Posted on 07/11/2006 4:59:35 PM PDT by Mr. Brightside
Another Mission ‘Accomplished’
Published: July 11, 2006
There not much to crow about in the White House midsession budget review. But President Bush is likely to gloat, anyway.
/snip
The revenue surge is neither a sign that the tax cuts are working nor of sustainable economic growth.
A growing number of economists, most prominently from the Congressional Budget Office, point out that upsurges in revenue are also the result of growing income inequality in the United States, an observation that is consistent with mounting evidence of a rapidly widening gap between the rich and everyone else.
As corporations and high- income Americans claim ever more of the economic pie, revenues rise, even if there’s no increase in overall economic growth....
It would make sense to use some of the windfall revenue to enact policies and programs that tilt against growing inequality. Unfortunately, (George Bush is) flogging more tax cuts that will deepen the divide.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Do you (liberals) want more dollars or a "more equitable" tax rate?
The answer to that is an unequivocal "yes"!
The "Old Gray Wh*re" purposely skewed the numbers and included W[BJ]C's 2001 pit-of-recession and the post 9/11 hit to wildly knock down the performance numbers. Had they used the start date of the tax cuts & rebates, things look wildly better than any administration they can point to...
The New York Times will continue to lose credibility with reporting like this.
Let's see:
Buzzwords: check.
Sympathy generators: check.
Presumptive attitude: check.
Facts: none (check).
Clear to publish.
And the blue, cloudless sunny sky is not a sign that the weather's nice today.
The NYT is deathly sick and this article confirms it. What a load of manure.
They always forget that the tax cuts took ten million families off the tax paying rolls. 47 percent pay zero!
I think the minimum tax should be at least one dollar.
So is he claiming that there isn't any overall economic growth? Note that he implies it without saying it.
The truth is that there has been tremendous economic growth. And this kind of a writer will report it as a negative if his income went up, but yours went up more.
Who wrote this article, Karl Marx? If George Bush solved the global warming problem, the NY Times would write that he made things too cold and thus caused global freezing!
But, what do you expect from the NY socialist libs who could care less about income inequities as they dine in the fancy NY restaurants and party in the hamptons with all their rich millionaire friends.
I wouldn't be surprised if Krugman actually wrote it.
I remember NBC news during the Bush Dukakis race. The biggest news of the day was that inflation was the lowest in more than a decade. NBC's Irving R. Levine reported it like this: "Retirees are set to receive the smallest cost of living increase in more than a decade."
Here we go again. Class warfare.
Is there an election coming up?
From Nancy Pelosi's pen to the editorial pages of the NYT. Who knew?
If the poor make zero and everybody else's income goes up, the income gap widens. Duh. Since zero is zero, the only way to narrow the income gap is for everybody else to make less than before. And the Times thinks that would be a good thing?
bump
They couldn't possibly lose anymore with me.
The NY Times is missing the whole point of tax cuts, which are not intended to raise government revenue but are intended to increase the disposal income of Americans. Big growth in government tax revenue is bad, not good, because it inevitably leads to big growth in government programs, government spending, and government control of our lives. The Times also appears to be factually incorrect in this statement because they appear to be assuming that the current business cycle and per capita government revenues have peaked. There's no economic evidence to support that assumption.
"Much of the increase in tax receipts is from corporate profits, high-income investors and super high-earning executives, sources that are just as unpredictable as the financial markets to which they’re inevitably linked."
False statement implied here: corporate profits are not generated by events in the financial markets. The reverse is true: the financial markets are driven by the growth rate of corporate profits. Much of the revenue increase is also from the increased income of small businessmen, which is not linked to the financial markets.
Does anyone at the NY Times know anything about economics, or did they all go to journalism school and just learn how to write?
Seems like the NYT has done the bovine equivalent of grazing on fresh alfalfa. This ranks up there with Gore touting global on the record cold winter day awhile back.
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.