The dems' deficit-hawk fakery

NY Post ^ | August 1, 2010 | Adam Brodsky

[Scanian]

Come Jan. 1, Democrats will officially end their romance with John May nard Keynes. That's the day they hope to sock America with the largest tax hike in years, all in the name of their supposed new love: deficit-cutting.

But don't expect that fling to last long, either; if you want to know who's really won their heart, ring Joe the Plumber. Or Robin Hood. They'd know.

Ever since President Obama took office, and Dems took Congress, they've insisted the right medicine for our ailing economy was deficit spending. Last year's nearly $1 trillion stimulus was all borrowed money -- intentionally.

It's basic Keynes: To jolt an economy back to good health, give folks more cash than you take from them and charge up the difference to a credit card. Consumers will spend the extra dough and stimulate the economy. Whatever you do, don't raise taxes -- at least not until the recession is safely behind you.

Yet Obama & Co. now claim that tax hikes are nothing to fear.

"I do not believe [raising taxes] will have a negative effect on growth," Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said last week, in what may be Team O's sharpest U-turn since it offered Shirley Sherrod her job back.

[Ulysse]

ping

[Son House]

The deficit is to be made up by higher taxes because Democrats won’t stop spending

[Son House]

ring Joe the Plumber

^
The guy had no clue who he was going to vote for 3 weeks before the 2008 election. No thanks, I prefer to be better informed.

[Hoodat]

Raising taxes will have no effect on Tim Geithner’s economic activity since he doesn’t pay his taxes.

[SECURE AMERICA]

“I do not believe [raising taxes] will have a negative effect on growth,” Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said last week

History asswipe, History. EVERY TIME that taxes are raised it has had a negative effect on growth

[MNJohnnie]

So after running up their credit card to record levels, the Dems want justify their attempts to rape taxpayers paychecks as being "Fiscally responsible".

No Dems, we have heard this song and dance before from you.

In 1986 to Reagan, 1991 to Bush 1 and 1993 to Clinton the Progressives in Congress made the same fraudulent promises. Give us these massive tax hikes now and later we will cut the spending to balance the budget.

We gave them the tax hikes and Federal Spending exploded faster then we could pay for it.

The ONLY time we have gotten a balanced budget in the last 40 years is when the post 1994 election Republican Congress took the public relations hits to actually reign in the spending.

Contrary to the Progressive's mythology, Bill Clinton’s tax hikes did not do that. The last Democrat Congress budget forecast in 1994 projected $200 billion deficits for the rest of the 1990s.

So this time the response of the American people should be

“Look we have heard this lie before. This time we want the spending cuts in place first, then 4 or 5 years down the road, when you have shown you can be responsible with the people’s purse, then you can come ask us for tax hikes.

[DustyMoment]

That's the day they hope to sock America with the largest tax hike in years, all in the name of their supposed new love: deficit-cutting.

Not exactly. That's when they enact the second most favorite part of their fundamental philosophy - higher taxes - to fund MORE government and buy MORE votes they hope to use to enact MORE control over the voters.

[andy58-in-nh]

No matter how high or low tax rates have been set in the U.S., historically speaking, the revenue generated by them has averaged around 18% of GDP since the post-war period.

Set the rates too high, and tax revenue contracts as people alter their behavior - often seeking tax-free or tax-deferred alternatives while deferring asset sales as long as possible to avoid higher capital gains and dividend levies. Set the rates lower, and investment booms, along with taxable distributions whose deferral is no longer warranted when capital might be put to more valuable uses. When the rates are low enough, tax revenue begins to decline. Arthur Laffer was right, and history bears him out:

In 2000, tax rates were excessively high and began to stifle economic growth, leading to tax revenue reductions in the face of a recession. The Bush tax cuts began to take hold in 2002 and led to an increase in revenue relative to GDP until late 2008, when the Federal government-fueled housing bubble finally burst.