Tax Cuts Stimulate...Period!
So let them do that instead of re-writing history and playing with people's pocketbooks and future just to satisfy your shillness for a fabricated Democrat legacy and policies that have no historic basis for a positive outcome.
Fareed Zakaria, a CNN pundit who fancies himself a economic wizard, claims ignorantly and dishonestly that the Bush tax cuts due to expire soon should be allowed to do so because their expiration will fuel economic growth when you tax businesses, large or small. Huh? History says otherwise...
(with an assist from Noel Sheppard)
Zarkaria says...
"The "Bush tax cuts," passed in 2001 and 2003, remain the single largest cause of America's structural deficit -- that is, the deficit not caused by the collapse in tax revenue when the economy goes into recession. The Bush administration inherited budget surpluses from the Clinton administration. What turned these into deficits, even before the recession? There were three fundamental new costs: the tax cuts, the Medicare prescription-drug bill and post-9/11 security spending (including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). Of these the tax cuts were by far the largest, adding up to $2.3 trillion over 10 years. According to the Congressional Budget Office, nearly half the cost of all legislation enacted from 2001 to 2007 can be attributed to the tax cuts....All of the Bush tax cuts were unaffordable. They were an irresponsible act of hubris enacted during an economic boom."
(The full article here)
First of all, the man should really link to whom he accredited his link to, not from another source who "said this." That wasn't from the CBO, but the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which in itself is a liberal think tank. Not exactly an impartial body of economic information.
The first of these cuts was implemented in the summer of 2001 while the economy was still in the recession that began in March of that year.
As Zakaria clearly has forgotten, the economy began collapsing as the tech stock bubble imploded in 2000 and Americans saw their wealth plummet in a devastating bear market that didn't end until March 2003.
That Zakaria misrepresented this in his piece was a clear example of media malpractice.
As for the 2003 cuts, although the Gross Domestic Product was already beginning to tick up by then, unemployment remained troublesome as the economy was still shedding jobs each month. In fact, the Democrats and their media minions were pounding the President about a jobless recovery.
With this in mind, a second round of tax cuts was implemented.
Regardless of what Zakaria or his liberal think tank believe, these cuts worked, for the GDP in 2004 rose by 3.6 percent - its best showing since 2000! - and unemployment in the next several years dropped from a 2003 high of 6.3 percent to a 2007 low of 4.4 percent.
In the years that followed this second round of tax cuts, employers added over 8 million workers to their payrolls.
Sadly, what is missed in all this discussion concerning these tax cuts was that the desired goal of stimulating the economy and creating jobs was accomplished. Folks like Zakaria have a terrible memory concerning just how badly America was suffering after the tech bubble burst and the 9/11 attacks.
But this wasn't the only amnesia Zakaria experienced:
Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1992 and ushered in a period of extraordinarily robust growth.
Really? Clinton didn't take office in 1992, Fareed. He was ELECTED in '92.
Regardless of his slip of the keyboard, what shills like Zakaria conveniently ignore is that the economy was already booming BEFORE Clinton was inaugurated.
Counter to what the media were telling people at that time, the early '90s recession ended in the first quarter of 1991. After that, the GDP grew by 2.7 percent, 1.7 percent, and 1.6 percent the remaining quarters of that year. Not robust growth, but growth.
In 1992 BEFORE Clinton was inaugurated, the GDP grew by 3.4 percent, its best performance since 1989. Yet, after Clinton's 1993 tax hikes, the GDP only grew by 2.9 percent that year.
More importantly, what Zakaria conveniently omitted from his piece was that in 1997, the Republican controlled Congress FORCED Clinton to sign the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 significantly CUTTING taxes.
Also missing from Zakaria's pathetic Post piece was that THIS was when the economy was REALLY going to take off as the GDP grew by 4.4 percent in '97, 4.5 percent in '98, 4.8 percent in '99, and 4.1 percent in '00.
So much for tax cuts HURTING an economy, Mr. Zakaria.
As for budgetary impact, the surpluses ALL happened AFTER these tax cuts were implemented in fiscal years '98, '99, '00, and '01!
So much for tax cuts causing deficits, Mr. Zakaria.
In the end, what shills like Zakaria refuse to either understand or admit is that much like your household budget, deficits are caused by overspending.
Let's assume that the outlays in Clinton's final budget only grew at the rate of inflation in the years that followed. What would our budget look like today?
Well, $1.863 trillion was spent in fiscal 2001. If this grew at the rate of inflation, we would be spending $2.295 trillion in fiscal 2010. We're projected to bring in $2.165 trillion in total tax receipts.
This would produce a highly-manageable $130 billion deficit, a far cry from the projected $1.6 trillion.
Furthermore, as tax receipts are projected to grow to $2.567 trillion next year, we could actually have a SURPLUS in 2011 - even with the devastating effects of the last recession - if we had only kept spending increases at the rate of inflation.
Of course, we didn't and next year we're budgeted to spend $3.833 trillion or more than TWICE Clinton's last budget.
With this in mind, despite the claims by shills like Zakaria, our budgetary crisis has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the Bush tax cuts.
Furthermore, we have experience with raising taxes during bad economies, for Franklin Delano Roosevelt did it in 1937 resulting in a deepening of the Depression.
Roosevelt, Carter, Obama (along with Reid, Pelosi, Frank and Dodd); you cannot trust Democrats with the economy, no matter how much they smile and whisper sweet nothings about "yes we can," or "you can trust me."
Fareed Zakaria, a CNN pundit who fancies himself a economic wizard, claims ignorantly and dishonestly that the Bush tax cuts due to expire soon should be allowed to do so because their expiration will fuel economic growth when you tax businesses, large or small. Huh? History says otherwise...
(with an assist from Noel Sheppard)
Zarkaria says...
"The "Bush tax cuts," passed in 2001 and 2003, remain the single largest cause of America's structural deficit -- that is, the deficit not caused by the collapse in tax revenue when the economy goes into recession. The Bush administration inherited budget surpluses from the Clinton administration. What turned these into deficits, even before the recession? There were three fundamental new costs: the tax cuts, the Medicare prescription-drug bill and post-9/11 security spending (including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). Of these the tax cuts were by far the largest, adding up to $2.3 trillion over 10 years. According to the Congressional Budget Office, nearly half the cost of all legislation enacted from 2001 to 2007 can be attributed to the tax cuts....All of the Bush tax cuts were unaffordable. They were an irresponsible act of hubris enacted during an economic boom."
(The full article here)
First of all, the man should really link to whom he accredited his link to, not from another source who "said this." That wasn't from the CBO, but the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which in itself is a liberal think tank. Not exactly an impartial body of economic information.
The first of these cuts was implemented in the summer of 2001 while the economy was still in the recession that began in March of that year.
As Zakaria clearly has forgotten, the economy began collapsing as the tech stock bubble imploded in 2000 and Americans saw their wealth plummet in a devastating bear market that didn't end until March 2003.
That Zakaria misrepresented this in his piece was a clear example of media malpractice.
As for the 2003 cuts, although the Gross Domestic Product was already beginning to tick up by then, unemployment remained troublesome as the economy was still shedding jobs each month. In fact, the Democrats and their media minions were pounding the President about a jobless recovery.
With this in mind, a second round of tax cuts was implemented.
Regardless of what Zakaria or his liberal think tank believe, these cuts worked, for the GDP in 2004 rose by 3.6 percent - its best showing since 2000! - and unemployment in the next several years dropped from a 2003 high of 6.3 percent to a 2007 low of 4.4 percent.
In the years that followed this second round of tax cuts, employers added over 8 million workers to their payrolls.
Sadly, what is missed in all this discussion concerning these tax cuts was that the desired goal of stimulating the economy and creating jobs was accomplished. Folks like Zakaria have a terrible memory concerning just how badly America was suffering after the tech bubble burst and the 9/11 attacks.
But this wasn't the only amnesia Zakaria experienced:
Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1992 and ushered in a period of extraordinarily robust growth.
Really? Clinton didn't take office in 1992, Fareed. He was ELECTED in '92.
Regardless of his slip of the keyboard, what shills like Zakaria conveniently ignore is that the economy was already booming BEFORE Clinton was inaugurated.
Counter to what the media were telling people at that time, the early '90s recession ended in the first quarter of 1991. After that, the GDP grew by 2.7 percent, 1.7 percent, and 1.6 percent the remaining quarters of that year. Not robust growth, but growth.
In 1992 BEFORE Clinton was inaugurated, the GDP grew by 3.4 percent, its best performance since 1989. Yet, after Clinton's 1993 tax hikes, the GDP only grew by 2.9 percent that year.
More importantly, what Zakaria conveniently omitted from his piece was that in 1997, the Republican controlled Congress FORCED Clinton to sign the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 significantly CUTTING taxes.
Also missing from Zakaria's pathetic Post piece was that THIS was when the economy was REALLY going to take off as the GDP grew by 4.4 percent in '97, 4.5 percent in '98, 4.8 percent in '99, and 4.1 percent in '00.
So much for tax cuts HURTING an economy, Mr. Zakaria.
As for budgetary impact, the surpluses ALL happened AFTER these tax cuts were implemented in fiscal years '98, '99, '00, and '01!
So much for tax cuts causing deficits, Mr. Zakaria.
In the end, what shills like Zakaria refuse to either understand or admit is that much like your household budget, deficits are caused by overspending.
Let's assume that the outlays in Clinton's final budget only grew at the rate of inflation in the years that followed. What would our budget look like today?
Well, $1.863 trillion was spent in fiscal 2001. If this grew at the rate of inflation, we would be spending $2.295 trillion in fiscal 2010. We're projected to bring in $2.165 trillion in total tax receipts.
This would produce a highly-manageable $130 billion deficit, a far cry from the projected $1.6 trillion.
Furthermore, as tax receipts are projected to grow to $2.567 trillion next year, we could actually have a SURPLUS in 2011 - even with the devastating effects of the last recession - if we had only kept spending increases at the rate of inflation.
Of course, we didn't and next year we're budgeted to spend $3.833 trillion or more than TWICE Clinton's last budget.
With this in mind, despite the claims by shills like Zakaria, our budgetary crisis has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the Bush tax cuts.
Furthermore, we have experience with raising taxes during bad economies, for Franklin Delano Roosevelt did it in 1937 resulting in a deepening of the Depression.
Roosevelt, Carter, Obama (along with Reid, Pelosi, Frank and Dodd); you cannot trust Democrats with the economy, no matter how much they smile and whisper sweet nothings about "yes we can," or "you can trust me."
posted by Northern Exposer at 00:43
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home