Tweet
Conservatives don't believe in science OR math.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/061139.php
Quick quiz: what's going to cost the U.S. more over the next decade: the exploding costs of entitlements like Social Security and Medicare or Bush's tax cuts? Despite all the talk we hear about the prior, it's not even close -- the tax cuts are poised to cost the treasury far, far, more.
And yet, every Republican presidential candidate in the field, to a man, vows to make each of Bush's cut permanent, beyond their scheduled expiration in 2010. As the NYT's Tom Redburn notes today, over the next 10 years, it will cost "roughly $2.5 trillion in revenues now expected under current law. And that's just the beginning."
...more
_ _
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...113002190.html
"I KNOW THAT reducing taxes produces more revenues," Republican presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani declares in a new television ad launched Thursday. "Democrats don't know that. They don't believe it."
There's a good reason for that: It's not true. Produces more revenue than what? Than if taxes had not been cut? No -- and no matter how many times Republican politicians caught up in the thrill of supply-side thinking pronounce that tax cuts pay for themselves, they cannot will it to be correct.
You don't have to turn to Democrats to refute this point; just read the studies and comments by Republican economists, including many from the Bush administration. President Bush's Treasury Department, analyzing the "dynamic" effects of making the Bush tax cuts permanent, found that even under favorable assumptions, the positive economic impact would make up for no more than 10 percent of the tax cuts' cost. ...
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/061139.php
Quick quiz: what's going to cost the U.S. more over the next decade: the exploding costs of entitlements like Social Security and Medicare or Bush's tax cuts? Despite all the talk we hear about the prior, it's not even close -- the tax cuts are poised to cost the treasury far, far, more.
And yet, every Republican presidential candidate in the field, to a man, vows to make each of Bush's cut permanent, beyond their scheduled expiration in 2010. As the NYT's Tom Redburn notes today, over the next 10 years, it will cost "roughly $2.5 trillion in revenues now expected under current law. And that's just the beginning."
...more
_ _
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...113002190.html
"I KNOW THAT reducing taxes produces more revenues," Republican presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani declares in a new television ad launched Thursday. "Democrats don't know that. They don't believe it."
There's a good reason for that: It's not true. Produces more revenue than what? Than if taxes had not been cut? No -- and no matter how many times Republican politicians caught up in the thrill of supply-side thinking pronounce that tax cuts pay for themselves, they cannot will it to be correct.
You don't have to turn to Democrats to refute this point; just read the studies and comments by Republican economists, including many from the Bush administration. President Bush's Treasury Department, analyzing the "dynamic" effects of making the Bush tax cuts permanent, found that even under favorable assumptions, the positive economic impact would make up for no more than 10 percent of the tax cuts' cost. ...
Comment