The obstructionists are pushing us off the fiscal cliff.
While I wish people looked up what they don't understand, I am convinced a small majority of people do that. Those may be the ones who use computers; I'm devastated to realize how many do not, see and hear nothing relevant but vote for elections on the brainwashing they get. If you want to hear what Stieglitz, Nobel prize winning economist, speaks on this video. Hang in to when you hear a couple of people speaking first. Click here.
Grover Norquist accuses President Obama of not negotiating. Click here.
A small number of people have ever heard of G\rover Norquist yet he runs the Republican party,. Most Republicans who are refusing to vote for a tax raise depend on Norquist's financial support during campaigns. Without this help, they fear losing their job and have no allegiance to the voters who put them in office, actually. It is one of the major reasons that we are in such a broken government today.
1 comment:
Joseph Stiglitz has some valid points. His objections to the 2008 bailouts and on target, as is his critique of nuclear energy subsidies.
But he makes a few errors that are worth pointing out:
- The issue of income mobility is not as cut and dry as he makes it out to be. See this video about why there is more mobility than we think: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbueX92CKPk.
- He blames private schools for the decline of U.S. education. But haven't we always had private schools, even during that golden era when America was #1 in education? Our public schools are declining, but surging private school enrollment is more of a symptom than the cause of this decline.
- He dismisses investors as not doing real work, and of not contributing anything of value. Granted, some investors are completely worthless, but the best of this profession work long hours doing copious research on their companies, industries, and markets. And when they do their job well, they help launch the companies of tomorrow. He paints with too wide a brush.
- When it comes to the deficit, he puts far too much stock in solving it through higher taxes. Note how imprecise Stiglitz is on this point: he says if we raise taxes a few percentage points, it would raise "a lot of money". How much money? Can this new revenue cover the projected debt? Here is a WSJ report on what our future debt looks like, with numbers:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-16-trillion-only-hints-040600503.html
To pay this off with taxes alone would require taxing all income over $66,000 a year at 100%. Naturally, this would wreck the economy. Any real solution must include serious spending cuts, something that neither side is proposing.
Post a Comment