No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves

[boedicca]

No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves

Republicans claim to be deeply concerned about the budget deficit and the national debt, yet repeatedly demand additional large tax cuts. For example, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, supports a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution but also wants an $8 trillion tax cut. He rationalizes this contradiction by asserting that his tax cut will not actually lose any revenue. As Pawlenty told Slate reporter Dave Weigel on June 13:

“When Ronald Reagan cut taxes in a significant way, revenues actually increased by almost 100 percent during his eight years as president. So this idea that significant, big tax cuts necessarily result in lower revenues – history does not [bear] that out.”

In point of fact, this assertion is completely untrue. Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That’s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent. However, the population also grew. Looking at real revenues per capita, we see that they rose from $3,470 in 1981 to $4,006 in 1989, an increase of just 15 percent. Finally, it is important to remember that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times, increasing revenues by $133 billion per year as of 1988 – about a third of the nominal revenue increase during Reagan’s presidency.

No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves | Capital Gains and Games

The bolding is mine. But somehow we need to try and destroy the myth that Reagan cut taxes and revenue increased. It's just a myth and keeps hanging on. Zombie economics.

Condolences on your dual condition of Economic Illiteracy and Cognitive Dissonance.

 

[thereisnospoon]

No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves

Republicans claim to be deeply concerned about the budget deficit and the national debt, yet repeatedly demand additional large tax cuts. For example, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, supports a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution but also wants an $8 trillion tax cut. He rationalizes this contradiction by asserting that his tax cut will not actually lose any revenue. As Pawlenty told Slate reporter Dave Weigel on June 13:

“When Ronald Reagan cut taxes in a significant way, revenues actually increased by almost 100 percent during his eight years as president. So this idea that significant, big tax cuts necessarily result in lower revenues – history does not [bear] that out.”

In point of fact, this assertion is completely untrue. Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That’s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent. However, the population also grew. Looking at real revenues per capita, we see that they rose from $3,470 in 1981 to $4,006 in 1989, an increase of just 15 percent. Finally, it is important to remember that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times, increasing revenues by $133 billion per year as of 1988 – about a third of the nominal revenue increase during Reagan’s presidency.

No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves | Capital Gains and Games

The bolding is mine. But somehow we need to try and destroy the myth that Reagan cut taxes and revenue increased. It's just a myth and keeps hanging on. Zombie economics.

Your source's info is creative math.
Cutting taxes or placing money back into the private sector increases revenues and stimulates economic growth.
It is the private sector and not government that moves the economic meter.
Government takes it does not produce. Government left to it's own devices would gobble up chunks of GDP.
The current Presidential administration views itself as a entity with limitless power. It views itself as a savior. It views itself as all knowing. Centralized planning for the masses is it's goal. This administration does not govern. It rules.

 

[Susan45]

Funny, it worked in Indiana.

By the way, there is no need to pay for tax cuts, we only have to pay for spending.

Indiana’s General Assembly passed a budget in the evening of June 30, 2009. It took a special session, and the pressure of an end-of-fiscal-year deadline that had not been missed for more than a century, for legislators to agree on a spending plan for 2010 and 2011. The problem was revenues.

Indiana's state budget experienced some of its worst years ever in fiscal years 2009, 2010 and 2011 (fiscal years run from July to June). The economy plunged into recession. Revenues fell short of appropriations by almost $5 billion. Appropriations were flat-lined, then spending was cut below those levels. Balances were reduced to the bare minimum.

Indiana Local Government Information Website: State Budget Outlook

It sounds like Indiana is just like the rest of the country to me.

 

[Susan45]

No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves

Republicans claim to be deeply concerned about the budget deficit and the national debt, yet repeatedly demand additional large tax cuts. For example, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, supports a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution but also wants an $8 trillion tax cut. He rationalizes this contradiction by asserting that his tax cut will not actually lose any revenue. As Pawlenty told Slate reporter Dave Weigel on June 13:

“When Ronald Reagan cut taxes in a significant way, revenues actually increased by almost 100 percent during his eight years as president. So this idea that significant, big tax cuts necessarily result in lower revenues – history does not [bear] that out.”

In point of fact, this assertion is completely untrue. Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That’s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent. However, the population also grew. Looking at real revenues per capita, we see that they rose from $3,470 in 1981 to $4,006 in 1989, an increase of just 15 percent. Finally, it is important to remember that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times, increasing revenues by $133 billion per year as of 1988 – about a third of the nominal revenue increase during Reagan’s presidency.

No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves | Capital Gains and Games

The bolding is mine. But somehow we need to try and destroy the myth that Reagan cut taxes and revenue increased. It's just a myth and keeps hanging on. Zombie economics.

There is another issue to this. In 1980, when Reagan started pushing for tax cuts, the top marginal rate was 70%. Today it is only 35%. Pawlenty wants to cut that to 25%, but he also wants to cut corporate taxes to 15%. The net result would be much lower revenues than we have currently, which aren't enough. This guy is beyond cookoo.

Pawlenty Plan Would Quadruple Tax Cuts For Richest Americans: CBPP

They said the same thing in 1980, yet the net result was more revenue for the government.

I think you are misinformed. The author of this was actually in the Reagan administration.

Reagan's Forgotten Tax Record | Capital Gains and Games

In case you aren't familiar with Bruce Bartlett

Bruce Bartlett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves

Republicans claim to be deeply concerned about the budget deficit and the national debt, yet repeatedly demand additional large tax cuts. For example, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, supports a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution but also wants an $8 trillion tax cut. He rationalizes this contradiction by asserting that his tax cut will not actually lose any revenue. As Pawlenty told Slate reporter Dave Weigel on June 13:

“When Ronald Reagan cut taxes in a significant way, revenues actually increased by almost 100 percent during his eight years as president. So this idea that significant, big tax cuts necessarily result in lower revenues – history does not [bear] that out.”

In point of fact, this assertion is completely untrue. Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That’s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent. However, the population also grew. Looking at real revenues per capita, we see that they rose from $3,470 in 1981 to $4,006 in 1989, an increase of just 15 percent. Finally, it is important to remember that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times, increasing revenues by $133 billion per year as of 1988 – about a third of the nominal revenue increase during Reagan’s presidency.

No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves | Capital Gains and Games

The bolding is mine. But somehow we need to try and destroy the myth that Reagan cut taxes and revenue increased. It's just a myth and keeps hanging on. Zombie economics.

Condolences on your dual condition of Economic Illiteracy and Cognitive Dissonance.

Prove her wrong with some evidence.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Spending less is not the same as paying for.And I'm all for slashing government to the bone and then slashing a little more but to imply that tax cuts cost money is ridiculous.

Tax cuts SAVE the taxpayer money. Period.

Yes it is. That is the terminology that is used. Don't quibble in semantics.

What you call semantics I call definitions.

Another homeschooled jackass.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Tax cuts do not cost anything so by definition they do not need to be paid for.

Paying for tax cuts means cutting government spending by the amount of the tax cuts in order to keep the budget balanced.

You're saying that doesn't need to be done?

No. "Paying for tax cuts" means that not taking our money as taxation requires that the government find some OTHER way to take our money.

Idiocy of the first magnitude. So stupid, it requires liberal-speak to even say it.

There is an OBVIOUS alternative. How about NOT spending so fucking much?

That kind of thing pays for itself!

That's HOW you PAY FOR a tax cut. BY SPENDING LESS.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Did anyone answer the question?

At what point would federal income taxes be too low?

 

[Mr.Nick]

No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves

Republicans claim to be deeply concerned about the budget deficit and the national debt, yet repeatedly demand additional large tax cuts. For example, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, supports a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution but also wants an $8 trillion tax cut. He rationalizes this contradiction by asserting that his tax cut will not actually lose any revenue. As Pawlenty told Slate reporter Dave Weigel on June 13:

“When Ronald Reagan cut taxes in a significant way, revenues actually increased by almost 100 percent during his eight years as president. So this idea that significant, big tax cuts necessarily result in lower revenues – history does not [bear] that out.”

In point of fact, this assertion is completely untrue. Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That’s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent. However, the population also grew. Looking at real revenues per capita, we see that they rose from $3,470 in 1981 to $4,006 in 1989, an increase of just 15 percent. Finally, it is important to remember that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times, increasing revenues by $133 billion per year as of 1988 – about a third of the nominal revenue increase during Reagan’s presidency.

No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves | Capital Gains and Games

The bolding is mine. But somehow we need to try and destroy the myth that Reagan cut taxes and revenue increased. It's just a myth and keeps hanging on. Zombie economics.

They do, the more employed the less government dependent, hence the less burden on the taxpayers to support the unemployed via various government entitlements and programs that COST $$$$$$$$...

Yes, tax cuts pay for themselves..

 

[Susan45]

No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves

Republicans claim to be deeply concerned about the budget deficit and the national debt, yet repeatedly demand additional large tax cuts. For example, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, supports a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution but also wants an $8 trillion tax cut. He rationalizes this contradiction by asserting that his tax cut will not actually lose any revenue. As Pawlenty told Slate reporter Dave Weigel on June 13:

“When Ronald Reagan cut taxes in a significant way, revenues actually increased by almost 100 percent during his eight years as president. So this idea that significant, big tax cuts necessarily result in lower revenues – history does not [bear] that out.”

In point of fact, this assertion is completely untrue. Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That’s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent. However, the population also grew. Looking at real revenues per capita, we see that they rose from $3,470 in 1981 to $4,006 in 1989, an increase of just 15 percent. Finally, it is important to remember that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times, increasing revenues by $133 billion per year as of 1988 – about a third of the nominal revenue increase during Reagan’s presidency.

No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves | Capital Gains and Games

The bolding is mine. But somehow we need to try and destroy the myth that Reagan cut taxes and revenue increased. It's just a myth and keeps hanging on. Zombie economics.

Well, since you found an INTERNET BLOG to say so, that just settles it all, doesn't it?

Obviously you are not familiar with the author, Bruce Bartlett.

Bruce Bartlett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is not just some hippy sitting in his parents basement, but a highly respected man who worked for Reagan and Bush41. Maybe you should think about what he is saying and not just on where it came from, because that really isn't the important thing.

 

[Susan45]

No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves

Republicans claim to be deeply concerned about the budget deficit and the national debt, yet repeatedly demand additional large tax cuts. For example, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, supports a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution but also wants an $8 trillion tax cut. He rationalizes this contradiction by asserting that his tax cut will not actually lose any revenue. As Pawlenty told Slate reporter Dave Weigel on June 13:

“When Ronald Reagan cut taxes in a significant way, revenues actually increased by almost 100 percent during his eight years as president. So this idea that significant, big tax cuts necessarily result in lower revenues – history does not [bear] that out.”

In point of fact, this assertion is completely untrue. Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That’s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent. However, the population also grew. Looking at real revenues per capita, we see that they rose from $3,470 in 1981 to $4,006 in 1989, an increase of just 15 percent. Finally, it is important to remember that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times, increasing revenues by $133 billion per year as of 1988 – about a third of the nominal revenue increase during Reagan’s presidency.

No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves | Capital Gains and Games

The bolding is mine. But somehow we need to try and destroy the myth that Reagan cut taxes and revenue increased. It's just a myth and keeps hanging on. Zombie economics.

Condolences on your dual condition of Economic Illiteracy and Cognitive Dissonance.

 

[xsited1]

No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves

Republicans claim to be deeply concerned about the budget deficit and the national debt, yet repeatedly demand additional large tax cuts. For example, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, supports a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution but also wants an $8 trillion tax cut. He rationalizes this contradiction by asserting that his tax cut will not actually lose any revenue. As Pawlenty told Slate reporter Dave Weigel on June 13:

“When Ronald Reagan cut taxes in a significant way, revenues actually increased by almost 100 percent during his eight years as president. So this idea that significant, big tax cuts necessarily result in lower revenues – history does not [bear] that out.”

In point of fact, this assertion is completely untrue. Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That’s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent. However, the population also grew. Looking at real revenues per capita, we see that they rose from $3,470 in 1981 to $4,006 in 1989, an increase of just 15 percent. Finally, it is important to remember that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times, increasing revenues by $133 billion per year as of 1988 – about a third of the nominal revenue increase during Reagan’s presidency.

No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves | Capital Gains and Games

The bolding is mine. But somehow we need to try and destroy the myth that Reagan cut taxes and revenue increased. It's just a myth and keeps hanging on. Zombie economics.

Totally lame analysis that was destroyed in the comments section by a poster named 'Brooks'. I don't know who Bruce Bartlett is, but by posting nonsense he deserves to be ridiculed.

 

[Susan45]

No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves

Republicans claim to be deeply concerned about the budget deficit and the national debt, yet repeatedly demand additional large tax cuts. For example, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, supports a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution but also wants an $8 trillion tax cut. He rationalizes this contradiction by asserting that his tax cut will not actually lose any revenue. As Pawlenty told Slate reporter Dave Weigel on June 13:

“When Ronald Reagan cut taxes in a significant way, revenues actually increased by almost 100 percent during his eight years as president. So this idea that significant, big tax cuts necessarily result in lower revenues – history does not [bear] that out.”

In point of fact, this assertion is completely untrue. Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That’s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent. However, the population also grew. Looking at real revenues per capita, we see that they rose from $3,470 in 1981 to $4,006 in 1989, an increase of just 15 percent. Finally, it is important to remember that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times, increasing revenues by $133 billion per year as of 1988 – about a third of the nominal revenue increase during Reagan’s presidency.

No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves | Capital Gains and Games

The bolding is mine. But somehow we need to try and destroy the myth that Reagan cut taxes and revenue increased. It's just a myth and keeps hanging on. Zombie economics.

Your source's info is creative math.
Cutting taxes or placing money back into the private sector increases revenues and stimulates economic growth.
It is the private sector and not government that moves the economic meter.
Government takes it does not produce. Government left to it's own devices would gobble up chunks of GDP.
The current Presidential administration views itself as a entity with limitless power. It views itself as a savior. It views itself as all knowing. Centralized planning for the masses is it's goal. This administration does not govern. It rules.

If my source is using creative math you should have no problem showing your math. After all we just had two big tax cuts, 2001 & 2003. So according to you those tax cuts should have stimulated economic growth and increased revenue. Right? Maybe you can explain why it didn't work for Bush. Good chart at site.

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record

President George W. Bush entered office in 2001 just as a recession was starting, and is preparing to leave in the middle of a long one. That’s almost 22 months of recession during his 96 months in office.

His job-creation record won’t look much better. The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton‘s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office.

Here’s a look at job creation under each president since the Labor Department started keeping payroll records in 1939. The counts are based on total payrolls between the start of the month the president took office (using the final payroll count for the end of the prior December) and his final December in office.
Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

 

[Susan45]

Totally lame analysis that was destroyed in the comments section by a poster named 'Brooks'. I don't know who Bruce Bartlett is, but by posting nonsense he deserves to be ridiculed.

If the analysis is so lame you should have no problem coming up with something that isn't lame. Right?

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves

Republicans claim to be deeply concerned about the budget deficit and the national debt, yet repeatedly demand additional large tax cuts. For example, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, supports a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution but also wants an $8 trillion tax cut. He rationalizes this contradiction by asserting that his tax cut will not actually lose any revenue. As Pawlenty told Slate reporter Dave Weigel on June 13:

“When Ronald Reagan cut taxes in a significant way, revenues actually increased by almost 100 percent during his eight years as president. So this idea that significant, big tax cuts necessarily result in lower revenues – history does not [bear] that out.”

In point of fact, this assertion is completely untrue. Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That’s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent. However, the population also grew. Looking at real revenues per capita, we see that they rose from $3,470 in 1981 to $4,006 in 1989, an increase of just 15 percent. Finally, it is important to remember that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times, increasing revenues by $133 billion per year as of 1988 – about a third of the nominal revenue increase during Reagan’s presidency.

No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves | Capital Gains and Games

The bolding is mine. But somehow we need to try and destroy the myth that Reagan cut taxes and revenue increased. It's just a myth and keeps hanging on. Zombie economics.

Well, since you found an INTERNET BLOG to say so, that just settles it all, doesn't it?

Obviously you are not familiar with the author, Bruce Bartlett.

Bruce Bartlett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is not just some hippy sitting in his parents basement, but a highly respected man who worked for Reagan and Bush41. Maybe you should think about what he is saying and not just on where it came from, because that really isn't the important thing.

Sweet Cheeks, it's a fucking blog. That means I don't give a rat's ass who wrote it. Do NOT use it as though it's a news site, and DO NOT think invoking the names "Reagan and Bush" is going to equal "I win!" Leftists worship their leaders. Conservatives just respect theirs.

Take your fucking blog and move along. Come back when you learn the meaning of the phrase "news source".

Frigging newbie idiots.

 

[Susan45]

A couple of weeks ago, I discussed the low level of federal taxes as a share of the gross domestic product in the United States, both historically and in comparison with other developed economies. I noted that total federal revenue — income, corporate and payroll taxes combined –– has been below 15 percent of gross domestic product for three years in a row, its lowest level since 1950 and well below the postwar average of about 18.5 percent of G.D.P.

Bruce Bartlett: Are Taxes High or Low? A Further Look - NYTimes.com

In case anyone is interested here is another op-ed by Bartlett on the same subject. BTW it was written for the NYT so I'm sure that some conservatives will turn up their noses at it. But it's very good.

 

[Susan45]

Well, since you found an INTERNET BLOG to say so, that just settles it all, doesn't it?

Obviously you are not familiar with the author, Bruce Bartlett.

Bruce Bartlett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is not just some hippy sitting in his parents basement, but a highly respected man who worked for Reagan and Bush41. Maybe you should think about what he is saying and not just on where it came from, because that really isn't the important thing.

Sweet Cheeks, it's a fucking blog. That means I don't give a rat's ass who wrote it. Do NOT use it as though it's a news site, and DO NOT think invoking the names "Reagan and Bush" is going to equal "I win!" Leftists worship their leaders. Conservatives just respect theirs.

Take your fucking blog and move along. Come back when you learn the meaning of the phrase "news source".

Frigging newbie idiots.

Please feel free to go right on past my posts. If I followed your directions I wouldn't be able to post from Time Mag blog, WaPo blogs, VF blogs and plenty of other good places for info. BTW I did not call it a news source, but it is excellent for info.

 

[WillowTree]

Did anyone answer the question?

At what point would federal income taxes be too low?

We can't answer that til every American pays Federal Income Tax.. Come back with that question when it isn't so stupid and unfair. Thanks.

 

[Mad Scientist]

MR. GREGORY: You don't agree with Republican leaders who say tax cuts pay for themselves?
Advertise | AdChoices
MR. GREENSPAN: They do not.

Mt Greenspan was Chairman of the Fed when Glass/Steagall was repealed. If he had cared at all about sound Banking practices he would have lobbied against that.

He's one of many crony banksters than need to go to jail.

 

[Susan45]

MR. GREGORY: You don't agree with Republican leaders who say tax cuts pay for themselves?
Advertise | AdChoices
MR. GREENSPAN: They do not.

Mt Greenspan was Chairman of the Fed when Glass/Steagall was repealed. If he had cared at all about sound Banking practices he would have lobbied against that.

He's one of many crony banksters than need to go to jail.

He's so damn old, I don't know what help it would be. Although I have to say I agree with you that someone should be prosecuted. It's really infuriating that no one seems to be answering for it all.

I watched his testimony a few years back. And he was truly humiliated. He was a Randian you know. I guess they were good friends back in the old days. He's married to the gal from MSNBC, I can't remember her name. That's a real pair to draw to.