CBO: Permanent tax cuts bad for economy

CBO Director Doug Elmendorf testified before Congress Tuesday about the long-term economic impacts of making the Bush tax cuts permanent. Contrary to conservative ideology, the CBO’s research and modeling finds that making the tax cuts permanent would REDUCE the nation’s output and income by almost 1.4 percent by 2020, becoming an even bigger anchor on our prosperity in the out years.

Source: CBO

Source: CBO

“Those effects are largely the net result of two competing forces,” Elmendorf writes in his CBO blog. “All else being equal, lower tax revenues increase budget deficits and thereby government borrowing, which reduces economic growth by crowding out investment. At the same time, lower tax rates boost growth by increasing people’s saving and work effort.”

In other words, if government has to borrow huge amounts of money to fund the deficit, that money is not available for private investment in factories, homes, college educations or small businesses.

I’ll have to leave it at that for now, since I’m headed out the door to the dentist.

646 comments Add your comment

Mick

September 29th, 2010
8:03 am

I guess the truth hurts, sorry tax cutters the day of reckoning is here. Thank god for modern dentistry….yes its annoying but the benefits far outweigh the pain.

El Jefe

September 29th, 2010
8:05 am

Without corresponding spending cuts – I agree.

Smaller government would mean smaller need to borrow our way into bankruptcy, which is where we are headed.

stands for decibels

September 29th, 2010
8:05 am

but, but, but, conservadems might have mean things said about them by GOP opponents if they run with this!

Normal

September 29th, 2010
8:07 am

stands for decibels

September 29th, 2010
8:10 am

Without corresponding spending cuts

You can’t responsibly make major cuts in federal spending, EJ. There’s no there there. As much as I’d like to scale back DoD, that ain’t happening. You don’t just turn your back on military obligations, nor do you turn your back on social obligations. Best you can do is tweak and trim modestly where the low-hanging fruit might be. And there ain’t that much low-hanging fruit, not enough to get us back into the black. No way, no how.

gotta go produce. Later.

arnold

September 29th, 2010
8:11 am

The tax cuts are not the reason Georgia is a red state. It is simple social conservatism. That’s primarily because that’s all Bubba can comprehend.

Saul Good

September 29th, 2010
8:12 am

And don’t forget just WHO it is that we “borrow” from. Mostly the Saudi’s and China… so much for the talk about their kids and grand kids future when it comes to the deficit. The amount the deficit will rise compared to what it will cost giving their kids HEALTH INSURANCE is staggering. How their minds work when it comes to “reasoning”… it’s astounding!

Peadawg

September 29th, 2010
8:15 am

“Without corresponding spending cuts – I agree.”

Amen. It’s Banking 101. Don’t spend more than you bring in and stick to your budget(if the gov’t even has one).

Granny Godzilla

September 29th, 2010
8:16 am

Golly I hope CBO Director Doug Elmendorf can carve this into stone tablets or proclaim it from a burning bush, if not there are those who
just won’t get it.

Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)

September 29th, 2010
8:16 am

But . . . but . . . but tax cuts pay for theirselfs and then some, so they help the economy and the guvmint debt. That’s what my Republican leaders always say, and I know they wouldn’t lie to me or make up things.

It’s bad enough the Atlanta paper lies. Now we got this radical outfit called the CBO lying. We need to get this CBO and Congress changed in November so we can get more tax cuts and get the economy moving. Like they say, Trickle Down—a little dab will do ya and a big gob will be better than Viagra for the economy.

And somebody tell Bookman to get all his teeth but one pulled. Worked for me. Ever since I done that, my tooth has been just fine.

Have a good day everybody.

Th for the big one

September 29th, 2010
8:17 am

Don’t be silly. Of course you can trim the size of the government. Cutting by 10% across the board is readily possible. We may not have the political will to do so but it’s silly to think that a trillion dollar budget can’t be cut.
Obama has ratcheted up spending in ways that were unthinkable just a few years ago. Many people see a government out of control, driven by percieved need not by resources available. Our elected representatives need to be put on a budget that will prevent the kinds of wild budget increases we have seen in the past two years.
This democrat congress hasn’t even enacted a budget…and won’t have one next year either if we let them.

Bubba Bob

September 29th, 2010
8:17 am

So we have to raise taxes so we can keep spending wastefully….I get it now. How stupid of me.

Like I’ve said before, I’ll be for raising taxes if we also cut spending and balance the budget.

Jay

September 29th, 2010
8:18 am

Peadawg, El Jefe, then why don’t the Republicans PROPOSE such cuts?

Before such cuts can be enacted, they must first at least be proposed. And the GOP cannot bring itself to take even that first step, as their “Pledge to America” proves yet again.

Jimmy62

September 29th, 2010
8:21 am

Haha, they said “with all else being equal.” But it’s not. We want less spending and smaller government, thus this is a very flawed analysis that completely ignores the main things the Tea Party is pushing for.

As has been said a hundred times… Make some real spending cuts that have a significant effect, then we can talk raising taxes. But first, politicians need to do the right thing, rather than the easy thing. It’s easy to raise taxes, but it’s a lot harder to make real cuts of programs that are both not necessary and not really things the government should be involved in.

Mystified

September 29th, 2010
8:22 am

We didn’t spend 1.5 trillion more than we make on the DOD, nor for essential services. There are plenty of cuts to make but once Uncle Sam starts taking someones hard earned money for some noble cause, they are loathe to stop.

The report is self qualifying. It said all things being equal. If the economy stays at current levels, then long term tax cut’s don’t make sense. That’s the point. As businesses come back and more people go back to work. All things aren’t equal. More revenue is being transacted and more taxes are paid.. The problem is (and this is on Bush), when a tax cut generates more revenue, you pay down the debt. You don’t spend more than you make with the tax cut.

I really can’t figure you Dems out. Do you really want to pay higher taxes? Or are you satisfied in believing only the rich will pay the taxes? Do you really think these “evil rich” people will just take one for the team and that the higher taxes they pay won’t be passed along in higher prices for the things you buy every day?

john

September 29th, 2010
8:24 am

I have said this before, I will say it again. Practically everyone reading and commenting on this blog have themselves, benefited from the tax cuts. If you are so concerned, please go back and amend you tax returns from the past 8 (I think) tax years and write a check to the IRS for the money who have saved…otherwise, quit complaining.

Jay, you forgot to mention, 80% of the tax cuts affect the middle class; not the wealthy. The top 2% Obama speaks of only accounts for a very small portion. Most would agree that we can’t extend them forever. Many of calling for extending them for the next couple of years which most economist agree is probably a good idea.

Saul Good

September 29th, 2010
8:25 am

Mystified… the tax rate for the rich was higher under Clinton…(which is what the rate will go back to if it expires)…so, tell me about the higher prices we paid and the 22 millions jobs created while the “rich” paid more in taxes.

Jay

September 29th, 2010
8:26 am

Incorrect, Jimmy and Mystified.

The CBO work acknowledges that in the short term, lower taxes will produce some benefit. But that relatively small benefit is washed away by the very large impact of government elbowing aside other borrowers in the capital markets.

Your arguments are running on fumes. They are ideological riffs that have been exposed repeatedly as false by real life experience.

ty webb

September 29th, 2010
8:27 am

“All else being equal,…”

and there’s the rub. Republicans won’t propose many cuts because the dems will scare the bejeebus out of seniors by saying the GOP is going to take away their SS and medicare. Fear makes the world go around, and neither party has a monopoly on it.

Peadawg

September 29th, 2010
8:27 am

Jay @ 8:18, I agree with you. But to fair the Democrats haven’t proposed any meaningful cuts, either.

Doggone/GA

September 29th, 2010
8:28 am

“They are ideological riffs that have been exposed repeatedly as false by real life experience”

But when we point that out, WE’RE the ones who are “believing lies” – go figure!

thomas

September 29th, 2010
8:28 am

From looking at the graph does it not support Sen. Boehner idea to extend all of the tax cuts for 2 more years?

It seems as if the lil light blue and lil blue lines are at their lowest point and equal regardless of if we extend tax cuts for us all or if we enact our jealousy on the rich.

BTW,

Why no mention of the 47 house democrats who are also calling for full extensions?

And if the dems know they are right on this one why are they going to do the slimey act of voting on this as lame ducks after the election…. now thats a classy act anyone can respect.

Saul Good

September 29th, 2010
8:28 am

john… everyone has benefited from those tax cuts? Perhaps you can further explain your reasoning to the 8 million that lost their jobs when those tax cuts were put into place while funding 2 wars. Go ahead and explain how LOSING jobs “benefited” anyone in our society.

Jay

September 29th, 2010
8:28 am

But Ty, don’t you WANT them to cut SS and Medicare?

In other words, wouldn’t the Democrats be telling the truth?

Doggone/GA

September 29th, 2010
8:30 am

“saying the GOP is going to take away their SS and medicare.”

Ummm…wouldn’t that be an easy argument to counter by simply NOT PROPOSING any such cuts?

Jay

September 29th, 2010
8:31 am

No Peadawg, the Dems haven’t either. That’s true.

I’d say that’s a pretty good indication that the cuts aren’t going to happen, certainly not on the scale that would be needed to solve this problem through cuts alone. Yet that is the make-believe that conservatives continue to peddle.

Jay

September 29th, 2010
8:32 am

Now if you’ll excuse me, I see a dental pick in my immediate future….

john

September 29th, 2010
8:33 am

Saul good:

The tax cuts and job losses don’t have anything to do with each other. I mean 95% of people benefitted by the tax cuts. That is a fact; look it up. You did pay less in taxes, so therefore you DID benefit.

Also, the CBO reported the entire Iraq war cost approximately $734 billion. That is less than Obama’s failed stimulus plan. I would call it a wash. Also, those wars probably saved many American lives. The news is reporting just today about a large scale terroist attack that was foiled. Don’t you idiot Liberals understand that we are at war and there are many people that would blow America off that map if they could??

Peadawg

September 29th, 2010
8:34 am

“No Peadawg, the Dems haven’t either. That’s true.

I’d say that’s a pretty good indication that the cuts aren’t going to happen, certainly not on the scale that would be needed to solve this problem through cuts alone”

So, another election, and another “picking the lesser of two evils”. Gotta love politics!!!!! :roll:

Bubba Bob

September 29th, 2010
8:34 am

Jay,

It is not make-believe for me to propose that our leaders cut spending. It is the only way to find a solution to our problem.

Do you propose we keep spending wildly and going into debt? When has that solution ever worked?

ty webb

September 29th, 2010
8:36 am

jay,
Boo! Nice job. Cut everything. 20% across the board. This time calls for “sacrifice”, right?

Normal

September 29th, 2010
8:37 am

The Republicans (and some Democrats) are fighting so hard to get tax cuts for the people who make over 250,000.00 a year, even at the expense of holding up tax cuts for the ones who really need it. Why?

Could it be self interest? Thay all make over 250,000.00 a year and they can’t vote in a pay raise….just asking…

I hope they keep it up. November might be a surprise, after all…just contemplating…

Call it like it is

September 29th, 2010
8:37 am

Well the left thinks higher taxes will cure all and the right think lower taxes will cure all. How about we first stop all foreign aid, pull our military out of Korea, Afghanistan, Japan and the middle east all together. Take those funds and invest back into America, into her people and help them start business that will employ Americans. Quit rewarding companies that leave this soil to go to India.

Send everybody in DC back to highschool to learn has to balance a check book. Let Europe be the worlds policeman for a while, China has all of our money, when are we going to step up to the plate and stop buying their crap and sending all of our money to them? Lot of ways to make this work people and its not all about taxes.

And lets dont forget about our space program which is going down the tubes quickly. Want be long till we will have to catch rides with the Russians to get to the space station we built.

TaxPayer

September 29th, 2010
8:37 am

Why are conservatives always groveling at the feet of the rich. Every time you turn around, there’s another conservative saying to a rich person, “Here, take my money! I know I worked hard for it but you deserve it.” It’s really sad.

Eric

September 29th, 2010
8:37 am

While some of what you say makes sense, Mysti, you lose all credibilty when you attribute comments like “evil rich” to all Dems. I don’t recall anyone saying that about the most fortunate among us. Most of us simply beleive that the richest of us don’t need a tax cut and since they already have the biggest piece of the pie it just seems fair for them to pay a higher share. We don’t think they’re evil for being rich, but maybe some are guilty of hoarding and craving more and more and more while most folks live paycheck to paycheck. Why can’t we all be in this together? Why must the middle class get smaller and smaller? I think Obama and a few Dems are actually trying to do what’s best for the entire country. The republicans, on the contrary, seem to be doing everything in their power to prevent what’s best for the country. Ciao!

Mystified

September 29th, 2010
8:38 am

Saying they have been proven false does not make true. Clinton’s jobs were in the technology bubble, which burst. For decades, this country was the highest producing and richest country in the world. It wasn’t because of your high tax rate on the rich. No nation has ever taxed it’s way into prosperity. That’s why Europe is the way it is. I’m sure you have been there. There isn’t much in the way of suburbs. You may have free healthcare but you live like a rat in a small flat because that’s all you can afford.

ty webb

September 29th, 2010
8:41 am

“Most of us simply beleive that the richest of us don’t need a tax cut…”

Nice, Eric. So the Government is to decide what everyone “needs”. Hmmmm. Very very interesting.

thomas

September 29th, 2010
8:43 am

TaxPayer

September 29th, 2010
8:37 am

How is that any different than taxes?

well except for the fact one has a choice to not give their mony to the rich , yet taxes are kinda forced unless one wants to become a criminal.

stands for decibels

September 29th, 2010
8:45 am

So the Government is to decide what everyone “needs”. Hmmmm. Very very interesting.

Yes, it’s very very interesting that some are so bloody paranoid and willing to Red-bait perfectly innocuous statements of fact, that one wouldn’t be surprised to learn that those same folks check under the bed at night to see if any Marxists are hiding there.

/drive-by

Saul Good

September 29th, 2010
8:47 am

John… Let me ask….how much did those tax cuts add to the deficit? So even if I paid less in taxes the past few years…how do I and everyone else pay them back? They were not “free” since we “borrowed” the money to fund those cuts. As far as you saying that the stimulus program vs Iraq was a wash….yeah…tell me how spending over HERE is anything like spending over THERE. Sorry…but you don’t CUT taxes when there are TWO wars going on.
I love hearing from those of you on the right who complain about the COST of Obamacare (which is slated to be approx. a trillion dollars over 10 years…. yet by extending the tax cuts to the highest tier of tax payers will cost 4 TIMES that amount…where’s your logic in that? Once again I ask of you…since the tax cuts were put into place (and they are STILL in place…nothing has been touched as of today since they went into effect)… Just how many JOBS did giving those tax cuts to the rich produce?

John the Iraq war saved American lives? No point in showing you “reality” any further… it’s too far away from you to grasp by that statement alone

Doggone/GA

September 29th, 2010
8:51 am

Saul Good…”John the Iraq war saved American lives?” – now be fair, he DID say “probably saved” There’s no proof they DID, mind you, but that “probably” does allow him to believe they were good for SOMETHING.

Saul Good

September 29th, 2010
8:51 am

Mystified….then go ahead and explain the 91% tax rate for the richest first put into place by Eisenhower…. tell me how America “suffered” after the long run that rate had while in effect.

Normal

September 29th, 2010
8:51 am

I’ll talk benefit cuts when Congress starts talking about taking pay
cuts to help balance the budget. Otherwise I agree with “Call It Like It Is” at 0837.

…and that’s all I’ve got to say about that…

godless heathen

September 29th, 2010
8:52 am

” At the same time, lower tax rates boost growth by increasing people’s saving and work effort.”
- Elmendorf

And we can lower deficits by reducing governement spending. Why is that never on the table?

JohnnyReb

September 29th, 2010
8:52 am

Can anyone tell me at what point in Progressive indoctrination it is taught that it’s OK, even a right, for people not to carry their equal – let me repeat that – equal – share of the load?

TaxPayer

September 29th, 2010
8:53 am

If one is rich enough, apparently one can avoid paying taxes and most certainly pay significantly lower rates than most and do it legally.

Saul Good

September 29th, 2010
8:54 am

Doggone….yeah….the American troops sent over there who lost life and limb were there for a “good” reason when it came to fighting terrorists who were never there…and to stop the nuclear program that didn’t exist so that North Korea could finish their own and Iran could advance theirs at the same time… and all the terror attacks that increased around the world once we went there. They were “good” for those things I guess… I mean if ANYTHING…that Shock and Awe made for good Fox viewing.

Doggone/GA

September 29th, 2010
8:55 am

“let me repeat that – equal – share of the load?”

Equal is not always fair. Those who get the greatest benefit from a society incur the greatest responsibility for helping to keep that society running. And a greater responsibility means paying a greater share of the cost.

The Boner's Tan Line

September 29th, 2010
8:55 am

The Boner has some background on this Elmendorf dude. You might not be so impressed with his opinions after you read this.

According to the Boner, Elmendorf is a homosexual-loving, Islam mosque worshipping, evolution believing, global warming preaching, in Obama’s back pocket, charlatan.

But the worst thing of all, people – he don’t even have a mistress!

The Boner says he’s not to be trusted.

Terrible Swift Sword

September 29th, 2010
8:55 am

Based on this rationale, then “Tax Increases Are Good For the Economy”.

Go ahead, confiscate ALL that people earn and see how that works. When Obama raises federal income tax rates on January 1, 2011, we’ll see how that “improves” the economy–which is what liberals purport it will do. It won’t. Trickle-down poverty will be the result.

One more thing: government does not have to borrow huge amounts of money to fund the deficit–it has to borrow huge amounts of money to finance reckless spending that damages our economy permanently.

ty webb

September 29th, 2010
8:55 am

sfd,
Did you read Eric’s post? “most fortunate”, “need”, “biggest piece of the pie”, “all in this together”. and I’m a “Red-Baiter”? He posted before me.

N-GA

September 29th, 2010
8:56 am

While many ultra-rich people want to continue the Bush tax cuts, Bill Gates has come right out and said that the rich should pay more. He even supports an income tax in Washington State, one of only 7 states that do not have a state income tax.

For those who say cut spending first, then deal with taxes….that’s bass-ackwards. If the Bush administration (at the time the GOP controlled Congress) had cut spending to a more sustainable level first, then a tax cut would have made sense provided some of our taxes were used to reduce the national debt (kinda like during the Clinton administration).

jms

September 29th, 2010
8:56 am

“Most of us simply beleive that the richest of us don’t need a tax cut and since they already have the biggest piece of the pie it just seems fair for them to pay a higher share.”

The “rich” already pay more in absolute dollars and as a percentage of pay. Just how much “fairer” do you want to make it, Eric?

Ragnar Danneskjöld

September 29th, 2010
8:56 am

Too bad the CBO guys don’t have any Chicago school background, they would understand why their ideology has failed so massively. GIGO.

Doggone/GA

September 29th, 2010
8:59 am

“Why is that never on the table?”

It is on the table…but there’s more than a few of us who would object to balancing the budget on the backs of the elderly, the poor and the disadvantaged. So there’s never much in the way of consensus on WHERE to make those cuts.

Hypocrite hunter

September 29th, 2010
9:01 am

Jay, does that mean that a better solution to all our problems is to raise taxes even further? This defines my problem with MSM in general and the AJC in particular. A more accurate headline would be “Cuts in Spending Necessary for Growth”. The study confirms what conservative economists have been preaching for EVER…lower taxes, more growth. Our economy has contracted about 20%, government employment has grown, during the same period, about 3%. My business was able to cut costs by over 20%, by slashing overhead, reducing my salary and trimming overhead. Government needs to do the same…at every level. Pretending we can tax our way out of this is folly.

ty webb

September 29th, 2010
9:01 am

“but there’s more than a few of us who would object to balancing the budget on the backs of the elderly, the poor and the disadvantaged.”

yeah, so let’s do it on the backs of all the fetuses that don’t get aborted.

N-GA

September 29th, 2010
9:01 am

JohnnyReb – You and your “equality”. Sounds kinda democratic….or socialist. Whatever. Why not make healthcare “equal” for everybody? Do you support making the FICA deductions “equal” so that those deductions apply to all income with no limit? Or do you just want “equal” treatment for those things you approve?

retired early

September 29th, 2010
9:01 am

Does anyone else remember that when W 1st took office he wanted to “give back the people’s money”. I think he mentioned around 60% of the surplus. The Dems wanted to use it to pay down the debt. Then, with the economy slowing, Bush got his way and won approval of the tax cuts which are now set to expire. The result after 10 years… doubling of the national debt.
Now, I learned a lesson from that experience.
Conservative bloggers, please tell me again why we need more tax cuts. Only the facts, based on history, please.

JohnnyReb

September 29th, 2010
9:02 am

Doggone/GA @ 8:55 am
“Equal is not always fair.”

Just where in the Constitution or any of the social justice laws does it state to be “fair?”

Life is not fair, it is in most cases what you make of it.

Surfer

September 29th, 2010
9:02 am

Eric, the rich already pay a higher share genius. The top 2% of wage earners pay something in the neighborhood of 40% of all taxes. This is not a socialist nation. We all have the opportunities that this great nation provides. Some make sound decisions in life and become wealthy. Others make poor decisions and struggle. What you are advocating is called thievery. Stealing from a producer and giving to a non-producer. It is obvious you and many like you find it easy to spend other people money. Truly pathetic!

Doggone/GA

September 29th, 2010
9:05 am

“Life is not fair, it is in most cases what you make of it.”

Quite right, it is not. So those that benefit to the greater degree by our society have a greater responsiblity to contribute back to that society. A better, healthier, more productive society benefits them back again by keeping money circulating and by increasing the demand for the goods and/or services they produce and sell…thus INCREASING their opportunity for more wealth.

Pennsylvanian

September 29th, 2010
9:06 am

The latest from the wealth envy channel……

Meanwhile, President Feckless gets pushed around by subordinates, doesn’t have a clue how to deal with Afghanistan. Obama doesn’t have the leadership skills to be a Cub Scout den mother.

How’s that Hope and Change working out for you?

Sam

September 29th, 2010
9:06 am

“Most of us simply believe that the richest of us don’t need a tax cut…”

There’s “the tyranny of the majority” for ya’.

Little authoritarians like Eric, true to its progressive roots, feel they should be able to…have the right to…tell everyone and anyone what they must do with their private property, especially when it comes to confiscation.

I wish Eric could reach into my back pocket so I could bash it in the teeth. That would feel especially sweet and truly productive.

Y’all are some sick fu_ks. Here’s to ya’ starving when the currency collapses. You can live out your ideology and steal from each other.

I’ll smoke pot to that.

jm

September 29th, 2010
9:07 am

An article relevant to the current discussion. Covers the deficit commission too.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68R4GW20100929

Keep up the good fight!

September 29th, 2010
9:08 am

“Without cutting spending” — the new mantra.

Funny not a single one of the wingnuts have said lets cut spending and once we do, then we can cut taxes. Its “I’ll take my tax cut now.” It’s tax cuts create jobs and magically expand the economy.

Actually cut spending. Get the chickenhawks like Iaackson to cut some of those high price jets, close some bases, tell us where the cuts in Homeland Security have been made, vote for the actual cuts that they claim are in entitlements, pay down the deficits….AND THEN YOU CAN HAVE YOUR TAX CUTS.

Quit feeding at the trough of imaginary benefits from tax cuts and imaginary spending cuts that Republicans and the Tea Mice will never support.

Hypocrite hunter

September 29th, 2010
9:09 am

Retired@9:01. The fact that Republicans screwed this up too doesn’t make Democratic proposals any better. Under Bush’s watch, the results were wretched…but staggerly better than under the present administration (the last three years of Bush were actually D controlled legislature…but that’s for another day). The historical fact is that productivity is tied to lower taxes, current tax rates brutalize the top third of wage earners in this country and the bottom third pay almost nothing.

Tommy Maddox

September 29th, 2010
9:09 am

The GOP should take a lead from NJ’s Gov. Christie. Cut, cut, cut, deal with it.

It’s time for some sacred cows to become fillet.

JohnnyReb

September 29th, 2010
9:10 am

Doggone/GA – see Surfer’s post @ 9:02AM. Just how much more should the so-called rich contribute?

tscali

September 29th, 2010
9:11 am

the electorate needs to buck up and take the hit on government subsidies across the board. beholden to the government is no way to live life with potential. if there are people in favor of helping the clueless, then pony up or stfu.

Doggone/GA

September 29th, 2010
9:11 am

“(the last three years of Bush were actually D controlled legislature…but that’s for another day). ”

today is another day. Here’s a challenge for you, that has been issued many times when this baloney is repeated: name ONE, just ONE, bill passed by that “D controlled legislature” that was signed by Bush, that actually CONTRIBUTED to this near-depression. Name just ONE. Maybe you can do better than others have…because NO ONE has ever even tried to answer that question.

jm

September 29th, 2010
9:11 am

Off topic, but if anyone wants to know more about Obama’s religious preference…

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68R5CU20100928

Purveyor

September 29th, 2010
9:12 am

Many of you need to re-read the piece, namely the second paragraph. Do not confuse tax “revenues” with tax “rates”. They are different and that is pointed out in the article. Every time in our history that tax rates have been lowered, tax reveues have increased. This is not dem or republican, just fact. Government removal of monies from the private sector is horribly inefficient and does not yield the same revenue intake to the IRS. Money multiplier effects are much stronger when citizens keep more of “their” money and put it to use as they see fit, not the government.

Bubba

September 29th, 2010
9:14 am

Yada, yada, yada. And his predecessor, Orszag, said just the opposite. Who you gonna believe? Whoever you agree with.

Doggone/GA

September 29th, 2010
9:15 am

“Just how much more should the so-called rich contribute?”

As much as neccessary to help dig us out of this hole. And just for your edification…yesterday I stated what *I* would do: let the tax cuts expire for EVERYONE. As far as I’m concerned, it’s going to have to happen sooner or later…might as well make it sooner and get it over with.

Bubba

September 29th, 2010
9:15 am

Sorry, Orszag was OMB–for Obama.

N-GA

September 29th, 2010
9:16 am

Bush the Elder got it right. Crush Iraq and get out….cheaper in $$$ AND lives. Bush the Child never learned from Dad. He opted for nation-building. I wonder how many times we could have crushed Afghanistan in two weeks….repeatedly? Less money, fewer casualties. Other countries would quickly learn that the USA can deal with them if they support terrorism.

Meanwhile we spend money we don’t have and crank out tax cuts for the wealthy (many of whom are profiting from the wars). Ain’t America smart? Our leaders really got a great edumacation!

Doggone/GA

September 29th, 2010
9:16 am

“Every time in our history that tax rates have been lowered, tax reveues have increased”

And the logical result of that baloney is that if you reduce taxes to zero the tax revenues will increase exponentially.

jm

September 29th, 2010
9:17 am

Doggone – Gov Rendell (D, Penn) admitted this morning on CNBC dems intend to let middle class tax cuts expire in 2 years. Necessary to close the deficit gap.

JohnnyReb

September 29th, 2010
9:17 am

Slightly off subject – Bob Woodward was on O’Reilly last night and had some very damaging statements on Obama, which support previous posts of yours truly – that Obama’s arrogance will be his downfall. Unfortunately, we are attached to that downfall at this point in history.

The Obama ship is sinking, his staff is abandoning him like rats from a sinking ship. His policies are failures. Our best hope at this point is a Republican wave in November so that Obama can be stopped from inflicting more damage, especially economic.

paleo-neo-Carlinist

September 29th, 2010
9:17 am

Mystified, let me see if I can’t help you change your name. sure the USA once enjoyed a thriving, productive economy (prosperity). this is because there were very few “rich” people. Americans were content to be middle class; work, save, retire. the goods we produced we also consumed (and in some cases exported). the problem is, it only takes a handful of greedy people (want to become rich, and will beg, borrow or steal to do so). you don’t become rich working on an assembly line, farm or factory. you become “rich” when you stop working for a living, and you begin shuffling paper, manipulating stocks, etc. the double-whammy is, in order to get a seat on the board or keys to the executive washroom, you have to kinda crush the working class (ship jobs overseas, automate, etc.). an unemployed middle/working class does not “buy” things (comsume), so sales decrease (revenue). would the paper-shufflers think of reducing their wages, or eliminating their jobs? not a chance. they simply lay off more workers, and outsource more jobs. you know, all you “free market” folks need to accept that America’s economy has always been run by a “central authority” which controls the means of production and distribution – and it ain’t the government, my friends. and unlike the socialist model (government), the “central authority” (corporate America) does not share the wealth, as it did in the 50’s, 60’s and into the 70’s (thriving middle class). no Mystified, there is no “wealth envy” there is only wealth “hoarding” and we are getting dangerously close to the the tipping point,

Doggone/GA

September 29th, 2010
9:19 am

“Doggone – Gov Rendell (D, Penn) admitted this morning on CNBC dems intend to let middle class tax cuts expire in 2 years. Necessary to close the deficit gap.”

Of course it’s neccessary. I’ve known that since they dropped the damn tax rates…just been waiting all this time for the penny to drop. Well, it’s about to.

jm

September 29th, 2010
9:19 am

Purveyor / Bubba – some facts, maybe can settle this.

1. Tax Increases do reduce economic growth. Lower taxes result in higher economic growth. This higher growth does provide some additional tax revenue, HOWEVER
2. The additional tax revenue from “higher growth” does not full offset the loss of revenue from lower rates.

1 and 2 are both true, take from them what you will I suppose.

Hypocrite hunter

September 29th, 2010
9:20 am

Doggone@9:11…sorry, that is silly. 2007 FY appropriations sounds like a good place to start. Also, I am not a Bush defender or apologist. His tenure was marked by wreckless lack of fiscal discipline. Unfortunate, the last two years have made that period look like a Clark Howard austerity model.

N-GA

September 29th, 2010
9:20 am

Doggone/GA – I wonder why the posters who insist that tax cuts increase revenue refuse to use the Google. They continue to say that this has been irrefutably proved. The idiocy is so self-serving.

larry

September 29th, 2010
9:21 am

Hmmmmmmmmm……. from the bush tax cuts i got a return of $1.26 back on my taxes , on the other hand, from Obama’s tax cut i got $8.46 cents back.

Lets extend OBAMA’s tax cuts then and let Bush’s expire.

kb

September 29th, 2010
9:21 am

TO JOHN AT 8:33-DID THE BUSH TAX STIMULUS WORK?

Big D

September 29th, 2010
9:22 am

What is it about cutting this fat( bleep) wasteful bureaucracy down to a manageable size that you liberal yo-yo’s don’t get ????
There was a time when we did just fine without the Dept. of Education, energy and so on.
We were just fine with our tax revenues staying at home benefiting the hard working souls that made it…not on programs to help Africans with their personal hygiene.
Do you really not get it, if a state deals with it’s own education you will have (as you did in the fifties) a healthy competition to have the best and brightest come from your state.
If you make the Fed smaller and empower the state more it allows the public to more closely monitor the actions of the elected official, keeping him more honest with tax dollars.
This was the original intent of the founding Fathers and we should return to this model…we have not improved anything, we have come very close to destroying it.

kb

September 29th, 2010
9:23 am

DID THE BUSH STIMULUS WORK? DID THE TAX CUT WORK? I BLAME OBAMA FOR EVERYTHING!!!!!!

ty webb

September 29th, 2010
9:23 am

Larry,
careful there, someone of your ally’s might say you’re being “greedy”.

ty webb

September 29th, 2010
9:24 am

meant “some” not “someone”. sorry.

TaxPayer

September 29th, 2010
9:24 am

The “rich” already pay more in absolute dollars and as a percentage of pay.

I guess some of the U.S.’s wealthiest that pay zero fed taxes did not get your memo.

Doggone/GA

September 29th, 2010
9:24 am

“They continue to say that this has been irrefutably proved.”

Try asking them for that “irrefutable” evidence. The sound of crickets chirping will be deafening!

larry

September 29th, 2010
9:24 am

If you make the Fed smaller and empower the state more it allows the public to more closely monitor the actions of the elected official, keeping him more honest with tax dollars.

Then you dont want Mr. Deal in the govenors chair

geeesh

http://www.ajc.com/news/judge-reopens-bankruptcy-filing-643467.html

Hypocrite hunter

September 29th, 2010
9:25 am

Paleo@9:17…revisionist history…the US invented the term “robber baron” during the greatest increases in personal wealth the world has ever known. Dagnar can tell you all about the fact that we were the first country to believe that wealth could actually be “made”, and it can be. Also, benefits are wonderful things, and no one is arguing that we shouldn’t have a safety net, the argument is that the delivery system we have established for the articulation, identification and distribution of government goods and services is bloated beyond belief.

N-GA

September 29th, 2010
9:25 am

People here talk about learning from history. Well, look at all the economic downturns of the past 100 years. The government has succeeded in recovering from these events by temporary spending increases. This happens regardless of which party is in power. When the government tries to reduce spending, the economy gets worse. After all, the biggest “customer” of goods and services in the USA is our government. When they stop buying, companies go under and people get laid off.

Peadawg

September 29th, 2010
9:27 am

“let the tax cuts expire for EVERYONE.”

Ya, during a recession, that’s a GREAT idea! :roll: People that are already struggling, you want to make them struggle even more?

Doggone/GA

September 29th, 2010
9:27 am

“What is it about cutting this fat( bleep) wasteful bureaucracy down to a manageable size that you liberal yo-yo’s don’t get ????”

Actually, we DO get it. Now you just have to convince the legislators on BOTH SIDES to get busy and DO it.

The Thin Guy

September 29th, 2010
9:27 am

If lowering taxes is bad, they raising them must be good. Why not 100%? Would that make JB and his fellow Moonbats happy? Well, no. They also want to come to your house and fix your TV so it can’t get Fox news.

md

September 29th, 2010
9:29 am

I do find it interesting that the debate seems to be centered around “tax cuts” vs “no tax cuts”.

And the 2 “sides” are arguing for one or the other. Yet, correct me if I’m wrong, the current proposal includes tax cuts.

If tax cuts are sooooo evil, why are they currently being proposed??

Votes maybe???