Giuliani: tax cuts + tax cuts = balance

On multiple instances over the last several months, Rudy Giuliani has demonstrated a lack of knowledge about foreign policy, national security, domestic policy, and constitutional law.

But once in a while, the former mayor appears so confused, one really has to wonder why he’s even running for president.

Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani said Friday that the alternative minimum tax — which is expected to generate as much as $1 trillion over the next 10 years — could be eliminated over the long term by balancing it out with even more tax cuts.

Giuliani’s remarks prompted a bewildered response from his audience of technology executives. Both Republicans and Democrats said they assumed that the candidate must have misspoke as he responded to a question about the tax and its affect the middle class.

This would almost be comical if it weren’t serious. The AMT was created to prevent a handful of wealthy taxpayers from exploiting loopholes and not paying income taxes. It was not, however, indexed for inflation, which means the AMT is poised to hurt the middle-class. Everyone says they want to fix the AMT, but it’s expensive — costing up to $100 billion in 2010 alone.

Yesterday, demonstrating the kind of policy expertise that makes his presidency a scary prospect, Giuliani said he would cap, and eventually eliminate, the AMT. “Over time we can figure out how to eliminate it…. If we were going to eliminate it, though, we’d have to balance it with additional tax cuts,” Giuliani said, leaving confused expressions on his audience. “That might be by making the Bush tax cuts permanent.”

This reflects the sophistication of a small child who picked up a copy of the Weekly Standard, and hoped to make sense of what he didn’t understand. Eliminating the AMT would cost billions. Additional tax cuts would cost billions more. Trying to strike a “balance” this way is like trying to put out a fire with kerosene.

OK, so Giuliani flubbed a question. He got confused, doesn’t know much about tax policy, and said something that doesn’t make sense. It happens. His campaign can clarify what he meant to say and move on.

Except, therein lies the rub: the Team Giuliani insists the former mayor didn’t misspeak at all.

[A] Giuliani spokeswoman said later that Giuliani meant what he said — tax cuts could replace the lost revenue from the AMT by boosting the overall economy.

“Giuliani is the quintessential supply-sider,” said spokeswoman Maria Comella.

I’m sorry, but this is just dumb. These aren’t the words of someone who should be taken seriously by anyone.

As Kevin put it, we’re talking about a “buffoon.”

Sure, he misspoke, but he misspoke because he doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about and blurted out the first thing that came to mind: namely that reducing taxes is the answer to every question. Nobody with even the vaguest idea of what it meant to eliminate the AMT would say that it had to be balanced by reducing other taxes.

Remember when George Bush wasn’t able to name the president of Pakistan back in the 2000 campaign? Everyone laughed it off. But this isn’t a game of gotcha. Nobody forces Rudy to say this stuff. He just flatly doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He’s a buffoon. It’s time for the press corps to take notice and quit giving him a pass.

It’s kind of funny to consider just how frequently this comes up when discussing Giuliani. In just the last few hours, Giuliani and his campaign have said:

* Tax cuts + tax cuts = Balance.

* No one should talk about his scandalous personal life.

* 9/11 led him to change his position on gun control.

* Criticism of military officers should not be “allowed.”

Ladies and gentlemen, your Republican frontrunner.

My word – Giuliani is an absolute dumbfuck.

  • I’m beginning to think that even if all of them ran as a committee, it wouldn’t add up to a decent presidential “candidate.”

    Are the people and groups he talks to getting to the point where they just bust out laughing at the stuff he says?

    Who would have thought that the GOP presidential race would begin to resemble “Last Comic Standing,” except without the humor.

  • On multiple instances over the last several months, Rudy Giuliani has demonstrated a lack of knowledge about foreign policy, national security, domestic policy, and constitutional law.

    When you parlay this with his demonstrated personal and professional amorality, his dislike of brown people in general, his hatred of Muslims in particular, and his relentless self-promotion, it’s easy to see why he leads the Republican field. How can Republicans not love him when he’s everything they want to be?

  • Let’s extend Rudy’s logic: “Eliminate taxes altogether and revenues go to infinity.”

    In my opinion there is some justification to supply-side economics. But, haven’t we about reached the point of diminishing returns? How far can you cut taxes before revenue fails to increase?

  • Isn’t the AMT the tax simplification the GOP says they’ve always wanted?

    If we all end up paying it, can tax preparers get real jobs?

    I’m not sure this is anything the Democrats should touch.
    The “middle class” starting to be affected by this tax increase are still among the most able to afford tax increases that will be required to avoid bankrupting the country if we’re to somehow pay for the Republican war in Iraq.

    PS. Rickles @ 4. Amen.

  • Be fair to the guy. It’s called “the alternative minimum tax”. Doesn’t that sound like a tax loophole that allows you to minimize your taxes? Anyone could be confused into thinking eliminating that would increase tax collections.

    And it goes without saying that increases in tax revenues must be balanced.

    Finally, if we didn’t want voodoo economics from our president, why would we have elected George Bush twice?

  • Let’s extend Rudy’s logic: “Eliminate taxes altogether and revenues go to infinity.”

    Nah, Rudee would never say this. Anyone can see that’s hogwash. A finite reduction in taxes can’t make revenues go to infinity.

  • Even if cutting taxes increased revenues… wouldn’t eliminating the AMT be, in effect, a tax cut? Why would it need to be “balanced” with anything?? It doesn’t make sense even within Giuliani’s deranged understanding of fiscal policy.

  • Guys, guys, take down the ring binder, and check The Narrative.

    “He’ll say anything just to win” is a charge that can only be leveled at Democrats.

    And if you read on into the next section — there’s a Post-It note marking the place, I believe — you will note that the Republicans are the party of fiscal probity.

    Sheesh, get with the program, why don’t ya? Those summers in the Hamptons don’t just materialize from thin air.

  • The US National Debt is currently:
    $9,009,169,642,642,944.17
    That’s $29,728.60 for every man, woman and child in the US.

    There have been four increases in the Debt Ceiling and Bush’s Treasury Secretary is now calling for a fifth one.

    This is the result of tax cuts and the Republican version of Supply Side Economics.

    Look for Giuliani to suggest a negative tax wherein his administration sells a couple of small states and all of the National Parks to the Chinese then sends the money to the wealthiest 2% of Americans. That should send revenues through the ceiling!

  • I think most people are missing the main idea behing the ORIGINAL AMT.

    It wasn’t designed to raise much money. It was designed to stop really rich people from abusing the tax code.

    My job is to help corporations reduce their income taxes. There is a point where you can’t efficiently reduce taxes any more because you would start paying AMT.

    The individual AMT now catches millions of people who don’t do anything unusual at all. If you have a mortgage and work in New York City then you are almost assured of paying AMT. I don’t think that was the original idea and I don’t think anyone can defend the AMT for those taxpayers.

    The simple solution is to raise the AMT exemption to $150,000. Then the rich people would be prevented from abusing the system and it wouldn’t affect the lower 98% of the people at all.

  • I think Rudeeeee means that if he gives the middle class a tax “cut” by eliminating the AMT, then the rich people will be all flipped out about the unfairness of it all, so he will have to “BALANCE” that with more tax cuts to the rich. That way the “balance” of them always being on top is maintained. Gotta learn to think like an elitist guys!

  • Neil Wilson is the buffoon. Tax revenue is increasing at 4 times the rate of inflation – the deficit persists (though at a smaller level than anyone predicted) because we keep SPENDING. If your boss gives you a $10K raise and your husband loses $12K at the track, you’re out $2K but the problem is not with your career! And we are at the peak of the interest rate cycle – beyond it in fact. So please, can we stop crediting interest rate CUTS with the growth in revenue that has persisted well beyond the interest rate HIKES?

    Oh by the way, on the tree, an orange is green.

  • Ah, my favorite Presidential Urban Legends:

    George Washington chopped down a cherry tree.

    Abe Lincoln wrote his homework on the back of a shovel with a piece of coal.

    JFK told thousands of Germans “I am a jelly doughnut!”

    And, of course, revenue increased in the 1980s because of Reagan’s tax cuts.

    (There’s also the story of Teddy Roosevelt clubbing to death an 800 pound grizzly bear with the severed arm of his hunting guide while in the Rockies, but not many people have heard that one)

  • Can I also point out that these references to the top X or Y percent are incredibly misleading? First off, it’s an income tax, not a wealth tax. Second, there does remain a great deal of income mobility in the US – both relative and, more importantly, in the absolute. People say “oh it’s a tax cut mostly for the top X%” – but then of course, they pay most of the taxes – but then they say “at the expense of everyone else” – but everyone else who pays taxes also gets a tax rate cut, and tax revenue has climbed at 4X CPI, which means there is no “expense.” Moreover unemployment is low – while there is a right side of the Laffer Curve, even there, the tax BASE does keep growing, which means the “need” for much of what government spends money on should decline. You at some point do realize less revenue available for programs for the jobless but you don’t stop creating jobs.

    But I digress. The “income gaps” are largely among the experienced versus the inexperienced – – and the bottom, which is still increasing, comprises mostly entry-level workers. We keep importing poor, low-skilled, low-income people, middle class people keep moving up, and then we point to the gap between the two and think it’s a growing gap between two permanent classes.

  • 2Manchu – except that revenue DID increase in the 1980s because of the tax cuts – what other stimulus was there? Fed policy was tight to neutral the entire decade!

  • I guess this is just one that I’ll never understand – the facts are in. This is debatable as Brady versus Bledsoe – yet so many people persist in declaring the sky to be green.

  • Oh NO, I posted links to FACTS – – – – can’t let those stay up……. they prove Rudy’s RIGHT!

  • Oh NO, I posted links to FACTS – – – – can’t let those stay up……. they prove Rudy’s RIGHT!

    Patrick, comments with nine links and no text get flagged for moderation. I think you’re extraordinarily wrong, but I didn’t block your comment; I approved it.

  • It’s a feature, not a bug, Steve.

    The Republican field is full of frauds and pussies because that’s what they’ve been locked into supporting since 2000 (and honestly, probably even earlier; it just wasn’t so goddamned undeniable then).

    Giuliani just happens to have said the craziest, stupidest shit most recently, but since it’s what he’s *trying* to do, the simplest explanation is that it’s what he thinks will win him the nomination.

    And look at those people — they re-elected George W. Bush, so how wrong can Giuliani be about estimating their gullibility and stupidity?

  • This is why Giuliani’s losing his frontrunner status to somebody as pathetic as Fred Thompson recently. I doubt either one will get the nomination. It wouldn’t hurt to have an intelligent GOP nominee for once, especially if Hillary wins the nomination, because I’m certainly not voting for her.

  • As usual, the right-wing troll substitutes dogma for argument: Tax cuts work because they work. Deficits are irrelevant. That which can’t go on forever can, in fact, go on forever.

    Kudos to CB for not deleting his idiocy, though. Too bad the sites on the absolutist Right would never extend a progressive the same privilege… but then, I guess that’s the point.

    As for Rudito Mussoliani, he’s not really all that dumb; he understood that to win in the modern Republican Party requires crawling up at least one of two asses: Dobson’s, or Norquist’s. What with the homo-coddling and (to a much lesser extent) the serial adultery, Dobson’s drawbridge was shut tight. So Grover it had to be. He doesn’t need to make sense; he just needs to keep cutting taxes, for the richest. And his belligerent hatred of the Dark-Skinned folks is a sufficient proxy for the usual Bible-thumping.

  • Rudy did not lower the city income tax at all during his 8 year regime, can’t blame 9/11 for that either.

  • You mean, the revenue in the 1980s generated AFTER the payroll tax was increased in 1983?

    And the 1982 tax increases that rolled back a chunk of the 1981 tax cuts (apparently, the deficit was spiraling a bit out of control)?

    And the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (sponsored by Democrats) that closed many tax loopholes and shelters?

  • General election commercial idea:
    10 seconds of graphs and charts showing our skyrocketing military budget under Bush.
    10 seconds of various Republicans spouting tax-cutting nonsense.
    final 10-second voice-over: “You know what the biggest problem is with our country: the whole Republican party thinks you get out of debt by spending more and making less.”

    Of course this would have to come from someone like Move-On because if a candidate aired it the media would crucify them for being “anti-military”.

  • ***Oh NO, I posted links to FACTS***
    ——————————-some pernicious little troll-child on Giuliani’s payroll

    Each of the above items identified as “facts,” as per “trombly,” are clearly identified at their source as “opinions”—thus, are not recognized as “facts” in the academic sense. I shoot down research papers and dissertations on a regular basis for presenting “opinion” as “fact.” For some strange reason, they’re predominantly written by “stupid conservative spawn.”

    I do enjoy the irony of the situation, though—stupid conservative spawn borrows tens of thousands of Uncle Sam’s dollars to come to my employer and pay my salary; stupid conservative spawn spends years beating me over the head with meaningless drivel; stupid conservative spawn coagulates meaningless drivel by using “opinion” as “fact” to create a gooey mass of babblespeak that’s unacceptable (even to a dead and half-devoured prairie dog) as a research thesis/dissertation—but may play well on the Rush Limbaugh Comedy Show; I send stupid conservative spawn home to his/her/its mummy and dah a broken, scarred-for-life wreck with a paper bearing enough red ink to make Joe Stalin look like Barry Goldwater.

    Go back to your fat fool of a master, patsy, and tell him your cute stunt failed miserably….

  • hey morons

    tax cuts = increased business

    increased business = record tax revenues

    you dumb little kids don’t understand business, the economy, and the very fiscal foundation of the country that tolerates you

  • So how do you explain the economic boom during the post-World War II era, during the highest peacetime tax rates in our country’s history?

    Not to mention the 1990s economy, which followed two major tax increases in 1990 and 1993.

    And according to Paul Krugman, the tax increase in 1982, under Reagan’s watch, was even larger than the 1993 tax increase under Clinton.

    Greenspan recently gave Clinton praise for his sound fiscal policy (when taxes were higher), and berated Bush II, and the GOP-controlled Congress, for their lack of fiscal responsibility (when taxes were slashed, during a war).

  • 1.
    Rudy got Bloomberg into office and Bloomberg gave us some of the largest tax hikes in US history. Rudy at no point stuck up for us taxpayers. Because he was too scared to take on The Billionaire.

    FACT: Rudy is a two-face according to conservatives and liberals alike.

    2.
    Rudy, like his heroes Reagan and Bush Boy, promises record deficits and record spending and record financial ruin with their superliberal spending.

    He doubled NYC’s debt in just 8 years and not one media outlet will discuss this.

    Hmmm.

    3.
    Due to his record taxhikes, Bloomberg’s City Hall has “created” the largest surpluses in NYC history, far eclipsing the budget surpluses under Tax Hiker Rudy.

    ASK Rudy how Bloomberg did this.

    If Rudy was rhetoric was right, NYC would have no surpluses b/c Rudy Jr.’s record tax HIKES should have devastated NYC’s economy and businesses.

    Either Rudy is a liar, or else Rudy is a liar.

    Anyone want to guess which?

    And this is precisely why he cannot lose the election, just like Slick Willie.

    Nice guys finish last (b/c bad guys finish first). Duh.

    GiulianiScandals dot blogspot dot com

  • Deficits aren’t irrelevant – they’re just smaller than they used to be….

    Tax revenue is up. It is up faster than ever. Does that prove that the tax cuts are the reason?

    No.

    But what does?

    That would be proof that tax revenue went up ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL.

    Well, the CBO does its projections based on those “all other things” – thus if revenue rises faster than the CBO projects that it will, with or without the tax cuts, not for six months or a year but 4 years, would you accept that?

    Because that’s what has occurred.

  • Comments are closed.