The left has NO VISION... period.
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/art...ting_tax_vision_and_thats_too_bad_103006.html
On March 30, 1981, the Times of London published a letter signed by 364 prominent economists that predicted disaster for England under Margaret Thatcher’s economic policies. Reality has a way of removing the clothes of the so-called experts in rather embarrassing fashion.
Does anyone remember the collapse of communism? Same idea. Experts said that what suffocated human nature had a long shelf life, while ridiculing Ronald Reagan’s confident assertion that what was morally and financially bankrupt wouldn’t last much longer. We know the end result there too.
Which brings us to the New York Timeseditorial board’s recent piece decrying the Republican tax proposals because, among other things, “just one of 38 prominent economists surveyed by the University of Chicago agreed that the Republican tax cut would substantially lift the economy.”
All of this speaks to how unfortunate the Times editorial board’s tax musings are. They’re unfortunate because they’re not even challenging. After the polling data the rest of the editorial was either ridiculous, unoriginal, or both. And that’s too bad.
It is because there’s so much wrong with the Republican tax proposals, but that the Times’ editorial board has glossed over. Presumably unable to construct coherent arguments, the Board has taken familiar shelter in the unoriginal with its laughable assertion that the proposed GOP cuts are all about “windfall tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.” Ahh, if only.
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/art...ting_tax_vision_and_thats_too_bad_103006.html
On March 30, 1981, the Times of London published a letter signed by 364 prominent economists that predicted disaster for England under Margaret Thatcher’s economic policies. Reality has a way of removing the clothes of the so-called experts in rather embarrassing fashion.
Does anyone remember the collapse of communism? Same idea. Experts said that what suffocated human nature had a long shelf life, while ridiculing Ronald Reagan’s confident assertion that what was morally and financially bankrupt wouldn’t last much longer. We know the end result there too.
Which brings us to the New York Timeseditorial board’s recent piece decrying the Republican tax proposals because, among other things, “just one of 38 prominent economists surveyed by the University of Chicago agreed that the Republican tax cut would substantially lift the economy.”
All of this speaks to how unfortunate the Times editorial board’s tax musings are. They’re unfortunate because they’re not even challenging. After the polling data the rest of the editorial was either ridiculous, unoriginal, or both. And that’s too bad.
It is because there’s so much wrong with the Republican tax proposals, but that the Times’ editorial board has glossed over. Presumably unable to construct coherent arguments, the Board has taken familiar shelter in the unoriginal with its laughable assertion that the proposed GOP cuts are all about “windfall tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.” Ahh, if only.
