Posted on 08/05/2011 10:08:35 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
It has long been obvious to all observers -- to economists, to politicians, to anti-deficit groups, to the ratings agencies -- that closing fiscal gaps will require tax increases, or the closure of big tax loopholes, or significant tax reform that will raise significantly larger sums of tax revenue than the system does now. Today, taxes as a percentage of GDP are at historic lows. Marginal rates on income and investments are at historic lows. Corporate tax receipts as a percentage of GDP are at historic lows. Perhaps taxes don't need to rise this year or next, but they do need to go up in the future.
Otherwise, the math of deficit reduction simply doesn't work. And that's how the deficit reduction deals signed off on by Republican presidents like Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush came about.
Yet the action in Washington in the past year has all gone in the opposite direction. President Obama deserves some of the blame. Several months ago, he struck a deal with Congress to make the fiscal situation worse -- extending the Bush tax cuts for two more years and enacting a temporary cut in the payroll tax.
But Congressional Republicans deserve much more of the blame. For this calamity was entirely man-made -- even intentional. The contemporary Republican Party is fixated on taxes. It possesses an iron-clad belief that the existing tax rates should never go up, that loopholes shouldn't be closed unless they're offset by other tax reductions, that the fact that hedge fund managers pay lower tax rates than school teachers makes complete sense, that a reversion to the tax rates of the prosperous 1990's or 1980's would be unacceptable.
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...
Wow, this is a new spin in the situation. I don’t know where he’s getting his informatoin from.
Well, revenues need to go up in the future, that is for sure. Best way to do this is to kill Obamacare, kill Dodd-Frank and shut down the EPA.
Tell the libs there is more than one way to skin a rat cat.
“It has long been obvious to all observers”
that leftist newshacks would lie about the sky color if it bought democrats a couple of votes.
Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability. …
When comparing the U.S. to sovereigns with ‘AAA’ long-term ratings that we view as relevant peers—Canada, France, Germany, and the U.K.—we also observe, based on our base case scenarios for each, that the trajectory of the U.S.’s net public debt is diverging from the others. Including the U.S., we estimate that these five sovereigns will have net general government debt to GDP ratios this year ranging from 34% (Canada) to 80% (the U.K.), with the U.S. debt burden at 74%. By 2015, we project that their net public debt to GDP ratios will range between 30% (lowest, Canada) and 83% (highest, France), with the U.S. debt burden at 79%. However, in contrast with the U.S., we project that the net public debt burdens of these other sovereigns will begin to decline, either before or by 2015. …
Funny how no one accused the Dems of sabotaging the market in 2008 so that Obama would win. The media never reported that it was the Dems who were the ones giving out loans to people who had NO way of paying them back..the housing crisis is what brought down Wall Street yet the media who kissed Obama’s ass from the beginning did not mention that Dodd and Frank were the ones behind it
If you confiscated all the earned income of those earning over $250,000 (the rich) it wouldn't be enough.
I think they should widen the tax base.
Well, destroying the economy will have a negative effect on the tax receipts. Only a liberal would argue that killing profits and driving up unemployment was a sign that you should raise taxes.
This man does not understand the difference between taxes and revenues. If you increase tax "rates" you reduce revenues. If you reduce tax rates you increase revenues. The way to get more money from the rich is to encourage them to risk their wealth by providing opportunity for more profits.
and how is this the GOP’s fault if it's a problem like is being claimed?
So basically S&P has the Tea Party view - democrats are spendaholics, and republicans aren’t much better
What a pant load. This writer belongs outside carrying a sandwich board not publishing articles.
Let the bottom half start paying.
Why did they miss what happened in 2008? Just sayin'.
WH says it’s because of a two trillion dollar error by S&P. If that’s the case then it can’t be the republicans’ fault.
S & P Never warned about raising revenues:
S & P even stated that given our GDP or debt is already too high:
You know when Bush was President the media would blame him for the the bad weather 3 states over but this clown has the media apologizing for peeing down you leg.
Wow. He spun that sentence so hard, the words 'spending cuts' flew right out.
I like when they lead with logical fallacies. It tells me to buckle my seat belt, because the roller-coaster of spin is about to begin. As an early warning method, it never fails.
absolutely. They will get a lot more if they cut all the EIC BS and took 10% from the half of taxpayers who don’t pay any taxes than if they raised the producer’s taxers higher.
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.