CBO: Proposed Tax Cuts to Cost More Than Stimulus

[OzmO]

http://progressivenation.us/2010/12/11/cbo-proposed-tax-cuts-to-cost-more-than-stimulus/

The tax cuts compromise brokered by President Obama and congressional Republicans will cost more than the 2009 economic stimulus, according to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office.

The CBO expects the tax cuts deal to cost $858 billion over 10 years, while the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act had a cost of $787 billion. A Congressional Research Service study shows that the extension of all of the Bush tax cuts for two years will cost $675.2 billion over ten years.

Influential conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote in the Washington Post this morning that President Obama “won” the tax cut debate by negotiating “the biggest stimulus in American history.” Meanwhile, House Democrats in a private meeting gave a vote of ‘no-confidence’ to the tax cut deal, as the House already voted to extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class.

[Emmortal]

How anyone couldn't see this as a clear indicator to start initiating spending cuts is beyond me.  They'll just stand around pointing fingers at each other while the rest of us circle down the drain.

[Soul Crusher]

How does keeping the same rates we have had for ten years add to the deficit? 

[kcballer]

Ouch.  Love the line about the new stimulus 

Seems we have a few Keynesian's in 333 etc

[Soul Crusher]

Ouch.  Love the line about the new stimulus 

Seems we have a few Keynesian's in 333 etc

  

How does keeping the rate the same as i has been for te last 10 years ADD to the deficit? 

[MB]

 

How does keeping the rate the same as i has been for te last 10 years ADD to the deficit? 

According to liberals, any tax rate below 100% is adding to the deficit. 

[kcballer]

 

How does keeping the rate the same as i has been for te last 10 years ADD to the deficit? 

Because 333 the money NOT received in taxes THIS YEAR is money not being used to pay down the deficit THIS YEAR.   

 

[Soul Crusher]

Because 333 the money NOT received in taxes THIS YEAR is money not being used to pay down the deficit THIS YEAR.   

 

So, by not havng a 100% tax rate we are adding t the debt correct?

Second - how can you be sure how much the ovt would take in if we jacked up rates?   

[kcballer]

So, by not havng a 100% tax rate we are adding t the debt correct?

Second - how can you be sure how much the ovt would take in if we jacked up rates?   

Oh please now you are acting childish.  100% tax rates what nonsense.   

Go back to posting CT's about obama's birth place and religion.   

[Soul Crusher]

Oh please now you are acting childish.  100% tax rates what nonsense.   

Go back to posting CT's about obama's birth place and religion.   

No - i am taking your argument to its logical conclusion. 

[kcballer]

No - i am taking your argument to its logical conclusion.  

Ah no you aren't.  That's like a having business with a guaranteed pool of customers (tax payers), selling everything at 40% off, deciding that hey maybe i'll change my prices to 20% off and coming to the conclusion that you won't in fact make more money from the guaranteed customers  

[Soul Crusher]

Ah no you aren't.  That's like a having business with a guaranteed pool of customers (tax payers), selling everything at 40% off, deciding that hey maybe i'll change my prices to 20% off and coming to the conclusion that you won't in fact make more money from the guaranteed customers  

Why do you assume its "guaranteed"? 

[George Whorewell]

What a stupid article with a moronic premise. How can keeping something exactly the same be as costly as adding almost 1 trillion dollars in new spending that did not exist before? By that measure, keeping the same exact, unchanged tax rates for a decade has decimated this country at a cost greater than the "Emergency super stimulus" that was imperative for preventing the collapse of Western civilization every single year since 2000.

Even for the morons that post here, this can't possibly add up. 

[Soul Crusher]

What a stupid article with a moronic premise. How can keeping something exactly the same be as costly as adding almost 1 trillion dollars in new spending that did not exist before? By that measure, keeping the same exact, unchanged tax rates for a decade has decimated this country at a cost greater than the "Emergency super stimulus" that was imperative for preventing the collapse of Western civilization every single year since 2000.

Even for the morons that post here, this can't possibly add up. 

 GW - just remember this video when dealing with these cluebags.

[GigantorX]

What a stupid article with a moronic premise. How can keeping something exactly the same be as costly as adding almost 1 trillion dollars in new spending that did not exist before? By that measure, keeping the same exact, unchanged tax rates for a decade has decimated this country at a cost greater than the "Emergency super stimulus" that was imperative for preventing the collapse of Western civilization every single year since 2000.

Even for the morons that post here, this can't possibly add up.  

THANK YOU.

The new tax rates were put into affect in 2001 the rest in 2003. This is an extension of them as there are no new cuts being put into place. How are rates that have been in place for nearly 10 years adding to the deficit all of a sudden?

Guess what, even with the 70 billion per year over 10 years you wouldn't even come anywhere remotely close to even putting a ding in the deficit.

Would you like to know what the prime driver was for the ballooning deficits? It was the Govt. as a whole spending a titanic amount more than it was taking in. So extending rates that have been in place for 10 years is some nuclear bomb of an event and will kill us all with deficits and such.....but the 3.5 trillion dollar budget isn't mentioned. TARP isn't mentioned. The wasteful "Stimulus" wasn't mentioned as adding to the deficit....no, it can't possibly be those things. Those are just fine. The problem is that the govt. is adding some phantom 70 billion dollars per year to the deficit through extending tax rates that have been in place for 10 years. No, of course not...it couldn't be some tired ass leftist class warfare garbage...could it?

I don't fucking get it. Have fun blowing each other over this total red herring and then have a fucking blast getting rapped further by the Govt. and the runaway spending and the weak/dead dollar policy that takes your spending power and vaporizes it. Here is a thought, how about simply cutting 70 billion per year in spending to offset the "cost" of the tax cuts? I mean, one would think that after 750 billion of TARP, 850 billion is wasted "Stimulus", 2 wars, bailouts and increasing the total federal budget to 3.5 trillion and having a deficit of 1.5 trillion (150 billion just for November) it wouldn't be so hard to cut a paltry 70 billion out of the budget in per year spending.

[George Whorewell]

THANK YOU.

The new tax rates were put into affect in 2001 the rest in 2003. This is an extension of them as there are no new cuts being put into place. How are rates that have been in place for nearly 10 years adding to the deficit all of a sudden?

Guess what, even with the 70 billion per year over 10 years you wouldn't even come anywhere remotely close to even putting a ding in the deficit.

Would you like to know what the prime driver was for the ballooning deficits? It was the Govt. as a whole spending a titanic amount more than it was taking in. So extending rates that have been in place for 10 years is some nuclear bomb of an event and will kill us all with deficits and such.....but the 3.5 trillion dollar budget isn't mentioned. TARP isn't mentioned. The wasteful "Stimulus" wasn't mentioned as adding to the deficit....no, it can't possibly be those things. Those are just fine. The problem is that the govt. is adding some phantom 70 billion dollars per year to the deficit through extending tax rates that have been in place for 10 years. No, of course not...it couldn't be some tired ass leftist class warfare garbage...could it?

I don't fucking get it. Have fun blowing each other over this total red herring and then have a fucking blast getting rapped further by the Govt. and the runaway spending and the weak/dead dollar policy that takes your spending power and vaporizes it. Here is a thought, how about simply cutting 70 billion per year in spending to offset the "cost" of the tax cuts? I mean, one would think that after 750 billion of TARP, 850 billion is wasted "Stimulus", 2 wars, bailouts and increasing the total federal budget to 3.5 trillion and having a deficit of 1.5 trillion (150 billion just for November) it wouldn't be so hard to cut a paltry 70 billion out of the budget in per year spending.

Racist post reported.

[GigantorX]

And the biggest additions to the deficit won't be from the Tax Cut extension...it's going to be all the new spending and pork and other tax breaks that will be added on to the Tax Extension Bill.

Why isn't that being discussed?

All bullshit. All of it. Yeah, the prime reason for our exploding and nation/currency collapsing deficit and debt is 70 billion dollars per year over 10 years in tax cuts for upper income earners. That's it, that's what the real reason is being our fiscal calamity. Not the 3.5 trillion dollar budget, not the wars, not the welfare handouts, and certainly not the 1.5 trillion dollar deficit this Admin. laid on the nation in 1 fucking year.

Yeah, it's those tax rates that are killing us.

[Soul Crusher]

Like I said - had the govt had an ounce of credibility in cutting spending and using additional revenue for deficit reduction and paying down the debt - than people might got for a rate raise, but for the time being, forget it. 

[Kazan]

Here we go again with the "tax cuts are costing......" First of all the taxes aren't being cut, they are staying the same. It would seem to me the government is spending to much, as opposed to the left rebuttal of we aren't paying enough in taxes.

[MM2K]

Ah no you aren't.  That's like a having business with a guaranteed pool of customers (tax payers), selling everything at 40% off, deciding that hey maybe i'll change my prices to 20% off and coming to the conclusion that you won't in fact make more money from the guaranteed customers  

Theyre not guaranteed customers. That's the whole point. Yes, unlike in private business, the government is guaranteed SOME revenue, but not a lot of revenue. Spending is at 25% of GDP. There is no way in hell you are going to get revenues up to 25% of GDP. Spending is the problem. Not revenues. Focus on the problem.

The really dumb thing about this article is that they are comparing one item that is spanning over ten years (tax cuts) to an item that is meant to span over only two years at the most (the Obama Stimulus Plan). Liberals never cease to amaze me in how they misrepresent statistics. But it seems like these days they arent even doing a good job of hiding thier distortions anymore. Either that or Im just doing a better job of recogniszing them.