Fox News, Hoft distort Summers' comments on tax policy and job creation
Fox News and Gateway Pundit's Jim Hoft have seized on comments made by National Economic Council director Larry Summers to claim that he said higher taxes on the rich would lead to job growth. In fact, Summers said that President Obama's economic proposals, such as "rewarding people directly for hiring workers," as well as other measures, will be more effective at job creation than extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
Fox, Hoft distortion: Summers said "increasing taxes on the rich" fuels job growth
Gateway Pundit: "Larry Summers told reporters ... increasing taxes on the rich is a great way to fuel job growth." In a February 11 post on Gateway Pundit, entitled "Obama Top Advisor Larry Summers: Most Economists Agree Higher Taxes Fuels Job Growth," Hoft cited Summers' February 9 appearance on the Fox Business Network and claimed that "Larry Summers told reporters yesterday that increasing taxes on the rich is a great way to fuel job growth." Hoft quoted a Business and Media Institute article which reported that Summers "defended proposed rate-hikes for those making over $250,000." Hoft concluded by predicting, "It's going to be a long and destructive four years."
Varney attacks Summers for being "totally wrong" that "raising taxes on the rich" creates jobs. On the February 12 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, after playing a clip of the Summers interview, co-host Brian Kilmeade asked guest and Fox Business anchor Stuart Varney to respond to what Kilmeade claimed was Summers' statement that "the economists agree that taxes fuel job growth." Varney responded by calling Summers "very, very political" and "plain wrong." According to Varney, "A lot of economists ... will tell you that raising taxes on the rich especially does not create jobs." Varney later accused Summers again of being "political -- the man is entirely political. Always has been. He is toeing the party line. ... I think he's flat out wrong." During the segment, on-screen text read, "Tax Hikes Fuel Job Growth?"
In fact, Summers listed measures he argued were more effective than extending Bush tax cut for wealthy
Summers argued other measures would have greater job creation "impact" than extension of Bush tax cut for those making over $250,000. On the February 9 edition of Fox Business Network's Fox Business, co-host Liz Claman asked Summers if it had "been discussed to consider at least holding off on the sun-setting of the Bush taxes for those who make more than 250,000, that higher echelon that you talk about? Because some would argue ... that it is that upper echelon that gives the biggest economic punch when it comes to hiring people." Summers responded:
SUMMERS: There are people -- of course there are people who argue that, there are people who argue almost anything. But the president's budget, though, is focused on doing things that will have the maximum impact: rewarding people directly for hiring workers, rewarding people directly for new investments in plant and equipment, rewarding entrepreneurs directly by eliminating that zero capital gains tax. Those are the ways that the president believes tax policy can have the greatest impact on demand. And I must say, almost all economists who study these things take that kind of view and would favor supporting current law augmented by a whole range of tax cuts directed at those who are more likely to spend.
Economists agree that extending Bush tax cuts on wealthy would not be effective in spurring job growth
CBO scores extending tax cuts on high-income households as lowest-scoring policy proposal to create jobs. According to a January 14 report, CBO considered policy alternatives for job creation and economic stimulus. The lowest-scoring alternative for both "Cumulative Effects on GDP, 2010-2015" and "Cumulative Effects on Employment" for both the 2010-2011 and 2010-2015 periods were "Reducing Income Taxes in 2011." This option includes "extend[ing] higher exemption amounts for the [Alternative Minimum Tax]" and extending the Bush tax credits. CBO also reported that "allow[ing] the rate increases for the top brackets to go into effect" would "cost less than would deferring all of the scheduled tax increases, and it would be more cost-effective because the higher-income households that would be excluded would probably save a larger fraction of their increase in after-tax income." From CBO:
CBPP: Tax cuts for
"upper-income people" during "a recession or economic slowdown is a
very inefficient way to stimulate consumer spending and to thereby spur
economic growth and job creation." Citing CBO, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) noted
that "[t]he economic evidence is strong that upper-income people have a
higher
propensity to save additional income that they receive and a lower
propensity to consume." Because of this, CBPP reported that "channeling
a dollar of federal revenue to them during a recession or
economic slowdown is a very inefficient way to stimulate more consumer
spending and to thereby spur economic growth and job creation."
Fewer than 1.3 percent of
those who claim small-business income would be affected by expiration of Bush
tax cuts to wealthy taxpayers. Despite Claman's claim that it is the "upper
echelon that gives the biggest economic punch when it comes to hiring
people because in many regards they either run or own the businesses that
would then be hiring those people," according to the Tax Policy Center's table of
2009 tax returns that reported small-business income, 457,000 of those returns -- or 1.3 percent of
them -- are in the top two income tax brackets,
which include all filers with taxable incomes that would be affected by Obama's
proposal to end those Bush tax cuts.
Look at the question "Because some would argue ... that it is that upper echelon that gives the biggest economic punch when it comes to hiring people."
And Summers' response "There are people -- of course there are people who argue that, there are people who argue almost anything".
He is directly refuting what "some would argue".
But it's always a distortion when a liberal exposes a moment of honesty and it's actually reported. MMfA is the parsing-est parsers ever. Lol
So provide a conservative play by play. Unsubstantiated Political talking point, followed by strawmand fabrication, followed by kicking over the strawman.
The contention "that upper echelon that gives the biggest economic punch when it comes to hiring people" is a LIE. A very widely believed lie, but a lie none-the-less.
There is little or no reliable evidence for this myth and there is lots and lots of evidence to the contrary.
But this is not a university economics forum, so lets go with the uncontested and widely known FACT that the majority of jobs are created by small businesses. Followed by the other uncontestable fact that nearly all small businesses are started by middle income entrepreneurs.
This "the rich create the jobs" is a statement of rightist "pop" theology with almost no basis in reality.
Unparsed enough?
Yeah when you leave the rest of it out it sounds bad indeed, but add the rest and it shows he said nothing about how increasing taxes on the wealthy causes job growth.
I beleive you did.
And that makes me sad cause you can't understand it.
The solid proven and sourly experienced fact is, that voodoo-economics of Bush43 did not work. President Clinton, starting with the mess from Bush41, created 24 million new jobs and balanced the federal budget. Bush43 promised more and delivered nothing but a great mess spreading an mega crisis over the whole world with no net job growth. What has trickled down? Nothing, nada, niente, zero. Average loans were shrinking all over the country - a brand new phenomenon - while the richest became richer.
The gab between rich and poor is the standard difference of all governing Presidents, Democrats and Republicans. During a Democratic presidency the gab is shrinking and during a Republican presidency the gab is widening. There are no exceptions since the beginning of the 20th century.
Well, business needs costumers/clients/consumers who are able to spend money, the more costumers the better and 95% of the whole population of costumers/clients/consumers is more than 5% of the whole population. So if that 95% can spend more that is more effective to let business and jobs grow. Got it?
The after effect is that people generate a higher average income with less social welfare costs and that brings more tax money to the government's budget to pay for the debts.
The same economic laws are working in retrograde by the Republican policy.
The hapless fellow just can't help himself. Predictably, this steyn on humanity is quickly becoming a superstar amongst the ignorati.
2nd Law of Morondynamics: If you read something blindingly stupid (misspellings are diagnostic), it either a) originated with The Gateway Pudendum or b) passed through its bowels.
3rd Law of Morondynamics: The 1st Law understates the problem.
One time, he made a big stink about how Obama said "I've" done so much hard work to make progress on national security and that was further proof he was super-mega-arrogant. None of his commenters even seemed to notice that in both the video clip and text he offered in his own post, Obama clearly said "we've". After I pointed this out in comment and the dunderheads started catching on to the reality, Hoft then explained that by "we've" Obama really mean "I've" and therefore his original point held firm.
Gateway Pundit is where painfully stupid goes to regress.