Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
[Somebody in the media has finally picked up upon what I have been saying for a while - they must be reading this board]
|
I agree with you that Edwards' blunt sound bite argument about jobs and the negative effects of free trade isn't really accurate. However, I think there is a much more nuanced argument to be made that the Bush tax cuts were poorly structured to create jobs, and fostered the investment of profits in the stock market rather than increasing payrolls.
In my opinion there are a few holes in the article's argument when it comes to defending the poor job-creation record of Bush's tax cuts. For example, rather than dispelling the widely held belief that tax cuts targeted at the lower income classes would have more of a direct effect on consumption (and payroll employment), the article simply says "For one thing, there is evidence that affluent people spend a higher proportion of their income than economic models have traditionally predicted." But no further evidence of this is presented or discussed.
At any rate, what do you think of this paragraph from that article:
Quote:
|
Even though the Bush tax cuts have succeeded at stimulating the economy, they've done so at enormous (and largely unnecessary) long-term cost. The large deficits created by such K-Street goodies as a cut in the tax on dividend income and the (longer-term) lowering of top marginal income tax rates, will almost certainly drive up interest rates once the economy sees a few quarters of growth. That could choke off the expansion not long after it starts.
|
Not that you have to agree with everything the guy writes. I'm just curious to see if you are equally persuaded by his "on the other hand" comments.
