Economy growing too slowly

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Nov. 9, 2010 9:59 a.m.

    To "Truthseeker | 7:51 p.m. " explain how tax cuts cause deficits?

    If you got a pay cut, does that automatically mean that you are now more in debt?

    If the debt increased after tax cuts were made, doesn't that mean that congress spent more than was collected?

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Nov. 8, 2010 7:51 p.m.

    CBO data show that changes in law enacted since January 2001 increased the deficit by $539 billion in 2005. In the absence of such legislation, the nation would have a surplus this year. Tax cuts account for almost half 48 percent of this $539 billion in increased costs." How about the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget? Their budget calculator shows that the tax cuts will cost $3.28 trillion between 2011 and 2018. How about George W. Bush's CEA chair, Greg Mankiw, who used the term "charlatans and cranks" for people who believed that "broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue." He continued: "I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't."

    ditto says David Stockman, the architect of Reagan's tax cuts and Bruce Bartlett, Reagan advisor and treasury official for HW Bush.

  • JoeCapitalist Orem, UT
    Nov. 8, 2010 3:30 p.m.

    Roland throws out this little tidbit "Federal taxes are at a sixty year low as a percentage of GDP." Then he says that this is proof that the Bush tax cuts didn't work.

    Fact: Federal income tax REVENUES kept going up even after the Bush tax cuts. Almost every year for the past decade, tax revenues have been higher (as much as 25% higher) than they were in the year 2000. (Don't believe me? Then look it up.)

    So, as any first year business student can tell you, if overall tax revenues have gone up and Federal taxes are lower as a percentage of GDP, then that means that GDP went up even faster than tax revenues.

    It seems to me the Bush tax cuts worked perfectly. GDP went way up and even though rates were less, taxes revenues were still higher. After all, 20% of $1000 is less than 15% of $2000.

  • T. Party Pleasant Grove, UT
    Nov. 8, 2010 1:44 p.m.

    @Roland "...the economy should be booming right now."

    You're forgetting that little episode with the sub-prime loans that your favorite politicians were so intent on making available.

  • Question Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 8, 2010 1:43 p.m.

    working class | 9:25 a.m. and homebrew | 12:33 p.m.

    The thing you conveniently ignore when you try to blame the Bush_Tax_Cuts for the economy today is... Those same tax rates were also in affect during years of unprecidented growth!

    Remember, these same tax rates had been in place for years when the stock market hit it's all-time-high (Oct 2007), and these same tax rates were in affect for many years when the USA experienced some of it's LOWEST unemployement rates in my lifetime.

    What I'm saying is... obviously tax cuts didn't CAUSE the ecomoic colapes we experienced in 2008. It was something else.

    And increasing taxes to give the Government MORE money to play with and waste... while giving the PEOPLE LESS money to provide for their children and to exand their businesses and hire people... Will NOT solve the problem.

    Higher taxes are NOT the solution to our economic problems we have today. And taxes being too low did NOT cause the stagnant economy we have today. It was something else.

    Taxes being "too_low"... does NOT cause a capitalist economy to colapse. That's an economic FACT.

  • LOL holladay, utah
    Nov. 8, 2010 1:12 p.m.

    I think people better get used to the fact that the party in America is officially over for many if not most.
    The last administration saw it (Great Depression II) coming, looked after their rich buddies, doled out tax cuts, supplied incentives to set up shop overseas, found a way for Dick and Lynne Cheney's Halliburton and Lockheed Martin (defense contractors) to get rich (war based on lies) and the rest as the say, is history.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Nov. 8, 2010 12:42 p.m.

    To "Truthseeker | 10:32 a.m." yet that same top 1% that owns 40% of all wealth also pay about 40% of all income tax revenue.

    The family making $50,000 to $75,000 will pay little into the tax system, if they pay at all. They simply keep a larger percent of their income.

    Think about this. If the average middleclass family has their tax rate go from 4% to 3.5%, that is a decrease of 12.5%. Now, if the wealthy has their tax rate cut from 15% to 14.5%, that represents a 3% tax cut.

    So, who now benefits the most from a small tax cut? The person who now pays 12.5% less taxes or the guy who pays 3% less taxes?

  • homebrew South Jordan, UT
    Nov. 8, 2010 12:33 p.m.

    the Bush tax cuts turned a balanced budget and a surpluss into the biggest economic dissaster in history. Go back to the Bill Clinton rates. Democratic policies work, Republican policies dont. Trckle down economics dont work. Tax the rich feed the poor, till there are no rich no more.

  • Brother Chuck Schroeder A Tropical Paradise USA, FL
    Nov. 8, 2010 12:21 p.m.

    Why is "Economy growing too slowly" is because socialism works fast, and, capitalism works but works very slowy. In his book Decision Points, officially being released Nov. 9, Bush writes about behind-the-scenes details of eight eventful years that began with the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and ended with an economic meltdown. Did he also talk about the RINO's that fully intends to stay involved, interested in money, greed, corruption, above the law, (ignore us common people unless they need your votes while re-campaigning again), career politician's who will take money from any special interest and say or do anything to keep his hold on power. It's secret government by the insiders, for the insiders only today. That's for BIG BUSINESS "ONLY" and their deep pocket's. Dick Cheney, became "angry" in 2007 when the president decided not to pardon former Cheney aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby after Libby was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison. Libby was convicted of lying to federal agents investigating the public outing of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative. President George W. Bush reveals in his memoir "Decision Points". Obama needs to pass Bush tax cuts.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Nov. 8, 2010 10:32 a.m.

    Tea Partiers rage against taxes and say theyre too high. Wrong, says billionaire Warren Buffett: on the rich, theyre too low.

    Some Facts:

    The top 1 percent of US households owns nearly 40 percent of all privately held stock, from which the dividends flow. Similarly, the super-rich get MORE THAN HALF their income from capital gains (which is taxed at 15%--the same tax rate a janitor pays on his income).

    Taxing income from wealth at little more than half the rate of income from work.

    A family making more than $1 million will receive more than five times the tax cut benefit, in dollar terms, as a middle-class family making $50,000 to $75,000

    This summer, in a piece titled The Class War We Need, CONSERVATIVE columnist Ross Douthat was aghast to learn that the owners of McMansions were defaulting at twice the usual rate. The rich are different from you and me, he wrote. They know how to game the system...... In case after case, Washingtons web of subsidies and tax breaks effectively takes money from the middle class and hands it out to speculators and have-mores.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 8, 2010 9:37 a.m.

    The Bush tax cuts have been in full force throughout this entire economic debacle. Federal taxes are at a sixty year low as a percentage of GDP. American taxes are just about the lowest in the developed world. Given all that, our economy should be booming right now. (That is if the people who say that tax cuts are the answer to everything were correct. They obviously are not.)

  • JoeCapitalist Orem, UT
    Nov. 8, 2010 8:36 a.m.

    Only in Esquire's world does lowering taxes on someone constitute a "gift" by the government.

    The recent election proved that the average American is repulsed by the left's view of the government as a means of wealth distribution.

    There is a proper role for government in our society. It is the responsibility of taxpayers to pay an appropriate amount to support those efforts. The rich should (and do) pay the lions portion of those costs.

    But that is not enough for the left. They want the government to take huge amounts of more cash from hard working Americans so they can pass it out to all their friends.

    This is theft. Pure and simple. Legal yes, moral no.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Nov. 8, 2010 6:33 a.m.

    If you read this carefully, the Republicans want to give more to those who have and deny to those who do not. If ever there was a cleared example of what the GOP stands for, I don't know what it is.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Nov. 8, 2010 6:32 a.m.

    McFeatters: "But tax cuts presume an income...."

    The tax cuts are for the potential employer -- the person providing the jobs. She needs to know whether she can sustain a larger workforce.