Posted on 02/15/2009 6:35:25 AM PST by Zakeet
On Thursday’s CBS Evening News, anchor Katie Couric introduced a report on the Democrats’ so-called "stimulus" plan about to pass Congress: "And we'll tell you what's in it for you, including tax breaks...It's designed, in part, to get you spending again by giving you the money to do it." However, in July of 2001, when President Bush was trying to get tax cut legislation passed, then Evening News anchor Dan Rather warned: "...new worries that his big tax cuts, along with a shrinking budget surplus, are re-shaping the political and fiscal landscape of the country."
Following Couric, Correspondent Nancy Cordes touted the benefits of the tax cuts: "For restaurant owner Tom Glascow, and for most Americans, the new stimulus package serves up a variety of tax cuts...The biggest bit is a $400 credit for almost all workers. That comes out to about $13 a week, which may not sound like much, but consider this-" Glascow explained: "The bottom line is, is every little bit will help...Basically, what does my business good is people with disposable income that can spend a little extra on lunch on a daily basis."
Cordes went on to declare: "But the biggest winners may be low-income workers like Glascow's eight employees. The bill gives workers making as little as $3,000 a year, a check of $1,000 per child and gives a one-time payout of $250 to social security beneficiaries." The report featured Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center, who further defended the tax breaks: "The poor spend almost any additional money they have coming in. They have lots and lots of needs relative to their incomes. They need every dollar they can have, and a new dollar in the door goes out pretty quickly."
Back in 2001, Katie Couric, then co-host of NBC’s Today, asked Bush advisor Karen Hughes if tax cuts should be "put on hold" due to budget deficits: "...the Bush administration is relying on a $5.6 trillion surplus over the next ten years. But there is no guarantee of that...So if that money, you know, for some reason isn't there and the debt isn't being paid down that the tax cut would be put on hold. What's wrong with that notion?"
Here's what I think of Freepers who say we have a double standard at SeeBS Smooze.
Whyinell anyone stil watches CBS is way beyond me.....
I watch one network show a week (NCIS), the rest of the time it’s Discovery, History, A&E etc..(UNLESS one of those channels has a documentary highlighting “Global Warming”)..then it’s change channel time in a hurry..
“And we’ll tell you what’s in it for you, including tax breaks”
the propaganda makes me sick.
“Whyinell anyone stil watches CBS is way beyond me”
drugs, senility?
this trash coming from a loser network..Strange how low the ratings are for this pile of poop network and yet they still insist their Muslim is better than anyone in the world..all these fools will find out what they have done by putting this bunch of morons into the senate and congress and also presidency.. but when it is to late..when they are burning in a lake of fire they will scream for help but no help will come..
I never watch CBS, the only mainstream media news I watch is local- catch up on housefires, local bank robberies and auto accidents.
But CBS is obviously just cheerleading, considering the doom and gloom rhetoric coming from the president- you’d have to be nuts to squander and spend a small tax cut at this point in time with the economy heading towards hard times- according to the president and other presumably knowledgable people.
The negativity being expounded by Obama is probably the worst thing he’s done so far economically- any economic recovery is based on private actions not governmental- and he’s basically paralyzed much of the economy with his prophesy of catastrophe.
What are you going to do with the extra 13 dollars in your wallet?
maybe buy a case of PBR[ Wait a minute, that costs 15 dollars}
or go take the family to a movie{ yeah, right}
or take your date out to dinner{ And maybe you can supersize that}.
We are in a world of S**t.
Demand side tax cuts don’t help the economy. They didn’t work for W. They won’t work now.
CBS,Dan Rather, nuff said
So that's what W had in mind when he said he didn't compromise his soul to be popular.
Good liberals watch it.
And why should care what cbs says??? lolol
The Bush administration is relying on a $5.6 trillion surplus over the next ten years. But there is no guarantee of that...
Well they were right about that for sure.
So when Kennedy cut the the marginal tax rates the economy did not respond.
And when Ronald Reagan did it the economy did not respond.
And when Bush did it in 2001 the economy did grow until the housing/banking bubble burst.
Is that what you contend?
The economy didn't start recovering until 2003, which was when we had the tax cuts for which W had the least input. The tax cuts that contained capital gains rate reductions, which W opposed.
The government bubble, the real estate, and the commodities bubble, which led W's economic "recovery," were unsustainable. The stock market during W's eight long years actually went down. He gave the IRS and SEC huge budget increases, yet people like Madoff still prospered, while real businesses suffered an extra burden. W was completely blindsided by the subprime crisis, which he repeatedly said was contained, along with his horrible Treasury secretary. He's one of the worst economic president's we've ever had.
W's lack of concern for the economy and the American standard of living is what has put the horrible Democrats and the inept Obama in charge. That's what I contend.
What about Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts?
As David Luskin wrote in 2006:
On Thursday the Congressional Budget Office released its annual Budget and Economic Outlook, and buried in one of its nearly impenetrable tables of numbers is a remarkable story that has gone entirely unreported by the mainstream media: The 2003 tax cut on capital gains has entirely paid for itself. More than paid for itself. Way more.
January 2004, after the capital-gains tax cut had been enacted. Table 4-4 on page 82 in CBO’s Budget and Economic Outlook of that year shows that the estimates for capital-gains tax liabilities had been lowered to $46 billion in 2004 and $52 billion in 2005, for a two-year total of $98 billion. Compare the original $125 billion total to the new $98 billion total, and we can infer that CBO was forecasting that the tax cut would cost the government $27 billion in revenues.
Those are the estimates. Now let’s see how things really turned out. Take a look at Table 4-4 on page 92 of the Budget and Economic Outlook released this week. You’ll see that actual liabilities from capital-gains taxes were $71 billion in 2004, and $80 billion in 2005, for a two-year total of $151 billion. So let’s do the math one more time: Subtract the originally estimated two-year liability of $125 billion from the actual liability of $151 billion, and you get a $26 billion upside surprise for the government. Yes, instead of costing the government $27 billion in revenues, the tax cuts actually earned the government $26 billion extra.
CBO’s estimate of the “cost” of the tax cut was virtually 180 degrees wrong. The Laffer curve lives!
See: http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200601270946.asp
Yes. And as I said, W opposed the capital gains tax cut in 2003, and he had little influence on the bill except for the dividends tax cut. After two years of W's abysmal economic leadership the economy started to grow, albeit, on the back of three bubbles, which have now collapsed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.