Wednesday, April 15, 2009

A Brief History of Taxes

I'm old enough to remember when many animation artists had sky-high salaries and people thought of them as lucky duckies who were super rich.

But not so much anymore. Now artists in the 'toon business make pretty regular money, sometime less than regular money, and have learned to adjust their living standards accordingly.

Yet they still pay taxes, and often more than they'd like. So here on April 15th, let us trip through a short history of the tax levies that everybody pays:

In 2011 the Bush tax cuts will expire, and President Obama plans to also close various loopholes. As Peter Orszag, Obama’s budget director, delicately says of the rich, “We are asking them to pitch in a bit more.” The current moment has the feel of an inflection point for the American wealthy, like the stock-market crash of 1929 or the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 ...

[T]ax rates on top incomes used to be far higher than they are today. The top marginal rate hovered around 90 percent in the 1940s, ’50s and early ’60s. Reagan ultimately reduced it to 28 percent, and it is now 35 percent. Obama would raise it to 39.6 percent, where it was under Bill Clinton ...

For a married couple in 1960, for example, the 38 percent tax bracket started at $20,000, which is about $145,000 in today’s terms. The top bracket of 91 percent began at $400,000, which is the equivalent of nearly $3 million now. Some of the old brackets are truly stunning: in 1935, Franklin D. Roosevelt raised the top rate to 79 percent, from 63 percent, and raised the income level that qualified for that rate to $5 million (about $75 million today) from $1 million. As the economist Bruce Bartlett has noted, that 79 percent rate apparently applied to only one person in the entire country, John D. Rockefeller ...

I'm a classical cynic regarding taxes. They go up, they go down, we live with them.

And I'm a cynic about government spending. In the time I've been alive, the federal budget has been balanced under Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, and Bill Clinton. In each of those cases, it was never balanced for long. Mostly it was way out of balance, and we ran a large tab. (Startling, yes?)

The thing I got clued to years ago was: Sooner or later, somebody has to pay for all the expenditures, it's just a matter of who and when. You can have 1) progressive taxes (where the rich pay more), 2) regressive taxes (where the middle class pays more), or 3) under taxes where everybody pays less than the government is spending.

Most times, we opt for 3), with a dash of 1) or 2) thrown in for spice. The 3) scenario is always enticing, because that shifts the costs to the future where inflation becomes the tax and chews away at everybody, but mainly the middle class and old people living on fixed incomes.

I used to get ticked off and whine about the "unfairness" of it all, but I don't anymore. It's like complaining about the weather, or our charming corporatist state, or global warming. You don't like those things, work to change them to something you like better. But constant complaining, that gets old, you know?

So. Go pay your taxes. Know that taxes will always be there, often in amounts that displease you, but you'll (probably) survive. And know that whatever the tax rates are now, they'll be changing.

They always do.


Anonymous said...

Great post.

The Tea Parties springing up in all the usual 'small government' places of our country is pathetic. The entire tax argument is pathetic. Low taxes, high taxes, tax cuts, tax credits, tax rebates - all of it political red herrings to get people riled up to support their corrupt power. The people who follow these trends are complete suckers for both the left and right. I so wish people would wake up and do the real math. Our taxes pay for a pathetic portion of our collective American debt. We haven't 'balanced' a budget since before the Civil War. We just don't pay for our government through taxes, we barely pay for the interest on our grandparent's debt. Yes, we do pay for our broke government with inflation. That's the way it works. The rest is smoke and mirrors, be it Bernanke or Greenspan or whomever pulls the strings on the miracles of fractional-reserve banking. It is an endless treadmill that doesn't suddenly change by moving numbers from one column to another. The idiots in San Antonio or wherever else these things are springing up should be shit-scared that China might decide, at any time, to make the greenbacks in their wallets suddenly disintegrate. Seriously, they would be idiots to not do it. We would be idiots to assume that they aren't doing it as we speak. We are the owners of a fundamentally corrupt monetary system. We are collectively bankrupt. We're a long, long way from the original Tea Party.

Anonymous said...

The tea parties are the best way for American's to speak out about the frightening debt that our government is continuing to take this country. See you at City Hall.

Steve Hulett said...

The tea parties are the best way for American's to speak out about the frightening debt that our government is continuing to take this country. America, let me hear you ROAR.

Crowd at Boston Tea Party = 7,000, equal to 46% of population of Boston

Crowd at Boston Teabaggers's Party= 500, equal to 0.08% of population of Boston.
Oops. A muffled meow, methinks.

Anonymous said...

It's gonna cost a lot to get out of the giant mess bush & co. left our country in. It's not gonna be easy, either. This fake outrage is ridiculous, and is seen through by most of the American population--and the world--as a feeble attempt to escape blame for putting an idiot like bush in the White House in the first (and sadly, second) place. It's not "grassroots," as only one media outlet would lead you to believe. It's financed by a bunch of far right wingnuts who don't even KNOW what "teabagging" means:

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately for the tea baggers, the Republicans have put so much energy into cutting and dumbing down public education sytem that most people today have no idea about what a "tea party" was and what the supposed symbolism is.

Anonymous said...

These teabagging events are especially silly, given that Obama and the Democrats just passed the LARGEST TAX CUT IN AMERICAN HISTORY. EVER.

But the uneducated rednecks participating in them don't know that.

Anonymous said...

I just like calling them teabaggers.

Anonymous said...


This is truly meaningless information. I am no Republican, but this is the exact same kind of misinterpretation of monetary policy that allows all politicians to perpetuate their populist myths. There are no tax cuts. It is just shifting deck chairs on the Titanic. That extra money in your wallet is worthless fiat with collapsing purchasing power - we are wandering among the disease of a failed 'consumer' society. Wake up.

Anonymous said...

"the giant mess bush & co. left our country in."

When will you guys wake up? Every president since Woodrow Wilson has been doing this to the american people.

We are a third world nation, with a corrupt government, and a corrupt monetary system. We have puppet presidents (bush and obama) controlled by the banks. We just happen to "currently" have a higher living standard than most third world nations.

But soon the chickens come home to roost and this debt empire we have allowed the banks to build will destroy what was left of a great nation.

The tea party stuff is just misplaced rage at the government because they don't truly know what or who to blame. Even if we voted every single politician out of office, the banks will just find other corrupt politicians they can pay off to fill those spots.

No, this country will never return to what the founders envisioned for it as long as the federal reserve (and now the IMF) has control of our monetary system.

Fiat systems always fail, history has proven this over and over again with disastrous results. My advice is to start preparing now.

Got gold...and a garden?

Anonymous said...

This is truly meaningless information.*sigh*

As opposed to the vapid, meaningless doom-and-gloom rant you spouted. That's the kind of speech that could be yelled from a rooftop during any time of our nation's history. It is completely fact-free, and just a string of empty platitudes ranting against a vaporous "system," which you fail to even define. It's just empty populist hot air.

Meanwhile, the tangible FACTS are that, like it or not, taxes were just reduced for all working-and-middle class Americans. Lower than they were during any time of Bush's presidency. And yet these rightwing morons teabagging each other have no clue.

Anonymous said...

You're happy about an extra 2K in your pocket when the Fed is clearly taking 5? I'm unclear on the working-class part.

Anonymous said...

wow, there are so many misinformed or just closed eyed people out there. Dems or repubs its the same thing, they over spent at the end of George Bush's term and Obama is now tripling it. Get past your love affairs for either guy and see what is really happening here. wake up! Trillions of US tax payer dollars soon to be gone and no one even reads the bill to find out where its going and have no clue how damaging its going to be? Wake up. Call your congressman or woman and tell them you have had enough. stop taking advantage of the American tax payer because soon they will all be suckling from the government which history has proven time and again, that it doesn't end well for the next generation and certainly not the country.

Anonymous said...

" to even define..."

I'm not sure one could get a more explicitly defined and recorded example of how American monetary policy works than by living through it. It just happened, the whole thing, for everyone to see. Paulson and Bernanke holding hands skipped over to the White House and then straight over to Congress and held a big fat gun to our heads. We all made history together. I recall quite clearly that this was on the news. Right? The Fed and their Frankenstein banks don't like to conduct their dirty laundry in the light of day because it gives you a peek into the formula and generally makes people queasy about what their 401K actually is. But that's what they had to do this time because it was the perfect storm. 'We The People' doesn't need the minutes to the meeting to figure that one out, do they? If they do, I truly weep. Ben Franklin made his fortune printing more than just pamphlets.

Taxes? Whatever.

robiscus said...

Obama asked for lots and lots and lots of money to fix the problems in the country.

Thats something that the worst politicians do.

Good politicians roll up their sleeves and write new legislation alter old legislation and find a solution to problems. They don't throw bags of money(our money) at problems as the only solution. Thats why Obama's approval ratings have steadily and slowly dropped since he took office.

You never give a politician a lot of money, because he will squander it.

Let me repeat that because it bears repeating:You never give a politician a lot of money, because he will squander it.He might have the best intentions even, but he is outnumbered over a thousand to one with people trying to pry that money from his hand. I'd hoped Obama was the best president this country ever had, but his solutions are simplistic, his economics are moronic, and he is riding on his charisma at this point.

I'm going to make a prediction here - no matter what happens with the country Obama's supporters will piss and moan that it was the previous administration's fault. Even three years from now they'll still be crying. I wish they wouldn't because it doesn't work. I president must take responsibility for what happens on their watch. (I think even the wise Steve Hulett stated that very same thing a few weeks before the election)

Anonymous said...

It's really unbelievable. You conservatives wanted a tax cut, and you just got the largest one of your lives, on the Democrats' watch.

The facts are coming in on the stimulus project spending, and the projects are coming in on time, and under budget. The economy seems to be (very) slowly leveling off, and the worst is likely now behind us.

But it will never be enough for the teabaggers, busily teabagging each other.

Stop listening to paranoid nutjob wackos like Glen Beck and Rense and Noory. Turning a bad economy around takes time--it's just that Americans feel entitled to quick solutions to everything, and lack the patience and internal fortitude of their much hardier forefathers.

Steve Hulett said...

Small point here. Last Fall the financial system froze.

Stopped dead.

The economy was in free fall. You might have noticed that spending went into a tail spin and layoffs ballooned.

Most economists said a large stimulus SPENDING package was needed to get things going. Whether the government's spending was too much or too little, it was needed because there wasn't spending from the private side.

What's important to remember is, during WWII we spent over 100% of GDP and had far bigger deficits (relative to the economy) than now. Both parties supported the spending because we were fighting major wars and enemies.

But the concept was the same as now: massive spending by the guvmint.

(And that spending is the reason that the modern Disney Co. is still around. Walt Disney Productions was kept afloat by wartime gov't filmmaking. It was paid cost pus 10%. So what was done then directly impacts the 'toon industry today -- sixty-five years later.)

Everybody should calm down, enjoy the ride, and subdue their whining.

Anonymous said...

Glen Beck is indeed a nut job.

Running to the Fed is just kicking the can further. We always pay for it with inflation and perpetual war. Enjoy the ride? Um, excuse me, but I'd like off now. Seriously.

Anonymous said...

At least we finally know who Robiscus really is....Glen Beck. Do you ever verify anything you write or do you feel that if you think it then it must be true.

Anonymous said...

Here, then, are 10 Republican Tax Day lies:

President Obama will raise taxes on small businesses.

The estate tax devastates small businesses and family farms.

40% of Americans pay no taxes.

Tax cuts always increase revenue.

The GOP is the party of fiscal discipline.

Ronald Reagan was the greatest tax cutter of all time.

FDR caused the Great Depression, or at least made it worse.

Obama's cap-and-trade plan will cost each American family $3,100 a year.

Obama's tax proposals will undermine charitable giving.

The rich pay too much in taxes already.

Steve Hulett said...

I'd like off now. And you'd step away from the car into ... what?

Freeze taxes?

Freeze government spending?

Initiate the GOP tax program?

What, exactly?

Anonymous said...

Look, I'm just like any other Joe trying to rationalize the point of trusting my Reagan-frankenstein-o-nomics 401K that sits next to my stagnant dust-covered FDR union pension. Sitting and staring at the two useless vehicles of failed public policy gives me a f***ing headache. Our union has been generous enough to provide both, and I thank them for that, however meaningless they turn out to be when billions of Chinese suddenly decide to erase them completely the next time they decide to do more than just moon US Naval operations.

No, I don't have anything to offer that can compete with the brilliant hedge fund short selling that made billions for the real wizards of global finance. Save for reading up on Jefferson and picking up that last bio on Jackson. Again, trash the Fed and divorce my dollar from fractional reserve would help. But I'm not sure any capitalists or socialists are going to follow me into the siege on that one. You see any candidates raising much dough on that platform?

Anonymous said...

I'm there. ditch the fed and put term limits on those paid for antiques sitting in congress.

Anonymous said...

And while we're at it, would texas and that idiot gov. rick perry secede already? Good riddance, and other states could use the money. Maybe Mexico would like to annex them.

Anonymous said...

If Texas goes away the GOP might as well not bother running a candidtae for President any longer

robiscus said...

Steve Hulett ststaed:

"Most economists said a large stimulus SPENDING package was needed to get things going."Wrong. thats not what "most economists" said, its what some economists said.

The problem with the economy is that banks and institutions that lend money are not doing so. There is a fear of loss in all institutions that lend money - and when institutions that base their business on risk resist from doing so, you get an economic free fall.

*Name an economist that heralds all of this spending and I'll cite one with just as much credentials that says its a bad idea.

(and color me surprised that if I DARE to question the president, I get labelled with the name of nutcase Glen Beck. I don't have to allege that liberals are mostly whining crybabies, the posts in here prove it. Do me a favor, if you are going to type out a post hurling an insult at me, have the balls to use a name you coward.)

Anonymous said...

"...Do me a favor, if you are going to type out a post hurling an insult at me, have the balls to use a name you coward.)"

Anyone else notice the irony of this dolt...?

Steve Hulett said...

"Wrong. thats not what "most economists" said, its what some economists said.

And the economists who think the stimulus is a bad idea are ... ?

Citations, please.

Steve Hulett said...

Okaay. Just to follow up.

So Robiscus maintains "some economists were for the stimulus."

Sure, I can name a bunch. Stiglitz, Krugman, etc, etc.

And the conservative economists against it were ....(sfx crickets.)

This from the Chicago Tribune:

WASHINGTON — The $825 billion stimulus proposal that Democrats unveiled last week may encounter stiff opposition from conservatives on Capitol Hill. But it isn’t meeting significant resistance from conservative economists.

While economists might quibble with specifics, the vast majority agree that some kind of massive government spending plan is necessary.“Most conservative economists are all for it,” said Mark Zandi, a founder of Moody’s who advised GOP presidential candidate John McCain.The reason is fairly straightforward. With economic uncertainty higher than at any time since the Great Depression, consumers and businesses are more reluctant to resume spending than in previous downturns.
Thanks Robiscus, for another of your fact-free assertions.

Anonymous said...

But Robiscus is willing to throw out lies and use a phony name and accuse others of being cowards for posting under 'anonymous'.

That's right, he's really Glen Beck!!!

robiscus said...

Paul Krugman?!?

This is where you are getting your salient economic opinion? I'd love to play poker with you Steve because I'd walk away with all of your chips if you are so easily convinced by Mr Krugman's ridiculously selective use of statistics and his warped constructs regarding the history of our economy.

Nevermind that he worked for Enron, defended rabidly anti semetic remarks from the leader of Malaysia and confessed very clearly:

"I was then and still am an unabashed defender of the welfare state, which I regard as the most decent social arrangement yet devised.""No... but please Steve, lets hear more about Paul Krugman! Thanks so much for citing him as one of the oracles you turn to when it comes to the economy. We're all so impressed.

Now for the economists that dispute bailouts of failing companies and massive stimulus packages that mortgage future generations:

"3.6 trillion dollars is one out of every four dollars produced in the United States. It's 25% of the GDP. It's 2 and a half Californias... We are going from an era where we looked for the private sector to create wealth to where we are looking for the government to orchestrate the economy. Barack Obama says, "The government must lead." So I take it the private sector is no longer going to decide where investments should go but rather the government is going to decide that we're going to have a certain kind of energy sector, a certain kind of manufacturing, a certain kind of service sector. That seems to me pretty arrogant."

-Peter Morici
University of Maryland Economist

The theory that a short-run government spending stimulus will jump-start the economy is based on old-fashioned, largely static Keynesian theories. These approaches do not adequately account for the complex dynamics of a modern international economy, or for expectations of the future that are now built into decisions in virtually every market.

-John Taylor
Stanford professor of economics

No doubt, it is much easier to sell the public and Congress a plan for more public works than tax cuts, particularly while Main Street despises Wall Street -- with some good reason. But the role of a good economic team is to courageously propose the right economic policy, even when it is unpopular. The role of a president is to sell it politically, as real change we can believe in.

-Alberto. Alesina, professor of economics at Harvard & Luigi Zingales, professor of finance at the Chicago Booth School of Business.

But, in terms of fiscal-stimulus proposals, it would be unfortunate if the best Team Obama can offer is an unvarnished version of Keynes's 1936 "General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money." The financial crisis and possible depression do not invalidate everything we have learned about macroeconomics since 1936.

-Robert Barro, an economics professor at Harvard University and a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.

Some of this infrastructure spending may be very worthwhile-I return to this issue a bit later- but however merited, it is difficult to believe that they would provide much of a stimulus to the economy.

-Nobel Laureate economist Gary Becker

President-elect Barack Obama argues that this level of stimulus would leave us with shattered dreams and long-lasting torpor. Our only chance is to adopt his plan of $800 billion in additional stimulus spending over the next two years. So $1.2 trillion in deficit spending leaves us in despair, but $1.6 trillion in deficit spending brings prosperity.
The basis for this reasoning is unclear.

-Philip Levy, former Yale professor and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

"John Cochrane, a professor at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, says that among academics over the last 30 years, the idea of fiscal stimulus has been discredited and in graduate courses, it is "taught only for its fallacies."

New York University economist Thomas Sargent agrees: "The calculations that I have seen supporting the stimulus package are back-of-the-envelope ones that ignore what we have learned in the last 60 years of macroeconomic research.""

Shall I go on??
Because those are some loud crickets that you roundly discount in a flexing of your own smug ignorance. Next time, do the legwork and we'll see how much you know about the current collective take on our president as opposed to the naked partisan cheerleading you subscribe to.

Lets also not that there was a joint statement released by hundreds of economists that dispute the Obama administration's stimulus plan. They are:

Burton Abrams, Univ. of Delaware
Douglas Adie, Ohio University
Ryan Amacher, Univ. of Texas at Arlington
J.J. Arias, Georgia College & State University
Howard Baetjer, Jr., Towson University
Stacie Beck, Univ. of Delaware
Don Bellante, Univ. of South Florida
James Bennett, George Mason University
Bruce Benson, Florida State University
Sanjai Bhagat, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder
Mark Bils, Univ. of Rochester
Alberto Bisin, New York University
Walter Block, Loyola University New Orleans
Cecil Bohanon, Ball State University
Michele Boldrin, Washington University in St. Louis
Donald Booth, Chapman University
Michael Bordo, Rutgers University
Samuel Bostaph, Univ. of Dallas
Scott Bradford, Brigham Young University
Genevieve Briand, Eastern Washington University
George Brower, Moravian College
James Buchanan, Nobel laureate
Richard Burdekin, Claremont McKenna College
Henry Butler, Northwestern University
William Butos, Trinity College
Peter Calcagno, College of Charleston
Bryan Caplan, George Mason University
Art Carden, Rhodes College
James Cardon, Brigham Young University
Dustin Chambers, Salisbury University
Emily Chamlee-Wright, Beloit College
V.V. Chari, Univ. of Minnesota
Barry Chiswick, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
Lawrence Cima, John Carroll University
J.R. Clark, Univ. of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Gian Luca Clementi, New York University
R. Morris Coats, Nicholls State University
John Cochran, Metropolitan State College
John Cochrane, Univ. of Chicago
John Cogan, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
John Coleman, Duke University
Boyd Collier, Tarleton State University
Robert Collinge, Univ. of Texas at San Antonio
Lee Coppock, Univ. of Virginia
Mario Crucini, Vanderbilt University
Christopher Culp, Univ. of Chicago
Kirby Cundiff, Northeastern State University
Antony Davies, Duquesne University
John Dawson, Appalachian State University
Clarence Deitsch, Ball State University
Arthur Diamond, Jr., Univ. of Nebraska at Omaha
John Dobra, Univ. of Nevada, Reno
James Dorn, Towson University
Christopher Douglas, Univ. of Michigan, Flint
Floyd Duncan, Virginia Military Institute
Francis Egan, Trinity College
John Egger, Towson University
Kenneth Elzinga, Univ. of Virginia
Paul Evans, Ohio State University
Eugene Fama, Univ. of Chicago
W. Ken Farr, Georgia College & State University
Hartmut Fischer, Univ. of San Francisco
Fred Foldvary, Santa Clara University
Murray Frank, Univ. of Minnesota
Peter Frank, Wingate University
Timothy Fuerst, Bowling Green State University
B. Delworth Gardner, Brigham Young University
John Garen, Univ. of Kentucky
Rick Geddes, Cornell University
Aaron Gellman, Northwestern University
William Gerdes, Clarke College
Michael Gibbs, Univ. of Chicago
Stephan Gohmann, Univ. of Louisville
Rodolfo Gonzalez, San Jose State University
Richard Gordon, Penn State University
Peter Gordon, Univ. of Southern California
Ernie Goss, Creighton University
Paul Gregory, Univ. of Houston
Earl Grinols, Baylor University
Daniel Gropper, Auburn University
R.W. Hafer, Southern Illinois
University, Edwardsville
Arthur Hall, Univ. of Kansas
Steve Hanke, Johns Hopkins
Stephen Happel, Arizona State University
Frank Hefner, College of Charleston
Ronald Heiner, George Mason University
David Henderson, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
Robert Herren, North Dakota State University
Gailen Hite, Columbia University
Steven Horwitz, St. Lawrence University
John Howe, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia
Jeffrey Hummel, San Jose State University
Bruce Hutchinson, Univ. of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Brian Jacobsen, Wisconsin Lutheran College
Jason Johnston, Univ. of Pennsylvania
Boyan Jovanovic, New York University
Jonathan Karpoff, Univ. of Washington
Barry Keating, Univ. of Notre Dame
Naveen Khanna, Michigan State University
Nicholas Kiefer, Cornell University
Daniel Klein, George Mason University
Paul Koch, Univ. of Kansas
Narayana Kocherlakota, Univ. of Minnesota
Marek Kolar, Delta College
Roger Koppl, Fairleigh Dickinson University
Kishore Kulkarni, Metropolitan State College of Denver
Deepak Lal, UCLA
George Langelett, South Dakota State University
James Larriviere, Spring Hill College
Robert Lawson, Auburn University
John Levendis, Loyola University New Orleans
David Levine, Washington University in St. Louis
Peter Lewin, Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Dean Lillard, Cornell University
Zheng Liu, Emory University
Alan Lockard, Binghampton University
Edward Lopez, San Jose State University
John Lunn, Hope College
Glenn MacDonald, Washington
University in St. Louis
Michael Marlow, California
Polytechnic State University
Deryl Martin, Tennessee Tech University
Dale Matcheck, Northwood University
Deirdre McCloskey, Univ. of Illinois, Chicago
John McDermott, Univ. of South Carolina
Joseph McGarrity, Univ. of Central Arkansas
Roger Meiners, Univ. of Texas at Arlington
Allan Meltzer, Carnegie Mellon University
John Merrifield, Univ. of Texas at San Antonio
James Miller III, George Mason University
Jeffrey Miron, Harvard University
Thomas Moeller, Texas Christian University
John Moorhouse, Wake Forest University
Andrea Moro, Vanderbilt University
Andrew Morriss, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Michael Munger, Duke University
Kevin Murphy, Univ. of Southern California
Richard Muth, Emory University
Charles Nelson, Univ. of Washington
Seth Norton, Wheaton College
Lee Ohanian, Univ. of California, Los Angeles
Lydia Ortega, San Jose State University
Evan Osborne, Wright State University
Randall Parker, East Carolina University
Donald Parsons, George Washington University
Sam Peltzman, Univ. of Chicago
Mark Perry, Univ. of Michigan, Flint
Christopher Phelan, Univ. of Minnesota
Gordon Phillips, Univ. of Maryland
Michael Pippenger, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks
Tomasz Piskorski, Columbia University
Brennan Platt, Brigham Young University
Joseph Pomykala, Towson University
William Poole, Univ. of Delaware
Barry Poulson, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder
Benjamin Powell, Suffolk University
Edward Prescott, Nobel laureate
Gary Quinlivan, Saint Vincent College
Reza Ramazani, Saint Michael's College
Adriano Rampini, Duke University
Eric Rasmusen, Indiana University
Mario Rizzo, New York University
Richard Roll, Univ. of California, Los Angeles
Robert Rossana, Wayne State University
James Roumasset, Univ. of Hawaii at Manoa
John Rowe, Univ. of South Florida
Charles Rowley, George Mason University
Juan Rubio-Ramirez, Duke University
Roy Ruffin, Univ. of Houston
Kevin Salyer, Univ. of California, Davis
Pavel Savor, Univ. of Pennsylvania
Ronald Schmidt, Univ. of Rochester
Carlos Seiglie, Rutgers University
William Shughart II, Univ. of Mississippi
Charles Skipton, Univ. of Tampa
James Smith, Western Carolina University
Vernon Smith, Nobel laureate
Lawrence Southwick, Jr., Univ. at Buffalo
Dean Stansel, Florida Gulf Coast University
Houston Stokes, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
Brian Strow, Western Kentucky University
Shirley Svorny, California State
University, Northridge
John Tatom, Indiana State University
Wade Thomas, State University of New York at Oneonta
Henry Thompson, Auburn University
Alex Tokarev, The King's College
Edward Tower, Duke University
Leo Troy, Rutgers University
David Tuerck, Suffolk University
Charlotte Twight, Boise State University
Kamal Upadhyaya, Univ. of New Haven
Charles Upton, Kent State University
T. Norman Van Cott, Ball State University
Richard Vedder, Ohio University
Richard Wagner, George Mason University
Douglas M. Walker, College of Charleston
Douglas O. Walker, Regent University
Christopher Westley, Jacksonville State University
Lawrence White, Univ. of Missouri at St. Louis
Walter Williams, George Mason University
Doug Wills, Univ. of Washington Tacoma
Dennis Wilson, Western Kentucky University
Gary Wolfram, Hillsdale College
Huizhong Zhou, Western Michigan University

Steve Hulett said...

Ah yes, mention Dr. Krugman and the invective flows. (No brickbats for Dr. Stiglitz, however. You're a selective hater.)

My original question was, give some citations. Took you a week, but you got around to it.

Oh. And I didn't quote Krugman, but Mark Zandi, the Democratic economist who supported McCain. So where you come by the idea that I'm a disciple of Krugman, I donno. I simply listed him as a (qualified) supporter of the stimulus.

Here's the bottom line, Monsieur Robiscus. Economists, left and right, have misgivings about the stimulus plan. Krugman isn't crazy about it; Nobel Laureate Gary Becker isn't crazy about it.

But to the point:

Martin Boileau, associate professor of economics at CU-Boulder, said about 80 percent of economists claim support of the bill.Doesn't mean the 80 percent is right. I have doubts about that, just as I have doubts about Summers and Geithner.

But any way you slice it, 80 percent is a teensy bit more than "some." Which is your term, not mine. I simply said most economists support the stimulus bill, and I'd define 80 percent as most.

But I grant you that it certainly isn't "all" or "almost all" has the President has stated.

Anonymous said...


Often wrong but always passionate!

Site Meter