Major Newspapers, |
Tuesday, January 22. 2008Paul Krugman: SimpletonTrackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
"everyone is entitled their own opinion, but not their own facts".....david stockman, one of the supply-side architects from the early reagan years (budget director) admitted that the "supposed" benefits of this crazed economic THEORY were misrepresented to help increase defense spending while revenues declined.
KEEP ON LYING.......i'll trust krugman anyday over supply-side THEORY idiots.
There's only one problem with your theory. Revenue only declined under Reagan for one year. Then it went up every year after that.
And while defense spending went up, non-defense spending went up much more in the 80s (despite all the whining about budget "cuts). There were about 300 Democrats in Congress back then, and it's not as if Reagan could do everything he wanted. He had to trade some social spending for defense spending. Those are facts. But then you subscribe to Krugman's views, which are virtually fact-free. What I'm not sure about is that which you attribute to David Stockman. It was the increased spending that he didn't like, and the fact that the government was spending wildly in the 80s was mischaracterized by Rs and Ds alike.
When one of my son's econ professors assigned a Krugman book for outside reading, I warned him to be skeptical. He just laughed and said that he and his friends were hip to the professors who pushed the liberal claptrap -- they just wrote it off to what you had to do to get through the class. It gave me faith.
My wife who teaches post-graduates says she also sees a trend among students over the past 5 years or so in the form of pushback against leftist dogma. They aren't buying it as easily. More hope for the future.
quotes from council of economic advisors on supply-side claims:
Conservative economist Glenn Hubbard, stated in 2003 in response to continued tax cuts that the economy “is unlikely to grow so much that lost revenue is completely recovered by the higher level of economic activity”. Hence, greater deficits. Another conservative economist and former head of the Bush administration’s CEA , N. Gregory Mankiw wrote in a 1998 textbook there is “no credible evidence” that tax cuts pay for themselves. The data just doesn’t support the claim. Furthermore, Mr. Mankiw compared people who support this theory to “snake oil salesmen who are trying to sell a miracle cure”.
Then why, after one year of slightly lower revenue after the Reagan tax cuts, did revenue go up every year after that?
ask glen hubbard and gregory mankiw......they are the economists. i only have 6 years of business education.....and apparently you have none if you believe the claims you've made...........
i only quote REPUBLICANS in response to the barrage of supply-side lies
You're a fallacy generating machine.
The "claim" I made was that revenue went up every year under Reagan except one. That is a FACT. Hubbard and Mankiw are entitled to their opinions. Your level of education, or mine, or theirs, are totally irrelevant to the FACT that revenue went up every year but one after the tax cut. Another FACT (if you can handle two in one day). Non-defense spending went up much faster under Reagan than did defense spending. The real untruth being peddled about the Reagan era is that tax cuts and defense spending caused the deficits. Defense spending and non-defense spending that outpaced the increased revenue created the deficits. |
SearchSupporterAlamsed reviewed
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> |