Published: Friday, Aug. 2 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
Scott is correct. He sees things as they really are. It's too bad that
Congress has things backwards. It's too bad that Obama has things
backward. Somehow, those in Washington think that they "own" the money
and that "letting" us keep a little of our hard-earned wages is a
"gift". They have the "backwards thinking" that Scott so
cleverly pointed out.When Obama and Congress realize that private
sector jobs create the tax revenue that Washington needs, maybe then
they'll defeat ObamaCare. Maybe then they'll cut taxes so that the
private sector can create the jobs that will eliminate the yearly deficit. But,
Congress and the President have been putting the cart before the horse for so
long that they've forgotten the proper order of things.
"...Silly me."Silly letter.
Great satire Scott, even though it will be lost on liberals. Satire: "1.use
of wit to criticize behavior: the use of wit, especially irony, sarcasm, and
ridicule, to describe hypocritical behavior." Satires are especially useful
and appropriate in describing liberal politicians. In fact it is an art form!
Gravity causes falling. I do know that. Also that in demand-side recessions,
stimulative spending reduces unemployment. Laws of physics are a little less
mutable than laws of economics, but both are, you know, laws.
Even more boggling than tricky logic like, "you gotta pass the bill to find
out what's in it" and floods causing rain (or visa versa) are things
like... do recesions cause job losses, or do job losses cause recessions. And
if you're in a recession with high unemployment... is the solution to
enlarge government and put more restrictions on businesses and more taxes and
then DEMAND that they hire more people? Or should you lessen restrictions and
taxes so they will hire more people on their own, which will lead to more people
having jobs and buying more stuff creating even MORE jobs and so on...
It's a toughy. The solution probably is to tax and restrict businesses
more and more so government can get bigger and bigger and once the government is
big enough... they can force businesses to get us out of this recession!These type of tricky situations seem so hard for politicians to figure
Not all flash floods make for record rainfall totals so its a valid thing to
Some other things that are cause and effect - low paying jobs cause hunger, lack
of education causes crime, lack of compassion causes cynicism, and war causes
@Mountanman"Satires are especially useful and appropriate in
describing liberal politicians. In fact it is an art form!"An
amusing percentage of conservatives polled think Stephen Colbert is a
conservative. @Mike Richards"Maybe then they'll cut
taxes so that the private sector can create the jobs that will eliminate the
yearly deficit."Our taxes are already at Bush levels for
everyone except those making 250k+ a year whose tax rates are between Bush and
Clinton levels. Last I checked the 90s were prosperous and had practically
balanced budgets. You're the ones who think the way to fiscal solvency for
a household is to quit your second job.
Bush tax cuts led to higher deficits. Trickle-down economics (aka
deregulation and "free market") led to the destruction of the American
economy.Lying about WMDs led to the Iraqi War.
"Cause-and-effect" is a tricky critter, and should be handled with care,
because, as has been famously said, correlation does not necessarily equal
causation. "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" ("after this, therefore
because of this") is a common logical fallacy in arguments. For example,
the fact that roosters crow before sunrise doesn't mean that crowing
roosters cause the sun to rise. In Mr. Soulier's example citing the
poorly-written headline, he correctly implies that flash floods almost
certainly DO NOT cause rain, but then he goes on to imply that rain DOES cause
flash floods, which is technically not 100% true. Granted, rain is a
contributing cause in the occurrence of flash floods, but so are the intensity
of the rain and the geography and topography of the area.Applying
this to economic theory driving fiscal policy, does supply create its own demand
(Say's Law; supply-side economics)? Sometimes, but not always. Well then,
does demand create its own supply (Keynesian mantra; increased consumption leads
to prosperity)? Again, sometimes, but not aways.As I said,
"cause-and-effect" is a tricky critter . . .
. . . And CHS 85 just illustrated my point! All of the things that CHS 85 cites
are very highly correllated, but the causal link varies considerably with each
of the examples, and none of them has an absolute "if A, then always B"
Yes, writer, you have been wrong all this time. Gov't spending has always
been a formidable for stimulating a faltering economy, as Reagan demonstrated
with a massive injection of defense spending in the early '80s that caused
the economy to take off. As prosperity returned, Clinton intelligently backed
off on the stimulus and reduced gov't outlay, which juiced up further
prosperity. You have to know when to apply stimulus and when to back off. Right
now the worst thing to do would be to make huge cuts to gov't spending and
thus cripple the GDP, as even Romney admitted last year. System thinkers know
these things. (BTW, analogies are always false, so forget the flood
How about this one... "Letter about rain causes leftists to flip
out".Lets take them one by one:1. "Trickle-down
economics (aka deregulation and "free market") led to the destruction of
the American economy".Has the American Economy really been destroyed?
That's obviously false. We had a few bad years but it's far from
destroyed, and how many years of prosperity did it bring to the US? It's
almost back to where it was before, and we still have a free market. So how
did the Free Market destroy the US Economy? Corrections will happen in
any free system. No economy can guarantee unlmited and uninterrupted
prosperity.2. Lying about WMDs led to the Iraqi War.WMDs
weren't the only reason for the Iraq war. And which administration said
Hussain had chemical weapons? Wasn't that the Clinton Administration?3. Bush tax cuts worked (at first). The economy improved. But they
needed to be temporary. The stimulation a tax break gives to the enconmy
doesn't neccessarily last forever. If you cut taxes long-term, you need
to cut spending too. Bush did the opposite, and "Conservatives"
criticized opposed him on that. But Bush was never a "Conservative".
Freedomfighter41Trickle-up poverty is working well – in bringing
more and more of us down.You condemn deregulation. There were NO
major financial regulations repealed during the bush years, so you MUST be
condemning slick willy for signing the repeal of Glass-Steagal and for refusing
to regulate derivatives.Who lied about WMD? Too much MSNBC for you!
Hillary and plenty other dems looked at the same intelligence reports and
concluded the same thing, so are you saying they are the ones who lied?atl134THANK YOU for recognizing the 1990s did not produce a surplus.
Your comment about “nearly balanced budgets” is correct. Where you
came up with “You're the ones who think the way to fiscal solvency
for a household is to quit your second job” is beyond me, though.
Actually, the way to fiscal solvency is to not spend more than you make. A
janitor making $40k who only spend $39k is fiscally solvent, yet a MD making
$400k and spending $450k is not.
@lost in DC"Where you came up with “You're the ones who
think the way to fiscal solvency for a household is to quit your second
job” is beyond me, though. "The idea that tax cuts
(decreasing income) lead to increasing federal revenue and decreasing deficits
as is frequently argued.
@ 2 bits and LostSimple challenge. List 3 examples of when
Supply-Side Economics has led to healthy long-term prosperity. I don't
blame you for changing the subject or never responding to this challenge.As someone who has studied economics for years and has read volumes from
the greats, it never ceases to amaze me the "doubt" that has been spread
over the past decade or so over Keynesian economics (often, he is demonized on
AM Radio as some sort of Communist). While Supply-Side is somehow unquestionably
the "savior" of capitalism and the only form that Adam Smith indicated
200+ years ago. In reality, it's as simple as gravity or
evolution (yikes, science! I know!). Keynesian economics works to build a
healthy robust long-term economy and supply-side doesn't.The
Gilded Age, 1920s, and post 1980s has seen the effects of them. The thought
process of "the rich will save us" is completely flawed. It makes it so
very few win big and the rest lose. Whereas, Keynesian gave us the
American recovery in the 30s-40s and provided us with the best economy in the
world. Up until the 1980s, when it all changed.
Great letter. Cleverly put.
Let see if I can explain trickle up for ya… (otherwise know as a healthy
economy)Ya see 100 million consumers (the poor and working poor)
purchase more goods and variety than 1 millionaire buyings a luxury item. When
more goods are purchased, more people are employed, more people employed have
more money to spend, the economy improves. Henry Ford understood this.or Reaganomics (trickle down) consolidates money in a few hands
who are not job creators as much as money changers & brokers, who stuff it
away in the caymans not stimulating anything but their egos, and not buying what
millions of consumers could, back when taxes helped persuade the precious
wealthy and corporations to invest in their employees and businesses in
America.I believe the deregulation Freedom was speaking of was
Reagan's doing. Now we have over 30 years of evidence of the damage
done by these carelessconservative economic schemes.
Continued...Since the 1980s we have reverted back to the failed
version of Capitalism, Supply-Side Economics. We saw the Internet bubble burst
in the 90s followed by the real estate and banking industry failing in 2008.
Throughout the 2000s we saw deregulated commodities, such as oil skyrocket. In
fact, in 2007, did you know that gas prices should have decreased? Supply
increased and demand actually decreased. Instead, the prices doubled. Consumers,
were being gouged. Has anyone been held accountable for that? Nope.
Because Supply-Side demands that the markets remain unregulated. While a few made killings (and didn't create new jobs) the rest of
us suffered.Just as we saw in the Gilded Age.The market
blew up and collapsed in on itself in 2008. Just as we saw in the 20s. How many more examples do we need until we (re)discover the lessons our great
grandparents knew? Supply-Side doesn't work. The truth that
they learned (and we have forgotten) is that the real job creators aren't
the folks on top but the folks in the trenches. If we want to build
a healthy long-term economy, we need to focus on rebuilding the middle-class.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments