Business reporters confess news sins while U.S. economy collapsed

The Colorado Independent ^ | 27 April 2009 | John Tomasic

[Lorianne]

In a windowless room at the Westin Hotel in downtown Denver, leading business journalists and editors explained how the media “blew it” in covering the economic meltdown. They admitted, on one hand, to falling under the sway of free-market ideology and celebrating risk-taking financial leaders and, on the other, to missing the complex story of the rupturing system by only reporting it in parts and to almost no effect for the past decade.

Although not planned as confession, the discussion, which kicked off the annual conference of the Society of American Business Editors and Writers (SABEW), quickly descended into an unburdening, with the panelists taking turns voicing their own explanations and excuses for the failure. Former Wall Street Journal managing editor and current ProPublica.org chief Paul Steiger moderated the impromptu journalistic penitence.

“We drank the Kool-Aid,” said Jane Bryant Quinn, personal finance columnist for Bloomberg and Newsweek. “We believed that free markets were the best kind [of markets].” She said it had become “unfashionable” over the last three decades to write about regulation, so they didn’t.

“We could say things were risky … but we never said ‘Where’s the Fed?’”

University of Michigan business professor Greg Miller said that the finance beat had simply grown too complex and compartmentalized for journalists to cover well in the traditional way.

“No one banker could walk me through securitization in 2006,” he said. “They’re all specialists.” He said bankers rely on other specialists to take up the slack. “They don’t know even know each other’s names,” he said.

Miller suggested journalists should specialize and then work together to create more comprehensive coverage.

But veteran TV journalist Allan Dodds Frank, who now writes for the DailyBeast.com after a career with CNN, Bloomberg and ABC News covering white collar crime, said that complex economic stories were virtually impossible to sell to his editors.

“Fannie and Freddie were not covered on TV because there’s no visual,” he said, referring to the country’s major lenders, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which made billions in the run up to the collapse by doling out increasingly high-risk loans.

He said journalists couldn’t figure out what “Wall Street was doing” and that high-rolling CEOs and fund managers were never compelled to answer tough questions.

“We soft-balled them because we wanted them to come on [our shows] … we let them hide the ball on us.”

Frank pointed out that there were no representatives at the conference from CNBC — the business channel ridiculed recently for its celebratory coverage of Wall Street — and said it was no secret that “in broadcast financial journalism, corporations are sexy.” Coveted interviews with CEO celebrities had moved investigative pieces off of edit calendars.

“The glamorization of business news [led us] to adopt a posture of reverence [toward our subjects] … We knew it was nonsense,” he said.

Of the journalists on the panel, New York Times Business Editor Larry Ingrassia was the least bowed. He read out a list of stories The Times had run over the last decade that treated the escalating loan crisis and executive compensation, for example.

“The regulators were asleep but we reporters were not,” he said.

He later explained that the stories were there even if readers didn’t heed them. He explained that his writers are looking to explain problems and maintained it was unfair to judge coverage based on whether people act on the information reported.

In the end he seemed to undermine his argument, though, agreeing that they missed an important story that would have targeted a group that could have made a difference. The laxity of federal finance regulators went unreported in The New York Times and in other publications, he admitted.

“The [finance industry] lobbyists had more impact on the regulators than we did,” he said, pointing indirectly to the expanded influence the financial sector came to wield in Washington over the past three decades — the story many now argue is at the heart of the collapse.

SABEW conference organizers said that, even though other journalism organizations canceled events this year, they decided to go forward despite the ongoing crisis in the newspaper industry.

“There is a huge need for business journalists to become more knowledgeable and versatile — for the sake of readers and viewers and for their [own] personal livelihoods,” SABEW President Bernie Kohn wrote in the conference program.

[thefrankbaum]

This holds true in almost every topic area - it is why news organizations are dying. All they do now is read (Democratic) press releases, rather than uncovering scandles and waste.

[sickoflibs]

Someone predicted it but they igored him as they do now: Peter Schiff Was Right 2006 - 2007 (2nd Edition)

[bitterohiogunclinger]

Another favorite tactic of the Leftwing dirtbag media.
““We drank the Kool-Aid,” said Jane Bryant Quinn, personal finance columnist for Bloomberg and Newsweek. “We believed that free markets were the best kind [of markets].” She said it had become “unfashionable” over the last three decades to write about regulation, so they didn’t.”
Here we go again. Cheerleading for communism under the guise that “free markets” are the evil that caused the meltdown, so of course only “Big Government” is the solution.

[Frantzie]

They still do not get it. It was not the free market but politicians distorting the free market to help their corrupt freinds like hedge funds. It was pols with community organizers, CRA lawsuits, bank shakedowns by community organizers/lib lawyers, Fannie & Freddie & Cong Black Caucus and Barney Frank block ANY regulation.

The deregulation of Wall Street had major problems and Glass Stegall should never have been dismantled - with 1920s investment pools outlawed (now today’s hedge funds), no uptick rule today, naked shorting, excessive leverage, govt moral hazard in bailing out companies.

These business writers are clueless. It was corrupt politicians with corrupt business people.

[mo]

Two words “Media Malpractice”

[ChessExpert]

We believed that free markets were the best kind [of markets].”

Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, HUD, CRA, Government accusations of redlining and racism, yup, that’s a free market (sarcasm).

[investigateworld]

Man I love that video - Is Laffer (sp?) still showing his face in public?

[sickoflibs]

Laffer now talks like Schiff. A convert. This video is better, my favorite:

Peter Schiff's Analogies (Economic wisdom you won't hear anyplace else)

[TrueKnightGalahad]

Uh-huh. Hey, guys, let's all just keep ignoring the elephant in the room -- the decades during which the federal government FORCED banks to make high-risk mortgage loans with small down payments and low interest rates that did not reflect the true risk. Asking poor credit risks to make substantial down payments and pay realistic (read: higher) interest rates was racist, don'cha know.

My question to the conference attendees would have been, "Is the great majority of the financial press wilfully blind, or just plain stupid?!?"

[lonestar67]

This article is hilariously flawed.

Who are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

Oh yes, government entities.

No one wants to admit that it is the unregulated GOVERNMENT that is at the root of these and so many other evils.

The Left is so desperate to incite obedience to tyranny that now that want to tap into public frustration over the Media as some sort of irrational whiplash into socialism.

I wonder if the authors of the article think we need a critical press covering Obama?

Probably not.

He is righteous and pure.

We need to be more obedient to him.

[jiggyboy]

Free Republic wins again.

[sickoflibs]

RE “Here we go again. Cheerleading for communism under the guise that “free markets” are the evil that caused the meltdown, so of course only “Big Government” is the solution.”

Let me explain it to you. PRESIDENT GWB was the massive government leader/promoter but represented capitalism and free markets with a few words to keep followers in line. Everytime the media called on Bush to do something it was billions and stimulus and bailouts. So the results of his policies get blamed on capitalism. Something to think about next time the R party nominates another McCain, or Romney and we are told “Worst of two evils” That is the price. So is Obama/Pelosi.

[freekitty]

Yep, it’s communism they are really rooting for.

[lonestar67]

Let me explain it to you.

Bush was not the massive government promoter.

He did promote free markets and capitalism— providing the longest and largest Global economic expansion in human history.

Even his Tarp 1 had a payback for taxpayers and stopped short of half expenditure [350 billion].

The refusal to acknowledge Bush’s conservative credentials are part of an irrational pathology that feeds the radical Left’s control of public policy.

Tax cuts were the cornerstone of Bush’s success in overcoming the Clinton recession and the massive financial hit of 911. That is basic free market solutions.

Bush repeatedly warned that government entities in the mortgage industry were endangering the economy. It was Barney Frank who in 2007 said that was not the case and even said anyone suggesting such things was causing such a crises.

If people want more free market capitalism than Bush provided— let’s not forget his effort to privatize SS— which republicans refused to back him on— then go ahead. But the inane effort to recast Bush as a socialist is pro leftist pro Obama hackery— no matter what the source.

[goodnesswins]

SHEESH...what idiots! FREE Markets are the BEST....WHEN YOU HAVE THEM....we haven’t had a “Free market” since, what....1992??? Or even before that.

[posterchild]

The sins of the media isn’t so much following trends or having faith in free markets but one of sloth. Seems that they do little more than fill in templates and seldom ask the hard questions. Few stories go deeper than the requisite sound bites.

[Proud_USA_Republican]

“We soft-balled them because we wanted them to come on [our shows] … we let them hide the ball on us.”

This is only part of the story and usually the small excuse they use to hide the bigger one. The big one is that a major portion of advertising revenue collected by the news media was from real estate related industries. From home/condo developers, to realtors, to financials, to mortgage brokers, to home loan services, etc, etc... on and on and on. They didn't want to bite the hand that feed it so reporting against all the criminal and fraudulent activities going on within those industries was silenced. Many could see the problems coming from a mile away, but the majority of the media was dead silent to protect their golden goose. Only now that all the advertising revenue has bottomed out, let the finger pointing begin.

[sickoflibs]

RE “ He (GWB)did promote free markets and capitalism— providing the longest and largest Global economic expansion in human history.”

Every single dollar of that so called “expansion” was borrowed money that came due last year 2008, a disaster because we didnt have it. All he and his WASHINGTON buddies gave us was a Sea of debt. " Run up your credit cards. Dont worry about tomorrow. Didnt you have fun?? Who cares about 2009 ?we had a blast in 2005. Who cares if our house and 401K is gone now. Long live Bush"

RE “Tax cuts were the cornerstone of Bush’s success in overcoming the Clinton recession and the massive financial hit of 911. That is basic free market solutions”

Oh, you mean spending the same money and more ?? Every dime he spent was a dime he taxed someone. Your silly argument that Bush gave us free lunch makes Obama the greatest president that ever lived, for spending EVEN MORE money he didnt raise or have

RE:Even his Tarp 1 had a payback for taxpayers and stopped short of half expenditure [350 billion].

No, you didnt say that.

[lonestar67]

Your post is the usual fare of hyperbole. Most of the people buying houses kept their mortgages and their homes.

7 percent screwed up and frankly, in most cases they deserve to be busted by the free markets. Pretending like it is “Bush’ fault” is pure fantasy and a further flight from the harsh truth of the invisible hand brought about by our individual rendezvous with responsibility.

Tax cuts are spending someone else’s money? I think you have absolutely outed yourself as an Obamabot now.

Tax cuts are limits on the Government’s capacity to tax MY money. The money did not belong to the Government and then get released to me. You try to recover by saying tax cuts are funded by taxing people. What a silly non-sequitir.

I did say that about Tarp 1. Tarp 2 has no payback and is has no known ceiling to expenditure. It could have already quadrupled the spending of Tarp 1. We simply are not allowed to know the full implementation of Tarp 2.

Tarp 2 is all democrat spending.

Dropped arguments: social security privatization.

How much are Pro Obama organizations paying you to post here at Free Republic?

[Daisyjane69]

Good find. Thanks.

My mom was a newspaper reporter until she retired ten years ago. The one thing she pounded in my head was how incredibly lazy most reporters were. She was not, and it was endlessly frustrating to her to be surrounded by newly minted journalism graduates that could not do basic fact checking.

Of course, they didn’t get a chance to indoctrinate her in college. My mom was only a high school graduate, educated in the School of Hard Knocks (as they used to call it).

It’s prolly for this reason that I am deeply suspicious of the MSM.

[Gondring]

Most of the people buying houses kept their mortgages and their homes.

Yes, and what right did President Bush have to make non-homeowners subsidize that?

[dools007]

Yo, sickoflibs—I’m sick of RINOs, too. Apparently many folks who call themselves Republican are afflicted with the same education and critical thinking deficit as the demrats.

The only thing that encourages any optimism on my part is the Tea Party movement. It was wonderful being among people who get it.

[sickoflibs]

Are you Cheney's intern? Your braindead talking points appear too canned. It's you Bush bots that destroyed the republican party and gave capitalism a bad name with your big government big debt phony ponzi economic bubble you call growth.

RE : Tax cuts are spending someone else’s money? I think you have absolutely outed yourself as an Obamabot now. ”

Bush ‘s(and his lakeys like you) big-government big-debt spending was taxing us freepers but you temporarily hid it by NOT funding it with tax increases or other spending cuts but more spending increases. Bush-bot/RINO talk is “ Bush gives grandma a extra dollar, but he cuts your taxes a dollar, and spent ten building Iraq . See everybody wins. Party now, the hell with later “ Huh? Now how can that be? But you Bush bots claim it makes perfect sense.In fact, Obama and Pelosi are using it now, You, Bush, Obama Pelosi all have the same talking points. "A dollar borrowed/printed is a dollar earned"

RE :"7 percent screwed up and frankly, in most cases they deserve to be busted by the free markets"

Many honest people bought houses at the peak of the market for prices that were meaningless, based on a debt-ponzi bubble because you Bush-McCain bots went out and lied to them, you told them there was real economic growth, that it was all was real. But it was a big lie and you ruined many people lives, and you gave the country to democrats, you gave them everything because YOUR idiotic canned talking points could never fly.

RE “ Dropped arguments: social security privatization. ’

You got to be kidding. Claiming if we had only put FICA tax money into the Bush-Greenspan debt bubble Ponzi stock market something good would have happened(on the other side of your mouth you clain Carter and Clinton destroyed the stock market, BEFORE Bush was in office.) . You call that a winning free market argument anyone would buy? How about putting it in condos in Florida too? This is your PRO-republican argument? Where was that money coming from? You were spending it many times over and cutting taxes too, How can there be savings? It doesnt add up, You cant talk about private savings accounts when you are spending that money many times over.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

In fact, Obama and Pelosi are using it now, You, Bush, Obama Pelosi all have the same talking points. "A dollar borrowed/printed is a dollar earned"

True, I have heard the leftists repeat the "Republicans did it too" argument ad nauseum. All other things being equal, tax cuts are a good thing, but common sense should tell us spending and borrowing year after year when there is no good reason to do so is stupid. It not only robs Peter to pay Paulson, it ruins Peter for many years.

I think it's true that Obama is worse than Bush, but that is faint praise. But it's difficult for me to think that it's "Bush vs, Obama" when they have so much in common.

BTW breaking news, surprice surprise, Citibank and BofA both need more bailout money.

[sickoflibs]

Check out these Bush bot talking points. Bush proposed private savings accounts using FICA funds great idea huh? But he was printing the money at the time, he would have had to print more to put in these savings accounts. All this printing and spending led to stock market disaster 2007-2008. But Bush-bots claim that’s all democrats fault, When? Jimmy Carter (pre-1981), Clinton (pre-2001) and Barney Frank (pre-2005.) But it was 2005 when Bush proposed the private savings accounts, after these democrats actions to destroy the market (and Bush tried to stop them.) So Bush tried to fix it, but failed, but still proposed FICA money go into stock market (and told us that the economy was real even though he failed ???.) And it’s mystery why republicans look so bad now?

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

It would be fairer to note that Dems like Barney Frank also contributed to all that spending and borrowing, while assuring everyone that the mortgage market was sound.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”I think it's true that Obama is worse than Bush, but that is faint praise. But it's difficult for me to think that it's “Bush vs, Obama” when they have so much in common. “

If you dont praise Bush even now you are an Obama-ite.

My question. If Bush giving granny a buck, cutting my taxes by two bucks and spending two in Iraq is not taxing anyone, then how can we oppose Obama. Bailouts are free, stimulus is free, health care is free, everything Obama is doing is free. “But that is socialism and that is bad. Bush borrowed but that was free market”. Do you really think this message can sell? That You can tell a voter that rebuilding a school in Iraq on printed money is good, but rebuilding HIS kids school on printed money is bad, because its socialism??? This is what many Bush-bots are saying, and others too. No republican leading candidate will even try to deliver that message. None did, none will try. That is a Hannity/Levin message and they only require a small set of believers to be successful.

[sickoflibs]

I agree but I cannot seriously join democrats and tell them to can Barney Frank. Democrats love spending

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

I understand that you and I both see both Bush and Obama as bad for the country, and you do cast blame on the Dems sometimes, but I think your posts would not be so likely to lead to strife here if you did explicitly blame Dems more often.

Bush has been out of office for some time now. If we want to disagree with someone who wants to continue the Bush trade, amnesty, and spending/borrowing agenda, fine. Other than that, we may be beating a dead horse. Yes, I am still angry about what Bush did to us, but he did not do it alone, and Obama is in the office now.

[sickoflibs]

Did you see Spector jumped parties? Now he can give democrats their majority without worrying about Toomey as much. Republicans would be wise to support a democrat candidate against Spector that is more liberal, weaker than him. PA is still democrat land and will be for a while but a liberal against Toomey would work..

This is a good issue for those of us that dislike RINOs to resolve, what if we lose the seat completely? The pro-RINO case is his occasional vote is better than nothing.

[sickoflibs]

I mean support a democratic candidate in democratic primary against Spector to weaken them, and give Toomey an easier race. Play both sides. They picked McCain and voted for Obama.

[lonestar67]

You are definitely steeped in talking points and are probably well paid by your Obama sources. Nonetheless, you are largely unresponsive to my arguments which makes cleaning up the mess here pretty easy.

Tax cuts increase government revenue.

Its not complicated and its factual in every instance tax cuts are used— including the JFK cuts. Consequently, your claim that Bush fails to “fund his cuts” — ridiculous liberal logic is actually wrong and turned. Tax cuts increase money for the government because the stimulated economy generates more taxable revenue. The cause of deficits is ALWAYS spending not tax cuts.

Rest assured that Pelosi and Obama are not talking tax cuts. In fact, they are looking to get out of the limited tax cuts that Obama promised in the campaign. In fact, you are probably more informed on how they will do this than I am.

You are unresponsive on mortgages. The Bush administration no less than 3 times warned congress in public hearings that the mortgage leverage process was unsustainable. Your friend, Barney Frank, pitched his usual hissy fit and said there was no crisis and anyone who said there was one was causing it. By the way, how close are you and Barney?

I think the social security discussion pretty much outs you as a democrat. The stock market does go up— even with all the crashing in the late 1990s and now. Socialists would like to see it completely obliterated since they don’t think private capital should event exist. In regard to your flailing away at the argument. Bush offered a conservative option whereby people could invest a small portion [3%] of social security in private funds. Those are more productive funds than the government. The growth would exceed the growth in payments offered by the current system and is used succesfully in places such as Chile. Republicans refused to back the plan. Honestly I care very little about the matter— though it was a good idea— it just illustrates that Bush was a free market thinker and a proponent of capitalism.

Your contradictory flailings on this point do little to undermine that fact.

I would love to be Cheney’s intern but I don’t think the guy needs my help. He seems utterly unintimidated by the America hating pro socialist reactionaries who seek to destroy our nation. Regardless of whether such ventures succeed we can all aspire to be as stalwart in the defense of America’s principals as Cheney is. The guy is awesome. I am glad he has your attention:)

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Tax cuts increase government revenue......Your contradictory flailings on this point do little to undermine that fact”

Now this is definitely brain dead talking points. Bush tax cuts paid for HIS massive government spending ? but somehow we ended up deficit every year ending with 2008, the deficit of deficits year giving your brother Obama his cue (and argument) for more. You gotta be brain dead to believe the mantra,' cuts=more', 'increases= less', but 'cuts giving more ends with deficits'. How could that be? (-2 ) tax cuts + (-2) spending = +4 your math BUT we end with a deficit of -4. But if I point out your insanity (that NO ONE BELIEVES, certainly not voters!) I are a democrat. Great plan for election loss #3.

The thing I can never figure out is if you guys are paid party hacks (or paid talk radio hacks) or just the braindead bots that memorize talking points like above.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

The cause of deficits is ALWAYS spending not tax cuts.

Except in the sense that they can be part of a deal which borrows more money than taxes bring in. In a sense, I agree that in an ideal world in which spending was under control, taxes and borrowing would be low, and life would be good.

The Bush administration no less than 3 times warned congress in public hearings that the mortgage leverage process was unsustainable.

It's not convincing to note only comments Bush made out of one side of his mouth. To give a more honest idea of what Bush advocated, you could have noted Bush 2002 statements like Well, probably the single barrier to first-time homeownership is high down payments. And Freddie Mac recently began 25 initiatives around the country to dismantle barriers and create greater opportunities for homeownership. One of the programs is designed to help deserving families who have bad credit histories to qualify for homeownership loans. The truth is that the "lend to those with bad credit" side of his mouth won the battle, and I don't think we have seen all the unfortunate results yet.

I used to be a Bush defender, and still will on SCOTUS appointments and pro-life issues. I voted for him 4 times and defended him all over the world. I am not going to defend him (except in the sense that Dems also are to blame) for the economic disaster that brought us Obama, but as I said in another post, what we appear to be doing here is beating a dead horse. Bush is no longer POTUS, and we can't change what happened when he was.

[lonestar67]

I am not asking you or anyone else on this thread to “believe” anything.

Every single tax cut ever made— increased revenue to the federal treasury. That is an incontrovertible fact and has nothing to do with talking points.

My talking points come from debating with hundreds of reactionaries like yourself. The facts are plain and simple.

A deficit exists when you spend more than you make PERIOD. The make part of the equation is government revenue in tax receipts. Had the tax cuts not taken place, the deficit would have swelled by even larger numbers.

[lonestar67]

Side of the mouth?

What in the world?

Bush’s advisors spoke three times at Congressional hearings. They appeared in the Congressional record asking for reforms to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because the system was destined for abuse.

Your citation is an example of side of mouth and bears not at all on the possibility of abusing the system. Owning a mortgage is not a crime. Refusing to properly check the credit of applicants is highly unethical and was what Fannie Mae regulators were doing at the behest of Barney Frank and other democrats. If you want to blame Congressional Republicans who also refused to heed this advice from the White House prior to 2006, then fine. But to pretend that Bush did not act to prevent this mess is a flat out lie.

Bush reactionaries need to awaken from the slumber of Presidency = Dictatorship. Congress controls spending. Its totally legit to critique congressional republicans 2001-2006 on spending. Bush’s advocacy was highly distinct from Obama’s advocacy and the Democratic congress’ advocacy. Lazily lumping them all together is the root of ignorance fueling the losses by Republicans.

[sickoflibs]

Thanks. I was worried you might clobber me for staying on this subject. I know I am a broken record.

I have a bigger point and it's beyond my frustration of still hearing about GWB every day and the public’s reaction giving BOB a free pass. I am painfully aware democrats used Bush as a strategy and are using him now (sort of unbelievible) after luring him over and over into working with them

It's really that many republicans have not learned from mistakes. And that I am really concerned that they have learned the wrong or even ‘no’ lesson. “It was ALL the media AND bad luck that did Bush in ”. Much of this debate was off limits the past 8 years for fear of being accused of hurting the party. But there is no party to hurt now and the past two years have been very painful. It seems now is the time to clean house. Plus, if we defend Bush, but attack Obama what is the principle? (Rhetorical questions for readers) Can you have tea parties and defend Bush Cheney? Democrats have been shy to raise taxes and are following the debt/printing path to avoid. is that a bad direction or not ? (Rhetorical questions for readers)

[calcowgirl]

Every single tax cut ever made— increased revenue to the federal treasury. That is an incontrovertible fact and has nothing to do with talking points.

How exactly does that work?

If you take $1 million out of the Treasury to give back to a taxpayer, you are saying that $1 million++ will then flow back into the treasury?

So, if I receive a $100.00 tax cut, I will later pay to the treasury $100.00++? Or, someone else will pay?

Please explain.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Every single tax cut ever made— increased revenue to the federal treasury. That is an incontrovertible fact and has nothing to do with talking points.”

Would you stop the nonsense? I know three talk show hosts that repeat this crap and the bot believers defy logic and go for it. How can it be a fact ? When it has always led to deficits, usually huge ones? I remember reading it in Rushs first book 1992 and it has taken on a religious belief status ever since. it is so easily disproven by specific examples.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Every single tax cut ever made— increased revenue to the federal treasury you say??? How exactly does that work? (to lonestar67 who made the nutty statement)

The best example is the Bush tax cuts that take voters completely off the income tax rolls, so they pay nothing (at least directly) to support all the government spending they likely demand. So according to this bot's programming, these non-tax payers work harder and generate MORE income tax revenue because their taxes were cut to zero, because tax cuts always increase revenues. This is something repeated on talk radio too. So why didnt Bush just cut ALL our taxes to zero? What is scarey is that so many buy this, that GWB government was free. Guess who is using that idea now??

[GreatDaggar]

OH PLEASEE PPLEASSEE MR. BIG GOVERNMENT

PLEASE SAVE US ALL

[lonestar67]

God help us if the people posting to these boards are really Republicans.

I have provided synoptic readings and sources for tax cuts increase revenue. In essence, when the economy grows broadly, more people contribute to the taxation process. Consider how a relatively small percentage of people currently pay taxes. If more people pay taxes then revenue increases. Moreover, when capital increases in a growing economy, it also contributes more revenue via capital gains taxes which are on top of income taxes. This is also true in taxes such as sales tax or almost any tax we can conceive of. The trick is economic growth. Tax cuts produce this and therefore increase revenue. For Statists [no my view], tax cuts “pay for themselves” in 3-5 years. Kennedy’s probably paid off sooner. Please understand I don’t endorse the view that government owns my money. I am just trying to help the hopeless souls that think it does.

http://www.ncpa.org/media/study-bushs-capital-gains-tax-cuts-provided-stimulus-more-revenue

Faced with a fragile economy early in his presidency, President Bush responded with a series of tax cuts, including reduced taxes on capital gains and dividend income. These measures were designed to stimulate capital investment and produce more jobs. The study notes that the stimulus package had positive effects on the economy and government finances. The economy grew, the government gained revenue and the rich now pay a larger share of taxes than ever. For example:

The rate of business capital investment underwent a U-turn - from negative business investment spending in the two years before the tax cut to an average annual increase of more than 10 percent in the three succeeding years.
In the four years since the cut, federal revenues increased $740 billion and revenues from the capital gains tax nearly doubled to $110 billion.
There was a sizable “unlocking effect” from the lower tax rate, meaning that investors voluntarily sold stock and other assets at a much higher volume once the tax rate was reduced, nearly doubling the amount of capital gains realized.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110010798

Inconvenient Tax Truths
Charlie Rangel and other liberal leaders want to raise tax rates even if it means lower tax revenues.

By PETE DU PONT
Tuesday, October 30, 2007 12:01 A.M. EDT

Nobel Peace laureate Al Gore believes global warming is “an inconvenient truth.” Here are some economic truths that America’s liberal leadership finds too inconvenient to support.

Tax rate reductions increase tax revenues. This truth has been proved at both state and federal levels, including by President Bush’s 2003 tax cuts on income, capital gains and dividends. Those reductions have raised federal tax receipts by $785 billion, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. In fiscal 2007, which ended last month, the government took in 6.7% more tax revenues than in 2006.

These increases in tax revenue have substantially reduced the federal budget deficits. In 2004 the deficit was $413 billion, or 3.5% of gross domestic product. It narrowed to $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006 and $163 billion in 2007. That last figure is just 1.2% of GDP, which is half of the average of the past 50 years.

Lower tax rates have be so successful in spurring growth that the percentage of federal income taxes paid by the very wealthy has increased. According to the Treasury Department, the top 1% of income tax filers paid just 19% of income taxes in 1980 (when the top tax rate was 70%), and 36% in 2003, the year the Bush tax cuts took effect (when the top rate became 35%). The top 5% of income taxpayers went from 37% of taxes paid to 56%, and the top 10% from 49% to 68% of taxes paid. And the amount of taxes paid by those earning more than $1 million a year rose to $236 billion in 2005 from $132 billion in 2003, a 78% increase.

Finally, another inconvenient truth is that there have been 49 consecutive months of job growth as a result of the economic expansion induced by President Bush’s 2003 tax rate reductions.

http://taxesandgrowth.ncpa.org/news/are-the-bush-tax-cuts-working

However, if Congress makes the tax cuts permanent, the major economic benefits begin in 2011. According to the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation:13

Significant economic gains will occur throughout the period from 2006-2014, particularly after 2008.
For example, making certain that taxes on investment remain low will add about 285,000 jobs per year in fiscal years 2008 and 2009.
In those two years alone, lower taxes on capital gains and dividends mean an additional $70 billion in economic output and an additional $110 billion in disposable income for households.
On average, total employment will rise by 1,087,000 jobs per year, and after inflation, annual GDP will be over $111 billion higher.
Personal savings will grow by $163 billion per year, on average, after inflation.
After-tax household income will grow by an annual average of $274 billion per year, after inflation.

More info:

http://www.freedomworks.org/publications/tax-cut-revenue-rewards

[GreatDaggar]

deficits = revenue - spending

learn some basic math, PLEASE

[calcowgirl]

GWB government was free. Guess who is using that idea now??

Queen Nancy and her merry minions? Just a guess. ;-)

[lonestar67]

I like how you are creating a spectacle here.

I am glad you are not “cutting and running” Obama style.

Let’s drag this out until everyone sees how “crazy” it is to think tax cuts increase revenue.

Consider further how the US having the second highest corporate tax rate in the world might create incentives to re-locate?

Hmmm. Do industries have the good sense to move out of the United States to garner lower tax rates?

Correct answer: Yes.

When the industry is gone [perhaps the car industry comes to mind]. How much revenue does that generate for the Federal government?

Correct answer: Zero

Getting uncomfortable yet?

If the US did not have the second highest corporate tax rate i the World, how would that affect business decision to base themselves in the United States?

Correct answer: They would be more likely to locate here and grow.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

I used to be like you. I was so obsessed with the immediate idea of pro-life principles that I could not forsee that Bush would beget Obama, with even worse prospects for abortion and national defense than Clinton. I'll let you and others continue to

[lonestar67]

I don’t recall Bush ever endorsing Obama for President.

I am not sure I really get your point.

I am always happy to advocate for what is clearly right.

The demonization of Bush was always false whether it was done by the right or the left.

I am not exhausted by the task nor do I find it unproductive in the ways described by the cartoon.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

You and I and others were starting to beat a dead horse (see cartoon). I don’t think that is productive, and I’m out of this dialogue now.