• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • VIDEO: Congress Must Cut Spending

    In advance of today’s vote on the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform’s report, there has been increased attention on the nation’s fiscal health and the serious dangers posed by our out-of-control national debt. But while this issue has garnered increased scrutiny, some continue to ignore the real cause of our debt and deficit problems—rampant spending—focusing instead on raising taxes.

    The debt commission’s recommendations are a perfect example. Heritage today put out a comprehensive WebMemo analyzing this problem with the report, noting that while it contains modest reforms, it fails to adequately tackle our most severe problems, recommending instead raising taxes by $3.3 trillion over the next decade.

    As we have explained in the past, raising taxes does nothing to address the root causes of our current fiscal problems. At a fundamental level, our country has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Only by cutting spending and addressing real entitlement reform will we be able change course.

    And despite criticism that clear, actionable cuts have not been identified, Heritage has highlighted over $343 billion in spending cuts that could and should be enacted immediately. We highlight several of these cuts in our new video and encourage you to read the paper for the full list.

    These cuts will not be enough by itself—more needs to be done—but they are a good start.

    Posted in Economics [slideshow_deploy]

    18 Responses to VIDEO: Congress Must Cut Spending

    1. Pingback: Tweets that mention VIDEO: Congress Must Cut Spendings | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. -- Topsy.com

    2. Betty, Ore. says:

      To my knowledge, no one has yet mentioned cutting the size and scope of the government. One of the best ways I can see to start would be to stop the government land grab. Return all lands back to the states. Constitutionally, the Federal Government was not given the power to be in the Real Estate business or in control of lands/natural resources of the individual states. BLM, USFS, USF&W, US Parks Dept., US Dept of Ag., US Soil and Water Conservation, EPA, DEQ etc. etc. etc. Federal police: policing us in our rural and wilderness areas is no different than Federal police on our city streets. Ken Salazar and Peter De FAzio are hand in glove with enviromental radicals like KS Wild and the Seirra Club (to name only two) who's only purpose it is is to lock up the land and the use of the natural resources that lies within states borders. Each state should be able to use and control the use of the lands and resources to the benefit of the people within the states.

      Considering the huge bureauracies, salaries, benefits, retirements and operation expenses, I'm sure billions would be save and it would be a good beginning in cutting down to Constitutional size a huge and intrusive government. (Remember the farmers in California last year that the government denied water to for their crops and young orchards? Is this within the power of the Federal government or did they just TAKE the power?

    3. Daniel says:

      Cut Spending? Sure, along with about 100 other actions congress must take.

      Here are a few numerical facts that will in no doubt be spun by about 10 people after I leave this comment…

      -98% of small business has recorded less then $250,000 for the last 5 years, including 2009 and 2010.

      -The expired tax cuts will effect Individual or Household Income which is actual income that is subject to being taxed by the Federal Government.

      -50% of the remaining 2% of small business make over $300,000+

      - 90% of the Bush Tax Cuts will stay in effect for $300,000-$400,000. So only individuals or households making over $500,000 will see a tax increase and that is still keeping about 50% of the Bush tax cuts in place for high income earners.

      -45%+ off the current deficits and increase to the National Debt are directly due to the Bush Tax Cuts and defense budgets.

      -Heritage has already suggested a constant 700 billion defense budget from here on out. Hey, that's over half the spending cuts right there!

      -The tax cuts alone will add 2.5 trillion to the national debt by 2013 anyways. 1.9 trillion has already been ripped from Federal Revenue.

      -4.9 Trillion was added to the National Debt by Bush and the conservative/republican led congress(including 2006-2008, where 93% of all legislation that became public law was of conservative/republican sponsorship, regardless of a democrat majority in the house and basically a 50/50 tie in the senate in that particular congress.

      -500 Billion for unfunded military contracts(ya know, Enron, Haliburton, Blackwater, etc. …..who payed for those contracts?

      -2.5 trillion for Both Bush Tax Cuts by 2013, 1.9 Trillion already

      Now a few questions…

      -when a business gets a tax break, do they really just start hiring more people or keep it for savings? have most not recorded record profits, at the same time not hired?

      -what business or companies are hiring right now?

      -Will the Bush Tax Cuts automatically start creating jobs after being public law for over 7 years now?

      -what jobs did the Bush Tax Cuts create?

      -after all the evidence and failure do you still really believe in "trickle down"…really…..REALLY!

      To summarize, yes we should cut spending on many items across the board, but conservatives, including the Heritage Foundation couldn't be farther off from what we really need. The stimulus was partially effective. The Healhcare Reform bill has certain sections to be adjusted or taken out completely. These actions are needed to stabilize the economy and combat previous failed policy. It's ammusing when conservatives say the stimulus was a "complete failure" -with nothing to back it up or other solutions offered, or that HR 3590 should be "completely repealed" -with nothing to back it up or other solutions offered. It's partisan garbage and if conservatives keep it up they will dig their own grave in 2012. Do you really think you have a chance? This website is extremely flawed and incorrect most, if not all the time, yet people take it for credibility. Fear mongering and lies can only get you so far.

      Have a great day!

    4. Daniel says:

      "At a fundamental level, our country has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Only by cutting spending and addressing real entitlement reform will we be able change course"

      -Sure, spending is a problem and so are the bush tax cuts, the massive defense budget and unregulated private sectors that have shown no responsibility. Why repeal the entire Healthcare Reform bill? The Stimulus was effective to alot of Conservative leaders that praised it in their districts. "A total failure"…..really?

      You see revenue is a problem, but not for conservatives. They seem to leave out 45% of the current deficits that they give us every year, and that's no opinion, that's numerical fact.

      -It's simple if you think about it. Very, very simple. Conservative leaders, politicians and elected officials want tax cuts for high income earners and companies/monopolies to keep the money coming in for conservative/republican campaigns. Example(Chamber of Commerce) Giving huge corporations a chance to run campaigns! Really conservatives! REALLY! They are buying votes, that's all it ever was.

      -Tax do not create jobs. If so, show me the evidence. Seriously, show me the evidence? It's truly amazing that conservatives still believe in "trickle down".

      -November 2nd, 2010 was a show of ignorance. It's Fox News, the Heritage Foundation, Conservative Radio, websites and newspaper getting the best of American voters. That's all it is. That's all the victory ever was. Like I said before, fear mongering, lies and pure rhetoric can only go so far. The simple fact that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are on the front of the website said it all for me.

      Have a great day!

    5. Brenda, Phoenix,AZ says:

      Daniel, well what I did not see in your so called facts is the fact that the government is not CUTTING taxes they would be leaving them the same. The other fact is that people earn this money so what says that the government has a right to take 3/4 of what earn. Another fact is that the very wealthy pay the majority of the taxes anyway. I don't see the poor paying any taxes. I am a small business and do not earn a lot but if the taxes where to increase my small Chapter S business would see a huge increase in taxes another fact that you forgot to mention. While I am on a roll how about the death taxes. It would suck pretty badly that people who have already paid their share of these taxes would have to pay taxes on their estate when they die. All I ever hear from the democrates is how we are giving money to the rich and running up the deficit. I have yet to hear how the rich pay most of the taxes, how the rich kept this economy going by spending and how the rich employee people who would otherwise not have a job. They act like we are giving them money when in reality it was earned by them not by you and me or the government so get off you high horse and look at ALL the facts not just ones you pick and Choose!!!!

    6. Brenda, Phoenix,AZ says:

      Like Betty said all of a sudden the Democrates are soooo concerned about the deficit when they just spent $800+ billion on the road to no where. Now they want to extend unemployment for another year at another deficit cost of $58 billion. I know people out of work and I also know people who don't want to work or work for money under the table so they can continue to collect unemployment. I was unemployeed right after 9-11. Could not find a job do you think I got two years of unemployment, heck no after 6 month extension I was cut off. I am sooo sick and tried of working my butt off so people can live off of my money you know the green paper I should be earning when I work. I don't see the Obama's giving up any of their luxury life styles. In fact that jont that Obama took to India just about made me sick. So I don't think the left wing luny tunes can talk about deficits since they are the ones that are running up the tab!!!!

    7. Chuck In Larkspur, C says:

      Suggestions for serious budget cutting;

      I. SUMMARY

      A. Spending by the federal government is out of control.

      1. The federal government is currently spending more than it takes in.

      2. The federal government has already accumulated debt of $14 Trillion.

      3. Expenses must be cut to be less than current income.

      B. Use E-Verify and Means-Testing for all entitlements.

      C. New revenues and taxes must be applied solely to pay down the deficit.

      D. Sell Federal Assets (property and resources) and funds are applied solely to pay down the deficit.

      II. ELIMINATE OR CUT BUDGETS FOR DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES

      A. Eliminate the Department of Energy (it produces no energy).

      1. Budget request for 2011 is $28 billion.

      2. Number of employees was 16,000 in 2009.

      3. In 2008 it had over 98,000 contracts.

      B. Eliminate the Department of Education (it teaches no one).

      1. Budget request for 2011 is $78 billion.

      2. Number of employees is 5,000.

      C. Eliminate the “Set Aside” programs and the portion of the SBA that handles them.

      D. Effective with the fiscal year beginning October, 2010, cut budgets of all remaining departments to 2004 levels.

      E. Repeal the Bacon – Davis Act.

      III. FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

      A. Terminate all federal positions created since 2005. Doing so will stop the growth of government.

      B. Lower or return wages on all federal positions to 2000 levels for all classifications. Everyone already knows that federal employees are paid more than their civilian counterparts.

      C. Decrease retirement benefits of all federal employees.

      D. Don’t freeze wages and expenses, cut them drastically.

      IV. SALARY AND BUDGETS OF CONGRESS AND SENATE

      A. Lower or return wages to 2000 levels for all elected officials and their staff;

      B. Eliminate retirement benefits for congressmen and senators.

      C. Cut congress’s expenses to 2000 levels and reduce their per diem rates drastically.

      V. ENTITLEMENTS

      A. Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment benefits:

      1. Use E-verify to validate all requests for benefits;

      2. Means Testing before payments are made;

      3. Raise eligibility requirements for those under fifty;

      B. ObamaCare:

      1. Repeal Obama Care;

      2. Reform Health Care (see separate document).

      VI. NEW REVENUES AND TAXES TO REDUCE THE DEFICIT

      A. Sell Federal Assets and 100% of all such sales are to be applied solely to the deficit.

      B. Increase production of all federal properties (oil wells and gold mines are just the beginning of a long list of the mineral extractions made from federal lands) and 100% of all such sales are to be applied solely to the deficit.

      C. Sell Federal properties with undeveloped potential for mineral extractions and 100% of all such sales are to be applied solely to the deficit.

      D. Initiate a national sales tax:

      1. 100% of all proceeds from this taxes are to be applied solely to the deficit;

      2. Once the deficit is paid down to $5 Trillion, the national sales tax would be eliminated.

    8. Kevin, Austin, TX says:

      Daniel, I just can't resist being pulled into the debate.

      You say, "The tax cuts alone will add 2.5 trillion to the national debt by 2013 anyways." The very formulation of that sentence is perverse, and stems from the Liberal/Marxist belief that all personal income belongs to the government, save what the government "lets us keep". There is also a math error there, which stems from the CBO assumption that tax rate hikes do not affect economic growth or government revenues. This is patently false – see, for evidence, the economic record of the Wilson, Hoover, FD Roosevelt, Carter and Obama-to-date administrations. When you raise marginal tax rates, taxable economic activity decreases and the government receives less revenue. By contrast, when you lower tax RATES, tax REVENUE flowing into government coffers goes up. See, for evidence, the economic records of the Coolidge, JFK, Reagan, and Bush 43 administrations. Letting people keep their own money does not add to deficits. Government spending without any regard to actual revenue expectations creates deficits.

      In your second post you say, "Tax do not create jobs. If so, show me the evidence." I assume you meant "tax cuts do not create jobs"? The evidence, again, can be found by comparing unemployment and job creation figures for Liberal and Conservative administrations. When Liberal administrations – no doubt imaging themselves to be punishing evil rich men – jack up tax rates, jobs are cut, unemployment goes up, tax revenues go down, and the poor (about whom Libs purport to care) suffer. When Conservative administrations – alleged by you to be the tools of the rich – cut tax rates, individuals and businesses invest, companies grow, jobs are created, and tax revenues burgeon. Any of the books by Milton Friedman or Arthur Laffer will show you all the actual statistics you need to see.

      You say, "Stimulus was effective to alot of Conservative leaders that praised it in their districts." Please name one. In fact, you'll have a hard time naming even a few dozen true-believer Liberal Democrats who publicly praised the Stimulus during the campaign! They ran away from that program as fast as their toes-ies could carry them! The Stimulus was a complete waste of money – where it created any jobs, those jobs on cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, many times what private industry would spend, and usually for make-work stuff like studying behavior of ants.

      The one service Obama has done for America is to prove, conclusively, that Keynesian economics is nonsense, and that government (as Reagan famously said) IS the problem.

    9. Daniel says:

      Brenda,

      you stated-

      "Like Betty said all of a sudden the Democrates are soooo concerned about the deficit when they just spent $800+ billion on the road to no where"

      -No, no, no my dear, now all the sudden Conservatives and Republicans are concerned about the deficit. They added 4.9 trillion to the national debt from 2000-2008, .6 trillion for the 2009 shared budget, .5 trillion for unfunded military contracts and a 2.5 trillion increase to the national debt by 2013 from both Bush tax cuts that have been public law for 7 years already. That's 8.5 trillion right there. Also, 45% of the current deficit is the Bush tax cuts and defense budgets. Infact, over 8.6 trillion of the 13.6 trillion of the current National Debt went up under Conservative/Republican Presidents and congressional control. Look it up http://www.treasurydirect.gov. And "road to nowhere". Are you talking about the $787 billion stimulus? The stimulus that basically avoided another depression. The stimulus that took job losses from 700,000 lost a month in dec.. 2008 to 250,000 gained in oct. 2010?

      you stated-

      "Now they want to extend unemployment for another year at another deficit cost of $58 billion. I know people out of work and I also know people who don’t want to work or work for money under the table so they can continue to collect unemployment"

      -Conservatives and Republicans have extended unemployment benefits 37 times under their leadership since unemployment benefits existed. So we should cut the benefits during a recession? What do you propse we do? That's the problem with conservatives, all attacks with no solutions. It's pathetic. So the people that "you know" are ok with collecting $250 a week? So everybody that is unemployed chooses to be lazy. You assume they are not frantically trying to find a good paying job, espically since anyone can live off $250 a week right? Such conservative logic.

      you stated-

      "I was unemployeed right after 9-11. Could not find a job do you think I got two years of unemployment, heck no after 6 month extension I was cut off. I am sooo sick and tried of working my butt off so people can live off of my money you know the green paper I should be earning when I work"

      -you were cut off because you didn't meet the requirements for benefits or you found employment which was alot easier to find in 2001-2002. You would have had an extension(as i said earlier) unless you chose to give the benefits up. What about the people that had to pay for you not working for 6 months? I was one of those people, I didn't mind paying for you. I'm sick and tired of paying for completely unbalanced tax cuts for the extremely wealthy, bailing out banks because of private sector failures and useless wars.

      you stated-

      "I don’t see the Obama’s giving up any of their luxury life styles. In fact that jont that Obama took to India just about made me sick"

      -Did you have the same problem when Bush went on vacations, Bush senior, Reagan, all the other hundreds and thousands of previous and current conservative and republican senators, house members and governors? By the way, the India trip was for diplomatic reasons. We trade with India. We are allies with India. Your point being?

      you stated-

      "So I don’t think the left wing luny tunes can talk about deficits since they are the ones that are running up the tab!!!!"

      -once again, 8.6 trillion of the current national debt and 45% of the current deficits are previous legislation and executive order brought to you by conservatives/republicans.

      Look, I know you hate Obama and Democrats because conservative media tells you to but try and do a little economic and legislative research before joining a debate.

    10. Daniel says:

      Oh, and Kevin, your next. You probably should have stayed out of the debate after reading your comment. You have so many typical conservative "talking points" I don't know where to begin. Till tomorrow.

      Any other takers?

    11. Daniel says:

      correction. you mentioned that the government takes "3/4 of your money". I meant to write 75% instead of 66.6%, which actually makes your comment even more ammusing. Who pays 75% in Federal Income taxes! Please tell me that was a mistake on your part.

    12. Daniel says:

      Brenda,

      you stated-

      "Daniel, well what I did not see in your so called facts is the fact that the government is not CUTTING taxes they would be leaving them the same"

      -i gave the actual Administration's tax plan, you can call it "so called facts" if you want. But please dispute one thing I wrote that you accused of being"so called facts". Yes, im aware that conservatives wish to keep the current tax rates. The problem is when both Bush tax cuts first became public law.

      you stated-

      "The other fact is that people earn this money so what says that the government has a right to take 3/4 of what earn"

      -thats a fact? who pays 66.6% in Individual or Household Federal Income taxes? Who? Expiring rates will raise Federal income taxes around 2.5% for $250,000 and up, nobody else.

      you stated-

      "Another fact is that the very wealthy pay the majority of the taxes anyway. I don’t see the poor paying any taxes"

      -Yes, high income earners pay the majority of taxes. Should the poor have a tax increase? Your all over the place. What's your point?

      you stated-

      "I am a small business and do not earn a lot but if the taxes where to increase my small Chapter S business would see a huge increase in taxes another fact that you forgot to mention."

      -Unless you make over $200,000 individual or $250,000 household your Federal Income taxes will not go up a dime. If not, your small business will not be effected in any way, shape or form. Your being lied to by the Heritage Foundation and Conservative media. Did you forget to mention the small business tax credits that the Obama Administration has already passed?

      you stated-

      "While I am on a roll how about the death taxes. It would suck pretty badly that people who have already paid their share of these taxes would have to pay taxes on their estate when they die"

      -family members, friends or whoever was legally decided upon and documented will pay estate taxes, it's the law. Your point being?

      you stated-

      "how the rich kept this economy going by spending and how the rich employee people who would otherwise not have a job"

      -define "Rich", and which rich people kept the economy going?, which corporations? Exactly what jobs have the Bush tax cuts created? If the tax cuts were so effective, why didn't they work? While the tax cuts were in full effect why did the country loss 700,000 jobs a month in late 2008? Why are corporations collecting record profits and still not hiring emplyoee's? Do you have an answer for any of these questions?

      you stated-

      "They act like we are giving them money when in reality it was earned by them not by you and me or the government so get off you high horse and look at ALL the facts not just ones you pick and Choose!!!!"

      -How is asking for federal income tax rates for high income earners to be at 39%(which is the 2nd lowest taxes have been since 1952) instead of 36.5% classify and being on a "high horse"? It's a 2.5% increase and you wouldn't really notice any increase until you hit $550,000 annual income which is still keeping 50% of the Bush tax cuts in place. You seem to be the one picking and choosing which opinions to give, let alone facts. Why is when Conservatives are confronted with actual "facts" or a difference of opinion they go on an emotional rollercoaster. Unless you make over $250,000, you will not be effected by expired tax cuts anyways regardless of what Heritage and Conservative media tells you. Are you in that 2% of small business that makes over $250,000?

    13. Daniel says:

      Kevin,

      you stated-

      "Daniel, I just can’t resist being pulled into the debate"

      -like I said, you should have stayed out of it. Oh, im going to enjoy this one!

      you stated-

      "You say, “The tax cuts alone will add 2.5 trillion to the national debt by 2013 anyways.” The very formulation of that sentence is perverse, and stems from the Liberal/Marxist belief that all personal income belongs to the government, save what the government “lets us keep”"

      -1.9 trillion has been ripped from Federal Revenue already. Including interest, the tax cuts will have added 2.5 Trillion to the National Debt by 2013 and that is a conservative figure. It should be higher. Other programs that obtain cost rely on Federal Revenue. When that revenue is not available, we borrow more money including interest. We we borrow money to pay for programs that can't be payed for because of the tax cuts on high income earners and that directly adds to the National Debt. I'm not telling you it does because i say so, im telling you because the exact amount of taxes that have been depleted from Federal Revenue since 2003 is 1.9 Trillion that we could have had. Conservative policy has also borrowed money from Federal Revenue with money that is not there partially due to the tax cuts. Besides, the tax cuts(if you actually researched them) created a massive seperation of wealth. 90% of the tax cuts went to 2% of the tax payers of this country. That was an increase of 15% before the tax cuts became public law, where the top 2% had 75% of the tax cuts under the Clinton Administration. What is truly perverse, is that you actually believe in "trickle down" when you can't provide a spec of evidence as to how it actually works. A question that I know you can't answer is this- will extending the tax cuts automatically start creating jobs? They have been public law for almost 8 years now, where is the evidence?

      Oh, im just getting started with you. You are too much fun!

    14. Daniel says:

      Kevin,

      you stated-

      "There is also a math error there, which stems from the CBO assumption that tax rate hikes do not affect economic growth or government revenues"

      -and you have gained more credibility then the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office?

      you stated-

      "This is patently false – see, for evidence, the economic record of the Wilson, Hoover, FD Roosevelt, Carter and Obama-to-date administrations. When you raise marginal tax rates, taxable economic activity decreases and the government receives less revenue"

      -before I even completely destroy that comment, let me ask you something. Basically, putting more money into Federal Revenue, Federal Revenue decreases but when you put less money into Federal Revenue, Federal Revenue increases? Oh, I know your still under the theory of "trickle down" but the simple fact that no time in history has Federal Revenue increased over a timeline when tax rates have decreased should clear it up. But it wont, so I have to provide actual evidence against no evidence that you have provided so far. Economic history that is already in the books, that I will provide later, shows your statement to be…..well…. PATENTLY false. Infact, it couldn't be clearer!

      you stated-

      "By contrast, when you lower tax RATES, tax REVENUE flowing into government coffers goes up. See, for evidence, the economic records of the Coolidge, JFK, Reagan, and Bush 43 administrations. Letting people keep their own money does not add to deficits. Government spending without any regard to actual revenue expectations creates deficits.

      -every single time in history that any Administration and Congress has lowered taxes, Federal Revunue drops right after. Every single time. You can find The Public National Debt along with all other accuired debt history at http://www.treasurydirect.gov.
      You can connect each year with administration and congressional control and find that everytime a conservative/republican president or congress has been in power dropping taxes that federal revenue decreases, and at the same time, public debt increases every single time. You can find marginal tax rate history at http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/15…. We currently have no sources to offer marginal tax rates to administration to revenue statistics to the public debt standing, so you have to see it for yourself. I gave you every link you need. You are completely incorrect and not because Im telling you so, but because it goes against economic evidence that is already in the books. Sorry, can't change numerical evidence unless you plan on changing actual history.

    15. Daniel says:

      Kevin,

      you stated-

      "You say, “Stimulus was effective to alot of Conservative leaders that praised it in their districts.” Please name one. In fact, you’ll have a hard time naming even a few dozen true-believer Liberal Democrats who publicly praised the Stimulus during the campaign! They ran away from that program as fast as their toes-ies could carry them!"

      -I found 114 lawmakers to date, all Conservative/Republican lawmakers that

      took credit for the stimulus after originally opposing it for political face.

      4 well known are David Dreier, John Mica, Kit Bond and Lindsey Graham

      The other 110 are found at http://thinkprogress.org/touting-recovery-opposed
      "Name one"you said…….. how about 114. Opps, that backfired didn't it?

      you stated-

      "The Stimulus was a complete waste of money – where it created any jobs, those jobs on cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, many times what private industry would spend, and usually for make-work stuff like studying behavior of ants"

      -that is nothing but blind, fear mongered and conservative media fed opinion and nothing else. Job losses went from 700,000 lost a month in dec.. 2008 to 250,000 gained in oct./nov. 2010. Unemployment went up 1.9% then stopped. The Nasdaq and S&P 500 has gone up over 40% and stayed up since Jan. 2009. We have had 6 months plus of constant private sector job creation, not near what we need, nevertheless. Your telling me the private sector "would" create jobs. Sure, when will they start?

      -I believe the stimulus was effective but not near as much as it was forecasted. Yet, you say it was a "complete waste of money" Without the stimulus would unemployment not be higher? Would job losses not still be in the hundreds of thousands? Would the markets not be stable? You, along with many conservative show absolutism and that takes away most if not all credibility in any debate. Your so blind and one-sided it becomes comical.

      you stated-

      The one service Obama has done for America is to prove, conclusively, that Keynesian economics is nonsense, and that government (as Reagan famously said) IS the problem.

      -another one-sided opinion blinded by "talking ponts". Please keep quoting Reagan( the President that more then doubled the national debt) .www.treasurydirect.gov.

    16. Daniel says:

      Kevin,

      Final thought…

      -CBO did analysis of what provisions would be most stimulative for the economy. Of all provisions, extended the upper income tax cuts was the least stimulative. It was at the bottom. For every million dollars spent, upper income tax cuts will create one to three jobs. That has huge impact on long term deficits and debts. Seriously, this is what conservative like yourself want? Yet you oppose the most stimulative provision (unemployment extension) which has little to no impact on long term deficits and debt. But of course you wouldn't trust CBO. Only when they side with your mindset. I never said Obama and Democrats have the right ideas or policies anyways, but it's a start and for the mess that was created before they came to power, im not too dissapointed in their performance. But if Obama caves on tax cuts I will be dissapointed. Thats the difference between myself and many conservatives I try and reason with, I can look at things both ways. They cant.

      -I will keep this last part short and sweet. Next time you jump in a debate, provide the slighest spec of substance or stay off the keyboard. I've dealt with conservatives like you so many times before.

      Have a great day!

    17. Daniel says:

      Kevin,

      you stated-
      “In your second post you say, “Tax do not create jobs. If so, show me the evidence.” I assume you meant “tax cuts do not create jobs”? The evidence, again, can be found by comparing unemployment and job creation figures for Liberal and Conservative administrations. When Liberal administrations – no doubt imaging themselves to be punishing evil rich men – jack up tax rates, jobs are cut, unemployment goes up, tax revenues go down, and the poor (about whom Libs purport to care) suffer. When Conservative administrations – alleged by you to be the tools of the rich – cut tax rates, individuals and businesses invest, companies grow, jobs are created, and tax revenues burgeon”

      -evidence? your evidence couldn’t possibly damage your debate any more!

      -everytime a Conservative/Republican President and Congress takes power, unemployment goes up. Throughout history Conservative/Republican power has raised unemployment by an average of 1.6%. Democrat power has lowered unemployment by an average of 2.3%. Just recently Bush increased the unemployment rate by 3.5% during his two terms. Obama has increased the rate by 1.9%. You can find unemployment rate history at http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp. See it for yourself! These unemployment figures line up with the marginal tax rate increase and decrease throughout history that you can find again, at http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html.

      -everytime a Conservative/Republican President and Congress takes power, job creation is lower, every single time. Throughout history Conservative/Republican power has created a total of 39.58 million jobs with an average annual increase of 1.4%. Democrat power has created 69.50 million jobs with an average annual increase of 3.1%. Bush is accountable for over 700,000 jobs losses a month at the end of his second term. Obama has had continued job loss up until this summer. Infact October and Novemer combined accounts for around 275,000 jobs created, partially due to the stimulus. You can find job creation history at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms. These job creation figures also line up with the marginal tax rate increase and decrease throughout history at http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html.

      you stated-
      “Any of the books by Milton Friedman or Arthur Laffer will show you all the actual statistics you need to see”

      -so economic numerical evidence with sources provided is less credible to you than Milton Friedman, some opinionated conservative economist that wanted to abolish the “Federal Reserve” And then you bring up Arthur Laffer, another opinionated conservative economist that was sucessful in getting Reagan to more then double the National Debt. Again, please….

    18. Bobbie says:

      Daniel is a denier of all accountabilities unless he manipulates spin in his favor. He needs to be challenged (which his way of thinking always wins, although reasonable, clear thinking minds know better) ignored or humored.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×