Posted on 05/12/2003 5:47:06 PM PDT by Libloather
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:36:20 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Would the former president, a Democrat have supported President Bush's tax cut plan? A new political ad says yes! We'll show it to you.
Plus, will the GOP succeed in bringing Black voters into the "big tent" in 2004? We'll debate it! Watch Hannity & Colmes at 9 p.m. ET!
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
New Ad Campaign with JFK, Reagan Tax Cuts Targets Senators Daschle, Nelson; Ads to Air in South Dakota, Nebraska
2 hours, 15 minutes ago
To: National Desk
Contact: Kevin McVicker of Shirley & Banister Public Affairs, 703-739-5920 or 800-536-5920
WASHINGTON, May 12 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Club for Growth, one of the nation's leading free-market political advocacy organizations has launched a hard-hitting advertising campaign that calls on Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Senator Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) to support President Bush's job-creating tax cuts. The ads feature the accomplishments of Presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan whose tax cuts stimulated the economy in the 1960's and 1980's respectively.
"Senators Nelson and Daschle need to know that the best way to stimulate the economy is to cut taxes dramatically," said Club for Growth president Stephen Moore. "Furthermore, the people of Nebraska and South Dakota, who overwhelmingly supported President Bush in 2000, support tax cuts.
"President Kennedy wisely called for steep reductions in the capital gains tax. President Bush is calling for a cut in the unfair tax on dividends. With more than half of Americans as part of the investor class, it is a tax cut that will benefit a majority of Americans.
"Now is not the time for watered-down half-measures. Congress must confront the nation's sluggish economy head on and do the right thing: pass the largest tax cut possible. A strong economy is necessary for a strong America," said Moore.
The television ads will run beginning May 12 in Lincoln, Nebraska and Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
The Club for Growth was founded in 1999 to elect pro-economic growth fiscal conservatives. That organization forwards campaign contributions from its members to the most free-market oriented candidates in targeted congressional races. In the 2000 election cycle the Club for Growth spent $ 2.4 million to help elect 10 new Republicans to Congress. The Club for Growth has grown six-fold since the 2000 election cycle and the Club and its members raised or donated over $10 million to help elect seventeen new Members of Congress in the 2002 election cycle.
For more information, please contact Kevin McVicker at 703-739-5920.
It is impossible of course to run a trial study, but non-partisan surveys are revealing. Strip away all the political polemics and ask any American, young or old, rich or poor what a fair tax rate is (average, not marginal). This was done by a non-partisan polling organization years ago and the answer was 20%, regardless of age or income.
This is staggering. The poor are willing to pay 20%, and they don't think the rich should pay a higher percentage!
Democrats are terrified of this fact, and will do anytning to obfuscate the matter. They'll complain about the rich not paying their fair share, etc., etc., and avoid simple honest truths that are held by nearly all Americans.
And what is finally more provocative is that 20% is almost exactly equal to the flat tax rate that would be revenue-neutral. [Other studies said that 16% or 18% would be enough.]
Democrats, like all leftists, lie so impulsively and so frequently that have lost the ability to distinguish the truth from a lie anymore. And the national leader of their party is second in his penchant for lies, right behind the former President.
dipstick; algore; n flipper should get their own show.
can you imagine how funny they'd be? tryin' to be "serious"...
Last week, Rush had a caller that was VERY upset. She demanded that Rush stop talking about JFK - in any way, shape or form. At the time, Rush was doing nothing but explaining the JFK tax policy but she didn't want to hear it. Rush asked if she had some sort of ownership on what could or should be said about JFK and she actually answered, "Yes."
I guess, in lib circles, nothing can be said about JFK that goes against the Camelot grain.
Say, didja hear the news today that JFK had a teenage concubine while in the White House? Nice...
BTW, Ted, we contacted the famous psychic John Edwards who then contacted JFK for us. JFK said it was OK to use his statements to lobby for tax reductions.
JFK also said, "Tell Ted that Mary Jo Kopekne is waiting for him to come over she wants to help bank your eternal fires".
You're very close on Kennedy but Reagan cut the top marginal rate clear down to 28%. It went back up to 31% under Bush 1 and 39.6% under Clinton. I've posted the numbers at http://home.netcom.com/~rdavis2/recsrc.html.
I'm all for cutting taxes, but the economic implications tax cuts go far beyond "It's always a good idea no matter what and everybody's doing it."
I agree. In general, I'm in favor of freezing taxes and spending at their current level of GDP. Then changes should only be made if there is a strong consensus for the changes AND the changes are sustainable. We had finally reached a point where the budget had stabilized, at least until the Boomers retire. That has now been pretty well thrown out the window.
Regarding the comparison of the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts, I did look at both. The effect of the Kennedy cuts on revenues seemed inconclusive but I do think that 90% was too high a marginal rate. However, following is what I found in looking at the Reagan tax cuts:
The argument that the near-doubling of revenues during Reagan's two terms proves the value of tax cuts is an old argument. It's also extremely flawed. The growth of receipts by source, outlays, and GDP over every 8-year period since 1940 is shown in the graph and tables at http://home.netcom.com/~rdavis2/recgrow.html. As can be seen in the first table, total receipts increased 75.84 percent from 1980 to 1988. However, this was the slowest 8-year growth rate since a 75.62 percent growth in total receipts from 1963 to 1971. Of course, these results are likely skewed by the high inflation that occurred during the 70's. Hence, it makes more sense to look at the "real" growth rates, that is, the growth rates corrected for inflation. The second table shows that the real growth rate from 1980 to 1988 was 20.72%. The 8-year growth rates increased in the following years to a high of 33.11% from 1983 to 1991. However, the real growth rate of total receipts reached higher highs of 38.15% in 1971 to 1979 and 57.02% from 1992 to 2000.
Another serious flaw in the doubling of revenues argument is that it looks at all revenues. The FICA tax rate increased from 6.13 percent in 1980 to 7.51 percent in 1988. To include an increase in revenues gained through a tax hike in order to argue in favor of tax cuts would be the height of hyprocrisy. Hence, we need to look only at revenues obtained from individual income taxes. According to the second table, the real growth in individual income tax receipts was 12.84% from 1980 to 1988 and 13.80% from 1981 to 1989. These were the lowest growth rates of any of the 55 8-year spans from 1940 to 2002 except for four. These four 8-year spans were 1952 to 1960 (9.12%), 1953 to 1961 (7.72%), 1968 to 1976 (11.61%), and 1969 to 1977 (3.28%). The highest real growth rate was 78.55% from 1992 to 2000, following the 1993 tax hike.
Hence, the evidence is that the Reagan tax cuts DECREASED revenues over what they would have been, at least over the short (8-year) term. The only remaining argument in favor of the Reagan tax cuts, at least from a revenue point of view, would seem to be that they permanently raised the level of the GDP, thus bringing in slightly higher revenues far into the future. According to the graph and second table, the GDP reached a high 8-year growth rate of 34.3% from 1982 to 1990. However, the GDP seems to have reached a similar high about every ten years over the past several decades. It reached a high of 41.57% from 1958 to 1966, 29.20% from 1971 to 1979, and 32.58% from 1992 to 2000. Hence, these figures don't provide any strong evidence that the Reagan tax cuts permanently affected the GDP one way or the other.
By the way, good catch on the fact that the deficit was NOT higher under Kennedy.
Do you have a source for that? As yatbalaam pointed out, the deficit was smaller under Kennedy both in dollars and as a percent of GDP. As the tables at http://home.netcom.com/~rdavis2/deficits.html show, the largest deficit under Kennedy was $7.1 billion (or 1.3% of GDP) in 1962. Under Bush, the deficit was $157.8 billion (or 1.5% of GDP) in 2002 and is projected to be $304.2 billion (or 2.8% of GDP) in 2003. All of these numbers come from the Historical Tables of the 2004 U.S. Budget.
One of the first issues of High Times had what it purported to be an interview with the young man who got Teddy his LSD the night he crashed his car and killed Kopekne. The guy said it took Teddy eleven hours to report the accident because the acid was really potent and it probably took Teddy a loooong time to come down.
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.