368 Economists Against Kerrynomics

This just in, Kerry will raise your taxes or we will be in a great depression. This is the view of 368 economist.

--

Leading economists have a message for America: �John Kerry favors economic policies that, if implemented, would lead to bigger and more intrusive government and a lower standard of living for the American people.�

That was the conclusion released in a statement Wednesday by 368 economists, including six Nobel laureates: Gary Becker, James Buchanan, Milton Friedman, Robert Lucas, Robert Mundell, and � the winner of this year�s Nobel Prize in Economics � Edward C. Prescott. The economists warned that Sen. Kerry�s policies �would, over time, inhibit capital formation, depress productivity growth, and make the United States less competitive internationally. The end result would be lower U.S. employment and real wage growth.�

Consider Kerry�s spending and tax proposals. Kerry claims he wants to balance the federal budget, but as the Washington Post pointed out last August, �Sen. John F. Kerry�s pledge to reduce record federal budget deficits is colliding with an obstacle that may be growing higher by the week: his own campaign commitments.� In fact, Kerry�s spending proposals would add an estimated $226 billion annually to federal spending. To put this in perspective, $226 billion is roughly equal to the gross domestic products of Greece or Sweden.

Kerry�s oft-repeated budget solution is to raise taxes on �families making over $200,000 on income earned above $200,000 to their levels under President Clinton.� This proposal would generate hundreds-of-billions of dollars over the next decade for the Treasury�s coffers. Kerry�s other proposed tax increases would generate billions more. Yet, these tax increases would offset only a fraction of Kerry�s new spending.

For instance, Senator Kerry�s government-run health insurance spending plan would by itself require a tax increase of more than $1 trillion. Two independent studies, one by the Lewin Group and another by the American Enterprise Institute, concluded that Kerry�s health insurance proposal would cost more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years. And that�s just one of Kerry�s spending proposals. To close the funding gap between all of his spending and tax promises, Kerry would have to raise taxes by an average of $1,431 for everyone who files an income-tax return.

The stark disconnect between Kerry�s spending and tax proposals is what prompted 368 leading economists to conclude, �Kerry�s stated desire to balance the budget and to boost federal spending substantially would almost certainly require far higher and broader tax increases than he has proposed.� And given Kerry�s voting record in the Senate � he has cast 98 votes for tax increases totaling more than $2.3 trillion throughout his legislative career � that is no idle threat.

It is no secret that John Kerry wants America�s foreign policy to be more like that of Germany and France. But perhaps even more disturbing, he has demonstrated that he wants to emulate their failed tax-and-spend economic policies, too. Over time, the consequences could be devastating. Consider the impact those policies have had on Europe. Germany and France once enjoyed standards of living comparable to those of the United States. Today, U.S. per capita GDP is 38 percent higher than that of Germany and 43 percent higher than that of France. Indeed, as economist Bruce Bartlett recently pointed out, �On average, Europeans only live about as well as those in the poorest American state, Mississippi.�

The 368 economists only briefly touched upon Kerry�s trade policies. As it happens, there is not much upon which to comment. Kerry has expressed a general reluctance to reduce trade barriers, and he has promised, if elected, to �review existing trade agreements.� His applause line is that he vows not to �sign any new trade agreements until the review is complete and its recommendations [are] put in place.� According to the 368 economists, �That's a prescription for political gridlock. Given the widespread benefits of unfettered trade, Kerry�s trade policies would harm U.S. producers and consumers alike.�

www.nationalreview.com...

Whoa....!
Where are those who valiantly proclaimed and chided that Bush had 175+ retired US Ambassadors against him, or X-amount of Historians or any other X-amount of such-and-such at? Where are those that preached and claimed that Bush, yes, Bush, created about 39 MILLION 'poor' in the US at?

What? They haven't a comment or wait...they just haven't gotten around to noticing this thread yet?

Oh wait....ambassadors and historians, etc. words ring with more 'gospel' and 'truth' then say...economists, specifically those economists that say that Mr. Kerry's 'kerrynomics' will bring:

a lower standard of living for the American people

Link to quote is given in the initial post of this topic.

Oh wait....anyone heard from those 10 top Nobel economists who supported Mr. Kerry's plan on this yet?



seekerof

[edit on 13-10-2004 by Seekerof]

Duelfer report: Hussein planned on postwar insurgency

Classified version of same report says US oil companies and individuals benefitted from UN oil-for-food program.

by Tom Regan | csmonitor.com


Last week's report by the CIA-led Iraq Survey Group � now commonly called the Duelfer Report after chief weapons inspector Charles A. Duelfer � has been generating headlines since its release. One key finding highlighted by the media was the acknowledgement that Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction, and what programs it did have to create such weapons had been in decline since 1991. Then came the stories about the UN's oil-for-food program and how Saddam Hussein "gamed" the system in order to secretly raise billions of dollars in allegedly corrupt oil deals.
Now the Boston Globe is surfacing more information from the Duelfer report that shows that the United States with its 'shock and awe" campaign may have played into Mr. Hussein's plans for a prolonged insurgency after the country was captured by US troops. The report based its findings on interviews with former top Iraqi generals, along with other sources.

"Saddam believed that the Iraqi people would not stand to be occupied or conquered by the United States and would resist � leading to an insurgency," said the 1,000-page report by chief weapons inspector Charles A. Duelfer. "Saddam said he expected the war to evolve from traditional warfare to insurgency."




10/08/04

UN oil-for-food: Hussein's 'piggy bank'

10/07/04

Terrorism and the 'Net

10/06/04

Iran prepares uranium for enrichment





Sign up to be notified daily:




Find out more.

The Age, of Melbourne, Australia, says the Duelfer reports says that from August 2002 to January of 2003 Hussein ordered his military commanders to bury weapons around the country. And the report also says that in the months before the US invasion Hussein and his generals read books by Vietnamese communists on how to conduct guerilla warfare.

The Duelfer report, according to the Globe, also says that the CIA "warned in several secret reports before the war that the invasion would likely be followed by a guerrilla campaign." Other top US military commanders, such as retired Army General George Joulwan, the former NATO commander who led the peacekeeping mission in Bosnia, say there were many other signs that the Iraqis were planning to fight an insurgency rather than a traditional war.

"The US was meeting organized resistance of a different kind, not Republican Guards but this different sort of fighting. It was an early warning." Even by telegraphing that the US-led onslaught would be a "shock and awe" campaign, the United States unnecessarily played into the Iraqis' hands, according to Joulwan, because from an enemy standpoint it provided additional reason not to confront the United States directly. "There were strong indications this was part of their strategy," Joulwan said.
The Daily Telegraph of London reported on Sunday that a "powerful 'old guard'" at the CIA has launched an "unprecedented campaign" to undermine the Bush administration with a series of negative leaks and briefings about Iraq. The Telegraph reports that there is "anger in the CIA" for being blamed for all of the problems with the prewar intelligence on Iraq.
Bill Harlow, the former CIA spokesman who left with the former director George Tenet in July, acknowledged that there had been leaks from within the agency. "The intelligence community has been made the scapegoat for all the failings over Iraq," he said. "It deserves some of the blame, but not all of it. People are chafing at that, and that's the background to these leaks."
Meanwhile, The New York Times reported Monday that several prominent US firms and individuals had received vouchers from Hussein's government that allowed them to buy Iraqi oil under the UN oil-for-food program, and were among the largest purchasers of Iraqi oil right up until the start of the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
When the ISG released its report last week, it listed only foreign companies and individuals that had benefitted from the UN plan. US names were withheld for privacy reasons, an explanation that made foreign countries named in the report furious. But the American names were included in classified copies of the reports given to Congress and the White House and these copies were shown to the Times.

The report said US companies Chevron, Mobil, Texaco and Bay Oil, as well as three US individuals, including oil baron Oscar Wyatt, were together allotted 111 million barrels of oil ... Spokesmen for the companies and for Mr Wyatt said the transactions were legal, but confirmed they had received subpoenas from a grand jury investigating the transactions.
Finally, Jack Kinsella of the Omega Letter, a Christian news website, comments on the fact that it was Saddam Hussein who fooled his generals about the existence of weapons of mass destruction, and not the other way around. Until the Iraq Survey Group report appeared, security experts had speculated on the possibility that Iraqi generals had kept Hussein in the dark about the real condition of his WMD programs, in order to protect their lives. But the ISG report, comments Mr. Kinsella, showed that Hussein was "micromanaging" his weapons programs and policies so that he could fool his two biggest enemies � the United States and Iran � into thinking he was still a power with which to be reckoned.

I don't know what this has to do with this thread, but, one individual listed by GrndLkNatv is a hugh democratic fund raiser. So I don't know what GrndLkNatv's aruguement is.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Whoa....!
Where are those who valiantly proclaimed and chided that Bush had 175+ retired US Ambassadors against him, or X-amount of Historians or any other X-amount of such-and-such at? Where are those that preached and claimed that Bush, yes, Bush, created about 39 MILLION 'poor' in the US at?

What? They haven't a comment or wait...they just haven't gotten around to noticing this thread yet?

Oh wait....ambassadors and historians, etc. words ring with more 'gospel' and 'truth' then say...economists, specifically those economists that say that Mr. Kerry's 'kerrynomics' will bring:

a lower standard of living for the American people

Link to quote is given in the initial post of this topic.

Oh wait....anyone heard from those 10 top Nobel economists who supported Mr. Kerry's plan on this yet?

seekerof

[edit on 13-10-2004 by Seekerof]

Damn Seek, just U2U me if you want me to read something!
jrsdls is such a Freeper propagandist that I tend to skip his threads, my bad. I'll read it later & get back to you.

Bout Time, I never skip reading what you have to say even though you post stuff off of Democratic leaning boards and sites. The information I presented came off of the National Review site, a biased site I give you, but the information is still valid. I believe that you present a left view on many topics but I have yet to call you a propagandist. It is your right not to read what I write, How can you know what is right and what is wrong if you refuse to read the other side. Sorry if my post offend your sensibilities, once this election is over maybe you can read some of my other posts on different subjects. I have been around the world a lot and have seen a lot of things. I joined ATS because of the different forums, but being a political person, I have gravitated to here mainly. Everyone has things that are of value to say, just give them a chance and it might surprise you.

Here's the source of the letter:

To: Interested Parties
From: Bush-Cheney '04 Communications
Date: 10/13/04
Re: Letter Criticizing John Kerry's Economic Plans Signed By 368 Of The Nation's Leading Economists



Here's the only place that's listed it ( not on CNN, AP, Reuters, UPI ):

The National Review!!!! Was NewsMax deciding not to run it!?!

David Frum, Editor: GOP mouthpiece. NRO: here's their ads











They even have a Tab of culmative 'dirt' on John Kerry!!

The 'author'? Cesar V. Conda, formerly assistant for domestic policy to Vice President Dick Cheney

So Seek, Pal-O-Mine:

I read the 'letter' from Bush/Cheney 2004 Communications, and here are my questions:

- Economists are like scientists, they are 'wonks', always careful to never make a hard & fast statement without doing what your HS math teachers always demanded....showing the work. The statements have no corroberation in 'formula' - highly suspect for a wonk.

- The one statement that was solid, had this disclaimer: "In fact, we believe Kerry's proposals would, over time, inhibit capital formation, depress productivity growth, and make the United States less competitive internationally." Now, I've posted a bit on Economics & particularly the Kerry plan being referenced: it, as the disclaimer notes, was never proposed as an 'over time' solution, but as an immediate response to our current economic mismanagement.

- Where do the 368 come from & how did they get together? What confrence was this? What polling used?

- Why are those named tied to Beltway think tanks that advise this administration?

I'll be happy to add, if it makes the legitimate news cycle, as well as go toe to toe on merit weigh out of the Kerry propsal vs., well, there is no plan!!


jrsdls - while it sounds harsh, propagandist is accurate. Take a page from someone who can be a mentor for the Right Wingers like yourself: Seekerof. Now he used to post out the wazoo from these same sites I'm chiding you about sourcing from, but he dropped that bad habit, as did most all of the 'old schoolers' , simply because it was suspect. It's great to use them for Mud Pit Moshing , but they fail serious discussion....if that's your goal.

I read everything & have no one on ignore. Having been around the world ( mom was an airline employee) & working since I was 14, I've worked with many an American immigrant, have read their religious text, debated their country's positions and have visited a great many of their countries. Thus, even people I share no values with, I consider them my teachers, as I do everyone.

[edit on 13-10-2004 by Bout Time]