Posted on 06/10/2004 10:01:06 AM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
I am sorry but what policy did Carter enact that lead to the recovery?
Huh??? That's the most fun part!
I didn't need to read beyond this line. Typical liberal condescension
I knew there was a reason I don't read the Seattle Times. Thanks for reminding me.
Tough to spend something that you don't have. Though liberals and some Republicans do try.
Isn't it interesting how Liberals always are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Maybe that's why they never reach the right conclusions about historical data.
I hope that people on this board remember the smirking and sneering of Sen. Majority Leader George Mitchell (D-Commieland) on television as he was quizzed about another lie and broken promise made to the President?
And as far as Rep. Rostenkowski ("Don't be too tough on Rosti" - David Broder) he was a common thief and crook.......as well as head of the Ways and Means Committee.
Lies lies and damn lies from the Left as always.
Regards,
He turned down the White House thermostat and put on a sweater. He put on a sweater, man!
No, wait, that's what he did for the energy crisis.
This one ranks with "risky scheme" as a flag with the words "I'm an idiot" emblazoned on it. Reagan's tax cuts resulted in increased revenues, clearly, unequivocally, and immediately. This should have been good news for the social spenders, but in fact, they've never forgiven him for it.
Back in 1993 or 1994 there was an editorial in the WSJ (likely written by Bartley) called "Hillary Rodham Laffer?"
It states that she had the Rose Law Firm pay her a large chunk of her 1993 income in December of 1992 (or was it 94 and 93?) to ensure that less of HER money would be subject to her husband's tax increase of the following year.
She single-handedly proved the Laffer Curve and supply-side.
Economic ignorants like the writer of this editorial want to cling to the "static analysis" of the effect of tax cuts. But it requires only common sense -- NOT a degree in economics -- to figure out that changes in tax policy/law will change the financial behavior of those subject to said tax policies and laws.
It also helps if you don't have so much of your ego invested in APPEARING to care about the downtrodden that you are actually willing to HURT said downtrodden in order to maintain that APPEARANCE...
When Reagan came into office, the top marginal income tax rate stood at around 70%. When he left office, there were only two income tax rates of 15% and 28%. Somebody explain to me how that constitutes a tax increase.
And who was he going to increase taxes on, the non-working people?
What a moron.
Lowering inflation, interest rates and taxes is a bad thing?
Froma Harrop, call me if you ever escape la-la land.
Reaganomics defeats socialism at its source. It cuts off its money supply and lets it choke to death. That's the socialist author's hidden motive against it. Deficits and debt are no way to run a prosperous business, however these same tools are very cost effective for making an enterprise non-prosperous: the government.
Reckless tax cutting? What about reckless welfare statism and the endless teat of mama guv?
This article sounds more like it's coming Froma Moron...
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.