PDA

View Full Version : Let the Bush tax cuts lapse......Greenspan



Qtec
08-02-2010, 04:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan believes that the US should "follow the law" and let the Bush tax cuts lapse. He disagreed Sunday with Republicans who say that tax cuts pay for themselves.

"I am very much in favor of tax cuts but not with borrowed money," Greenspan said during an appearance on NBC.

"The problem that we've gotten into in recent years is that spending programs with borrowed money, tax cuts with borrowed money, and at the end of the day that proves disastrous and my view is I don't think we can play subtle policy here," said Greenspan.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>"You don't agree with Republican leaders who say tax cuts pay for themselves?" asked NBC's David Gregory.

"They do not," Greenspan replied firmly.</span> </div></div>

link (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/node/38735)

Q

LWW
08-02-2010, 05:15 AM
And Greenspan has been shown to be an idiot by his promotion of sub prime variable rate loans.

Did you have a point ... other than that you will listen to only those who support the regime's agenda?

Remember ... last time you went down this road it was your own source which demonstrated that the cuts increased revenue.

Well, here we go again ... did you bother to read, in your own post BTW, why he opposes maintaining the cuts?

"I am very much in favor of tax cuts but not with borrowed money. The problem that we've gotten into in recent years is that spending programs with borrowed money, tax cuts with borrowed money, and at the end of the day that proves disastrous and my view is I don't think we can play subtle policy here,"

IOW ... the problem is that we have spent more than the tax cuts generated.

Most people learn after they handle fire.

LWW

Qtec
08-03-2010, 01:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bilbray dodges when asked about <span style='font-size: 20pt'>Cantor’s admission that extending Bush tax cuts will expand the deficit.</span>

Today on MSNBC’s Hardball, host Chris Matthews aired the clip of House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) admitting that extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich would “dig the hole deeper” in terms of the national deficit. With his admission, Cantor has put Republican supply-siders in the awkward position of confronting the fact that their faith-based tax cut ideology would blow an $830 billion hole in the budget. Matthews pressed Bilbray on this point, only to witness his guest stammer and sputter to avoid answering the question directly:

MATTHEWS: Well there he is, Congressman Bilbray, your leader, your whip is now admitting that if you cut taxes, you’re raising the deficit. … Why would he say something like that that runs against your orthodoxy?

BILBRAY: The fact is, look, Chris, you can’t get around the fact –

MATTHEWS: Well the fact is that he just said that. Why did he just say that cutting taxes at this point is going to yield a lower revenue and therefore a bigger deficit? What he just said what contradicts to what you just said.

BILBRAY: We’re not even talking about cutting about taxes. We’re talking about not allowing an increase –

MATTHEWS: — continuing the Bush tax cuts is what we’re talking about. And that’s what he was talking about.

BILBRAY: And that is maintaining the status quo –

MATTHEWS: — Are you in disagreement with Eric Cantor? Just tell me you disagree with him and we’ll be on the same page.

BILBRAY: I am disagreement with anybody that thinks we can get ourselves out of this mess by raising more taxes on the American people.

Watch it: </div></div>

link (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/08/02/bilbray-deficit-taxes/)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Remember ... last time you went down this road it was your own source which demonstrated that the cuts increased revenue. </div></div>

BS. What it showed is that after 2 tax cuts, revenue fell and took 5 years to get back to the level of the Clinton admin.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Rove’s claim is simply wildly inaccurate. Here are total government receipts <span style='font-size: 20pt'>as a percentage of GDP since 1990</span>: </div></div>

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/taxreceipts.JPG

Also, my source showed that Clinton had a surplus, which you denied.

Q

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> In 2005, the cost of tax cuts enacted over the past four years will be over three times the cost of all domestic program increases enacted over this period.

The new CBO data show that changes in law enacted since January 2001 increased the deficit by $539 billion in 2005. In the absence of such legislation, the nation would have a surplus this year. Tax cuts account for nearly half — 48 percent — of this $539 billion in increased costs. [1] Increases in program spending make up the other 52 percent and have been primarily concentrated in defense, homeland security, and international affairs </div></div>

http://www.cbpp.org/archivesite/1-25-05bud-f1.jpg

link (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=966)

LWW
08-03-2010, 05:45 AM
Then simply answer why the total federal debt rose all eight years of the Clinton regime?

One can create a mirage with borrowed money, but not a true surplus.

The frustrating part about you isn't that you are stupid, because you aren't. You are willfully deceived because of ideology.

Sad, very sad.

LWW

Qtec
08-03-2010, 06:05 AM
link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gross federal debt

This t<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">PHP:</div><div class="ubbcode-pre ubbcode-body" style="height: 36px;"><span style="color: #0000BB">able lists the gross U</span><span style="color: #007700">.</span><span style="color: #0000BB">S</span><span style="color: #007700">. </span><span style="color: #0000BB">federal debt</span><span style="color: #007700">[</span><span style="color: #0000BB">1</span><span style="color: #007700">] </span><span style="color: #0000BB"></span>
</span></div></div><span style='font-size: 17pt'> as a percentage of GDP</span> by Presidential term since World War II.[2] The current gross federal debt as a percentage of GDP (83.4% at the end of 2009) is currently the highest it has been since the late 1940s, reaching briefly over 100% in the aftermath of the world war. </div></div>

Lets say the debt is 6 trillion. Do you think you have to pay interest on the loan every year?

link (http://cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/USDebt.png)

Let me explain to you in baby talk what this graph says.

What is shows that when Reagan was in the WH, the ND doubled.
By the time Clinton took office the ND had been continually rising for almost 20 years.
At the end of his Presidency, the rising ND was tailing off and beginning to flat line,.....that is until GW took office. After that the ND took off as if it had a rocket under its a$$.

Q

Sev
08-03-2010, 06:26 AM
Its interesting to note who was running the congress during those times.

LWW
08-03-2010, 08:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Lets say the debt is 6 trillion. Do you think you have to pay interest on the loan every year?

Q</div></div>

Of course you do. Interest is an expense. It is a penalty for consuming income before you have it. If you run a surplus then you have covered all of your obligations ... including interest ... and have some left over which would lead to a net reduction in your indebtedness.

Now, again, you admit that the US debt rose every year of the Clinton regime yet insist that their was a surplus.

This is a perfect example of doublethink in action.

Sev ... who ran congress is a side issue to this. Until the left decides to reject party mythology they cannot learn, much less comprehend how they have been played for fools.

LWW