Don't Confuse Some N.Y. Times Editorial Writers With the Facts
(Fox News) - When the government announced last week that the federal budget deficit had fallen to its lowest level in five years — it was big news. But apparently not big enough to make a big splash in The New York Times or Washington Post. The New York Times ran a wire story in the back of the "A" section Friday. The Post put a wire story on its Web site Thursday afternoon and nothing in the paper.
But in an editorial Friday — The New York Times wrote the concept that lower tax rates generate more tax revenues is "nonsense." "That theory has been tested and failed, leading to enormous deficits during the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush."
But in both those administrations, tax revenues grew after tax rates were cut. Indeed, in fiscal year 2007 tax revenues grew 6.7 percent — to a record of more than $2.5 trillion — and the deficit has declined each of the past three years.
But in an editorial Friday — The New York Times wrote the concept that lower tax rates generate more tax revenues is "nonsense." "That theory has been tested and failed, leading to enormous deficits during the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush."
But in both those administrations, tax revenues grew after tax rates were cut. Indeed, in fiscal year 2007 tax revenues grew 6.7 percent — to a record of more than $2.5 trillion — and the deficit has declined each of the past three years.
posted by BP News Bureau | 7:33 AM
3 Comments:
Apparently the facts are hard for good old Faux News, too. They seem to have forgotten to mention that those deficits were run up by none other than the current Administration with the aid of the three previous Congresses.
The Bush apologists love ever to compare him and his policies to the Reagan years. I can only imagine the spikey comments Reagan would have for the Smirking Shrub. The tinkering done by the Bush crew is a pathetic shadow of what the Reagan Administration accomplished with regard to taxes.
The blurb had to do with the New York Times saying that lowering tax rates to generate more tax revenues was "nonsense." I thought tax revenues did increase after the tax cuts proposed by Reagan and Bush 43. It seems you want to take shots at the current president any chance you can get. If it helps you feel better, then more power to you. :)
I was commenting on the lead-in:
When the government announced last week that the federal budget deficit had fallen to its lowest level in five years — it was big news. But apparently not big enough to make a big splash in The New York Times or Washington Post. The New York Times ran a wire story in the back of the "A" section Friday. The Post put a wire story on its Web site Thursday afternoon and nothing in the paper.
The fact that the simpletons at Faux News can't match the story with the lead-in cannot be blamed on me.
It seems you want to take shots at the current president any chance you can get.
Only because the opportunities are so plentiful. It's got to be hard being a die-hard Bush apologist, though, isn't it? Don't you ever get tired of defending the indefensible? I mean, even Rush said he was tired of carrying water for them (even though he has gone right back to doing it).
Post a Comment
<< Home