Hilarious: Meredith Vieira Has No Idea Why Tax Cuts Are Good For The Economy

The Hope For America ^ | 9/14/10 | Meredith Vieira

[careyb]

Does she believe in a 100% tax rate?

[ShadowAce]

pflr

[bigbob]

what is it that Obama always says? Something like:

“The (insert name of gumming program here) is the right idea, at the right time (insert more political pandering phrases here). But clearly the progress has not been fast enough, so we have to be patient while these programs take effect”.

[fml]

Meredith Viera: Still Stupid.

[SonOfDarkSkies]

Meredith Vieira Has No Idea Why Tax Cuts Are Good For The Economy

This is a stupid title and simply spreads the confusion.

The Bush tax cuts ARE NOT TAX CUTS!

They are reductions in the Tax Rates. By reducing the rate of taxation, it is understood that an economy gains momentum and actually generates greater tax revenues.

[SoothingDave]

That’s what “tax cuts” are. The rate is lowered. Taxes are cut.

[JPG]

If Meredith Vieira ever did have an idea she wouldn't know what to do with it. Idiocy at its finest.

[SonOfDarkSkies]

You and I know that but the rest of the stupid population doesn't understand that distinction.

Even Chris Wallace said on Sunday that he wasn't sure he could understand how we can cut taxes on the very wealthy with the deficits being so high.

I have heard many people, even accountants, speak of tax cuts as though they are actually a direct reduction in revenues...and of course, they are NOT.

Many people do not understand the dynamic nature of an economy.

[SonOfDarkSkies]

The rate is lowered. Taxes are cut.

Actually, no.

Tax rates are lowered, tax revenues rise! At least on the upward slope of the Laffer curve.

[Finny]

I’ve never understood how this bland looking, mouse-haired human mediocrity ended up where she is. I mean, although I think Katie Couric is a pinhead, she’s a perky pinhead with lots of personality. Vieira is just ho-hum predictable beige all the way around, from her perspective on “the news” to her personal fashion sense. Every time I see her I’m struck by her sheer dullness.

[SonOfDarkSkies]

Yep, Meredith is too stupid to realize that Conservatism might actually be worth considering.

[SoothingDave]

Duh.

It’s still known as “tax cuts” when the rates are cut. I didn’t say “revenue cuts.”

[SonOfDarkSkies]

I wish that voters understood that tax rates are like sales commission rates in reverse.

There used to be an joke in college that the accountants argued against raising sale commission rates because that meant higher commission expense and that meant lower profits.

I think even if Obama understood that lower tax rates result in MORE tax revenues, he would be against them because he thinks it simply gives more PIE to the rich...and that just isn't fair (in his twisted world).

Obama and Michelle have proven that they, with their socialist 'pie' concept, are what is known as a linear thinkers.

[SonOfDarkSkies]

Duh!

Most Americans don't get that distinction...didn't you know that?

[silverleaf]

Well then - can she describe how tax increases are good for the economy? If so maybe she can replace Romer or Orszag. Larry Summers is prolly a lot of fun to work for. Especially for women.

[hecht]

Does anyone think she voluntarily pays the 39% that she demands of others?

[SonOfDarkSkies]

People, across the board, define taxes as the amount they pay to the government...not the means/equation by which they calculate how much they pay to the gov’t.

[SoothingDave]

Most Republicans buy into the media talk about how to PAY for tax cuts.

[silverleaf]

"As the Wall Street Journal's Stephen Moore illuminates in his 2008 book "The End of Prosperity" (Threshold Editions), Mr. Bush's 2001 tax cuts failed to revive an economy still staggering from the bursting of the dot-com bubble. Mr. Bush's strategy had been to adopt a demand-side, Keynesian stimulus, hoping that putting a few extra dollars in Americans' pockets would jump-start the economy through increased consumption. This approach faltered, not just because Americans opted to save their rebates, but because it neglected the importance of business investment to overall growth. Predictably, the economy lagged and government revenues stagnated. What the United States needed then (and needs now) was to stimulate investment, not consumption.

By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.

But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to the New York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a "surprise windfall"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/03/bush-tax-cuts-boosted-federal-revenue/?feat=article_top10_shared

[Eric in the Ozarks]

She’s an embarrassment.