Even adjusted for inflation, government spending increased year over year every year of the Reagan presidency except one, 1987, which was long after the recession ended. So Reagan? smaller government?
No.
So for the third time, when did the Bush tax cuts stop working?
For the Nth time....see post #104.
Better, have someone with a degree higher than your GED explain it to you.
Post 104 doesn't answer the question.
All you people have on the Right is to keep claiming we need lower taxes for economic growth.
You say it every time there's a recession, even though taxes were already lowered from the last recession.
You do realize that if cutting taxes is the only solution to getting out of recessions, then eventually taxes are at zero, hell,
fed income taxes are already at zero for half of America. 50% paying no income tax. Next round of GOP tax cuts, what?
60% paying no taxes? Then 70%, then 80%, then 90%?
Question for Conservatives:
What will the Right's plan be for getting us out of some recession in the future, when taxes are already at zero?
Earned Income Credits for Millionaires?????
Think, people.
"All you people have on the Right is to keep claiming we need lower taxes for economic growth."
I love it!
"All you people have on the Right is to keep claiming we need lower taxes for economic growth."
And when I blow your 'thought' out of the water...can I choose a doll from the top shelf???
"...that any new
tax legislation enacted next year should meet the following three tests:
First, it should reduce the net taxes by a sufficiently early date and a sufficiently large amount to do the job required. Early action could give us extra leverage, added results, and important insurance against recession. Too large a tax cut, of course, could result in inflation and insufficient future revenues — but the greater danger is a tax cut too little, or too late, to be effective.
Second, the new tax bill must increase private consumption, as well as investment. Consumers are still spending between 92 and 94 percent on their after-tax income, as they have every year since 1950. But that
after-tax income could and should be greater, providing stronger markets for the products of American industry. When consumers purchase more goods, plants use more of their capacity, men are hired instead of laid-off, investment increases, and profits are high.
Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase
incentives and the availability of investment capital. The government has already taken major steps this year to reduce business tax liability and
to stimulate the modernization, replacement, and expansion of our productive plant and equipment. We have done this through the 1962 investment tax credit and through the liberalization of depreciation allowances — two essential parts of our first step in tax revision — which amounted to a ten percent reduction in corporate income taxes worth 2.5 billion dollars. Now we need to increase
consumer demand to make these measures fully effective — demand which will make more use of existing capacity and thus increase both profits and the incentive to invest. In fact, profits after taxes would be at least 15 percent higher today if we were operating at full employment.
For all these reasons, next year's
tax bill should reduce personal as well as corporate income taxes: for those in the lower brackets, who are certain to spend their additional take-home pay, and for those in the middle and upper brackets, who can thereby be encouraged to undertake additional efforts and enabled to invest more capital.
Third, the new tax bill should improve both the equity and the simplicity of our present tax system. This means the enactment of long-needed tax reforms, a broadening of the tax base, and the elimination or modification of many special tax privileges. These steps are not only needed to recover lost revenue and thus make possible a larger cut in present rates, they are also tied directly to our goal of greater growth. For the present patchwork of special provisions and preferences lightens the tax loads of some only at the cost of placing a heavier burden on others. It distorts economic judgments and channels undue amounts of energy into efforts to avoid tax liability. It makes certain types of less productive activity more profitable than other more valuable undertakings. All this inhibits our growth and efficiency, as well as considerably complicating the work of both the taxpayer and the Internal Revenue Service."
OK...get ready.....here comes the best part!!!!
"
In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment.
The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."
OK...Proves the case for "....you people on the Right.."???
Guess, who am I quoting?? C'mon...take a guess....no one expects you to be right anyway...
Here, look it up:
American Rhetoric: John F. Kennedy - Address to the Economic Club of New York
Those damn right-wingers!!!
""All you people have on the Right is to keep claiming we need lower taxes for economic growth."
I LOVE it!
Gee...I may be in trouble if you ever learn how to read, eh?
