Cutting Taxes has HELPED the Economy...Look at the Numbers!

This is for bleeding heart socialist liberals that still believe the best way to help the economy is to tax to death the producers and workers of this country. No free civilization has ever taxed themselves into prosperity (income tax redistribution) as money in the hands of the producers has made and is making the economy produce tax revenue over and above previous years with HIGHER marginal tax rates.

Socialists liberals scratch their head because everytime tax rates are LOWERED, revenue coming into the treasury INCREASES. They just don't get it...and most likely, never will!



Lincoln summed it up best when he stated, "You can't make the poor rich by making the rich poor." Of course, this falls on deaf ears as socialist liberals have NOTHING to offer this country except more income tax redistribution and government programs...all in an attempt to create a voter base (for them) totally depenedent on the government for their existance.

The following is care of the Wall Street Journal as I couldn't said it better myself:

Reaganomics, 25 years Later.

Twenty-five years ago today, Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as the 40th President of the United States promising less intrusive government, lower tax rates and victory over communism. On that same day, the American hostages in Iran were freed after 444 days of captivity. If the story of history is one long and arduous march toward freedom, this was a momentous day well worth commemorating.

All the more so because over this 25-year period prosperity has been the rule, not the exception, for America--in stark contrast to the stagflationary 1970s. Perhaps the greatest tribute to the success of Reaganomics is that, over the course of the past 276 months, the U.S. economy has been in recession for only 15. That is to say, 94% of the time the U.S. economy has been creating jobs (43 million in all) and wealth ($30 trillion). More wealth has been created in the U.S. in the last quarter-century than in the previous 200 years. The policy lessons of this supply-side prosperity need to be constantly relearned, lest we return to the errors that produced the 1970s.

The heart and soul of Reagan's economic agenda were sound money (making the dollar "as good as gold," as Reagan used to put it) and lower tax rates. On monetary policy, Reagan has won a resounding victory. Today, nearly all economists agree with Reagan's then-controversial belief that the sole purpose of monetary policy should be to keep prices stable. Double-digit inflation is a distant memory unlikely to recur anytime soon.

On tax policy, Reaganomics has also carried the day, if somewhat less completely. Tax rates in the U.S. are on average half as high now as they were in the 1970s, and almost every nation has followed the Reagan model of lower tax rates. Even Bill Clinton only dared to raise the top marginal income tax rate back to 39.5%, not 50% or 70%.

Nonetheless, tax cuts still stand in disrepute among most of the media, academics and (liberal) Democrats in Congress, albeit for shifting reasons. When Reagan proposed his 30% across-the-board tax-rate cut, his critics howled that this would cause demand to rise and lead to hyper-inflation. In fact, supply rose faster than demand, and inflation fell to 4% from 13% and has fallen even lower since. When the economy went into a deep recession in 1981-82, Reagan's adversaries (and some of his own advisers) declared his tax cuts a failure. Reagan said stay the course, and the moment the final leg of the tax cut took effect, in January of 1983, the economy roared to life with an expansion that lasted more than seven years.

When the budget deficit rose in the mid-1980s, the liberals warned that if Reagan would not raise taxes interest rates would skyrocket. He didn't and rates didn't. After the 1987 stock market crash, liberal John Kenneth Galbraith wrote that "this debacle marks the last chapter of Reaganomics . . . and the irresponsible tax cuts." Again, Reagan refused to buckle, and two months later the stock market recovered and the expansion roared on--an expansion that didn't end until George H.W. Bush reversed course and raised taxes in 1990.

[Which is why the conservative base like me FIRED him during the 1992 election...see what happens when you abandon tried and true pricinples? Note to G. W. Bush...pay attention to your base]

The Gipper's critics have written an economic history of the 1990s that they portray as a repudiation of Reaganomics. In this telling--known as Rubinomics--the Clinton tax hikes of 1993 ended the budget deficit, which caused interest rates to fall, which produced the boom of the mid- to late-1990s. In fact, the budget deficit hardly fell at all in the immediate aftermath of the tax hike, and while long-term interest rates fell in 1993, they shot back up again in 1994 almost precisely through Election Day (rising by some 230 basis points from October 1993 to November 1994).

On that day, voters repudiated the Clinton tax hikes and the specter of HillaryCare and gave Republicans control of Capitol Hill to govern on the Reaganite agenda of lowering taxes and shrinking runaway government. Both the stock and bond markets turned upward precisely on Election Day in 1994, beginning a whirlwind six-year rally. By 1998, growth and fiscal restraint delivered a budget surplus for the first time in nearly 30 years. In 1997 President Clinton signed a further reduction in the capital gains tax, which propelled investment and the stock market to even greater heights.

The latest chapter of this story is the 2003 income and investment tax cuts enacted by the current President Bush. As in 1981, opponents insisted those tax cuts would harm the economy by increasing the deficit and driving up interest rates. But in the two and a half years since those tax cuts passed, the economy and tax revenues have both surged.

Where Republicans have most strayed from the Reagan vision has been on controlling federal spending. [A huge understatement!]

But most still adhere to his tax-cutting lessons, with a few prominent exceptions (notably Senator John McCain). They should all recall the Gipper's words in his inauguration speech 25 years ago:

"It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government."

 

Just a couple of short comments on a very long post...

It is the size of government spending relative to the total economy that is ultimately important. In the long run, whether we tax the rich, tax the poor, tax everyone the same, or don't tax at all and let inflation pay for the spending is ultimately irrelevant. This is very difficult for many people to understand, but believe me, the leaders of both political parties understand it only too well.

Much of the economic "growth" in recent years is really untreated inflation in the economic statistics. This comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of what inflation is. It is not an increase in the consumer price index. It is the excess of the supply of new money over the demand for new money. Inflation always feels good in the early years. The economy was really humming from the early 60s to almost the mid 70s while inflation was heating up just below the surface. Everyone was pretty content with all of the economic "growth" until it manifested itself as the inflation it really was. Then we had about a decade of economic misery.

The Treasury and Federal Reserve seem to be much better at managing the economy and inflation now than they were then. Some people think they can do this forever; others think it will get out of control. This isn't a partisan political situation at all. And notice the most important word here -- MANAGED. It doesn't matter which party is in control. Both expect the Federal Reserve to MANAGE inflation, MANAGE the money supply, MANAGE the unemployment rate. The Federal Government is expected to MANAGE trade agreements, MANAGE economic growth, and MANAGE job creation. So nobody should fool themselves. We are living in a collectivist society and economic system regardless of the party in power. The collectivist have won, regardless of affiliation. All of the apparent disagreements are for show, or may represent real infighting for power within the same collectivist framework. There are no fundamental policy disagreements between the democrats, republicans, leftists, conservatives, liberals, neoconservatives or whatever other label of the day the collectivists wish to apply to their particular faction.

So we can all continue to play the game, or have the game played on us, or begin to understand the real rules of a game we did not even realize we were playing. But every time a person complains about a liberal or conservative or republican or democrat, they've already lost. That's just the way it is, like it or not.

... and those comments didn't turn out to be short either. LOL

 

Again I have clearly shown that innovation is what helps the economy and tax policy is relevant but not central. How many times do I have to put this idiot to shame?

 

I agree that cutting taxes helps for in theory it will put more money in play, circulation.
Home ownership among minorities is at all times highs.
Stock market prices are near all time highs.
Interest Rates are still relatively low.
The standard of living for Americans is amazing.
The biggest problem now is the cost and quality of medical care for the working poor, lower middle and middle middle class.
At least that is the way I view it coming from nothing and living with something.
The biggest short term problem is that we have becomed spoiled.
The biggest long term problem is that it is becoming a house of cards since we are losing our industry and running up debt which is picked up in T-bills by foreign governments.
The biggest problem now is the cost and quality of medical care for the working poor, lower middle and middle middle class.
At least that is the way I view it coming from nothing and living with something.

 

Now if we could only cut spending too...

 

I agree 1OO%.

 

The government's budget for 2006 is supposed to be around 2.? trillion. Back during the first 5 presidents terms, I am pretty sure it never went above 1 million. And money was worth more back then.

But, when you implement socialist programs like welfare, social security, medicare; allow illegal aliens to have more rights than full ciitizens(and illegal aliens cost billions every year); what do you expect?

Plus, Bush needs more money so he can completely take over our lives, instead of the few billion he uses nowadays to listen to our phone calls, torture prisoners in other countries, put up cameras everywhere, use his Homeland Security wolves to terrorize old ladies, etc.

It makes me sick. Gag choke vomit cough. And disgusted and angry and sad and mortified and gloomy and... then I realize that God is in control of the whole thing, so I should't worry.

Craig

 

Cloudy that was well written, thoughtful and concise, as usual. But, you forgot to blame everything on those dreaded Liberals, credit Ronald Reagan for everything under the sun including the sun itself and quote Abe Lincoln for the umpteenth time. How do you expect people to take the truth without blaming one political party for everything and crediting the other one with everything else? It just doesn't make sense. You'll have to try again but this time stop being so reasonable, level-headed, and unbiased for goodness sake.

 

Every President that takes the oath of office, raises his right hand and recites the following:

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

That is the primary role of the federal government which is to protect its legal citizens from enemies...foreign and domestic. Our founding fathers woulld be spinning in their graves to see how much government is in every part of our lives.

I started the post in order to demonstrate (with the WSJ's help) that YOUR money in YOUR hands is far better than in the hands of a government official who sits behind a desk in D.C. All of the numbers support this. Tax revenues coming into the treasury (adjusted for inflation) have INCREASED after marginal rates were reduced! Again...revenue coming into the treasury INCREASED even when marginal tax rates were reduced!



Why? More of YOUR money in YOUR hands leads to more risk, capital investment, and employers. Remember, you can't have more employees unless you have more employers FIRST. Now...just because the government has all of this money doesn't mean they should spend it! Unfortunately, nobody has fiscal discipline in D.C. They are spending money like a drunken sailor on shore leave...and that is an insult to sailors (sorry).

So...I side on the individual whose in control of their OWN money. Liberals have this notion that this money is theirs...the government's, and use class warfare to fuel their base with lines like, "...they are stealing money from you!". Remember...it is NOT the government's money, it is YOUR money. More of your money in your hands far outweighs any government official that thinks they can spend the money better than you!

Liberals will also use terms like "invest" which is a "feel-good-term" for TAX. Remember...their base is dependent on their social programs and the more social programs they distribute YOUR money to, the larger their voting block is at the expense of people that work and produce for this country.

I side with the individual and believe that the feds should stick to defense and infrastructure in order to expand the US economy...not suffocate it!

Kennedy cut marginal tax rates...revenues went up. Reagan cut margial tax rates and the economy exploded! Bush II cut marginal tax rates and look at the money coming in the federal coffers (far and above adjusted for inflation!).

 

Midas you are an idiot. How many times do I have to show that you are wrong.

 

Congratulations Danr! We have to agree that if nothing else, you are consistent and dependable. Unfortunately it happens to only be in stupidity!:whistle:

 

If Federal revenue is increasing so greatly, then why is our government debt load at historically high levels? Why has the current administration borrowed more than every previous presidency combined?

On a more personal note, why has my income level dropped relative to inflation for the last three years? My tax load certainly hasn't decreased - I'm apparently not rich enough.

It's certainly possible to diddle the economy to create good-looking short-term results. The only people willing to do that are the ones who don't understand the long-term ramifications of what they're doing. And we have nobody to blame but ourselves, because we elected them.

 

One at a time...

Because discretionary spending is outpacing the revenues coming in. It is my contention along with other true fiscal conservatives that just because you get a "raise" in your salary doesn't necessarily mean you should spend OVER and ABOVE your new additions in revenue. Face it...discretionary spending is out of control. Nobody has the guts to show restraint. We don't want to "offend" anybody.

IMO...the biggest threat to inflation is energy prices. We are competing for the same oil against developing economies in India and China. Of course, they have BILLIONS of people that want this limited supply of oil too and with 55 cents of every dollar goes to crude prices ALONE, energy prices have effected everything from making our products to receiving them.

Since liberals have thwarted every attempt to increase oil supplies (i.e., Alaska drilling, Gulf Shore drilling, no more nuclear power plants, no more refiners, etc.), the supply issue is even more hampered causing commodities to go up further. Of course they complain about oil prices as they sip their $4 Starbuck coffee, so go figure!?!

***************************************************************************

So that was Mr. Liberal's response to my post...calling me and idiot...AGAIN!?! (Boring)

Typical response from a liberal...no facts, no rational, no logic...the boy can't even articulate his own thought so what does he do...he resorts to name calling.

I guess he never heard of the phrase: "Before you raise your voice, reinforce your argument!"

Asking this boy to back up his claims with documents and facts (wait...here comes a google/video) is NON-EXISTENT...becasue he CAN'T DO IT...so let his name calling continue...again...YAWN!

How is a liberal different from a puppy? A puppy stops whining after it grows up.

 

So old dan you think innovation has nothing to do with the economy?
Hopefully medical innovation will come up with something for your alzheimer's

 

Again it is about innovation not taxes. Why do you keep coming back for more punishment.:desk: :desk:

 

danr, are you going to post something with a shred of proof to backup your one-liners throughout this thread. Reaganomics did indeed work, our society is proof of it now. I fail to see how innovation causes rising revenues as much as a decrease on the tax burden that those revenues produce. Innovation to large companies is now called outsourcing.

 

We have gone over it so many times in other threads.This Midas idiot keeps posting the same poop, it is unreal. Just look at the warehousing and logistics developments without which Dell would not exist. That one is obvious, look at what mp3 players did for Apple. How many examples do you want?

 

How many do you have?

 

ROTFLing I'm in the doghouse now, and that picture is soooo true

B

 

Now that's funny Old Dan. I presume the democrat is on the left and the republican is on the right.