"A Rising Tide Lifts ALL Boats"...

[mal]

Do Tax Cuts Spark Economic Growth?...

John F. Kennedy: Remarks in Heber Springs, Arkansas, at the Dedication of Greers Ferry Dam.

I want to Discuss what Kennedy, Reagan and (43) have done, and what the Result was...

I am Aware of the History of the Above Speech, and that it was NOT about Tax Cuts, instead about a "Pork Barrel" Project that of course Created Jobs...

The Concept is More of what I want to Discuss...

The Tax Foundation - Comparing the Kennedy, Reagan and Bush Tax Cuts

And of course, that Concept in Practice.



peace...

 

[Neubarth]

Do Tax Cuts Spark Economic Growth?...

John F. Kennedy: Remarks in Heber Springs, Arkansas, at the Dedication of Greers Ferry Dam.

I want to Discuss what Kennedy, Reagan and (43) have done, and what the Result was...

I am Aware of the History of the Above Speech, and that it was NOT about Tax Cuts, instead about a "Pork Barrel" Project that of course Created Jobs...

The Concept is More of what I want to Discuss...

The Tax Foundation - Comparing the Kennedy, Reagan and Bush Tax Cuts

And of course, that Concept in Practice.



peace...

Take it from an old man like me, Tax Cuts Are Usually a Good Thing for the Economy.

 

[eagleseven]

A rising tide lifts all boats, but it cannot change your rowboat into a yacht.

 

[rdean]

Do Tax Cuts Spark Economic Growth?...

John F. Kennedy: Remarks in Heber Springs, Arkansas, at the Dedication of Greers Ferry Dam.

I want to Discuss what Kennedy, Reagan and (43) have done, and what the Result was...

I am Aware of the History of the Above Speech, and that it was NOT about Tax Cuts, instead about a "Pork Barrel" Project that of course Created Jobs...

The Concept is More of what I want to Discuss...

The Tax Foundation - Comparing the Kennedy, Reagan and Bush Tax Cuts

And of course, that Concept in Practice.



peace...

Did I read that right? The top 1% received more than 26% of the tax cuts?

And at the end of Bush's term, our economy was in shambles?

Here is a great article by Paul Krugman, the recipient of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Economics.

===========================

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21krugman.html

But why would a self-proclaimed progressive say anything that lends credibility to this rewriting of history — particularly right now, when Reaganomics has just failed all over again?

Like Ronald Reagan, President Bush began his term in office with big tax cuts for the rich and promises that the benefits would trickle down to the middle class. Like Reagan, he also began his term with an economic slump, then claimed that the recovery from that slump proved the success of his policies.

And like Reaganomics — but more quickly — Bushonomics has ended in grief. The public mood today is as grim as it was in 1992. Wages are lagging behind inflation. Employment growth in the Bush years has been pathetic compared with job creation in the Clinton era. Even if we don’t have a formal recession — and the odds now are that we will — the optimism of the 1990s has evaporated.

==========================

Turns out he was right.

 

[Big Fitz]

Did I read that right? The top 1% received more than 26% of the tax cuts?

Who pays the most taxes? Why should the bottom 50% get any when it pays none?

And as for Krugman's statements (great article my ass), he avoids the major response of government from increase tax revenues... increased spending. THIS is why debt keeps climbing. Kennedy cut taxes... LBJ gave us the Great Society. Reagan cut taxes, and congress expanded social spending while Reagan rebuilt the military. W cut taxes, and the slapped Medicare part D on top of the debt load created by freddie, fannie and then bailout mania.

And with P-BO winning a Nobel Pizza Prize (good at any of their 7 Oslo locations) for doing nothing, do you really want to be touting that worthless piece of shit award?

We are going to have to divest ourselves of a lot of unconstitutional federal government spending and responsibilities they should never have been allowed to do. Pretty much every Cabinet level position and agency made after 1951 can go as they're all unconstitutional to some degree or another. Some can be merged back into their appropriate cabinet positions like DHS and have their budget slashed. But much of it should be divested back to the states, along with the tax moneys that go along with it, and then the states can decide how much if any of it they want to keep. At least then they'd be constitutional, and off the federal books. Let the states and their citizens figure out what to do from then on... as it should be.

Tax cuts increase revenues to government because cash is moving and investing and becoming more exposed to taxation. Yes you nickle and dime them in comparison, but you get more because more is kept as well by the people who take the risk. This is how it works. Would you rather get three payments of 5% or one payment of 10%? Pretty simple when you think about it.