that. The current crop... not so much.
As a Democrat, I am willing to give en lement reform in return. That appears to be required.
Sorry... /rant.
Grover Norquist isn't and TBH, that is really all that matters. One of our two major parties has been taken hostage by an unelected and morons pour to the polls at a 50% clip to vote for these assholes.
I have MANY liberal friends; some reasonable, some not so much (wife being a professor and all)....Worked out pretty well for us Dimmocraps.
Seriously though. I used to really respect and trust the Republican party for its fiscal responsibility.
They used to be a needed and good counter to the worst excesses of Democratic desire to fix everything with government.
That went out the window though, when they so obviously became the party of "borrow and spend".
I wish they would grow some ing backbone, and get real about problems instead of being too afraid to raise taxes when that is what is needed.
Reagan had the nuts to do that. The current crop... not so much.
As a Democrat, I am willing to give en lement reform in return. That appears to be required.
Sorry... /rant.
It has become readily apparent to me that there IS common ground between principled ideologues of different stripes - we consistently solve the world's problems over beers (one of these days we'll remember to record one of these sessions - the Federalist papers will pale in comparison, no doubt).
You, RG, are probably another one of those liberals - pretty level headed despite being basically wrong about just about everything
THIS is what makes me believe our elected representatives in Washington are all in this "gridlock" game together. The COULD work something out, but they CHOOSE not to - and each side keeps their own tribe in line by effectively blaming the other. They take on whatever persona is necessary to keep half of the country convinced the other half are either fascists, communists, or a combination of both.
Not that there aren't bone-headed ideologues in Congress, who would behave this way regardless - but they are just pawns on the board; put one of THEM on a Sunday morning show - and the quotes flow, the internets erupt, etc.....blue or red team called to arms.....
Short of throwing them all out (not going to happen) It's going to take a speaker with backbone and convictions, and a President of the same bent - but from separate parties (Clinton, Gingrich for example); who BOTH want to get something done in order for anything to get done. Neither of the men running for President is that guy; and neither potential speaker is that guy (or gal), unfortunately.
That's why I won't vote for either; doesn't matter.
It really does flow both ways.
The whole "War on Women" rhetoric is a perfect example.
The President's bill REALLY DOES (or did) force the Catholic Church to pay for contraception; something EVERYONE knows is against their official dogma. This REALLY did infringe on the Catholic church's rights. And yet the Democrat party has taken a perfectly reasonable objection to that requirement, along with a couple of idiot statements by on currently unelected candidate, and another single house member, and made a WAR!!! out of it. I saw a report on the News Hour recently that showed ads relative to this are actually being cited by people as causing them to change their votes; even though, we can argue to the degree, but I don't really want to - because THAT would be pointless, it is pretty much all fabricated!!! The ads actually suggest that Romney wants to BAN CONTRACEPTION!!! It's not true. No one has ever suggested that, much less Romney - and yet, there the ad is, and there are the "morons" pouring to polls to vote for these assholes.
Different issue, different assholes, different morons, same results.
If the Catholic church wishes to employ people, they have to hew to employment laws. If they can't pull their heads out of the 4th century, that is their problem, not ours.
A perfectly reasonable argument. One that can be debated on its merits. Why then, does the Obama campaign not put THAT in an ad? Why do they stretch the truth to make it sound like the Presidential candidate (not even Catholic) wants to ban contraception?
...or Why is the Romney campaign suggesting Obama want to ban all guns in some of its ads; he's never said anything like that, after all. I'm not running out to buy an arsenal...
(full disclosure, already have a reasonable arsenal on the recommendation of Homeland Security)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
