Skip to comments.MSNBC's Savannah Guthrie's Soak-the-Rich Obsession: Higher Taxes Only Means of Lowering Deficits
Posted on 09/17/2010 11:11:26 AM PDT by Rufus2007
Isnt it odd after the passage of TARP, the stimulus and ObamaCare that left-wing politicians and their cheerleaders in the mainstream media are suddenly worried about budget deficits?
As opposed to reining in deficit spending, the new public policy stance for the Democratic Party going into the 2010 midterm election is to call for a tax hike on the top-income earners by letting the Bush tax cuts expire for those folks. In an interview on MSNBCs Sept. 17 The Daily Rundown with Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, co-host Savannah Guthrie pressed the Texas senator on the need to raise taxes in order to lower budget deficits.
Guthrie asked: Sir, as you know, a lot of the energy in the Republican Party, some of the animating issues have to do with deficit and spending, and I ask you given the concern among Republican voters about deficit spending, how is it that Republicans can get behind allowing the Bush tax cuts to go forward for the wealthiest Americans, something that will cost $700 billion borrowed money deficit spending. How do you square that up?
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Savannah - The pixie commie.
She could be cute, but she looks a little haggard. Kind of the way most commies look when they’re perplexed and P.O. that the stupid people don’t understand the brilliance of communism.
Thieving parents...Thieving daughter.
Time to school the Liberals on freedom.
‘First they came for the rich,
But I was not rich...’
It is ingrained into the psyche of every red blooded American to protest taxation. There are times when tax proposals are deemed excessive and they will be rejected. This appears to be a mild proposal but if you do the math it is a mere drop in the bucket.
The plan collects $70B/yr from the ‘rich’ but the INTEREST on the deficit grows to over $700B/yr. Do you think they’ll just stop with the rich? You know the ‘rich’ that finances their campaigns? Get real.
You can’t make this stuff up.
“While covering the trial of Michael Jackson, Guthrie met English-born BBC News presenter Mark Orchard. After Orchard had divorced his first wife, journalist Anne Kornblut, the couple married in December 2005. The couple is now reportedly separated”
“Separated: New NBC White House correspondent Savannah Guthrie and husband, Al-Jazeera producer Mark Orchard, after three years of marriage, say sources close to the couple. The journalists met covering the 2005 Michael Jackson trial, she for Court TV, he for the BBC.”
That is because Zero gave CBO his figures on ALL his "schemes" using the NON-RENEWAL OF THE BUSH TAX CUTS!!
He's ALREADY SPENT THE MONEY and can NOT afford any "lengthy extentions".
Obama spouted that the "Rich" tax Cuts add up to $700 BILLION over 10 years.
On another thread a Freeper posted that a 10 year "Middle Tax Cut comes out to just a little over $3 TRILLION DOLLARS.
Zero is between a rock and a hard place. IMHO, he NEVER thought Boehner would agree to a "partial" (middle class) cut, so he pulled out the class warfare card.
Now if the Middle Class Tax Cut comes to his desk, Zero can't really agree to it without financially wrecking his numbers he gave CBO and will break his "...and it won't cost you a dime." manrta because he was counting on NOT RENEWING THE CUTS!!
#1. Pass -$700 Billion Stimulus,
THEN use that money to dole out as 2008 election payback, Obamacare, Union payback, spend in dem districts to try and cement 2012 election and try to buy a permanent Marxist USA.
Don't extend "rich" tax cuts +$700 Billion.
Zero breaks even and probably gets away with it.
#2. Extend Middle tax Cuts for any REAL length of time????
Let them go only ONE year???...while Zero tries to get "re-coronated???
A two year or more Middle Class Tax Cut @ over -$3 trillion over 10 years???
IMHO, Zero is toast if he fed the American people CBO numbers without renewing ANY TAX CUTS, and he is found out to have already spent the money and NEVER INTENDED TO RENEW THEM!!
So when I hear Boehner say he would settle for a "Middle Tax Cut", it's WORSE MONETARILY for Zero than he "planned" with his "Tax The Rich" game of chicken and he knows it!!!!!
Zero had NO intention of ANY extentions because he's ALREADY SPENT THE MONEY!!!! Call Zero's bluff and push to make ANY tax cut "extention" PERMANENT. He CAN'T and WON'T sogn it.
I rest my case.
Looks like she swallowed a bug.
It's the spending, stupid.
“pay for tax cuts” is code for “cut government spending”
the MSM is silent on that.
Anyone that has ever played SIM City knows you can only raise taxes when things are going well.
She’s aTOTAL AIRHEAD!! She READS off the WH Talking Points. Seems like a nice kid, but she’s a LIGHTWEIGHT!
Now tax revenues have tanked due to the uncertainty of what taxes we will have to face in the coming year - no sane businessman is expanding when he doesn't know what his costs will be, and many investors are moving their money where he can shelter it from new taxes (i.e. gold), rather than expand businesses. And they think this will help the economy, how?
Someone grab Art Laffer, give him a crayon and a napkin, and send him to the White House to explain basic macro-economics to the President!
It’s always the same thing with liberals: to lower the deficit, spending must NEVER!!! be cut, oh no, we can’t do that. TAX, TAX, TAX!!!! everybody especially the rich. The tune never changes, but it’s always off-key.
I just posted the same thing on another thread. I like to mess with liberal’s brains asking them that question.
“But, you just said he did a tax CUT! Then how can taxes go up!?”
“Not the taxes went up - the REVENUES, the gov’t got more money coming in”.
“That’s IMPOSSIBLE. How can you lower taxes and get more money in?! Your’re an idiot - I’m voting for Obama and he will make things all better.”
Of course with Obama in now, it makes it a bit easier to explain the revenues thing. “Okay, under Bush, 4.6% of the folks were unemployed. And not paying taxes. Now almost 10% are unemployed and not paying taxes...”
Answer: Laffer Curve.
Tax cuts bring in more revenue, not less. They don’t have to be “paid for.”