Time to Turn National Focus From Debt to Jobs

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Raising taxes on the rich increased government revenues during the Clinton Administration balancing the budget and left the country with a budget surplus while creating strong economic growth.
JFK and LBJ raised the effective tax rates on the wealthy by eliminating tax loopholes and raised revenues.
The real questions should be asked is when have cutting taxes ever raised revenues. Not for Reagan, he had to raise taxes eleven times after the economy slumped when he lowered taxes on the rich.
Its simple truth - economics 101, increased taxes create revenues and stimulate businesses to retain capital in their businesses. But I realize nonthinkers who regurgitate conservative political bullet points are not talking about economics nor know anything about economics. Its these political daydreamers who prefer to confuse themselves with jibberish.

Becca of NJ 3:51PM August 15, 2011

Since taking House, we have passed 3 budgets. Even when in FULL CONTROLL, Democrat has not passed budget in over 800 days. Why, they know they must cut BUT will NOT.
They want US to SHARE THE BLAME. As Reid wanted US to share BLAME in raising debt ceiling:
"I want the Republicans to have some buy-in on the debt,” he said. “They’re going to have a majority in the House. I think they should have some kind of a buy-in on the debt. I don’t think it should be when we have a heavily Democratic Senate, a heavily Democratic House and a Democratic president."
Harry Reid
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/why-didnt-democrats-raise-the-debt-ceiling-last-december/
2. "sabotage, subvert, and stymie, terrorists, cult of stupidity , gridlock"
Your terms for US. Sure. We are fighting "b-" rating. barry's $$$ 9.5 trillion budget DEBT could have lead to that. BUT NOT ONE TERRORIST, EITHER DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN, VOTED FOR OBAMAS BUDGET...
3. "just like Gingrich and his thugs harrassed Clinton."
a. You mean balanced budget we placed on him ?
b. The two years of SURPLUS we placed on him ? Which still caused deficit spending. Bill's 6 years of debt was more than our 2 years of surplus could overcome. Accomplished by Newt reducing spending.
c. Newt's shoring up of entitlements.
___
What are you complaning about ???

Bill Hedges of MO 12:25AM August 15, 2011

Dumrumplicans all about doing nothing
If you haven't noticed by now, the house is all about doing nothing. They're zeros. So it is worse than gridlock. Their strategy for three years has been to do nothing but sabotage, subvert, and stymie. So far they have been very successful. They are like terrorists intent on destroying our government. Their cult of stupidity loves it . So I don't think the gridlock is going to end anytime soon. They will keep on harassing Obama just like Gingrich and his thugs harrassed Clinton. Anymore, it's not about the people. They are only concerned about power and paying off their big donors. The system is broken.

Chinquapin Oak of CO 11:47PM August 14, 2011

You see CBO does not project according to historic facts. I do not blame them. Take now, business is not investing because of bad laws and bad EPA. So money is sitting in safe place. Effect of low tax for rich has been negated.
Here is obama's laws including obamacare, EPA, etc. at work. Why CBO is correct in how they do their job..
"The scoring is anything but exact, however. Republicans often argue that tax cuts should be scored “dynamically” — that the government should assume that greater tax revenue will flow into the coffers as a result of the economic stimulus provided by the tax reductions. The CBO does not embrace dynamic scoring, and so does not calculate the depressing effect that cutting spending could have on the economy and therefore on tax revenues. If the spending cuts tank the economy, in other words, the attempt at deficit reduction could have a drastically different result, and even increase the debt."
http://jhaines6.wordpress.com/2011/07/27/harry-reid-debt-ceiling-plan-would-save-2-2-trillion-
Bush tax cuts for rich DID WORK. Did under Clinton thanks to Newt, Reagan, Kennedy, and in the 20's. Here using IRS actual collected numbers, not projections, is Bush's proof:
“According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Bush tax cuts actually shifted the total tax burden farther toward the rich so that in 2000-2004, total income tax paid by the top 40% of income-earners grew by 4.6% to 99.1% of the total.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/lying_about_bushs_tax_cuts.html
___
When I hear a liberal say Bush tax cuts caused recession, I always call him a LIIAR. FOR THE LIBERAL IS. I guess I could call that person MISINFORMED, but why ? Usually say PROVE YOUR CASE LIBERAL They don't. Robert Schlesinger, Susan Milligan, & Brad Bannon are OUTSPOKEN PROGRESSIVES, dare they TAKE THE CHALLENGE ??? Stand up for liberal beliefs you, you liberals.
I wonder if Peter Roff would BE ALLOWED to write such a article on this slanted LIBERAL SITE ??? This subject goes to the heart of LIBERALISM. Why not ? Humpty Dumpty is IN MOTION to fall...

Bill Hedges of MO 10:18PM August 14, 2011

They never have .
My question . When have tax cuts increased revenue into the goverment ? They always have . When have the politicians spent that extra money ? They always have . When did the politicians save that money and have a supposed surplus , 1995 thanks to Newt and republicans .
Pretty easy , they get the money , they spend it . Trick is ,don't let them get the money to start with . We can spend it better than they have proven they can .

Hunter of WI 4:47PM August 14, 2011

Take Bill Clinton INCREASES, yes it did go up, but compared to Newt's reduction for rich decrease got more revenue. Only Newt got the 2 years of surplus, but he held spending increase to a minimal. He also shored up entitlements. What a record for a Presidential candidate !
10:1 odds for spending cut to tax increase are ok. I guess. How much tax did Bill Clinton place on yachts ? That failed miserable and was repealed. No extra revenue and industry going out of business. We put higher taxes on cigs to reduce smoking. We give tax breaks to home buyers so people will buy and help the economy. Texas got 40 % of new jobs during recession thanks to their low taxes. Idaho got a upgrade in rating recently..
But MAJOR issue is repealing obama's job killing laws. We are already at work on obamacare, which CBO says we can not afford. First quarter will cost AT&T $$$ 1 billion. EPA needs exorcism from our government body. Coal is getting hit hard with regulations. My city gets its electricity from coal, hear electricity might go up 23 %. Other regulations could cost 1.2 million manufacturing jobs over time. There are 100's upon hundreds of the regulations spoiling job creation hear now or coming.
Somebody tell our President job created in government cost government money. Jobs created in private sector gives gains in government revenue. I like idea of no tax for capital gain. There is a 1 % plan that sounds interesting. Our savior is going to be private sector investing their $$$ trillions. They are not going to invest until it is safe to invest from government unwill.. Love of Country draws too few investors.They will automate, post pond hiring with all these things and more hanging over their heads. Advise barry Keynesian economics is DEAD...

Bill Hedges of MO 6:18AM August 14, 2011

Ouch! The reputation of the media industry takes another hit.
President Hoover was born in West Branch, IA, where we publish our newspaper. And Mr. Bannon's view of Mr. Hoover is the culturally distorted version, the laissez-faire Hoover, not the historically accurate one.
Let's do our homework, fellow journalists, and rebuild our integrity. Where is the "research" in Bannon Communications Research, of which Mr. Bannon is the president?
Hoover did not stand idly by. In fact, he understood the instability of the economy before the stock market crash and did everything he could to sound the alarm. Obviously, not enough people listened, and so he tried to do everything in his power to pick up the pieces of an unprecedented economic disaster, making both good and bad decisions along the way.
FDR, after lambasting Hoover and winning the presidency, latched onto Hoover's good decisions and continued those government spending programs, which were similar to Bush's and Obama's stimulus programs.
Hoover proud of indifference? This is the man who took no salary as president, and who during WWI and after WWII led relief efforts to feed war-torn countries, literally saving millions of lives. It is those efforts that he earned the title, "The Great Humanitarian."

Gregory Norfleet of IA 11:30PM August 13, 2011

We lost AAA because you all did not want to reduce debt $$$ 4 trillion over 10 years. Senate has not passed a budget in over 800 days. Here is what YOU ACCOMPLISHED, with BIG LOSS NOV. 2, 2010:
"The CBO, a nonpartisan arm of Congress, projects that the national debt will go from $5.8 trillion in 2008 to $11.8 trillion by the end of 2013; and to $17.3 trillion in 2019. By that count, Gregg’s claim of doubling the debt in five years, tripling it in 10 years, is correct."
http://meetthefacts.com/tag/national-debt/
_____
YOU ALL PASSED _PAY AS YOU GO_. HAD YOU DONE, WE WOULD NOT BE IN THIS SITUATION.
WE ARE BRINGING BACK TO YOU, YOUR _ PAY AS YOU GO. BLAST FROM THE PAST...

Bill Hedges of MO 10:47PM August 13, 2011

Hell, the repelicans are going to keep on sabotaging our government and screwing things up just like they have been for three years. All they are concerned about is power. They are going to do everything they can to block any Efforts to improve the economy. Look at how they screwed up raising the national dept. Their MO is to sabotage and subvert. Their party has become a cult of stupidity.

BlackJack of CO 10:06PM August 13, 2011

And now we are stuck with the debt for that failure.
So why should anyone reasonably believe a tax-the-rich job-creation scheme would fare any better?
When it comes to job creation by the government, does it make a difference if the financing method is through higher federal tax rates on select groups instead of more federal debt? I don't believe such.
In fact it may be even worse for our economy and job creation -- by itself and particularly as lobbed on top of the cost of the previous debt-based failure to create enough new jobs.

dom youngross of OH 10:47AM August 13, 2011