Posted on 05/08/2003 6:45:23 PM PDT by swaimh
What is "spendz"? You make no sense. Whatever.
Read the Constitution if you are at all confused on this matter.
Please point to any post that I made which endorses "deficit" spending. Perhaps you are trying to respond to someone else's post.
Volker's tight money policy early in the '80's was required to squeeze out the built-up 1970's inflation which resulted from profligate Congressional spending. This did increase the carrying costs of the Federal deficit, and it was tough medicine. However, by 1986 inflation fell to 1.2% from an all time high of 12.8% in 1980 -- Carter's last year in office.
Reagan's supply side policy was captured legislatively in the Kemp-Roth 30% across the board tax reduction act of 1981. Congress whittled it down to 25% and spread it out from 1981-1983, deepening the recession begun in 1979 lasting until 1982, when the last phase of the tax cut finally kicked in. Delaying the cut increased the deficit significantly as industry slowed. However, when the tax cut finally went in entirely, from 1983 through even the Clinton years, the rate reductions kicked off what became known as the Reagan Recovery.
Reagan sought and obtained increases in the military budget, but when your tax cutting policy doubles the tax revenue to the Treasury, it's a bit unfair to say that the military budget -- whose increase destroyed the Soviet Union -- was the reason for Congress' deficit spending. Defense is the Constitutionally mandated responsibility of the Federal government. Deficits were the result of programs the Federal Government shouldn't be involved with in the first place.
Absent all those superfluous Federal programs, there was plenty of money left to assure the collapse of the Soviet Union -- a pretty good long term investment in US security, I'm sure you'd agree.
respectfully disagree....(only because his tax increase is what amounts to "economic policy" for dems!) :)
Please accept my deeply sincere apologies for the typo, oh perfect one. As a mere mortal, I can respond in no other way than to pay homage to your infallibility.
Best,
AWW
First of all, I did not say that you "attacked" me at all (your guilty conscience coming out there just a little bit maybe?). I just invited you to show where anything I said endorsed "deficit" spending. You couldn't, and still can't. Therefore, your comment to me was at best misdirected, and at worst, simplistic and careless.
You've been around this forum about as long as I have, but surprisingly, you debate with the skills of a "newbie," as you seem compelled to fire off incoherent thoughts with about the same precision as a shotgun.
Most readers can quickly ascertain the sad fact (as evidenced by your blubbering sanctimony) that you are embarrased by your unfortunate inability to express yourself cogently (your challenged spelling talent, BTW, is the least among your basic communication difficulties. It seems you are long overdue for a basic course in economics, as well.).
Save your disingenuous "apologies" for someone who needs them, grow a thicker skin, and learn how to take aim at the correct target before your fire.
You are clearly missing your target here in more ways than one.
In a society without income taxes, economic growth occurs when someone takes an idea, puts it into action and grows with it. A progressive income tax acts like a fine or penalty for economic growth. Whenever anyone starts to succeed at something, taxes start going up faster and faster (the progressive part) as income grows. The progressive income tax system acts automatically to choke off growth.
The progressive tax system is very efficient at choking growth. Looking around the world for the past 60 years shows slow or no growth in high progressive areas - Britain, western Europe, the Scandinavian countries. Very fast growth where where there are low or no progressive tax rates - Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan after WWII until 10 years ago, West Germany after WWII until 30 years ago. The US under Kennedy & Reagan.
In the US when marginal rates were high, tax sheltering was a major industry. People whose income was growing used all kinds of shelters to try to keep doing whatever it was they were succeeding at.
One of the little noticed effects of the Reagan tax cuts was the big surge in taxes paid by upper income people. When the marginal rates fell, sheltering became less rewarding so people paid more taxes at lower rates. Supply side cuts had the effect of increasing the taxes paid by upper income people while the working poor were dropped from the tax rolls.
The progressive income tax system had the effect of lowering tax revenues, choking off economic growth, taxing the poor while enriching tax lawyers and accountants. Since it was such an all around loser of a policy, it is much loved by liberals around the world.
Progressive income taxes are advocated by people who have no clue how economies work.
NB I never said anything about deficits or surpluses in this discussion because they are irrelevant to the subject.
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.