Posted on 11/30/2010 7:46:09 PM PST by Al B.
In “America By Heart” folks will get a feel for some of my favorite writers and thinkers. One of them is the great economist Thomas Sowell. Some of you may recall that in “Going Rogue” I mentioned Sowell’s famous book “A Conflict of Visions” to explain the way the liberal or “progressive” world view and philosophy differs from the conservative view. Sowell’s articles are always worth reading, and his most recent column is no exception. He reminds us where our attention needs to be during this lame-duck session of Congress. He notes that the Democrats have articulated their tired class warfare argument about “tax cuts for the rich,” but conservatives have still not articulated our proven time-tested argument that tax cuts spur economic growth, which in turn helps everyone from all income levels and increases tax revenue as the economy grows. Sowell reminds us:
“These are not new arguments on either side. They go back more than 80 years. Over that long span of time, there have been many sharp cuts in tax rates under presidents Calvin Coolidge, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush. So we don’t need to argue in a vacuum. There is a track record.
“What does that record say? It says, loud and clear, that cuts in tax rates do not mean cuts in tax revenues. In all four of these administrations, of both parties, so-called “tax cuts for the rich” led to increased tax revenues — with people earning high incomes paying not only a larger sum total of tax revenues, but even a higher proportion of all tax revenues.
“Most important of all, these tax-rate reductions spurred economic activity, which we definitely need today.”
But as Sowell later points out, having a proven time-tested policy isn’t enough if we don’t articulate it. We need to remind people that tax cuts help everyone. And we should also remind the Democrats that many of the so-called “rich” they’re dismissing are our small business owners who account for 70% of all job creation in this country. At a time when we need job growth, we should not target job creators with tax hikes. Closing our deficit gap requires us to cut spending, but we also need to spur economic growth. With that in mind, the last thing we should do is hamper our economic innovators and entrepreneurs with excessive taxes, overly burdensome regulation, and more uncertainty. This is not a difficult argument to make. It’s common sense.
- Sarah Palin
You go girl!
Palin “above the fray” ping
You can write?
In “America By Heart” folks will get a feel for some of my favorite writers and thinkers. One of them is the great economist Thomas Sowell.
Sarah Palin on Thomas Sowell Ping!
Thanks for the heads up, Gene Eric!
Not very well.
But he can post ideas and articles that would play well on KOS.
I've finally decided he's not worth much more than a warm bucket of spit. He's not a conservative, he's a troll.
:-)
Go Sarah!!
LOL. I’ve always loved that sign.
China is full of stuff like that. It’s everywhere.
((((((((Palin Ping))))))))
Sarah quotes Sowell.
Still, we're only talking federal taxes here which doesn't take into account the cumulative effect taxes have on people when all forms of taxation paid to government reach levels of 50-60-70% etc. Sheltering income becomes a priority at these levels.
Had the feds been kept within the bounds intended by the Constitution, their 'share' of taxes would be significantly lower today. This mal-administration intends to bankrupt this country with the hope they might install a VAT tax to close gaps that will result from their spending, and, failure to extend tax breaks to all incomes is a clear indication of this intent.
As the purse-snatching party, the rat-0-crats have had this planned all along. Anyone earning more than $30K per year thats votes for them is braindead. Their plan is to steal from everyone they can, not just those 250K and higher. They'll snatch what you've got any way they can.
Anyone that reads Sowell is OK in my book. Try Vision of the Anointed. Great read.
Eliminating the income AND property taxes, the most intrusive and egregious of any forms of taxation, works even better!!!
Hey, I've wanted to vote for Thomas Sowell since 1980, when I read his breakout book, Knowledge and DecisionsBut the fact is that he always belonged on the Supreme Court, where logic and lucid writing is the name of the game.
He was never going to make an independent run for the White House like Ronald Reagan, and he was already 50 in 1980. He's now 80, and the only possibility of his becoming president would have had to have been after winning the vice presidency after being thrust into national politics by a winning Republican presidential candidate. Much as Sarah Palin was.You need only review the post-Reagan Republican nominees - GHWB, Bob Dole, and GWB - to understand that none of them had the vision to nominate Sowell for VP. I didn't trouble to mention McCain; by then Sowell was way past the age to be considered, and in any case would never have run for POTUS after a term as VP by then. That's also true of the 2000 election, for that matter; apparently Sowell's health isn't much better than Cheney's, tho Sowell hasn't gone public with what his problem is specifically.Bottom line is that, much as we might wish otherwise, neither Ronald Reagan nor Thomas Sowell is available as a presidential candidate. We are stuck with the field we've got - and that means, in practical terms, that we need to coalesce around a solid conservative. After all, if there are multiple, sort of OK, candidates then the result can easily be the nomination of a John McCain, as we saw only two years ago.
My definition of a solid conservative is someone who wants to be Reagan and who favorably quotes Thomas Sowell. My criteria for a presidential nominee is that the candidate must be a current or recent governor (no senator has ever defeated a sitting president's bid for reelection) - and someone who is willing and able actually to fight, even when Big Journalism treats any attack on the incumbent president as a breach of decorum. When I apply those criteria to the current field, I see Palin as the best fit.
It is easy to exaggerate her "culpability" in the failure of the Republicans to regain the Senate majority; Palin did not endorse Sharron Angle until after Angle won the primary in Nevada. Afterward, she did - unlike Karl Rove's going into a public snit over the primary victory of Christine O'Donnell.
The bottom line is that the answer to Reagan's famous question,
Are you better off today than you were four years ago?will determine if Obama wins reelection. If that answer is "No," Obama will still make a lot of noise, but he will be defeated in November 2012. Always presuming that the Republican candidate asks that question. And if the Republican wins, will we be stuck with a McCain, or will we have someone who quotes Thomas Sowell and gives Ronald Reagan's portrait pride of place in the oval office?
((((PING))))
BTTT
Too bad the GOP "leadership" doesn't have the spine that Sarah does. I don't see the words compromise or common ground anywhere in her post.
Keep crushing 'em, Sarah!
we need to make it a part time job....like jury duty.
More accurately, unlike Reagan she has always been a Republican.
Is it being taught in school or do they teach 'hate the rich' doctrine now instead?
Common sense? It's voodoo economics, don't you know?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.