Another Right-Wing Talking Point Myth Debunked By CBO

http://www.cbpp.org/...?fa=view&id=966

The new Congressional Budget Office budget projections released today show that the nation faces a fourth consecutive year of substantial budget deficits. Some seek to portray “runaway domestic spending” or growth in the costs of entitlement programs as the primary cause of the shift in recent years from sizeable surpluses to large deficits. Such a characterization is incorrect. In 2005, the cost of tax cuts enacted over the past four years will be over three times the cost of all domestic program increases enacted over this period.

The new CBO data show that changes in law enacted since January 2001 increased the deficit by $539 billion in 2005. In the absence of such legislation, the nation would have a surplus this year. Tax cuts account for nearly half — 48 percent — of this $539 billion in increased costs. [1] Increases in program spending make up the other 52 percent and have been primarily concentrated in defense, homeland security, and international affairs.

[attach=full]2858[/attach]

Furthermore, under the new CBO projections, total federal spending will remain lower in 2005, as a share of the economy, than in any year from 1975-1996. As this indicates, federal spending is not at an unusually high level, even with the large increases in spending for Iraq and anti-terrorism efforts. The deficits that the nation now faces reflect not an unusually high level of spending, but rather an unusually low level of revenue. Indeed, CBO projects that federal revenues will be lower as a share of the economy in 2005 than in all years of the 1960s, the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s.

15% just a measly 15% is what all those welfare and entitlement programs are costing us all, where's that proof about lower taxes being so great? Where are the created jobs? Don't blame the free market capitalist giants who move jobs over seas, it WAS a free market after all.

.

.

.

.

I just love the way Liberals/progressives twist reality to try and condone their out of control spending.......

"AFTER" we figure in the economic downturn, yes, it "LOOKS" like the Bush tax cuts can be blamed but the truly educated person looks at the fact that the tax cuts came "BEFORE" the economic downturn.

Today, Obama is creating new entitlements, new legislation, and new deficits when he knows we don't have the funds to pay for them, this is a completely different set oc circumstances. If I buy a house with a high payment when I have a great paying job, that is one thing, if I buy the same house after I lose my job and know that I don't have the money to pay the bill that makes me stupid.

Just a fast hit for you Bender, we have less tax money to spend because collected taxes are down, and those collected taxes are down because we have massive unemployment (can't pay tax on what you don't earn) and big business is still waiting to see how many penalites Obama is going to put on them for daring to invest in things so their money is stitting still. If Obama backs off and allows people to feel confidence again, they will start investing again and we can get on the road to recovery, but a recovered economy is not one of the goals of this administration.

Hugo is right, we need to get back to responsible Government where we only spend what we have, just like a responsible household would do it.

I just love the way Liberals/progressives twist reality to try and condone their out of control spending....

Evidently, the non partisan CBO, are now just a bunch of liberals/progressives.

Dispute the party all you want TJ. But do you dispute the findings? Or just deny them by screaming "LIBERALS, PROGRESSIVES, SOCIALIST, COMMIE'S!!"

Your starting to remind me of this guy:

How about focusing on the findings, and not the ones you allege found it.

Keep in mind, the findings are for 2001-2005, can't blame OBAMA/LIBERALS/PROGRESSIVES/COMMIES/NAZI'S/ETC...ETC...

I'd call that staying on topic and negative rep for you.

.

.

Tax cuts should be accompanied by spending cuts and new domestic programs should be paid for.

Let's say a huge percentage of unemployed fit this Republican meme of not motivated enough to look for work.

First of all... 5 applicants for every 1 job available? What, those other 80% are just not trying hard enough???

GET REAL MAN!!

So yes, while I agree tax cuts should be accompanied by spending cuts and new domestic programs should be paid for. Not in the event you are trying to stimulate. You can't keep cutting taxes and saying "OK, NO TAKE BACKS"... especially if the situation where too many lives are now dependent on stimulus BECAUSE of taxing too little in the first place and the consequences of it.

.

.

I just love the way Liberals/progressives twist reality to try and condone their out of control spending....

And I just love the way morons like TJ will twist factual information, like that from the CBO which says the problem ISN'T out of control spending, but rather all those tax cuts, and try to make it sound like a liberal talking point... I guess if the facts don't match what he wants to believe, it's "LIBERAL PROPAGANDA".

 

Evidently, the non partisan CBO, are now just a bunch of liberals/progressives.

 

Dispute the party all you want TJ. But do you dispute the findings? Or just deny them by screaming "LIBERALS, PROGRESSIVES, SOCIALIST, COMMIE'S!!"

 

Your starting to remind me of this guy:

 

How about focusing on the findings, and not the ones you allege found it.

 

Keep in mind, the findings are for 2001-2005, can't blame OBAMA/LIBERALS/PROGRESSIVES/COMMIES/NAZI'S/ETC...ETC...

 

I'd call that staying on topic and negative rep for you.

.

.

No Bender, your the guys who can't seem to understand that point of the CBO is that earlier cuts made current spending shortages happen because of the economic downturn.

If the economy had stayed the same, there would be more tax collection. Even if the tax rates were the same as before, that would not fix our current shortfalls because there is less money circulating. You can't tax what is not spent or invested, other than the huge 'death tax' you liberals love, there is no way for you to take money from those who stop their money from moving.

This is why you guys are now wanting to tax things like health insurance and stuff because it is never enough, you will never reach a point where your have played Robin Hood enough. There is always a new "evil company", always a new group of "needy". We could double tax revinue tomorrow and you liberals will spend every dime and hold your hand out for more again.

A line must be drawn, pick and choose what programs you want and are the most needed and cut the rest, just like each of us have to do in our own every day lives. Each of us have a household budget, we must live within that budget no matter how much we desire things we can't afford. All I want is for my Government to live with a limited budget as I do.

So answer the question.. do you, or do you not agree with the findings of the CBO. It's a pretty simple question really. I see your going off on your usual "LIBERALS THIS AND THAT" tangent again. What's the matter, don't want to address reality?

Strange how you have a totally different point of what the CBO intended to say,

I see, the CBO just stated what they stated wrong, see that was the liberal version... that's it..

.

.

The CBO was using today's issues of lower tax collection "caused by the economic downturn" as their point, without the new conditions, the old cuts are irrelivent.

You have to look at reality Bender, even with the old tax rates, the economic downturn would still have placed us in a hole with us not having enough tax revinue to pay out what you socialists want to spend.

We should be running our Government the way we run our homes, if you can't afford it, you don't spend it. Living on credit cards will always end in disaster, but not one socialist including yourself will ask for your Government to exercise some common sense in their spending.

The CBO was using today's issues of lower tax collection "caused by the economic downturn" as their point, without the new conditions, the old cuts are irrelivent.

So now the CBO is psychic?

The report was made in 2005.

The CBO was using today's issues of lower tax collection "caused by the economic downturn" as their point, without the new conditions, the old cuts are irrelivent.

 

 

So now the CBO is psychic?

 

The report was made in 2005.

.

.

The CBO was using today's issues of lower tax collection "caused by the economic downturn" as their point, without the new conditions, the old cuts are irrelivent.

 

 

So now the CBO is psychic?

 

The report was made in 2005.

So when the CBO offers their numbers for what a bill will cost "in the future" are they psychic? You guys kill me sometimes with your need to ignore common sense just to try and take shots all the time, lol.

The CBO was using today's issues of lower tax collection "caused by the economic downturn" as their point, without the new conditions, the old cuts are irrelivent.

 

 

So now the CBO is psychic?

 

The report was made in 2005.

So when the CBO offers their numbers for what a bill will cost "in the future" are they psychic? You guys kill me sometimes with your need to ignore common sense just to try and take shots all the time, lol.

No. Read your words. You claimed the information in the CBO report Bender posted was based on numbers after the economy crashed. The report came out in January 2005, that is about 3.5 years before the economy crashed.

How could their report in 2005 be based on something that didn't happen yet, or wasn't predicted, unless they are psychic.

Catch up man.

The CBO was using today's issues of lower tax collection "caused by the economic downturn" as their point, without the new conditions, the old cuts are irrelivent.

 

 

So now the CBO is psychic?

 

The report was made in 2005.

So when the CBO offers their numbers for what a bill will cost "in the future" are they psychic? You guys kill me sometimes with your need to ignore common sense just to try and take shots all the time, lol.

 

No. Read your words. You claimed the information in the CBO report Bender posted was based on numbers after the economy crashed. The report came out in January 2005, that is about 3.5 years before the economy crashed.

 

How could their report in 2005 be based on something that didn't happen yet, or wasn't predicted, unless they are psychic.

 

Catch up man.

Emphasis on "CATCH UP MAN!!!"

.

.

Tax cuts should be accompanied by spending cuts and new domestic programs should be paid for.

This is true, except for one thing. The current spending is all stimulus. Think of things like just unemployment.

 

Let's say a huge percentage of unemployed fit this Republican meme of not motivated enough to look for work.

 

First of all... 5 applicants for every 1 job available? What, those other 80% are just not trying hard enough???

 

GET REAL MAN!!

 

So yes, while I agree tax cuts should be accompanied by spending cuts and new domestic programs should be paid for. Not in the event you are trying to stimulate. You can't keep cutting taxes and saying "OK, NO TAKE BACKS"... especially if the situation where too many lives are now dependent on stimulus BECAUSE of taxing too little in the first place and the consequences of it.

.

.

What you do is have built in automatic stabilizers. Basically what this means is as unemployment rises so does the length and total compensation of unemployment benefits. As unemployment shrinks the length and compensation shrinks and over the business cycle the budget is close to being in balance.

GW'S HALF TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICITS IN TIMES OF PROSPERITY PAVED THE WAY FOR THE 1.5 TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT THIS YEAR.

Barry Goldwater 1964:

But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn't something upon which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today thirty-seven cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector's share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven't balanced our budget twenty-eight out of the last thirty-four years. We have raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury -- we don't own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars, and we have just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase forty-five cents in its total value.

Things have worsened since then, a large part due to "conservatives" who believe borrowing and spending is more conservative than taxing and spending. Our grandchildren are going to have to feed upon our corpses.

Romer’s Research: Expiration of Bush Tax Cuts Will Be Highly Contractionary

 

By Randall Holcombe on Jul 15, 2010

 

Christina Romer, Chair of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers and economics professor at the University of California at Berkeley, has published an article (co-authored with David Romer) in the June 2010 issue of the American Economic Review titled “The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks.” Unlike her statements in her role as an Obama adviser, this article is serious academic research, published in what is generally recognized as the world’s leading academic economics journal. In the article, the Romers divide legislated tax changes into those undertaken in response to economic conditions and those that are “exogenous,” by which they mean changes made for other reasons. The expiration of the Bush tax cuts clearly falls into the “exogenous” category, because it is the result of legislation passed years ago, before anybody could have anticipated the economic conditions under which they would expire.

 

What the Romers found is that exogenous tax increases, such as will occur with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, “… are highly contractionary. The effects are strongly significant, highly robust, and much larger than those obtained using broader measures of tax changes.”

 

Here is a strong argument, based on solid academic research, for extending the Bush tax cuts, and not letting them expire, made by one of President Obama’s top economic advisers.

http://www.independe...rg/blog/?p=6958

Romer’s Research: Expiration of Bush Tax Cuts Will Be Highly Contractionary

 

By Randall Holcombe on Jul 15, 2010

 

What the Romers found is that exogenous tax increases, such as will occur with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, “… are highly contractionary. The effects are strongly significant, highly robust, and much larger than those obtained using broader measures of tax changes.”

 

Here is a strong argument, based on solid academic research, for extending the Bush tax cuts, and not letting them expire, made by one of President Obama’s top economic advisers.

 

http://www.independe...rg/blog/?p=6958

And here is that research article in question, written in MARCH OF 2007 (guess Randall Holcombe forgot to mention that)

http://www.econ.berk...merDraft307.pdf

I can see though how one could accidentally press the "10" keys and not the "07" key when reporting the date, those keys are soooo close to each other. And March DOES kinda look like "JUNE" if your accidentally skip a needed consonant. Honest mixup.

But anyways...

Guess they advised Obama correctly when they said giving us YET ANOTHER tax cut like he did with the Recovery & Reinvestment act of 2009 would be the right thing to do.

As proven by THIS document: http://news.uchicago...se_20090227.pdf

GREAT FIND IWS, glad to see you sticking up for Obama for a change.

.

.

Romer’s Research: Expiration of Bush Tax Cuts Will Be Highly Contractionary

 

By Randall Holcombe on Jul 15, 2010

 

What the Romers found is that exogenous tax increases, such as will occur with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, “… are highly contractionary. The effects are strongly significant, highly robust, and much larger than those obtained using broader measures of tax changes.”

 

Here is a strong argument, based on solid academic research, for extending the Bush tax cuts, and not letting them expire, made by one of President Obama’s top economic advisers.

 

http://www.independe...rg/blog/?p=6958

And here is that research article in question, written in MARCH OF 2007 (guess Randall Holcombe forgot to mention that)

 

http://www.econ.berk...merDraft307.pdf

 

I can see though how one could accidentally press the "10" keys and not the "07" key when reporting the date, those keys are soooo close to each other. And March DOES kinda look like "JUNE" if your accidentally skip a needed consonant. Honest mixup.

 

But anyways...

 

Guess they advised Obama correctly when they said giving us YET ANOTHER tax cut like he did with the Recovery & Reinvestment act of 2009 would be the right thing to do.

 

As proven by THIS document: http://news.uchicago...se_20090227.pdf

 

GREAT FIND IWS, glad to see you sticking up for Obama for a change.

 

 

.

.

Fact Check, Please.

http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=AER&volume=100&issue=3

The article is published in the June 2010 American Economic Review.

I guess you posting a report from 2005 is valid but a discussion of an opinion of President Obama's chief economic adviser from 2007 is out of the question.

Nice job with the spin/purposeful lie/.purposely taking out of context.

What did I lie about? Do you DENY the report is from 2007? Do you DENY that it's the EXACT SAME REPORT your referencing from the right wing site (the alleged independent institute) you linked to? Just because it was published in an ARCHIVE LIBRARY doesn't make it apply to today. KEEP DREAMING.

.

.

What did I lie about? Do you DENY the report is from 2007? Do you DENY that it's the EXACT SAME REPORT your referencing from the right wing site (the alleged independent institute) you linked to? Just because it was published in an ARCHIVE LIBRARY doesn't make it apply to today. KEEP DREAMING.

.

.

You said the writer tried to make it look like it was a report from 2010. That's false. He said the report was published in a 2010 publication.

Just because the CBO makes a report in 2005 doesn't mean it applies today, either.

As far as I'm concerned, I think Mrs. Romer's expert opinion from 2007, is more relevant than it is today, as at that time she didn't have to play cover for anyone's ideology and with that said, even Keyensian economist, who want stimulatory spending, are against greatly raising taxes, during a down economy and the stimulatory spending should be short term. No sign of them following either rule any time soon. (unless GOP takes over the House)

As far as I'm concerned, I think Mrs. Romer's expert opinion from 2007, is more relevant than it is today,

That's odd, she's one of SEVERAL economist who say they are FOR letting the Bush tax cuts expire, contrary to what her 3 year old article from back then says. Who cares if it was recently published in an archive place. That's like saying something from web.archive.org that is 3 years old is relevant today just because it was recently archived.

.

.

As far as I'm concerned, I think Mrs. Romer's expert opinion from 2007, is more relevant than it is today,

That's odd, she's one of SEVERAL economist who say they are FOR letting the Bush tax cuts expire, contrary to what her 3 year old article from back then says. Who cares if it was recently published in an archive place. That's like saying something from web.archive.org that is 3 years old is relevant today just because it was recently archived.

.

.

More misrepresentation?

First off, It isn't a web archive. It's a professional journal that is published quarterly for economists. Like the New England Journal of Medicine is for doctors.

Second. It isn't a reprint of a 2007 report, it's a revisit and update to it, (they make reference to 2008 and 2009 reports in the update) and still says that increasing taxes in an economic downturn causes the economy to contract, not expand.