This chart shows the hypocrisy of the Republican concern over the budget deficit. They oppose stimulus spending by the government to create new jobs or save current jobs, and yet they want to continue the tax cuts for the rich (which would balloon the deficit 488 times as much as the stimulus spending). For Republicans, it's OK to make the deficit larger to give more money to rich people but not to help ordinary Americans who really need help. Chart found at the blog Think Progress.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Republican Deficit Concerns Hypocritical
This chart shows the hypocrisy of the Republican concern over the budget deficit. They oppose stimulus spending by the government to create new jobs or save current jobs, and yet they want to continue the tax cuts for the rich (which would balloon the deficit 488 times as much as the stimulus spending). For Republicans, it's OK to make the deficit larger to give more money to rich people but not to help ordinary Americans who really need help. Chart found at the blog Think Progress.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Here's where the logic of this breaks down:
ReplyDeleteThe $1.7B of stimulus spending doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's coming on the heels of the $787B stimulus package signed into law in February 2009 - The American Recovery and and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ("ARRA").
One of the selling points of ARRA was that it would keep unemployment below 8 percent.
As this CBO report points out, when unemployment grew to 10 percent, the result was an increase in the cost of ARRA from $787B to $862B. Now the Democrats want to add another $1.7B to the stimulus.
What will happen when unemployment goes up again? If history is any indicator, that $1.7B should increase by about 9.5% to almost $1.9B. Added to the $862B.
It's been said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Now let's look at "extending Bush tax cuts for the rich." Another way of stating that is "increasing taxes on people who make more than $250K a year." A good number of those people are small businessmen with Subchapter S corporations. It's small businesses, not big corporations, who will ultimately create new jobs in the numbers necessary to bring unemployment down any significant extent.
Let's say for a moment you're one of those small businessmen. Faced with the uncertainties next year of increased taxes and the possibility of higher healthcare costs under ObamaCare, are you going to be 1)more likely; or 2)less likely to hire new employees?
It is simply not true that "a good number" of small businesses will be affected by the plans to let the Bush tax cuts expire for the rich. In fact, less than 6% of small businesses will be affected.
ReplyDeleteFair enough. Let's let the Bush tax cuts expire ...
ReplyDelete... for everybody.
As Time Magazine reports, "Making permanent all tax cuts for the middle class will cost the Treasury $2.7 trillion over 10 years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, at a time when Washington has already added trillions to the debt." [Emphasis added]
Regarding the tax cuts for the rich, "Extending the tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans would drain an additional $678 billion." (Not the $830B reported by Think Progress).
So, no matter whose numbers you accept, we can't afford $678B to $830B in tax cuts, but $2.7 trillion (with a "T") is perfectly alright?
Here's a link to the article.
Do you make over $250,000, CT? I think I'm getting jealous.
ReplyDeleteNot even close, Ted! But I realize that without the spending, investment, and yes, in some cases hiring, of those who do, the economy would be in even worse shape.
ReplyDeleteWhen Democrat Senator John Kerry decides to dock his yacht in Rhode Island rather than his home state in order to save on taxes, he may benefit himself and his tax-friendly neighboring state, but it doesn't create any jobs for the good citizens of Taxachusetts.