GOP Most Fiscally Irresponsible - Former Reagan/Bush Economist

[Toro]

Federal taxes as a share of GDP are at their lowest level in two or more generations—14.9% versus a postwar average of 18.2%. There is not one iota of evidence that the economy is suffering from excessive taxation and no evidence that the sorts of tax cuts favoured by Republicans—mainly tax cuts for the wealthy—would do any good given the nature of the economy’s problems. Tax cuts don’t help those with no incomes because they are unemployed, businesses running at a loss, or investors with a large stock of capital losses. In my view, the Republican obsession with taxes is based on pure dogma, not analysis. ...

The Republicans don’t have any credibility whatsoever. They squandered whatever they had when they enacted a massive UNFUNDED expansion of Medicare in 2003. Yet they had the nerve to complain about Obama’s health plan, WHICH WAS FULLY PAID FOR according to the Congressional Budget Office. The word “chutzpah” is insufficient to describe how utterly indefensible the Republican position is, intellectually.

Furthermore, Republicans have a completely indefensible position on taxes. In their view, deficits cannot arise from tax cuts. No matter how much taxes are cut, no matter how low revenues go as a share of GDP, tax cuts are never a cause of deficits; they result ONLY AND EXCLUSIVELY from spending—and never from spending put in place by Republicans, such as Medicare Part D, TARP, two unfunded wars, bridges to nowhere, etc—but ONLY from Democratic efforts to stimulate growth, help the unemployed, provide health insurance for those without it, etc.

The monumental hypocrisy of the Republican Party is something amazing to behold. And their dimwitted accomplices in the tea-party movement are not much better. They know that Republicans, far more than Democrats, are responsible for our fiscal mess, but they won’t say so. And they adamantly refuse to put on the table any meaningful programme that would actually reduce spending. Judging by polls, most of them seem to think that all we have to do is cut foreign aid, which represents well less than 1% of the budget. ...

The key area where Republicans and conservatives continue to live in a fantasy world relates to the inevitability of higher taxes to the long-run solution to our fiscal problem. At present, they all live in a dream world in which massive spending cuts that don’t hurt average Americans are the only solution to the deficit that they will entertain. But sooner or later, they will realise that this is simply not possible and that tax increases are not the worst thing in the world—Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times, including in 1982 when the economy was still in recession, and contrary to right-wing predictions Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax increase did not send the economy into a tailspin. ...

Bruce Bartlett on the deficit, economy and VAT: Six questions for Bruce Bartlett | The Economist

 

[rdean]

I love this part here:

I would add that I do disagree with the Republican fixation on taxation. Federal taxes as a share of GDP are at their lowest level in two or more generations—14.9% versus a postwar average of 18.2%. There is not one iota of evidence that the economy is suffering from excessive taxation and no evidence that the sorts of tax cuts favoured by Republicans—mainly tax cuts for the wealthy—would do any good given the nature of the economy’s problems. Tax cuts don’t help those with no incomes because they are unemployed, businesses running at a loss, or investors with a large stock of capital losses. In my view, the Republican obsession with taxes is based on pure dogma, not analysis.

---------------

When have Republicans done ANYTHING after some serious "analysis". Do they even believe their own bullshit or are they merely on "lemming autopilot"?

 

[Mad Scientist]

Mr Bartlett blew it in the first question:

DiA: Which should be a higher priority for the federal government at the moment, deficit reduction or economic stimulus?
Mr Bartlett: Clearly, economic stimulus.

Clearly, economic stimulus didn't work. It's massive government spending that is acting as a boat anchor on the economy. Cut Government spending and follow that with tax relief for those who pay taxes.

Mr Bartlett flubs it again when he stated that Obama care is fully paid for and cites CBO numbers. We all know now that the CBO numbers consisted of 10 years of taxes with 7 years of benefits. That's how it was "paid for".

Bush Economist or not, he doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

[Toro]

Mr Bartlett blew it in the first question:

DiA: Which should be a higher priority for the federal government at the moment, deficit reduction or economic stimulus?
Mr Bartlett: Clearly, economic stimulus.

Clearly, economic stimulus didn't work. It's massive government spending that is acting as a boat anchor on the economy. Cut Government spending and follow that with tax relief for those who pay taxes.

Mr Bartlett flubs it again when he stated that Obama care is fully paid for and cites CBO numbers. We all know now that the CBO numbers consisted of 10 years of taxes with 7 years of benefits. That's how it was "paid for".

Bush Economist or not, he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Some highly regarded economists disagree with you.

The New York Times > Log In

 

[rdean]

Mr Bartlett blew it in the first question:

DiA: Which should be a higher priority for the federal government at the moment, deficit reduction or economic stimulus?
Mr Bartlett: Clearly, economic stimulus.

Clearly, economic stimulus didn't work. It's massive government spending that is acting as a boat anchor on the economy. Cut Government spending and follow that with tax relief for those who pay taxes.

Mr Bartlett flubs it again when he stated that Obama care is fully paid for and cites CBO numbers. We all know now that the CBO numbers consisted of 10 years of taxes with 7 years of benefits. That's how it was "paid for".

Bush Economist or not, he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Mad Scientist? Well, you're half right.

 

[Greenbeard]

Mr Bartlett flubs it again when he stated that Obama care is fully paid for and cites CBO numbers. We all know now that the CBO numbers consisted of 10 years of taxes with 7 years of benefits. That's how it was "paid for".

Nonsense. What's the distribution of taxes and benefits over the 10-year budget window?

And, as should be widely known, in the second decade the budget picture improves because the primary funding mechanism is an excise tax on high-premium plans--i.e. it draws from within the health care system itself (unlike the income surtax favored by many liberals). This is a program with a funding mechanism that collects more and more money as time goes on.

But I do love listening to ranting about how Democrats are raising taxes and not paying for any spending. Because that makes ever so much sense.

 

[Yurt]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/127128-as-spending-by-wealthy-weakens-so-does-economy.html

 

[rdean]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/127128-as-spending-by-wealthy-weakens-so-does-economy.html

You quote your self as the "source". Nice.

OK, if you want gazillionaires to spend, tax them. That's a form of "spending". How is buying a new yacht helping the economy?

 

[Yurt]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/127128-as-spending-by-wealthy-weakens-so-does-economy.html

You quote your self as the "source". Nice.

OK, if you want gazillionaires to spend, tax them. That's a form of "spending". How is buying a new yacht helping the economy?

i quoted the article, not myself you imbecile

did you read the article? according to the facts laid out in the article, you're wrong...but that shouldn't be a new thing for you....