Greenspan is FOR tax cuts!

[Tominator]

Red Dawn has repeatedly stated he is against tax cuts...Greenspan for tax cuts

Greenspan and tax cuts

There's about a hundred more links, but this proves my point!

Alan Greenspan is not against cutting taxes!

 

[raptor13]

Greenspan is a smart man, what can I say? He must know that when taxes go down, ecomomic activity goes up, thus creating more taxes, albeit at a lower rate. That usually cancels out the revenue lost in the cut.


Like I said, Greenspan is a smart man.

 

[Ornery]

Mighty tasty topic Tom!

• "...So far, the Democrats' spin has prevailed, mostly because, as the Wall Street Journal noted Tuesday, the media have ignored Greenspan's caveat that tax cuts are preferable to more spending. Most reports say only that he opposed the Republican plan. None of the New York Times' political stories or editorials about Greenspan's testimony mentioned his qualified endorsement of the tax cut..."

This topic will keep popping up frequently until the election and as long as I'm a member of AnandTech!

 

[Tripleshot]

Why isn't it emphasized that it is a quote from july 1999 and that he favors tax cuts to increased spending of the surplus IF the surplus is not used to pay down the national debt? When put in context,his remark does not support your assertion.



This is spin,boys.

 

[prontospyder]

I'll like tax cuts but paying down the national debt is much more important...i think 14% of the budget is interest paid...

 

[jjm]

As I have said before, read his February 2000 Congessional testimony.

He said:

1. Pay down the national debt.

2. If you (Congress) can not resist the temptation (in other words, no backbone) to dip into the surplus, do a moderate tax cut rather than increase spending.

In the same speech, he also criticized Congress for some of the small tax cuts and spending increases that they tried to implement in 1999.

As any Economics 101 student knows, when the economy is hot, government cutting taxes or increasing spending is stimulative and will likely lead to higher inflation. The Fed's number one goal, which was mandated by Congress, is to fight inflation.

Added:

Although he does not say so in the speech, he advocates tax cuts over additional spending in the hope that some of the stimulative impact will be blunted by some people choosing to save their extra cash rather than spend it. But that is only a hope. Most evidence suggests that people spend nearly all of a tax cut when it is not directly linked to an incentive or requirement to save (such as an IRA deduction).

Rather than relying on people twisting his words, here is a link to read all of Greenspan's words. Think for yourselves:

Fed Reserve Text

 

[jjm]

Funny how people run away when those nasty little FACTS get in the way!

 

[Ornery]

The amount that Gore or Bush want to apply to the debt is a wash. The only thing left to discuss after that is whether to cut taxes or leave the money in Washington to spend it. I thing Mr. Greenspan put the smack down on that little debate!

 

[jjm]

Nice change of tune Ornery.

Now where exactly in his speech did Greenspan "smack" this debate? I see that he views tax cuts potentially as the lesser of two evils, but I fail to see where he outright endorses them.

Gee, one might be tempted to suggest that Tominator is lying. Oh, wait a minute, it's not a lie, it's just an exaggeration!

 

[rahvin]

Heh,

Quite funny. Greenspan has said about a dozen times that the surplus should pay off the debt before doing anything else with it. He is very clear about that.

 

[Ulfwald]

Facts are to Liberals what Garlic or a Cross is to Dracula, both render them helpless

 

[DABANSHEE]

Is Greenspan the 2nd coming of Jesus? The way you lot go on about him, you' think he must be.

 

[4824guy]

Paying down the national debt should be our #1 goal in this time of surplus. It will yield in less taxes in the long run because we will be paying less in interest. Forget the small tax break that everyone seems to be talking about, the tax break that Bush and Gore are talking about is not that much for the average middle class person. A tax decrease is ok, but down blow the entire surplus on it.

Spending the surplus on a small tax break for everyone doesn't sound like a smart move. There are more important things to pay and make secure, like Soc. Security, Military, health, and education.

My 2cents worth.

 

[DAM]

i also think that greenspan is a genious, hell he might be the second jesus :--P


aside from that i was talking to about this with some coworkers, does anyone have any info on how greenspan works? like how the organization works and what happens if he unexpectantly dies? we were considering what would happen if greenspan died while serving his term, and what that would do to the economy.



how old is he anyway?





dam()

 

[Ornery]

Hmmm, is this what you construe as "a small tax break", 4824guy?

• "...if you're a family of four making $50,000 in Massachusetts you get a 50% tax cut. Let me give you one example.
  
  A family in Allentown, Pennsylvania, I campaigned with them the other day, they make $51,000 combined income, pay $3500 in taxes. Under my plan they get $1800 of tax relief. Under Vice President Gore's plan they get $145 of tax relief. You tell me who stands on this side of the fence. You ask whose plan makes more sense. There is a difference of opinion. He would rather spend the $1800 and I would rather the family spend that money..." - George Bush, October 3, 2000 Debate

Shall I also mention cutting the Marriage Tax penalty for the umpteenth time? Or is that too little money for you to worry about too?

And here's the scoop on how "Greenspan "smack" this debate", jjm. He said first and foremost that it would be best to pay down the debt. Next best move would be the tax cut. As far as spending goes, he said, "...the likelihood of maintaining a still satisfactory overall budget position over the longer run is greater, I believe, if surpluses are used to lower tax rates rather than to embark on new spending programs."

Ergo, since Bush and Gore plan to apply the same amount to the debt in their budgets, that's not an issue, it's a wash. The DEBATE now is whether to spend the balance or reduce taxes. Greenspan put the Smack Down on that debate. The monster link above spells that out plainly.

 

[Ornery]

"...the promise of a tax cut" is just as big an issue as the abortion issue. I sure can't see downplaying it!

Edit: Damn, it's a big issue to me. I'd never make up in "Hot Deals" over 20 years what it will cost me to have Gore in there for four years!

 

[thebestMAX]

Correct me if Im wrong and I know you will but isnt this what Ronald Regan DID do? Cut taxes, put more money in the hands of people that will do something with it and there by generate more income for the Govt by getting a smaller percentage of a larger amount.



OH, yeah, I think he helped get rid of the Russians too.

God bless Ronald Regan.

 

[Ornery]

Voodoo economics lowered the tax rate on "the wealthy" and business in general. It made it more desirable to go into business and make a profit because not as much was being confiscated. The bottom line wrought more money for the Federal budget. That's the "voodoo" part. Tax rates went down, but Federal income went up. Bottom line is IT WORKED!

This case is a bit different. The top tax rate isn't as high as it was in the early '80s. This is just a chance for us to spend our own money on what we want, rather than let Washington decide for us. Spend it on 401K, child care, private school, college, new boat... suit yourself!

 

[DABANSHEE]

Ah, it didn't work Orney, the US national debt increased more in the 1st 5years after Reagan got his trikledown policies through, than they had in the previous 100 years combined. I saw Reagan's old Treasurer say that himself, when he was interveiwed on TV a couple of years ago.

 

[rahvin]

<<Ergo, since Bush and Gore plan to apply the same amount to the debt in their budgets, that's not an issue, it's a wash. The DEBATE now is whether to spend the balance or reduce taxes.>>

Nothing is decided until the budget is actually passed. I will not support any canidate whose platform includes spending ANY of the surplus on either tax cuts or additional programs without paying off the debt first and foremost.

 

[thebestMAX]

ORNERY

I think you agreed with me. Whenever it comes down to it, Id rather spend my own money for me than let the Govt get involved.

Maybe the Natl Debt did increase but I dont think you can compare amounts on an equal basis with years.

 

[thebestMAX]

RED-

<< The immediate payoff was positive but the long term effect is still being felt with the large debt the US has. >>

Come on, you can do a lot better than this. Everything has its price and IMHO we got full value or at least as much as one can when dealing with the Govt.

I look forward to your reply to my new thread, Why is it so important that we pay off the national debt?

 

[prontospyder]

thebestMax:

Here's 4824guy's answer to your question about the debt a few posts above yours:

&quot;Paying down the national debt should be our #1 goal in this time of surplus. It will yield in less taxes in the long run because we will be paying less in interest. Forget the small tax break that everyone seems to be talking about, the tax break that Bush and Gore are talking about is not that much for the average middle class person. A tax decrease is ok, but down blow the entire surplus on it.

Spending the surplus on a small tax break for everyone doesn't sound like a smart move. There are more important things to pay and make secure, like Soc. Security, Military, health, and education.

My 2cents worth.&quot;

 

[DaBoneHead]

Not that I have a real &quot;educated&quot; opinion on this, but...

I would think that paying off the national debt is in our best interest because the money we would be spending on interest we could be using to shore up social security or to provide real tax relief.

My own history, though microscopic in comparison to a national economy, has proven that paying off debts leads to having a lot more money lying around. I paid off all my debts last year and today I can go anywhere and do anything I want because I have a lot in the bank... Debt bleeds people red. I imagine it does the same for a country.

I believe, though I have no figures behind it, that the money we spend on interest each year for our 5 trillion dollar debt runs in the hundreds of billions. Though, again, I am not sure the specific number.

No flames or trolls required. Just my opinion.

 

[thebestMAX]

Thanks, Proto.

I read that and it inspired my question. It sounds reasonable but just dont think it is going to work that way. Govt will always find ways to spend more money. Just look at all the proposed new bureaucrats now under ALGORES plan.