From Ezra Klein at the NY Times -
"There are fiscal theories that I disagree with, and that I think are cruel, and that make me upset. But very few actually make me sad. Sen. Mitch McConnell, however, hit my sore spot today. "There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue," he told Brian Beutler of TPMDC. "They increased revenue because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject." In other words, this is why Republicans don't think tax cuts need to be paid for. They pay for themselves.
Why does this make me sad? Because it's hard to see the country prospering when one of its two major political parties is this economically illiterate. McConnell isn't some backbencher. He's Senate minority leader. And he thinks there's "no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue."
There's an ontological question here about what, exactly, McConnell considers to be "evidence." But how about the Congressional Budget Office's estimations? "The new CBO data show that changes in law enacted since January 2001 increased the deficit by $539 billion in 2005. In the absence of such legislation, the nation would have a surplus this year. Tax cuts account for almost half — 48 percent — of this $539 billion in increased costs." How about the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget? Their budget calculator shows that the tax cuts will cost $3.28 trillion between 2011 and 2018. How about George W. Bush's CEA chair, Greg Mankiw, who used the term "charlatans and cranks" for people who believed that "broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue." He continued: "I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't..."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-k … tsoev.html
Revenue did go down.
Revenue for the government went down.
My personal revenue increased.
Democrats hate it when we get to keep our own money.
Ever hear of the Laffer curve? There is a point where tax increase do not produce the expected revenues as people look for ways to avoid paying them. In the past we have seen increases in revenues as a result of tax decreases, because more money becomes available to invest creating more jobs add to the amount of people that pay taxes, in addition to growing economic activity.
Tax cuts aren't something that needs to be paid for, taxes after all are a forced confiscation of private property, not a benefit bestowed upon the masses by government. What WE need from government is control over spending so that tax increases aren't even something to be considered.
Regardless of whether they increased revenue or not, those tax cuts did help the economy get out of the recession that came after the dotcom bubble and the Sept 11th attacks, and much quicker than the Keynesian system that we have now that has never worked and is currently making our economic situation worse.
I'm all in favor of any argument for tax cuts because it puts the money back in the hands of its rightful owners and out of the hands of the thugs in the federal government.
As a side note - it doesn't matter if the USA has a surplus because the world uses the dollar as a reserve currency, so we almost need a deficit. The problem is when we're running deficits so large that there's no demand for dollars it destroys the entire system.
They are lieing in the House, too.
Letter to the Editor of the Detroit News published 7-14-10
Ignorance or pandering?
U.S. Rep. Eric Cantor is either not familiar with orthodox macro economic theory or he is deliberately pandering to what he considers to be the ignorance of Americans whose concern about the national debt is natural but overblown until the light at the end of the recession tunnel is visible ("More spending isn't the answer," June 24.). Then will be the time to balance the budget by cutting expenditures and increasing taxes.
Ralph Deeds, Birmingham
From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20100714/OPI … z0tiirIvFq
Jon Kyl was on Fox News Sunday - Steve Benen reports -
"Wallace, to his credit, raised a good point — the “Republican growth agenda” is predicated on keeping “the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.” Wallace said this would cost $678 billion over 10 years, and asked Kyl how the GOP would pay for them. Kyl dodged the question, and talked about how great those tax cuts were.
So, Wallace asked again how the cuts would be paid for. Kyl responded, “You should never raise taxes in order to cut taxes."
IMO the irrational statement by Kyl "You should never raise taxes to cut taxes." was a deliberate misstatement to avoid voicing the rational alternative - You should raise taxes on those making over $250K to pay down the deficit. But this option scares the crap out of the GOP and most democrats are afraid to say it out loud.
Repealing the Bush Tax cuts is a weak start - getting capital gains tax rates up with income tax rates is a second reform that MUST happen.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/us/po … by.html?hp
WASHINGTON — Lawmakers take contributions every day from corporate executives and lobbyists hoping for their votes. The question of whether that represents business as usual in Washington or an ethics breach is at the heart of a far-reaching Congressional ethics investigation that is stirring concerns throughout Washington and Wall Street.
For example, on Dec. 10, one of the lawmakers under investigation, Representative Joseph Crowley, a New York Democrat who sits on the Ways and Means Committee, left the Capitol during the House debate to attend a fund-raising event for him hosted by a lobbyist at her nearby Capitol Hill town house that featured financial firms, along with other donors. After collecting thousands of dollars in checks, Mr. Crowley returned to the floor of the House just in time to vote against a series of amendments that would have imposed tougher restrictions on Wall Street.
Nope. Democrats are like sex--they only go from good to excellent!
Yeah and you can get some pretty nasty diseases along the way
ha ... hahaha...
TAX AND BORROW AND SPEND. The Odumbo philosophy in action.
Funny but when Other Peoples Money runs out this plan collapses.
Odumbo has told more lies than any President in my lifetime.
And GW was a total POS.
So ultimately all that we really know is the Politicians from both sides do not tell the truth.
So the real issue is do you want to Give your money to the Government so it can grow so large that it becomes an incurable cancer on America causing it to completely collapse or do you want to support a group of greedy liars who want to perpetuate a system that keeps feeding their own pockets, but at least gives you a chance by limiting the amount of Government.
It's 2 bad systems, but only one gives you a shot.
You will never eliminate GREED. All you can hope for is to temper it. And anyone who doesn't think Odumbo is motivated by Greed only needs to look at his extensive spending on Parties, Golf, and Vacation trips.
I find it amusing that a party that has full control of our govt. and has had control of the congress for what... 6 years now. Can actually blame the minority over and over again with a straight face on.
What a bunch of loosers.
And imagine, some people are dumb enough to buy it.
TM are you serious? One has to laugh hard. This party produced a president who explained every failure he's had as "It's Bush's fault"! I think it's permanently on his teleprompter at the beginning of each speech.
I know flight...
It all Bush's fault... I even heard one Obama lackey refer to Bush 1 today in an interview.
How pathetic can the Left get... new lows every day.
It is Bush's fault. Anyone living in this country can tell you that.
Obama has to clean it up, and the Bozo's give him the blame.
They all must have gone to the The Beckles Clown School.
"Now crinkle your eyes up and cry.....hurry! Bring the tears!!"
Obama has ruined eveything. sob gulp......it all started in 2009........boohooboohoooo
We Republicans were PERFECT before those Dems took over.
What's the talking point?? Oh yeah......Saul Alinsky/muslim/not born here/communist/hates America
Oh poor poor pooooorrr Republicans....we did eveything right until THEY came along
What collassal JOKE.
So, adding 7 billion to the deficit so people who don't need it can have more $$ will help America how?
How many jobs were created from 2000-2008???
Remind me.....Oh yeah! We LOST jobs, to the tune of millions a month. And why?...come on, say it with me: Outsourcing!!!
And who was in charge? Come on....., don't be shy: Bush and the Republicans!!!
Oh yee of faulty memory.
Or deliberate obtusion.....either way, We AINT BUYIN IT!
So you think keeping the tax give-away for the Uber wealthy is a good thing?
GOP liars in the Senate
And, has been for decades, after decades.
It's true. It started with Reagan. The neo-con philosophy along with MK Ultra programming and really really dirty deeds.
This was put into place long ago. Trying to break it is like breaking a strong weed that has grown around a flower and choked it.
Takes time and delicate manuevering. Like walking through a mine-field. Finesse.
And i KNOW it will happen. That's why I love Obama....he's been there before. And not afraid.
Oh it's a great time to be alive!!!
You have definitley been hanging with Alex Jones too long, chrs.
Unfortunately, the Conservative base doesn't read the New York Times, and wouldn't understand it if they did.
Now there is a myth, they do, and if they did Not the rest of the world would not know how biased the NYT's is!
Gee, it's sad that all conservatives and moderates aren't intelligent enough to comprehend the articles in the NY Times. Wish I could be smart like all the liberals - especially the ones interviewed on TV who thought Palin was Obama's running mate. lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20LmZoM4 … re=related
Again, where did I say ALL conservatives? I didn't even say a thing about moderates! I said the BASE. Do you know who the base is? I do. I live in a state full of them, and trust me, not many of them read the NYT, nor would they understand it.
That being said, the liberal base probably doesn't either.
I do wish people would actually try to understand political terms before they argue it.
Economically illiterate . . . what a great label, and one that applies to on board liberal Dems who have no clue, zero clue, beyond what they are told will be impacted by sitting on their collective arses and not addressing the expiring tax cuts -- that is beyond, well beyond economic illiteracy - that's like Joy Behar mentality. Our elected officials ought to be beyond Joy..........hmmm, have I coined a phrase....elect someone with an intellect and without preconceived, party-line BS notions.......elect someone Beyond Joy. Hahahahahahahaha............
I have been around since the great depression and nothing has changed in our governmant. It was the guy before me, not me. I will not see the day when our congress will work together for the betterment of the people of these United States. That is sad, very sad.
You can lay that blame squarely on this crop of Republicans. Their WHOLE agenda was to destroy Obama. What kind of imbecile says "I want my president to fail"?
Well, All of the R's in Congress, that's what kind!
Dems cowed by ignorance spread by GOP Teatards are reluctant to defend the administration's Keynesian stimulus program, but economists support it.
The implications could extend well beyond this election cycle. To the extent that faith in deficit spending during downturns is eroded, the Federal Reserve could face increasing pressure to deploy monetary policy to lift the economy out of a rut — a prospect that has unsettled officials at the central bank. A shift among Democrats could increase pressure in Congress to rein in the growth of government spending, slash the budget deficit and reduce the national debt — even during a period of weakness that traditional Keynesian theory would say requires more deficit spending.
Ambivalence about using government borrowing and spending to spur the economy is longstanding. During the Depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt wavered repeatedly over the size of the New Deal; budgetary retrenchment helped set off a second deep recession in 1937-38.
“Not until World War II, with the need for revenue so large and the unity around winning the war so strong, was that ambivalence pushed aside,” said Gary Gerstle, a historian at Vanderbilt University.
A Keynesian consensus held until the 1970s — even President Richard M. Nixon accepted the label — but began to be discredited during the “stagflation” of the latter part of that decade. The apparent revival of Keynesian doctrine during the 2007-9 recession now appears to have been short-lived.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us/po … amp;st=cse
Obama's unknown tax cut:
What if a president cut Americans’ income taxes by $116 billion and nobody noticed?
It is not a rhetorical question. At Pig Pickin’ and Politickin’, a barbecue-fed rally organized here last week by a Republican women’s club, a half-dozen guests were asked by a reporter what had happened to their taxes since President Obama took office.
“Federal and state have both gone up,” said Bob Paratore, 59, from nearby Charlotte, echoing the comments of others.
After further prodding — including a reminder that a provision of the stimulus bill had cut taxes for 95 percent of working families by changing withholding rates — Mr. Paratore’s memory was jogged.
“You’re right, you’re right,” he said. “I’ll be honest with you: it was so subtle that personally, I didn’t notice it.”
Few people apparently did.
In a troubling sign for Democrats as they head into the midterm elections, their signature tax cut of the past two years, which decreased income taxes by up to $400 a year for individuals and $800 for married couples, has gone largely unnoticed.
In a New York Times/CBS News Poll last month, fewer than one in 10 respondents knew that the Obama administration had lowered taxes for most Americans. Half of those polled said they thought that their taxes had stayed the same, a third thought that their taxes had gone up, and about a tenth said they did not know. As Thom Tillis, a Republican state representative, put it as the dinner wound down here, “This was the tax cut that fell in the woods — nobody heard it.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us/po … es.html?hp
They also didn't notice that we are on the plus side of jobs now for the first time since 2002. More needs to be done, no doubt. to recover the millions of jobs lost to outsourcing during the end of the Clinton and the entire Bush administrations, but creating jobs takes time. People who don't have s**t for brains, who are led around by the nose by the Tea Party and Loony Leftists don't understand enough to see what is going on, or even understand how long it takes for a small business to create even one job.
Nancy Pelosi stated last night that there were more PRIVATE sector jobs created in the first 8 months of 2010 than the whole 8 years of Bushco.....
Why do some people want to go back?
They have said it....
IF you elect Repubs:
Repeal all the regulations that have been put in place
Repeal healthcare bill
Go after democrats big time.
Revenge and corporate free-for-all
"But what will you do for the country?"
Make it pay!!!
LOVEMYCHRIS- it's because they are being duped! if the know nothings have their way you will have 10% of the people extremely rich and the rest of the country will look like a seen from the book of eli. if people would just look up the definitions of republican and democrat then they would be able to "know" what they are voting for. if you are an everyday working citizen that makes 249,000yrly then the republican party has absolutely nothing. . .zero . . .zip . . .nada for you . thats why they have to use inflammatory, manipulative and scary tactics to get votes.
by Holle Abee 7 years ago
Four Democrats and Lieberman voted with the Republicans. I have mixed feelings about this, according to the research I've done. It seems that "economy experts" are split on their views. Some argue that increasing taxes on the upper economic class will stifle jobs, while others say that...
by Brian 7 years ago
I was on facebook earlier today, and a friend of mine posted a Youtube video about just how much money is being used to support the Bush tax cuts for the rich. 100 Billion dollars of the average tax payer's money! Which amounts to over $83,000.00 a year for a single individual making over...
by theirishobserver. 8 years ago
Good afternoon,Ten years ago, Congress passed broad income tax cuts. But in a cynical accounting trick designed to mask their long-term impact, they scheduled these cuts to expire next January. Now we are approaching that cliff, and millions of Americans are facing thousands of dollars in...
by kerryg 8 years ago
Republicans have repeated the lie that tax cuts are always good for the economy so often that all of Washington seems absolutely convinced that it's true. The conventional wisdom is so established on this that all a Republican has to say is, "Everyone knows you don't raise taxes in the middle...
by Alex Frias 7 years ago
Question. If the Bush-era tax cuts were so popular and such the "economic reality" as it's being coined, then why did Obama fail to see this until recently. Where was his voice in favor of the Bush tax cuts 6 months ago, or even 2 years ago..?Yes Obama has always maintained...
by Quilligrapher 5 years ago
From a CNN report GOP divide over Obama tax plan goes public, November 28, 2012:"A CNN/ORC International poll released Monday also showed that a solid majority of respondents -- two thirds -- supports the Democratic stance that any agreement should include a mix of spending cuts and tax...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|