Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

368 Economists Against Kerrynomics

Old 10-13-04, 04:43 PM
  #1  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
368 Economists Against Kerrynomics

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_c...0410131105.asp

Leading economists have a message for America: “John Kerry favors economic policies that, if implemented, would lead to bigger and more intrusive government and a lower standard of living for the American people.”


That was the conclusion released in a statement Wednesday by 368 economists, including six Nobel laureates: Gary Becker, James Buchanan, Milton Friedman, Robert Lucas, Robert Mundell, and — the winner of this year’s Nobel Prize in Economics — Edward C. Prescott. The economists warned that Sen. Kerry’s policies “would, over time, inhibit capital formation, depress productivity growth, and make the United States less competitive internationally. The end result would be lower U.S. employment and real wage growth.”

Consider Kerry’s spending and tax proposals. Kerry claims he wants to balance the federal budget, but as the Washington Post pointed out last August, “Sen. John F. Kerry’s pledge to reduce record federal budget deficits is colliding with an obstacle that may be growing higher by the week: his own campaign commitments.” In fact, Kerry’s spending proposals would add an estimated $226 billion annually to federal spending. To put this in perspective, $226 billion is roughly equal to the gross domestic products of Greece or Sweden.

Kerry’s oft-repeated budget solution is to raise taxes on “families making over $200,000 on income earned above $200,000 to their levels under President Clinton.” This proposal would generate hundreds-of-billions of dollars over the next decade for the Treasury’s coffers. Kerry’s other proposed tax increases would generate billions more. Yet, these tax increases would offset only a fraction of Kerry’s new spending.

For instance, Senator Kerry’s government-run health insurance spending plan would by itself require a tax increase of more than $1 trillion. Two independent studies, one by the Lewin Group and another by the American Enterprise Institute, concluded that Kerry’s health insurance proposal would cost more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years. And that’s just one of Kerry’s spending proposals. To close the funding gap between all of his spending and tax promises, Kerry would have to raise taxes by an average of $1,431 for everyone who files an income-tax return.

The stark disconnect between Kerry’s spending and tax proposals is what prompted 368 leading economists to conclude, “Kerry’s stated desire to balance the budget and to boost federal spending substantially would almost certainly require far higher and broader tax increases than he has proposed.” And given Kerry’s voting record in the Senate — he has cast 98 votes for tax increases totaling more than $2.3 trillion throughout his legislative career — that is no idle threat.

It is no secret that John Kerry wants America’s foreign policy to be more like that of Germany and France. But perhaps even more disturbing, he has demonstrated that he wants to emulate their failed tax-and-spend economic policies, too. Over time, the consequences could be devastating. Consider the impact those policies have had on Europe. Germany and France once enjoyed standards of living comparable to those of the United States. Today, U.S. per capita GDP is 38 percent higher than that of Germany and 43 percent higher than that of France. Indeed, as economist Bruce Bartlett recently pointed out, “On average, Europeans only live about as well as those in the poorest American state, Mississippi.”

The 368 economists only briefly touched upon Kerry’s trade policies. As it happens, there is not much upon which to comment. Kerry has expressed a general reluctance to reduce trade barriers, and he has promised, if elected, to “review existing trade agreements.” His applause line is that he vows not to “sign any new trade agreements until the review is complete and its recommendations [are] put in place.” According to the 368 economists, “That's a prescription for political gridlock. Given the widespread benefits of unfettered trade, Kerry’s trade policies would harm U.S. producers and consumers alike.”

Finally, we have all heard John Kerry denigrate the present rate of job creation. Yet, according to latest Bureau of Labor Statistics employment report, 1.9 million jobs have been created since August 2003. And at 5.4 percent, the unemployment rate is below the average unemployment rates of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.

We have also heard Kerry’s solemn vow to create 10 million new jobs during his first term as president. But you probably have not heard that the U.S. economy is likely to create about that many jobs over the next four years under current policy.

During the first nine months of 2004 — while Kerry was criticizing the pace of employment growth — payroll employment grew an average of more than 170,000 jobs a month. At that rate, the next administration would preside over the creation of roughly 8.2 million net new jobs. And yet, as Martin Sullivan pointed out in Tax Notes, Kerry has not presented one objective analysis to support his claim that his policies would create 1 million more jobs, much less 10 million more.

John Kerry has adopted the Walter Mondale approach to economics — increase taxes. Even advocates of Keynesian economics would not recommend raising taxes in the early stages of an economic recovery. Unlike Mondale, however, Kerry will wait until after the election to reveal all of the tax increases that will be required to pay for his government spending promises. Three hundred and sixty eight economists hope American voters will heed their warnings before it is too late.

— J. Edward Carter is an economist in Washington, D.C. Cesar V. Conda, formerly assistant for domestic policy to Vice President Dick Cheney, is a senior fellow at FreedomWorks in Washington, D.
Biased source but the letter is real enough
bhk is offline  
Old 10-13-04, 05:21 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,129
True enough.
saoirse is offline  
Old 10-13-04, 05:33 PM
  #3  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
now if only bush would get some good ideas out of this article for tonight's debate other than the stupid calling kerry a label thing he does
al_bundy is offline  
Old 10-13-04, 05:48 PM
  #4  
Premium Member
 
bfrank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 20,623
In reality we have no idea what Kerry would do just like we have now seen that Bush has done far different then what he promised 4 years ago (and same for everyone else).
bfrank is offline  
Old 10-13-04, 05:50 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk Ruler
 
General Zod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 21,435
Originally posted by bfrank
In reality we have no idea what Kerry would do just like we have now seen that Bush has done far different then what he promised 4 years ago (and same for everyone else).
Sure we do. We know for certain that when Bush says he isn't going to raise taxes, he doesn't. He's had tax cuts every year he's been in office.

With Kerry, you have no idea what you're gonna get. He's consistantly voted to raise taxes and now on the campaign trail he says he's going to cut them if he gets in office? Are the people that gullable?

At the very least we know where Bush stands on some things, no idea with Kerry. All we've been givin is "I have a plan" and it's growing more obvious that the plan is crap.

Last edited by General Zod; 10-13-04 at 05:54 PM.
General Zod is offline  
Old 10-13-04, 05:52 PM
  #6  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
bush had something unexpected happen 8 months into his term. Kerry is purposefully being vague because he knows any mention of a general tax increase will put his campaign in a coffin. Clinton may have been reelected, but democrat congress men and women were sent home en masse in 1994.
al_bundy is offline  
Old 10-13-04, 05:53 PM
  #7  
Premium Member
 
bfrank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 20,623
Originally posted by General Zod
Sure we do. We know for certain that when Bush says he isn't going to raise taxes, he doesn't. He's had tax cuts every year he's been in office.

With Kerry, you have no idea what you're gonna get. He's consistantly voted to raise taxes and now on the campaign trail he says he's going to cut them if he gets in office? Are the people that gullable?


So how long do you think Bush could keep spending at this rate?

Bush ran on reducing the size of Government - but what did he do?
bfrank is offline  
Old 10-13-04, 05:54 PM
  #8  
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: In mourning
Posts: 26,300
Originally posted by bfrank
In reality we have no idea what Kerry would do just like we have now seen that Bush has done far different then what he promised 4 years ago (and same for everyone else).



We don't?

I sure do.
Pharoh is offline  
Old 10-13-04, 05:54 PM
  #9  
Premium Member
 
bfrank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 20,623
Originally posted by al_bundy
bush had something unexpected happen 8 months into his term. Kerry is purposefully being vague because he knows any mention of a general tax increase will put his campaign in a coffin. Clinton may have been reelected, but democrat congress men and women were sent home en masse in 1994.


He may eat his words but he did make the "read my lips...." promise in the last debate.
bfrank is offline  
Old 10-13-04, 05:55 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
I wonder if after 9/11 if Bush had reduced the size of government if people would praise him for keeping a promise.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 10-13-04, 05:56 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk Ruler
 
General Zod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 21,435
Originally posted by bfrank


So how long do you think Bush could keep spending at this rate?

Bush ran on reducing the size of Government - but what did he do?
Take 9/11 out of the equation and I think he would have done so (and would have been given no credit for it anyhow). How soon we forget the people screaming not to let this happen again, and those that directly blame Bush for letting it happen - yet when he puts new pieces in place to help stop it from happening again (which of course, costs money) he gets blasted by the very same people for running up the deficit.
General Zod is offline  
Old 10-13-04, 05:59 PM
  #12  
Premium Member
 
bfrank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 20,623


Did you see the corporate tax bill that just passed?

9-11
bfrank is offline  
Old 10-13-04, 06:01 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,731
Didn't the same economists say the EXACT same thing when Clinton was running in '92? Didn't Newt Gingrich claim Clinton's tax plan would ruin the US economy?



Meanwhile, the Bush economy isn't looking so good. I wonder if Bush read up on the economy on all the internets or just the main one.

Last edited by CRM114; 10-13-04 at 06:03 PM.
CRM114 is offline  
Old 10-13-04, 06:02 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,731
9/11 Booga Booga and yada yada yada,
CRM114 is offline  
Old 10-13-04, 06:15 PM
  #15  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Blu-Ray: We Don't Need No Stinkin' Petition
Posts: 6,677
Economics is as political as this race. If you are conservative, you can find a bunch of economists to support you. If you are liberal, you can find a bunch of economists to support you. Economics is a science - thats just the way it is.

Its when the conservative economist supports the liberal and vice versa. Didn't Kerry (or Edwards) mention that The Economist, a conservative publication, supported Kerry's plan? That would be something to look into.
joshd2012 is offline  
Old 10-13-04, 06:18 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Land of the Lobstrosities
Posts: 10,300
For instance, Senator Kerry’s government-run health insurance spending plan would by itself require a tax increase of more than $1 trillion. Two independent studies, one by the Lewin Group and another by the American Enterprise Institute, concluded that Kerry’s health insurance proposal would cost more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years.
This is where the majority of the proposed spending comes from.

I saw an analyst on CNN comparing the Bush and Kerry healthcare plans. Bush has a few smaller programs like individual health care savings plans, etc. Kerry's plan is basically to increase spending on the existing health welfare programs by raising the income limits to cover a much larger base. Even though the Kerry plan will cost 3-10 times the Bush plan the CNN analyst was saying "Kerry's plan is the real conservative plan, in the true sense of the word," because Kerry would be expanding existing programs instead of creating new ones.
wmansir is offline  
Old 10-13-04, 06:19 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 11,747
Originally posted by joshd2012

Its when the conservative economist supports the liberal and vice versa. Didn't Kerry (or Edwards) mention that The Economist, a conservative publication, supported Kerry's plan? That would be something to look into.
Don't know about that, but it did have this poll.
dork is offline  
Old 10-13-04, 06:24 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Originally posted by dork
Don't know about that, but it did have this poll.
One thing I will say, Bush is one pretty poor piece of crap when 80% of economists think that a Massachusetts liberal will do a better job restoring economic discipline

The poll may have some inherent bias in that the respondents are all in academia.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 10-13-04, 06:34 PM
  #19  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 966
For instance, Senator Kerry’s government-run health insurance spending plan would by itself require a tax increase of more than $1 trillion. Two independent studies, one by the Lewin Group and another by the American Enterprise Institute, concluded that Kerry’s health insurance proposal would cost more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years.
How much of a tax increase will the Iraq War cost us over the next 10 years?

The personnel, the permanent bases. It's incredibly expensive.

With the war at 200+ billion a year, I'd go with the healthcare. At least you can get something for your money.
shifrbv is offline  
Old 10-13-04, 06:39 PM
  #20  
Premium Member
 
bfrank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 20,623
No doubt that Kerry is talking up lots of stuff that will never see the light of day. I think we all know this. Plus everyone that has every run for president has done the same.

I am so tired of the "your side smells but our shit don’t stink" attitude!
bfrank is offline  
Old 10-13-04, 06:49 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,731
Originally posted by shifrbv
How much of a tax increase will the Iraq War cost us over the next 10 years?

The personnel, the permanent bases. It's incredibly expensive.

With the war at 200+ billion a year, I'd go with the healthcare. At least you can get something for your money.
Not to mention we spend $400,000,000,000 per year on the defense budget. Thats FOUR TRILLION over the next 10 years assuming no massive increases. (Even that $400B number might be stale by now.)
CRM114 is offline  
Old 10-13-04, 06:55 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,731
And I heard the smug Jack Kemp on TV esposing Bush's grand plan of the "ownership society." This is a laughable concept considering that Kemp and a good number of Republicans have no idea what life is like in cities all around the country. To expect some of these people that don't have enough money to make it to the next payday to become owners of their healthcare, their social security is insanity. These guys are so out of touch. My wife and I both work in different ways with low income families and we both instantly thought the same thing about Kemp's ludicrous assertions.
CRM114 is offline  
Old 10-13-04, 06:56 PM
  #23  
Premium Member
 
bfrank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 20,623
Now you can see where the backing for Bush comes from
bfrank is offline  
Old 10-13-04, 07:01 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Hoboken, NJ
Posts: 3,068
Originally posted by CRM114
Not to mention we spend $400,000,000,000 per year on the defense budget. Thats FOUR TRILLION over the next 10 years assuming no massive increases. (Even that $400B number might be stale by now.)
out of curiosity, how much would you like the US to spend on Defense?

birrman54
Birrman54 is offline  
Old 10-13-04, 07:06 PM
  #25  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,054
Originally posted by bfrank


Did you see the corporate tax bill that just passed?

9-11
If you read a complete news report, even from the liberal media, you will note it is revenue neitral. It ends a bunch of incentives (that WTO ruled illegal) for exporters, raising revenue, and then lowered taxes for manufacturers (which might keep manufacturing jobs here) and included a lot of unfortunate pork for special interests, mostly added by Congress, reducing revenue by same amount. Not a great bill, but it is revenue neutral.
OldDude is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.