Spread The Wealth Fear

McCain will aid the wealthiest individuals and entities, leaving the rest, relatively untouched. Obama will aid the middle and lower classes, and hurt the rich. McCain's is a trickle down approach, Obama's is an approach to revitalize the middle class. Both plans will not end the deficit, and McCain's plan will bleed the deficit worse, over the next decade. Fingers in the ears can only go so far.

So much of this is based on simplistic economic modelling, and presumptions of several things necessary to those models that do not hold in the real world, necessarily: ceteris paribus, no discussion of elasticities, no allowance for exogenous shocks, rationality, and perfect information equally available to all economic actors. The historical record doesn't support the trickle-down theory. Interesting thoughts, from Robert H. Frank, Professor of Management and Economics, Cornell:

This is the difficulty with the simple supply and demand curve that Biz is relying on, in assessing the deleterious effects of a higher tax on the rich. The model has not been borne by the historical record, and after a while, one should be asking, why?

You've posted this, as usual, without a source. Source, please?

 

Here is an interesting take.

 

I thought we were in the land of comparing economic theories to real world events and history, and not the loose opinions of a rightist blogger?

Again, I have provided some concrete history to evaluate. I guess we can post polemic from any number of bloggers, but it doesn't seem as useful to me to the debate. The question has been asked - evaluate trickle-down economics, evaluate redistribution, evaluate higher taxes. I'd ask anyone to let us know if this is where we want to stay, over cutting and pasting the loose opinions of a blogger - e.g., "Obama studied Frantz Fanon..., ergo, he's a violent anti-colonialist..." Fellas, I studied Frantz Fanon. The study of postwar colonialism, and independence movements, is, well, common for students of international relations, as Obama was, while at Columbia. The blogger's attempt to connect every thin thread from his book to evidence, somehow, that Obama is in effect a revolutionary commie is paranoid bunk - making about as much sense as the statement:

"This" being the issue of "fundamentalist islamicists hiding messages in child porn sites. To some, there is a personal terror lurking beneath every breath Obama makes. Bunk, in my opinion.

Now, did we want to continue with the thread's topic, or leave it be?

 

I guess you want sources from the far left. Robert H. Frank is from the far left and was brainwashed at the Graduate level by a liberal agenda. Anything that Robert H. Frank has stated, has about as much merit as the blogger from the right.

 

Actually Nate, as of right now we are looking at potentially drops in prices.

Oil is at less than $80/barrel. Gas is at $3/gal in the US. There is room there for about a $0.50 drop in the consumer end if it follows normal patterns between the spread of costs between production and end user costs.

Transportation costs rising to $4.00/gal had something to do with the increase in costs of everything in the US. If gas prices drop and stabilize that will curb that cost increase. It could drop costs.

A world wide recession is negatively impacting the costs of virtually all hard production commodities right now. It is leading to dropping commodity costs. That could drive costs down.

Exactly how producers price things going forward will be seen but there is momentum to see price drops.

Of course the situation is very turbulent...but the downward pressures on prices right now are greater than upward pressures.

As to govt. installed stimulus. Cripes they all have the same impact. If the govt. cut taxes on the high end and had less money and bigger deficits that would have the same dollar impact as cutting taxes on the low end....dollar for dollar. There is no difference there.

 

I agree with Obama wholeheartedly on his words. source for npt

 

Which of course is why he bases his statements in history, and the history can be evaluated by anyone with more than a modicum of curiosity. I'll take any sources from any ideology, so long as the data on which they rest their conclusions can be evaluated, Biz.

Something just a bit more than attempting to link Obama ostensibly connected to Ayers ostensibly connected to a child porn ring ostensibly run by Islamic fundamentalists. All of which you can' t apparently understand.

 

LOL!!! This is your statement??????

As usual, Biz delivers some serious comedy. Thanks man. LMAO.

 

This reminds me of the bar scene in good will hunting.

 

"Them apples?" Loved it.

 

That was Obama statemnt not mine but I did pull it from that article.

Btw I am very disappointed that I did not receive a green rep from the dufus quote and link after all the research I put into that great link.

Very good movie. Was Obama an extra in the movie


barscene

 

LOL - yes, yes it was Obama's statement. As was:

What the hell are we going to do, Biz? After all, as you rightly posted, the man said he's only full of words, and the only reason he wants to be President of the United States is because he can't be Bruce Springsteen, Billy Joel, John Legend or India Arie? Do people know about this conspiracy? Will you help me to get the word out? Please?

 

NPT:

You did a lot of research here especially to source the articles from 2004 and 1996.

Interesting. I suppose Republicans have always argued on behalf of lower taxes. I think they raised the bar in politically taking control of the issue, starting in the 1980's with Reagon. Bush dramatically raised the bar. I believe he has been extraordinarily effective in selling his concepts.

The Bush tax cuts have been terrific for high incomes. Incredibly so for super high incomes. Can't deny it.

Since 2000 though it hasn't driven the economy in a way that corresponds with the arguments he and his supporters suggest. Putting more money in your pockets through lower taxes definitely does one thing and one thing only--IT puts more money in your pockets.

Over the past 8 years it hasn't caused the economy to explode. Its grown--but the growth doesn't correspond to the loud promises from the politicians that pushed the tax plans in the early part of this decade. It certainly hasn't prevented the situation we now see--as we face the most severe economic times since the great depression.

The difference between the political rhetoric and what economists find is often dramatic. There are significant other impacts as one of the 2 articles emphasized, that can cause economic growth, stagnation, or decline.