*looking at my pay stub*

I dunno about the upper 2%, but what i've paid in taxes this year is f***ng
ridiculous. Why can't spending deficits be resolved through less spending,
instead of more taxing????

><snip>

> Nobody thinks Reaganomics worked, at least nobody credible that's being
honest.
>
> The core of Reagan's plan was the so-called Laffer Curve (no pun
> intended).  Mr. Laffer postulated that if taxes were lowered federal
> government tax receipts would actually go up since the economy would
> explode due to all of the freed up capital that would now be put into
> businesses.
>
> He was right in that something had to be done about tax rates and Mr.
> Reagan was right to lower them.  After the cuts, however, tax receipts
> didn't rise significantly, but they didn't sink drastically either.
> Laffer proponents will say that's proof that it sort of worked.
>
> Most people who've studied it have concluded that tax receipts didn't
> drop off drastically because rich people, whose tax rate was 70% +,
> were no longer incented to keep their money in off shore tax shelters
> so they repatriated their money which then got taxed at 30% +.
>
> If you remember, Mr. Reagan raised taxes in his second term because he
> had no choice.  So even Mr. Reagan would say Reganonmics didn't work
> how he was told.
>
> The deficit hobbled the economy until Mr. Clinton's term where he
> raised taxes on upper income folks by about 7% in 1993.  He used the
> funds to pay off the deficit which freed up money that was being used
> to service the debt.  That service capital was invested into the
> country and triggered the largest wealth expansion in global history.
>
> One of the key factors in this equation was the Republican Congress
> helping to hold Mr. Clinton's discretionary spending down to 3.7% per
> year, less than half the rate of Mr. Bush's current non-defense
> non-security spending.
>
> This successful equation is why, if you're a fiscal conservative,
> you'll vote for Mr. Kerry and Republicans for Congress.  Mr. Bush's
> loss will discredit big gov't neo-cons and you'll see fiscal
> responsibility returned to the Republican party.
>
> If Mr. Bush wins, however, the money train will continue stronger than
> ever and the next generation will be the first to have less than its
> predecessor.
>
<snip>




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Purchase from House of Fusion, a Macromedia Authorized Affiliate and support the CF 
community.
http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=34

Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:133181
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54

Reply via email to