I’m Not an Economist

But these guys are. And Nobel Prize winners too:

We are equally concerned with his proposals to increase tax rates on labor income and investment. His dividend and capital gains tax increases would reduce investment and cut into the savings of millions of Americans. His proposals to increase income and payroll tax rates would discourage the formation and expansion of small businesses and reduce employment and take-home pay, as would his mandates on firms to provide expensive health insurance.

After hearing such economic criticism of his proposals, Barack Obama has apparently suggested to some people that he might postpone his tax increases, perhaps to 2010. But it is a mistake to think that postponing such tax increases would prevent their harmful effect on the economy today. The prospect of such tax rate increases in 2010 is already a drag on the economy. Businesses considering whether to hire workers today and expand their operations have time horizons longer than a year or two, so the prospect of higher taxes starting in 2009 or 2010 reduces hiring and investment in 2008.

That’s right. The very prospect of raising taxes is already causing pain for Americans as their employers tighten their expenditures and defer hiring, spending¬†and investment.

12 thoughts on “I’m Not an Economist

  1. The Annointed One may have no say in tax policy if that scumbag Harry Reid gets his veto-proof majority. He and San Fran Nan will teach him how a plantation is really run.

  2. But but but…did you see what Governor Palin was wearing?

    Did the deed. Called the St Paul paper to cancel today. 25 years of newspaper reading are over.

  3. It always amazes me how so many people apparently cannot figure out that if you reduce the reward for working and providing useful items to the public, people will (shocker here!) not put as much effort into working and providing useful items and services to the public. It is as if they’ve completely forgotten that people respond to rewards, or the lack thereof.

  4. What happens when socialists rule a country?

    When the Argentine government ran out of money in 2001, it blamed the market and increased its own role in the economy. Since then it has imposed price controls, defaulted on its debt, seized dollar bank accounts, devalued the currency, nationalized businesses and tried to set confiscatory tax rates with the aim of making society more “fair.” Mrs. Kirchner and her predecessor (and husband) Nest√≥r Kirchner have also preserved the Peronist tradition of big spending.


  5. And I wonder JR, what the drag effect is on the economy of 10 Trillion dollars in debt, or of offshoring 10 Million high paying jobs, more? Less? I say more, a LOT more.

    Who is going to pay that bill? Clearly, given the conduct of the Republicans, they have no intention of having the rich pay it in measure to how well things have gone for the rich, or even at a rate similar to what they paid in the 90’s. No, no, can’t have talk of that – they DIDN’T actually invest their 2001 tax cut largesse in jobs, but lets fear monger about how any talk of taxation will kill phantom job growth.

    BTW JR – I do find it funny how your party’s Presidential candidate today did what Mitch has been unable to do for 8 years.


  6. What – stump in Indiana?

    Oh, you mean the bit about criticizing Bush?

    Oh, Peev. On this, as on nearly every issue ever, you are utterly wrong.

    Seriously, Peev – between gratuitous declarations of expertise (do you really know more about practicing law than Scott Johnson?) and your utter laziness as a researcher (this bit here) and the self-serving nature of your constant, gratuitous assumptions, beating you up for your constant miscues, errors, arrogations, gang-rapings of fact and context and other flubs is hardly fun anymore.

  7. Somehow, when I hear Apu yapping in my ear from India, trying to walk me through why my cable modem isn’t working, I don’t think “Hm, this was a high paying job here in America.”

  8. Chuck admitted: “25 years of newspaper reading are over.”

    Chuck was still trying to get through the November 12, 1983 paper. “Marmaduke” tripped him up.

  9. “Having the rich pay it in measure of how well things have gone for the rich, or even at a rate they paid in the 90s.” Mitch of course said it much better than me, but my God, do you ever look anything up before you throw up on these pages? For the millionith time, you don`t think the top 1% paying about 97% of all total income taxes is enough? And again, professor, the percentage of total tax paid by the ‘rich’ has gone up since the Bush tax cuts. Please follow along.

  10. Obama states that he might postpone his the increases until 2010. What good will postponing it for a year do? Even thinking about higher taxes beginning in 2009 or 2010 will reduce hiring. But I’m sure the troika of Obama, Reid and Pelosi, those lefty illuminatis, will see to it that all investment will be stifled!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.