Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

IMF: Spending Cuts Slow Growth More Than Tax Hikes

December 6, 2012 by  

IMF: Spending Cuts Slow Growth More Than Tax Hikes
PHOTOS.COM

A new study conducted by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) takes into account decades of economic data about the world’s industrialized nations to examine how changes in government spending affects economic output.

According to the report, which researchers say is the first of its kind, fiscal negotiators in the United States would do well to tread lightly in coming weeks as they work to flesh out an agreement over the Nation’s economic problems. The IMF paper says that in its current state of recovery from the 2008 recession, cutting too much government spending could stall growth in the overall economy. The researchers predict that for every dollar the government cuts, it is possible that $1.80 in economic output will disappear having a “statistically significant…and sizeable” negative economic impact.

The paper goes on to indicate that raising taxes on Americans by one percent would only knock 0.1 percent out of the overall economy.

The paper indicates that however the fiscal negotiators tackle the economic recovery process, IMF suggests slower is better.

“When feasible a more gradual fiscal…consolidation is likely to prove preferable to an approach that aims at ‘getting it over quickly,’” the paper says.

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “IMF: Spending Cuts Slow Growth More Than Tax Hikes”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Elevenarrows

    Call me crazy, but sometimes one has to simply do right instead of reading all the surveys, studies and hogwash that agencies put out. For example, if our government (I should probably re-phrase that since it isn’t really ours) were to over-night return to the Constitution, there would be quite an upheaval the next morning as most of the government agencies got pink slips. Of course, it would be unsettling for the nation and it would take time to sort things out. I would rather see the nation sort that type of chaos out than to see what we are currently dealing with every day: police forces becoming more militant, gov’t agencies usurping parental authority, lowered incomes and higher cost of living due to one bad decision after another from our so-called leaders, a suppression of every right that should be ours, a dumbing down of our children and a slow, steady poisoning of their minds, hearts and bodies, etc.

    Yep, call me crazy because I still believe that when one is doing wrong, one should immediately stop rather than to gradually seek to do better!

    • Steve E

      I agree, that is what you really have to do. But most people prefer a slow death instead.

    • Randy131

      Strange, for in Bush’s first year as President, his deficit was extremely high for two reasons, first the recession he inherited from Clinton that had been going on for 6 months, and second because later in the year. his response to the 9/11 terrorist attack. Each and every year after that his deficits came down, as did the unemployment, and the economy’s GDP grew, mainly because of his tax cuts, which Obama wants to get rid of. In Bush’s 7th year, the Congress was taken over by Democratic majorities in both houses, which gave them control over all law making abilities and the budgets creating the deficits, which the deficit for that year went to over $4oo billion, which Obama said was unpatriotic while he was campaigning for the Presidency, and 11 months after Democrats took majority control of both houses of Congress, all law making abilities, the budget creating the deficit, which they then instituted that $400 billion deficit, the economy went into recession, which the Democrats then blamed on Bush, in order to get Obama elected as President. In Bush’s 8th and last year in office, the Democratic majority controlled Congress then instigated a budget with an over $700 billion deficit. In those last 2 years of Bush’s Presidency, with a Democratic majority controlled Congress, the deficits sky-rocketed, and unemployment followed with it’s own tremendous rise, and the economy’s GDP plummetted, and caused the great recession, which we still haven’t recovered from, even though Obama and the Democrats claim we recovered from it in June 2009. The larger deficits show the more spending that is being done, while the decrease in deficits show the less spending being done, and looking at Bush’s 8 year economic record, completely disproves what this article proclaims as the truth between spending and taxes, as does Obama’s 4 year record of his Presidency. Point made with facts that we have all lived through the past 12 years, and we have 4 more years of Obama’s failed policies to look ‘FORWARD’ to, only this time with taxes and spending to go much higher, similar to what the Democrats did in Bush’s last 2 years in office. Do you think this may foreshadow another great recession, even worse than the last?.

    • GALT

      Interesting analogy and “choice” but to set an appropriate approximating comparison,
      would be like that of a “major heroin” junky trying to quit “cold turkey”………

      One, you have no idea what that would be like in terms of “feeling it”…….and two
      the actual experience could be fatal……………

      oh and there is one more thing………you have to take that comparison and then multiply
      the actual effects by 100……….

  • Ted Crawford

    Is this, perhaps, the same IMF that is working overtime to finalize their concept of SDR’s, to replace the American Dollar as both the new ‘Petro Dollar’ and subsequently as the Primary Currency in countrys National Banks? There may, just possibly, be an alterior motive to this “study(?)”!

  • http://www.facebook.com/robert.e.johnson.121 Robert E. Johnson

    There are always agendas.

    • eddie47d

      Each and every side has an agenda. Left/right,rich/poor doesn’t make any difference.Considering the wealthy gained over 7% (actually more) while most folks gained nothing a 3% tax hike for those wealthy is hardly unreasonable. Yet some will scream like banshees that it will ruin them. NOT EVEN CLOSE!

      • vicki

        Eddie47d writes:
        “Yet some will scream like banshees that it will ruin them. NOT EVEN CLOSE!”

        Who would these “some” be? All I’ve read here is that the increased taxes on the wealthy will just cause them to be less interested in investing their wealth in ventures that would employ the rest of us.

        If ruination comes it will be to the “not” wealthy.

        Oh and lest you forget the obvious, taxes that are to be raised are on income, not wealth.

      • eddie47d

        First of all then you have to get the wealthy to claim their income. Hedge Fund managers can make 1 billion dollars a year and only pay a 15% tax. On top of that they still get deductions and also are caught doing illegal Insider Trading deals after hours.

  • Right Brain Thinker

    A “NEW” study? What about all the old studies that have been saying the exact same thing for years?

    Trickle down is dead.
    Cutting taxes on the “job creators” to create jobs is dead.
    Screaming about redistribution and “stealing from the rich” is dead.

    Long live the truth, that cutting spending during a lingering recession or stalled recovery is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Always was and always will be.

    • alpha-lemming

      May have been Churchill who said something to the effect…”A nation trying to tax itself into prosperity is akin to a man standing in a pail and attempting to lift himself up by the handle”. The term Keynesian economics should probably be replaced with Obamanomics at this point. How many trillions on QE “double-digits” and the U6 un-underemployment still in the 15% ballpark is an improvement??!!??!! ain’t buyin’ it!!!

    • vicki

      One new wrong study does not make many old wrong studies right. Government spending cuts effect on economic growth is measured improperly.

      http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/260747/impact-spending-cuts-economy-veronique-de-rugy#

  • JimH

    RBT,Money will be spent. If I were allowed to keep ALL of my money it would enter the economy as I spend it or donate it to charity.
    If it goes in taxes, someone else spends it and it enters the economy.
    It doesn’t need to be government spending.
    Quite frankly I would rather I choose what part of the economy gets supported by MY money, than have so elitist decide for me.
    I have to live within my means, so should government.
    Are those ideas really dead or were you just told that.
    If they are dead it doesn’t mean that they still aren’t correct.

    • Right Brain Thinker

      Jim,

      Nobody “tells” me anything. Someone may say something that gets me looking at a topic, but I rely on rational analysis of facts to form conclusions, and modify those conclusions when new facts come up that make me question my conclusions.

      Analysis of facts over a considerable period of time convinces me that the three things I listed are in fact both very wrong and approaching “dead”, although the propagandists on the right will “tell you” that is not so.

      Your statement that “Quite frankly I would rather I choose what part of the economy gets supported by MY money, than have some elitist decide for me” proves that YOU are the one who is repeating what someone “tells you” is the way to think.

      No “elitist” is deciding where to spend “your” money. Your taxes are used to provide a range of government services that you benefit from and you are able to influence how they are spent via the ballot and contact with your representatives. You are allowing yourself to be used as a tool by the plutocracy and the corporate oligarchy when you parrot their party line like that.

      • JimH

        RBT, You didn’t refute my statement about if I spend money or if the government spends tax money it all goes back into the economy. So I’ll take it you agree.It doesn’t really need to be government spending to get an economy going.
        How does my not wanting an elitist telling me how MY money should be spent, prove that I”m repeating something somebody else told me to think? How did you come to that conclusion?
        If the tax cuts to “job ceators” were not set to expire and were made permanent, the job creators would be more confident to go out on a limb and expand their business. As it stands now it is uncertain. They don’t know if they make the commitment, that they may have the rug pulled from under them in the near future. There is nothing “dead” about that idea.
        Trickle down is a sound idea, if given the opportunity to work. It isn’t a “dead” idea.
        We have seen how government stimulus, bailouts and deficit spending in the last half of a decade hasn’t worked to lower unemployment or “stimulate” growth. If there is any idea that is ‘dead’, would be government overspending causing economic growth.
        Your final statement about how taxation and how government spending is how it would work in an ideal world.Unfortunately we don’t live in ideal world. See how much influence your letter to your congressman has. The elitists are messing it up.
        When you use tax money, it is taken from someone who would have spent it and is given to the government to spend it. It’s like taking a bucket of water from one end of a swimming pool and pouring it into the other end, to raise the water level. It didn’t work.
        Just some more to think about, to draw your own(?) conclusions.

      • vicki

        JimH. There is one important difference. When you spend your money instead of government spending your money, its your money and not other peoples money.

        You are much more careful with your money than government is with other peoples money.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Jim says, “RBT, You didn’t refute my statement about if I spend money or if the government spends tax money it all goes back into the economy. So I’ll take it you agree.It doesn’t really need to be government spending to get an economy going”.

        No, Jim, I don’t agree one bit. Your premise is faulty in that government “spending” and your “spending” do NOT go back into the economy with equal impact. The two “categories” of money are spent on different things and will have very different impacts on the economy because of that. I will carry it to an extreme and say that the money you and Romney may spend on your dressage horses and car elevators does NOT get the economy going as much as the government spending that same amount on the SNAP program (Food Stamps) will.

        You ask, “How does my not wanting an elitist telling me how MY money should be spent, prove that I”m repeating something somebody else told me to think? How did you come to that conclusion?”

        You need to look at your entire comment to fully see all the reasons why I reached that conclusion. You said, “I would rather I choose what part of the economy gets supported by MY money, than have so elitist decide for me” First, you are a citizen of the United States with a duty to support the government monetarily—you do NOT have the right to “CHOOSE” how the government spends the government’s money beyond what I outlined—the right to petition, vote for your representatives, and speak out in various ways. Second, it is not YOUR money once you pay your taxes but belongs to all, to be spent as the elected legislators decide. Thirdly, there are no ELITISTS involved, just legislators and government employees doing their jobs.

        So, when I see CHOOSE, MY MONEY, ELITISTS, in the context within which you used them, I say “Aha, I’ve heard this same tired old conservative dogma before” and conclude that you are a parrot, like so many others on this site. If that line of reasoning IS original with you and not something you have been “told to think” in the figurative sense in which I spoke, I will apologize.

        You also said, “If the tax cuts to “job creators” were not set to expire and were made permanent, the job creators would be more confident to go out on a limb and expand their business. As it stands now it is uncertain. They don’t know if they make the commitment, that they may have the rug pulled from under them in the near future. There is nothing “dead” about that idea”
        It is not dead in the sense that it is one of the same old tired talking points that we constantly hear from the right, therefore it “lives”. As to the truth of it, it has never really been alive but was merely a smokescreen to further the real purpose behind the “no tax increase” refrain—to shelter the wealth and incomes of the plutocracy and the corporate oligarchy and exempt them from paying their fair share.

        You say, “Trickle down is a sound idea, if given the opportunity to work. It isn’t a “dead” idea”.
        No? Seems to me it died a couple of deaths after being given “the opportunity to work”, once under Reagan and once under George W. Bush. Never worked, never will—and economists of ALL stripes recognize that now..

        You say, “We have seen how government stimulus, bailouts and deficit spending in the last half of a decade hasn’t worked to lower unemployment or “stimulate” growth”.
        Really? How about talking instead about how they kept us from entering The Greater Depression?. That they stopped the huge and rapid increase in unemployment that the Bush years brought on. That they DID in fact stimulate growth, and if anything, should have been bigger? You are once again parroting the right wing view, the view that Ryan and Romney campaigned on, and that the voters resoundingly rejected.

        You say, “If there is any idea that is ‘dead’, would be government overspending causing economic growth”
        Guess what? I agree with that completely. The overspending of the Reagan and Bush years are the foundation of most of our present debt problem. For a couple of supposed conservatives, they sure did a lot of BORROWING and spending—-thereby kicking the debt can down the road to us. In comparison, O’Bama actually looks like a true conservative in that he realizes that revenue is the other side of the debt “coin”. He is not adding to the debt as rapidly as George W. Bush did.

        You say,” Your final statement about how taxation and how government spending is how it would work in an ideal world. Unfortunately we don’t live in ideal world. See how much influence your letter to your congressman has. The elitists are messing it up”.
        So in YOUR “ideal” world we should do it HOW? Let the lobbyists and the plutocracy just have their way—-the 1% sucking the wealth out of the pockets of the 99% as is happening now? I have been involved in many “actions” over the past few years that have resulted in positive outcomes re: legislation, election of candidates, promulgation of rules and regulations by government agencies, etc. and am happy about the results of my efforts (usually as part of larger interest groups). Yes, it could work better, but it’s all we have and it’s “the American way”..

        Finally, you say, “When you use tax money, it is taken from someone who would have spent it and is given to the government to spend it. It’s like taking a bucket of water from one end of a swimming pool and pouring it into the other end, to raise the water level. It didn’t work”
        Another tired “talking point” that sounds “cute” but means nothing. Your premise and analogy are again false. We’ve already talked about the first sentence (and there’s those clue words TAKING and GIVING showing up—parrot talk). And swimming pools and buckets of water are just that—the water level is a function of gravity. The two sentences together really mean nothing.

        You close with, “Just some more to think about, to draw your own(?) conclusions”
        You betcha, as the Angel from Wasilla used to say. I’ve just given you a bunch of my OWN conclusions. If you respond with YOUR OWN thoughts we might be able to continue this discussion. .

      • JimH

        RBT, You say you look at the facts and draw “your own” conclusion.
        I question the validity of your sources.
        You didn’t refute anything I said with anything but a long winded version of “is not”.
        You ask if my ideal world is to let the lobyist and plutocracy have their own way.
        I would say giving them MORE money(what you seem to want) instead of making them budget better(what I want) is the way lobyists and a plutocracy would be supported.
        Food stamps according to you support an economy( pardon me while I laugh at you).
        People spend money they earn on groceries or food stamps on groceries. The grocery store doesn’t grow because of food stamps.
        Rich people hire people and buy products. This keeps people EMPLOYED.
        We can show those evil rich people what fer and take that money and use it for unemployment extensions for the people that would have been hired by rich people. Or people that produce and sell the products they would buy.
        Why is the premise of my swimming pool analgy false. You don’t really refute it. I put money into the economy or government takes that same money and puts it into the economy. There was no MORE money put into this economy. Just like water was taken from one end of the pool and poured in somewhere else. It didn’t raise the water level, just like no more money was injected into the economy to “stimulate” it.
        I just think you don’t like the ‘same old tired’ talking point because it points out to you that the conclusion you drew, all on your own was wrong.
        You worry about Romneys car elevator. Construction workers were hire to do that.
        Private jet owners hire pilots, flight crews, pay to have hanger space, fuel and mantainence crews. The people that produce and sell aircraft have a job. They in turn take their wage and purchase goods and services. People build and sell yachts. The yacht needs a slip. someone earns money on that rental.
        Or your solution, get more tax money to pay the unemployment and food stamps for those laid off guys. Paychecks are always better than unemployment checks.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        JimH says: “I question the validity of your sources”
        I’m sure you do, Jim, since that’s the last refuge of someone who has no real “sources” of his own beyond the tired old dogma that he parrots from his “masters”. Sorry that you feel so beaten down that you have to go there but many others on this site are already hiding there—-you won’t be alone.

        JimH says, “You didn’t refute anything I said with anything but a long winded version of “is not”
        Again, you can delude yourself into thinking that, but I actually refuted virtually EVERYTHING you said. Since what you said was basically “opinion” based on the deluded groupthink of the right, all I had to do was state opinions that are better supported by fact and better reasoned than yours. I stated that my opinions were based on facts from sources over many years—-good sources, not horsepucky wing nut sites of the circular firing squad on the right. I have cited them on other threads, as have others. The fact that you call my comments “long winded” tells us all that either you don’t comprehend what I said or you are in a state of blind denial and just can’t accept the truth because it doesn’t agree with what you WANT to believe.

        JimH says, “You ask if my ideal world is to let the lobbyist and plutocracy have their own way. I would say giving them MORE money (what you seem to want) instead of making them budget better (what I want) is the way lobbyists and a plutocracy would be supported”
        You ARE really confused—-I advocate giving the lobbyists and plutocracy LESS money and influence, not more. Reread my statement until you really understand it .

        JimH says, “Food stamps according to you support an economy (pardon me while I laugh at you)”
        How smug and condescending of you, Jim. (Pardon me while I chuckle at YOU). You are a complete fool if you don’t understand that a program that puts “money” in the hands of 47 MILLION people ALL OVER the country and is spent IMMEDIATELY has more impact on the economy than the folks that install car elevators or own private jets and yachts. The many hundreds of thousands or even millions of people involved in the “grocery pyramid” all benefit from the passage of the money. Rich people hire accountants, financial advisers, and tax lawyers so that they can beat the system and suck wealth out of the pockets of the 99%—-that’s the part of the economy they stimulate.

        JimH says, “Why is the premise of my swimming pool analogy false. You don’t really refute it”.
        Did too, read my comments again. I will try to “improve” on it to make it perhaps more meaningful and reflective of the truth than your weak attempt. Imagine a big pool that has a separate smaller hot-tub/jacuzzi right next to it. The 99% inhabit the big pool and they may move buckets of water around as you suggest—the water level doesn’t change because of that and the “mixing” of the water IS good. The 1% that inhabit the smaller pool are constantly bailing water out of the big pool, making the “water level” for the 99% decline. The 1% are filling their little pool to overflowing while some of the 99% are “hitting bottom”, but the 1% won’t share any of their “water” because they need it for jets, yachts, and dressage horses.

        JimH says, “I just think you don’t like the ‘same old tired’ talking point because it points out to you that the conclusion you drew, all on your own was wrong”.
        NIce try, Jim, but you are a motivated reasoner (look it up) whose cognitive dissonance (look it up) and confirmation bias (look it up) all blind you to any real “truth”, thereby making it quite impossible for you to even consider that anything that doesn’t agree with your preconceived notions could be “right”. I.E., if you WANT to believe it, it’s “right”—-if you DON’T WANT to believe it, it’s “wrong”, and facts and rational analysis be damned

        JimH says, “Or your solution, get more tax money to pay the unemployment and food stamps for those laid off guys”.
        I never said ANY SUCH THING in this whole string of comments. Nor did I say anything even close—-you are reading what you WANT to believe about what I said, not what I actually did say. And that proves my point that you are a motivated reasoner (look it up) whose cognitive dissonance (look it up) and confirmation bias (look it up) all blind you to any real “truth”.

        And we DO AGREE on “Paychecks are always better than unemployment checks”.

      • JimH

        RTB, You really believe you’ve refuted ANYTHING is said? You may have responded,but not with any thing but rhetoric.(That you like to say I use)
        I see you fall for the class envy trick. (rhetoric YOU fell for)
        Yachts, jets, limos all pay people wages. I know who I work for and who our customers are.Not food stamp users or unemployment reciptients. FOOD STAMPS AREN’T STIMULUS.
        Food stamps take tax dollars that could have been spent on groceries and goes through the government to be spent on “groceries”. Let the job creators do their thing and people will use their own wage and not food stamps to eat.
        I think one of the things that I’m talking about is small business owners being over taxed. Their rates would go up if the Bush tax cuts expire and you are thinking I’m talking about the Romneys.
        Both small business owners and even the evil rich do more to provide jobs than any stimulus package. The small business owners don’t need more tax burden to cover congresses overspending.
        We aren’t in this kind of debt because we are under taxed. (not rhetoric, just fact)
        That 1% you are jelous of pay 40% of the tax revenue the IRS brings in.
        Fair share?
        I really don’t understand how more taxation gives lobyists and plutocracy less, instead of more money.
        I still question your sources.(not for the reason you believe)
        Maybe if you don’t quite understand the swimming pool analogy, try cutting a foot of one end of a blanket and sewing it to the other end to lengthen it. (not rhetoric, just gov stimulus)

  • AZ-Ike

    I wonder who Obama had to threaten to get THIS report written!

    • vicki

      Probably nothing. Such a report would be useful to a NWO that wants to take over all countries.

    • GALT

      Just remember your actual goal…..making sure Obama is a two term president!

      • vicki

        That should be easy. Just enforce the 22 Amendment. Oh wait……

  • Kay Cleveland

    This is the stupidest report I have ever read. There is NO way to spend your way out of debt. If you tried this at home with your finances…you would be in bankruptcy court. I have seen this on my job lots of times. You cannot spend your way out of debt…you have to quit spending!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! These people are complete idiots!!!!!!!

    • Right Brain Thinker

      Kay,

      Did you actually read the report, all 30 some pages of it? I did so quickly (it would take at least a couple of hours to come close to properly analyzing it) and it doesn’t appear “stupid” at all. Instead, it looks like a rather “smart” new approach to gathering and analyzing information about how spending and economic growth interact..

      Perhaps what you are calling “stupid” is Sam’s reporting on the report, properly called Sam’s “article”? Sam’s article is not stupid either—-it appears to be a brief but essentially correct outline of what the “report” concludes.

      And neither the IMF report nor Sam’s article have anything much with to do with debt and the “No way you can spend your way out of debt” mantra that so many of you motivated reasoners seem to blindly come up with at the drop of a hat. It instead talks about spending and economic growth. The only way you might work “debt” into the IMF equation is to say that decreasing spending will cut revenues and that would make it more difficult to retire debt, and that’s a rather back-door approach.

      Perhaps you need to rethink who is the proper recipient of the “stupid” and “idiots” labels?

    • JimH

      Can I pay my Mastercard bill with my VISA.
      Watch out Paul, Peter is broke too.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Yes you can, JIm. That’s what George W. Bush did and Reagan and Bush One before him—-Reagan and Bush One were at least smart enough to start paying down their VISA when they saw the handwriting on the wall. George W. Bush was not so astute. Fortunately, O’Bama is.

      • JimH

        I don’t see Obama doing anything but charging more.
        When the debt ceiling is reached, his solution is to raise it.
        If someone tries to say “no more”, they are accused of obstruction.
        Spending like this needs to be obstructed.
        Congress has been paying the Mastercard with the VISA for decades. It needs to be realed in.
        Higher taxes aren’t going to work. Giving more money to congress is like giving liquor to alchoholics. They will not pay down the VISA. They will just squander it and say they “need” more.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        RESPONSES IN CAPS AND (PARENS)

        I don’t see Obama doing anything but charging more.
        (OPEN YOUR EYES—THE DEBT HAS INCREASED AT A LOWER RATE UNDER OBAMA THAN UNDER GEORGE W. BUSH)
        When the debt ceiling is reached, his solution is to raise it.
        (THAT’S WHAT ALL OF THE3M HAVE DONE FOR YEARS)
        If someone tries to say “no more”, they are accused of obstruction.
        (THOSE WHO REFUSE TO LOOK AT ENHANCING REVENUE BY RAISING TAXES ON THOSE WHO DON’T PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE ARE THE OBSTRUCTIONISTS. THEY HOLD THE COUNTRY HOSTAGE AS THEY DEMAND THAT THEY GET THEIR WAY)
        Spending like this needs to be obstructed. (SPENDING LIKE WHAT?)
        Congress has been paying the Mastercard with the VISA for decades. It needs to be realed in.
        (YES, BUT THE REVENUE SIDE HAS TO BE ADDRESSED FIRST)
        Higher taxes aren’t going to work.
        (SURE THEY ARE—LOOK AT THE GOLDEN AGE OF THE MIDDLE CLASS)
        Giving more money to congress is like giving liquor to alchoholics. They will not pay down the VISA. They will just squander it and say they “need” more.
        (NICE RHETORIC, BUT THAT’S ALL IT IS)

      • JimH

        RBT, The debt didn’t increase by 1.5 trillion a year under anybody (including Bush),but Obama.
        Just because the debt ceiling has been raised when reached for years doesn’t make it OK. For any of them.
        Define FAIR SHARE.
        Spending like what? You believe EVERYTHING tax money is spent on is needed?
        Solindra,NPR, PBS, Planned Parenthood,HUD, bureau of Indian Affairs. Pick any, and even more.
        The budget cuts need to be adressed FIRST. Find out what you really need. Then how to pay for it.
        Give the money first and there is no incentive to budget.
        Higher taxes won’t work until you get the budget under control.
        I wouldn’t call enableing taxaholics just rhetoric. It’s just human nature to want more.
        I want to keep what I earned and they want what I earned too.

  • GregS

    As I said before the election, Sam Rolley is an Obama shill. He just confirmed that with this latest article. He touts exactly the same rhetoric as Obama and his left-wing socialist cronies.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.