About this site

  • Comments
    When you submit a comment, it won't be published until approved. This is to cut down on comment spam. However, I will also edit or block comments that are profane or offensive.
  • No Legal Advice
    Although I may from time to time discuss legal issues on this blog, nothing that I post should be construed as legal advice, nor as creating an attorney-client relationship between you and me. In fact, there's a good chance I'm not licensed to practice law wherever you are. If you need legal advice, you should consult an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
  • Personal View
    This blog is neither affiliated with my employer nor hosted by it. It is maintained through TypePad, and I pay the hosting fees. Nothing that is posted here should be construed as anything other than the views of the particular author of the post.
  • Tung Yin's Recent Papers (SSRN)

April 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      

Stats


  • Check Google Page Rank

« Blog housekeeping, or it's all a matter of choice | Main | Stupid daylight savings time »

October 30, 2004

Comments

As to the job losses, some of that is due to outsourcing. Whatever your economic views, the Kerry charge is that Bush encouraged outsourcing by rewarding Corporations that did outsource jobs overseas. No one I believe could justify such a policy. You make a valid point by indicating somewhat indirectly, that the tax cut has not as yet actually brought prosperity. Tax cuts are suppose to provide an immediate boost, so by implication the previously tax cuts didn't have enough power to lift us out of the recession that began after Bush was innaugerated. As to continuous tax cuts, this would seem a very dangerous slippery slope. We will shortly feel the sting of renewed inflation, continued deficits will only increase this. So that more tax cuts mean more inflation, and if you are Bush you make more tax cuts leading to more inflation, etc., etc.,. At some point, we will need to change this disastrous direction. I think Kerry is just the man to turn it around. We need a flip flop.

Dylan

"But if the President is going to take credit for the economic effect of his tax cuts, he has to take the blame for other macroeconomic factors as well."

How about: "If Bob is going to take credit for building that house, he has to take the blame for the hurricane that destroyed it."

Sorry, but you'll have to identify positive or negative actions/inactions by the President that he actually could or did make that harmed jobs. He can influence tax policy, but power over the whims of fate is reserved to the judicial branch.

Tung Yin

Sorry, but you'll have to identify positive or negative actions/inactions by the President that he actually could or did make that harmed jobs.

I think it's more a sort of, when the ship hits an iceberg, the Captain goes down with the ship regardless of who was actually steering.

Ron

"... when the ship hits an Iceberg..." Good point, in management we call it management by objective, Bush has failed to meet any objective. The have net job losses, inflation (these oil prices will effect everything especially with deficits), the war in Iraq is costly and deadly, and there is no end in sight to the terror. All Bush seems capable of is raising money for his reelection. BTW I too am in a battleground state. Early this Halloween morning(by 2 am), All the Kerry signs in my neighborhood have been systematically gathered up by thieves. This was not some random act by juveniles. Whoever did it must have organized it, I am not talking about a small neighborhood or few signs. It makes you wonder what kind of America we are becoming.

How about: "If Bob is going to take credit for building that house, he has to take the blame for the hurricane that destroyed it."

Disanalgous. An apt one: "If Bob is going to take credit for hiring the contractor, he has to take the blame for the subcontrator's poor paint job."

Economies are not isolated: You can not affect one part without affecting the other. Thus, if POTUS says, "Look at my good job with p," then he's implicting saying, "Look at what I with q."

Fed.No.84

The comment above was mine. Apologies for the omission.

Heidi

I really dislike the "Bush is bad because he's close to []" <--insert Muslim person here. This was, far and away, my least favorite part of F9/11 (which, despite my dislike for Bush, seriously made me twitch in agony).

I don't like Bush, but I really don't like the assertions that people are bad because they happen to be related, in some ways, to others that are known to be bad.

Fed.

I really don't like the assertions that people are bad because they happen to be related, in some ways, to others that are known to be bad.

Nor do I. However, the suggestion is that Bush may have helped his "bad" friends get away with their crimes. So I don't think the assertion is: "A is bad by association with B." Rather, it's "A is bad because he helped B get away with B's crimes." It's an association vs. affirmative act distinction, I think.

Tung Yin

However, the suggestion is that Bush may have helped his "bad" friends get away with their crimes.

I realize you aren't suggesting this, No. 84, just offering a potential explanation for the ad creators. However, I'd want to see serious evidence that the Saudi family (whom Bush is accused of being "too close" to) committed crimes. It's very Michael Moore-like to put out the following facts (all true, apparently): (1) the Saudi family is a repressive monarchy; (2) Bush is close to some members of the family (though we should note that some of those are attempting to reform the monarchy); and (3) 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. It certainly sounds bad, but I don't think it amounts to anything.

Dylan

"I think it's more a sort of, when the ship hits an iceberg, the Captain goes down with the ship regardless of who was actually steering."

You would have made an excellent Imperial Japanese officer. Will we see seppuku if the little one has a DWI in 20 years?

The comments to this entry are closed.