Priority #1 for Republicans

Cal Thomas's picture

For newly empowered congressional Republicans, priority one must be an extension of the Bush tax cuts. There should be enough votes not only from a new Republican majority, but also from some of the decimated and dispirited (and even newly elected) Democrats. If President Obama is smart, he won’t veto the bill.

If the tax cuts are allowed to expire, everyone who gets a paycheck and has taxes withheld is going to see less money in the “net” column starting Jan. 1.

Bloomberg.com has published some calculations. It reports that, according to the Tax Institute at H&R Block, “for a married couple earning $80,000 a year, increased taxes would drain $221.48 in withholding from a semi-monthly paycheck. Married individuals earning $240,000 a year” (just under the $250,000 standard President Obama defines as “rich”) “would lose $557.78 to withholding in a single semi-monthly paycheck.”

Double these figures for a month and multiply by 12 and you quickly see the additional drain on the economy at a time of anemic 2 percent growth.

Another example from Bloomberg: teachers, teacher aides and custodial workers who make from $20,000 to $40,000 per year would lose an estimated $50 per paycheck, which is significant at a time when every dollar counts.

President Obama has been telling us how much is enough for us to make. Instead, we should be telling him how much of our money we will allow government to take and spend. That is the theme emerging from the midterm election.

To further personalize the cost of allowing the tax cuts to expire, visit a handy government cost calculator called www.mygovcost.org. Type in your level of education, age and current income and the calculator will reveal what future taxes are likely to cost (these are estimates as everyone’s circumstances differ).

You will also see how much your money could earn if you invested in the private sector instead of having it go to the federal government. The enormous interest figure should rebut arguments by Democrats who claim reforming Social Security by allowing money to be invested in the stock market would bankrupt the elderly.

There are a number of other credible sources Republicans could use to stop and reverse runaway spending. The Heritage Foundation’s Brian Riedl has identified $343 billion in specific spending cuts the next Congress might enact in the fiscal 2012 budget.

Riedl acknowledges that cutting spending won’t be easy. That’s because every dollar spent by the government attracts self-interested supporters. But he maintains the identified cuts should be achievable. Read his spending cut targets at heritage.org.

The public is in the mood for repairing America’s crumbling financial house. Democrats will have a more difficult time demagoguing spending cuts when they have been primarily (though not entirely) responsible for the ocean of red ink.

The Debt Commission will issue its report on Dec. 1. Many conservatives suspect it will include a call for tax increases. Republicans should say “no” to any tax hikes and focus entirely on government overspending and misspending.

Many of us are ready for strong medicine. “We can’t afford it” still rings in the ears of those old enough to remember what parents or grandparents said when we asked for an expensive toy as a child, or a car at 16.

That Puritan ethic remains in the DNA of many Americans. It is now up to Republicans to get it out and remind us of what fiscal and personal responsibility can do to restore financial solvency.

It may take a while and there will be some discomfort and even pain involved. But in the end, we will all be better off than we are now and much better off than we will be if we fail to reduce our unsustainable debt.

[Cal Thomas is America’s most widely syndicated op-ed columnist, appearing in more than 600 national newspapers. He is the author of more than 10 books and is a FOX News political contributor since 1997. Email Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.] ©2010 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
AHG

You're right, and it seems to be...well... you make the call...
On Feb. 17, 2010, Taxpayers for Common Sense, a leading watchdog group, released its study of congressional earmarking for fiscal year 2010. For that fiscal year, the group says, appropriations bills contained 9,499 congressional earmarks worth $15.9 billion. The group's "apples-to-apples" comparison found that earmarking increased slightly from the prior year -- from $15.6 billion to $15.9 billion. I believe in 94 the earmarks were 7.8 billion.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Hutch & Earmarks

Oh, no doubt that they still go ape with the Earmarks, all I wanted to do was get the "campaign promise" language cleaned up. I still rate it as "Failure" but also place major blame on individual Representatives & Senators. They have no shame when it comes to raiding the "Taxpayers Bank"--all simply intended to go in their "I Did" book for re-election.

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
GYM: earmarks

Isakson would have been electd in GA if he had been able to garner ALL of the earmarks made in his name only! (he tried).

He is a republican!

As long s this is allowed by republicans and NOT criticized by name, it will exist.

Kinda like looters dropping stuff on the street from carrying to much, especially hands full of cash, many of those who want the looters hung would scoop up those 50s and take them home.Hypocrites.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Whose blaming Isakson?

Whose blaming Isakson? He's doing what he was elected to do - get the best he can for the benefit of the citizens that he represents! You can waddle all you want in the 'blame' game between who made the most 'mistakes' in promises, etc. THAT IS NOT GOING TO SOLVE OUR ECONOMIC PROBLEM!! Move on - and encourage all of those who represent us to get the job done; work together to get us out of this mess. . .or we are sunk! Wake up hutch - winning a debate is not the issue - we're having a discussion on how can we, the people, really get our representatives to work for us - not for only their re-election. It's going to take bi-partisanship. . .. plain and simple. The power of hutch and david's mom lies in their voice by expressing their demands to those who represent them. It is obvious that Isakson represents me and you . . and to most of those whom Isakson represents - earmarks are OK. This is true of almost all of our suggessful legislators. When we re-elect them, we're saying the earmarks are OK with us also. Washington operating as usual. Bush, Clinton, Obama could not/did not change that reality. The message has to come from we, the people. Difficult to do when we benefit from this 'earmark' thing. I agree with PTC on this one. Look at the man in the mirror.

alanf33
alanf33's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/31/2006
The choices really are this simple

Earmarks from all quarters are reduced when you reduce taxes! The reason that we all want our pork chop is because we are all required to give a hog to DC. I am not at all happy that $40M of federal dollars (our dollars) PER DAY being 'loaned' to CA to cover their failed social experiment. Take less and we have less reason to expect funds back. Raising taxes on any of us only makes the cycle deeper. It's our money! I earned what I have, nobody in DC earned my money for me.

How about we keep taxes local? If you want to have all of the protections of CA or MA or NY, then we are all free to move there. This is all about freedom vs. allowing a bloated central government Take our money and use it to Enslave us to their will.

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Dm

Yes or no? Just can't do it can you? Where have I blamed anyone, for anything? Twist it around as you always do, but it comes down to DID HE SAY IT. I find it odd that with all the control the Dems had, they could push through the health thing, but couldn't stop the earmarks. They controlled the Gov, but couldn't stop the earmarks. And you can't even say yes or no...LMAO

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Yes - he said it!

Now take your pill and call your Dr. in the morning little man. How in the world does that move us toward solving the problem of our economic mess - or are you still too intellectually bankrupt that you still need to blame either Bush or Obama? At this point - who cares? We need to balance our budget and get American JOBS! Republicans nor Democrats have come up with an answer - but are too busy fighting each other for the next election.

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Dm

There's the belittling, not from me, but from you. Where did I blame anyone for anything, just asked a simple question? Don't pop a vein. As far the intellectually bankrupt thing, before you hang that tag on me you better examine your own past lady, and you don't even have to look to hard.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Hutch866

You win!!

Quote:

and you don't even have to look to hard.

Difficult to argue with such superior intellect. Bless your heart. Have a nice day.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Hey Hutch, about President Obama's promises..

Since you seem to be fixated on President Obama's campaign promises today, and since you seem very critical of campaign promises that President Obama has broken, will you give President Obama credit for campaign promises he has kept?

For example, I'm very proud of our President for keeping his campaign promise to require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions. Will you give the man credit for keeping that campaign promise?

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Yes Bacon, he gets credit...

for that one and he gets the credit for the increased monthly premiums next year in order to cover it.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Premiums

Just received the cost of 2011 premiums - not higher.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - Wait

You know they keep them lower for Democrats until the reality of the situation is too broad based to deny.

Then the Dems will be looking for a scapegoat, usually the opposition party.

This baby is all Democratic Party a "signature" piece of ......legislation.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTC OBSERVER
Quote:

You know they keep them lower for Democrats

LOL!! Next time I fill out my insurance papers, I'll put Republican in the 'political party' space. NOT!! :-)

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Premiums rise by 26%

My agent just advised me Friday that my per Emp cost will be adjusted 26% higher thanks to BO care.

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
pbserver ofyou

He is lying to you! Check around.

There is no such increase for next year caused by congress' new health plan.

Maybe that is why the government wanted to run the plans? Keep the greedy Hospitals, doctors, pill companies, and insurance companies from paying so much dividends?

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
OK the monkey fits

You seem to still be swinging from trees there chr.

You cannot raise regulations, exemptions and administrative cost without an adjustment to cost downstream.

Do you still think Corporations pay taxes? The more the Government wants to punish those evil profitable businesses the more that cost of taxes and regulations are shifted to the end consumer. That's you chr.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Observerofu

If this is true - and I have no reason to think it's not - then this is an area to be discussed and dealt with (Republicans and Democrats). No need to throw out the baby with the bath water - (the good aspects of the bill with the bad)

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
OOU & Premiums

My health care insurance premium went up 8% this year; Next year, it goes up by 32%! Just what I needed.

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
CPB

Promises? Just trying to get a yes or no answer from Dm, of course if you can point out the other broken promises I've been critical of, but of course you can't because like always you either put words in my mouth, assign values to me, or sometimes just out and out lie. Actually it's kind of troll like how you follow me around on the boards.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Hutch

Your words speak for themselves - not what someone else may or may not attribute to you. You got your answer. . .and choose your words carefully in response. Resorting to belittling someone is something I'm not proud of - and I'm sure you're better than I am!!

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Dm

Where did I belittle you? This post was between Bacon and me, all I asked from you was yes or no. As always though, your condescension is appreciated.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Hutch866
Quote:

Just trying to get a yes or no answer from Dm,

I was responding to the above comment which included 'Dm'. Appreciation noted.

Quote:

Twist it around as you always do, but it comes down to DID HE SAY IT.

In my dotage, I took this as a belittling statement. Sorry if I misunderstood your intent. Hutch, I'm not here to debate with you or anyone else, just expressing my opinion about what should be done to help the American people.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Bacon & Promises

Ok, credit for getting pre-existing conditions into the "insurable" category. But did it have to be part of bad legislation that will cost many of us mucho dinero in our next yr's premiums? Couldn't they have written it so that those who have such conditions perhaps pay a higher premium? Sounds simple to me. Maybe that's the problem--too simple. Also, those who want their 26 yr old adult children covered should also have to pay a higher premium--not the rest of us. I'd say the unintended negative consequences outweigh the kept promise.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Higher premiums?

Mine have remained the same. Anyone else's gone up?

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
GYM

I take it that you don't have such prior conditions nor a kid under 26 with no job paying for insurance?

What do you think insurance is for anyway? Only the well?

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
CHR, Kids, & Insurance

"Kids" are considered Adults at age 18 for many purposes and what is magic about 26? My kids were college graduates and gainfully employed, with their own insurance by age 26. And on a personal note, I've had the same health insurance for 15 yrs but having had a stroke 5 1/2 yrs ago, if I had to go into the market now, yes, I'd have "pre-existing conditions and would expect to pay a higher premium. I certainly didn't need a 32% increase for next yr just because of that awful legislation.

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
GYM

I'm not familiar with a 32% increase in anyone's insurance next year on the new health care!

I think we will hear the details in congressional hearing soon about the details of the costs. And just how many and who will get some coverage that have none now.

They aren't all college graduates with their employer paying for their insurance as your children have!
That is about dead anyway! Companies are refusing to pay such amounts for their employees! Not even Delta----maybe Lockheed does?

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
CHR, Kids & Health Insurance & Premium Increase

Neither of my kids has employer-paid health coverage--they pay for 100% of it themselves. And my premium went from $411 monthly to $555. You do the math.

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
GYM

Tell me where you can get major medical for $555 a month ($6600/yr.)

So your kids are highly paid undoubtedly. Good for them. What company pays that well but for no insurance? Dad? $10,000 deductible, what?

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
CHR & Prmiums

That's my portion--my former employer picks up the rest as part of my retirement benefit. They claim to pay 75%--I say it's more like 66%.

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
GYM

Well then your employer raised your premiums, Obama didn't!

I didn't think you presented it all straight!

That makes the total premium your $6,600 plus your former employers part $19,800 which equals $26,400 dollars premiums per year!

Better check all those numbers again.

Can your sons afford $26,400 each per year?

Enough for me on this---words are flying irresponsibly everywhere due to Obama.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Private insurance premiums could triple under ObamaCare.

"At the request of Congressional delegations worried about their constituents—call it a public service—WellPoint mined its own actuarial data to model ObamaCare in the 14 states where it runs Blue Cross plans. The study therefore takes into account market and demographic differences that other industry studies have not, such as the one from the trade group America's Health Insurance Plans, which looked at aggregate national trends.

In all of the 14 states WellPoint scrutinized, ObamaCare would drive up premiums for the small businesses and individuals who are most of WellPoint's customers. (Other big insurers, like Aetna, focus on the market among large businesses.) Young and healthy consumers will see the largest increases—their premiums would more than triple in some states—though average middle-class buyers will pay more too."

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA590.html

"Far from providing "affordable" care for everyone, as President Obama has promised,1 the main health care proposals working their way through Congress would in fact come at a painful price - higher insurance premiums, more and higher taxes, fewer jobs, lower wages, a reduced standard of living and an erosion of privacy and individual liberty."

We were warned

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870356720457449903417721206...

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
GYM

It was you!

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Not so good, actually
hutch866 wrote:

Wasn't that a plank in Obama's platform, no more earmarks? How's that worked for us so far?

Not so good. GOP Leaders Ignore Tea Party's Calls For Earmark Ban

I suspect those oh-so-pure Teahadists will get on the earmarks gravy train before too long.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
As a Tea Party Member

I will tell you that the D or R does not matter to us, guys like this http://www.redstate.com/brian_d/2010/11/06/some-senate-republicans-push-... are part of the problem need to go as well. -GP

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
GA Patriot

I will tell you (also) that I do not know one democrat that was endorsed by the TEA party.

Not to run or replace a republican!

They did have 750 of them at their conventions however (republicans).

Bush and Cheney and Newt and O'Donnell and Palin (Sarah and Bristol) make it hard for you don't they?

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
Good luck Patriot, observer

Find those 15,000,000 jobs quickly, please.

Pay that 14 trillion off soon, please.

Solve that impossible health care cost spiral soon, please.

Solve our atmosphere problems soon, please.

Solve our transportation, bridge, dam, water problems soon, please.

Bail out the states, rest of the banks, and Chinese debt soon, please.

Did you know that Harley-Davidson has decided to move their operation to India, soon? Can you stop that one, please?

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Thanks for sharing

RINOS must go.

This is where the new breed is going to have to cut their teeth. These old blue blood establishment republicans must be dealt with.

We the TP Nation have to keep up the pressure. We might even drag a few democrats kicking and screaming mind you along for the ride.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Media Matters part of the George Soros groups

as is the Huffington Post. Not credible at all.

Here is the whole story without the progressive spin cycle.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report/transcript/john-boehner-tal...

"BOEHNER: Well, the Appropriations Committee is responsible for funding our government. And -- and over the years, there's been a lot of excesses coming out of that committee. But I believe that -- that if we listen to the will of the American people, we're going to see less spending out of the Appropriations Committee.

BAIER: But the guys in line to be chairmen, they're big fans of earmarks.

BOEHNER: There's going to be an earmark moratorium, it's pretty clear.

BAIER: Why not an outright ban?

BOEHNER: Only because some things that people call earmarks here wouldn't -- wouldn't classify as an earmark to the American people. I've made it pretty clear, this process is going to stop. As you're well aware, I've been here 20 years. I've never asked for an earmark. And I'm never going to ask for one. I told my constituents in 1990 when they elected me that if they thought my job was to come to Washington and rob the public treasury on their behalf, they were voting for the wrong guy.

I said it. I meant it. And I've been committed to reforming this process from the day I got here. And over the last five years, I've spent countless hours trying to make sure that we spend the American people's money wisely."

So tell me bacon how is anything he said against anything the TP stands for?

You want to see media spin look at Bacon's Huff piece and then the actual interview. They link supposedly to the interview on Fox instead it goes directly to Media Matters, another Soros entity, with the same spin.

The Progressive left loves to slam Fox for bias but then goes hook and line and sinker for a George Soros created media. One of the reasons they lost last Tuesday. They can't face the real world.

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Well Bacon

It appears that Obama and the Dems ignored it too, and first.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
They certainly did

The Democrats and President Obama certainly did ignore the promise to rein in earmarks....the "first" is debatable, though.

In the big picture, though, earmarks are at best 2% of the Federal budget. There are bigger fish to fry.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Bacon, Correct

So wouldn't it be nice if both the legislative and executive branches agree to start with this 2% and continue from there. It's got to start someplace.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Earmarks and pork

This from Center for Fiscal Accountability.

"While the financial cost to taxpayers in real dollars may be small compared to the massive overall overspending problem which has led to the federal budget balooning to over $3 trillion in 2009, the relevance of earmarks should not be underestimated.

In fact, earmarks have become the broken windows of the federal budget. The opaque earmarking process paired with a series of examples of corruption and self-aggrandizement has left taxpayers frustrated. "

http://www.fiscalaccountability.org/earmarks

Earmarks may be a drop in the bucket but this reeks with corruption.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Cyclist

The operative word here 'agree'.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Tax cuts do not create jobs

Tax cuts do not create jobs.

Market demand creates jobs.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Hostile Business Environment

and the governement creates jobs by robbing business profits? Lower taxes does create jobs. NEWS FLASH: ONLY THE PRIVATE SECTOR CREATES WEALTH. That is of course unless you can print your own money but that is another story. -GP

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Both private sector, government "create wealth"
Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Please Explain the Article

I read the article you referenced twice and I still don't see government creating wealth at least my as I understand wealth. It seems there is a trend to redefine definitions of words, it all started when Clinton stated "it depends on what the definition of is-is". In the article taking money from the private sector and redistributing it in the form of goods or services is somehow warped into the government creating wealth. That is not creating wealth, that is pure socialism, and that has failed everywhere it has been tried and will fail here. Government is not the answer, government is the problem. -GP

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
GP
Quote:

ONLY THE PRIVATE SECTOR CREATES WEALTH.

A while back the US economy was called a 'war-based economy'. We changed that by turning over our 'building of war equipment' over to the private sector - and now we're (the government) broke. Hmmmmmmmm.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Not broke from the private sector....

...broke from automatic social welfare programs that have grown out of control and will only get worse. Broke from the government's interference(and the idiots at the Federal Reserve like Greenspan and Bernanke)destroying the private sector for their own political gain. Broke from paying interest on printing money to buy our own debt after we couldn't get other countries to buy enough of our debt.

War can be a great economic generator sometimes, but this isn't one of them since the war takes place thousands of miles away and may/may not be a matter of national security in the first place.

GM, AIG, Chrysler, et al should have all been allowed to FAIL and FAIL HARD. Bailing-out companies to protect union members or stupid bankers is pathetic, especially when it's our government taking over the normal business procedures of bankruptcy to change the outcomes.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Hutch: War can be a great
Quote:

War can be a great economic generator sometimes, but this isn't one of them since the war takes place thousands of miles away and may/may not be a matter of national security in the first place.

Modern technology and human unawareness can destroy us - and it doesn't make a hill of difference how 'far away' the enemy is.

Quote:

GM, AIG, Chrysler, et al should have all been allowed to FAIL and FAIL HARD. Bailing-out companies to protect union members or stupid bankers is pathetic, especially when it's our government taking over the normal business procedures of bankruptcy to change the outcomes.

Tell that to the thousands of workers whose jobs were saved by not allowing them to fail. Me first will be the destruction of this country.

We're broke because we have 'outsourced' our industry so that the private sector can make a bigger profit! Wake Up!!!!

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Dm

I think you're losing it here, you addressed this to me why?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Sorry Hutch

This response should have been directed to NUK.

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
GA Patriot(as seperate from a US Patriot).

Well, we cut the cost of doing business for our banks by loaning them money at 0% interest to loan to small business.

That is very similar to giving them a tax cut!

What have the banks done with that 0% money? They kept it and loaned it to each other at 3%, or loaned some of it to businesses who, like the banks, paid it out in dividends to stockholders and employees.
Some even invested it in assets, that were cheap for future use!
Very, very little to local businesses, if any significant amount!

Income from jobs (not tax paid jobs) is much better for our budget than
any kind of income.
The banks could have created jobs by loaning that money correctly.
But, they are bankers!!

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
The Laffer Curve

works and is correct, presently we are on the right side of the curve and headed down. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve. -GP

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Laffer curve revisited

Interesting commentary here (Where Does The Laffer Curve Bend?)

Ezra Klein polls a number of Very Important Folks as to exactly where the Laffer Curve bends.

It would appear that virtually no academic expert agrees with your conjecture that "we are on the right side of the curve". Virtually all of them agree that the "right side of the curve" begins at a tax rate of fifty to seventy percent.

Most of the chattering class on television, however, has a different view: they intuitively "feel" that the curve bends somewhere between 33 and 50 percent, which would be more in line with your anti-intellectual viewpoint.

Interestingly, the President's Council of Economic Advisors all refused to go on record with their opinion (best of the brightest here....probably refuse to recognize Laffer snake oil).

Also, no prominent Republican politician would go on record either.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
The laughable Laffer curve
Georgia Patriot wrote:

works and is correct, presently we are on the right side of the curve and headed down. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve. -GP

Prove it.

Prove that the laughable Laffer curve works.

Then, prove that we're on the "right side of the curve".

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Laffer Curve and how it works

http://brookesnews.com/072409laffercurve.html

Now take your time and read all of it.

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
Bush's tax cuts cost 3 trillion in debt.

Anything that happens on that consideration will be next year and be retroactive if any bill passes.

A trade about some other bill may allow the middle class tax cut to be extended a year or so, and the upper class and corporate tax cut extended one year.

Probably be a general election argument in 2012.

Something has got to be found to pay for it.

15,000,000 jobs aren't going to be found in next two years. Foreclosures won't even be completed, nor the 2-300 more banks to fail!

It is bad folks! Too bad Ms. O'Donnell and Sarah couldn't have been elected to resolve it! Maybe Paul can do it alone! He said today he was going to take back the government from somebody.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
It's All George Bush's Fault!!

You know how old that is getting. Democrats controlled congress from 2007 until 2010 and we are now 13 TRILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT!! -GP

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
The jobs list on this page looks like something Bush would have

Prepare customer service and fruit.

Needed experienced 2 year old teacher.

Experience leasing professional

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
GA patriot

Apparently you don't understand how bills are passed!

They are submitted to congress by the President, then the President must approve or disapprove them after congress passes them with amendments if any.

The President can VETO all of them if he wishes and then it is 2/3 majority.

He didn't even bother to submit a price for the total war costs! Just borrowed it.

Won't you get off this guy NOT screwing up!

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
You are mistaken

I am not a Bush fan. He had too many big government progressive tendancies for my liking. It is just the "It's George Bush's Fault" excuse is getting old. IMHO it's time for the current President and Congress to "man up". BTW, the democratic Congress could have easily reined in spending years ago. Biils can be introduced in the House or Senate but must be passed by both houses (or deemed passed-LOL) and signed by the President. FYI http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/howourlawsaremade.pdf -GP

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Tax Cuts

don't cause debt!!! Here is the truth. The ONLY thing that causes debt is SPENDING MONEY YOU DON'T HAVE period. A tax cut or as I like to call it less governmental theft will be a positive thing for jobs and the economy. -GP

JohnnyBGood
JohnnyBGood's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/14/2008
Really OldHouseFool?

Please explain how a tax cut costs money.

Does a cut in funding cost money or an increase in funding cost money?

alanf33
alanf33's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/31/2006
Ever seen a church so far in debt

that it would take two generations to get out? Do you know anyone who has amassed so much debt that their great- grandchildren ( scores of them) will have to repay? Only federal goverments ( and CA) spend that kind of vapor money. The cure will hurt us all, but the answer is not to continue with the current leftist policies unless you really are willing to fork over 60% (or more) of you pay every hour that you toil.

Just think how hard our kids will want to work knowing that if they do nothing, they will still have that big ol' flat screen and steaks on Sunday while they watch the big game.

Don't equivocate, choose what you want your society to be and vote it. That's what the Tea Party folks did and the majority is pretty clear...but that never stopped a socialist before!

Recent Comments