So, uh, when did Charlie Gibson turn into a supply-side nut job?

[EV_Ares]

April 17, 2008 2:42
Posted by Justin Fox --- The Curious Capitalist

I didn't watch the debate last night. I'm afraid I just can't bring myself to watch presidential debates. Which helps explain why I've never really made it as a political reporter.

But I can, after a suitable amount of time has passed, bring myself to read at least parts of the debate transcript. Such as Charlie Gibson's questions to Barack Obama about capital gains:


GIBSON: You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28 percent. It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.

But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

...

GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

...

GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.

So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

...

GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

I've left out Obama's responses, which were mostly about fairness 'n' stuff, because he failed to give the only appropriate answer, which was that, no, history doesn't show that. Yes, capital gains tax cuts invariably result in a revenue increase the next year, because investors aren't idiots: If they see a cut coming, they're likely to delay capital-gains-generating transactions until after the tax rate drops. But I don't know of any serious economist who thinks that cutting the capital gains tax rate increases revenue over time.

Read full entry »»

Link to entire article in blog: http://time-blog.com/curious_capitalist/

[ecdab]

1. Of all the crap in that "debate" - this was by far the low water mark.

Gibson was just spewing right wing bull crap.

[2rth2pwr]

2. Why didn't Obama challenge the premise?

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Possibly a combination of factors:

1. The renewal of Charles Gibson's contract is partly determined by how well he follows commmands from superiors.

2. The Board of Directors to the head of the News Division of the American Broadcast Company have an interest in the policies of the next president. Let's say there is an inherent conflict of interest when it comes to unfettered, neutral, and hard-hitting journalism. They probably have vetted the debate questions for months in preparation.

3. Charles Gibson is not to be confused with Edward R. Murrow. He is "Good Morning America", not "Good Night and Good Luck".

4. George Stephanopoulos is doing his Sunday Morning shtik, not the Harvard Debate Club.

These guys were both not the right choice to moderate without adding in the interference of corporate heads with the production.

[MagickMuffin]

4. This should explain it......... Gibson annual salary

WNT salary is $8,000,000 per year, the same as his GMA salary

[katmondoo]

5. How can so many a**holes make so much money

They are all over the place