Fox's Varney still revising history to claim tax cuts caused "gigantic increase in revenues"
Fox News' purported business expert Stuart Varney falsely claimed that tax cuts enacted under Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush caused "a gigantic increase in revenues to the federal treasury, reducing deficits. That's historically accurate." In fact, virtually no economist believes the evidence supports this notion.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Varney claims tax cuts caused "a gigantic increase in revenues to the federal treasury"
From the July 26 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
VARNEY: The United States economy took off after Newt Gingrich swept Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate in 1994 and the economy was certain of a cap on spending. It was at that point that we achieved enormous rates of growth, after the Republicans in 1994.
If you really want to go back and be historically accurate, look at the tax cuts under John F. Kennedy, under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. They cut tax rates, and very soon after, there was a gigantic increase in revenues to the federal treasury, reducing deficits. That's historically accurate.
SLOCUM: But Stuart -- but, Stuart, it is clear that asking America's most successful and wealthiest citizens to simply pay their fair share, to contribute to cutting down the debt.
VARNEY: No. Tyson, it is immoral to take half of a person's income because they're successful. That is immoral.
Varney previously claimed that ending Bush tax cuts "increases the deficit." During the July 20 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Varney stated : "If you look at the money side of things, there's two things happening. Number one, taxes are going to go up on January the 1st of next year. That will slow the economy down. ... Secondly, this extension of unemployment benefits is going to put 33, 34 billion dollars extra right on to the deficit. So you're going to swell the deficit in the near term, swell it some more in the longer term when you raise taxes, because that slows the economy and increases the deficit."
Economists, including numerous Bush advisers, reject claim that the tax cuts raised revenue
FactCheck.org: Revenue would be higher without Bush tax cuts. FactCheck.org concluded on June 11, 2007 that "it is clear" the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 "did not 'increase revenues'" as Sen. John McCain had claimed. The post further stated: "The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House's Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been - even if they spur some economic growth."
Former Bush economist: "[N]o dispute among economists" that Bush tax cuts reduced revenue. The Washington Post reported on October 17, 2006:
"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."
Paulson: "As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves." Marketwatch reported on June 27, 2006, that then Treasury Secretary-nominee Henry Paulson "rejected notions that tax cuts pay for themselves":
Paulson rejected notions that tax cuts pay for themselves, but argued that they were nonetheless essential to ensuring economic growth.
"As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves," Paulson said, echoing the opinion of most economists. Paulson said the 2001 tax cuts, however, were crucial to boosting the confidence of consumers, investors and top executives.
Bush OMB Director: Tax cuts do not "totally pay for themselves." According to a November 15, 2007, Washington Post editorial, Jim Nussle, then the director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), told reporters, "Some say that [the tax cut] was a total loss. Some say they totally pay for themselves. It's neither extreme."
Chair of Bush's Counsel of Economic Advisers Lazear: "We do not say the tax cuts pay for themselves." The Washington Times reported on October 4, 2006 that Ed Lazear, the chair of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) said, "We do not say the tax cuts pay for themselves." Similarly, 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.
Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim that broad-based income tax cuts increase revenue is not "credible." Economist Greg Mankiw, who also served as chair of the Bush CEA wrote on July 2, 2007:
I used the phrase "charlatans and cranks" in the first edition of my principles textbook to describe some of the economic advisers to Ronald Reagan, who told him that broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue. I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't.
[...]
My other work has remained consistent with this view. In a paper on dynamic scoring, written while I was working at the White House, Matthew Weinzierl and I estimated that a broad-based income tax cut (applying to both capital and labor income) would recoup only about a quarter of the lost revenue through supply-side growth effects. For a cut in capital income taxes, the feedback is larger--about 50 percent--but still well under 100 percent. A chapter on dynamic scoring in the 2004 Economic Report of the President says about the the [sic] same thing.
Reagan economist Feldstein: "It's not that you get more revenue by lowering tax rates, it is that you don't lose as much." The New York Times reported on March 26, 2008:
While Mr. Laffer insists that tax revenue will rise when tax rates are cut, other supply-siders are less categorical. Martin Feldstein, a Harvard economist who was the first chairman of President Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers and now supports Senator McCain, estimates that a 10 percent tax cut would in fact reduce tax revenue -- but only by 3 to 5 percent.
"It is not that you get more revenue by lowering tax rates, it is that you don't lose as much," he said.
Feldstein also reportedly wrote in 1986 that "[t]he height of the supply-side hyperbole was the 'Laffer curve' proposition that the tax cut would actually increase tax revenue because it would unleash an enormously depressed supply of effort. ... I have no doubt that the loose talk of the supply-side extremists gave fundamentally good policies a bad name and led to quantitative mistakes that not only contributed to subsequent budget deficits, but also made it more difficult to modify policy when those deficits became apparent."
Former Bush chief economist to CEA Samwick: "You know that tax cuts have not fueled record revenues." In a January 2007 New Year's Plea," to "anyone in the [Bush] Administration who may read this blog," Andrew Samwick, an economics professor at Dartmouth College and former chief economist to the Council of Economic Advisers during the Bush administration, wrote:
You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.
Bartlett: "Only in very exceptional circumstances" would there "even be the possibility of a tax cut" that pays for itself. Bruce Bartlett, who has worked for the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and the Treasury Department, wrote on March 28, 2006:
The fact is that it is only in very exceptional circumstances that there would even be the possibility of a tax cut that would so stimulate growth that it would pay for itself. Even the Bush Administration admits this. The 2003 Economic Report of the President (pp. 57-58) says, "Although the economy grows in response to tax reductions ... it is unlikely to grow so much that lost tax revenue is completely recovered by the higher level of economic activity."
Recent academic research suggests that feedback effects would offset only a fraction of the static revenue loss, that which would result from no effect on consumption or incentives.
Tax Foundation: Would be "pretty extreme" to assume half of Bush tax cuts paid for themselves. The conservative Tax Foundation stated on May 26, 2010, that "there is much disagreement pertaining to the feedback effect that resulted from the tax cuts" and that "few if any of today's tax rates are so high that cutting them would generate a surge of income-producing activity so large that revenue would rise." The Tax Foundation further stated of the cost of the Bush tax cuts:
Using [Citizens for Tax Justice] numbers, if one assumes that 20 percent of the tax cuts paid for themselves (overall), the non-interest cost would be approximately $1.7 trillion. If one assumes that half of the tax cuts paid for themselves (which we would consider to be a pretty extreme assumption), then the tax cuts would have cost around $1 trillion over the past 10 years.
Bernanke: "I don't think that as a general rule tax cuts pay for themselves." In his April 27, 2006, testimony before the Joint Economic Committee, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke asserted "I don't think that as a general rule tax cuts pay for themselves," adding that "to the extent the tax cuts produce greater efficiency or greater growth, they will partially offset the losses in revenues"
Holtz-Eakin: "You are not going to get tax cuts to pay for themselves." As director of the Congressional Budget Office in 2005, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who later became senior policy adviser on McCain's presidential campaign, released a study of a 10-percent federal income tax cut, which concluded that "the budgetary impact of the economic changes was estimated to offset between 1 percent and 22 percent of the revenue loss from the tax cut over the first five years and add as much as 5 percent to that loss or offset as much as 32 percent of it over the second five years." In other words, during the first five years of a 10-percent tax cut, the resulting economic impact on the budget would offset at most 22 percent of the federal revenues lost and during the second five years would offset at most 32 percent of the revenues lost. Holtz-Eakin also reportedly told Boston Globe columnist Scot Lehigh, "You are not going to get tax cuts to pay for themselves."
Krugman: After Reagan's 1981 tax cuts, "revenues are permanently reduced relative to what they would otherwise have been." Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman wrote on July 15 that "the revenue track under Reagan looks a lot like the track under Bush: a drop in revenues, then a resumption of growth, but no return to the previous trend." He added, "This is exactly what you would expect to see if supply-side economics were just plain wrong: revenues are permanently reduced relative to what they would otherwise have been."
Clinton economist: Reagan tax cuts and Bush tax cuts "contributed to record US budget deficits." Harvard economist and former Clinton economic advisor Jeffrey Frankel wrote in 2008 that cuts in federal income tax rates "reduces revenue ... this was the outcome of the two big experiments of recent decades: the Reagan tax cuts of 1981-83 and the Bush tax cuts of 2001-03, both of which contributed to record US budget deficits." Frankel added that this is "the view of almost all professional economists, including the illustrious economic advisers to Presidents Reagan and Bush."
Varney has repeatedly shown that he is not a credible authority on economic issues
Varney falsely claimed that public sector jobs weren't jeopardized by the recession. On Fox & Friends Varney attempted to discredit the estimates of jobs saved or created by the stimulus by claiming that public sector jobs saved by stimulus funds "weren't in jeopardy." In fact, budget shortfalls led to thousands of layoffs by state and local governments and estimates by private analysts and the nonpartisan CBO suggest these numbers would be even higher in the absence of the Recovery Act.
Varney falsely claimed "we had double-digit unemployment" when Reagan took office. Appearing on Fox & Friends, Varney made extensive revisions to U.S. economic history, among them: the false suggestion that President Obama has not cut taxes; the false suggestion that President Bush presided over strong job growth; and the false claim the unemployment rate was in double digits when Reagan took office.
Varney falsely claimed Obama "gave" $100B in "taxpayer dollars" to IMF. Varney claimed that "our taxpayer money ... is bailing out the Greeks right now" because President Obama "gave" $100 billion in "American taxpayer dollars" to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In fact, Obama did not "give" the IMF money; rather, he requested -- and Congress approved -- a line of credit that involves "an exchange of assets" and not "an expenditure."
Varney falsely claimed Fannie/Freddie caused the housing market collapse. Varney advanced the false claim that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were "the original cause" of the economic crisis. In fact, as economist Dean Baker has stated, holding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac responsible for the financial disaster is "absurd on its face."
Speaking of Bizarro World...
Any growth caused by the Reagan administration was due to debt, precipitating the inevitable crash we're now in.
And yes I predicted it twenty years ago ...
Where does this dope get his numbers?
Yeah.......here's Reagan's miracle of debt from the majic tax cuts
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 * 1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 * 1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 * 1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 * 1,142,034,000,000.00
09/30/1981 * 997,855,000,000.00
That's why Democrats will never win this debate.
No matter what happens, or how much evidence surfaces to the contrary, conservatives will desperately trumpet "tax cuts = greater revenues" because to do otherwise would prove their mantra--one they have clung to for 30 years and counting--is utterly wrong.
But...someday, under all that manure, the libertarian republican tax cutts voodoo economics worshipers will find that pony!***
***no they won't.
Nope. We will win because we are right. We have to win, there is no failure option. Raising taxes on the wealthy is the right thing to do help keep America great.
First you try the one about how the government is strapped for cash, it needs more money, they're stretched too thin. But the people are bombarded every day about how much waste, fraud and abuse there is in the system. Look up Bell, California as a current example for the outrageous salaries paid to city officials, the town is practically calling for their heads. And today, the news that we can't account for billions wasted in Iraq. It matters not who is in charge, Democrats or Republicans, they are poor stewards of the people's money. People are fed up. Until and unless that perception, a true one at that, is reversed, tax hikes are getting harder and harder to "sell".
So because that tactic is failing, comes the next "sell". Punishment. The rich have too much, they won't miss it. They are greedy, and on and on. But people are inherently fair and the idea of punishing success and redistributing income so it can just be wasted (see #1 above again) again doesn't sit too well with most people.
That is why you aren't winning the debate.
I was merely commenting on the politics of the issue in response to Roundhouse and Nerzog, as I see it.
So tell me, where does all the waste come from?
So I don't know what you want from me, unless you are just posting from reflex.
Frankly, you get associated with the "phoney" conservatives, because you keep defending there positions.
"...Look up Bell, California Look up Bell, California as a current example for the outrageous salaries paid to city officials.."
Anedotal evidence. Try and I am sure you will find a perfectly good counter example. This is not an example of bad government, it is an example of greedy people. What would your position be if they worked for Wall Street?
"...It matters not who is in charge, Democrats or Republicans, they are poor stewards of the people's money...."
There in lies the problem. It does matter who is in charge!
"People are fed up. Until and unless that perception, a true one at that, is reversed, tax hikes are getting harder and harder to "sell". "
People are fed up because they are fed a constant diet of lies and misinformation. Or, because they see throught the lies and misinformation and are sick of it (that is where I am).
I do not mind paying taxes. I like clean water, clean air and schools and roads and fire departments and everything else that comes with it.
If, by entitlements, you mean SS and Medicare, they are technically self-funded and therefore they can be fixed outside of the budget.
Three "simple" answers for SS and Medicare:
Eliminate the cap
Means testing
Medicare for everyone
I think RightOn is slipping. I don't see one "elitist" in that pile of strawmen and fluff.
Taxes aren't punishment. They're the fee one pays for the privilege of living in a structured, civilized society. Those who have benefitted most from that structure should pay the highest fees. That's what is fair.
Another reason why you're not winning the debate.
I'm glad you see it my way.
But, perhaps I should be a little more specific in my characterization: I don't mean that voters in general are stupid, but those who believe the crap coming out of FOX, Hate Radio and the Republican party are very stupid. Period.
Please understand that my intention is not to take you to task on what you're talking about.
I admit that my rhetoric is often as caustic as that which I rail against. Unfortunately, my normally good nature was leeched out of me years ago when I tried to reason with these people in a polite, deferential manner.
Thinking that reasonable people could disagree, I stupidly used my real name on a local forum. When I voiced skepticism about invading Iraq, the local Troglodytes pounced, insulted me and threatened me physically. One even said he knew where my daughter went to school.
As a result of that experience, coupled with years of listening to the lies from Blimpy Limbaugh and other Hate Radio Jocks, I have decided that logic is useless against the willfully ignorant.
But, I admire those who continue to try.
On the other hand, I have no problem whatsoever with caustic rhetoric. Violent rhetoric, yes. I have a problem with that.
Yes, there are some voters who aren't very smart--think any poor person who votes Republican because they'll never benefit from the Republican agenda. But I think by and large, most voters vote for what they wish for, rather than what is feasible and whoever is peddling what sounds best will gain in popularity regardless of whether the idea is likely or even possible.
Is that what you said?
Talk about phony, you obscure the fact government has a vital role to play as problem solver, but don't say a word about the ineptitude and corruption of the problem makers in the corporate cult from BP's monumental screw up to Wall St.'s big housing swindle.
And if you want to talk about punishment, look at the wealthy who have purchased asymmetric influence in Washington, with their tax cuts for themselves, ridiculously low minimum wage law and toothless labor laws effectively blockading the road to financial well-being. They have written the rules to give themselves advantage at the expense the working class. Because you know if it were a fair process that working people wouldn't give greater breaks to those who have more than they could ever possibly use and you know we wouldn't give ourselves a non-living wage.
Having the privileged class pitch in and pay their fair share and be held accountable for their prosperity is simply the right thing to do in order to restore a fair economy for all. And make no mistake, this our nation's economy, we own it. There is nothing mystical about it, it is not a separate entity that fends for itself. In other words, there is nothing inevitable about the unsustainable wealth divide that the Republicans, in partnership with very rich people, have worked so hard to achieve. It's ours to make more fair and that is what millions of progressive activists work toward everyday.
We are building a cognitive infrastructure around our values and moral argument for a progressive tax system and fair economy. We are bringing the long hard fight to your door and you will be driven back into your self-serving hole.
But I still maintain that unless we have some honesty, some adult conversation from politicians who are too damn scared to treat us that way and prefer us as children, some toughlove on some pretty sacred third rail items that they won't touch, our fiscal house will never be in order. We can tinker with the tax rates around the edges but it will not really fix it long term.
We will continue this later. I have to prepare dinner for my kids.
Even more recently, the top-downers got the SCOTUS green light to dump as much cash as they want into campaign media barrages, and it's going to absolutely dwarf the efforts of unions and other progressive campaign spenders.
So when politicians come to us with their apocalyptic due or die messages on budget catastrophes, and in the same day we hear about this politician flying here or there on our dime for some schmoozing vacation, or city officials making $800k a year in a financially strapped town - cynicism is alive and well. It may not be indicative of a systemic problem, or maybe it is, but it underscores the debate itself and people have had enough. Especially in tough economic times.
Also, just because people aren't "rich" themselves doesn't mean they want "rich" people unfairly taxed. And when the economy is tenuous and people are fearful of losing their jobs, chances are they work for a "rich" person or a "rich" company and they are rightly worried that if their bosses get hit with any more expenses in a down economy their own job could be at risk. There again, it may not be what will happen at all, but nervous economies make nervous employees. It's a fact.
What is good for all of us is economic growth. It expands the tax base, increases government revenue as a result, and increases demand, the driving force. When you heavily and excessively over burden job creators it stifles economic growth, and that is bad for the CEO or a line worker who makes his or her living off of orders for any product or service.
Workers earning good wages is what drives demand because good wages is what people use to buy things. That's from whence demand is driven: wages. But you seem to be fine with rich people punishing everyone else with financial insecurity due to lack of medical benefits and living wages as they shirk their accountability for maintaining the country's greatness by pitching in their fair share in taxes.
You talk about economic growth being good for us yet you have no desire to understand that this massive gulf of income inequality between the rich and the middle class limits economic growth.
Just keep suckin' up to the rich.
How very typical of you to change the subject too. You mentioned very specifically CEO's and line workers, so did I, and then you try to slip in nonsense about bosses. Bosses and employees fail all the time, get fired and the company still gets by. So save save it.
What you are entitled to is the opportunity to pursue it. That is it my friend.
You may be confusing equality with sameness and I may be to blame for that confusion. I seek to narrow the inequality gap by reversing these very deliberate policies that favor the rich. Policies like the Bush tax cuts, deregulation of Wall St., the insanely low minimum wage law, the toothlessness of labor laws and consumer protection laws. These are roadblocks to prosperity.
But hey, good on ya for ignoring the truth of CEO bonuses being linked to layoffs, wages being the driver of demand and the very rich shirking their accountability for maintaining the country's greatness by pitching in their fair share in taxes.
You can't make somebody rich by making somebody else poor.
How do CEO's get such good compensation packages? The same way the City Manager in Bell, CA, that you railed against yesterday, did. Through a rigged system.
Chris Hayes, subbing for Rachel did a good piece last night on how it works.
This is how it was broken down:
since 1979 % increase in wages
Bottom 5th saw a 16%
Middle 25% increase
top 5th 95% increase
top 1% 281% increase
This is how Pres. Reagan's trickel down economy has worked.
Because private companies have every right to set their own salaries and reward their employees as they see fit. If you don't like it, it's none of your business.
I would suggest that you work your way up in a company so you can sit on the board of directors and you will have a say in what the CEO of your company makes.
It is a rigged game. You may not want to do anything about it, but don't hold it up as proof of Capitalism's glory.
CEO's drive UP their compensation by driving DOWN wages and costs. That means cheaper labor and higher productivity from fewer workers. Instead of investing in people, they invest in themselves.
How exactly is THAT part of the American dream?
Keep suckin' that corporate c**k and making excuses for their destruction of a once great economy.
Opportunity you say? You mean like the way it worked out in the 50's when union membership was high, the middle class was expanding and could rely on the promise that their children would have a better future than their parents all the while we had plenty of very wealthy people and we were an economic superpower?
And spare me that disincentive conservative mumbo-jumbo. There are still businesses that do it right by removing the blood thirsty profit motive and investing in their people through collective ownership, in which, the workers make the decisions and have an equal cut of the profits.
You people are sick in the head.
Figure that one out, you have your answer.
And remember one thing, you are not entitled to anything from anyone. If you feel that you are being unfairly treated, then stop bellyaching about it and fix it. You like to scream victim, but you are not one. If you don't have the guts or the ambition to improve your own lot, then fix it.
Fix it. Stop complaining.
And don't give me that crap about people not being entitled to such an existence because we are indeed guaranteed the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When we have such enormous hinderances to real economic security, like the take it all and give nothing corporate culture now entrenched in our democracy, we have very real roadblocks to our pursuit, which in turn, steals from us our liberty.
And don't give me that crap about "enormous hindrances", whiner. Do you have any idea how disrespectful you are to people in this country who overcome enormous hindrances every day, without complaining and moaning, and persevere and succeed in achieving their dreams. If they see a roadblock they figure out how to get over it, they don't scream to have it removed because they know that it does not hinder pursuit at all, what it hinders is a lazy sense of entitlement that you think is the same thing.
There should be no roadblocks impeding pursuit, on that we agree, but how you pursue your opportunities is on you, period. If you want it handed to you on silver platter and if you don't get it you cry foul, then you are a whiner and you deserve what you get.
Get off your a$$ and work like millions of Americans do every day that come from the most unimaginable circumstances every day. You spit on their achievements with your whining self entitled mentality and that is reprehensible. Ask them about roadblocks and unfair economic conditions and how it's too tough for your pursuit.
See what answer they give you.
It's obvious that you haven't the faculties to comprehend an empathetic plea for fairness if it smashed your gnashing teeth down your prudish throat.
You do not realize that you are equally disrespectful to the millions and millions of Americans who are held down because they have no help and are locked out of the game due to lack of access to education and/or a good job. You are openly hostile to working people and you can't even see around the heaping monolith of free market horse-s**t.
I'm done with your childish assumptions about my personal life. Later punk.
They pull themselves out of incredible poverty or have been victims of unthinkable discrimination, have had more arrows and roadblocks thrown their way than you or I could ever conceive of. They have made the choice to overcome it, to work their butts off to make a better life for themselves and their family than the one they came from.
And because of those countless examples your entire "locked out of the game" whine is blown so far out of the water it gushes through every fabric of this country. And you damn well know it. But you don't acknowledge it, or respect it, and we both know why. Because it takes your liberal victimhood poor me schtick and shoots it so full of holes it will never sell. And that has you nuts.
There is nothing that drives big mommy government liberals who want to keep people dependent on its services more crazy than a good ole' fashioned American success story.
Deny it all you want, call me every name in the book if you feel like it. Reality is a bitch sometimes.
Also only in your fevered mind can you link social and economic justice to government dependency. What the h*ll is wrong with you?
Conservatives would have us believe that its impossible to cut government waste just because its not always easy. I am not convinced that it is impossible for the taxpayer to get his or her moneys worth from government. I don't trust conservatives who say it can't be done and then want my vote. No wonder conservative leadership is bad for the budget so often these days.
And today, the news that we can't account for billions wasted in Iraq. It matters not who is in charge, Democrats or Republicans, they are poor stewards of the people's money
A lot of this has to do with the military industrial complex and the lack of transparency in military budgets. Privatizing many military functions has not helped either.
Until and unless that perception [of wasting money], a true one at that, is reversed, tax hikes are getting harder and harder to "sell".
This is good political advice. I remember Clinton had Al Gore assigned to find ways to trim spending. This should be an ongoing effort.
So because that tactic is failing, comes the next "sell". Punishment. The rich have too much, they won't miss it. They are greedy, and on and on.
Once again we have the silly libertarian notion that taxation is theft or punishment. Paying taxes is contributing to the society and government that supports your wellbeing. Progressive taxation is not about punishing rich people and it is not about jealousy over their income. Wealthy people have done well by the society that supports them. Income has been redistributed their way and not just based on their efforts alone. A higher tax rate for them is a payback to a support system that has helped make them successful.
But people are inherently fair and the idea of punishing success and redistributing income so it can just be wasted (see #1 above again) again doesn't sit too well with most people.
Another libertarian notion: Government mostly wastes money. Do away with all the government functions and services and try to run a business. No educated workers, no roads, no police, no military, no consumer safety, no environmental safety...
Private enterprise, when they get a lot of revenue for their goods and services are also capable of wasting money. Often they will waste until competition or market share holds them accountable. Conservatives would have you believe that there are no checks and balances within government - no belt tightening. Tell that to all the people who have lost their jobs recently due to budget cuts.
But people are inherently fair
Simplifying the tax system would make it more fair. Taxing wealthy people at a higher rate is not necessarily unfair. If you are wealthy, the government, the people around you and the environment around you have created conditions that have made your efforts reward you well. Paying more is an investment in maintaining those conditions.
"Another libertarian notion: Government mostly wastes money. Do away with all the government functions and services and try to run a business. No educated workers, no roads, no police, no military, no consumer safety, no environmental safety..."
This notion also is derived from the false equilancy that the government should be run like a business. The government's goal is not to make a profit, so it cannot and should not be run like a business.
Libertarian conservatives deny that it can work for us. We should just give up any efforts to make it work for us.
You try to divorce us from our government. You act like government uses somebody else's money, but it belongs to all of us. It's ours just like government is ours. We are one and the same, our government and we the people, and that is exactly what the founding fathers intended: that we call the shots not some small group of uppity rich guys like we see today corroding our democratic rule and installing oligarchy. Just look at this ridiculously extreme right wing Supreme court we have handing over our democratic system, with their unlimited and non-transparent corporate donations, to the have it alls; to those punks with all the assets. They are sucking us dry. In fact, this very day, your right wing brothers in Washington are blocking legislation to bring transparency to campaign contributions. You must be so f**king proud to be a conservative today.
That is exactly what eb is getting at; we need to stay engaged in the political process to keep such bullsh*t from happening.
You, on the other hand, seemingly have no inclination of believing that government almost always outperforms for profit outfits when it comes to allocating funds that serve public needs. You refuse to see the consequences of wasted resources in the the for profit sector.
Also, you are very well trained in the art of embedding your inane assumptions into the subconscious mind of the listener. I don't think you do it by accident.
I know you celebrate mediocrity while punishing initiative and success, but that is not the way we do things here. Get used to it.
You get what you pay for. If you want good government, pay for good government. But you want everything on the cheap, so you get cheap government.
Agreed but it shouldn't be causal with the resources we give them.
No reputable economist this side of that quack, Arthur Laffer, believes we are anywhere along the tax rate/tax revenue graph near what it would have to be in order for tax reductions to increase revenue.
It's clear that you get no tax revenue at a 0% rate or at a 100% rate. In between, whether rate increase or decrease produce greater or lesser revenue can sometimes be debated. But not at current or proposed tax rates. Raising the current rates 4% points or so will definitely produce more revenue, yet Varney clings for life to his stupid talking point.
And he gets basic things like this wrong?
Speaking truth to/about progressives with a shout out to charlie rangel, soon to be just another democrat politician because he was doing what democrat politicians do best....avoiding the taxes they make the rest of us pay!
Of course, all you can see is the results, not the causes because your brainwashed by right-wing media. But if you really are interested in facts and reasons behind those facts, than click on this link: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036
My link above showed how the rate of increase of revenues followed tax cuts, particularly in comparative movement of GDP which also increased.
We won't get back to anything like the gravy years of Bush, with 4% unemployment and 4% GDP growth, unless we take conservative action, lower taxes for everyone, dump obamacare and other wasteful spending.
Krugman? The nobel prize was also given to jimmy carter, algore and obama. Gee a lot of credibility there.
Krugman says we haven't spent enough! Keynesians are complete whackjobs on economics. It is the stuff of socialism and euro style command economies. How's that working for ya Greeks, or Portuguese?
Keep it there and let the USA get moving with capitalism and the individual freedom that it incubates. Then we will see the economy get back to the recent times of full employment and consistent 4%GDP growth!
Some news articles regarding that:
Your text to link here...
Your text to link here...
Your text to link here...
Your text to link here...
Capitalism doesn't give freedom. It attaches people to the machine of routine and creates a dog eat dog world. Deregulation and the culture of irresponsability and greed it fostered are what led to the economic recession. In bush's time there was no full. there has never been full employment in modern history. In fact there was a rise of unemployement.
Here is the data. The recession begun before Obama took office and unemployment has recently been going down.
Until there is a Nobel prize for Gullibility or waving little American flags, PC won't give the award any credibility
You can be pretty funny when you're not trying to be funny, PC. I believe that's the first time I've seen the phrase "gravy years of Bush".
Bwah hah ha! That's the funniest thing I've read all week. Hoo boy, that's brilliant!
Remember the tax cuts following the election of 94? Contract with America? Clinton governing from the center instead of the far left? Do any of those ring yur bell?
Give it a few more years, and there'll be a legend of a resurrected St. Ronnie smashing the deficits with the same golden sledgehammer that he used to single-handedly tear down the Berlin Wall.