In response to:

The Congressional Budget Office's Fiscal Cliff Analysis In Charts

Glen184 Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 12:21 PM
REDUCED TAXES "COST" NOTHING. The only way you can associate a "cost" with NOT raising taxes is to assume that the Government need and deserves that money more than the people who earned it.
MacQ - Texas Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 2:37 PM
Correction if you please: it's to assume that the government owns your money in the first place and decides how much of it you are allowed to keep. That is Obama's assumption.
Nothing to do with need or deserve.
doc, aka Rich Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 4:24 PM
No, the perspective is merely that this is the language of currently passed and signed law (that the tax cuts self expire).
As an accompaniment to the earlier report on the Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the fiscal cliff, here are some charts to help visualize what kind of effect that the policies under discussion will have.

First, the total cost of these policies, in billions of dollars. As it's easy to see, the extension of the Bush tax cuts do the most damage on the revenue ledger of the federal government. Total extension costs $750 billion over two years, while the Democrats' favored policy of extending all but the top rates costs $670 billion. The other major tax provision - an...

Related Tags: CBO Fiscal Cliff