Spending Cuts, Not Tax Hikes, Best for Deficit: NABE

The Dude

Banned
Spending Cuts, Not Tax Hikes, Best for Deficit: NABE
The majority of economists surveyed by the National Association for Business Economics believe that the federal deficit should be reduced only or primarily through spending cuts.


The survey out Monday found that 56 percent of the NABE members surveyed felt that way, while 37 percent said they favor equal parts spending cuts and tax increases. The remaining 7 percent believe it should be done only or mostly through tax increases.

As for how to reduce the deficit, nearly 40 percent said the best way would be to contain Medicare and Medicaid costs. Nearly a quarter recommended overhauling the tax system and simplifying tax rates and exemptions. About 15 percent said the government should enact tough spending caps and cut discretionary spending.

The latest survey by the NABE was conducted in the two weeks ending Aug. 2, the day that the Senate passed and President Obama signed legislation to cut spending by more than $2 trillion and raise the nation's debt ceiling.

The agreement managed to avert a potential default, but Standard & Poor's downgraded U.S. credit from AAA to AA+, citing the political wrangling over the deal as a reason.

According to the survey of 250 economists who are members of NABE, nearly 49 percent of those responding said the country's fiscal policy should be more restrictive, while nearly 37 percent said they believe the government should do more to stimulate the economy. The remainder said fiscal policy should remain the same.
At the same time, more than 70 percent of the people that responded said they expect U.S. fiscal policy to be more restrictive over the next two years.

In the area of U.S. monetary policy, more than half of the economists surveyed said they thought it was "about right," while over a third said it was "too stimulative." Less than 6 percent said it was "too restrictive." The rest did not know or didn't give an opinion.

The survey was taken before the Federal Reserve announcement that it expects to keep short-term interest rates at their current low levels into 2013.

At the same time, the respondents were nearly evenly split on whether U.S. monetary policy will stay the same or be more restrictive in the future, with those options getting about 42 percent of responses each. Nearly 15 percent of those surveyed say they believe monetary policy will be more stimulative down the road.
 
The remainder said fiscal policy should remain the same.
At the same time, more than 70 percent of the people that responded said they expect U.S. fiscal policy to be more restrictive over the next two years
.

And this has a lot to do with why many small businesses will not start the hiring process.

The latest survey by the NABE was conducted in the two weeks ending Aug. 2, the day that the Senate passed and President Obama signed legislation to cut spending by more than $2 trillion and raise the nation's debt ceiling.

Most people have not been fooled by this. They can see we are still going to spend and increase the debt by 7 Trillion.
 
you say it like academic economist might be more trust worthy, I doubt you even know a difference it's just your hackside kicking in.
 
you say it like academic economist might be more trust worthy, I doubt you even know a difference it's just your hackside kicking in.
Dude...get real. Can you tell me one time in the entire history of humanity when business economist have ever been for a tax increase? Just one? LOL
 
you say it like academic economist might be more trust worthy, I doubt you even know a difference it's just your hackside kicking in.

lol..... In his fantasy world, we should listen more to the people who don't actually have to PRACTICE what they preach... rather than those who do. In the real world, we listen to those who actually have to deal with economics for the sake of survival rather than listening to those who depend on constantly increasing tuition charges on college students.
 
Dude...get real. Can you tell me one time in the entire history of humanity when business economist have ever been for a tax increase? Just one? LOL

Most likely not, when talking about the highly regressive corporate income tax. Most business economists are smart enough to know how detrimental that is to lower income families, whom you wish to punish.... not to mention the JOBS it costs the low and middle income families... whom you wish to punish.
 
This group (who conducted a survey of their own members) believes that Social Security and Medicare are the two largest drivers of the deficit.


Social Security is solvent until 2037, and that can be extended by extending the payroll tax (which is paid for by the middle class) to cover individual­s in the upper class as well.


This survey is in no way representa­tive of "all economists­".


Fail.
 
A corporate income tax can be paid by one of the following groups....

1) Stockholders/owners
2) Executives of the company
3) Other employees of the company
4) Consumers

Which do you think pays the corporate income tax Mott?
 
A corporate income tax can be avoided by:


1) Stockholders/owners
2) Executives of the company
3) Other employees of the company
4) Consumers


Which do you think avoids the corporate income tax, Freaky?
 
My guess is that Mott will now try to create a straw man thinking he is going to 'get under my skin' and instead run around the board showing us all once again what an idiot he is.
 
A corporate income tax can be avoided by:


1) Stockholders/owners
2) Executives of the company
3) Other employees of the company
4) Consumers


Which do you think avoids the corporate income tax, Freaky?

The top two are going to do everything they can to avoid taxes using any and all legal means at their disposal.... which is again why a corporate income tax is a highly regressive hidden tax on consumers.
 
The top two are going to do everything they can to avoid taxes using any and all legal means at their disposal.... which is again why a corporate income tax is a highly regressive hidden tax on consumers.



In a free market, don't consumers make alternate purchasing decisions when businesses charge more than the market will bear?


Many large US corporations pay little or no tax while they enjoy windfall profits and pay dividends and bonuses.


This practice is legal because they bribe... I mean...lobby Congress and sponsor Astroturfed organzations like NABE that help convince people like you that corporate tax avoidance is OK.


It's not.


If we simply closed the loopholes and cut off the corporate welfare - which a real conservative would support, IMO - this issue would be redressed.


How can you justify balancing the budget on the backs of the citizens when corporate citizens enjoy the benefits of freedom but evade paying the cost?
 
Back
Top