Glenn Beck guest: "Believe it or not, tax cuts bring in revenue" -- several Bush economists don't believe it
SUMMARY: On CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, David E. Williams, vice president of policy for Citizens Against Government Waste, asserted that "the tax cuts are ... really what's saving this country right now. ... Believe it or not, tax cuts bring in revenue." However, several Bush administration officials have stated that tax cuts, including those enacted during the Bush administration, produce a net decrease in revenue, including Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, who said during his confirmation hearing, "As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves."
On the November 14 edition of his CNN Headline News show, while discussing President Bush's veto of a domestic spending bill on November 13 with David E. Williams, vice president of policy for Citizens Against Government Waste, Glenn Beck said: "[A] liberal called me up on the radio show the other day and they said, 'You people, who are all conservatives, you wanted President Bush's tax cuts, and now look.' It's not the tax cuts. ... It's the Republican spending and now the Democratic spending." Williams replied, "[I]f anything, the tax cuts are ... really what's saving this country right now. ... Believe it or not, tax cuts bring in revenue." Several Bush administration economists, however, have stated that tax cuts, including those enacted during the Bush administration, produce a net decrease in revenue, as Media Matters for America documented. Further, during his confirmation hearing, Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson testified: "As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves"; and the director of the Office of Management and Budget, Jim Nussle, was more recently quoted as saying, "Some say that [the tax cut] was a total loss. Some say they totally pay for themselves. It's neither extreme."
During his June 26, 2006, confirmation hearing before the Senate Finance Committee, Paulson said: "As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves." The financial information website MarketWatch reported this statement as "echoing the opinion of most economists." Paulson added: "But I have clearly seen -- and I think some of those people you've quoted would say the same thing -- I've seen that tax cuts change behavior. There's no doubt."
In a November 15 editorial, titled "The Tax Fairy, Debunked: OMB Director Jim Nussle acknowledges reality," The Washington Post wrote:
Tax cuts don't pay for themselves. This might sound like dog-bites-man news, except for one thing: This rather unremarkable statement comes from Jim Nussle, the new director of the Office of Management and Budget in an administration whose president is given to saying things like "You cut taxes, and the tax revenues increase" (February 2006) and "We have cut taxes, causing economic growth, which caused there to be this year alone 187 billion more tax dollars coming into the Treasury" (August 2007).
As Mr. Nussle acknowledges, "There are those including myself who ... in the passion of the argument have made statements -- I think I even made a statement once -- that tax relief did pay for itself." In fact, Mr. Nussle said yesterday at a breakfast with reporters sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, "Some say that [the tax cut] was a total loss. Some say they totally pay for themselves. It's neither extreme."
In a June 25 article, The Christian Science Monitor reported that "even top Bush economic advisers now reject" the theory that cutting taxes increases tax revenues, and quoted Council of Economic Advisers chairman Edward Lazear as saying: "I certainly would not claim that tax cuts pay for themselves." Indeed, during his September 26, 2006, testimony before the Senate Budget Committee, Lazear said:
LAZEAR: Will the tax cuts pay for themselves? As a general rule, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves. Certainly, the data presented above do not support this claim. Tax revenues in 2006 appear to have recovered to the level seen at this point in previous business cycles, but this does not make up for the lost revenue during 2003, 2004, and 2005. The tax cuts were a positive step and have contributed to the enhanced economic growth, additional jobs, higher real disposable income, and the low unemployment rates that we currently see today. Our goal is not to maximize the size of government, but to provide revenues to make sure that we can operate those programs that society deems necessary, while at the same time allowing the private sector to take full advantage of its growth potential.
Similarly, in an October 17, 2006, article, the Post quoted Alan D. Viard, a former Council of Economic Advisers senior economist during the Bush administration, asserting that "[f]ederal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the [Bush] tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that."
Moreover, in the 2005 paper "Dynamic Scoring: A Back-Of-The-Envelope Guide," N. Gregory Mankiw, Harvard University economics professor and former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under Bush, wrote: "Most economists ... believe that taxes influence national income but doubt that the growth effects are large enough to make tax cuts self-financing."
From the November 14 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: David Williams is the vice president of policy for Citizens Against Government Waste. David, I've got to tell you, I'm a citizen, and I think our government is a waste. Help me down off that tree.
WILLIAMS: I can't. I really can't, because the government is wasting a ton of money for ridiculous projects. The Democrats came in last year, into power, into office, and said, "We're going to drain the swamp. We're going to make these huge" --
BECK: Yeah.
WILLIAMS: -- "changes in Washington." Yet, a year later, literally a year later, we're back to zero.
BECK: Yeah, and --
WILLIAMS: We're right back to where we were before.
BECK: And here's the frustration if -- you know, look, America, if you're watching this show for the first time, know right out on the front, I'm a conservative. But I'm not a Republican. And here's what people don't say on television. What the hell is wrong with the Republicans? Because the Republicans, this election, will point to all of this pork, and then they'll get right back in, and they'll do it, too. Am I wrong?
WILLIAMS: No, no, absolutely. And that's what happened is the Republicans spent themselves into oblivion --
BECK: Yeah.
WILLIAMS: -- between 1994 and 2006. They spent so much money that the Congress, the president, no one was there to say no, because the president signed these spending bills. Congress passed them, and President Bush put his hands over his eyes and signed them.
BECK: Yeah. Somebody -- a liberal called me up on the radio show the other day and they said, "You people, who are all conservatives, you wanted President Bush's tax cuts, and now look." It's not the tax cuts.
WILLIAMS: Oh, no.
BECK: It's the Republican spending and now the Democratic spending.
WILLIAMS: Well, and Glenn, if anything, the tax cuts are -- is really what's saving this country right now --
BECK: I know.
WILLIAMS: -- because it's bringing in the revenue. Believe it or not, tax cuts bring in revenue.
BECK: Yeah.
WILLIAMS: It's the spending that's dragging us down.
The only reason this should be up is because there's no consensus within the non-biased economics community on whether tax cuts increase revenue, all other things being equal. It's not misinformation to imply that it's possible.
These guys are not implying anything... they're saying the tax cuts have saved our economy.
I didn't say they were just implying, Beck said it was "true", and thus I acknowledged that it qualifed as misinformation.
The tax cuts have helped the economy by promoting investment and growth. And even though tax receipts have increased to record levels, should that even be a goal? Why should we be concerned with increasing the amount of money that passes through Washington, D.C.?
Real wages for the average American have been stagnant for the past 7 years. Fact.
If the tax cuts have done so much to improve the economy why isn't everyone benefitting?
Moonbat, Rush isn't on until Monday morning. Your follow-up question may have to wait for the relay.
The tax cuts have helped the economy by promoting investment and growth.
Brutus they have hurt our economy and given us a terrible deficit we will never recover from.
Well... there are a myriad of other reasons why we have a terrible deficit - this 'war' in Iraq #1... unprecedented to offer up tax cuts in a time of said 'war'. It's a sham... Economically, this country is in dire straights and yet a jackass like Beck tows the line (like a good drone).
Very good point Dex.
No Dex was wrong. Beck is stating as fact something even tax cutting advocates from the Bush administration deny. That IS misinformation.
I didn't say that Solon. Maybe I could've explained it better, but I'm pretty sure I said that Beck was wrong because he stated the theory was a FACT, but it was not WRONG to believe tax cuts bringing in more revenue was POSSIBLE.
Actually I dont think you DID say he was wrong. I would agree that he has every right to believe whatever he wants but it IS misinformation to state as FACT what most economists, even tax cut supporters deny and he cannot show is true.
The very people who are no record as advocating tax cuts are denying that they raise revenue. Even if what you said is true, it IS misinformation to state AS FACT, as Beck did something that is NOT supportable BY facts. Rather the last two examples of tax cuts did NOT raise revenues. Even IF some economists somewhere say they do it is NOT FACT rather it is speculation. Had Beck said I THINK, or it is CLAIMED you would have a point. He didnt he said believe it or not tax cuts RAISE REVENUE. That is a statement of fact he cannot support with the evidence at hand. Especially when the very people who advocate tax cuts admit they do not pay for themselves.
More lies from dumbguy Beck. He has NO idea what he's talking about...
What is so hard about this? When taxes are cut that means people have more money in their hands that is not going to the government. When people have more money they likely spend it. When people spend more money the need for goods and services increases and is more necessary to keep up. When the need for more goods and services is needed, then more jobs are created to make the goods/services, distribute the goods and sell the goods/services. When more jobs are created then the tax base is expanded due to more people working and on the payroll. When more people are on the payroll, more revenue is seen by the government.
That would work fine, if EVERYONE had their taxes cut. But that's not how it worked. It worked that the majority of the tax cuts went to the folks who were already paying (percentage wise) less than the average american, yes, the richer of those amongst us. And what happens when you give rich folks tax cuts? They get richer, and the economy suffers because of it.
So let's make it work and cut everyones taxes, I am all for it!
The problem with that, Tommy, is that the bottom half of income earners pay almost no income taxes. You can't give them a tax cut if their already paying nothing.
I know that, I was speaking of those who pay taxes.
And of course anyone who pays taxes (top half of the income earners) is considered rich by the libs. Therefore, any tax cut benefits only the "rich".
That's just a conservative load of garbage. While there may be varying definitions of what constitutes being "rich" amongst us eeebil libruls, I doubt that you'd find anyone except the most extreme who would put half the US population in that category.
The smoke you're blowing is more of that classic conservative con job in which you try to convince those of average or slightly above average means that Democrats and others on the left want to steal from their wallets when they are talking about raising the taxes of the highest brackets of society.
...and whenever a "Lib" advocates cutting the taxes of the middle class instead of the rich every once in a while, he is accused of engaging in "Class Warfare." That's how the game is played- if you aren't in favor of lifting every bit of the load off the rich and putting it on the shoulders of the working class, you are a radical, maybe a Socialist, probably a traitor to boot.
A functioning society with a strong national defense costs money. Who's going to pay for it? For Republicans, the best answer is the Middle Class, because hell they just waste their money on food and gas anyway. The Rich "create jobs" and "invest in growing the economy"- they are the REAL heroes, after all. What the F-ever, man.
And of course anyone who pays taxes (top half of the income earners) is considered rich by the libs. Therefore, any tax cut benefits only the "rich".
You need to study more history and actually pay attention to statements you disagree with, Brutus. Talking points don't count, and spouting nonsense just makes you look like one more wingnut.
Maybe that's because if you earn min wage in the US, and work 40 hour weeks, you take in per year, $12168. Tax that at 25%, and you're left with: $9126 / year take home pay.
Now, don't you think those low earners ought to be able to take home all of their money? I would think so.
People who make a lot more than $12,000 don't pay any income tax. That's fine with me. I'm not one of the people that wants to send more money to congress to spend.
Brutus,
Somehow I think that you benefit from Bush's tax cuts.
Naw, see my post above yours. Those losers would just spend the money on food and gasoline and heating oil and stupid stuff like that. They have no sense of the importance of mutual funds and stock portfolios and they think CDs are things they listen to in the car. Leave the money in the hands of people who know what to do with it- Bush and his "base" of the "Haves and the Have Mores."
What do you think happens to the money we pay in taxes? Anyone? It is SPENT on things and services, etc. Why is that the "tax cut at all costs" people think that the tax money somehow disappears when it is sent to the Government in the form of taxes. Government spending is among the greatest means of stimlulating the economy and creating growth (look at the war specning) it is this spending that is actually causing alot of the growth right now).
Tax money not sent to the Government can actually cause less growth if that money is then saved or invested in ways that do not stimulate growth. The only argument against Government spending anyone should have is HOW the money is spent. Goverment spending should focus on areas that promote public goods that would otherwise be ignored by personal greed (i.e. public education, public parks, etc) these are the things that an individual would spend much less on because of their DIRECT benefit is to small to fulfill the overall publics needs.
Taxes do not curb spending but only redirect it.
That's right. The best way to stimulate the economy is to invest in the people and the infrastructure that enables it to thrive.
I will once again post this link from the IRS showing the upper 75% of income earners paid about 85% of the income taxes as of 2004.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/04in06tr.xls
Again though, as a percentage of their income, they didn't pay as much tax as you, or me probably.
So someone earning 75K and paying 15% at $11.500 in taxes got screwed as opposed to the one who earned $7M and only paid 12% of $840,000, even tohough the millionair paid 73 times more?
I wouldn't say got screwed because %15 isn't so bad, but I would say that the millionaire is not paying an equal share.
It's a "half glass full" situation. The second guy still has over $6 million to spend. I think he's doing okay.
If you look at ONLY income taxes from 2005 data, it's clear that the highest levels of income pay the highest tax RATE. It's called progressive taxation and it exists in this country despite your skepticism.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/250.html
That may be true. It is also as it SHOULD be. Throw FICA in there and that is blown out of the water.
And WC, all you're going to get is how they rape and pillage the resources in this country and have made their money off the backs of everyone in income brackets below them and they are scum and on and on.......
I know - but it's fun to pull the socialists out of the closet every once in awhile.
You mean its fun to be stupid and antagonistic. Sure whatever floats your boat.
I knew I could count on SOLON to come along sooner or later
Yeah I usually come along sooner or later and if you are making a good point I am thrilled and take it up. If you are calling us socialists and being an antagonistic and antagonistic jerk I get bored and slap back.
Actually it's the top 25% of income earners that pay about 85% of all federal income tax.
I stand corrected - it is the upper 25% that pays about 85 % of the taxes. Thanks Bruce - it's nice to know somebody follows the links and does the math.
I meant to thank BrutisM there!
Funny that you never mention that top 25% made 67% of the income. Their rate is 15% as opposed to about 12.5% average for all taxpayers.
Waaahhhh.It's just not fair.
How much of the income should the top25% make in your view? How much of the tax burden should they pay?
Bruce, I have noticed that your question has gone answered so far, and it's been here awhile?
Curious.
oops, meant unanswered.
Pardon me tommy, I didn't mean to be rude, just had other things to do.
Besides, I could have predicted it would end up with "how much should the top earners pay". Which is not for me to decide, I was only pointing out that Cons love to use part of the stats without the other.
The 25% of people who pay a good chunk of taxes also make a good chunk of the money.Is that connection too difficult to make?
They also pay a slightly higher rate.They still get to keep more money than the other 75%.
I worked at a gas station and in a restaurant when I was in high school in the late 70s, making 4 or 5 bucks an hour. I paid very little taxes, and didn't think I was getting screwed.I also wasn't taking advantage of the rich.
After high school, I began to make more money as I went into different jobs. I payed more taxes every time I increased my income. I never got pissed off about that, as it seemed pretty simple to understand-as I made more , the slight increase in my taxes was offset by my increase in income- I could afford it, and I knew some 16 year old kid was being helped out by my taking on a little more of our expenses.
Over the last 30 years or so, my income has been increasing and so has my tax rate ( yes, even under Republican administrations), and i guess I just love my country, and feel no real anger at pitching in, because I spend very little time out of my day crying about taxes.
Don't get me wrong, I would love to get a grip on government waste and cut spending in many areas, but that doesn't seem to be our strong suit as Americans.
I really don't think about taxes very much, aside from having to listen to Republicans bitch and cry about paying their part to live in the country they say they love so much.
My point was, in my other post, that the figures posted were deliberately misleading for what they omitted, or you're all chumps or crybabies.
HBL, unless you think that someone earning 125K should have the same after taxes as someone earning 100K, of course they are going to "get to keep more" after taxes. How could it be any other way?
To whom much is given. Much is expected. The wealthy get a whole lot out of societies investment and should kick in a fair share. We ought to look at what can be afforded. If someone is going to have trouble paying the doctor bill because of taxes that is just a different thing than someone having trouble financing that third home in Aspen. We are in this together. We ought to care about each other and those who can AFFORD to kick in more for society ought to. I dont want to go back to 90% top rate but we have gone from that to the wealthy paying less in a percentage of their taxes than I do because Capital gains which is where MOST of the income of vast wealth comes from is paid at a rate LESS than I pay on my labor. Labor is more important than Capital as Lincoln famously said it existed before capital and CREATES capital ALL wealth is created by someone who works. NONE by those who buy and sell. That is basic economics. I am not looking to make taxes punitive on anyone but rolling back some of the gains they have made since the 80's considering we have a lot of need right now isnt too much to ask. We need to make some more investments in our infrastructure or more bridges are going to collapse, we need to do more for our educational system or we will fall behind competitively with the rest of the world. We are fighting an expensive war and have way too high of a national debt. China wont have to invade us they will just foreclose unless we do something about that debt. The middle class is hit hard enough with flat wages and higher cost of living. The poor have no money to cough up. The Rich have gotten the lions share of the money we have kicked back in tax cuts over the last three decades let them give up some of those givebacks.
It couldn't, Bruce. That would be insane.That's the scenario, however, that's put across by many in the conservative media, that the more somebody earns, the less they get to keep. That "punishnent for success" that is such a standard on am radio.
I realize I didn't answer part of your question(or one of your questions), how much should somebody be allowed to earn?.
I never implied that there shoud be any interference as far as how much one could earn. I only said that those who pay a lot of taxes also earn a lot.And that is as it should be.
I'm not wealthy, but I'm dong OK.I've made very little (and paid very little in taxes) at times when I was younger, and I've done much better(and paid much more taxes) as I've worked hard and improved my situation.
I spend very little of my precious time crying about how fortunate I've been when my tax rate goes up.I guess that's because I've been working my ass off for it, and have understood that with those rewards come obligations.
"...but I'm dong OK"
While my dong is OK, thanks for asking, I'm also doing OK. ;0)
I agree, I'm not attempting to cry woe is me for the rich in our society. But I do want to put the facts out there as to what percentage of taxes the rich pay versus what percentage of income they earn. Because the rich are paying a higher income tax rate overall, and I believe that a lot of people don't think that is the case based on responses I read on these threads. There may be some individual rich people that are circumventing the system as far as their rate, but the income group as a whole is paying a higher rate than the middle class. And they should be, I agree with that philosophy.
Hey Bruce, don't know if you'll get back here, but I think we're on reasonable common ground here.Contrary to those who push the "punishment for hard work/success" chant, I think th reality is that everybody does better as they work to do better.
If you've worked yourself into a higher tax bracket, you are blessed and fortunate.Enjoy it !
That can cut both ways. There is no "right" answer. On one extreme, you confiscate all their wealth...on the other, you don't tax them at all. Of course, the workable solution lies somewhere in the middle. Exactly where is up for debate. Aye, there's the rub.
Thanks Lefty - you have bolstered my point. So if the upper 25% made 67% of the income but paid 85% of the taxes - why are the Libs constantly crying they don't pay their fair share?
Because if you were to look at DISPOSABLE income the wealthy pay a FAR smaller percentage of their DISPOSABLE income in taxes. Also the rich benifit far more from our societies investment on everyones ability to make money than the rest of us so they SHOULD pony up more. Mostly because they have been getting the lions share of the tax cuts since 1980 and we have an unreal deficit. There was a time the top rate was too high, now the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction and it is too low. We have neglected the ongoing investments in our infrastructure and our education system is falling behind, while we are fighting expensive and unecessary wars. Its time they kicked in more. THEY can best afford it. No one I know is talking about going back to 90% for the top rate but at least give back the Bush tax cuts to those over say 250,000 a year.
It's unfair to ask America's wealthy to settle for living like kings, when they could live like Roman Emperors.
You and I have been through this discussion before and I know you are passionate about your points - I respect that.
That's what elections are about and I think history has shown that when the pendulum swings too far to one side it eventually finds it's way back.
Yes we have and I have no problem that we disagree here. I DO agree that it is a democratic decision, I am not as sure that elected officials will just do what they think the will of the people is as long as we make them whore for money from the time they first run for county commisioner. Money plays too large a part in our political system.
Sorry, WC, I didn't see your post earlier.I don't know about anybody's "fair share", I don't know how that's determined, I just try to use common sense, as to what is best for us as individuals and as a society.
Do you think somebody making 20k should pay the same rate( the same percentage of their income) as somebody making 10 million?
Yes I do. It's not the amount they pay that makes it fair - it's that everybody is treated equally. When everybody pays the same rate then the one earning 20 times more than another - pays 20 times more than that other.
Well, I would agree if I thought that the person earning $10M didn't benefit more from Government's work that the little guy, but the rich are rich because our society has valued education, bu giving all of our children an opportunity to become the most productive person they can, and because we have created one of the better infrastructures for the creation of wealth and because the Goverment enacts and enforces regulations that protect and encourages business and the accumulation of wealth. If you benefit greatly from this arrangment, then why should you not feel compelled to pay a larger share of your good fortune so that this country can continue to grow and be the most educated and productive nation in the world. If you haven't noticed, we have slipped behind other countries in that respect (mainly because of our awful and inefficient healthcare system, but hopefully that is going to change soon).
We are stronger for making the most of the least among us.
But it isnt the same sacrifice from all. It takes a bedrock amount just to live. Rent, food, utilities health insurance. So you are asking a WHOLE lot more sacrifice from the poor and middle class when you make the tax rates the same. From the guy who makes 50 grand a year it takes say 30 grand just to get by. The guy making say a million really only HAS to pay that same 30grand. So if the tax rate were 20% that 10 grand represent shalf of what the man has to REALLY spend. While the man making a million pays 200grand and it is just a little over the 20% he has to actually spend. I dont believe in the flat tax at ALL I believe in progressive taxation but I dont think you can even BEGIN to call it fair unless you are talking about a flat tax on DISPOSABLE income. That is what Steve Forbes was saying. Of course he was going to just flat exempt capital gains and dividends so that is a whole other matter but lets talk about fairness of SACRIFICE not fairness of base dollars. We focus too much on money in this society.
Solon, all of that is sensible, and that's without even mentioning the resources that the wealthy have to avoid paying taxes.Even with some hypothetical tax system that, as WC advocates, took the same percentage from one making 20K and one making 10 million, I don't think anybody believes that the 10M guy is going to actually pay that.
Incidentally, many of the statistics used by the media ( as in, those tables showing what percentage of the population pays what per cent of taxes)are based on the official tax rates, not on what is actually paid.And everyone here knows that, as their income has increased over their lifetime, they've hired better accountants and tax people.
In collective response to above responses I would like to add that the tables I linked to fron the IRS are based on actual income collected.
Also - we can probably all agree that current our tax system is broken. There are currently way too many loopholes and escape clauses that allows those who should be payig to avoid paying.
That's the way it works....in theory. By the same token, money spent by the government also stimulates the economy...it doesn't just vanish.
Perhaps, but I trust those who spend their own money to be far better stewards of that money, than those who spending somebody elses.
How does being a "better steward" of their money affect its impact on the economy?
The government takes in money and spends it. Consumers earn money and spend it.
What do you mean by "better steward" and how does that make it better for economic growth?
I don't want other people wasting my money, I am more than capable of that myself. If you trust the government to spend your money more wisely than you do, then please call the IRS and get their checking and routing account numbers.
Thanks, but you didn't answer my question:
"How does being a "better steward" of their money affect its impact on the economy?"
Because your question is ridiculous, and unworthy of a serious response.
Actually, he's right. Since the question at hand is whether or not tax cuts increase Federal Revenues by stimulating the economy. Morality has nothing to do with it. The money doesn't know who is spending it.
Thanks, Nerzog. At least SOMEONE is paying attention.
So I'm left to decide whether Tommy made his comment about "better stewards" knowing it had nothing to do with the economics of the situation, or if he realized it later and decied to ignore that element of the statement and just claim I was the ridiculous one.
Tough call.
The fact is that government inherently wastes money, anyone that spends someone else's money is not as meticulous as to how it's spent. If you believe otherwise, you are incredibly naive as to the workings, bureacracy, and pork-mania that exists in government today.
I don't believe that government spending leads to economic prosperity, it just leads to more expansive, bloated government, waste upon wasteful spending with far less accountability which is fiscally irresponsible and immoral.
There, all bases covered..........except to liberals who just can't see it, too bad. I tried.
Tommy gave up on you because your question was ridiculous. I have created wealth and a higher standard of living in my community by using my money to rehab houses. Dollar for dollar it's a lot more than the federal government would do for our standard of living. Other people do the some thing. That's why capitalism creates more wealth in a society than socialism.
Thanks Brutus, but to try and explain why big government spending is bad to liberals, expect for those dependent on it, is also ridiculous.
"Good" or "Bad" is not the point. The question is whether tax cuts stimulate the overall economy any more than government spending. Show me evidence that government spending, wasteful or not, doesn't stimulate the economy. Where do you think that money goes? Even building the "bridge to nowhere" employed hundreds of people, and paid for equipment and materials. The moral implications of who gets to spend the money is a seperate issue.
Nerzog,
So, you're saying the ends justify the means? Well, no, I don't buy it. You are actually making a case that no matter how money gets in the economy is irrelevant, and I am saying it is not. Waste is bad, period. To deny it or dismiss it to make a case for government spending is absurd.
The morality of it is equally important as the economics of it. As I said, I will not differentiate one being less critical or detremental than the other.
In the larger picture, you have a point. The morality does matter. However, in a purely economic sense, wasted money could stimulate the economy just as much as wisely spent money. Which stimulates the economy more, $100,000 spent on a Mercedes, or $100,000 spent on shoes?
Really? Did it do more for the standard of living than say rural electrification? The highway system? The silicon chip? Satelite technology? Universal education? I am doubting it did. I doubt there are many liberals here, despite your delusions, that want the US to become a socialist country. Besides the fact you guys never aknowlege that there has ALWAYS been socialism for the rich in this country, a mix of federal and private programs is what is being advocated not becomeing the USSR.
Give Tommy a little credit. At least he recognizes that Lockheed, Dyncorp, Blackwater, Halliburton, Grumman, Raytheon, Hughes, General Dynamics, Litton, and Rockwell employ hardly anybody.
And those very few who they do employ don't ever spend their money, similar to all the civil service employees who horde their paychecks in their basements.
Thit's a nice list of private employers that the government uses to support the war effort - advancing a discussion on another thread within this story that war spending does contribute to the economy.
War spending does NOT contribute to the economy. (and by the way, the depression wasn't solved by WWII). It only diverts money from one economic sector to another. In fact, because the products of a war economy are largely destroyed, it contributes only to debt and a devalued currency.
You gotta stop taking those left wing blogs at face value. Any blog that cites Paul Krugman as an expert economist should raise a red flag.
I can see by your argument how you came to hold the views you so unashamedly parade in front of us here.
Krugman TAUGHT economics at Yale, Stanford and MIT and NOW teaches at Princeton. He IS an expert. I dont much care for William Buckley but I wouldnt say he wasnt an expert in politics. You are being willfully blind to pretend Krugman isnt an expert.
Krugman may well be an expert but as he leans heavily to the left his economic theories and applications suport his idealism. Walter Williams is just as much an expert as Krugman - however as he leans to the right his theories are significantly different.
You SAY he is just as much an expert as Krugman. Has HE won what amounts to the European Pulitzer? A prize that for an economist basically means he is shortlisted for a Nobel? Has HE taught at such prestigious universities? Krugman is among the four or five most respected of American economists. Which way he leans isnt relevant to the fact he is ABSOLUTLY an AKNOWLEGED expert and YOU made it seem like they could be dismissed just because they were using Krugman.
And what constitutes waste? We spend almost as much on our military as the entire rest of the world combined. Many would call that waste and I assume you wouldnt. Is it wasteful to provide special teachers for schools for say dyslexic children? Or is it an investment. Many dyslexics are very intelligent and productive Danny Glover is dyslexic. What if he had been unable to learn to read from lack of just such a teacher, what would he be doing now? Certainly not acting. Are water programs waste? The entire country pays some of the lowest costs in the world for some of the worlds highest quality produce because of just such an investment that NO farmer would have been able to pay for in Californias Central Valley. There is certainly some waste in government. We would both be able to agree on that but I doubt anywhere near enough to further cut taxes and pay for all essential services. Again what is waste. Often it has to do with whose ox is gored.
Right, but that's a "moral" assessment, and has little to do with economics. The point is, it is the money being spent which stimulates the economy...it doesn't matter who is spending it. Whether it's Rush Limbaugh buying a Hummer, or 1000 poor Welfare families buying shoes for their kids...the resulting economic stimulus would be similar, would it not?
Of course it's moral, and economic and everything else.......I won't seperate the two, even for argument's sake.
Care to explain why "moral" and "economic" are so inextricably linked that you refuse to separate the two, even "for the sake of argument"?
Because for the government to be economically foolish and reckless is immoral. Sorry you don't agree and could care less if your money is wasted, apparently - since you can't imagine the link between the two.
If the government BURRIED money where it would be found THAT would stimulate the economy in exactly the same way as tommy said. In fact it problaby would stimulate the economy MORE than tax cuts for the rich since the rich already spend as much as they want and those who find burried money probably wont spend it by relocating their industries overseas
Jim Nussle and Henry M. Paulson, who are both in high-ranking government positions pertaining to government revenue and who deal with the nation's numbers on a daily basis are also among those who can't see the reality that you, a synonymous forum poster, insist exists. They could really use a guy like you.
While your at it, there's few more inept and oblivious people and entities that need convincing:
"Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that," said Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist now at the nonpartisan American Enterprise Institute. "It's logically possible" that a tax cut could spur sufficient economic growth to pay for itself, Viard said. "But there's no evidence that these tax cuts would come anywhere close to that."Economists at the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and in the Treasury Department have reached the same conclusion. An analysis of Treasury data prepared last month by the Congressional Research Service estimates that economic growth fueled by the cuts is likely to generate revenue worth about 7 percent of the total cost of the cuts, a broad package of rate reductions and tax credits that has returned an estimated $1.1 trillion to taxpayers since 2001.
So we have all these people whose purpose is or was to watch over the nation's books all telling us that Bush's tax cuts did not have the intended effect of paying for themselves through increased revenue. Yet you, the synonymous forum poster, are here to tell us that the people employed by the government to deal with it are all living in a fantasy world.
Thanks, but no thanks. Given the choice, I'd prefer to listen to those who I know have experience in government finance.
First of all that is what you keep SAYING. It doesnt change the FACTS which are that when Raygun cut taxes revenue DROPPED. When Bush cut taxes revenue DROPPED. Bushs OWN economic advisors and tax cut enthusiasts DENY that tax cuts raise revenue. It is just DOGMA for you guys. You beleive it DESPITE all evidence to the contrary because you WANT to, no other reason.
the problem is that it does not work. bushs own ppl deny that it works, and we've certainly seen the effects since the 80s.
but as oral roberts and any TV evangelist knows, you can fool a lot of ppl into believing something just on faith alone.
if we cut everybodys taxes to zero just imagine how much money the govt would have...the logic is simple, but ppl want to hear the news that they want to hear.
This may be the first time MMFA has used Bush Administration officials to bolster their point.
I sense a rift in the Space/Time continuum...
Broken clock theory, Bruce. ;0)
Overall this is a good story for the economy. Media Matters wants to focus on this:
LAZEAR: Will the tax cuts pay for themselves? As a general rule, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves. Certainly, the data presented above do not support this claim. (note the quallifer - "we do not think" - Obviously Beck's guest "thinks" differently)
..while ignoring this.
The tax cuts were a positive step and have contributed to the enhanced economic growth, additional jobs, higher real disposable income, and the low unemployment rates that we currently see today. Our goal is not to maximize the size of government, but to provide revenues to make sure that we can operate those programs that society deems necessary, while at the same time allowing the private sector to take full advantage of its growth potential. (no qualifier here)
The trouble is both statements com from the same source.
How does the second statement render the statement of Beck's guest any more truthful?
Tax cuts do not result in more income to the government.
If tax cuts were the economic panacea that conservatives have convinced themselves they are, we would have seen much more robust growth under Bush than we saw under Clinton, who raised taxes. We have not. We have seen middle class real wages shrink, the middle class share of the national economy shrink, and tepid economic growth.
It doesn't. There is disagreement among economists which is why I noted the qualifier.
My point is that the economist quoted clearly states that the tax cuts have been good for the economy. This is not good news for the lefties at MMFA because they cannot harp on what a failure the Bush tax cuts were.
Sure we can. Who was stimulated? The economy is great if you own an oil company but if you just work for a living the median wage is barely above what it was in 2001 when Bush took office. Corporate profits are at record levels while those just working are getting the shaft 70% of Americans say the economy is getting worse.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/27922/Seventy-Percent-Americans-Say-Economy-Getting-Worse.aspx
That would be because they are responding to THEIR situation.
NONE of this is relevant to the topic which is what Beck stated as fact cannot be supported and the tax cut enthusiasts who WORK FOR BUSH deny its true.
So now you are in the position of supporting a source as credible for claiming that Bush was wrong on revenue increases while debuning the same source, in the same statement, for saying the tax cuts are beneficial to the econimy?
I am not doing any such thing. You need a remedial reading course. The economy is not a single organism. It CAN be good for parts while bad for other parts. If you are just looking at the Dow Jones which is pretty much what YOU are talking about the economy is doing great if you are working for a living, not so much. There is no contradiction there. Try to keep up.
"This is not good news for the lefties at MMFA because they cannot harp on what a failure the Bush tax cuts were."
-WC4ME / Friday November 16, 2007 03:56:13 PM EST
Isn't it lucky for us lefties that MMFA isn't an economics site but is here to point out conservative misinformation in the media, meaning as long as your righties keep lying through your teeth we get to keep on harping. If you'd just shut up or scrupulously tell the truth (replete with its left wing bias) we'd have nothing to complain about, would we?
But what fun would that be?
That is not trouble for MMFA. THEIR point is what Beck said and Beck SAID tax cuts DO pay for themselves. Therefore in this context its pretty obvious that the statement Tax cuts DONT pay for themselves is the kicker. Also, once again, the economy is NOT some single entity. It is a complicated dynamic. SOME parts of it can do well while other parts of it do more poorly. It makes such a statement suspect. Like saying it was a great day for Cinciatti because the Bengals won. That doesnt mean it was a great day for the PEOPLE in Cincinatti who lost their job or had a husband die of a heart attack. Even if it were a REALLY BAD day for the majority of the people in Cincinatti someone could STILL say it was a Great day for Cincinatti because the Bengals won. Tax cuts dont pay for themselves is SPECIFIC.
I'll take 2 1/2 minutes...
If the Beckster ever made the mistake of having someone like Paul Krugman on his show, it'd be fun to have a pool betting on how long it would take Krugman to resoundingly eviscerate the moronic, simplistic, fact-twisting yammer coming from Beck's pie hole.
CNN - The 2nd best team of idiots that money can buy.
Long time listener, first time caller -
Snarky question - If all taxes were eliminated, would that mean infinitesimal revenues?
"It's the spending that's dragging us down."
TRANSLATION:"Cut off all those seniors from Social Security, all those poor mothers from Medicaid, all the disabled Americans from SDI and SSI and GIVE THAT MONEY TO THE RICHEST 2%!! Where it belongs!"
America has become an authoritarian Third World schit hole.
Exactly. I think it's called Social Darwinism. I wonder...is the money we're wasting in Iraq stimulating the economy? It must be, since I don't hear many "fiscal conservatives" calling for an end to the Iraq War.
Ideaology aside- fiscal conservatives know funding the military is a valid function of the federal government.
Maybe so, but the question remains...is that 9 billion dollars that disappeared in Iraq stimulating our economy? Which stimulates our economy more...dropping a 1000 pound bomb on a target in Iraq, or paying the medical bills of 20 poor families for a year?
Sure it does. The money just doesnt disappear into a vaccuum. War costs include production of war supplies, jobs. materials, military employment, civilian employment, food supplies, factory construction, etc.
War expenses of World War II was a major reason for the economic recovery from the great depression
So we should cut taxes to fund a boosted military budget to stimulate the economy and begin our next trillion of debt?
Your idiology confuses me.
The thread drifted a bit - I am replying to the question of whether war expenses stimulate the economy. There was a question on whether it benefits the economy to drop a 1000 lb bomb or cover the health expenses for 20 people.
Well - to drop that bomb you have to build the bomb and you have to deliver the bomb. But first you design the bomb and the aircraft that delivers the bomb etc. You employ pilots, aircraft support and mechanics, aircraft manufacturers who also engage many subcontractors who build guidance and navagation systems, etc. All have to employ manufacturing labor, accountants, support staff, facility support and so on. These employees now can provide for their own families by providing for the needs of the government - and not have to rely on government to support their needs. By the time it's all said and done I bet that 1000 lb bomb provides for way more than 20 people.
Only if you extrapolate it to include the manufacture of many bombs. The healthcare for 20 people can be extrapolated as well. What about the research for their drugs, the schools that train the doctors, the nurses, the manufacturers of medical equipment, etc. See how it works? So, again, which stimulates the economy more? I don't think you can come up with a definitive answer.
Nobody ever makes just 1 bomb, or 1 plane etc. The real point I am trying to make is government spending is much more effective when it allows the people to provide for the government instead of the government providing for the people.
You have above made a great point on why the government should stay out fo the health care business.
Really? How so?
You're right on one point; nobody makes just one bomb. But, no doctor or hospital only treats 20 people a year, either. Economically speaking, it's a wash. You can't make your case on a purely economic basis.
How much of our budget should we spend on the military, WC?
(I know this is as silly as those who asked me to set the tax rates, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask)
So is promoting the general wellfare.
Oh I'm confident that long before Social Security and Medicade needs to be cut there are billions that can be saved by cutting war expenses, pork barrell projects, wasteful spending - things private industry would be much better at handling. - things we don't even know exist in the budget.
I hope you're not including "war expenses" in the category of "things private industry would be much better at handling", are you?
Isn't that why they hired Blackwater? When Blackwater buys its first Aircraft Carrier, maybe the Republican base will sit up and take notice....naaaah; the Neo Clowns will just scare them back into submission with the spectre of Gay Marriage or Turrists blowing up Wal-Mart.
No - thanks for the clarification.
I found a recent column by Walter Williams insightful.
There are roughly 122 million Americans -- 44 percent of the U.S. population -- who are outside of the federal income tax system."
(me - In other words, they pay no federal taxes.)
These people represent a natural constituency for big-spending politicians. In other words, if you have little or no financial stake in America, what do you care about the cost of massive federal spending programs?
(earlier in the column Williams wrote:)
The bottom 50 percent, earning $30,000 or less, paid 3 percent of total federall income taxes.
http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2007/11/14/congressional_and_leftist_lies
With all due respect, Walter Williams is a Republican hack. Doesn't he guest-host for Rush Limbaugh occasionally?
I think those making less than $30,000 are too caught up in just getting by to think about such lofty notions as the cost of massive federal spending programs. That's a luxury relegated to people with enough time on their hands to contemplate such things. That's why rich people do an inordinate amount of whining about their tax burdens. My heart bleeds for them.
Re: Walt W.
"There are roughly 122 million Americans -- 44 percent of the U.S. population -- who are outside of the federal income tax system." (me - In other words, they pay no federal taxes.)
Of those 122 mil Americans:
83 mil are age 19 or younger
38 mil are age 64 or older
In my haste, I neglected to add the following pertinent info:
The pop. numbers posted were from Wikipedia's est. 2007 US census. They are not necessarily all part of the 122M Mr Williams alludes to - some of those under 19 and over 64 invariably do pay fed income taxes. Point is the vast majority he is referring to are kids and retirees.
Guess what - Retirees do pay income taxes on their SS. pension, and IRA distributions.
That's why I added the caveat in the second post...individual retirees earning under 25K don't pay fed taxes...joint filing retirees under 32K don't pay fed taxes.
Guess what - the vast majority of those "122M Americans" are STILL kids and retirees!
bkboase3653 , isn't it great to have a functioning bullsh*t detector? I always have to laugh when a statistic , at a glance, brings an obvious question to my mind( is that for adults? non-severely-handicapped people? Those below retirement age?), but to others, it gets past reading, copying, pasting/linking without setting off any bells.
The best part is, the same people come back day after day,citing the same sources as if yesterday never happened.Even when the logical potholes are pointed out to them.
These are the 28%ers.
It's interesting how people like Limbaugh and Williams only like to talk about federal income tax, whereas for most people that isn't even the majority of the federal tax they pay. And then of course there are all the other kinds of tax. According to one reckoning, people in the bottom quintile, taken as a whole, pay about 1 percentage point more of their income in taxes than people in the top quintile. (And people in the top quintile receive a larger share of national income than they do in other advanced countries, since the US has the greatest income inequality of such countries ... and US income inequality has been increasing pretty much for the last three decades.) But I'm sure none of this will stop Rush from posting things like "Only The Rich Pay Taxes" on his website.
That raises another point often ignored by the advocates of the downtrodden billionaires: when the Federal government cuts spending, it is often picked up by State and local governments, which in turn raise taxes to cover the added expenses. My state has no income tax, but our sales tax is about 10%. Who is impacted more by that?
The people using the services are the ones who should pay for the service. You have more control of your local govt than you have at the federal level - that's why local government should serve you best. Your local govt knows your needs far better than your federal govt.
States rights deteriorate everytime the Federal govt steps in to do something more than it already does. I do not expect someone in NY to pay for services I receive in Texas. If South Carolina provides something I like - I can choose to move there.
Simplistic, bubble world, an unrealistic view of society and our species history WC. Our strenth is in our interconnectivity, as much as anything. If you can't abide the needs of your fellow humans and their envirenment, what good are you?
In fact Texas recieves more in tax revinues than they pay. Most Blue states are the same. Good, I'm happy to do my part for other parts of the country. Its called mutual altruism, it had a large part in your being able to show your selfishness on this forum.
eweston, I think you meant to write that most red states are the same as Texas.(I know it varies, but there is a trend).
That's one of the most head-spinning facts for hardcore bootstrap-pulling self-sufficient conservatives. I used to have a table printed out, an official govt site, that listed, by state, the amounts paid and received in taxes.
When my conservative co-workers would start in on the mythology of the burdened heartland and the freeloading commie blue states (even though I'm in one), I would produce my reality-based "facts" and remind them that we shiftless liberal-dominated states are traditionally carrying the asses of the "Real Americans".
I just checked some stats, and it appears that Texas, for one, does actually pay more than they receive in Fed. Taxes.So at least Texans can put themselves above their Red State brethren.
Of course, I live in a Blue State that really pitches in. Which is OK by me, I care about Republicans too, and don't mind giving a helping hand to the less capable.
"...between 1991 and 2001, California paid $253.5 billion in federal taxes over the amount it received from the federal government. These subsidies went to red states like Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana, who received $100.1 billion, $86.93 billion and $84.3 billion, respectively, above what they paid to the federal government."
Come on, Dixie, let's get it together!
If anyone is not sure if you live in a red or blue state, here's a simple test that should clear it up.
Thanks HB. Been a strange week, with some good news here and there. Some nos for telicomunication amesty and recess appointments.
Y'have a good weekend, the rest of you too!
You'd think I'd keep those colors straight, but its always seemed strange, sense I became aware of the color assignments. How did the GOP get the color preiviously politically associated with Comunist Governments?
I don;t think you understand the difference between local, state, and federal government structures. You are going down the path of a one world government.
Tax revenues are increasing. As fast as they would have without the tax rate reductions? Hard to say. Most of you don't think so, but who can say for 100% surety? Paul Krugman? Give me a break.
The upper tax brackets are paying a larger % of the revenues than before the rate reductions, don't have the exact figures in front of me, just remember from a discussion we had on this site some time back.
I suppose in some parts of the country things are pretty stagnant, but in our area, unemployment is below 4%, property values are up around 12% over a year ago, the company I work for saw their revenue grow over 25% in the last 12 months.
Again, spending is the problem. Do I have all the answers, no. But there is certainly waste/fraud in government spending. Should we build a bridge to nowhere just because it will employ people and consume resources? Or would it be better to invest that money in R & D in the renewable energy market (as an example)? Or put the $$ in the private sector and let them invest in R & D?
Who can say? I have already shown before that Mankiw who CHAIRED Bush's counsel of economic advisors doesnt think so. Now more of the very people who ADVOCATED those cuts say they dont pay for themselves much less ADD revenue. The last two times it was tried Raygun and Bush it DIDNT, so I say its a pretty good bet they dont. Meanwhile Beck stated as a FACT they do and he flat out cannot demonstrate this is true.
So, what would have been the result in the early 80s if Reagan had not cut taxes? Would runaway inflation have continued? Would we have worked our way out of the Carter "malaise" (Carter's word) as fast as we did? The same could be asked of the Recession that started in March of 2001 (or earlier, if one looks the Market decline in 2000). Theories are one thing, but reality in many instances can be another. I think it was Truman who is supposed to have said "If you laid all the economists in the world end to end, they would still point in all directions." We can debate the tax policies of the government without changing any minds, but we get back to the same thing. With very few exceptions, government expenditures outpace government revenues, no matter tax rates, no matter the size of the revenue stream.
Did you really ask me that WHAT IF question then say theories are one thing and reality another? Do I LOOK like the amazing Kreskin? I dont know and neither do you so what is the point of such speculation. We KNOW what happened when Clinton raised taxes on the rich we got the longest economic expansion in peacetime history. If you dont like taxes fine. Just dont do what Beck has done and claim something is a FACT that you cannot show is fact and that most evidence that exists seems to contradict.
I think we need to come to a definition of economic growth. I agree that the S & P index under Clinton enjoyed some wonderful growth between 1995 and 1999, but at the same time, I saw my personal income go down for a few years in that stretch along with having a job disappear. There was also some robust market growth in the 1980s as there has been since 2003. Personal opinion, garnered from talking to some people that are more into economics than I, a lot of the growth in the late 90s came from $$ accumulated earlier, driven by advances in the technology sector as well as the $$ spent in the runup to Y2K. I believe Greenspan called that period "Irrational Exuberance". Made a couple of retirement accounts look good, but from a personal standpoint, the late 90s were not the best years of my career. And on the flip side, even though the retirement accounts have not grown as well during the past few years (still growth, but not 25-30%), my career has been doing quite well. So, of course, my views are tinted by my own experiences.
The largest one year runup of the S&P (percentage wise) was in 1954, when the top marginal tax rate was in the range of 90%. Do we want to go back to that?
I have already said several times I didnt want to go back to 90% If we are talking personal stories. I work in the railroad industry which is closely tied to the productive part of the US economy. When we MAKE a lot we SHIP a lot. Before Reagan took office there were five yard jobs per shift in Barstow yard and after one year of Regan that went to two and three. Many who were hired in 78 and 79 spent Six or Seven YEARS cut off. During Clinton the jobs and trains skyrocketed. None of that is what is being talked about you denigrated Krugman but the man taught at Yale, Stanford, MIT, and Princeton now those are all among the elite colleges in our country he is DEFINITLY an expert. Mankiw who CHAIRED Bush's counsel of economic advisors says tax cuts dont pay for themselves. The other economists in Bush's own employ ALL TAX CUT ADVOCATES say they dont pay for themselves. The empirical evidence is that revenues DROPPED when Reagan cut taxes and when Bush cut taxes. Beck stated as a fact that cutting taxes raised revenue he cannot possibly show that to be true. Neither can you. It was misinformation.
So you are denying there is more money going into the federal coffers now than there was 6-7 years ago or are you saying the revenue stream is not as large as it would be had tax rates not been cut? I really don't have a problem with taxes (I support local levies the vast majority of the time), but I have a problem with the way the monies often are spent. The Bridge to Nowhere, Farm Subsidies going to large corporate farms, support of museums (the Woodstock thing being one example), mass transit not supported by local residents, and the list goes on. We could raise the costs of water as you mentioned above in Central CA, but the majority of the people would balk at $10/lb lettuce (although they will pay over $6/gallon for bottled water, which I don't understand completely). Subsidized water, rural electrification, TVA (and related) have grown the total economy, so could be said to be promoting the general welfare. But a lot of government money is spent to "buy" elections, helping small localized pockets of society, which I don't believe is necessary in most cases.
In regards to your personal story (and mine earlier), I think we would agree that our person perspectives color our preceptions of what we see as "good" or "bad". I gained under Reagan and have gained under BushII, your experience is opposite, probably has a lot to do with the way we see the US.
I am saying the growth in revenue isnt what it WOULD have been. As the population grows and more people PAY taxes the revenues will eventually grow. And the difference in out two stories is I work in the transportation industry and what was going on THERE is indicitive of the economy ITSELF. At least the making of GOODs part of the economy. I actually wasnt really hurt. I had enough seniority that I didnt get laid off but there WERE layoffs. I guarantee you most of those laid off that got other jobs were making less money
Oscar, I don't think that we can even have a debate on fiscal policy as long as people buy Beck and Hannity's absurd notion that cutting taxes always increases revenues. It simply does not. The whole supply-side theory that the same revenue levels can be achieved at both a higher and a lower tax rate fails to take into account that this only occurs at an extremely high taxation rate which we have not even approached recently. The fact of the matter is that it is fair when considering a tax change either an increase or decrease there will be an economic impact that will soften the impact of the revenue decrease associated with a tax cut and that the revenue impact of a tax increase will be somewhat offset by a decrease in economic growth. There is disagreement in the amount of the impact, but to assert that the economic stimulus of a tax cut will pay for the tax cut is absurd at our current taxation rates. If you do subscribe to the supply side theory that there is a substantial economic impact associated with tax policy, then you should be raising a revolt against the Bush administration. The debts that they have accumulated while turning a budget surplus in to a vast deficit is one that will need to be passed to future generations and the eventual tax increase needed to service and possibly pay the debt will have a devastating impact on our economy according to your own theory.Second is that we cannot have a reasonable debate on fiscal policy if you insist on saddling liberals with the task of defending the worst abuses of government spending like "The Bridge to No Where", and "$1,000.00 hammers", without likewise taking responsibility for the worst cases of corporate mismanagement like Enron, and WorldCom. Even if you accept those term, it does not lend itself to a healthy debate. What also prevents a reasonable debate is the Strawman argument that Liberals are somehow advocating socialism, which none of us are. What is a more healthy debate is taking a look at the relative strengths and weaknesses of Government vs Private Sector Spending. Government programs tend not to be very innovative or agile, but they also tend to be very cost effective for delivering repeative services. The private sector is incredibly innovative, but it tends to leak oil upward meaning that compensation can be diverted too heavily toward executive salaries and often a great deal of capital can be diverted toward marketing that convinces the market to make unwise choices. So if you want to have a debate let's have a debate, but lets have it on fair terms. As a left of center Democrat, I would like to take credit for the Clinton era budget surplus, but the fact of the matter is that a substantial portion of the credit is reserved for Congressional Republicans and the sound economic policy that arose from the fair and reasonable debate.
Anyone who, by this time, does not realize that Beck is a 5-watt bulb, is a 5-watt bulb.
Biggest users of taxpayer-funded services & infrastructure are the rich, through ownership.
The tax cuts were a positive step and have contributed to the enhanced economic growth, additional jobs, higher real disposable income, and the low unemployment rates that we currently see today. Our goal is not to maximize the size of government, but to provide revenues to make sure that we can operate those programs that society deems necessary, while at the same time allowing the private sector to take full advantage of its growth potential.
Sounds like it was more successful than any Democrat social program implemented in the past 30 years.
No it doesnt. 70% of Americans think the economy is getting worse. Median wages fell for the first three years after that tax cut. It was great news for finacial markets and wealth hasnt done so much for the common guy. I guess if you measure success by how much those who HAVE much are given sure, if you measure it by how much those who have little get, it wasnt much of a success.
It's too late for this thread, but I challenge anybody crying about waste to itemize $100 billion of government waste this year without invoking the military.
It's unamerican to cut defense. It's impossible to significantly cut anything else. The only way to balance the budget is to raise taxes.