David Brooks Is Upset at Liberals Who INSIST on Applying Arithmetic to Economics

[Derechos]

snip

Furthermore, the package was more heavily tilted toward tax cuts than the package that President Obama proposed. Tax cuts have less impact per dollar than spending. David Brooks could find this fact in the Romer-Bernstein paper as well. The appendix tells us that a tax cut equal to 1 percent of GDP will eventually increase GDP by 0.99 percent. By contrast, government spending equal to 1 percent of GDP will increase GDP by 1.57 percent of GDP.

If President Obama got a package that was smaller than what he requested and more tilted towards tax cuts than what he expected, then the impact on growth and jobs would be less than what he expected. He expected that the package he rquested would create 3-4 million jobs, the package he got would be expected to create something less than 3-4 million jobs. And, we know that the economy needed somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 million jobs.

So how is anything about stimulus disproved because a stimulus that could have been expected to create maybe 3 million jobs was not adequate in a downturn where we needed 10 million jobs? There are no tricks here, this is all arithmetic and it is all right there in black and white.

But, Brooks does not want to be bothered by arithmetic. He wants his readers to support his plans for tax reform, for cutting Social Security and Medicare. In other words he wants his readers' support for doing all the the things that David Brooks always wanted to do, but he now says that we absolutely have to do because of an economic crisis caused by the incompetence of the people who always wanted to do these things.



http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/david-brooks-is-upset-at-liberals-who-insist-on-applying-arithmetic-to-economics?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+beat_the_press+%28Beat+the+Press%29

[Cool Logic]

1. "He wants his readers to support his plans for tax reform,..."

I have no idea what that means; however, our 71,684 page tax code is in serious need of reform...71,683 pages of reform.

[The Magistrate]

2. And What Would Your Ideas Of 'Reform' Be, Sir?

[Cool Logic]

7. Something like this...

http://static.reuters.com/resources/media/editorial/20110905/IncomeTax1040.pdf

[The Magistrate]

9. That Is Not Even A Good Joke, Sir

But you knew that....

[Cool Logic]

10. Regrettably, the joke is on the People...

for they must bear the the costs of compliance, which is estimated to be $130 billion/yr. And that doesn't include the 3.2 billion wasted hours that the People could surely make better use of.

Why do you think U.S. tax code is 71,684 pages in length?

Answer: For the same reason that 1% of the population controls 38% of the wealth. When you are rich and powerful, you get to write the rules.

If I were you, I wouldn't worry though; for Obama and the rest of the boys and girls in D & R of DC Financial Group are not going to do anything about it.

[OHdem10]

3. One evening on PBS News--Brooks-Shields section: Brooks

explained that he does not believe the Republicans will
reform entitlements if they are in charge--presidency
and Congress. This is why it is imperative(for people like
Brooks) for Obama and Democrats to get enough done so
all the Republicans have to do is enforce it. I found
this so interesting. Let Democrats do the dirty work.
And so often they so willingly do it.

[hifiguy]

4. Brooks is the definition of "smug"

and he is about 1/5 as smart as he thinks he is. He'd be an empty suit if he weren't so utterly full of shit.

[EFerrari]

6. I like "twit". n/t

[Overseas]

5. So he shows once again that he is indeed a true modern Republican.

If math/science and dogma conflict, he'll stay with dogma.

[Hoosier Daddy]

8. David Brooks is a Hack

And I AIN'T talking about coughing!