http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2012/12/05/sowell-playing-c..."A key lie that has been repeated over and over, largely unanswered, is that President Bush's "tax cuts for the rich" cost the government so much lost tax revenue that this added to the budget deficit-- so that the government cannot afford to allow the cost of letting the Bush tax rates continue for "the rich." It sounds very plausible, and constant repetition without a challenge may well be enough to convince the voting public that, if the Republican-controlled House of Representatives does not go along with Barack Obama's demands for more spending and higher tax rates on the top 2 percent, it just shows that they care more for "the rich" than for the other 98 percent."He goes on to cite two sources, The Wallstreet Journal and "Economic Report of the President" for 2012, on page 411. Here is the link to it:http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ERP-2012/pdf/ERP-2012.pdfJust type in 411 in the page box and viola.The President is arguing from a position of dishonesty and so are the democrats. They are class warfare punks pushing class warfare to distract ignorant and disinterested voters from the real crisis.The fact is, our fiscal woes started in 2007 when the democrats took over. Everything we see today is bad fiscal policy (really no fiscal policy) perpetrated by the democrats on the American people. They are dependency hawkers, job killers and freedom stealers. They are systematically stealing our economic liberty with almost every move they make from killing the Keystone pipeline to doing nothing about gas prices.If you look at the table, revenues haven't really changed all that much since 2008 and have been steadily increasing to those levels with CBO projections that actually exceed 2008. You will also see that outlays have significantly increased. This isn't due to the war or tax cuts. In fact, the war costs were already winding down then.The democrats are lying like never before. The republicans aren't much better. They are arguing over peanuts and I think working more with the dems than they are letting on. They are casting out real conservatives as they prepare for their grand deal which will again bend us over.The saying is really true that people who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. The dems have never cut spending of any kind. Time and time again they get stupid republicans to agree to tax increases now in exchange for increasingly ethereal spending reductions later. There is no evidence anywhere or ever that dems have kept any promises to anyone about anything, especially where it concerned spending reductions. They are nothing more than big fat liars and anyone who believes them isn't educated in history.Even if Zero gets every tax increase he wants, it will be enough to fund the government for 8 days. Eight freakin days! So what is this game he is playing? He isn't playing for peanuts. He is playing for more dependency, more revenues, more spending and more power. He isn't playing for the benefit of the American people. Anyone who believes he is, is just plain stupid.Zero has already taxed the middle class with Zerocare. Everyone is going to pay taxes for it except the recipient class who will get more 'free' money from the producer class.Gas prices may as well be a tax on everyone and hurting the poor the most. Prices have more than doubled since he took office. Zero wants us over that cliff. He wins no matter what. His boot lickers from MSNBC will shout out how awesome he is and they will all make sure to lie and make it look like it's all the republicans fault. In the end, we all get bent over.I won't say no one in DC is your friend but I would be willing to bet they are very few and not who you think they are. Boenher certainly isn't your friend. They are all out for themselves, Zero most of all.To you libs, don't you think it's time you quit being a tool?Cheers,VileNEVER SAY DIE!!!
"A key lie that has been repeated over and over, largely unanswered, is that President Bush's "tax cuts for the rich" cost the government so much lost tax revenue that this added to the budget deficit-- so that the government cannot afford to allow the cost of letting the Bush tax rates continue for "the rich."It sounds very plausible, and constant repetition without a challenge may well be enough to convince the voting public that, if the Republican-controlled House of Representatives does not go along with Barack Obama's demands for more spending and higher tax rates on the top 2 percent, it just shows that they care more for "the rich" than for the other 98 percent."As much as I like Sowell, the fact that tax revenue increased after the so-called "tax cuts" does not prove that the "tax cut" was what caused an increase in revenue. Cyclical factors also come into play (and this clearly had a huge impact), and so does the fact that the economy would have grown even without tax cuts (just not as fast). So it is quite plausible that tax revenue would have been even higher without the tax rate cuts. It is really difficult to know with any degree of certainty because it would take a great deal of empirical evidence to determine what the revenue-maximizing tax rate would be for a particular type of tax. Just using isolated anecdotes is totally inadequate (and is a favorite strategy of liberals). It is very disappointing to see an economist like Sowell make this kind of mistake.That said, a few points need to be made:1) It is abundantly obvious that spending -- especially non-defense spending -- is the biggest budget buster by far (as I pointed out here: http://boards.fool.com/the-real-source-of-our-budget-trouble...). Liberals refuse to acknowledge this fact. They instead try to distract us by exaggerating the impact of tax cuts and war spending.2) We shouldn't be seeking to maximize tax revenue, because this simply maximizes the amount of the economy that government consumes. From an economic standpoint, human-welfare maximization almost certainly occurs at a point that is far below tax-revenue maximization. As Milton Friedman once said, "If a tax cut increases government revenues, you haven't cut taxes enough." In any case, it's possible to have real tax revenue per capita increase even if tax revenue relative to the size of the economy decreases (as you can see from this post, real tax revenue per capita is 17% higher than 30 years ago despite the economic downturn that caused tax revenue as a percentage of GDP to decline significantly http://boards.fool.com/taxes-and-spending-per-capita-in-2005...). 3) It is also quite likely that tax rates that maximize revenue in the short run do not maximize revenue in the long run. This is because taxes reduce investment and economic growth (http://boards.fool.com/taxes-and-economic-growth-30045166.as...). In other words, high taxes now kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Ten charts show America's stunning entitlement explosionhttp://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/12/americas-entitlement-epidem...
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra