Jeb Bush’s tax plan shows Republicans can’t learn from economic history

[David_42]

They never learn..
Jeb Bush’s tax plan shows Republicans can’t learn from economic history

Jeb Bush released the first details of his tax plan today in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, so we finally learn the secret that will produce spectacular growth, great jobs for all who want them, and a new dawn of prosperity and happiness for all Americans. Are you ready?

It’s…tax cuts for the wealthy! If only we had known that this amazingly powerful tool was available to us all along!

To be fair, not everything in Bush’s tax plan is targeted at the rich — there are some goodies in there for other people as well. But it’s pretty clear that in addition to wanting to revive the Bush Doctrine in foreign affairs, Jeb is looking to his brother’s tax policies as a model for how we can make the economy hum, I suppose because they worked so well the first time.

While many of the details are still vague, here are the basics of what Bush wants to do. He would reduce the number of tax brackets from its current seven down to three, of 10 percent, 25 percent, and 28 percent. This would represent a huge tax cut for people at the top, who currently pay a marginal rate of 39.6 percent. He also wants to eliminate the inheritance tax and the alternative minimum tax (both paid almost entirely by wealthy people), and slash corporate taxes. On the other end, he’d raise the standard deduction and expand the Earned Income Tax Credit, which helps the working poor. He would also eliminate the carried interest loophole, which allows hedge fund managers to pay lower rates on their income.

“We will treat all noninvestment income the same,” he says, which is a reminder that investment income, which is mostly gained by wealthy people, would still be treated more favorably than wage income, which is what working people make.

As Dylan Matthews notes, Bush’s plan is something of a compromise between the supply-siders and flat-taxers who think that cutting taxes on the wealthy is literally the only thing necessary to spur the economy, and the “reform conservatives” who would give the wealthy some breaks but put more of their effort toward changes affecting the middle class. But the biggest problem with Bush’s plan may not so much the particulars, but the fact that he believes that making these changes will “unleash” the American economy.

We’ve had this debate again and again in recent years, and every time, events in the real world prove Republicans wrong, yet they never seem to change their tune. When Bill Clinton’s first budget passed in 1993 and raised taxes on the wealthy, Republicans said it would cause a “job-killing recession”; what ensued was a rather extraordinary economic boom and the first budget surpluses in decades. When George W. Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003, primarily for the wealthy, they said that not only would the economy rocket forward into hyperspace, but there would be little or no increase in the deficit because of all that increased economic activity. What actually happened was anemic growth and dramatically increased deficits, culminating in the economic catastrophe of 2008. When Barack Obama raised taxes, Republicans said the economy would grind to a halt; instead we’ve seen sustained job creation (despite weak income gains).

The lesson of all this, to any sane person, is that changing tax rates, particularly the top marginal income tax rate, has little or no effect on the economy. Yet Jeb Bush wants us to believe that his plan will produce sustained growth of 4 percent or more — something no president since Lyndon Johnson has managed — with what is essentially a rerun of what his brother tried.

He’s hardly alone in this belief. Indeed, with the bizarre exception of Donald Trump, all the Republican candidates put tax cuts that would benefit the wealthy at the center of the their ideas for helping the American economy. So why can’t they learn from history?

 

[Pete7469]

Bed wetters don't know anything about history, or they wouldn't push the same political philosophies that hitler, stalin, mao or any other leftist despot has.

Weapons Grade Stupid.

Anyway, conservatives don't want anything to do with Jeb. The only ones who really want Jeb nominated are moonbats.

 

[Penelope]

Looks like he thinks most of us are stupid.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They never learn..
Jeb Bush’s tax plan shows Republicans can’t learn from economic history

Jeb Bush released the first details of his tax plan today in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, so we finally learn the secret that will produce spectacular growth, great jobs for all who want them, and a new dawn of prosperity and happiness for all Americans. Are you ready?

It’s…tax cuts for the wealthy! If only we had known that this amazingly powerful tool was available to us all along!

To be fair, not everything in Bush’s tax plan is targeted at the rich — there are some goodies in there for other people as well. But it’s pretty clear that in addition to wanting to revive the Bush Doctrine in foreign affairs, Jeb is looking to his brother’s tax policies as a model for how we can make the economy hum, I suppose because they worked so well the first time.

While many of the details are still vague, here are the basics of what Bush wants to do. He would reduce the number of tax brackets from its current seven down to three, of 10 percent, 25 percent, and 28 percent. This would represent a huge tax cut for people at the top, who currently pay a marginal rate of 39.6 percent. He also wants to eliminate the inheritance tax and the alternative minimum tax (both paid almost entirely by wealthy people), and slash corporate taxes. On the other end, he’d raise the standard deduction and expand the Earned Income Tax Credit, which helps the working poor. He would also eliminate the carried interest loophole, which allows hedge fund managers to pay lower rates on their income.

“We will treat all noninvestment income the same,” he says, which is a reminder that investment income, which is mostly gained by wealthy people, would still be treated more favorably than wage income, which is what working people make.

As Dylan Matthews notes, Bush’s plan is something of a compromise between the supply-siders and flat-taxers who think that cutting taxes on the wealthy is literally the only thing necessary to spur the economy, and the “reform conservatives” who would give the wealthy some breaks but put more of their effort toward changes affecting the middle class. But the biggest problem with Bush’s plan may not so much the particulars, but the fact that he believes that making these changes will “unleash” the American economy.

We’ve had this debate again and again in recent years, and every time, events in the real world prove Republicans wrong, yet they never seem to change their tune. When Bill Clinton’s first budget passed in 1993 and raised taxes on the wealthy, Republicans said it would cause a “job-killing recession”; what ensued was a rather extraordinary economic boom and the first budget surpluses in decades. When George W. Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003, primarily for the wealthy, they said that not only would the economy rocket forward into hyperspace, but there would be little or no increase in the deficit because of all that increased economic activity. What actually happened was anemic growth and dramatically increased deficits, culminating in the economic catastrophe of 2008. When Barack Obama raised taxes, Republicans said the economy would grind to a halt; instead we’ve seen sustained job creation (despite weak income gains).

The lesson of all this, to any sane person, is that changing tax rates, particularly the top marginal income tax rate, has little or no effect on the economy. Yet Jeb Bush wants us to believe that his plan will produce sustained growth of 4 percent or more — something no president since Lyndon Johnson has managed — with what is essentially a rerun of what his brother tried.

He’s hardly alone in this belief. Indeed, with the bizarre exception of Donald Trump, all the Republican candidates put tax cuts that would benefit the wealthy at the center of the their ideas for helping the American economy. So why can’t they learn from history?

When George W. Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003, primarily for the wealthy

How much did rates drop for the wealthy?
For everyone else?

 

[S.J.]

The OP is engaging in wishful thinking. Bush isn't gonna be the nominee.

 

[nuhuh]

S.J. is correct, we won't know the Republican nominee until much later in the game and it will not be any of the current class of wannabe's. The one thing we know for sure is that whoever it is will endorse tax cuts for the wealthy and for no other reason than to create and build deficits so that in the end they can all scream in unison that the only way to balance the budget is to scrap Social Security.

Republicans hate America so much they don't care what kind of damage they inflict getting their way. They used to be good at better ideas, now all they care about is themselves and their own fat wallets.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Wrong. It is a demonstrable fact of history that every major tax cut has been followed by robust economic growth and by increased federal revenue:

The Facts About Tax Cuts, Revenue, and Growth

And, FYI, the largest rate cuts in the 2003 tax cuts did NOT go to the rich; they went largely to the lower income groups. Just compare the tax tables for 2003 to those of, say, 2007. Look who got the biggest rate cuts.

 

[The Rabbi]

Wrong. It is a demonstrable fact of history that every major tax cut has been followed by robust economic growth and by increased federal revenue:

The Facts About Tax Cuts, Revenue, and Growth

And, FYI, the largest rate cuts in the 2003 tax cuts did NOT go to the rich; they went largely to the lower income groups. Just compare the tax tables for 2003 to those of, say, 2007. Look who got the biggest rate cuts.

Both the reagan tax cuts and the Bush cuts resulted in high income people sending MORE money to the Treasury, not less. Even Obama aknowledges this is the case.

 

[nuhuh]

Wrong. It is a demonstrable fact of history that every major tax cut has been followed by robust economic growth and by increased federal revenue:

The Facts About Tax Cuts, Revenue, and Growth

And, FYI, the largest rate cuts in the 2003 tax cuts did NOT go to the rich; they went largely to the lower income groups. Just compare the tax tables for 2003 to those of, say, 2007. Look who got the biggest rate cuts.

Those tax cuts did nothing to grow employment for the lower income groups, grew the deficit substantially, kept interest rates high and kept people from banking savings. If we have learned anything at all, cutting taxes while cutting spending can be beneficial to the economy, however, cutting taxes and making them deficit based can have the reverse effect.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wrong. It is a demonstrable fact of history that every major tax cut has been followed by robust economic growth and by increased federal revenue:

The Facts About Tax Cuts, Revenue, and Growth

And, FYI, the largest rate cuts in the 2003 tax cuts did NOT go to the rich; they went largely to the lower income groups. Just compare the tax tables for 2003 to those of, say, 2007. Look who got the biggest rate cuts.

Those tax cuts did nothing to grow employment for the lower income groups, grew the deficit substantially, kept interest rates high and kept people from banking savings. If we have learned anything at all, cutting taxes while cutting spending can be beneficial to the economy, however, cutting taxes and making them deficit based can have the reverse effect.

Those tax cuts did nothing to grow employment for the lower income groups, grew the deficit substantially, kept interest rates high and kept people from banking savings.

Ah, yes, tax cuts always make it harder for me to save.
Wait, whut? LOL!
Idiot.

 

[nuhuh]

Wrong. It is a demonstrable fact of history that every major tax cut has been followed by robust economic growth and by increased federal revenue:

The Facts About Tax Cuts, Revenue, and Growth

And, FYI, the largest rate cuts in the 2003 tax cuts did NOT go to the rich; they went largely to the lower income groups. Just compare the tax tables for 2003 to those of, say, 2007. Look who got the biggest rate cuts.

Those tax cuts did nothing to grow employment for the lower income groups, grew the deficit substantially, kept interest rates high and kept people from banking savings. If we have learned anything at all, cutting taxes while cutting spending can be beneficial to the economy, however, cutting taxes and making them deficit based can have the reverse effect.

Those tax cuts did nothing to grow employment for the lower income groups, grew the deficit substantially, kept interest rates high and kept people from banking savings.

Ah, yes, tax cuts always make it harder for me to save.
Wait, whut? LOL!
Idiot.

Todd, you're a complete idiot or do you want to look at employment figures over that period?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Both the reagan tax cuts and the Bush cuts resulted in high income people sending MORE money to the Treasury, not less. Even Obama aknowledges this is the case.

Disregarding for the moment your assertion as approaching some basis in truth, If more money were coming into the treasury under the Reagan and Bush tax cuts and fiscal policies, why then did the Public Debt increased to 286.4% of it initial value during Reagan's eight (8) budget years and by 205.1% during Bush's eight (8) budget years. If a bunch more was coming into the public purse as you claim, but the Public Debt rose by 286% and 205% of their initial values under Reagan and Bush respectively, then they were HUGE spenders, spending like there was no tomorrow, OR your claim is false OR BOTH!

I'm going with both!!!!

Now which excuse will you use to dodge a direct response to the absolute assertion you made!

 

[rdean]

They never learn..
Jeb Bush’s tax plan shows Republicans can’t learn from economic history

Jeb Bush released the first details of his tax plan today in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, so we finally learn the secret that will produce spectacular growth, great jobs for all who want them, and a new dawn of prosperity and happiness for all Americans. Are you ready?

It’s…tax cuts for the wealthy! If only we had known that this amazingly powerful tool was available to us all along!

To be fair, not everything in Bush’s tax plan is targeted at the rich — there are some goodies in there for other people as well. But it’s pretty clear that in addition to wanting to revive the Bush Doctrine in foreign affairs, Jeb is looking to his brother’s tax policies as a model for how we can make the economy hum, I suppose because they worked so well the first time.

While many of the details are still vague, here are the basics of what Bush wants to do. He would reduce the number of tax brackets from its current seven down to three, of 10 percent, 25 percent, and 28 percent. This would represent a huge tax cut for people at the top, who currently pay a marginal rate of 39.6 percent. He also wants to eliminate the inheritance tax and the alternative minimum tax (both paid almost entirely by wealthy people), and slash corporate taxes. On the other end, he’d raise the standard deduction and expand the Earned Income Tax Credit, which helps the working poor. He would also eliminate the carried interest loophole, which allows hedge fund managers to pay lower rates on their income.

“We will treat all noninvestment income the same,” he says, which is a reminder that investment income, which is mostly gained by wealthy people, would still be treated more favorably than wage income, which is what working people make.

As Dylan Matthews notes, Bush’s plan is something of a compromise between the supply-siders and flat-taxers who think that cutting taxes on the wealthy is literally the only thing necessary to spur the economy, and the “reform conservatives” who would give the wealthy some breaks but put more of their effort toward changes affecting the middle class. But the biggest problem with Bush’s plan may not so much the particulars, but the fact that he believes that making these changes will “unleash” the American economy.

We’ve had this debate again and again in recent years, and every time, events in the real world prove Republicans wrong, yet they never seem to change their tune. When Bill Clinton’s first budget passed in 1993 and raised taxes on the wealthy, Republicans said it would cause a “job-killing recession”; what ensued was a rather extraordinary economic boom and the first budget surpluses in decades. When George W. Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003, primarily for the wealthy, they said that not only would the economy rocket forward into hyperspace, but there would be little or no increase in the deficit because of all that increased economic activity. What actually happened was anemic growth and dramatically increased deficits, culminating in the economic catastrophe of 2008. When Barack Obama raised taxes, Republicans said the economy would grind to a halt; instead we’ve seen sustained job creation (despite weak income gains).

The lesson of all this, to any sane person, is that changing tax rates, particularly the top marginal income tax rate, has little or no effect on the economy. Yet Jeb Bush wants us to believe that his plan will produce sustained growth of 4 percent or more — something no president since Lyndon Johnson has managed — with what is essentially a rerun of what his brother tried.

He’s hardly alone in this belief. Indeed, with the bizarre exception of Donald Trump, all the Republican candidates put tax cuts that would benefit the wealthy at the center of the their ideas for helping the American economy. So why can’t they learn from history?

When George W. Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003, primarily for the wealthy

How much did rates drop for the wealthy?
For everyone else?

And look at all the jobs it created. In China.

 

[The Rabbi]

Both the reagan tax cuts and the Bush cuts resulted in high income people sending MORE money to the Treasury, not less. Even Obama aknowledges this is the case.

Disregarding for the moment your assertion as approaching some basis in truth, If more money were coming into the treasury under the Reagan and Bush tax cuts and fiscal policies, why then did the Public Debt increased to 286.4% of it initial value during Reagan's eight (8) budget years and by 205.1% during Bush's eight (8) budget years. If a bunch more was coming into the public purse as you claim, but the Public Debt rose by 286% and 205% of their initial values under Reagan and Bush respectively, then they were HUGE spenders, spending like there was no tomorrow, OR your claim is false OR BOTH!

I'm going with both!!!!

Now which excuse will you use to dodge a direct response to the absolute assertion you made!

In Reagan's case the Congress was dominated by Democrats, who increased spending far faster than revenue increased. In Bush's case Congress was initially dominated by Republicans who thought they could re-elected by acting like Democrats, and Bush failed to veto any of these spending bills.
But you dont have to take my word for the increase in revenue. There are websites and the like where you could easily track government revenue over time following those tax cuts.
But as I said, even Obama understands that lowering some taxes produces more revenue. If he gets it, why dont you?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wrong. It is a demonstrable fact of history that every major tax cut has been followed by robust economic growth and by increased federal revenue:

The Facts About Tax Cuts, Revenue, and Growth

And, FYI, the largest rate cuts in the 2003 tax cuts did NOT go to the rich; they went largely to the lower income groups. Just compare the tax tables for 2003 to those of, say, 2007. Look who got the biggest rate cuts.

Those tax cuts did nothing to grow employment for the lower income groups, grew the deficit substantially, kept interest rates high and kept people from banking savings. If we have learned anything at all, cutting taxes while cutting spending can be beneficial to the economy, however, cutting taxes and making them deficit based can have the reverse effect.

Those tax cuts did nothing to grow employment for the lower income groups, grew the deficit substantially, kept interest rates high and kept people from banking savings.

Ah, yes, tax cuts always make it harder for me to save.
Wait, whut? LOL!
Idiot.

Todd, you're a complete idiot or do you want to look at employment figures over that period?

Feel free to show how tax cuts hurt employment and made it harder to save.
I'll wait.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They never learn..
Jeb Bush’s tax plan shows Republicans can’t learn from economic history

Jeb Bush released the first details of his tax plan today in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, so we finally learn the secret that will produce spectacular growth, great jobs for all who want them, and a new dawn of prosperity and happiness for all Americans. Are you ready?

It’s…tax cuts for the wealthy! If only we had known that this amazingly powerful tool was available to us all along!

To be fair, not everything in Bush’s tax plan is targeted at the rich — there are some goodies in there for other people as well. But it’s pretty clear that in addition to wanting to revive the Bush Doctrine in foreign affairs, Jeb is looking to his brother’s tax policies as a model for how we can make the economy hum, I suppose because they worked so well the first time.

While many of the details are still vague, here are the basics of what Bush wants to do. He would reduce the number of tax brackets from its current seven down to three, of 10 percent, 25 percent, and 28 percent. This would represent a huge tax cut for people at the top, who currently pay a marginal rate of 39.6 percent. He also wants to eliminate the inheritance tax and the alternative minimum tax (both paid almost entirely by wealthy people), and slash corporate taxes. On the other end, he’d raise the standard deduction and expand the Earned Income Tax Credit, which helps the working poor. He would also eliminate the carried interest loophole, which allows hedge fund managers to pay lower rates on their income.

“We will treat all noninvestment income the same,” he says, which is a reminder that investment income, which is mostly gained by wealthy people, would still be treated more favorably than wage income, which is what working people make.

As Dylan Matthews notes, Bush’s plan is something of a compromise between the supply-siders and flat-taxers who think that cutting taxes on the wealthy is literally the only thing necessary to spur the economy, and the “reform conservatives” who would give the wealthy some breaks but put more of their effort toward changes affecting the middle class. But the biggest problem with Bush’s plan may not so much the particulars, but the fact that he believes that making these changes will “unleash” the American economy.

We’ve had this debate again and again in recent years, and every time, events in the real world prove Republicans wrong, yet they never seem to change their tune. When Bill Clinton’s first budget passed in 1993 and raised taxes on the wealthy, Republicans said it would cause a “job-killing recession”; what ensued was a rather extraordinary economic boom and the first budget surpluses in decades. When George W. Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003, primarily for the wealthy, they said that not only would the economy rocket forward into hyperspace, but there would be little or no increase in the deficit because of all that increased economic activity. What actually happened was anemic growth and dramatically increased deficits, culminating in the economic catastrophe of 2008. When Barack Obama raised taxes, Republicans said the economy would grind to a halt; instead we’ve seen sustained job creation (despite weak income gains).

The lesson of all this, to any sane person, is that changing tax rates, particularly the top marginal income tax rate, has little or no effect on the economy. Yet Jeb Bush wants us to believe that his plan will produce sustained growth of 4 percent or more — something no president since Lyndon Johnson has managed — with what is essentially a rerun of what his brother tried.

He’s hardly alone in this belief. Indeed, with the bizarre exception of Donald Trump, all the Republican candidates put tax cuts that would benefit the wealthy at the center of the their ideas for helping the American economy. So why can’t they learn from history?

When George W. Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003, primarily for the wealthy

How much did rates drop for the wealthy?
For everyone else?

And look at all the jobs it created. In China.

Sure, tax cuts here can be blamed for job creation in China. LOL!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Jeb who??

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Both the reagan tax cuts and the Bush cuts resulted in high income people sending MORE money to the Treasury, not less. Even Obama aknowledges this is the case.

Disregarding for the moment your assertion as approaching some basis in truth, If more money were coming into the treasury under the Reagan and Bush tax cuts and fiscal policies, why then did the Public Debt increased to 286.4% of it initial value during Reagan's eight (8) budget years and by 205.1% during Bush's eight (8) budget years. If a bunch more was coming into the public purse as you claim, but the Public Debt rose by 286% and 205% of their initial values under Reagan and Bush respectively, then they were HUGE spenders, spending like there was no tomorrow, OR your claim is false OR BOTH!

I'm going with both!!!!

Now which excuse will you use to dodge a direct response to the absolute assertion you made!

In Reagan's case the Congress was dominated by Democrats, who increased spending far faster than revenue increased. In Bush's case Congress was initially dominated by Republicans who thought they could re-elected by acting like Democrats, and Bush failed to veto any of these spending bills.
But you dont have to take my word for the increase in revenue. There are websites and the like where you could easily track government revenue over time following those tax cuts.
But as I said, even Obama understands that lowering some taxes produces more revenue. If he gets it, why dont you?

Reagan had the veto power, so why didn't the wimp use it if you're assertion that the Democrats increased the budget over and over? So Bush failed to use his veto power too, and the Democrats held a gun to Bush's head? That dog don't hunt, Bubba!

Here comes the Bullshit flag for 15 yards! What ever the hell you do don't mention Bush's either 7 or so supplemental budgets that were all OFF BUDGET adding nearly $2 trillion to the debt. Reagan cut taxes a couple of times and then turned around and hiked taxes multiple times.

Yet, increasing the cash flow into the Treasury is half of the picture. The other half of the story is the amount leaving the Treasury to pay the bills these spendthrift administrations, regardless of stripe, went through on "defense" buildups and WAR!

Your deflection to avoid acknowledging your premise was flawed is duly noted. Highlight that white mark at the bottom of my initial post to you (#12). You did just what I predicted!

 

[Two Thumbs]

They never learn..
Jeb Bush’s tax plan shows Republicans can’t learn from economic history

Jeb Bush released the first details of his tax plan today in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, so we finally learn the secret that will produce spectacular growth, great jobs for all who want them, and a new dawn of prosperity and happiness for all Americans. Are you ready?

It’s…tax cuts for the wealthy! If only we had known that this amazingly powerful tool was available to us all along!

To be fair, not everything in Bush’s tax plan is targeted at the rich — there are some goodies in there for other people as well. But it’s pretty clear that in addition to wanting to revive the Bush Doctrine in foreign affairs, Jeb is looking to his brother’s tax policies as a model for how we can make the economy hum, I suppose because they worked so well the first time.

While many of the details are still vague, here are the basics of what Bush wants to do. He would reduce the number of tax brackets from its current seven down to three, of 10 percent, 25 percent, and 28 percent. This would represent a huge tax cut for people at the top, who currently pay a marginal rate of 39.6 percent. He also wants to eliminate the inheritance tax and the alternative minimum tax (both paid almost entirely by wealthy people), and slash corporate taxes. On the other end, he’d raise the standard deduction and expand the Earned Income Tax Credit, which helps the working poor. He would also eliminate the carried interest loophole, which allows hedge fund managers to pay lower rates on their income.

“We will treat all noninvestment income the same,” he says, which is a reminder that investment income, which is mostly gained by wealthy people, would still be treated more favorably than wage income, which is what working people make.

As Dylan Matthews notes, Bush’s plan is something of a compromise between the supply-siders and flat-taxers who think that cutting taxes on the wealthy is literally the only thing necessary to spur the economy, and the “reform conservatives” who would give the wealthy some breaks but put more of their effort toward changes affecting the middle class. But the biggest problem with Bush’s plan may not so much the particulars, but the fact that he believes that making these changes will “unleash” the American economy.

We’ve had this debate again and again in recent years, and every time, events in the real world prove Republicans wrong, yet they never seem to change their tune. When Bill Clinton’s first budget passed in 1993 and raised taxes on the wealthy, Republicans said it would cause a “job-killing recession”; what ensued was a rather extraordinary economic boom and the first budget surpluses in decades. When George W. Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003, primarily for the wealthy, they said that not only would the economy rocket forward into hyperspace, but there would be little or no increase in the deficit because of all that increased economic activity. What actually happened was anemic growth and dramatically increased deficits, culminating in the economic catastrophe of 2008. When Barack Obama raised taxes, Republicans said the economy would grind to a halt; instead we’ve seen sustained job creation (despite weak income gains).

The lesson of all this, to any sane person, is that changing tax rates, particularly the top marginal income tax rate, has little or no effect on the economy. Yet Jeb Bush wants us to believe that his plan will produce sustained growth of 4 percent or more — something no president since Lyndon Johnson has managed — with what is essentially a rerun of what his brother tried.

He’s hardly alone in this belief. Indeed, with the bizarre exception of Donald Trump, all the Republican candidates put tax cuts that would benefit the wealthy at the center of the their ideas for helping the American economy. So why can’t they learn from history?

the ignorance of history that is needed to think like a liberal is asstounding.

clintons free houses idea crushed the economy, but leftist refuse to learn this.
Harding vs fdr; harding cut taxes and spending, ending a depression in 18 months, fdr upped taxes and spending, sending the depression past a decade and still needed a war to bring it to an end.

but hey, lets tax and spend more, $18 TRILLION in debt is nothing.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Because things are going so well right now....