Alan Greenspan: Tax cuts do not pay for themselves. (solution, how much, compared)

[GregW]

Tax cuts on the wealthy have never paid for themselves while the taxes do when cut for the working and middle class. The rich hoard their money and the rest spend it buying stuff that makes the rich richer.

[Oerdin]

I find it funny how pghquest keeps saying he knows better then 99% of the published practicing economists out there and that all the real economists are wrong. Tell us, what exactly are your qualifications in economics again and why shouldn't we trust the views of the half dozen leading conservative economists I've quoted here?

[damie]

Originally Posted by workingclasshero

the fact is the government needs to CUT SPENDING

bush's mistake was to cut taxes and increase spending

and obama is doing even more spending


clinton and newt got close to a surplus(never actually hit a true surplus) BY WHAT.......CUTTING INFRASTRUCTURE and SPENDING, while lowering taxes too

No one who is talking about real deficit reduction is disagreeing. But the Republican talking point is "cut taxes, they'll pay for themselves". No. They won't. It is a failed experiment which we have conducted enough times that no one believes it - except the perpetually gullible or stupid.

Republicans will not be allowed to be non-commital in the future when discussions about realing in the deficit begin. The administration has already made overtures that they are going to have to name what services/programs they want to cut.

[Oerdin]

Originally Posted by melinuxfool

There's a flaw with this thinking. Tax cuts are not something that is "paid for." If I cut my hours back so that I earn $50 less one week, have I given my employer $50?

Tax cuts are not a gift. They are the decision of a thief to be content in stealing a little bit less than he did before.

Tax cuts have to be "paid" for in the budget process. That means if you cut taxes by half a trillion dollars you must cut spending by a corresponding half trillion dollars. That is how you "pay" for tax cuts in a budgeting process.

Certain unscrupulous and disreputable Republican politicians keep claiming tax cuts don't have to be paid for in the budgeting process and that they magically "pay for themselves". That's hog wash and even all the leading conservative economists admit that. So if we are going to extend the Bush tax cuts without blowing up the budget then we must find $500 billion to $600 billion in budget cuts to "pay" for the tax cuts. The Republicans are trying to take the easy way out and say they can cut taxes without cutting any popular programs and that there will be no resulting accumulation of debt. That's BS.

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by damie

No one who is talking about real deficit reduction is disagreeing. But the Republican talking point is "cut taxes, they'll pay for themselves". No. They won't. It is a failed experiment which we have conducted enough times that no one believes it - except the perpetually gullible or stupid.

Republicans will not be allowed to be non-commital in the future when discussions about realing in the deficit begin. The administration has already made overtures that they are going to have to name what services/programs they want to cut.

1. I have never heard any republicann or rino, and certainly not a true conservative state the they LITERALLY pay for themselve.....but neo-cons( which are former southern babtist democrats) might
2. while they may not LITERALLY pay for them selves, when they INCREASE revenue (which they do) they FIGURATIVLY do pay for themselve
3. the mistake, (by MANY admins) has been to cut taxes and increase spending

our biggest increasers have been SS, welfare, medicare and medicaid ....we cant sustain this amount of social engineering

we need BIG cuts, not the token cuts that obama has skirted around

for all that we spent on bailing out FAILED corporations and an unstimulating stimulur we could have put a solar electric system on every single family house in america, and thereby eliminating the need (in residental )for the government(or private) electric companies that ROB every house hold for hundreds of dollars every month in residental areas....1-2-3 hundred dollars more a month for PEOPLE to spend on other things (imagine a time when SENIORS wont have to worry about to I spend that $200 on electric/heat of do I get FOOD

by the liberals arent looking for solutions or cuts in spending...all they want is to find a new tax to hit the workingclass with

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by pghquest

And yet we have evidence to show that when tax cuts were passed, the economy turned around and the revenue to the federal government began growing INSTANTLY...

If they dont pay for themself, then why did revenues GO UP.. not down?

By themself they do not pay for themself, but when it spurs the economy, the economic turn around DID pay for them..

Originally Posted by Oerdin

I find it funny how pghquest keeps saying he knows better then 99% of the published practicing economists out there and that all the real economists are wrong. Tell us, what exactly are your qualifications in economics again and why shouldn't we trust the views of the half dozen leading conservative economists I've quoted here?

I find it funny that you are now claiming Bernacki and dozens of other Democrats are wrong..

Originally Posted by damie

No what's funny is that pg went on this long rambling argument about revenue and then suddenly came to the revelation that spending had to be cut at the same time...

...after it had been said about half a dozen times. LOL. Yes we know spending has to be cut - that's how we KNOW tax cuts don't pay for themselves. Sheesh.

Even funnier is that about half a dozen times I posted and said nothing about spending other than the fact it needed cut. Tell me, is it a comprehension problem, or just ignorance? Who the heck said spending didnt need cut? The topic of the thread though isnt about spending cuts, its about tax cuts..

Originally Posted by Oerdin

Yes, that is funny. I've seen this poster do the exact same nonsense time and again here at CDF. He really needs to read posts in the thread before he runs off on tangents.

It is funny to see him keep saying we're wrong, all the economists are wrong, and then suddenly discover everyone else was right and he was wrong all alone.

As the OP, you of all people should know what the topic of the thread is.. It isnt about "spending", its about tax cuts.. YOU NAMED THE THREAD So tell me, you think you know more than Bernanke as well?

Answer me this then ooh wize one..

Why did you support increased food stamps as part of Obamas stimuls package? Obviously they dont pay for themself.. or do they? Tell me, I want an answer on how food stamp stimulation spurs the economy into a recovery but allowing people to keep their money and spend CASH, doesnt.. Can you answer the difference or will you avoid the this and move onto something else? Tell me why Bernanke as well as dozens of other Democrats are now calling for the tax cuts to continue? Can you answer?

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by damie

LOL - what's the first rule pg? When you find yourself in a hole - stop digging. I didn't miss the issue. It was the title of the thread. Tax cuts do not pay for themselves. The dubious honor of missing the point belongs to another poster in this thread.

If its the title of the thread, then why are you now asking why I didnt discuss "spending"

[SourD]

Greenspan was a major architect in the crash. Don't believe a word he says.

[Oerdin]

Greenspan: End Bush tax cuts | Raw Story

Raw Story has video of Dr. Alan Greenspan's interview on Meet the Press. Just scroll down and hit play.

[Oerdin]

Originally Posted by pghquest

If its the title of the thread, then why are you now asking why I didnt discuss "spending"

It's only mentioned in the OP and at least a half dozen times later in the thread. Reading is fundamental.