Obama did not say Americans are lazy

[Lonestar_logic]

You mean silly FAKE facts. The real facts are that revenues go down when taxes are cut.

You are evidently blind, deaf AND dumb!

Speak for yourself. The facts prove me right.

“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

“In today’s economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today’s economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.”

– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill



I guess you're calling Kennedy a liar.

 

[Caroljo]

a...duh...it has actrually proven to do the opposite.

Don't be tryin' to confuse the liberal numbnuts with silly old facts!

You mean silly FAKE facts. The real facts are that revenues go down when taxes are cut.

Tax cuts puts more money in the consumers pockets....
More money in your paycheck, more money will be spent growing the economy!
Our economy is never going to get better as long as asswipe's keep taxing! People are not going to spend money when they don't even know if they'll have a job next week.
Obama had even tried to put a new tax on Christmas trees! What an ass!
There's other ways for the gov't to make money, not just by taxing! How about taking some cuts in THEIR paychecks instead! Cut out alot of the frivolous crap they spend money on....the Dems will not even consider something like that!

 

[edthecynic]

Don't be tryin' to confuse the liberal numbnuts with silly old facts!

You mean silly FAKE facts. The real facts are that revenues go down when taxes are cut.

OK. live with that.
But the facts prove otherwise.
Your media and Your party just dont want yopu to know it.

Whats it like to say dumb things becuase your politicians tell you lies?

You should know that better than anyone!

 

[edthecynic]

You are evidently blind, deaf AND dumb!

Speak for yourself. The facts prove me right.

“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

“In today’s economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today’s economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.”

– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill



I guess you're calling Kennedy a liar.

Kennedy is entitled to his OPINION, but opinions are not facts. Revenues fell in 1965 after Kennedy's 1964 tax cuts.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxcollections.htmThe Kennedy tax cuts are another favorite supply-side myth; many claim that once the tax cuts went into effect in 1964, income tax collections grew. But as you can see from the chart below, growth in income tax collections sharply dropped off:
Federal Income Tax Collections (Constant dollars, CPI-U) (3)

Year Receipts Percent change from previous year
--------------------------------------------------
1961 $138,069 ---
1962 150,567 + 9.0%
1963 155,375 + 3.2
1964 156,804 + 0.9 < tax cut takes effect
1965 154,475 - 1.5 In 1965, the economy was in the fifth year of a nine-year expansion, and for income tax collections to see negative growth was, again, most uncharacteristic. Income tax collections did rise in 1966, but by this time President Johnson was accelerating the economy with Keynesian deficit spending on the Vietnam War. (These deficits he hid by unifying the federal budget with Social Security.) The greater economic activity resulted in more tax collections, and to disentangle any alleged supply-side benefits from the Keynesian benefits is all but impossible.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Speak for yourself. The facts prove me right.

“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

“In today’s economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today’s economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.”

– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill



I guess you're calling Kennedy a liar.

Kennedy is entitled to his OPINION, but opinions are not facts. Revenues fell in 1965 after Kennedy's 1964 tax cuts.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxcollections.htmThe Kennedy tax cuts are another favorite supply-side myth; many claim that once the tax cuts went into effect in 1964, income tax collections grew. But as you can see from the chart below, growth in income tax collections sharply dropped off:
Federal Income Tax Collections (Constant dollars, CPI-U) (3)

Year Receipts Percent change from previous year
--------------------------------------------------
1961 $138,069 ---
1962 150,567 + 9.0%
1963 155,375 + 3.2
1964 156,804 + 0.9 < tax cut takes effect
1965 154,475 - 1.5 In 1965, the economy was in the fifth year of a nine-year expansion, and for income tax collections to see negative growth was, again, most uncharacteristic. Income tax collections did rise in 1966, but by this time President Johnson was accelerating the economy with Keynesian deficit spending on the Vietnam War. (These deficits he hid by unifying the federal budget with Social Security.) The greater economic activity resulted in more tax collections, and to disentangle any alleged supply-side benefits from the Keynesian benefits is all but impossible.

huppi.com.....

 

[Dragon]

Tax cuts reduce revenue. DUH

a...duh...it has actrually proven to do the opposite.

No it hasn't. I know the argument: after most tax cuts, tax revenues rose.

Trouble with it is, after each tax INCREASE, tax revenues rose, too. And each non-recession year when tax revenues were left the same, tax revenues rose, too. Which means exactly nothing is proven by the post hoc propter hoc fallacious argument about tax cuts and revenue.

A better measure is what happens to the deficit after tax cuts. You can look at the 1964 tax cut under Johnson, or Reagan's in 1981, or Bush's in 2001 and 2003, and see that after each one, the deficit increased.

 

[edthecynic]

“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

“In today’s economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today’s economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.”

– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill



I guess you're calling Kennedy a liar.

Kennedy is entitled to his OPINION, but opinions are not facts. Revenues fell in 1965 after Kennedy's 1964 tax cuts.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxcollections.htmThe Kennedy tax cuts are another favorite supply-side myth; many claim that once the tax cuts went into effect in 1964, income tax collections grew. But as you can see from the chart below, growth in income tax collections sharply dropped off:
Federal Income Tax Collections (Constant dollars, CPI-U) (3)

Year Receipts Percent change from previous year
--------------------------------------------------
1961 $138,069 ---
1962 150,567 + 9.0%
1963 155,375 + 3.2
1964 156,804 + 0.9 < tax cut takes effect
1965 154,475 - 1.5 In 1965, the economy was in the fifth year of a nine-year expansion, and for income tax collections to see negative growth was, again, most uncharacteristic. Income tax collections did rise in 1966, but by this time President Johnson was accelerating the economy with Keynesian deficit spending on the Vietnam War. (These deficits he hid by unifying the federal budget with Social Security.) The greater economic activity resulted in more tax collections, and to disentangle any alleged supply-side benefits from the Keynesian benefits is all but impossible.

huppi.com.....

Wow! Those numbers of yours really counter the numbers I posted. Great job.

 

[edthecynic]

Tax cuts reduce revenue. DUH

a...duh...it has actrually proven to do the opposite.

No it hasn't. I know the argument: after most tax cuts, tax revenues rose.

Trouble with it is, after each tax INCREASE, tax revenues rose, too. And each non-recession year when tax revenues were left the same, tax revenues rose, too. Which means exactly nothing is proven by the post hoc propter hoc fallacious argument about tax cuts and revenue.

A better measure is what happens to the deficit after tax cuts. You can look at the 1964 tax cut under Johnson, or Reagan's in 1981, or Bush's in 2001 and 2003, and see that after each one, the deficit increased.

I already showed that revenue fell after the 1964 tax cut, and revenue fell after Reagan's 1981 & 1982 tax cuts also. Revenue did not increase until Reagan passed the largest peacetime tax increase in history at the end of 1983.

Year Nominal Constant (87 dollars)
---------------------------------------
1980 $517.1 $728.1
1981 599.3 766.6 < tax cut passed
1982 617.8 738.2 < drop
1983 600.6 684.3 < drop

 

[Jarhead]

Tax cuts reduce revenue. DUH

a...duh...it has actrually proven to do the opposite.

No it hasn't. I know the argument: after most tax cuts, tax revenues rose.

Trouble with it is, after each tax INCREASE, tax revenues rose, too. And each non-recession year when tax revenues were left the same, tax revenues rose, too. Which means exactly nothing is proven by the post hoc propter hoc fallacious argument about tax cuts and revenue.

A better measure is what happens to the deficit after tax cuts. You can look at the 1964 tax cut under Johnson, or Reagan's in 1981, or Bush's in 2001 and 2003, and see that after each one, the deficit increased.

all that being said.....

Read what I responded to.

The poster said that tax cuts reduces revenue.

And I corrected him.

No reason to give out the reasons why......he was wrong and I corrected him.

And an FYI....I may have ben a little more precise with my respoinse....but I was responding to his post that mocked who he was respoinding to...so it only deserved a simple..."you are wrong" type of post.

 

[edthecynic]

a...duh...it has actrually proven to do the opposite.

No it hasn't. I know the argument: after most tax cuts, tax revenues rose.

Trouble with it is, after each tax INCREASE, tax revenues rose, too. And each non-recession year when tax revenues were left the same, tax revenues rose, too. Which means exactly nothing is proven by the post hoc propter hoc fallacious argument about tax cuts and revenue.

A better measure is what happens to the deficit after tax cuts. You can look at the 1964 tax cut under Johnson, or Reagan's in 1981, or Bush's in 2001 and 2003, and see that after each one, the deficit increased.

all that being said.....

Read what I responded to.

The poster said that tax cuts reduces revenue.

And I corrected him.

No reason to give out the reasons why......he was wrong and I corrected him.

And an FYI....I may have ben a little more precise with my respoinse....but I was responding to his post that mocked who he was respoinding to...so it only deserved a simple..."you are wrong" type of post.

That is because you have no facts, and you can't give what you don't have. you fool no one but yourself.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Kennedy is entitled to his OPINION, but opinions are not facts. Revenues fell in 1965 after Kennedy's 1964 tax cuts.

huppi.com.....

Wow! Those numbers of yours really counter the numbers I posted. Great job.

Your numbers are shit!

 

[edthecynic]

huppi.com.....

Wow! Those numbers of yours really counter the numbers I posted. Great job.

Your numbers are shit!

Well, that settles it then.

 

[BlindBoo]

Of course he didn't and anyone who knows how to read a transcript already knew it. The lazy fucks are the ones who parrot what they hear from the Rabid Rightie echo chamber.

He's a Socialist

His pastor hates America

and on and on.....

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Of course he didn't and anyone who knows how to read a transcript already knew it. The lazy fucks are the ones who parrot what they hear from the Rabid Rightie echo chamber.

He's a Socialist

His pastor hates America

and on and on.....

Unlike you liberal pukes, conservatives listen and speak for themselves.

He did in fact call Americans lazy and only a liberal apologist would deny it.

WE'VE BEEN A LITLE BIT LAZY OVER THE PAST FEW DECADES!!!

Who the fuck is the "we've"? If not fellow Americans... who then?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Wow! Those numbers of yours really counter the numbers I posted. Great job.

Your numbers are shit!

Well, that settles it then.

Finally.

 

[edthecynic]

Of course he didn't and anyone who knows how to read a transcript already knew it. The lazy fucks are the ones who parrot what they hear from the Rabid Rightie echo chamber.

He's a Socialist

His pastor hates America

and on and on.....

Unlike you liberal pukes, conservatives listen and speak for themselves.

He did in fact call Americans lazy and only a liberal apologist would deny it.

WE'VE BEEN A LITLE BIT LAZY OVER THE PAST FEW DECADES!!!

Who the fuck is the "we've"? If not fellow Americans... who then?

The perpetual CON$ervative dumb act when CON$ know they are wrong.

As you were already told, the "we've" are the policy-makers that the American people chose to sell investing in this country to foreign investors.

There are a lot of things that make foreign investors see the U.S. as a great opportunity -- our stability, our openness, our innovative free market culture. But we've been a little bit lazy, I think, over the last couple of decades. We've kind of taken for granted -- well, people will want to come here and we aren't out there hungry, selling America and trying to attract new business into America.

 

[edthecynic]

Your numbers are shit!

Well, that settles it then.

Finally.

Too stupid to recognize sarcasm.

 

[Zoom]

Nice spin...Boiking is still a fucking dick, who's desperately trying blame anyone and everyone for him being the towering miserable failure that he is.

By spin, do you mean it was a lie, him calling americans lazy?

 

[BlindBoo]

Of course he didn't and anyone who knows how to read a transcript already knew it. The lazy fucks are the ones who parrot what they hear from the Rabid Rightie echo chamber.

He's a Socialist

His pastor hates America

and on and on.....

Unlike you liberal pukes, conservatives listen and speak for themselves.

He did in fact call Americans lazy and only a liberal apologist would deny it.

WE'VE BEEN A LITLE BIT LAZY OVER THE PAST FEW DECADES!!!

Who the fuck is the "we've"? If not fellow Americans... who then?

No, in fact he called them "a little bit lazy". As to the we've, who was he addressing?

I don't think you are a conservative. Conservatives don't follow the echo chamber. I think you shame Texas.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

this is the insanity the the right has.

They dont care about facts and get mad when people use them.

They have all the lies they need and dont want anyone messing up their thoughts with reality

More wisdom from Truth Doesn't Matter that will end up in someone's sig line!
Why does TDM hate apostrophes?

how much of our debt is due to the Bush tax cuts?


Got any facts to give us?

How much of our debt is due to the fact that Obama can't go too long without feeding his own addiction to Big Government spending? Pelosi's "Pay-As-You-Go", remember that one? How long did THAT policy last?

Instead of giving the Democrats the "GREEN LIGHT" to spend more, by raising taxes on those making over $250,000, maybe it's high time Democrats learn to show the America people they can be serious in allowing "sacrificial" cuts of entitlement AND Big Government spending for once!