If you stuck Jon Chait end to end, he would reach a consensus

Jon Chait writes

 Ryan explained that there’s a growing bipartisan consensus that we should close tax deductions and loopholes and lower rates. “What we have here on tax reform is a new emerging consensus,” says Ryan. “The president and his party leaders are outside this consensus even though his own treasury secretary says the better way to go is to broaden the base and lower rates.”

Now, there’s not really a growing consensus that tax reform is good. The consensus has existed among economists forever.

and I throw a cow.

Consensus among economists ?  You must be joking.  I am an economist and I absolutely oppose lowering rates whether or not loopholes are eliminated.  As to loopholes, well it depends.  Should we eliminate the mortgage interest deduction ? Sure (but not yet -- and not quickly -- low housing investment is a problem now).  The deduction for charitable contributions not so much.  Tax employer provided health insurance when the Republicans stop trying to kill Obamacare (that is on the first of never).  Eliminate the R&D tax credit ? Why are you nuts ? Eliminate the investment tax credit ? Why tax reinvested profits at all ?

No one like tax expenditures in the abstract (as almost everyone dislikes high government spending in the abstract).  It is impossible to get a consensus once one discusses which deductions to eliminate.

You have long supported broadening the base and lowering rates.  The economists who basically agree with Paul Ryan have long supported tax reform.  Most non Randian economists do to. But many of us don't.

If you want to claim there is a consensus, show me a poll. Also one on just what should  capital gains tax rates, tax treatment of capital income and top income tax rates.  On the second set of questions, I am willing to bet a small amount of money at even odds that most members of the American Economic Association disagree with Ryan about the direction in which policy should change.

Chait Comment 3 Duty To Shoot Fish in Barrel Calls

Obama vs. Romney on Iran
By Jonathan Chait

QuoteofQuote

Romney said Obama’s “policy of engagement” with Iran has given the country’s leaders time to further develop its nuclear program and the impression that the United States won’t stop the government from continuing it.
“This president not only dawdled in imposing crippling sanctions, he has opposed them,” he said. “Hope is not a foreign policy. The only thing respected by thugs and tyrants is our resolve, backed by our power and our readiness to use it.”

Comment


You don't quite mention the fact that Romney's entire argument is based on a lie. Obama has managed to convince the world community to impose crippling sanctions on Iraq. This is like Romney's argument that Obama's auto bailout was all wrong and there should have been a managed bankruptcy just like Obama's bailout and his central argument that Obamacare is a mistake and we should have Romneycare which is the same except not paid for.

He just lied and claimed Obama's policy is to engage Iran (totally false) and not impose crippling sanctions (as Obama has).

Look, I understand that shooting fish in a barrel does not exercise your outstanding intellect (no snark there I wouldn't dare get in a snarkfight with you). But the fish in a barrel might be President of the USA next year and pointing out again and again that Romney is a shameless liar who has to lie because he has no reality based case to make is necessary.
Boring.
Necessary.
Duty.

Chait Comment 2

What Will Newt Do Next?

comment

This time I am honestly disappointed. Before the jump I read "Put yourself in Newt Gingrich’s position. You want ..." and thought "this is going to be good. After the jump Chait will note that it is a very bad mistake for a sane normal person to try to predict by putting himself in Newt Gingrich's position, since Newt is to egomaniacal to his own position and will behave quite unlike a normal person in his position due to delusions of greatness, self indulgence and spite. But Chait will make it snappy. Just click for snark for the ages." But then you assume that Newt is just Jon Chait in New Gingrich's position. My new resolution is not to stand anywhere near you as you attempt to reason with a rabid rhino (note the h -- the endangered species which is an animal with a horn not the moderate Republican).

That is, what dsimon said much better and more briefly
(but I just aint got his culture never having seen The Dark Knight).
42 Minutes AgoReply

stolen comment

DSIMON
"Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn."--Alfred to Bruce Wayne, "The Dark Knight"

Chatcomment 1a 1b

Sample

New York Times Symposium Beats Straw Man Mercilessly

skip

Greenwald’s penchant for telling bold truths that the corrupted partisans are too blind to see, in a manner that in no way is sanctimonious, is an inspiring example for us all. But he does tend to struggle with other aspects of his job, such as reading comprehension.

Comments


Correct headline "New York Times Symposium beats a dead straw man". For optimal humorous effect one must mix metaphors in a rabid Waring blender on speed. You try to be snarky,but you are an attack poodle which has sung it's swang song (in four part harmony with the spirit of H.L. Mencken, the fat lady and the octopus of fascism).

and

By the way, I'm sure readers here are cultured enough to know that "symposium" is classical Greek for Wankfest. Etymology like Karma. The meaning of a word can be distorted, even Bowdlerized, but in the end the moment of truth will come.