Friday, December 03, 2010

Your Diagnosis Is Wrong, Mr. Halperin

This poor DC-bound maroon. Been kept in a hermetically-sealed jar on Funk & Wagnalls' porch for the last 10 years, I guess.

...Democrats are understandably -- and largely justified in being -- frustrated that they lost an election based on Republicans defending tax cuts for the wealthy...

He's absolutely nuts.

The Republicans ran on a small-government/less-spending platform (in general.) Preventing a Democrat tax increase--precisely what Pelosi and Reid want to do--may have been part of a larger campaign strategy but it certainly was not prominent.

The Gummint's mandate to insert poisonous lightbulbs in our homes beginning in a year or so, its $Zilliondollar deficits, its "rescue" of GM and the banks--still questionable in many ways--along with ObamaCare, lunch-monitoring, zero-testosterone foreign "policy", anti-business attitude, general arrogance, Cap-n-Tax, and its blatantly Statist orientation, (accumulating over the last 20 years)--THAT was the Republicans' victory-ticket.

IOW, Mortie: "Take your Gummint and shove it!"

We could mention the abusive Federal Courts, Congressional evasion of responsibility, ram-a-jammed choochoo trains, and threats to cut off cellphone use while in cars, too. The list is damn near endless--but "tax cuts for the wealthy" is just plain stupid.

You write for a national rag? How's the circulation coming, Mortie??


J. Strupp said...

You are correct. Republicans did not run primarily on extending tax cuts for rich people so Democrats should see to it that they aren't extended.

You know, because the budget deficit is the biggest problem facing this country right now supposedly.

Anonymous said...

When was the last time that jacking up taxes during a recession led to increased revenues Strupp?


Anonymous said...

By the way Dad you might want to edit out the "zero-testosterone foreign "policy"" part of your post. Rumors are spreading that Obama is threatening not to bow to Kim Jung Il if he kills any more South Koreans.


J. Strupp said...

Gee, David:

Reagan 1982. TEFRA was designed to do just that.

FDR 1932. Roosevelt raised the top marginal rates from 25% to 63%. GDP growth from 1932 to 1937 averaged just shy of 9%. Revenues responded likewise.

You're assumption is a proven myth. Top marginal income tax increases have a marginal impact on GDP and a positive impact on revenues. IOW, the pluses outweigh the minuses. It wasn't long ago that we used to tax this tax bracket at 70%+ and the economy (and tax receipts) did just fine. Ironically, the years the we chose to drastically reduce top marginal income tax rates have produced ZERO real income growth for the people not in the tax bracket in question.

Dad29 said...

It wasn't long ago that we used to tax this tax bracket at 70%+ and the economy (and tax receipts) did just fine

Yah, and it was JFK who knocked them down b/c he wasn't satisfied with the economy.

Besides, top marginal rates are usually avoided. Congress passes legislation designed for the benefit of top-margin payers.

How do you think Theresa Heinz got all that money?