2012 Poll

[Riot]

Originally Posted by AeWingnut

so there won't be a republican at the GOP convention


again

Hang in there, John, you've always got Rand Paul

[Riot]

How to get rid of the deficit: I used to be in favor of renewing Bush tax cuts. Now?

Greenspan backs end to Bush tax cuts
By Robin Harding in Washington

Published: July 17 2010 01:37 | Last updated: July 17 2010 01:37

Congress should let all of former president George W. Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire to cut the long-term budget deficit, former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan has said.

Mr Greenspan’s support helped persuade Congress to pass the tax cuts in 2001 and his comments thrust him into a heated political battle over whether to extend them beyond the end of 2010. “They should follow the law and let them lapse,” Mr Greenspan said in an interview.

“The problem is, unless we start to come to grips with this long-term [budget] outlook, we are going to have major problems. I think we misunderstand the momentum of this deficit going forward.”

The Bush cuts lowered income tax rates; created a new 10 per cent tax bracket; raised tax credits for children; and lowered taxes on dividends and capital gains. A “sunset” provision means that all the cuts will expire at the end of this year unless Congress extends them.

Doing so would increase the federal budget deficit by cumulative $2,567bn between 2011 and 2020, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.

But that would also deepen a growing structural deficit caused by the cost of providing healthcare and social security to an ageing population.

The Congressional Budget Office projects that the national debt will balloon to 87 per cent of gross domestic product by 2020 and 185 per cent by 2035 if the tax cuts are extended and discretionary spending grows in line with the economy.

The Republicans want to extend all the cuts, while most Democrats support proposals by Barack Obama, president, to extend them only for households with incomes below $250,000, lowering the cost to $2,154bn.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010.

[joeydb]

The budget shortfall due to "Bush Era Taxcuts" can be easily remedied, by cutting spending. Then there is no deficit.

Typical of Democrats to always want a higher budget, and then blame tax cuts for the shortfall. Stop spending so much and the deficit goes away.

That graph is biased and leftist due to the very fact that tax cuts are NOT expenditures.

[ateamstupid]

What should be cut? I'd be willing to bet you won't say our biggest disproportionate expense, military spending.

[Riot]

The budget shortfall due to "Bush Era Taxcuts" can be easily remedied, by cutting spending. Then there is no deficit.

You're right, spending should have been cut in 2001 and 2003. But the "Bush Era Taxcuts" were both passed completely unfunded at the time (no spending cuts to live within the lowered government income).

Now that decision is coming home to roost. Unfunded tax cuts and unfunded wars. Now we have to pay up for the years of spending what we didn't have.

The choice appears to be not renew the tax cuts (eliminating most of the huge deficit) or cut a rather huge amount of government spending to live within the lower income the tax cuts created.

Which spending to you want to cut?

That graph is biased and leftist due to the very fact that tax cuts are NOT expenditures.

The graph doesn't say tax cuts are expenditures. The graph isn't about expenditures at all. The graph shows the dollar amount of different things that have contributed to our huge deficit. I don't see what's "biased" or "leftist" about that. It's just the reality of it.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Riot

The graph doesn't say tax cuts are expenditures. The graph isn't about expenditures at all. The graph shows the dollar amount of different things that have contributed to our huge deficit.

Well, if you're going to be THAT specific.....

Cut welfare. Done. Now I can keep my tax cut and everything will be okay.

MOR WARS TOO PLZ.