| You do not address the central issue - The Tax Cuts were because we had this SURPLUS that needed to be returned to the taxpayers. There was NO SURPLUS and thus no reason for the tax cuts! How can you return something you DO NOT HAVE? |
I can't hold my tongue any more.
The tax cuts were to get us out of a recession caused by Mr. Bush 41 and Mr. Clinton raising taxes to the point that the economy was sinking. The excuse of taking it from a nonexistent surplus only made it easier for the stupid to agree too. Everyone that understands money and how it works within the economy knows this but you don’t seem to get it even though you worked for six major organizations. I like how you say the surplus was nonexistent but the same projections for the surplus are the ones used to project the deficit you cling to. So either they are both nonexistent or they both exist. To be honest they are both fake. They are the guesses from educated men. The great thing about being an economist, my son tells me, is you only have to be right once to make your mark. Most are wrong because they guess, educated guesses, but still guessing. The facts come in and then you will know who is right and who is wrong. The ones that are right will be listened to again and the ones that are wrong will still be listened to because they might be right some day. My son told me this when he was getting his doctorate in economics.
| There may be some middle income families in the top third of the middle class that would not be severely impacted by a tax increase but NONE of the wealthy would be adversely impacted by going back to the tax structure that existed in the 1990's. That is what needs to happen and I hope the Democrats do just that! There was no justification for the big tax cuts to the wealthy because there was NO SIURPLUS to give them back which was the Bush justification for the big tax cuts the majority of which is going to the top 20%. In fact by 2010 when all the tax cuts to the wealthy are in place, over 50% of the tax cuts will go to the top 1%. That is ridiculous! |
I stole this from Herman Cane' article called stop lying about taxes. please prove him wrong.
When President Ronald Reagan came to office in 1981, the economy was mired in high interest rates, high unemployment and stagflation produced by policies of the 1970s. Reagan cut the highest individual tax rate in 1981 from 70 to 50 percent, and cut the lowest rate from 14 to 11 percent. In 1986 he further cut the top rate from 50 to 28 percent.
Reagan's tax rate cuts helped produce the longest period of peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history. Total tax revenues grew by over 99 percent during the 1980s, and the economy grew by an average of 4 percent each year. As we saw in the 1960s, the wealthiest Americans paid the most taxes following Reagan's rate cuts. The top 10 percent of income earners went from paying 48 percent of all taxes in 1981, to over 57 percent by 1988.
The other lie liberals perpetually tell is that low tax rates cause budget deficits. History proves just the opposite - that cuts in income, capital gains and dividends tax rates increase the amount of federal revenues available for Congress to spend. The only thing that can cause a budget deficit is when Congress spends in excess of available revenues, and the president at the time signs off on that spending. Members of Congress who blame tax cuts for causing deficits might as well argue that gun manufacturers cause homicides, fast food restaurants cause obesity and cigarette makers cause lung cancer. Surely no one would agree with that flawed logic.
JoeUser Forums
