Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
News flash, there are not enough rich potential taxpayers in the United States to even make a dent in the deficit. Why do people cling to that fantasy?
JCT estimated the revenue effects of EGTRRA and JGTRRA at the time the acts were considered in 2001 and 2003, respectively. Taken together, those estimates imply a loss of revenues totaling $165 billion in 2007. As you requested, CBO has calculated the debt-service costs that would result in 2007 from the legislation under an assumption that they were financed in full by additional debt rather than offset elsewhere in the budget. On that basis, CBO estimates that the revenue loss in JCT's projections would lead to additional debt-service costs of $46 billion in 2007, for a total budgetary cost of $211 billion. On the same basis, the agency estimates the total budgetary costs, including interest, for 2008 through 2011 to be $233 billion, $245 billion, $269 billion, and $215 billion, respectively.
News flash, there are not enough rich potential taxpayers in the United States to even make a dent in the deficit. Why do people cling to that fantasy?
Stop skirting the issue. Taxes are at HISTORIC LOWS. Why don't you look at the tax rates under Reagan or Eisenhower on the rich, you'd be surprised. How do these tea party nitwits expect to pay for 3 wars while cutting taxes to historic lows? Oh wait that's right, that's what gets us downgraded to AA+
Haha, just remember liberals, YOU are now holding this man up as being correct, so lets quote him COMPLETELY..
Republicans want them renewed; Democrats want to keep the tax cuts for the middle-class, but not for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. Now, Stockman says they're both wrong. And he says extending either of those cuts is tantamount to the government declaring bankruptcy.
BINGO.. You dont create a SPECIAL tax for 1 segment of the population but not for others. The GOP objected to tax cuts ending for ONLY the rich which is what the Democrats called for. When Democrats refused to do what Mr Stockman how says they should have done, they pushed for extending them..
So in that environment, the highest priority is solvency now, not incentives for growth.
Remember Democrats, the very man you just held up as correct, now says that solvency is the most important thing above everything, this means CUTS... Is Mr Stockman a tea party member?
Mr. STOCKMAN: Absolutely. The only thing worse than the Republican leadership position is that of the White House. I don't know how they think they're helping the economy by every month, coming up with a new plan to borrow tens of billions more, drive us deeper into debt. Never in history has anyone said that for very long, you can sustain a circumstance where the debt is growing at twice the rate of the economy.
DEMOCRATS, I'VE BEEN SAYING THIS SINCE DAY 1.. maybe now your new hero said it, you'll listen!!
Interesting thoughts in that Greenspan interview for both sides.
The numbers presented show that letting the Bush tax cuts on the rich expire would only save about 1/4 what letting them all expire would (point against tax, just the rich advocates).
He also makes it clear (I think) he does not buy the conservative sales pitch that cutting taxes raises revenues. Pghquest is always saying that, and I've never believed it. Greenspan doesn't either, FWIW.
He finishes with classic Greenspan (what the hell does that last sentence mean!!!?)
Still, when it came to the tax cuts, he sounded more alarmed than he was in August, when he said in an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” that he disagreed with conservatives who said tax cuts essentially pay for themselves by causing more economic activity.
“They do not,” Mr. Greenspan said at the time, adding that the U.S. has been funding spending programs and tax cuts with borrowed money. “And at the end of the day that proves disastrous. My view is I don’t think we can play subtle policy here.”
Interesting thoughts in that Greenspan interview for both sides.
The numbers presented show that letting the Bush tax cuts on the rich expire would only save about 1/4 what letting them all expire would (point against tax, just the rich advocates).
He also makes it clear (I think) he does not buy the conservative sales pitch that cutting taxes raises revenues. Pghquest is always saying that, and I've never believed it. Greenspan doesn't either, FWIW.
He finishes with classic Greenspan (what the hell does that last sentence mean!!!?)
Still, when it came to the tax cuts, he sounded more alarmed than he was in August, when he said in an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,†that he disagreed with conservatives who said tax cuts essentially pay for themselves by causing more economic activity.
“They do not,†Mr. Greenspan said at the time, adding that the U.S. has been funding spending programs and tax cuts with borrowed money. “And at the end of the day that proves disastrous. My view is I don’t think we can play subtle policy here.â€
The Worst Option?
One option under consideration as the midterm elections loom is to extend the cuts for just a few years, until the economy recovers. But Elmendorf pointed out that an earlier CBO study found that tax cuts were among the worst options for cutting unemployment and boosting growth.
“They were at the bottom of the scale relative to the other things that we looked at because a significant amount of money goes to people with fairly high incomes,†he said. “And if those people receive a temporary tax cut, they're not likely to spend a very large share of that, in our judgment, this year or next year.†That’s especially true if the recipients think the cut will be disappearing soon after. Just extending the cuts for the wealthy for one year would add $36 billion to the deficit, according to Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation.
Bixby of the Concord Coalition said that, while unrealistic, allowing all the cuts to lapse would put the government remarkably close to deficits at sustainable levels in the coming years. He proposes extending the cuts but phasing them out or finding a way to pay for them over the next five years.
Hell, if Bush's tax cuts expired, the tax rate on the top bracket would still be lower than it was under Reagan.
Imagine that, tax rates are so low right now, but they actually bring in more revenues when they were higher as they did then as a % of GDP.. How odd
Federal outlays and revenues, 1930-2015 as a percentage of the GDP - Federal Budget Charts - National Priorities Project (http://nationalpriorities.org/resources/federal-budget-101/charts/general/federal-outlays-and-revenues-1930-2015-perc-gdp/ - broken link)
"On March 26, 2007, federal prosecutors in Manhattan indicted Stockman in "a scheme ... to defraud [Collins & Aikman]'s investors, banks and creditors by manipulating C&A's reported revenues and earnings."
Stop skirting the issue. Taxes are at HISTORIC LOWS. Why don't you look at the tax rates under Reagan or Eisenhower on the rich, you'd be surprised. How do these tea party nitwits expect to pay for 3 wars while cutting taxes to historic lows? Oh wait that's right, that's what gets us downgraded to AA+
We should call it for what it is. If these people were all put into a room on penalty of death to come up with how much they could cut, they couldn't come up with $50 billion, when the problem is $1.3 trillion.
Sure sounds like a tea partier to me!! But he was wrong, they came up with a whopping $90B in cuts, and then pronounced the country saved.. haha..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
