Charlie Gibson’s Startling Confession

Posted on April 17, 2008 by jamesbradfordpate

I just watched the Democratic debate that occurred in Philadelphia. ABC moderator Charlie Gibson said that, when Clinton and Bush cut the capital gains tax, the revenue from that tax actually increased. So a tax cut generated more revenue. And why are we supposed to believe that supply side economics doesn’t work, again?

About jamesbradfordpate

My name is James Pate. This blog is about my journey. I read books. I watch movies and TV shows. I go to church. I try to find meaning. And, when I can’t do that, I just talk about stuff that I find interesting. I have degrees in fields of religious studies. I have an M.Phil. in the History of Biblical Interpretation from Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, Ohio. I also have an M.A. in Hebrew Bible from Jewish Theological Seminary, an M.Div. from Harvard Divinity School, and a B.A. from DePauw University.
This entry was posted in Candidates, Economics, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Charlie Gibson’s Startling Confession

  1. Charles Halton says:
    April 17, 2008 at 12:57 pm

    Obama’s response was fascinating. His rationale for raising the cap gains tax was “fairness” *not* that it would raise revenue. It seems that he pretty much ceded the point on supply side economics. So, I guess to meet his goal of “paying as you go” after he applies a punitive cap gains tax increase he will have to cut spending to offset the revenue hit this will cause. This makes no sense to me.

    Like

  2. Felix Taylor says:
    April 17, 2008 at 3:04 pm

    Trust me James, Robert Reich will try to find 1001 reasons why he hates supply-side economics. Talk about a religion of tax and spend!

    Like

  3. Pascalian Awakenings says:
    April 17, 2008 at 3:17 pm

    Speaking of tax and spend religion…I have a confession and a question.

    Confession: I am an economics and business idiot. I’m happy if my checkbook is close to accurate.

    Question: Both Democratic candidates talk about taxing and fining the oil companies and taking away their profits. If they increase taxes on oil companies, won’t that just cost us personally at the pump? I assume the oil companies are not going to just stop making money. That is their goal…so they will pass their costs onto us.

    Like

  4. James Pate says:
    April 17, 2008 at 6:38 pm

    Hey there, Charles! Yeah, I thought the same thing about Obama’s response, when he said that a CEO pays less than his secretary (or something like that). Obama, like a lot of Democrats, talks about pay as you go, but I don’t foresee too many spending cuts under a Democratic Administration.

    Hey Felix! Yeah, I’ve been thinking of including Reich’s blog on my blogroll. His is somewhat like Ben Witherington’s, in the sense that he’s a celebrity of sorts, yet he takes the time to respond to people’s comments. I may post something there sometime, and brag about an ex-Secretary of Labor responding to my comments.

    Hi Yvette! I’m not much of an economist either. A few months ago, I read Economics for Dummies and The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Economics. I didn’t understand all that I read, but I did learn some helpful things, which are useful when I watch the news. I learned why a greater money supply means more inflation, why many propose to increase interest rates to curb inflation, and other things.

    But I agree with you on the windfall profits tax. Why wouldn’t that get passed on to the consumer?

    Anyway, thanks for responding. Maybe I should write more of these short, pithy posts!

    Like

  5. Pingback: Bruce Bartlett’s The New American Economy 5: Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work? « James’ Ramblings

Comments are closed.