Steve Forbes Vs Ben Stein on Fox

[easyt65]

While Steve Forbes defended the great economic booms of the republican eras, Ben Stein declared thatthe way ahead for the future of the U.S. is to begin and continue taxing the upper 10% of America more and more (unfairly) because they can afford it. Stein's economic philosophy clearly echoes the socialist party's and DNC's blueprint of wealth re-distribution rather than everyone paying their own FAIR share while finding ways to cut back on pork-barrel/wasteful goverment spending!

Instead of stopping the illegal invading army of Mexicans and OTMs from stealing MILLIONS from our economy through 'free' medical care and other social programs (that are supposed to be for Americans rather than criminals/illegals) etc. Stein and the DNC's solution is to milk/punish Americans by taking from them far more than their fair share in taxes. What is the incentive in this country to succeed anymore if your 'prize' is only top have the federal goverment digging deep into your pockets in order to pay for Kerry's 'Big Dig', the Dem's/GOP's embrace of illegals/criminals by the selling out/off of our nation, and making this entire nation a 'Welfare' Nation!??
How about we stop giving nations who hate us, scheme against us, and support the terrorists, especially those who have attacked us, BILLIONS in free money.

4 words: The Fair Tax plan!

If our leaders REALLY wanted to find a way to generate and collect revenue fairly, they would seriosuly be looking at the Fair tax program/plan. Most politicians are not interested in that, though, and can see no further than embracing the socialist program of Wealth re-distibution!

The GOP, TWICE now, has proven that reducing taxes (Reagan & now Bush) generates low unemployment rates, higher tax revenue that ever expected, and booming economies. (Yes, the GOP also proved that no matter if it is the Democrats or GOP who spend like a drunken sailor - especially in the midst of a 2-front world war [on terrorism], even in the midst of such a good economy, the deficit will sky rocket!)

According to Ben Stein, the answer is to get rid of the tax cuts and to increase them on the rich. Everytime the democrats do this, however, the economy goes into a recession, as Forbes pointed out. forbes also pointed out that if the 'rich' business owners and companies get hit with higher taxes, they have to cut jobs/employees, make cutbacks, which negatively affect the un-employment rate and the economy.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

The funny thing is, you seem to think that Stein is either a liberal or a Democrat.

Ben Stein was a speechwriter for both Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon, and he has regularly campaigned for and helped raise funds for Republican candidates and the Republican Party itself. He is also an educated and well-respected economist in his own right, with several published and highly acclaimed books on the subject.

In other words, he is a conserative's conservative, from the last American generation that understood that a "conservative" was someone who did what was best for the country-- by being rational, cautious, and at all times fiscally, socially, and militarily responsible.

 

[Iriemon]

While Steve Forbes defended the great economic booms of the republican eras,

What great economic booms were those?

The 3.0% average annual real GDP growth during the Reagan/Bush1 years? Or the 2.6% average growth (thru FY05) we've seen under Bush2?

Ben Stein declared thatthe way ahead for the future of the U.S. is to begin and continue taxing the upper 10% of America more and more (unfairly) because they can afford it.

Well there is no doubt about that, is there?

Stein's economic philosophy clearly echoes the socialist party's and DNC's blueprint of wealth re-distribution rather than everyone paying their own FAIR share while finding ways to cut back on pork-barrel/wasteful goverment spending!

What is a fair share is a matter of opinion.

Instead of stopping the illegal invading army of Mexicans and OTMs from stealing MILLIONS from our economy through 'free' medical care and other social programs (that are supposed to be for Americans rather than criminals/illegals) etc.

We will actually need immigrants to sustain the work force in the coming years as the US labor force ages and shrinks.

Stein and the DNC's solution is to milk/punish Americans by taking from them far more than their fair share in taxes.

Who decides what is their fair share?

What is the incentive in this country to succeed anymore if your 'prize' is only top have the federal goverment digging deep into your pockets in order to pay for Kerry's 'Big Dig', the Dem's/GOP's embrace of illegals/criminals by the selling out/off of our nation, and making this entire nation a 'Welfare' Nation!??

I'd guess the same incentives that caused the country to succeed better in the 1950s, when the top tax rate was 91% and real GDP growth averaged 4.4% a year, better than any decade since, and significantly better than the "great economic booms of the republican eras."

How about we stop giving nations who hate us, scheme against us, and support the terrorists, especially those who have attacked us, BILLIONS in free money.

Iraq would be a great place to start. Iraq is currently the biggest recipient of US aid, by far, about 6x more than the runner-up (Isreal at about $2.5-3 billion a year.

Excluding Iraq, US aid is about $30 billion, a little more than 1% of the budget.

4 words: The Fair Tax plan!

If our leaders REALLY wanted to find a way to generate and collect revenue fairly, they would seriosuly be looking at the Fair tax program/plan. Most politicians are not interested in that, though, and can see no further than embracing the socialist program of Wealth re-distibution!

The "fair"tax plan is a smoke and mirrors scheme to put even more of the tax burden on the middle class and reducing it on the wealthiest.

The GOP, TWICE now, has proven that reducing taxes (Reagan & now Bush) generates low unemployment rates, higher tax revenue that ever expected, and booming economies. (Yes, the GOP also proved that no matter if it is the Democrats or GOP who spend like a drunken sailor - especially in the midst of a 2-front world war [on terrorism], even in the midst of such a good economy, the deficit will sky rocket!)

Hate to burst your bubble, but under the last three GOP presidents we have had lower economic growth, and lower tax revenues than expected.

And yes, the GOP has proven again that when you slash taxes and don't cut spending, you get huge deficits.

Which have accumulated $7.5 trillion of the total $8.5 trillion in debt.

Thank you Ron, George, and George.

According to Ben Stein, the answer is to get rid of the tax cuts and to increase them on the rich. Everytime the democrats do this, however, the economy goes into a recession, as Forbes pointed out.

Did Forbes talk about the '93 tax cuts, after which the country not only did not go into a recession but experienced the longest economic boom in post war history?

forbes also pointed out that if the 'rich' business owners and companies get hit with higher taxes, they have to cut jobs/employees, make cutbacks, which negatively affect the un-employment rate and the economy.

And did Forbes point out that after taxes were raised in '93 on "rich" business owners that there was record job growth (22 million over 8 years), the lowest unemployment in many decades (down to 3.9% in one month) and the greatest period of economic growth since the 50s and 60s (when the top tax rates were 91% and 70%)?

Should tell you something about relying on what Forbes says.

 

[easyt65]

1. Never said Stein was a Liberal or Democrat - just pointed out that he agreed with the DNC/Socialist idea of re-distribution of wealth.

2. No surprise Iriemon would be asking 'what economic booms', even when many great Democrats - even Clinton - now acknowledge the great economic boom from the Reagan era: Reaganomics. Just like with Reagan, Dems attacked his economic policies/plan and were in denial about the results....until several years ago. Same thing with Bush now. His economic plan in many ways mirrors Reagans. Cutting taxes has resulted in some of the lowest unemployment in U.S. History and increased tax revenue to one of the highest points in U.S. history - check the numbers for yourself. The stock market keeps hitting record highs, etc. What is negating the economic 'boom' of the Bush era is the fact that the GOP completely lost touch with who theye were and began to spend like a drunken sailor (or Democrat)....and in a time of war, which is even worse!

Quote:
Ben Stein declared thatthe way ahead for the future of the U.S. is to begin and continue taxing the upper 10% of America more and more (unfairly) because they can afford it.


IRIEMON: Well there is no doubt about that, is there?

This is where I disagree/differ from you and the Democratic/Socialist Party - you actually believe it is OK to $CREW/Steal from the rich in order to execute the Socialist Party gameplan of wealth re-distribution, to pay for your vision of making this country a Welfare State where the citizens are completely dependent on the goverment for EVERYTHING!

Bush and Reagan proved - history proves - that when you lower taxes, jobs are created, tax revenue goes up, the stock market flourishes, and the economy gets better. Bush and the failed 'reign' of the GOP recently also showed that cutting taxes in the middle of a war while adopting the spending plan of the DNC is counter-productive.

 

[Kandahar]

Same thing with Bush now. His economic plan in many ways mirrors Reagans.

:2funny: :2funny:

Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

 

[Iriemon]

2. No surprise Iriemon would be asking 'what economic booms', even when many great Democrats - even Clinton - now acknowledge the great economic boom from the Reagan era: Reaganomics.

Derived from the BEA (Dept of Commerce Bureau of Econ Analysis) GDP figures: http://bea.gov/bea/dn/gdplev.xls

Average annual real growth in the 50s = 4.15%.
Average annual real growth in the 60s = 4.44%.
Average annual real growth in the 70s = 3.26%.
Average annual real growth in the 80s = 3.07%
Average annual real growth in the 90s = 3.11%
Average annual real growth in the 00s = 2.49%
Average annual real growth during Reagan: 3.42%
Average annual real growth during Reagan & Bush1: 3.0%
Average annual real growth during Clinton: 3.71%
Average annual real growth during Bush2 (thru 2005): 2.49%

The great economic boom from the Reagan era averaged 3.0% p.a. real GDP growth. Worse than in the 50s (with a 91% top tax rate) 50s, 60s, 70s, and under Clinton.

I wouldn't used the adjective "great" to describe the Reagan boom personally.

Just like with Reagan, Dems attacked his economic policies/plan and were in denial about the results....until several years ago. Same thing with Bush now. His economic plan in many ways mirrors Reagans. Cutting taxes has resulted in some of the lowest unemployment in U.S. History

Except it still hasn't matched Clinton

and increased tax revenue to one of the highest points in U.S. history - check the numbers for yourself.

I have. Revenues have barely even kept up with inflation, and are hundreds of billions lower than theywould have been without the tax cuts.

The stock market keeps hitting record highs, etc.

Up 15% this year. Wowsie.

... GOP completely lost touch with who theye were and began to spend like a drunken sailor (or Democrat)....and in a time of war, which is even worse!

Can't deny that.

This is where I disagree/differ from you and the Democratic/Socialist Party - you actually believe it is OK to $CREW/Steal from the rich in order to execute the Socialist Party gameplan of wealth re-distribution, to pay for your vision of making this country a Welfare State where the citizens are completely dependent on the goverment for EVERYTHING!

Actually, haven't read your posts for a while, it does give me some slight degree of pleasure to think of you getting jammed with higher taxes.

Bush and Reagan proved - history proves - that when you lower taxes, jobs are created, tax revenue goes up, the stock market flourishes, and the economy gets better. Bush and the failed 'reign' of the GOP recently also showed that cutting taxes in the middle of a war while adopting the spending plan of the DNC is counter-productive.

Bush and Reagan proved when you slash taxes, revenues plummet, and since they couldn't control their spending, deficits skyrocketed. Now we have $8.5 trillion in debt, growing out of control, and an annual $400 billion interest expense on the debt.

Thank you Ron George and George. The leaders of the pass the buck generation.

 

[easyt65]

Actually a report on CNN the other noght documented/showed how the tax cuts have generated more tax revenue than almost any other time....but how the spending, war, etc is hurting the economy.

Sort of like how the DNC doesn't have a friggin' clue about what forcing the minimum wage higher does.

Minimum wage goes up, and the mom-n-pop store who had hired 4 people now has to CUT one of those jobs because they can't afford to pay all 4 the higher salaries. unemployment goes up, and the DNC's attempt to help the 4 workers with higher wages results in 3 getting paid more, 1 being fired, and the store owners wor force being cut by 1. Yay DNC!

 

[Iriemon]

Actually a report on CNN the other noght documented/showed how the tax cuts have generated more tax revenue than almost any other time....but how the spending, war, etc is hurting the economy.

Actual tax revenues are higher than before. So what? If you don't cut taxes, revenues grow with wages and inflation and GDP. The were higher every single year under Clinton that ever before. Which "proves" what?

 

[Iriemon]

Actually a report on CNN the other noght documented/showed how the tax cuts have generated more tax revenue than almost any other time....but how the spending, war, etc is hurting the economy.

Sort of like how the DNC doesn't have a friggin' clue about what forcing the minimum wage higher does.

Minimum wage goes up, and the mom-n-pop store who had hired 4 people now has to CUT one of those jobs because they can't afford to pay all 4 the higher salaries. unemployment goes up, and the DNC's attempt to help the 4 workers with higher wages results in 3 getting paid more, 1 being fired, and the store owners wor force being cut by 1. Yay DNC!

If unemployment was a problem, I'd agree with this concern. But as you pointed out, unemployment is at a very low level. And with corporate profits soaring, I doubt will see a major effect on employment. So the chief effect of increasing minimum wage is to give those at the very bottom of the wage scale a chance for a little improvement in their lives.

YAY DNC!!!

 

[easyt65]

Yes, unemployment is at an all-time low, having come down during this administration; yet, you & the DNC still fail to make the connection with the tax breaks and the fall of the unemplyment rate. And when the Dems increase the minimum wage and get rid of the tax breaks & the unemployment rate begins to rise again, you will still not get the connection, and will blame anything else but your own actions that have affected the economy/rise in unemplyment!

The answer at that point will not be to do something that actually causes unemployment to go down - NO! The answer will be to increase the social programs to 'take care of' the people your economic plans have caused to lose their jobs, unfairly taxing those 'who can afford it' because you socialists have deemed it your responsibility/within your power to decide how much money Americans are allowed to make - how much is 'enough' for the rest of us!

 

[Iriemon]

Yes, unemployment is at an all-time low,

It is not.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=LN_cpsbref3

having come down during this administration; yet, you & the DNC still fail to make the connection with the tax breaks and the fall of the unemplyment rate.

The unemployment rate was lower in 1999 and 2000, some months below 4%, before the tax cuts. It is higher now. If you attribute employment rates to tax policy, exactly what connection between unemployment and the tax cuts should I and the DNC make?

And when the Dems increase the minimum wage and get rid of the tax breaks & the unemployment rate begins to rise again,

Do you mean like what happened during the Clinton admin the last time taxes were increased and the minimum wage was increased?

Year - unemp. rate

1993 6.9
1994 6.1
1995 5.6
1996 5.4
1997 4.9
1998 4.5
1999 4.2
2000 4.0

The answer at that point will not be to do something that actually causes unemployment to go down - NO! The answer will be to increase the social programs to 'take care of' the people your economic plans have caused to lose their jobs, unfairly taxing those 'who can afford it' because you socialists have deemed it your responsibility/within your power to decide how much money Americans are allowed to make - how much is 'enough' for the rest of us!

I deem it our responsibility to have a government that does not operate by borrowing $1/2 trillion dollars every year and expecting the next generation to pay for it. Which you and the pass the buck RNC don't deem to have any responsibility about at all.

 

[PeteEU]

That is if you belive the US unemployment numbers.

 

[The Real McCoy]

Why do presidents get so much credit for the economies they preside during?

"Reagan did this and then this happened and blah blah blah"

"Oh yeah well Clinton raised taxes and then this happened and yadda yadda yadda"

"Oh YEAH? Well Bush cut taxes and then this happend and mumble mumble mumble"

...

Seems to me that presidents have little, if any affect, on the economy. A retarded chimp could sit in the oval office for 8 years and get similar results.

 

[Kandahar]

Why do presidents get so much credit for the economies they preside during?

"Reagan did this and then this happened and blah blah blah"

"Oh yeah well Clinton raised taxes and then this happened and yadda yadda yadda"

"Oh YEAH? Well Bush cut taxes and then this happend and mumble mumble mumble"

...

Seems to me that presidents have little, if any affect, on the economy. A retarded chimp could sit in the oval office for 8 years and get similar results.

</agree>
The only thing presidents deserve credit for is staying out of the way and not screwing up the economy.

 

[Iriemon]

Why do presidents get so much credit for the economies they preside during?

"Reagan did this and then this happened and blah blah blah"

"Oh yeah well Clinton raised taxes and then this happened and yadda yadda yadda"

"Oh YEAH? Well Bush cut taxes and then this happend and mumble mumble mumble"

...

Seems to me that presidents have little, if any affect, on the economy. A retarded chimp could sit in the oval office for 8 years and get similar results.

I agree. Presidents get far too much credit or blame for what happens to the economy.

 

[SFLRN]

Theres seems to be a number of common economic fallacies being displayed in this debate, and I will attempt to clear some of them up.
Firstly, tax cuts, rare exceptions, will most likely never pay for themselves in terms of lost government revenue. Bush's chief economic advisor even admitted this. But that doesn't necessarily mean taxes are bad. In fact, lower taxes eliminate something called a deadweight loss. This loss is created by the loss of marginal buyers in a market due to a tax. The lower the tax, the less the deadweight loss. Therefore, lowering taxes lessens the deadweight loss. What this means in real terms is an expanded market. If you lower the tax on something, say salaries, that means the market will expand. More people will work if they receive a bigger gain for doing so. The elasticity of the market affects just who gets hit worst with a task but thats another debate. But to put it simply, all taxes inherently create a deadweight loss, this deadweight loss benefits no one. Thus taxes, have a net negative effect, by decreasing consumer and producer surplus. This does not mean certain uses for taxes do not makeup for this, but taxes do lead to less efficiency in a market.
But all the jargo aside, what do most economists say on taxes?
"Fiscal Policy (e.g., tax cut and/or government expenditure increase) has a significant stimulative impact on a less than fully employed economy." This statement is agreed upon by 90% of economists. This isn't to say lowering taxes is not beneficial if the economy is already near full employment, but it is much more if the unemployment rate is higher. Mostly by increasing market activity.
At the same time, one cannot simply disregard large deficits.
Economists also agree that , "A large federal budget deficit has an adverse effect on the economy." This is agreed upon by 83% of economists.
So the ultimate plan would be to have a balanced budget and lower taxes, that is not always possible.

Iriemon, you threw out a bit of a red herring when you compared current growth rates to those of economies past. The fact is that the Feds have been consistently upping interest rates. This inevitably leads to slower, but more sustainable growth. Furthermore, Clinton had a huge advantage via the productivity increase of the computer, so its comparing apples to oranges in terms of economic succcess.
Now an argument was made in regards to the minimum wage. It is completely true that the minimum wage, and raising it, increases unemployment. Specifically among young and unskilled workers. 79% of economists agree with this statement. Furthermore, a study conducted saw that an increase in the minimum wage did not raise average teenage wages but did increase teenage unemployment. Ultimately this is a form of a price floor and creates a surplus of labor. That means more unemployment. So it is true that a minimum wage creates more unemployment, regardless of the state of the economy.
This ultimately means a minimum wage will hurt workers who tend to have the least skills and the fewest employment opportunities.
So what have we established? Tax cuts are good for the economy, budget deficits are bad, and the minimum wage does increase unemployment among low-skill workers.
Common sense.
But then what should the government do?
Firstly, if one wants a less powerful government, then it seems the best way to limit their power is limit the flow of cash they receive.
But don't they continue spending? At first yes. It takes the will of the people to get a balanced budget. Just in the 90's when there were massive deficits from years past, people rose up to oppose government spending more than its allowance allowed.
To cut these costs ultimately requires cutting pork and cutting beneficiaries of certain government programs.
One way to stop pork barrel spending is allowing for politicians to vote on seperate pieces of spending legislation, that way pork has a harder time slipping in.
Inevitably, cutting pork will not do the job by itself.
Cutting programs will help. The first way to do this is to lower benefits to government beneficiaries. That means lessening social security benefits, ending farm subsidies, and other cuts. The political possibility of such a plan is another issue. But, by making the necessary cuts to social security, we may initially harm the welfare of the elderly, we must also consider majority of Americans, who pay the cost such a program. Ultimately, the government can best prevent itself from getting into these budget problems by using incentives to have workers put money aside for retirement rather than taxing those who choose to work. The question becomes, why would anyone want the government to handle their retirement fund. By creating private incentives for retirement funds we grant more freedom with American's hard-earned cash.
What about the poor? Well economists once again agree that the welfare of the poor would be better served if they were given negative taxes, (cash transfer) versus transfers in kind (79 percent). Although that plan may not come to fruition. The simple conclussion we can draw from this is that lower taxes will help the poor more than most current welfare programs.
However, investment in human capital, rather than such programs can also be evaluated. Increasing human capital would ultimately lead to higher producitivity and could easily pay for a tax in terms of a stronger economy. Human capital could be increased via education and job skill development.
By making smart investments with taxpayer dollars we don't provide a hand out , we provide a way out.

 

[Kandahar]

Theres seems to be a number of common economic fallacies being displayed in this debate, and I will attempt to clear some of them up.
Firstly, tax cuts, rare exceptions, will most likely never pay for themselves in terms of lost government revenue. Bush's chief economic advisor even admitted this. But that doesn't necessarily mean taxes are bad. In fact, lower taxes eliminate something called a deadweight loss. This loss is created by the loss of marginal buyers in a market due to a tax. The lower the tax, the less the deadweight loss. Therefore, lowering taxes lessens the deadweight loss. What this means in real terms is an expanded market. If you lower the tax on something, say salaries, that means the market will expand. More people will work if they receive a bigger gain for doing so. The elasticity of the market affects just who gets hit worst with a task but thats another debate. But to put it simply, all taxes inherently create a deadweight loss, this deadweight loss benefits no one. Thus taxes, have a net negative effect, by decreasing consumer and producer surplus. This does not mean certain uses for taxes do not makeup for this, but taxes do lead to less efficiency in a market.
But all the jargo aside, what do most economists say on taxes?
"Fiscal Policy (e.g., tax cut and/or government expenditure increase) has a significant stimulative impact on a less than fully employed economy." This statement is agreed upon by 90% of economists. This isn't to say lowering taxes is not beneficial if the economy is already near full employment, but it is much more if the unemployment rate is higher. Mostly by increasing market activity.
At the same time, one cannot simply disregard large deficits.
Economists also agree that , "A large federal budget deficit has an adverse effect on the economy." This is agreed upon by 83% of economists.
So the ultimate plan would be to have a balanced budget and lower taxes, that is not always possible.

Iriemon, you threw out a bit of a red herring when you compared current growth rates to those of economies past. The fact is that the Feds have been consistently upping interest rates. This inevitably leads to slower, but more sustainable growth. Furthermore, Clinton had a huge advantage via the productivity increase of the computer, so its comparing apples to oranges in terms of economic succcess.
Now an argument was made in regards to the minimum wage. It is completely true that the minimum wage, and raising it, increases unemployment. Specifically among young and unskilled workers. 79% of economists agree with this statement. Furthermore, a study conducted saw that an increase in the minimum wage did not raise average teenage wages but did increase teenage unemployment. Ultimately this is a form of a price floor and creates a surplus of labor. That means more unemployment. So it is true that a minimum wage creates more unemployment, regardless of the state of the economy.
This ultimately means a minimum wage will hurt workers who tend to have the least skills and the fewest employment opportunities.
So what have we established? Tax cuts are good for the economy, budget deficits are bad, and the minimum wage does increase unemployment among low-skill workers.
Common sense.

I agree with you on most of this. Do you have a link to those surveys of economists? I find it interesting.

But then what should the government do?
Firstly, if one wants a less powerful government, then it seems the best way to limit their power is limit the flow of cash they receive.

Hmm...I disagree here. "Starving the beast" has a terrible track record.

But don't they continue spending? At first yes. It takes the will of the people to get a balanced budget. Just in the 90's when there were massive deficits from years past, people rose up to oppose government spending more than its allowance allowed.

But compare that to all the years that the budget was NOT balanced. It seems that the balanced budgets of the 90s were the exception, not the rule. We need a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. Simply shutting off the tax spigot without first making spending cuts just drives up the deficit.

To cut these costs ultimately requires cutting pork and cutting beneficiaries of certain government programs.
One way to stop pork barrel spending is allowing for politicians to vote on seperate pieces of spending legislation, that way pork has a harder time slipping in.
Inevitably, cutting pork will not do the job by itself.
Cutting programs will help. The first way to do this is to lower benefits to government beneficiaries. That means lessening social security benefits, ending farm subsidies, and other cuts. The political possibility of such a plan is another issue. But, by making the necessary cuts to social security, we may initially harm the welfare of the elderly, we must also consider majority of Americans, who pay the cost such a program. Ultimately, the government can best prevent itself from getting into these budget problems by using incentives to have workers put money aside for retirement rather than taxing those who choose to work. The question becomes, why would anyone want the government to handle their retirement fund. By creating private incentives for retirement funds we grant more freedom with American's hard-earned cash.
What about the poor? Well economists once again agree that the welfare of the poor would be better served if they were given negative taxes, (cash transfer) versus transfers in kind (79 percent). Although that plan may not come to fruition. The simple conclussion we can draw from this is that lower taxes will help the poor more than most current welfare programs.

Agreed. The earned-income tax credit should be expanded and most welfare programs should be eliminated.

However, investment in human capital, rather than such programs can also be evaluated. Increasing human capital would ultimately lead to higher producitivity and could easily pay for a tax in terms of a stronger economy. Human capital could be increased via education and job skill development.
By making smart investments with taxpayer dollars we don't provide a hand out , we provide a way out.

Agreed again. Except we don't need to spend any more money on primary and secondary education; simply allowing school choice will solve most of the problems. At the post-secondary level, we may need to spend more. But it should be up to the states rather than the federal government.

 

[RightinNYC]

Why do presidents get so much credit for the economies they preside during?

"Reagan did this and then this happened and blah blah blah"

"Oh yeah well Clinton raised taxes and then this happened and yadda yadda yadda"

"Oh YEAH? Well Bush cut taxes and then this happend and mumble mumble mumble"

...

Seems to me that presidents have little, if any affect, on the economy. A retarded chimp could sit in the oval office for 8 years and get similar results.

So very true, but then what would people argue about?

 

[RightinNYC]

As was pointed out earlier, Ben Stein is faaaaaar from a liberal or a Democrat.

"Nixon was a peacemaker. He was a lying, conniving, covering-up peacemaker. He was not a lying, conniving drug addict like JFK, a lying, conniving war-starter like LBJ, a lying, conniving seducer like Clinton—a lying, conniving peacemaker." Stein is a vocal supporter of the Republican Party. He is a pro-life activist and was given a Pro-Life Award in 2003 by the National Right to Life Educational Trust Fund.

The dude was the valedictorian at Yale Law School. Thats insane.

And as a side note, Ben Stein's stance on increasing the tax rate for the very rich is reflected in his strong belief that celebrities in this country are living in a way that people like the military cannot dream of, and without contributing anything tangible. After a cereer that took him from academia to politics to actual celebrity stardom, I feel that he's qualified to speak on that subject.

That "ridiculous" "Socialist" tax hike he called for?

On May 14, 2006, on Neil Cavuto's [Fox News] show, Stein called for a tax increase of 3.5% for wealthy Americans, to be earmarked for soldiers and military initiatives. Indeed, Stein wrote an editorial for the New York Times critical of those who would rather make money in the world of finance than fight terrorism.

I can get behind that.

 

[SFLRN]

I agree with you on most of this. Do you have a link to those surveys of economists? I find it interesting.



Hmm...I disagree here. "Starving the beast" has a terrible track record.



But compare that to all the years that the budget was NOT balanced. It seems that the balanced budgets of the 90s were the exception, not the rule. We need a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. Simply shutting off the tax spigot without first making spending cuts just drives up the deficit.



Agreed. The earned-income tax credit should be expanded and most welfare programs should be eliminated.



Agreed again. Except we don't need to spend any more money on primary and secondary education; simply allowing school choice will solve most of the problems. At the post-secondary level, we may need to spend more. But it should be up to the states rather than the federal government.

Yes, school choice is definately a policy schools should at least be considered for evaluation. Along with that education reform less teaching to the test, although thats another debate. And more money should be granted through the states and not a government, largely to help foster federalism and more experimentation.
I don't know if I can find you a link to the source. It came from my Mircoeconomics Textbook. The specific source is : Richard M. Alston, J.R. Kearl, and Michael B. Vaughn, "Is There Consensus among Economists in the 1990's?" American Economic Review (May 1992). My Micro book citation is N,Mankiw. ECON 1200 Principles of Microeconomics Third Edition. 2004

I attempted to find some online sources, although JSTOR isn't exactly cheap. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8282(199205)82:2<203:ITACAE>2.0.CO;2-A .
A bit different article on the consensus. Although its 29 pages
http://www.csufresno.edu/cerecc/documents/leet_ASBBS_Consensus_paper.pdf

 

[The Real McCoy]

That "ridiculous" "Socialist" tax hike he called for?



I can get behind that.

Agreed.

Despite my libertarian convictions, I have no knee-jerk hostility toward a reasonable progressive income tax.