Straight from The Warped, Psychotic, Brain-diseased, & Idiotic Mind of A Lunatic Libertarian Douchebag

The Bowles-Simpson proposal has become a kind of short-hand in Washington for what a balanced, bipartisan deficit-reduction deal could look like. When given a closer look, the plan is anything but balanced. Bowles-Simpson is touted by inside-the-Beltway pundits who think that cutting benefits for seniors who have an average income of $22,000 a year is the type of "hard choice" we need to be making. We should not and need not reduce the deficit on the backs of seniors and others who survive on a low income ~ Jan Schakowsky (dob 5/26/1944) the Democrat representing Illinois's 9th congressional district, serving since 1999. The Congresswoman was a member of the 2010 National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (AKA Bowles-Simpson Comission). The Rep voted against the commission's final proposal.

Refuting lies about me in regards to past comments ("old bones" some might say) on another blog are why I have decided to author this commentary. Lies from the blog "Contra O'Reilly" put forward by one Willis Hart in a blog post of his from 7/12/2014.

Willis Hart: On the Assertion that Bowles-Simpson is a "Conservative Plan"... Only in the warped, psychotic, brain-diseased, and idiotic mind of a lunatic leftist douchebag would anything even remotely along these lines even be considered. The fact of the matter here is that the ratio of spending cuts to tax increases in Bowles-Simpson is only about 1.4 to 1, and the only reason that it's even this high is because of interest apparently having been included. Compare this to the ratios of the ACTUAL conservative debt consolidation packages which have consistently put forth a cuts to revenue ratio of approximately 5 or 6 to 1... or even to that deal which Obama almost had with Boehner which was pretty damned close to 4 to 1 and, if anything, Bowles-Simpson is probably a little bit to the left of center. Of course, if you yourself are so brazenly to the left that you actually consider people like Bernie Sanders, Van Jones, Francis Boyle, and Bill Ayers as mainstreamers, and even go as far as to quote Joseph Stalin, you're probably going to think that pretty much anything is "conservative", I would think. (7/12/2014 AT 12:32pm).

Yet another post from this doofus in which he, for some strange reason, makes it out to be that I alone in the entire world hold a position that is so incredibly ridiculous that all those negative adjectives are necessary. And he lies about people I view as "mainstream", none of which I really view as "mainstream".

I like Bernie Sanders, and I like Van Jones. Senator Sanders describes himself as a socialist. His voters seem to like him, although I will absolutely admit that Senator Sanders is to the Left of mainstream... although Bernie Sanders is the founder of the House Progressive Caucus, which is the largest Congressional Congress. Isn't being the largest a hallmark of being mainstream?

Van Jones I would describe as a Progressive that fights for the Middle Class. The Middle Class isn't "mainstream"? But he may be a little to the Left as well when compared to the Democratic Party at large, which I would describe as skewing Conservative. Bill Clinton described himself as a New Democrat, which means he considered himself a Democrat who was "economically neoliberal".

New Democrats claim to be "an ideologically centrist faction within the Democratic Party" but their adoption of neoliberal policies also advocated for by the Right makes New Democrats CONSERVATIVE Democrats.

New Democrats were more open to deregulation than the previous Democratic leadership had been. This was especially evident in the large scale deregulation of agriculture and the telecommunications industries. The New Democrats... were responsible for the ratification of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). (Wikipedia/New Democrats/Bill Clinton as a New Democrat).

Also, under the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) the Democrats began (more) aggressively pandering to the business community (which the deregulating and free trading advocating was a part of) in order to secure more campaign cash (bribes). DLC/New Democrats viewed their past losses (losses that sent Reagan and Bush Sr) to the White House as being related to Republican campaigns being better funded. Better funded because GOP candidates had greater greater access to the Conservative Business (plutocrat) money pool.

The "New Democrat" movement was a response to this funding issue. Incorporate Conservative ideas in order to get Conservative business money. New Democrats are Conservative Democrats.

The Blue Dog Coalition "is a caucus of United States Congressional Representatives from the Democratic Party who identify themselves as moderates and conservatives". This caucus was formed in 1994 during the presidency of Bill Clinton. Wikipedia notes that "the term Blue Dog Democrat is credited to Texas Democratic Rep. Pete Geren... who later joined the Bush Administration.

Our current president, the fellow who appointed Bowles and Simpson to co-chair the so-called "bipartisan" commission tasked to produce debt reduction legislation, is a self described Blue Dog. Erskine Bowles is a Conservative Democrat [1] who served as Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff. Alan Simpson, a former Republican Congressman who "George H.W. Bush reportedly considered Simpson for the vice presidency in 1988".

So what we have in this "debt reduction" commission is Conservative Democrats partnering with Republicans. And, if that is not enough information to know for a fact that ANY "compromise" that MIGHT have come out of the commission would most certainly skew to the Right, there is also the fact that reducing the government's debt in response to a poorly performing economy (AKA austerity) is an ENTIRELY Conservative idea.

Keynesian economics - the economic theory subscribed to by TRUE Leftists and Left of Center Democrats - "is the view that in the short run, especially during recessions, economic output is strongly influenced by aggregate demand (total spending in the economy)". Talking debt reduction (austerity) in response to an economic downturn is a wholly Conservative concept.

Heck, the NAME of the commission was the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. "Fiscal responsibility" is code for "austerity". The idea that austerity is the answer to economic downturns is in complete opposition to the theory behind Keynesiansim.

As such, NO debt reduction (i.e. austerity) plan coming from such a commission could in any way NOT be Conservative! Now, if the Democrats had proposed a commission in which cutting waste and improving efficiency were components - but which focused on Keynesian stimulus and job creation ideas - THAT would be a plan truly befitting Democratic economic ideals.

But a plan of action that immediately concedes that the very ideals the Democratic Party is built upon are wrong and capitulates that the Republican austerity is the way to address an economic downturn? Such a plan is CONSERVATIVE from the get-go. It does not matter if "the ratio of spending cuts to tax increases in Bowles-Simpson is only about 1.4 to 1".

And there is also the fact that the spending cuts included items that would actually hurt our economy like using the (bogus) chained-CPI to take money out of the pockets of Seniors (and other Social Security recipients). Non-conservatives view the chained-CPI as a non-starter.

The Nation: [Bowles-Simpson and the White House] depicted [the chained CPI] as a "more accurate" formula that "will reduce deficits and improve Social Security solvency". ...but there's no debating these simple points: Chained-CPI is both a benefit cut and a tax increase. (Top 5 Myths About Chained-CPI, Debunked by George Zornick, 4/11/2013).

In addition to the chained CPI, Bowles-Simpson wanted to "increase the early and normal retirement age to 68 by 2050 and 69 by 2075". But the problem with all these Social Security cuts is that the money in the Social Security Trust Fund has nothing to do with our national debt!

Truthout: [The Social Security trust fund is invested in Treasury Securities amounting to] $2.7 trillion... [This] came about not because entitlements are out of control and the government has been forced to borrow to meet retiree benefits, but rather because future retirees have paid more taxes than necessary to meet benefit obligations. Workers have essentially been prepaying into the Trust Fund in order to provide for their future benefits. So it makes no sense to try to solve the supposed problem of too much government debt by cutting benefits for current and future Social Security recipients. (The $17 Trillion Delusion: The Absurdity of Cutting Social Security to Reduce the Debt by Marty Wolfson, 1/11/2014).

So, not only is the Chained-CPI a non-starter; ANY cut Social Security benefit cut is a non-starter (this includes raising the retirement age, which also is a cut). The ABSURD idea of cutting SS benefits to "reduce the debt" is CONSERVATIVE in nature.

Other "reforms" that would take money out of the pockets of ordinary Americans included cuts to all other "inflation-indexed programs... [such as] the military and civil service retirement system". Still other "reforms" included cuts to student loan programs and cuts that would increase out-of-pocket costs for Medicare beneficiaries. All which would be cuts in opposition to the theory of Keynesianism which says cutting (austerity) makes economic downturns WORSE, not better.

So, again, it DOES NOT MATTER that "the ratio of spending cuts to tax increases in Bowles-Simpson is only about 1.4 to 1" because it is a CONSERVATIVE idea that austerity is economically beneficial!

Now, I'm not saying that Bowles-Simpson had nothing positive in it at all. There were actually some proposals Democrats could get behind in the Debt Reduction plan (such as reforming farm subsidies), but it absolutely did skew Conservative (for the reasons I just outlined).

Now, here I should note that Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky released an alternate proposal that actually did provide for balanced deficit reduction. A proposal that did not place so much of the deficit reduction burden on seniors, the middle class, and low-income families.

Rep. Schakowsky's plan proposes increased investment in jobs, infrastructure, education, and research and development to strengthen the economy and generate growth. The plan also calls for the protection of Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare while proposing additional steps to bring down the cost of health care overall. The plan would raise the top tax rates on the wealthy and end tax subsidies for big oil and highly-profitable corporations that ship jobs and profits overseas. It would eliminate wasteful military spending and focus on modern threats. The plan proposes additional revenue opportunities to strengthen Social Security and achieve long-term solvency without cutting benefits. (9/12/2012 Press Release as posted to the Congresswoman's website).

The Schakowsky plan is considerably closer to what I was previously talking about a plan that included cutting waste and improving efficiency, but which focused on Keynesian stimulus and job creation ideas. The Schakowsky plan IS the Progressive answer to the CONSERVATIVE Bowles-Simpson proposal.

And, if I am "so brazenly to the Left" as Willis asserts, then so too must Jan Schakowsky, as well as other critics of Bowles-Simpson, including Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, who "criticized the deficit report for omitting a tax on the financial industry, as was recommended by the International Monetary Fund" and Paul Krugman, who wrote that "Simpson-Bowles... raises the Social Security retirement age because life expectancy has risen completely ignoring the fact that life expectancy has only gone up for the well-off and well-educated, while stagnating or even declining among the people who need the program most".

Lastly, I have to wonder why the hell names like Francis Boyle and Bill Ayers are added to the mix of people he THINKS I view as "mainstream". They aren't. I've actually spoken against the views/actions of both of these individuals. Not that it matters, I suppose, as in the minds of the idiots who post/comment on the "Contra O'Reilly" blog disagreement by me somehow becomes agreement.

Hence the reference by Willis to me quoting Joseph Stalin, which he thinks I did to "buttress my opinion"... a claim that is complete bullpucky. That I quoted Stalin (which I did) to "buttress my opinion" (I did not) was something the Hartster imagined happened.

And in regards to imagining things, commenter Dennis Marks added canards concerning me defending "Noam Chomsky's pro-Khmer Rouge views [and] Mao worshiper Van Jones [by equating] Maoism to ending police brutality".

The truth is these are both vile lies (although quite typical for the scumbag Marks). *If* Noam Chomsky HAD "pro-Khmer Rouge" views I would NOT defend them. And *if* Van Jones was a "Mao worshiper" I would not defend that either. Both assertions are false, however [2+3].

Also, Maoism has nothing to do with ending police brutality. Van Jones belonged to a group that read the writings of Mao AND advocated against police brutality. But these were two separate things. The advocating against police brutality did not come from the reading of literature by Mao (there is/was no linkage).

In any case, Mr. Jones has changed his mind in regards "world-views and philosophies" that he experimented with in his youth. Van Jones now firmly believes our regulated market system is the best way to achieve desired reforms that will allow the middle class and working poor to prosper.

Footnotes
[1] "Like a lot of technocrats, Bowles is a conservative Democrat who has struggled to find a niche in elective politics". Source: Keep Erskine Bowles Away from Treasury By Timothy Noah, The New Republic 11/8/2012.
[2] The boring truth about Chomsky: he does not support Pol Pot by Michael Brull, The Drum 7/5/2011.
[3] Severe Conservative Delusions: Van Jones Maoist Edition SWTD #144 5/6/2013.

SWTD #269, wDel #69.

On The Idiot's Narrative Concerning Me And Libertarianism

There is no longer any such thing as fiction or nonfiction; there's only narrative ~ Edgar Lawrence Doctorow (dob 1/6/1931) is an American author known internationally for his unique works of historical fiction. Doctorow spent nine years as a book editor, first at the mass-market paperback publisher "New American Library" working with Ian Fleming and Ayn Rand among others; and from 1964, as editor-in-chief at The Dial Press.

The following from the blog of an idiot named Willis V. Hart... note that in this post he refers to me as an idiot while revealing that the real idiot is himself.

Willis Hart: What the idiot fails to comprehend... is that libertarianism, just like with a lot of other things, is a) a continuum (from the moderate policy oriented libertarianism of the Cato Institute to the harder, more doctrinaire, orientation of the Mises and Ayn Rand Institutes) and b) a construct that has a great many permutations to it... [blah, blah, blah] I mean, I know that the simpler that person is, the more that this type of individual requires a clear-cut dichotomy, ideal types, etc., just to get frigging by in their life but enough. Enough. (1/28/2014 at 7:51pm).

This from an idiot who spends a lot of his time mischaracterizing Keynesian economics. I used to have SOME respect left for the guy, thinking he was intelligent and well read, but had simply reached the wrong conclusions. That was until he started lying about Keynesian economics by creating obvious strawmen descriptions of what Keynesians "invariably" say when they don't invariably say it.

I mean, it would be LOL-able if it wasn't so frigging pathetic. I'd say "enough", but I'm sure there is a lot more to come from the strawman-loving Hart. More of his insisting Democrats walk in lock step and we're all of a like mind in supporting anything that comes out of the Obama administration... which is completely false, but something he and his like-minded cohorts sit on their high horses feeling superior about (they are men of reason who think for themselves while criticizing both sides equally... in their minds); and more of his ridiculous characterizing of Democrats and Democratic politics/economic policies.

It's pretty easy to knock down theories you disagree with when you misrepresent them to the extreme extent that Mr. Hart does on his blog. And this idiot has the nerve to accuse me of misunderstanding Libertarianism, labeling me "simple" and requiring a clear-cut dichotomy to "get frigging by" in my life? Obviously constructing and knocking down strawmen is the only way this Hart fellow can get by. I, on the other hand, do recognize that, as with any political ideology, there are many different flavors and that only the most die hard (a small minority) walk in lockstep.

But, that Democrats who "support" Obama are simple, while "freethinkers" such as himself are far superior to the rest of us (Dems and Repubs) is a narrative that clearly gives the dude comfort. Without his arrogance I think Mr. Hart would be nothing but a shell of a man who, no doubt, couldn't go on living if the idea that he's got it all figured out was taken away from him.

"Support" is in quotes above, BTW, because, while I consider myself an Obama supporter, I do have my problems with the fellow, some of which Mr. Hart points to a comment on the (ironically titled) "rAtional nAtion" blog.

Willis Hart: This is what Jeremy Scahill of "The Nation" has to say about President Obama. He makes some pretty solid points... "And then, in Western societies, you have, on the one hand, President Obama saying that his administration is going to be the most transparent in history and that they want to be friends with the press; and on the other hand, they are monitoring the metadata of journalists, they are seizing phone records, they're trying to compel journalists to testify against their sources, they're trying to figure out who journalists are talking to within government so that they can go and indict those people... [end quote] Finally, a progressive with some guts, integrity, and consistency. (1/28/2014 AT 11:49pm).

OK, so it was AFTER I said I agreed (with Mr. Hart's agreement with Jeremy Scahill) that the Hartster authored his post about me requiring a clear-cut dichotomy and "ideal types"... so I guess absolutely nothing is going to derail the Hartster when he's spinning his narrative. There are SOME reasonable Dems, but REALLY, Willis Hart (as a "small L" Libertarian) is among a select few that REALLY gets it... (which is why he says "finally" in regards to Mr. Scahill. Scahill is a Progressive that doesn't represent the norm).

Video Description: Jeremy Scahill says Obama White House Doesn't Want Journalists, It Wants "State Media". (posted to "Real Clear Politics" 12/5/2013).

SWTD #229, wDel #49.

Demonstrably False Libertarian Assertions Concerning What Keynesians Invariably Say

One of the true advances in contemporary thinking is that both a power and a duty of government is to use fiscal and monetary policy to ameliorate downturns and create economic expansions. This is the legacy of Keynes, well supported by empirical research ~ Jeff Madrick, a journalist, economic policy consultant and analyst. He is editor of Challenge: The Magazine of Economic Affairs, visiting professor of humanities at The Cooper Union, and director of policy research at the Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis, The New School. He was educated at New York University and Harvard.

An assertion from the Left in support of Keynesian economics, according to a certain Libertarian Blogger I have refuted here before, is that austerity (in times of economic downturns) invariably leads to a bad economy. In regards to this assertion Mr. LB says it is false, demonstrably (in a 12/16/2013 post).

In support of his case, Mr. LB presents two examples of situations in which the US government cut spending and the outcome was economically beneficial. Mr. LB further says that both of these examples are of governments cutting spending during periods of economic downturn, and that "Keynesian idiocy" says that this "should have INVARIABLY lead to a worsening of the situation AND THEY DID NOT". (Words that are capped inside quote were capped by Mr. LB).

That Keynesians say austerity in times of economic downturn leads to a worsening economy is something I agree with Mr. LB on, they just don't say it INVARIABLY, you liar. Because it would be incredibly stupid to say a possible solution to a problem should be applied regardless of the specific circumstances! Yes, this commentary by Mr. LB is yet another of his beloved straw men. In support of his straw man Mr. LB provides a few examples he says "prove" the Keynesian theory to be demonstrably false... but THEY DO NOT.

Keynesians will tell you that private sector spending is FAR preferable to government spending. The government should only step in with deficit spending intended to stimulate in times of economic downturn when private sector spending falls. Then, and only then, does Keynesian economics say the government should deficit spend to make up (at least) some of the difference.

When the economy begins to recover any stimulus spending should be dialed back. And, if the government spending is actually holding back a recovery, it should definitely be cut. Government spending could hold back a recovery if that spending is going toward manufacturing war goods... and those war goods are being manufactured by the private sector... which, given the rise of the military industrial complex, doesn't happen any more. But it used to. During wars that took place in the "olden days", manufacturers that churned out goods for the American consumer were converted to manufacture goods for the war effort.

Now, if the war were ending and those manufacturers went back to manufacturing consumer goods, well, then spending cuts of those nature could be good for the economy. And it is spending cuts at the end of a war, when the economy is poised for recovery that Mr. LB cites as "proof" that Keynesian economics is "idiocy"...

Libertarian Blogger: Harding cut spending by 50% in 1921 and the unemployment rate dropped from 12% to 2% in less than two years. (23/16/2013 AT 8:13pm).

The spending cuts by Harding were MILITARY cuts. A 4/29/2011 Firedoglake article points out that Harding's spending cuts "were purely military budget cuts..." [which, in part were a result of] post WWI demobilization". In regards to the tax cutting of Harding, the author of the article points out that they "took effect on 11/2/1921 but the economy had already bottomed in July of 1921 and started a path toward recovery before the tax cuts kicked in".

So, the Firedoglake article points out that we were already coming out of the downturn when the MILITARY spending cuts were instituted, and as the Harding budget cuts were mainly in regards to our building of Navy warships, those cuts had a positive effect, because we stopped "endlessly pouring the nation's steel and oil resources into the rat hole of battleship construction".

The second example given by Mr. LB is yet another time when military spending was cut while in the middle of an economic downturn and it benefited the economy...

Libertarian Blogger: Truman cut spending by 45% in 1946 and the following several years were amongst the best in U.S. history.

LewRockwell.com says "Harry Truman cut defense spending by very large amounts after World War II [and that] the reductions in defense spending in percentage terms were over 75 percent". The cutting began on 12/31/1945 when Harry Truman delivered Proclamation 2714, which officially ended hostilities in World War II".

Neither of these examples disprove Keynesian economics. Mr. LB says Keynesian economists at the time (end of WWII) warned that cutting spending "would cause yet another yet great depression", but it turns out they were wrong (Keynesianism was a new economic theory at the time). Plus, one can only see that an economic recession is ending AFTER the recovery has already begun. What these economists did not know was that we were poised for a recovery. Manufacturers went back to producing consumer goods and consumers (after wartime rationing) wanted to buy those goods.

Keynesian disproved? Absolutely not. Mr. LB's two wartime cutting (demobilization/ending) examples occurred when we reduced military spending and were poised for recovery. The cutting HELPED the recovery. But if we had not done the earlier spending? The recession/depression would have lasted much longer. Notice that NEITHER of these examples are of the government cutting spending at the BEGINNING of an economic downturn. It is always at the end. That is when government spending SHOULD be cut.

Keynesian economics says spending should be increased at the beginning of an economic downturn and cut when the economy is poised to recover (although that can be hard to determine, as we only know when are in a recovery some time after it has begun). Both of these examples, I would say, PROVE that Keynesian economics works. They do NOT disprove the theory as the government cutting did not begin immediately when the economy worsened (which would definitely prove Mr. LB's theory... but that ISN'T what happened).

But those two examples aren't the end of the misrepresentation of Keynesianism from Mr. LB. As "proof" that Keynesians are dumb enough to believe the government should immediately start spending whenever an economic downturn hits (and keep spending) with no regard at all to what the exact circumstances are, Mr. LB says...

Libertarian Blogger: ...the Keynesian assertion is that government spending OF ANY KIND (remember Paul Krugman's ludicrous argument pertaining to the fake alien invasion), INCLUDING WAR SPENDING, invariably has a stimulating effect on the private sector.

Yes, it is true that the nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman said "the United States could benefit economically if the government began pouring money into anti-ET defense in preparation for possible alien invasion of Earth", he said that (in June 2012) in regards to the CURRENT economic downturn. Mr. Krugman noted that infrastructure spending would be preferable (and only gave this fictional military spending example because Republicans LOVE military spending).

Key here is the fact that the current economic malaise is not due to the the private sector being prevented from producing consumer goods because they've been converted to producing for a war effort. Nor are we wasting resources that could go toward meeting the demand for raw materials from the private sector (as was the case with Mr. LB's two military spending cut examples). The current recession is due to a lack of demand. And, if the private sector can't spend due to a lack of demand, then increasing government spending WILL help.

So, even though the alien-invasion-prompted military spending example of Mr. Krugman sounded silly... HE WAS RIGHT! But he was NOT arguing for spending "invariably", only spending when the private sector can't (due to a lack of demand). THIS is what Keynesians believe. They do NOT believe that the government should "invariably" spend in times of economic downturn, as the straw-man-loving Mr. LB claims. Obviously the only kind of invariability at play here is that Mr. LB will invariably continue to misrepresent Keynesian theory in order to "refute" it. And give bogus examples of when economic policies of a more Libertarian-bent saved the day. Pathetic.

SWTD #224, wDel #45.

Laffering At Historically Inaccurate Suggestion That Raising Taxes Caused The Great Depression

Art Laffer's claim that low state tax rates are the key to economic growth. What should you think about that claim? That's easy: it's junk economics ~ Paul Krugman (dob 2/28/1953) an American economist, Professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics, and an op-ed columnist for The New York Times.

What caused the Great Depression? Recently I read an historically inaccurate assertion that it was a tax increase under President Hoover that is to blame; argument as follows...

Libertarian Blogger: The Keynes Curve? ...taxation may be so high as to defeat it's object, and that, given the sufficient time to gather the fruits, a reduction of taxation will run a better chance than an increase of balancing the budget [Quote from] John Maynard Keynes. Gee, I wonder if he said this before or after Hoover raised taxes 152% and plunged a recovering U.S. economy into a depression. (10/12/2013 AT 9:41am).

Uh, no. The Libertarian blogger I quote above is referring to something that didn't happen. The tax increase under Hoover happened (although I'm not sure where this 152% comes from), but this increase was NOT what caused the Great Depression. The Great Depression was caused by a previous lowering of taxes. Apparently Mr. LB has never heard of the roaring twenties? That was the bubble created by taxes that were too low. It was the bursting of that bubble that caused the great depression, NOT any tax raising by Hoover, as pointed out by the nation's top Progressive Talker...

Thom Hartmann: ...the massive Republican tax cuts of the 1920s (from 73 to 25 percent) led directly to the Roaring Twenties' real estate and stock market bubbles, a temporary boom, and then the crash and Republican Great Depression that started in 1929. (Excerpt from the book Rebooting the American Dream, pub. 2011).

According to Mr. Hartmann the way to prevent bubbles and busts is to keep the top marginal tax rate at 50 percent or higher. History shows us that when Republican administrations (or Dems acting like Republicans) come in with an agenda of cutting taxes, those tax cuts invariably lead to bubbles, like when the bush administration rammed through a tax cut that favored the wealthy via reconciliation in 2003. Regarding that tax cut, Harlan Green of Popular Economics says...

Harlan Green: The Bush tax cuts are the most current example; in fact they helped to cause the Great Recession. For much of the excess profits were spent on market speculation - especially in subprime loans and payday lending to the poorest among us - that caused the housing bubble. (Article: What Happened to the Bush Tax Cuts? Huff Post Business, 06/04/2012).

(Note: Harlan Green has a degree in Economics from UC Berkeley and is the editor and publisher of PopularEconomics.com).

As for Mr. LB's quote from Keynes and his suggestion that he would agree with the Laffer Curve... [1] I'm sure there would be a disagreement between the two regarding what constituted how high taxes would have to be to qualify as "so high", and [2] Laffer and Keynes were both wrong. The Laffer Curve has been debunked.

The Middle Class Economist says "Laffer got it exactly backward, with tax revenue initially falling as tax rates increase, then rising after a further increase in rates". The quoted blog post further notes that Sweden in the 1970s had a top marginal rate of over 100 percent, and their tax revenues went up, not down.

The lesson to be learned from this is that it is tax cuts that lead to bubbles that causes recessions, NOT tax increases. In fact it is a marginal tax rate over 50 percent that stabilizes the economy and prevents bubbles and busts from occurring (or causes them to be less severe if they do occur). That there are some who still argue otherwise makes it clear that no matter how many times we bubble and bust we may never learn. Why? Because the wealthy and their stooges will continually argue the exact opposite of the truth.

The reason being that the wealthy always make out like bandits while the rest of us suffer. A 9/11/2013 LA Times article notes...

Connie Stewart of the LA Times: The Great Recession hit the top 1% harder than other income groups, but the wealthy recovered quicker too. From 2009 to 2012, as the U.S. economy improved, incomes of the top 1% grew more than 31%, while the incomes of the 99% grew 0.4% - less than half a percentage point. (9/11/2013).

Time to adopt the budget of the Progressive caucus that eliminates the deficit and Raises a $31 billion surplus in ten years. Enough of this failed trickle down economic BS (of which the Laffer Curve nonsense is a component).

SWTD #210, wDel #37.