Skip to comments.10 people who led us to the ‘fiscal cliff’
Posted on 11/21/2012 10:50:23 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Remember that this supposed fiscal cliff is the direct result of two contradictory impulses in American life: Greed and guilt. Greed for low taxes, a strong military, a strong safety net and lots of government spending for everyone. And guilt that we werent paying our way. Read Stop calling it a fiscal cliff
All of us (or almost all) had a role in this melodrama, either benefiting from the spending or from the lower tax rates. Despite our culpability, it took strong national leaders to foster the heady mix of greed and guilt that brought us to this spot.
Here are the 10 people most responsible for bringing us to the edge of the fiscal cliff:
(Excerpt) Read more at marketwatch.com ...
Sometimes Nutting has more than “Nutting to say”...
No offense to you, but who cares what Rex Nutting thinks, he claimed Bush was responsible for Obama’s stimulus.
Don’t know why Rubin was left off the list.
Arthur Laffer #1??? What a load of BS
Laffer is enemy #1 for leftists. His theories are antithetical to everything that central planners, Socialists and Keynesians believe. That’s why they will never miss a chance to criticize him.
This author is a nutter.
He hates cutting taxes as much as a Leftist.
I saw Art Laffer listed and stopped reading further.
Nutter is a dumbass.
Why a U.S. Default Will be a Good Thing
Have you noticed that the media doesn’t even dare to utter the word default?
Or when the word is mentioned, it is preceded by the word “disastrous” or “cataclysmic.”
The reason why default is never mentioned as a possibility by the Socialist media, is because default will destroy U.S. gubmint credit, making it impossible for gubmint to borrow. Maybe it would force balanced budgets for a generation?
Socialists prefer inflation, which is disguised taxation, or even austerity. But a Keynesians worst nightmare is a government unable to borrow money.
Nutting is a nut case.
His understanding of economics (or at least the understanding he tries to express) is a barely-at-the-surface understanding and his political sense of economic issues has been delivered up to him by the media and populist ideas it creates.
WSJ should fire him. He represents a disservice to their reputation (even though it has been sliding down, and to the Left, ever since Murdoch bought it).
The Laffer Curve is usually misunderstood. The professor is not responsible for this.
Conservatives and liberals both often seem to think the LC says that reductions in tax rates will always result in increases in revenues. This is inaccurate.
There is a peak in the curve where the maximum revenue is produced. It a system is to the right of that peak, increases in tax rates will cause a drop in total revenue.
But if one is to the left of the peak, increases in tax rates will cause an increase in total revenue.
Both liberals and conservatives, when discussing the LC, always seem to assume we are on the right side of the peak. But that doesn’t necessarily follow.
Before attempting to use (or discredit) the LC, one should demonstrate why we are presently left or right of the peak.
He blames GWB the most, and says that the tax cut in 2001 didn’t work. He didn’t mention that the tax cut in 2003 DID work. He is a moron.
Rex Nutting - apply-named king of the morons - he’s the jackwad Ann Coulter took to the woodshed for claiming W was responsible for Obama’s deficit record.
No surprise that most of the folks he includes in his list are conservative-leaning, including Art Laffer, Grover Norquist, and George Bush, among others. He does include Bubba and the Bamster, but is clearly less disturbed by them than he is by anybody on the right with even an ounce of sense.
Maybe default is called disastrous because it leads to Moody and others lowering our national credit rating. I am not exactly clear why this is bad, but I know when my personal credit rating falls I have a harder time affording higher house payments and buying a car, among other things.
Laffer is enemy #1 for leftists. His theories are antithetical to everything that central planners, Socialists and Keynesians believe. Thats why they will never miss a chance to criticize him.
Needs REPEATING. This article is B FREEKIN S.
Lower taxes, get the mooches off the give away line and make everyone pay SOME tax, make them work except for the actual needy ones who cannot support themselves. We all know there are NOT millions of those needy peeps.
Lazy should not be disguised as needy. And no, it's not LUCK that made us rich it's disguised as old fashioned hard work. And YES, we DID build that. Do you slugs actually think the guy with a successful business, hauling in a decent large salary after 25 years started out taking that same salary? YOU try running a hot dog stand and THEN we'll talk.
“In every case over the last 60 years, major tax cuts have more than paid for themselves. In fact, every major tax cut since JFK has been followed by substantial increases in revenue, not to mention solid economic growth. Moreover, total federal revenue rose at a faster rate after each of those tax cuts than it did before them. Anyone can confirm these basic facts for themselves by checking federal budget data and economic indicators before and after major tax cuts (see, for example, Federal Budget Data,Data 360 Unemployment U.S.,and Total Economy Database). Lets take a closer look at the results of the last four major tax cuts (and then for good measure well examine the Mellon tax cuts of the 1920s).
Bush Tax Cuts: President George W. Bushs 2003 tax cuts generated a massive increase in federal tax revenue and were followed by 52 consecutive months of economic growth. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenue increased by $780 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. Total federal revenue from 2003 to 2007:
2003 — $1.78 trillion
2004 — $1.88 trillion
2005 — $2.15 trillion
2006 — $2.40 trillion
2007 — $2.56 trillion
Total federal revenue for 2008 dropped slightly, down to $2.52 trillion, because a recession started that year, but revenue was still substantially higher than it was in 2003 or 2004. During the same period, income tax revenue rose dramatically, going from $925 billion in 2003 to $1.53 trillion in 2007. As with other types of federal revenue, income tax revenue dropped slightly in 2008, down to $1.45 trillion, due to the fact that a recession began that year.”
The Laffer curve has been proven, time and again to be spot on. Cutting taxes DOES bring in more revenue. Unfortunately, no matter how much money the Government takes from us, the always spend more than take.
He forgot Dodd and Frank. Sorry, but my bs meter went off the minute I saw that smug arrogant face.
The man is as clueless as Krugman.
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.