CBO Report - Cuts needed; tax hikes wrong headed.

aqwertyuiop

Literotica Guru
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Posts
655
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) just released its long-term outlook for the federal budget. As expected, we are going broke slightly faster than we were a few months ago.

The CBO report once again proves that no tax hikes are necessary to fix our budget woes.

The CBO calculates that if Congress leaves the tax code as it is today—which would include permanently extending the 2001/2003 tax cuts for all taxpayers (even those greedy, job-producing rich folks and small businesses), patching the alternative minimum tax so it does not impact middle-income families, and continuing a host of other tax-reducing provisions that regularly expire—tax revenues would exceed their historical average of 18 percent of GDP in 2021. Revenue would continue growing thereafter absent any policy changes and soon surpass the all-time record high hit back in 2000 at the height of the Internet-tech boom.

Earlier CBO reports show (and this latest release confirms) that revenue would actually match the 18 percent of GDP mark by 2017 and could get there even sooner.

Renewed economic growth—once it finally takes hold—is the reason tax revenues will shoot up in the coming years. Faster growth means that taxpayers earn more income and move into higher tax brackets. Faster growth also means that there are more taxpayers than before.

The impending rebound in tax revenues seen in the CBO data also rebuts the argument that “taxes as a percentage of GDP are at their lowest levels since 1950.” It has been repeated most recently by Fareed Zakaria.

These low tax receipts have nothing to do with changes in policy, like lower tax rates, as those making this argument would have us believe. Tax revenues are low compared to their historical averages, but that has everything to do with a terrible recession and a worse-than-anemic recovery that has repressed incomes and driven millions to the unemployment lines.

Conveyors of the wrongheaded wisdom about the necessity of tax hikes are trying to convince the American people that there is just no way to lower the deficit with spending cuts alone, that some tax hikes are necessary in any “reasonable” plan.

Higher taxes are not a mathematical necessity. They are a choice Washington politicians would make to expand the size of government. After all, history has shown us that Congress rarely if ever uses revenue from tax hikes to lower the deficit. Rather, it uses the money on new or expanded big-government programs. And tax hikes now would further harm job creation.

The reality is that hikes are not necessary to fix the budget. If Congress restrained spending to its historical level of 20 percent of GDP (rather than the bloated 25 percent that President Obama’s budget aspires for), the deficit would fall to manageable levels as revenues climb, and the national debt would stabilize as a share of the economy.

It is all about the spending, and no amount of reiterating false claims about plunging tax revenue can change that. Washington has spent us into this budget hole and wants more of our money to fill the void they’ve created. It is time they realize they’ll be getting plenty of our money in the coming years, and the only way out of this mess is to cut spending.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Why can't you post this under your real name?

Why can't he post that he's plagiarizing a Heritage Foundation blog? Just a blog - an opinion piece: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/06/25...in-prove-tax-hikes-unnecessary-to-fix-budget/

If you read the actual report it says that there's no possible scenario to balance the budget (much less pay down the debt) that includes Bush-era tax rates. "The CBO offers two forecasts, both of which show the nation's finances deteriorating over the next quarter-century. In one scenario that is considered more likely, the Bush tax rates are continued, as are rising Medicare payments to doctors. Under that scenario, federal debt reaches 109 percent of GDP by 2023 and would approach 190 percent in 2035.

In the other scenario, in which the Bush tax rates expire and Medicare payments are slashed, total federal debt held by the public still would grow from an estimated 69 percent of GDP this year to 84 percent by 2035.
"

These figures are much worse than those the CBO released last year due to the fact that the Bush tax cuts were continued.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mon...ook-on-long-term-debt-worsens?page=2#comments
 
I love how the right demonizes the CBO as inaccurate and full of bias. Except when it brings news that Republicans want to hear, then it's a perfectly sound source. :rolleyes:
 
and if obama gets more money ie. higher income tax, will that money be used to pay down the obama debt?

what we need is to terminate all those government workers hired since the year 2000. then we must 86 the government pension plan. that would be a better start, than increasing income tax.




Why can't he post that he's plagiarizing a Heritage Foundation blog? Just a blog - an opinion piece: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/06/25...in-prove-tax-hikes-unnecessary-to-fix-budget/

If you read the actual report it says that there's no possible scenario to balance the budget (much less pay down the debt) that includes Bush-era tax rates. "The CBO offers two forecasts, both of which show the nation's finances deteriorating over the next quarter-century. In one scenario that is considered more likely, the Bush tax rates are continued, as are rising Medicare payments to doctors. Under that scenario, federal debt reaches 109 percent of GDP by 2023 and would approach 190 percent in 2035.

In the other scenario, in which the Bush tax rates expire and Medicare payments are slashed, total federal debt held by the public still would grow from an estimated 69 percent of GDP this year to 84 percent by 2035.
"

These figures are much worse than those the CBO released last year due to the fact that the Bush tax cuts were continued.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mon...ook-on-long-term-debt-worsens?page=2#comments
 
The only way out of this mess is a combination of tax hikes and spending cuts. That's the recommendation of the bipartisan debt commission. How come Republicans are ignoring them?

Edit: tax hikes not cuts
 
Last edited:
The only way out of this mess is a combination of tax cuts and spending cuts. That's the recommendation of the bipartisan debt commission. How come Republicans are ignoring them?

omg, is there hope for Merc? can Merc come back from the dark side?
 
Whatever you're saying, I'm certain you already said that.


Old Today, 03:02 PM
Remove user from ignore list
NeverEndingMe
This message is hidden because NeverEndingMe is on your ignore list.
View Post Old Today, 03:03 PM
Remove user from ignore list
NeverEndingMe
This message is hidden because NeverEndingMe is on your ignore list.
 
The only way out of this mess is a combination of tax cuts and spending cuts. That's the recommendation of the bipartisan debt commission. How come Republicans are ignoring them?

that is EXACTLY what the REPOZ are saying

and EXACTLY the opposite of what the DUMZ are saying

try again
 
that is EXACTLY what the REPOZ are saying

and EXACTLY the opposite of what the DUMZ are saying

try again

Edited: tax hikes not cuts. Economists from all over the spectrum acknowledge that as a fact. It's a clear fact that we cannot cut our way out of debt. Even if it was mathematically possible it's not practically possible.
 
Edited: tax hikes not cuts. Economists from all over the spectrum acknowledge that as a fact. It's a clear fact that we cannot cut our way out of debt. Even if it was mathematically possible it's not practically possible.

so you want to give up on trying. what a pussy. there is so much fat.

here is an idea, compare the government organization chart and compare it to something like, well a company like Apple/Acxiom/Google/Facebook

guess what, you will see 10 managers in government vs 1 in non government.

there is so much fat, but since you have only worked in government, well you are blind as a bat
 
Edited: tax hikes not cuts. Economists from all over the spectrum acknowledge that as a fact. It's a clear fact that we cannot cut our way out of debt. Even if it was mathematically possible it's not practically possible.

that is NOT what the GUY TESTIFIED to in fron of Congress last week

IS IT?

I QUOTED HIM IN THE THREAD
 
hey POON CURRY

Why did you LIE?

WHY ARE YOU FURTHER NIGGERIZING YOURSELF?

NIGGERS bitch slapped


CBO Director Elmendorf rips Obama admin policies: ‘We don’t estimate speeches’
James Pethokoukis is live tweeting the House hearing on the CBO. And he is tweeting some gems, like:

At House Budget hearing, CBO admits that b/c of “gap in its toolkit” it assumes O price controls don’t impact quality of care

Elmendorf on whether CBO estimated new Obama budget framework: “We don’t estimate speeches”

CBO’s Elemdorf calls Obama’s cost-containment provisions “experiments.”

And this:

Boom Boom Pow! CBO’s Elmendorf: “Higher marginal tax rates do reduce economic activity .”

Plus this:

Ka-Blam! CBO Elmendorf: Raising tax rates on rich hurts more than raising tax on everyone else. (Dem wasn’t expecting that answer)

Those last two pretty much destroy the Democrats’ position in the debt talks, since they want to raise taxes and consistently demagogue raising taxes on the rich. Their own CBO director says the Democrats’ whole policy is destructive.
 
so you want to give up on trying. what a pussy. there is so much fat.

here is an idea, compare the government organization chart and compare it to something like, well a company like Apple/Acxiom/Google/Facebook

guess what, you will see 10 managers in government vs 1 in non government.

there is so much fat, but since you have only worked in government, well you are blind as a bat

If there's so much fat, why all this machismo talk I hear from the right daily about eliminating agencies, social programs, Medicare et cetera ... ? You make it sound like all you need to do is to streamline the buerocracy.

Don't bother, I'll answer. Because "there's so much fat" is a red herring. There may be fat, but looking at the big picture, that's a piss in the ocean compared to the actual problems.

Its just something you say that is simple enough for you to visualize. I guess it makes you feel smart or something.
 
Industries Find Surging Profits in Deeper Cuts

The CBO calculates that if Congress leaves the tax code as it is today—which would include permanently extending the 2001/2003 tax cuts for all taxpayers (even those greedy, job-producing rich folks and small businesses), patching the alternative minimum tax so it does not impact middle-income families, and continuing a host of other tax-reducing provisions that regularly expire—tax revenues would exceed their historical average of 18 percent of GDP in 2021. Revenue would continue growing thereafter absent any policy changes and soon surpass the all-time record high hit back in 2000 at the height of the Internet-tech boom.

This is what those "job-producing rich folks" are doing.

----------

The New York Times Published: July 25, 2010

By most measures, Harley-Davidson has been having a rough ride.

Motorcycle sales are falling in 2010, as they have for each of the last three years. The company does not expect a turnaround anytime soon.

But despite that drought, Harley’s profits are rising — soaring, in fact. Last week, Harley reported a $71 million profit in the second quarter, more than triple what it earned a year ago...

Many companies are focusing on cost-cutting to keep profits growing, but the benefits are mostly going to shareholders instead of the broader economy, as management conserves cash rather than bolstering hiring and production. Harley, for example, has announced plans to cut 1,400 to 1,600 more jobs by the end of next year. That is on top of 2,000 job cuts last year — more than a fifth of its work force.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/business/economy/26earnings.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
 
Most Americans say tax rich to balance budget: poll

Mon Jan 3, 2011 11:15am EST


(Reuters) - Most Americans think the United States should raise taxes for the rich to balance the budget, according to a 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll released on Monday.

President Barack Obama last month signed into law a two-year extension of Bush-era tax cuts for millions of Americans, including the wealthiest, in a compromise with Republicans.

Republicans, who this week take control of the House of Representatives, want to extend all Bush-era tax cuts "permanently" for the middle class and wealthier Americans. They are also demanding spending cuts to curb the $1.3 trillion deficit.

Sixty-one percent of Americans polled would rather see taxes for the wealthy increased as a first step to tackling the deficit, the poll showed.

The next most popular way -- chosen by 20 percent -- was to cut defense spending.

Four percent would cut the Medicare government health insurance program for the elderly, and 3 percent would cut the Social Security retirement program, the poll showed.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/03/us-usa-taxes-poll-idUSTRE7022AK20110103
 
Back
Top