Fox Puta John Gibson: Bush tax cuts & "bigger yachts for rich friends"

[Human Torch]

New York Times Becomes Bush-Hating Paper of Record
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
By John Gibson

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203046,00.html

The New York Times has morphed from the newspaper of record — "All the News That's Fit to Print" — into the Bush-hating newspaper of record — any Bush bashing that fits. Take the deficit, which is coming down because tax revenues are going up. It was our big story right at the top of the show.

It's a good story because it shows that the Bush policy of tax cuts isn't in place simply to give his rich friends some extra cash for bigger yachts. Money in the economy instead of in the treasury produces more economic activity which produces higher tax revenues. It's called growing the economy. On Sunday The New York Times ran this story with a headline that said: "Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit." OK, maybe a little snarky in the word "surprising," but otherwise it sounds like the writer and editors got it.

Well, then a few days pass and the editors at The New York Times evidently say, "Hey, good news for Bushie. Can't have this." So Tuesday an editorial appears on the op-ed page at The Times with the headline: "Another Mission Accomplished." This time The Times' take on the deficit reduction is that it's more Bush smoke and mirrors. Now The Times says the extra tax revenue really isn't that much, and the deficit isn't down that much, and Bush was overstating the deficit this year anyway just so he could show it was down when the tax revenue picture actually kicked in. This sounds to me suspiciously like Bush-hater and Times columnist Paul Krugman got to write the unsigned editorial Tuesday. Krugman is the Princeton economics professor whose academic credentials are as solid as his Bush-hating credentials.

Just for instance: From the start of 2005, Krugman has written 137 columns. Sixty-three focused on Bush or the Bush administration and 61 were negative. That's just in the last year-and-a-half. So why did The Times turn on a dime on the deficit story? Because news about the increased tax revenues and the deficit going down made it sound like Bush was right about something. That's a story The New York Times and its star editors and columnists choke on. That's My Word.

[MadMaddie]

1. All he needs is his Nazi Uniform and Swastika cross around his

neck....

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

2. It's so good...

That a great economic expert like John Gibson is there for us, to clarify everything in his usual objective style.

:sarcasm:

[FormerDittoHead]

3. Some important info on "The Deficit"...

This damn bullshit just keeps coming back...

Tax cuts for the wealthy have NOTHING TO DO with more taxes being paid...

If you borrow a TRILLION DOLLARS and spend it on military contractors, greater income WILL be reported, more taxes WILL be paid, mostly by the upper middle class which, thanks to the Republican adjusted Alternative Minimum Tax, ARE paying HIGHER taxes...

REFERENCE:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4660655/

On a national basis, it's EASY to raise your CURRENT income / taxes do when you're borrowing TRILLIONS.

This is the same damn "logic" that they used about the "Reagan recovery" - but they never mention about how they had to borrow out the butt to do it.

Borrowing *HAS* PEAKED (I don't think Wall St is going to let them borrow at higher rates, seeing how it's driving up interest rates), but deficit spending is still WAY higher than under Clinton....

Now: Understand the deficit is NOT the debt.

The DEBT is rising, and rising. The DEBT is NOT going down. But the *level* of borrowing has only gone down because the major part of Iraq has peaked. A steady amount continues, but at a slightly lower rate.

Gibson and his peers would have you believe that some kind of "recovery" is going on, blaw, blaw, blaw.

[longship]

4. Better pic of Gibbie

[vixengrl]

5. Another way of looking at this might be looking at the source of tax

revenues. If a good deal of individual income in the upper bracket is based on investment income and executive bonuses, this is tax revenue on uh, well, rich folks. They've been able to invest *their* tax cuts. And pay taxes on the dividend. (I never ever fell back on the phrase "the rich get richer and the poor get..." but you can *infer* I may mean it.) Does this "growth" in the economy necessarily "trickle down" to use an '80's-ism, to your average wage-earner? Are their jobs more secure and how are their earnings relative to the cost of living?

Also, and not surprisingly, let's say we make the tax cuts permanent and the government spending "growth" continues, eh? Because it really looks like it will. I don't like that long term picture, a good year or so notwithstanding. (Gee, Republicans really need to learn about ye olde fiscal resposibility, said the liberal, snickering into her sleeve.)