TPMDC

Cantor Appears To Concede That Bush Tax Cuts Will Add To Deficits


House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA)

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

At least one member of GOP leadership in Washington is willing to admit that extending the Bush tax cuts will increase deficits.

Appearing on MSNBC this morning, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor reiterated his support for renewing the Bush-era tax cuts for all income brackets, including high-income earners. But he was also forced to admit, with apparent reluctance, that doing so will balloon the deficit, at a time when deficits are the GOP's supposed cause du jour.

"[I]f you have less revenues coming into the federal government, and more expenditures, what does that add up to? Certainly you're gonna dig the hole deeper. But you also have to understand, if the priority is to get people back to work, is to start growing this economy again, uh, then you don't wanna make it more expensive for job creators."

Compare that to the views of the rest of GOP leadership.

"That there's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told TPMDC last month. "They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy."

In June, House Minority Leader John Boehner touched off his own case of deja voodoo ""We've seen over the last 30 years that lower marginal tax rates have led to a growing economy, more employment, and more people paying taxes," Boehner said at a press conference. "And if you look at the revenue growth over those 30 years, you've got a prime example of what we've been talking about."

Cantor's Senate counterpart, Jon Kyl agrees with McConnell and Boehner.

Makes you wonder how long until Cantor has a change of heart.

H/T Political Correction

[Ed. note: Revised since publication]

Comments (121) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (1)

August 2, 2010 1:32 PM   

Republicans have become completely wedded to the idea that ideology trumps reality. Boner and McConnell are just following that line.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 2:25 PM    in reply to mans_best_friend

If these tax cuts GROW the economy so much, then why have I seen a MASSIVE GROWTH in the economy every year since Bush signed them into the tax code?

Where's the BOOM in the economy Cantor, Boehner and McConnell? Where is it?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 2:33 PM    in reply to lapdogs

It's not the kind of "BOOM" you see, but rather the "BOOM" you hear... as in the economy imploding.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 2:34 PM    in reply to lapdogs

Obviously because the tax cuts weren't big enough.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 3:01 PM    in reply to mans_best_friend

Right, get rid of all taxes and we will all be living on easy street or is that on the streets.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 4:19 PM    in reply to BeeClone

Cantor concedes sky is blue. Film at eleven.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 7:41 PM    in reply to BeeClone

I think that's on the dirt road, until it becomes so eroded and overgrown that you can't use it any more.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 3, 2010 3:58 AM    in reply to lapdogs

do you really think the tax cuts should expire? every group will feel it, including the poor, on their 1st paycheck in 2011. if it adds to the 'deficet' its because the government is ovespending, not because we are undertaxed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 3, 2010 9:39 AM    in reply to jjdjjd

"do you really think the tax cuts should expire?"

Maybe you should ask the people who voted for that to happen in Congress. And the President who signed off on it.

Blame the GOP and President Bush; they're the ones who passed the legislation.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 3, 2010 11:57 AM    in reply to Signalman

thats no answer, answer the question.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 3, 2010 12:12 PM    in reply to jjdjjd

"thats no answer"

That's the answer whether you like it or not.

The GOP-controlled Congress proposed and passed the legislation that created AND SUNSETTED the tax cuts, and President Bush signed it. If you have a problem with the cuts' expiration, then I suggest you take it up with the responsible (or is that the *irresponsible?*) parties: Congressional Republicans and former President Bush.


"answer the question."

I already have. You just don't like the reply and are obviously embarrassed by it. Too bad for you.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 3, 2010 2:39 PM    in reply to Signalman

the question was do you want your taxes to go up? you want to change the subject. ok, make it political, but i already pay enough in taxes. no matter who lowered the taxes or who raises them i already pay too much. stay on your message, watch your taxes go up. but who we kidding, you don't pay any income taxes, you're a welfare baby, taking my money. be a man, get a job. asshat.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 3, 2010 5:26 PM    in reply to jjdjjd

"the question was do you want your taxes to go up?"

It doesn't matter what *I* want. President Bush and his GOP Congress already saw to it that my taxes are going to go up. That's Bush's final screw-you to the working men and women of this country.


"you want to change the subject."

I'm *on* the subject. Taxes are *going* to go up, because that's what President Bush and his GOP Congress passed and signed off on. All done.


"ok, make it political"

I'd say *you're* the one trying to do that, inasmuch as you're desperately trying to paint this as President Obama and the Democrats' doing, when it clearly isn't.


"but i already pay enough in taxes."

Shrug. That's your opinion, and you're certainly welcome to it.


"no matter who lowered the taxes or who raises them i already pay too much."

Shrug. That's your opinion, and you're certainly welcome to it.


"stay on your message, watch your taxes go up."

I'll watch *your* taxes go up, too, and I'll gladly remind you who's responsible for it. That'd be President Bush and his GOP Congress. Keep that in mind, won't you?


"but who we kidding, you don't pay any income taxes"

Of course I do.


"you're a welfare baby"

No, I'm a disabled veteran. And being a disabled veteran does *not* mean that you can't hold down a job.


"taking my money.

I will continue to take it, too, and there's not a thing you can do about it.


"be a man, get a job."

I have a job, and I'm more of a man than you could ever hope to be.


"asshat."

Whining, mewling coward. Grow a pair.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 3, 2010 5:36 PM    in reply to Signalman

boy you can spin some shit. you work for obama?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 3, 2010 5:57 PM    in reply to jjdjjd

"boy you can spin some shit."

And you're an ignorant, cowardly nitwit.

Why do you support the GOP when they passed the legislation to raise our taxes? How can you support a party that voted for your taxes to go up? And why do you trust them when they say they don't want that? Do I have to go find the list of Republicans who *voted* for this and post it here to show you how wrong you are?


"you work for obama?"

Nope. The only government job I've ever held was in the Army. And that's more than you've done.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 3, 2010 4:27 PM    in reply to jjdjjd

I would agree to keep the tax cuts in place IF they were tied to jobs created, a sort of tit for tat arrangement, so to speak. However, as it stands, the folks with the humongous salaries who were bailed out by the taxpayers, aren't lending money to start businesses and aren't hiring. Basically, they took the money and ran. Again.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 3, 2010 7:47 AM    in reply to lapdogs

You just need to understand how to select the population when you're doing the measurement. There has been massive growth in the income of the wealthiest 1%. That's all that matters to these guys.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 3:38 PM    in reply to mans_best_friend

Next up, one Republican concedes that the sky is actually blue....followed by every other Republican insisting that the sky is actually purple.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 5:00 PM    in reply to mans_best_friend

Look at the history. The second set of tax cuts were put into place while the Repubs still controlled the Senate and the House. Because the Dems threatened to filibuster, the Repubs adopted reconciliation, meaning the extension required only 51 votes, which they had. However, as we all now know, reconciliation also precludes measures which add to the deficit more than 10 years into the future. The Repubs were therefore forced to adopt the sunset provision at issue now solely because the CBO ruled that the cuts would, in fact, add to the deficit.

What, exactly, is the question here?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 5:49 PM    in reply to George C

The only question I have is "what are you talking about?" You seem to be agreeing with "mans best friend", but acting like you are arguing against his comments.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 6:03 PM    in reply to davewtf

I was trying to say that this isn't just an issue of opinion: in 2001, when the Repubs enacted the tax cuts, there was no question they would add to the deficit. I wasn't arguing with man's, but merely reinforcing that the question was never open to debate.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 7:17 PM    in reply to George C

I think we all get it (except for that guy who responded to your first post).

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 3, 2010 8:00 PM    in reply to siuol11

i think dave was reacting to the fact that george replied to man's best friend's comment even though george's comment doesn't seem to have anything to do with man's best friend's comment.

i'm guessing george just wanted his post to be higher up on the page. bad form.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 1:33 PM   

And cue the hilarious walk back in five, four, three...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 3:46 PM    in reply to georgecs

Yes, it's extremely predictable. Anytime a GOP elected official says something that is demonstrably true, they are forced to walk back the statement in short order.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 1:35 PM   

There ain’t no stinking tax cuts . . . There are only Bush Deficit Enchancements . . .

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 1:43 PM    in reply to Richard L. Adlof

Framing win!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 2:09 PM    in reply to Richard L. Adlof

Richard said:

"Bush Deficit Enchancements"

hahah, that's gold :-)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 1:37 PM   

I really don't understand how McConnell expects anyone to believe him. One can argue about subjective effects like "creating jobs", but the actual revenue numbers aren't subject to debate: and they DON'T SHOW AN INCREASE. Have the Republicans really just given up even *trying* to keep their lies consistent with reality?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 1:43 PM    in reply to Matt Jones

"Have the Republicans really just given up even *trying* to keep their lies consistent with reality?"

Yes. Ideology trumps reality.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 5:52 PM    in reply to mans_best_friend

Of course not, because their constituents demand certain responses. They don't demand realistic responses, or even reality. The entire conservative wing of the republican party seems to operate in the realm of "do what I say, not what I do". They will vote for the person who tells them exactly what they want to hear, not for the person who tells them the truth.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 1:53 PM    in reply to Matt Jones

They don't need to show "evidence" or "facts" due to the fact that their supporters will not investigate or refute their words. GOP leaders and RW Media stars' words ARE facts since they are on TV. If it's on Fox then it's true. Period.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 3:05 PM    in reply to Erran

The correct word is "refudiate", not refute.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 2:11 PM    in reply to Matt Jones

Even Heritage doesn't buy into the GOP's talking points...

A few weeks back, when we had that table flying around analyzing the deficit impact of the Stimulus bill, Iraq/Afghanistan, and the Bush tax cuts --- Heritage responded with a critique that essentially said "nuh-uh... the deficit only grew by 900 billion because of the Bush tax cuts!"

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 2:26 PM    in reply to Matt Jones

Sadly, people do fall for this. They are faming this as a tax hike and omitting this affects the higher income tax bracket. And of course we don't want the downtrodden wealthy people to have to suffer the damn tax hikes.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 2:36 PM    in reply to It's Pat

Tax hike - Deficit reducer. Tomato - tomahto.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 7:45 PM    in reply to Matt Jones

I don't think "creating jobs" IS a subjective effect, and I think that's a good line of attack.

"If cutting taxes creates jobs, then why were virtually NO net jobs created under Bush the Lesser?" If "small businesses" are the engine of job creation, why cut taxes for BIG businesses, and the execs who use the TRILLIONS of cash on big business balance sheets NOT to create American jobs but to pay dividends to shareholders and to pay themselves salaries and bonuses that are beyond obscene.

I know pornography when I see it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 1:40 PM   

"[I]f you have less revenues coming into the federal government, and more expenditures, what does that add up to? Certainly you're gonna dig the hole deeper."

In other news, a new study by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) has found that the sky is, indeed, blue.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 1:42 PM   

How can anyone vote for such a bunch of lying, hypocritical, "ideology trumps reality", mean-spirited, obstructionists penile-encephaleptics? I mean, seriously? Are people really that stupid/disengaged/deluded/easily fooled?

It depresses me to think about it, frankly.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 1:50 PM    in reply to dougom

because people are angry that Obama didn't wave the magic wand and fix all the fuck-ups of bush in less then 2 yrs while at the same time dealing with a treasonous/obstructionist GOBP.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 2:07 PM    in reply to dougom

"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur."

The people wish to be deceived, therefore, let them be deceived.


Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 10:48 PM    in reply to dougom

Yes, it is depressing. But there is a group of people in the US that NEED to believe this stuff. Otherwise, they will have to face the fact that their failure is of their own making. There is a small, but vocal, segment of Americans that have allowed themselves to be duped by people that capitalize on their fear of people who are not like them. So they believe in welfare queens and Willie Horton, and that illegal aliens are the reason they don't have good jobs. It doesn't matter how much the corporate bosses screws them. It's alright as long as they believe they'll be able to say "I got MY America back".

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 1:50 PM   

Are people really that stupid/disengaged/deluded/easily fooled?

Yes.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 4:39 PM    in reply to stillidealistic

Disengaged=all the other three. One of the things the Republicans spent the last thirty years doing is undermining civics education in schools and the entire concept of civic-mindedness. I was among the last generation of kids who actually learned in elementary school that we should vote in every election, always appear for jury duty when called, keep ourselves minimally informed about public affairs, and that we have to pay taxes because without them there's no government and, what's more, that would be a bad thing. (No policemen, no firemen, no one to fill potholes. They didn't add in "no one to keep people from just walking in off the streets and treating our vast stockpile of nuclear weapons like the retired books bin at the library," but we were only second graders).

Republicans cut education funds relentlessly and attacked the civics curricula as "liberally biased" to the point that state and local boards of education dropped it (along with evolution) as "controversial."

So basically, we're stuck with a bunch of busy, harassed people who are too civic minded to not vote, but insufficiently civic minded to think they need to pay a goddamned bit of attention to politics on a day to day basis. No one really pays attention except us, unless you count the crazy old people who stay glued to Fox 24/7. I cannot conceive of how the inattentive decide who to vote for.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 1:51 PM   

i have yet to get this messed up math they are using to claim tax cuts for people who dont need them mean more revenue for the government.
there have been studies done that show when you concentrate money in a very small population you get less in total useful economic activity. the rich buy the same amount of perishable goods or at least not a lot more then your average american. If you look at the things the richest american CEO's and their families buy its all very rare over priced merchandise like expensive cars made by foreign manufacturers that are only for the super rich and clothing made by specialty places that cater only to the super rich. then the investments are usually made amongst each other investing in you neighbors company usually a financial corporation of some type. the more cash you put in fewer hands the less cash is out in the markets to create innovation jobs or improve the lives of the american people. 99% of these super rich never really do anything particularly useful with all that money not that you couldn't. they usually just give this cash to there kids who really don't ever need to work at all through out their entire lives do to the connections they already have making them rich for really no reason other then their family name. So taxing the rich keeps the cash flowing in the economy we all do things of value but at some point the value of work you did fades in the face of the value of what you do. time to get over your selves you are not so important or valuable innovation is made by the changing faces of our country not the old rich of the past.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 2:13 PM    in reply to Sergio

All good points in support of a progressive (that is, higher tax rates at higher income brackets) taxation system. Let me add a couple of others:

- progressive taxation is a headwind to widening wealth disparities. large wealth disparities inevitably lead to political and social unrest, and to wealth-destroying financial upheaval. the statistics on wealth disparities in America today are readily available, and show that the gap between the wealthiest 1% and the remaining 99% is growing to alarming levels. See Kevin Phillips' "Wealth and Democracy" for an excellent analysis of this issue in its historical context.

- progressive taxation is consistent with the fundamental economic principal of diminishing marginal value: my first dollar is worth more to me, in real terms, than my millionth, because the first dollar buys me basic necessities(food, clothing, shelter), whereas my millionth buys me, as a general matter, leisure goods. Folks on the right chafe at people saying that we don't "need" our millionth dollar as much as we "need" our first one, but I find that difficult to swallow in the context of basic vs. leisure goods.

- a progressive tax system reflects American and democratic ideals. The subset of our fellow citizens who achieve great wealth are able to do so BECAUSE they live in this great country, not in spite of it. I have mixed feelings about the paths to wealth in America - hard work is a great path; reality television notsomuch. But, whatever your path, you owe it, in part, to the borders that surrounded you when you were born. And so, to the country that gave you more, you should give more back.

All of the arguments above apply equally to estate taxation.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 2:35 PM    in reply to thinkbeforespeaking

The sad thing is that while the top 1% are worried about another zero added at the end of their net worth, the bottom 99% are worried about things like keeping the house and educating their children.

Seriously, what's the point in having that much money?

You're absolutely right about income gaps leading to social instability. You'd think with all that money, they could afford some history books to see what happens when countries and civilizations reach the tipping point. I'm afraid we're a lot closer to that than people realize.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 6:48 PM    in reply to Forrest

I think we have already tipped. I think the super rich have sucked up all the wealth produced in America and the other 99% of us are on a downward spiral that is making life more unfair and brutal and short. The tax cuts for rich people rethuglican holy grail should be easy to tie around their neck and drown them with ...... but the easily intimidated Dems will be afraid to tell the 99% that they are being fucked royal so the Dems will loose the "election" to the corporations and downward we will spiral some more. America is in decline ...... thanks Bush!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 2:32 PM    in reply to Sergio

The logic is that way back in the early 1960's the top tax bracket was reduced and sure enough, tax revenues increased. What they never mention is that the top tax bracket was reduced from 91% to 70%. Indeed, this is in accordance with standard economic theory. In the 1950's we had the baby boom. People were buying houses, cars, televisions, washing machines and pretty much everything else as fast as they could make them. Real wages were growing and people had money to spend. Unfortunately, the high marginal tax rates siphoned money from the investing class, leading to a supply-limited economy. In this environment, supply-side economics does work.

It does not follow, however, that tax cuts always lead to revenue increases. Otherwise we could cut the tax rate to zero and we'd be swimming in tax revenues. The 1950's was a special case. We do not have a supply-limited economy. Real wages have stagnated and the investing class has more money than there are worthwhile investments (hence the growth of bad investments disguised to look like good investments). Every cut in the top marginal rates since then has been followed by a drop in tax revenue.

And they'll use any excuse they can come up with to justify putting more money in their own pockets. Also.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 2:39 PM    in reply to Sergio

The point is, I think, to get as much money in the hands of the most amount of people. Discretionary expenditures are just that - funds applied at the owners discretion. The middle class is the economic engine of this country. You want to "prime the pump" and get the economy moving along on a upward trajectory? Make it easier for a broad expanse of the middle class to spend money. Ah, I'm preaching to the choir here aren't I?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 2:46 PM    in reply to big jonny

Preaching to the choir indeed. Let's take the show over to the NRO Online boards and stir it up.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mcc

user-pic

August 2, 2010 4:22 PM    in reply to thinkbeforespeaking

Yeah, I dunno. As far as I know the polls are all saying that the Republican victory, if it happens, will be based not on the size of their faction but based on their faction being the only one that actually cares enough to show up to vote. They talk about enthusiasm levels and turnout, they don't show Republicans or Republican ideas are popular or widely accepted.

Maybe right now the choir needs preaching more than the NRO message boards do.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 2:57 PM    in reply to Sergio

In otherwords you have exactly what we see today.

The normal engines that drive us out of recession : pentup demand and savings, available credit, home equity. . . all of them tapped out.

Yet corporations have unprecidented cash reserves, just waiting to be invested once the good-times return. Of course since they are the only ones with cash to spend, and they ain't spending until the good times return - we are exactly where you'd expect to be. Stuck in a GOP induced recession.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 1:54 PM   

These guys will keep speaking mendaciously and illogically as long as the media grants them so much prominence.

I see, for example, that this Cantor story 'disappeared' very quickly from the blog headlines and doubt it will ever appear in the print news or tv news.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 2:01 PM   

Quick!!! Someone get him the Kool-Aid, he's coming out of it. And might become a moderate republican. Or even a left leaning... /me gasps.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 2:08 PM   

Every time I see Cantor I wonder how much black shoe polish he uses on his hair.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 2:10 PM   

Oh please! If the tax cuts were so great for job creation, all of the idiots need to explain why we lost I MILLION JOBS during Bush's reign of 8 years? It's stunning that these idiot Republicans are trying to argue that all of the tax cuts including those for the wealthy should be retained. They don't give a damn about lower and middle income Americans. They're simply lumping us in with the wealthy to pretend they actually give a damn. If they really cared about the rest of us, they need to explain why they voted against unemployment extensions while complaining that there are no jobs. And voted against the jobs bill while complaining that there are no jobs. This is what is called talking out of both sides or your ass!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 2:11 PM   

What are the chances of seeing this clip of Canter making this admission on FOX News tonight?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 3:12 PM    in reply to JohnW1141

Or even it being mentioned on any Sunday talk show by the MSM?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 4:37 PM    in reply to dswx

dswx,

those shows are reserved for Sarah Palin's babbles.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 2:14 PM   

So digging the hole deeper is okay for tax cuts but not for more spending? So as long as you're agreeing that increasing the deficit is necessary to stimulate job growth and since elections have consequences Dems get to name the rules and it's spending over tax cuts.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 2:15 PM   

"deja voodoo" is very fine.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 2:34 PM    in reply to Mom, Esq.

I agree. "Deja voodoo" is the finest kind. Da kine.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 2:16 PM   

Sorry, I meant 8 million jobs! 8 million jobs were lost while those tax cuts for the rich were in effect! There's your proof that THEY DON'T WORK! Also, only 2% of small business make over 250,000 a year so that argument falls flat too!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Wes

user-pic

August 2, 2010 2:17 PM   

I think Cantor is the first, but after Alan Greenspan (the patron saint of conservative economics) stating unambiguously that tax cuts do not pay for themselves, more Republicans are going to have to face reality on this or end up looking even more ridiculous. Either they care about deficits or they care about tax cuts, but they can't do both.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 11:01 PM    in reply to Wes

They don't care about anybody that can't donate thousands to their campaigns and take them for a spin on their fancy yachts. That ain't me and probably ain't you either. THEY DON"T CARE!!! And they will lie and spin trying to make people think they do.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 2:17 PM   

Are the Republicans in the senate and the house actually working for the Taliban?.....trying to totally break the bank with continued Bush economics and to completely break the backs of the Middle class and the streets of America fall into civil discourse?

What other explanation is there for the Republican ideology...because they are destroying our Democracy with the sole interest of the have's at the forefront of their voodooism.

The last people in the US that need or deserve a break are the rich and Top wage earners.....they should be taxed at the rates of the 1970's when the US middle class was at its best.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 2:18 PM   

Honesty rocks! Shouldn't they be defending the tax cuts on the basis of Reaganomics?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 2:20 PM   

AAARRRRGGGHHHH !!!!!!!11111ONEONEONEONEONE

How long are these Lame Stream Media morons going to allow this perpetual lie to be repeated by the Reprobates.

Tax Cuts for the Wealthy DO NOT CREATE JOBS.

The Reagan-omics are FAILED, Freidman, Greenspan, et al have had their opportunity and their theories are garbage. Our current economy is proof of their failure.

If their theories worked . . . . by the end of the Reagan Administration the country would still have been the largest creditor country in the world, instead of having been turned into the largest debtor nation in the world.

If their theories worked . . . . by the end of the Bush Administration the economy would have been cooking at FULL EMPLOYMENT and everybody would be as happy as the criminals on Wall Street.

Tax cuts for the wealthy reduce Federal Revenues, add to the deficit and the tax burden on the rest of us 99% tax payers, and provide the wealthy with more wealth.

That's it. period.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 2:20 PM   

something...d..o..o economics? Holy crap. How many decades have the Repubs been pushing that supply-side mythology and their constituents still swallow it hook line and sinker?? Oh well, I guess somewhere the ghost of Reagan is smiling at the crap he's perpetuated.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 2:22 PM   

The Republicans are making the mistake of assuming that all of the country is as stupid as the people who actually vote Republican. Well, we're not and they're going to find out in November. About a month ago, after Republcans had blocked unemployment extensions I read the comments about it in the Wall Street Journal and comment after comment was as follows:
"I've been a Republican for 25 years, or 35 years and have never voted for a Democrat in my life but, come November I'm going to vote for a Democrat and help kick out Republicans."

I can't tell you how gratified I was to read these messages. These people were clearly either unemployed of had a relative who was and they couldn't believe the heartless Republicans would do something like this over and over again. Personally, I had to wonder what planet they'd been living on all these years but, I guess it's better late than never that they discovered just how disgrace and hateful these people really are!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 2:26 PM   

How long will the American people listen to and vote for these Reprobates, as they urinate all over us and then tell us that it's raining?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 2:27 PM    in reply to FreemanW

We'll find out the answer to that question in November 2010.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 2:29 PM   

The thing about this comic is that there are any number of ways he could have chosen to caricature Obama that have nothing to do with race. Such caricatures would actually have served to reinforce the artist's stated theme of criticizing Obama's ideology.

So not only is the author a bigot (whether or not he wants to admit it), he's a bad author.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 2:29 PM    in reply to Forrest

Holy wrong thread Batman!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 2:50 PM   

A Republican who can do math? First I've heard of since 1980, when Reagan sold the idea that he could increase military spending, cut taxes and balance the budget (he couldn't).

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 2:51 PM   

You want to hurt Cantor? Help his opponent, Rick Waugh. http://www.rickwaugh.com

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 2:53 PM   

Lemme see if I can follow this GOP circle logic:

1. Republicans are against spending to stimulate job creation because they are most concerned about the deficit.

2. The expiration of the Bush tax cuts would reduce the deficit.

3. Republicans are against the tax cut expiration because they are most concerned about job creation.

How the Democrats continue to let the GOP get away with this nonsense is beyond me. It shouldn't fall to a second or third tier desk reporter on a cable news channel to weakly challenge the GOP on this - Chucky Todd just siting there next to her like the punk he is.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 2:58 PM   

The GOP continue to get away with this nonsense because there is no palpable evidence that it's wrong.

The US Government can still pay its bills because it hasn't had any trouble borrowing money to make up for revenue shortfalls. Deficits are an abstraction to most everyone, and a policy that makes them worse doesn't have a measurable downside.

The financial markets have not acted to exert any discipline on the US's fiscal policy, so the country has become profligate, and tolerates the falsehoods and idiocy that comprise GOP economic talking points.

If and when the govt has trouble borrowing, that will change. E.g., I'm not aware of any politician in Greece campaigning for tax cuts to bring that nation's financial house in order. That country doesn't have the luxury of living in a fantasy world of its own making. Reality caved in on it.

That hasn't happened here yet.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 4:31 PM    in reply to Paul Gulino

I agree. The only thing that I would add is that when the US govmnt starts facing problems borrowing money, Dems and Repubs alike will try to cut the "entitlement" programs. This, of course, will not be possible politically because way-way too many people depend on such programs. Hence, the only place where real cuts will be possible is in the "discretionary" programs a.k.a. DoD welfare.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Fay

Facebook

August 2, 2010 3:01 PM   

I guess Cantor wouldn't even come on to the show if someone there would point out that there's only a plan to raise -rich- people's taxes

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 3:13 PM   

Precisely how low do tax rates have to go to balance the budget? Hell, come to think of it, why stop there? Cut 'em to 0% and watch revenues soar. Woo hooooooo!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 3:15 PM   

The rightwing folks are trying to misrepresent who actually would be affected by letting the Bush tax cuts lapse. Trying to conflate unemployment numbers with the tax cuts and throwing small businesses in the mix.
Most small business owners do not make $250k annually. Yet we make up a majority of business owners overall.
Small businesses increase staff when demand calls for it. AND most small business' customers are average working Americans. Demand goes down when your customers don't have the cashflow. They don't have the cashflow when their retirement savings are run off with by the big banks that have STOPPED LENDING due to "uncertainty". And that uncertainty is due to fear of regulation.
It's all very nuanced and certainly wouldn't fit on Sarah Palin's palm. Even if it could, I doubt she could grasp it.
But enough! Tax breaks for the top 2% would NOT result in more jobs. It doesn't happen.
It is a scam.
They have been functioning under these tax rates for a while now... they have NOT YET been increased... and yet joblessness is quite high. Stop falling for trickle down theories that just do NOT pan out.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 7:01 PM    in reply to Sami

Trickle down ...... Trickle down is just them pissing on your head and laughing at you .... all the way to the bank. Work harder little people, you're not dead yet!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 3:21 PM   

Maybe if we explain that tax cuts equals spending in GOPonics, they might understand:

If they believe in the adage of Founding Father Ben Franklin that a penny saved is a penny earned. Would not the opposite also be true that a penny lost is a penny spent?

How hard is that?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 3:28 PM   

What the hell is going on here? I keep reading and reading and reading, but no one here has blamed Obama for any of this... What kind of ideological purity are you guys demonstrating when you can't work criticisms of that DINO Obama into your critiques of Cantor, Boner, and McConjob?!?!? No one has blamed Rahm Emanuel either... Or made a joke about Harry Reid sending a sternly-worded letter... What gives? And won't somebody think of the children?!?!?!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 3:40 PM    in reply to ondioline

If anyone is to blame its Greenspan, Summers, Geithner, Paulson, Clinton, Bush, and Cheney.

The six horsemen of the Kondtratieff Winter.

You can try to pull Obama and Rahmbutt in there if you'd like.

But its like shooting the animals as they are running out of the burning barn because they didn't put the fire out.

Something is just not right about it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 4:36 PM    in reply to willia451

I was being sarcastic. I couldn't agree with you more. It just happens here all the time. The Obama/Iraq Drawdown thread is rife with it right now...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Fay

Facebook

August 2, 2010 3:45 PM    in reply to ondioline

We don't need to be at each other's throats when the big dogs are about to leap. I'm sure most of us here know that Obama hasn't been ideal. I'd rather have Obama than the Republicans and it's as simple as that

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 11:17 PM    in reply to ondioline

You can't blame Obama for stuff that started before he was president. Hundreds of thousands of jobs were lost month after month under the Bush presidency. This started under the republic president and his republic congress. The economy is beginning to show modest, but real, job gains. During Bush's tenure the economy created fewer jobs that any other time in modern history. The tax cuts were instituted in 2000, as soon as Bush took office he gave his cronies tax breaks. If tax breaks lead to such great economic times, why don't we have surpluses like Clinton created? Obama doesn't have a magic wand to wave, even with Democratic majorities. It will take time to turn this ship around especially with the sabotage of the republic congress

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 3, 2010 12:48 PM    in reply to dee cee

I couldn't agree with you more. It just seems like Obama gets blamed for everything else around here... If the sun is too bright, he should've picked out better blinds. If it's raining, he should've invested in umbrellas for all. I'm just shocked that this crowd isn't ripping him, and that that restraint is because he's legitimately not responsible. That just hasn't stopped people in the past...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 3:40 PM   

The job creators he is talking about still lay thousands of employees off after tax cuts.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 3:41 PM   

Hmmm, I suspect we may be seeing the start of the effect of David Stockman's Sunday NYT editorial going round GOP email lists:

Op-Ed Contributor

Four Deformations of the Apocalypse

By DAVID STOCKMAN
Published: July 31, 2010

IF there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing....

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 3:45 PM   

ondioline just for you:

Reid should send a sternly worded letter to the children asking them what who is more to blame, Obama or Emanuel, for not fixing republican economic failures quick enough. And the cherry, Sarah Glen Palin-Beck.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 3:53 PM   

I wish Democrats would continuously point out the most hysterically hypocritical point in all this.

The reason the Bush tax cuts were designed to phase out was an accounting gimmick. It made them appear not to raise the long time debt as much.

It has to do with the way that the debt is predicted by the Office of Management and Budget---they calculate short term debt based on the next 8 years and long term debt based on time longer than 8 years, so the Bush tax cuts manipulated the OMB's calculations by expiring at the 8 year mark.

Republicans got the tax cuts passed by using this gimmick to hide the damage, and now they want to call it a tax increase to simply allow the law to follow its course and expire.

Didn't see that one coming.


Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 4:32 PM    in reply to JosephP

Not just an accounting gimmick - it was the dreaded "reconciliation", which we all learned (from Glenn Beck etc) is a no-good, terrible, nasty, bad way to pass things. ;)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 6:55 PM    in reply to JosephP

More precisely, the expiration clause of the tax cuts was to sidestep the Byrd Rule.

The Byrd Rule amends the Congressional Budget Act to allow Senators to block a piece of legislation if it purports to significantly increase the federal deficit beyond a ten-year term.

It still was a gimmick, of course---to hide the fact that deficits would explode beyond the ten years even after the tax cuts expire (an in fact deficits have exploded, and not primarily because of the stimulus plan).

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 3:56 PM   

Its just like the Reagan diet. INCREASE your food intake and exercise LESS.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

user-pic

August 2, 2010 3:59 PM   

"[I]f you have less revenues coming into the federal government, and more expenditures, what does that add up to? Certainly you're gonna dig the hole deeper. But you also have to understand, if the priority is to get people back to work, is to start growing this economy again, uh, then you don't wanna make it more expensive for job creators."

OK, so if we agree that cutting taxes makes the deficit grow larger, and we also agree that the current priority has to be stimulating the economy and getting people back to work, even if that causes deficits in the short term, doesn't the question then become how do we get the most bang for the deficit dollar?

If we are going to borrow money to get the economy going again, what is the most efficient way to use that borrowed money, so that we get maximum effect for minimum borrowing? The studies all say that giving the money to the unemployed is far and away more efficient than giving it to the wealthy. I don't remember the numbers exactly, but at times of high unemployment, every dollar you give out in unemployent benefits creates something on the order of $1.65 in economic activity. But for every dollar you give out as tax cuts, you get something like $1.02 in economic activity.

Add to that that extended unemployment benefits are a temporary measure, while tax cuts are more likely to become permanent. (The Republicans, after all, are proposing making the Bush tax cuts permanent, not extending them for just another couple of years.)

I think the conclusion is inevitable: we should forget about tax cuts and concentrating on getting money into the hands of people who are in desperate circumstances because of the economic downturn. But then, I am part of that darned reality-based world.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 4:22 PM   

According to Dubya's own Chairman of Economic Advisors from 2003 - 2005.

N. Gregory Mankiw....
“no credible evidence” that “tax revenues … rise in the face of lower tax rates.”

and... anyone who claims as much is a "snake oil salesman trying to sell a miracle"

quotes courtesy of CBPP.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 4:22 PM   

I waiting for this rightwing sim ian to start claiming he was 'misquoted'.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 4:25 PM   

It seems to me that this epiphany that keeping the Bush tax cuts will deepen the deficit, will also provide the cover to attack all the New Deal programs. Cut Social Security because... , etc, etc.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Joe

user-pic

August 2, 2010 4:27 PM   

Bottom Line--The Republican Party won't rest until they have bankrupted the United States. And they are well on the way to their goal.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 11:26 PM    in reply to Joe

Their philosophy is to "starve the beast". That is why every single republican president you can name left the federal government in deep debt. They hate the federal government despite the fact that they certainly don't mind the benefits that come from working for it. (Remember the Contract for America and term limits? When't the last time you heard one of them leave office under that principle.....)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 4:40 PM   

Aren't tax cuts "spending"?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 5:08 PM    in reply to JohnW1141

Tax cuts without equal cuts in spending actually becomes a tax liability deferred to future tax payers. No elected Republican wants to go on the record specifically identifying which popular social spending they would cut, so they are stuck looking like weasels claiming to be for tax cuts, no specific spending cuts, and reduced deficits.

For all the ridiculous right-wing accusations about Obama being a socialist Americans absolutely LOVE socialistic services and programs such as their police and fire departments, Social Security, and Medicare.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 5:23 PM   


if nothing else it proves that even the most committed ideologue has to ultimately recognize the truth of Phillip K. Dick's assertion that Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 5:52 PM   

Why didn't Cantor propose spending cuts? If he offered spending cuts that equaled the value of the Bush tax cuts, then he could extend his friggin' tax cuts. But nooooo. Math and integrity are hard.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 5:57 PM   

I was a Repug for most of my voting life (since the early 80s) until being run off by the party faithful after the Iraq invasion. I have some understanding of where they are coming from on this issue, so allow me to explain their reasoning.

They *firmly* believe that tax cuts pay for themselves in the form of an expanding economy. They believe this like they believe Jebus flew up to Heaven in First Class on an American Airlines 777. You cannot convince them that tax cuts do *not* cause the economy to expand, as it is an article of faith with them.

They will point to the huge tax cuts that were passed early in Reagan's first term as an example of that, but what they *don't* remember (and will start screaming at you if you point it out to them) is that Reagan's tax cuts caused a ballooning of the Federal deficit and that Reagan was forced to *increase* taxes several times in order to forestall crashes in the bond markets. It seems that the rest of the world started to balk at buying our debt since we were running up so much of it so fast.

True Believer GOP faithful will also tell you that it was those selfsame tax increases that caused the double-dip recession during the Reagan Administration, not the big fat deficit, the spooked bond investors and the advent of aggressive offshoring and exporting of American jobs to other countries. *Couldn't* be any of *those* things, they'll tell you.

Anyone who looks dispassionately at the economic mess of the 1980s will conclude, as I did years ago, that the proximate cause of what good *did* come out of it was Fed Chairman Paul Volcker and his tough love for the economy. He jacked the hell out of interest rates, cooled things down, got everyone's attention and then reduced interest rates to a sustainable level in a measured, moderate way.

And then Reagan appointed that fool Greenspan to Volcker's job.

Reagan should never have let Volcker get away. And Obama should pay more attention to what Volcker has to say.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 10:59 PM    in reply to Signalman

Thank you for a trip through history Signalman. If I could, I would really advise you to make a blog entry on how and why you went to the left. I think that your story would be very interesting and insightful. BTW, Volker was a tough SOB.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 3, 2010 9:24 AM    in reply to Hobbes83

I may yet do that in the coming months. I expect to have some major surgery early next year that will probably have me convalescing at home for a few weeks. Writing might be a good therapeutic activity during that time.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 6:01 PM   

Have none of you ppl taken economics. Tax cuts = more $ to spend in the economy. How do you not know that.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 3, 2010 5:07 AM    in reply to magicboop

magic,

we're living under the Bush tax cuts right now, how is that working out for us? Check the financial condition of the country on Bush's last day in office, how'd those tax cuts work out?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 3, 2010 9:17 AM    in reply to magicboop

"Have none of you ppl taken economics."

I have, but clearly *you* haven't.


"Tax cuts = more $ to spend in the economy."

Not necessarily. I can't believe I'm going to have to explain this to you.


"How do you not know that."

Because I have a greater understanding of economics than you do, and because what you claim to know is *wrong.*

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 2, 2010 6:29 PM   

"Have none of you ppl taken economics. Tax cuts = more $ to spend in the economy. How do you not know that."

Have you not been paying attention to reality? Tax cuts = more money for the already wealthy to horde and consolidate by playing gambling games on Wall Street with derivatives and hedge funds that HAVE AND ADD NO VALUE WHATSOEVER TO THE ECONOMY. In fact, many of them actually hamper economic growth. But hey, what do I know, I haven't willfully internalized an ideological approach to economics in an effort to tell reality how to behave itself.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 3, 2010 3:23 AM   

I get a Boehner every time the right wing nut jobs express their views and reveal their agenda. Dumb Asses!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 3, 2010 6:06 AM   

GOP myth: Tax cuts for the rich will create more jobs. Truth: tax cuts for the rich have everything to do with increasing and concentrating personal wealth in the bank accounts and stock portfolios of the 2%. Trickle down is a joke. The middle class knows this is a scam. Today, with the Recession,corporations are holding on to their cash/profits which have returned to pre-Recession levels. Yet there has been no commensurate increase in jobs.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 3, 2010 8:17 AM   

Hello, summer, good place for shopping, fashion, sexy, personality, maturity, from here to begin. Are you ready?


http://www.pointingtrade.com/

New era cap $

Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $16

Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,*****,Armaini)$12

Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16

Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33

********(Coach,ed hardy,lv,d&g) $30

Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30

http://www.pointingtrade.com/

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 3, 2010 11:56 AM   

I wish the Oil companies would adopt this ideal....but alas, their faulty perspective has saddle them with only marginal profits and us with ever more expensive gasoline.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 4, 2010 1:32 PM   

I think Cantor is refering to the immediate short term impact that tax cuts would lead to. Since the government would be taking in less revenue (if the cuts were extended) it would increase the defictit (assuming that nominal expenditures stay the same)

The problem with this analysis is that it assumes deficits are a bad thing. While this is true for households it is not the case for a goverment that spends in it's own currency. There is no operational constraint regarding deficits or total debt. By definiton the spending comes first. The right level of goverment spending (whether that leads to surplus or deficit) is the one that coincides with full employment, sustainable growth and price stability. Targeting the deficit is similar to FED targeting the money supply, meaningless. Now the FED targets the price of money not the quantity; hopefully our leaders will make a simlilar switch and start to focus on what matters-output and employment, in lieu of the deficit.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 4, 2010 2:09 PM   

Bradshaw
www.moslereconomics.com
Counter Insurgency, Deficit Terrorist Unit

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on