Alan Simpson discusses Debt Deal, Norquist and next talks

[Exotix]

Former Sen. Alan Simpson, the co-chair of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, joined the Last Word to discuss how Obama handled the negotiations and what to expect with the debt super committee.

The Last Word


And you can't talk about fixing the debt, without talking about revenues.
Grover Norquist, the anti-tax pledge master and second most powerful man in Washington, who, by the way, is not even an elected official, came up quite a few times in this conversation with Lawrence.

Simpson called for an investigation into Norquist's extreme reach within the Republican party.

"If Grover Norquist is more powerful than the President of the United States and Congress, he should run for president," said Simpson.
"It's time now peel all the layers of onion off of Grover Norquist."


There were too many zingers in this interview to count.
Watch for yourself.



Video inside ~ Start at 2:47

[ChasC5]

Interesting ...

Embarrassing and Sad ...

Politics First; Country Last ...

[Will]

Originally Posted by ChasC5

Interesting ...

Embarrassing and Sad ...

Politics First; Country Last ...

You just described the democrats and Obama's ridiculous demand for tax hikes in order to give themselves an election weapon against Republicans.

If this was a serious, country first move, they would have done it when they had the power to.

But they KNOW they're no good for us, and REPEATEDLY SAID SO.

Only NOW do they do a 180, and demand them for PURELY POLITICAL reasons because their gunbarrels are EMPTY for the 2012 election, and they remember from 1992 just how effective a weapon broken tax promises are against Republicans.

We have NO revenue problem, and there is NO evidence that these tax hikes would increase revenue anyway. We DO have a plethora of historical evidence supporting the notion that they will NOT increase revenue or even hurt revenue.


The Bush tax cuts probably did not cost us anything. Hell, they probably led to greater revenue growth.


Furthermore, during the expansion in the mid 2000s, we enjoyed higher revenue growth rates than during the 1990s expansion.





GDP DRIVES REVENUE, NOT levels of taxation. This is because our taxes are NOT too low, they are in fact arguably too high.








Aside from overall increased revenue growth rates, thanks to the capital gains cuts and the infusion of cash from investors into businesses, we experienced record shattering corporate income tax revenue growth.








Our levels of taxation are most likely higher than the revenue maximizing level. We can never know for sure, but historical tax revenue data leans towards this and shows NO support for the opposite proposition.

In short, there is plenty of credible evidence that the tax cuts helped and led to either NO revenue loss or revenue gain. There is absolutely NO credible evidence that they hurt.

[Will]

And you can't talk about fixing the debt, without talking about revenues.

The Democratic Party and Media hacks who keep repeating this talking point are completely ignorant and/or completely dishonest and full of shit.





NET SURPLUS over the past decade if FY 2000 Spending levels were maintained, adjusted for inflation. This is WITH the Bush tax cuts and WITH the TWO bookend RECESSIONS.


THERE

IS

NO

REVENUE

PROBLEM.

SPENDING is the problem.

[ChasC5]

Pull your head out of your ass and wipe the crap from your partition eyes and blow your nose with those charts ... only the totally stupid would beleive one political party is the cause of this mess.

Here's some more power-point 101 chart for yea ..

[Will]

Originally Posted by ChasC5

only the totally stupid would beleive one political party is the cause of this mess

What does that have to do with anything? I never claimed such. Both parties are responsible for reckless spending on their watch. I'm talking about the absurd push for tax hikes that will hurt economic productivity, with ZERO evidence that in exchange they will help revenue collection.

Originally Posted by ChasC5

Here's some more power-point 101 chart for yea ..

The data is straight from the Obama controlled .gov, the information I presented is 100% accurate. Nice attempt at a childish cheap shot though.

Originally Posted by ChasC5

Pull your head out of your ass

Strike One.

Originally Posted by ChasC5

wipe the crap from your partition eyes

Strike Two

Originally Posted by ChasC5

blow your nose with those charts

Strike Three. I came THIS close to actually banning you for 24 hours. I logged out of the control panel at the last second. YOU KNOW BETTER CHAS. The first two quotes of yours above, while in my opinion off-topic, deflecting, and/or childish, would not get you in trouble. You are free to argue with me, even aggressively. But the last 3 are uncalled for and unacceptable behavior. Come on, man.

[ChasC5]

BS .. Tax Breaks hasn't done ANYTHING for the US Economy ...

Show me what it has done.

LINK?

[ChasC5]

I have to attend a meeting, but I like you to post a chart the shows how 10 years of President Bush Tax-Breaks has brought prosperity to the American Working Class and Jobs.

I'll check back as soon as I can ... partner

[Will]

Originally Posted by ChasC5

BS .. Tax Breaks hasn't done ANYTHING for the US Economy ...

Show me what it has done.

LINK?

ANY economist, no matter how liberal, will tell you that lower taxes = higher private sector productivity. If we could somehow magically fund government for free with a money tree, EVERY liberal economist woudl support a tax rate of ZERO PERCENT.


Unfortunately government costs $$$. So the only real debate about taxation is what level of taxation is best for economic productivity AND revenue generation.


The data above clearly shows that there is not adequate, or in my estimation ANY, historical data suggesting the Clinton hikes or Obama's proposed hikes will improve revenue collection.


Given that we KNOW the lowest tax rate possible is best for economic productivity, we should only hike taxes if they will lead to increased revenue, and enough increased revenue to AT LEAST compensate for economic productivity loss.

[Will]

Originally Posted by ChasC5

I have to attend a meeting, but I like you to post a chart the shows how 10 years of President Bush Tax-Breaks has brought prosperity to the American Working Class and Jobs.

I'll check back as soon as I can ... partner

Off-topic and irrelevant. Economic expansion brings prosperity and employment, not government. Higher tax rates retard economic expansion, and should ONLY be considered if they will actually trade that for higher revenue growth.

[ChasC5]

Originally Posted by Will

Off-topic and irrelevant. Economic expansion brings prosperity and employment, not government. Higher tax rates retard economic expansion, and should ONLY be considered if they will actually trade that for higher revenue growth.

Your own chart speak of revenue, growth and taxes ... so how is my post Off-topic and irrelevant.

Plus Higher tax rates didn't retard economic expansion on Clinton's watch.

Look, I'm responding to your post with my opinions ... so if you don't agree ... then just say you don't agree. IF you have prof, simply show it.

I'm just trying to play in your sandbox with your toys;

Gota run ... I'll check back later

[Will]

Originally Posted by ChasC5

Plus Higher tax rates didn't retard economic expansion on Clinton's watch.

We have no way of knowing this for sure, because we don't know what GDP would have looked like with the prior tax rates in effect from 1993-present day.


The only things we know for sure are what actual GDP was, and what actual revenue collection was.


And we know for a fact that the Clinton hikes did NOT result in revenue collection any higher than before or after those rates were in effect.


Even within the Clinton years, we enjoyed higher revenue growth after the 1997 tax cuts, specifically centered around a cap gains reduction, and higher GDP growth as well.

[Will]

For tax revenue collected during the 1980s expansion above, the average annual growth rate was 8.07%. It was 8.04% for the 1990s expansion.


For the regrettably brief 2000s expansion, 7%, including 2003 in which revenue was still declining. NO periods of post-recession revenue decline are included in the above numbers for 1980s or 1990s. FOLLOWING THE JOBS AND GROWTH TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2003, 9.6% for the remainder of the 2000s expansion.

[ChasC5]

Sow why the consistent decline from the 2005 peek?

Or ... better yet, what caused change in direction?

[Will]

Originally Posted by ChasC5

Sow why the consistent decline from the 2005 peek?

Or ... better yet, what caused change in direction?

One year with lower increase isn't out of the ordinary. But the second year, 2007, was the year the economy began to tank. We didn't enter recession until 2008, but if you'll remember, since a Republican was in the whitehouse, the left started srceaming recession at every turn in 2007.

I can still remember rkhegler and myself arguing over this ad nauseum.

That was the problem with the 2000s expansion. It was too brief, because a mere 4-5 years after entering expansion again after the dot-com bubble burst and recession, we had yet another recession.

[ChasC5]

Originally Posted by Will

One year with lower increase isn't out of the ordinary. But the second year, 2007, was the year the economy began to tank. We didn't enter recession until 2008, but if you'll remember, since a Republican was in the whitehouse, the left started srceaming recession at every turn in 2007.

I can still remember rkhegler and myself arguing over this ad nauseum.

That was the problem with the 2000s expansion. It was too brief, because a mere 4-5 years after entering expansion again after the dot-com bubble burst and recession, we had yet another recession.

So the Bush Tax Breaks for the wealthy wasn't enough to off-set a somewhat minor recession back then ... so exactly what will continuing them now do when it's more than obvious the US NEEDS Revenue on Top of Spending Cuts.

[Will]

Originally Posted by ChasC5

So the Bush Tax Breaks for the wealthy wasn't enough to off-set a somewhat minor recession back then ... so exactly what will continuing them now do?

I don't get the question. Breathing isn't enough to stave of death, but I highly recommend doing it anyway. You'll live longer than you would without it.

when it's more than obvious the US NEEDS Revenue on Top of Spending Cuts.

Yes we do. And our levels of taxation are more than adequate to produce that revenue, as demonstrated above.