What's Wrong With Cutting Taxes?

nytimes.com:

Vice President Dick Cheney said, loud and clear, in 2002: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." He was right that Ronald Reagan showed the Republican Party that you can get away with running significant deficits as a result of tax cuts -- exactly the strategy of President George W. Bush.

But Mr. Cheney was completely wrong with regard to the implication that there are no economic consequences of sustained fiscal deficits.

Read the whole story: nytimes.com

Comments

[mellene]

12:03 PM on 12/12/2010

We may have tax cuts but we're being nickled and dimed more and more for local fees, higher costs for everything from parking meters to bridge tolls to bus/subway fares. You can bet people like Dick Cheney aren't paying any additional costs and still get their ultra premium health care subsidized by you and me.

[senseandnonsense]

01:25 AM on 12/11/2010

What's wrong with prosecutions for torture? For war crimes?

[halfpricefaustian]

11:35 AM on 12/10/2010

I remember clearly Cheney's statement that deficits don't matter and it was clear he meant it in the political sense. Of course since it highlighted that they understood that deficits do matter in an economic sense, that made their subsequent tax-cutting, government-growing, public spending orgy that much more heinous. And now they are making it clear that they want to continue and expand on that policy.

[mumi009]

08:58 AM on 12/10/2010

No wonder so many people are hopelessly in debt. They're taking their cues from the federal budget. If government can borrow as if there were no tomorrow, why can't they? So they think.

If the government is to borrw and spend, then it should put the money where it will do the most good. Like FDR did.

J.M. Keynes was right.

[WOODSTOCKER51]

08:47 AM on 12/10/2010

.SAID THE GUY WHO HAS MURDERED MILLONS OF HUMANS..LYED TO AMERICANS...FOR HIS "MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX". SCHEME........."THE HUNT FOR THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION"...

..WHO BENEFITTED?.,,,,,,,,,THE WEALTHY...
WHO DIED?,,,,,,,,.THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS..WHO DIED OR WERE MAIMED AND PAY FOR HIS GREED AND ARROGANCE EVERY DAY........BUT.HE DID MAKE THE CHINESE RICHER AND MORE POWERFUL AS WELL!...HANGIN' THIS JERK WOULD BE TOO GOOD FOR HIM!.......

.

[LibertyRoy]

12:39 AM on 12/10/2010

It is ridiculous to say, as the author does, that the best way to stimulate the economy is to pay people not to work and hire people using government money for jobs the economy itself does not want.

[WOODSTOCKER51]

08:50 AM on 12/10/2010

BUT ITS OK TO "OVERPAY" FOR SERVICES/BOGUS FEAR YOU HAVE "OFFERED THE WEALTHY?".......HOW MUCH MONEY HAS HALIBURTON SUCKED OUT OF AMERICANS?.SO FAR?.........WAKE UP!

WHERES THIS "GUARRENTEE THAT THE PRIVATE SECTOR WILL CREATE JOBS?.THEY DIDINT WITH THE FIRST 10 YEARS OF THE BUSH/CHENEY TAX CUTS!.HOW MUCH "PROOF" DO YOU NEED THAT YOU HAVE BEEN PUNKED!

[uniquindividual]

09:32 AM on 12/10/2010

Yea, too bad Obama seems to be caving on policies like this. They haven't been working well for 30 years.

http://zfacts.com/p/1195.html

[jeffrey678]

08:42 PM on 12/09/2010

“This is where your money is going.. The last three rows are Quarters not years. They can't find any savings in Defense spending ? PLEASE !

National Defense Consumptio­­­­­­­­­­­­­­n Expenditur­­­­­­­­­­­­­­e­s and Gross Investment­­­­­­­­­­­­­­, 1992-2010

(Billions of dollars)

1992 ( 376.8)
1993 ( 363.0) Clinton
1994 ( 353.8)

1995 ( 348.8)
1996 ( 354.8)
1997 ( 349.8)
1998 ( 346.1)
1999 ( 361.1)

2000 ( 371.0)
2001 ( 393.0) Bush
2002 ( 437.7)
2003 ( 497.9)
2004 ( 550.8)

2005 ( 589.0)
2006 ( 624.9)
2007 ( 662.3)
2008 ( 737.3)
2009 ( 771.6) Obama

2010

Qtr1 ( 796.3)
Qtr2 ( 813.0)
Qtr3 ( 830.8)”

[LibertyRoy]

12:39 AM on 12/10/2010

Good data! I am all for cutting defense spending, although I would use it to reduce the deficit and not fund social programs.

[jeffrey678]

08:39 PM on 12/09/2010

“The economy Before and After Tax Cuts. Why damage our economy for ten more years.

Annualiz­­­­­­­­­­­­e­­­d Growth Rates

Clinton

1993 to 1996 Real GDP = 3.44%
1993 to 1996 Real GDP per capita = 2.22%

1997 to 2000 Real GDP = 4.44%
1997 to 2000 Real GDP per capita = 3.26%

1993 to 2000 Real GDP = 4.01%
1993 to 2000 Real GDP per capita = 2.81%

Bush

2001 to 2004 Real GDP = 2.62%
2001 to 2004 Real GDP per capita = 1.68%

2005 to 2008 Real GDP = 1.75%
2005 to 2008 Real GDP per capita = 0.79%

2001 to 2008 Real GDP = 2.31%
2001 to 2008 Real GDP per capita = 1.36%”

[themodernleader]

07:23 PM on 12/09/2010

    In this otherwise constructive article of the folly of tax cuts for businesses and individuals in creating jobs, the brilliant writer is among the liberal academics who consider the private sector as  sacrosanct in job creation.  Unhappily, the private sector no longer provides jobs of any substance. FDR's public jobs programs employing millions of otherwise idle citizens was an outstanding, extraordinary success in leadership building, capabality and confidence while contributing tax revenue to social security and taxes.  Everybody who had an income paid taxes.  Yet, revisionist scholars funded by oligarchy have persuaded many Americans of the futility and worthlessness of public works strategy.  They never mention the Boulder Dam or  the TVA or the nation park operations or other jobs that transformed America.
    One of the mostly modern leaders in human history was Octavian Caesar who was confronted with massive unemployment of a dysfunctional Republic. He didn't wait for the financial interests or more military conquests to stimulate job creation.  Instead, he initiated a massive public works program that put millions of Romans to work building roads, aqueducts, baths and so on.  The Romans were the better for publicly provided jobs and a more healthy, safe and effective physical environmnent. 
   We should do no less.  And we should instill lost citizenship competence as self-discipline, capability and growing confidence become the rule rather than the exception.  Our present situation is stagnation and rot.

[David Durbin]

01:58 AM on 12/12/2010

FDR and the New Deal are the better example. Octavian is better known today as Augustus, who presided over the dissolution of the Roman republic, the first Roman emperor. He was a very effective ruler but hardly one we'd want for the United States.

[schatsie]

02:15 PM on 12/09/2010

I just cannot believe that Obama is drinking the Repukkkke cooolaid....funny aint it.....cutting taxes for the rich for the last 30 years has brought us to this impass and now the obama man thinks tax cuts are going to work.....smoking serious stuff there......

[jwoww]

01:59 PM on 12/09/2010

nothing is wrong with cutting taxes as long as you cut spending. get rid of the all alphabet agencies that are redundant with their individual state counterparts, pull the troops home and cut the defense budget, raise SS the age for newbies coming into the programs and give anyone under the age of 45 a SS opt out. those who have paid into it can take a 5 year tax credit for what has been paid into it to date provided they maintain a private retirement plan.

and scrap Obamacare for a more moderate program no mandate, access across states, small business pooling with the only mandate that insurers must offer a basic catostrophic plan/major medical plan. keep no pre-conditions, no cap, reduce the kids to 24 not 26, child well care

[schatsie]

02:17 PM on 12/09/2010

Raise the SS age is such a joke, we are worn down to our bones with your tax cuts, our infinitely insane healthcare system and lack of mass transportation....DO YOU REALLY WANT a bunch of 65-70 year old people driving themselves to work every day? they are terrible drivers and cannot see at night and BESIDES there are not enough jobs for the College Graduates let alone the HS graduates........

[Monk2001]

03:34 PM on 12/09/2010

Your Healthcare suggestions are all included in the bill and AREN'T going to lower costs like a public option would. WHY reduce the age from 26 to 24? H.I. companies are turning multi billion dollar profits annually. There is no reason they can't cover another 2 yrs to mid 20 yr olds.

The "OPT OUT" of SS is a joke. All you'll do is end up having 10's of millions of americans who are utterly bankrupt and either living on the streets in their twilight years OR utilizing emergency rooms for medical coverage which will explode everyones rates.

[nopilikia]

01:36 PM on 12/09/2010

Can't raise taxes during a recession.......bah humbug....you can if you have two ongoing unfunded wars and are in debt up to your eyeballs. Tax cuts should come when times are good, and the country can afford it. This Adm and the GOP have been hanging around Wall Street Banksters to long........run the company into the toilet.....but still want a bonus.......bah humbug I say.

[schatsie]

02:19 PM on 12/09/2010

Couldn't raise taxes during a war either, that is the Republican Way.. If Roosevelt had been Obama we would have been a third world nation 40 years ago.....Heck we would never have gotten into WW2.....

[4 All Americans]

01:36 PM on 12/09/2010

If our economy wasn't in such bad shape, this might actually be funny. Since when are Democrats worried about impacting the deficit?!?!?!?! What impact would letting millions of illegals remain in the country have on the deficit? Here are some statistics from the CIS:

• Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.

• If illegal aliens were given amnesty and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual net fiscal deficit would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total net cost of $29 billion.

• Costs increase dramatically because unskilled immigrants with legal status -- what most illegal aliens would become -- can access government programs, but still tend to make very modest tax payments.

Spare me the fake moral outrage about the impact of keeping the Bush tax cuts on the deficits.

http://www.cis.org/node/54

[uniquindividual]

09:41 AM on 12/10/2010

Illegal aliens are a smigen of this thirty year old problem.

http://zfacts.com/p/1195.html

Country Club conservative republicans have done nothing regarding illegal immigration for two generations because they want to keep wages low.

Limo Liberal democrats have a similar record because they are bleeding hearts.

More workplace investigation and fines/penalties/dismissals-of-illegals on job sites has occured in the last two years than occured between 2000 and 2008.

The only major political group to consistently oppose illegal immigration and the export of manufacturing capasity and jobs for decades have been industrial unions.

[David Durbin]

02:08 AM on 12/12/2010

cis.org?

"Although you'd never know it to read its materials, CIS was started in 1985 by a Michigan ophthalmologist named John Tanton — a man known for his racist statements about Latinos, his decades-long flirtation with white nationalists and Holocaust deniers, and his publication of ugly racist materials. CIS' creation was part of a carefully thought-out strategy aimed at creating a set of complementary institutions to cultivate the nativist cause — groups including the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and NumbersUSA. ..."
http://www.splcenter.org/publications/the-nativist-lobby-three-faces-of-intolerance/cis-the-independent-think-tank

[obit]

01:23 PM on 12/09/2010

17 billionnaires are pledging one half of their fortunes and the Republicans don't want to let the Bush tax cuts for them expire???

[schatsie]

02:21 PM on 12/09/2010

Yes and my millionaire father in law pledged to pay for FOUR YEARS of my son's education......my son who was on the deans list 8 semesters.....Did he pay for one year?????? NO

[MontanaBanana]

10:38 PM on 12/09/2010

That's why millionnairres are millionnairs. They keep their money and anyone who thinks they 'll pay for anything is crazy. They are greedy.

[StuffMoreStuff]

01:02 PM on 12/09/2010

Laying/firing teachers makes no sense in the short/medium term?

Sir, are you on drugs?! Bad teachers should be fired immediately! What on earth are you talking about? Are you reading what your writing?! Good god! This seems to be one of the biggest problems with our government is its complete inability or lack of desire to stand up to public sector unions. "It's about the kids!" is all I hear. BS, if there is even ONE bad teacher out there still collecting a paycheck, on their way to a lovely pension (BTW that none of us in the private sector get) then it isn't about the kids is it?!!!

it is amazing that we as a country can so, without thought, continue with a behavior which is CLEARLY detrimental to our collective well-being. Not standing up to the public unions, not standing to corporate interests, playing world policeman, the war on drugs, the list goes on. It's like it's self-abuse.... like we're kicking ourselves in the face and then asking, why does my face hurt?

[greysells2]

02:13 PM on 12/09/2010

What is the criteria of a bad teacher? Just so we know who should be fired. The devil is in the details not the slogans.

[schatsie]

02:21 PM on 12/09/2010

Yeah and if there are BAD DOCTORS the AMA should give them the boot....but do they???? no.....