A great find by Jack Liberty:
In tonight “Talking Points” segment, he argued that government spending is a bad idea to revitalize the economy because its cost will add to the deficit.
Fine so far, but he then says that Obama should push tax cuts to individuals and businesses because that wouldn’t add to the deficit.
According to Wikipedia, O’Reilly finished university, but for some reason he doesn’t understand that if government A cuts 100 million in taxes and nothing in spending, and government B doesn’t cut taxes but adds 100 million in spending, they’ll both be indebted by the same ammount.
Typical Liberal “only first step” math. Every single time in US history when taxes were CUT total Govt. revenue from taxes RAISED up. There is much more to Govt. revenue than percentage of taxation. Also, simple raising of taxes does not guarantee more revenue: long term examples of California and Michigan in US or year old UK example (raising taxes on “rich” that yielded fleeing capital and rich people to Switzerland, with less total revenue in the end).
Second important part, if you cut taxes you should be expected to cut size and spending of Govt. Together with raising revenue these two steps should result in dramatic balance change.
Tax cuts usually generate more revenue, due to economic growth. Look it up.
Government A cuts 100 million in taxes will result in 200 million in increased income to the treasury. Tax cuts are not static. Tax cuts by JFK, RR, and W all resulted in overall increases in income.
Whatever the answer, I think talk show hosts spend a whole day or maybe more coming up with the opening segment yada yada.
So likely:
1. He had a point but it didn’t come across clearly
2. He worded it badly
3. There is some hidden logic he didn’t explain well
Regardless of whether or not someone likes O’Reilly, I would have a difficult time believing he doesn’t know that taxes are the source of funding for government spending.
Oh please. Do you people really think that some of the dolts on this site will understand that a tax cut isn’t static?
Cut taxes and tax revenue goes up.
I see the supply-side myths are alive and well in wingnut land.
The gap between the rich and the rest of us has been steadily increasing, and yet you still see moronic wingnuts begging the government to cut taxes for the rich.
Why don’t y’all just find a rich person and give your money to him personally? Leave the rest of us out of it.
#6, Why don’t y’all just find a rich person and give your money to him personally? Leave the rest of us out of it.
Now, THAT sounds like a great idea.
Step 1: Cut all taxes to nothing.
Step 2: Those that want to, can give all their money to the rich people.
Fido, I am impressed. You are coming around after all. And nicely I might add 🙂
>> dusanmal said, on January 29th, 2010 at 10:27 am
>> Every single time in US history when taxes were CUT total Govt. revenue from taxes RAISED up.
Holy smokes you conservatives have a painful learning curve. (Painful for average Americans!)
Your “facts” are just made-up.
For starters, Reagan RAISED taxes on most people.
Second, it’s just stupid.
If you cut revenues, revenues are cut. Duh!
Spoken like a true 15 year old. It must be nice to live in the simple world of Jack Liberty.
#7, The first question you have to ask yourself is why the government needs “more” money in the first place?
Inflation? More social programs? What?
Instead of arguing about tax increases, argue over why they are even considering it, not what they should do.
#8 Step 1: Cut all taxes to nothing.
Step 2: Those that want to, can give all their money to the rich people.
You forgot:
Step 3: Enjoy your short and violent life as the government collapses and the rich and powerful, no longer restrained by any laws, take over and establish a brutal oligarchy.
No need to thank me. 🙂
#12, That’s your fear talking again. Haven’t we been over this before?
You either have to man up and take responsibility for yourself or be a wus and let someone else take care of you instead.
Never mind . . . I already know which way you roll. 🙂
Tax cuts are a short term solution to long term problems.
Yes, tax cuts will increase revenues simply because they are instituted during economic downturns. Comparing the income after the economy has recovered gives a wrong number. Comparing it to the income preceding the downturn is more accurate, and they are always lower.
If the tax cuts were returned to their previous levels, there wouldn’t be any problem. Unfortunately they usually remain there and the resulting debt rises. Since this debt is never paid off it continues to accumulate. Then we get the right wing nuts crying about the size of the deficit.
I don’t think Obama understands “basic” math either. He is proposing we take $30 billion of the TARP money that has been “paid back” and spend it on other things.
One problem: we didn’t really have any of the $TARP money in the first place. The $TARP money wasn’t “real” money, it was either borrowed, or we pretended we had the money. So when it was “paid back” all that happened is that a line item on a spreadsheet got checked off.
But that’s typical government thinking: if we cut $billions (which we didn’t have in the first place) then we can spend it somewhere else.
A modest proposal: no tax cuts, combined with eliminating government programs until the budget is balanced (no deficit).
Do you wingnuts ever intend to open your eyes?
Our boy Clinton kept taxes basically the same (though pressured to lower them), and OVERSAW THE GREATEST ECONOMIC TRIUMPH IN OUR LIFETIMES.
Your buddy Dubya dramatically cuts taxes, and oversaw THE WORST ECOMONIC DISASTER IN OUR LIFETIMES.
How much more evidence do you need that your premise is flawed, and that things might be a tad more complicated?
(you may begin apologies now – hah!)
raster,
The “Economic Triumph” was courtesy of Bill Gates creating a new industry. Politicians can’t create economic success or stability they can only bring it down, witch dubya and Barny Frank did. The economic crash was a bipartisan effort as was support for the looting that took place afterward. Open your eyes and quit being a partisan sheep, both parties frauds anyway they’re both owned by people other than the voters.
I thought the lefties were unfairly ganging up on Cherman.
But after reading this ludicrous post that totally ignores the dynamic nature of the market when faced with tax reductions, I have to side with the liberals.
Cherman is off his rocker.
Fox for some reason intentionally “dumb” themselves down to relate and/or convince their audiences. That would be better to believe, for me anyways, then to really know they are that dumb and millions and millions of viewers are tuned in and agreeing with them. That’s one scary sht there.
Daily show did a bit on that one lady from Fox and friends or something. He show clips of her being/acting dumb for the sake of the news pience. “I don’t even know what means and I have to go look it up in the dictionary.” Well, for a valedictorian of a respected school, that’s call kiss-assing and can ONLY strengthen a woman’s place in our American society. Be dumb, cook, have babies, stay beautiful, hold this beer and bend over and more sex.
Great role models Fox News!
#19, you should have heard Beck yesterday trying to mangle the math on Obama’s student loan idea from SotU. It would have been hilarious had he not been so earnestly wrong.
It was like hearing a car dealer tell you how much you save by leasing instead of buying.
Math=facts≠Fox News
Glenn Beck is very emotional and incapable of basic math. It is good he is an entertainer.
Sorry, the grammar and spelling errors are because of this stupid touchpad that I can’t disable in Win7 due to lack of driver support from Synaptix. Grrr..
History simply doesn’t support the moronic claims made here by the right wing know it all know nothings.
It is always so easy to throw dirt.
I still haven’t seen anyone answer my question from #11.
Why does the government need “more” money in the first place?
#24 LibertyLover
Because asshats like you ran us into the dirt with your wars and endless profit for big business courtesy of the Republican party. Well the bill has arrived and someone has to pay it. Unless you think it is ok to skip out on your debt?
I’m paying more than my fair share how about you cough up yours and quit your fucking bitching????
#25, I’m sorry, but until you learn to show a little respect, you’ll not get any satisfaction from comments such as that.
If you wish to try again, and carry on a civil conversation instead of attacking people who don’t agree with you, I’ll be happy to respond.
#26 LibertyHumper
It sucks when someone gives you the truth in an answer to a stupid question and it doesn’t fit within your retarded thinking pattern doesn’t it?
All I have to say is you have to consider O’Reilly as a comedian.
16, Raster, Presidents have little to no control over our country’s economy. The House of Representatives holds the purse strings. The only influence Presidents have is their tax policies but there’s usually a delayed effect.
If Presidents had as much influence as you naively believe, then no outgoing President would allow the country’s economy go in the crapper as part of their legacy.
19, Theone, If nothing else, the raising of taxes is going to foster continued high unemployment. Obama now realizes that tax cuts are the solution to economic recovery.
25, J, The Democrat-controlled congress could have ended those wars as early as late 2006. I suppose it’s the Republican’s fault that you guys can’t pass universal health care? Good grief. You guys have had the majority and all you can do is play the blame game.
To answer Liberty Lover’s question, we don’t need any more money. Times are tough and we need to cut all the entitlement programs and cut people’s taxes (starting with the taxes Obama raised on the poor and middle class). THAT would foster a quicker recovery.
#26, Loser,
#25, I’m sorry, but until you learn to show a little respect, you’ll not get any satisfaction from comments such as that.
Keep working and you might eventually have enough material for a stand up comedy bit.
Damn that is funny.
#29, Guyver,
The Democrat-controlled congress could have ended those wars as early as late 2006. I suppose it’s the Republican’s fault that you guys can’t pass universal health care? Good grief. You guys have had the majority and all you can do is play the blame game.
Uummm, there have been two bill from the House several months ago. The Senate version has been delayed by every legal maneuver possible. The Republicans aren’t interested in health care reform, all they want is to increase insurance company profits.