PDA

View Full Version : Greenspan Says Lawmakers Should Let All Bush’s Tax Cuts Lapse



Moby
07-16-2010, 12:49 PM
Of course Republicans, who have already used this as a political talking point in the last election will continue to fight it and use it for more talking points.

Aren't Americans smart enough to know that the only reason to have them go until 2010 was for political reasons? Do They really believe that the timing was based solely on sound economic fact, especially after such a massive economic collapse?


http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-15/greenspan-says-lawmakers-should-let-all-bush-s-tax-cuts-lapse.html

July 15 (Bloomberg) -- Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, whose endorsement of George W. Bush’s 2001 tax cuts helped persuade Congress to pass them, said lawmakers should allow the cuts to expire at the end of the year.

“They should follow the law and let them lapse,” Greenspan said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Conversations with Judy Woodruff,” citing a need for the tax revenue to reduce the federal budget deficit.

Greenspan’s comments, to be broadcast tomorrow and over the weekend, place him in the middle of an election-year struggle over extending trillions of dollars of tax cuts enacted under Bush.

President Barack Obama campaigned for election in 2008 on a promise of extending the Bush tax reductions for families earning up to $250,000 while eliminating the cuts for higher- income Americans, a position also embraced by most congressional Democrats. Republicans have pressed for continuing the cuts for higher-income families, arguing that a weak economy is no time for a tax increase.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, stoked the debate with comments on June 22 that permanent extension of the middle-class tax cuts may no longer be affordable because of the growing U.S. debt burden.

Across the Board

Greenspan, in a telephone conversation after his Bloomberg TV interview was taped, said his position is that all the expiring Bush tax cuts should end, for middle-class and high- income families alike.

Ending the cuts “probably will” slow growth, Greenspan, 84, said in the TV interview. The risk posed by inaction on the deficit is greater, he said.

“Unless we start to come to grips with this long-term outlook, we are going to have major problems,” said Greenspan, who led the U.S. central bank from 1987 to 2006. “I think we misunderstand the momentum of this deficit going forward.”

Greenspan said reducing the deficit is “going to be far more difficult than anybody imagines” after “a decade of major increases in federal spending and major tax cuts.”

The economic recovery recently has shown signs of slowing with June growth in private payrolls below forecasts at 83,000, and retail sales declining for the second straight month. Federal Reserve officials trimmed their forecast for economic growth during a June meeting, according to minutes released yesterday.

The White House budget office projects the federal deficit this year will exceed $1.5 trillion, or 10.6 percent of gross domestic product, and anticipates the deficit five years into the future will remain as high as $751 billion, or 3.9 percent of GDP.

Canary in Mine

Greenspan has warned for months that the rising federal debt and deficits projected in future years together risk driving up long-term interest rates and choking off capital investment. In a March 26 Bloomberg TV interview, he said an increase in long-term interest rates was a “canary in the mine.”

Yields on 10-year Treasury notes have since fallen from 3.85 percent to 2.98 percent at 2:31 p.m. in New York.

Bush tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 gave middle-income earners a 10 percent rate on couples’ first $14,000 in income; subsidies for college expenses, a higher child-care credit and relief from the marriage penalty. Keeping those and other reductions for the 130 million households earning less than $250,000 would cost about $300 billion a year, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.

In addition to those benefits, high-income households got reduced top marginal rates, elimination of phase-outs for some deductions and personal exemptions, and benefited the most from lower rates on dividends and capital gains. The cost of continuing the tax cuts for the most prosperous Americans would be about $55 billion for one year.

--With assistance from Meghan Goddard in Washington and Ryan J. Donmoyer in Washington. Editors: Robin Meszoly, Christopher Wellisz.

To contact the reporter on this story: Mike Dorning in Washington D.C. at mdorning@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Christopher Wellisz at cwellisz@bloomberg.net.

doctordog
07-16-2010, 01:01 PM
I would be all for letting them expire and my tax rate increasing 3-4% to trim the defecit but I would like to see spending reduction in DC as well. Something like a 3-4% reduction in Government jobs including the White House, Congress, DOD, CIA, FBI. The private sector has cut jobs drastically and I would like to see our government do the same.

olddude
07-16-2010, 05:12 PM
I would be all for letting them expire and my tax rate increasing 3-4% to trim the defecit but I would like to see spending reduction in DC as well. Something like a 3-4% reduction in Government jobs including the White House, Congress, DOD, CIA, FBI. The private sector has cut jobs drastically and I would like to see our government do the same.

ME TOO!! I never was much of a Greenspan fan. He always seemed to act too soon or waited to long to say the magic words. He is partially the cause of the start of recession we are now in when he raised the interest rates three times in a row when there was no reason at all to do so. The economy still had not recovered fully from the 9/11 attacks when he claimed that inflation was waiting just around the next corner when there was none. That sealed the deal for any recovery and it has gotten to the point we are in now. I didn't say he was all the cause just one more straw that was piling up on the wagon that was ready to collapse.

Pat
07-17-2010, 09:05 PM
Of course Republicans, who have already used this as a political talking point in the last election will continue to fight it and use it for more talking points.

Aren't Americans smart enough to know that the only reason to have them go until 2010 was for political reasons? Do They really believe that the timing was based solely on sound economic fact, especially after such a massive economic collapse?


http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-15/greenspan-says-lawmakers-should-let-all-bush-s-tax-cuts-lapse.html
Mr Obama said, If you earn less than $250,000 you will not see a tax increase. (That was his talking point, I remember it from the attempted neural linguistic programming)
Will you let him wiggle out of saying that?
Will you give him a free pass?
Do talking points only matter based upon who said them?

Pat
07-17-2010, 09:09 PM
I would be all for letting them expire and my tax rate increasing 3-4% to trim the defecit but I would like to see spending reduction in DC as well. Something like a 3-4% reduction in Government jobs including the White House, Congress, DOD, CIA, FBI. The private sector has cut jobs drastically and I would like to see our government do the same.
Always a tax increase, never reduced spending, that's what libtards and Moby's like best.

nondual
07-19-2010, 09:41 AM
I would be all for letting them expire and my tax rate increasing 3-4% to trim the defecit but I would like to see spending reduction in DC as well. Something like a 3-4% reduction in Government jobs including the White House, Congress, DOD, CIA, FBI. The private sector has cut jobs drastically and I would like to see our government do the same.
The bigger the population, the bigger our government needs to be.

nondual
07-19-2010, 09:44 AM
Always a tax increase, never reduced spending, that's what libtards and Moby's like best.
There is no cheap and easy way out of this mess, and we all need to share the pain.

olddude
07-19-2010, 10:17 AM
The bigger the population, the bigger our government needs to be.

BULLSHIT!!!

nondual
07-19-2010, 11:35 AM
BULLSHIT!!!
Right, and you probably hate Systems Theory too...

doctordog
07-19-2010, 12:40 PM
The bigger the population, the bigger our government needs to be.

TOTAL BULLSHIT- Many companies are doing more business right now with less people than they have ever had. Expectations on the government needs to rise and they need to be held accountable.

nondual
07-19-2010, 01:26 PM
TOTAL BULLSHIT- Many companies are doing more business right now with less people than they have ever had. Expectations on the government needs to rise and they need to be held accountable.
:confused: How do you propose we hold them accountable without oversight and regulating agencies?