Replies

We are coming back from a Clinton recession. Tax cuts are just the start. Interest rates are at an all time low. Do you own a home? Did you refinance at a 5% interest rate?

Think about the Reagan years. If we didn't have a dem congress with out of control spending on social programs, imagine what could have been accomplished.

The president isn't solely responsible for spending as many here think. It's a joint effort. Our founding fathers created it so one man could not become dictator. The way many of you think, you want a dictator. Be careful for what you wish for, because if Bush can wave a magic wand and correct the ills of the past, so too could a democrat president.

The Bush administration protected this country from more terrorist attacks after only having been in office 9 months. Do you think a dem (gore) could have done better? We'd be kowtowing to the Islamic radicals as we speak, oh wait, we wouldn't be speaking. We would have lost our ability to post on FR. Don't think the dems wouldn't love to shut FR and others like us down. They're trying their damnedest with Rush.

Bush is cutting taxes to increase the revenues. Also, remember, we have only had 2 years of a republican controlled house and presidency. Check out the 75th congress. We've come a long way, we have a longer road ahead. We can not expect one man to change the course of a nation when so many have been manipulated into thinking the socialist way is the right way.

Growth From Reagan Tax Cuts

Tax cuts do not create federal deficits; greater government spending does. That is the message tax-cut supporters must hammer home, according to political analysts and economists. Otherwise this truth will be drowned out in the media in a deluge of confusion.

Politicians are expected to repeat the mantra, "Reagan tax cuts were responsible for declining revenues and soaring deficits in the 1980s," but no such thing occurred, according to budget analysts.

* Receipts from individual income taxes rose to $446 billion in fiscal 1989 -- President Reagan's last budget -- from $286 billion in fiscal 1981, the year Reagan began to slash personal tax rates -- a 56 percent increase.

* Annualized, tax receipts grew faster than that period's 4 percent inflation.

* During the same period, federal spending rose from $678 billion to $1.143 trillion -- a 69 percent increase.

From 1981 to 1983, personal income tax receipts rose 1 percent -- while spending surged 19 percent. This was during a bad recession. After the recession, the Reagan tax cuts worked and revenues soared.

* From 1984 to 1989, growth in personal tax receipts outstripped growth in spending, 50 percent to 34 percent.

* And the deficit fell from 5 percent of gross domestic product to 2.9 percent.

* After 1989, the deficit ballooned again as revenues dried up following an increase in tax rates.

* From 1989 to 1993, personal tax receipts rose just 14 percent, while spending rose 23 percent

Then there is the evidence of the beneficial economic effects of President Kennedy's tax cuts.

* In 1964, the economy grew by 5.8 percent -- followed by 6.4 percent growth the following two years.

* The increasing tax revenues following from the surging economy led to a balanced budget by 1969 -- the last time that the government was able to balance its books.

But either sloppy thinking or purposeful confusion perpetuates the myth that tax cuts produce higher federal deficits.

Source: Editorial, "The Supply-Side Deficit Myth," Investor's Business Daily; and Donald Lambro, "Unstrung Tax-Cut Lamenters," Washington Times, August 12, 1996.

Great post Indy.

I think the most important thing that people are forgetting is how long it took the country to get to where we are in this current century.

The democrats have had a hold on the country for over 40 years.

Bush has only been president for 3 and shame on those who expect miracles in that short time.

Shame on those also who expect a President who will do all things for all people all of the time.

Isn't that what the most Corrupt Couple in Politics promised us lo those few years ago?

A fabulous post -- good research!

Excellent post. Thank you.

Also, do NOT let the Rats get away with their "2.2 million jobs lost" mantra.

The net number of jobs lost is actually 330,000.

Business Investors Daily did a report on this last week and it is articulated by Rush below:

I've got a story today from Investors Business Daily. You know, I was tempted to fire off a note to Bill Schneider today but it wouldn't matter. The fact of the matter is we had this number back in I guess it was either September or November, I'm not sure which. Well, it would have been November, yeah, latter part of November. Somebody ran some numbers, the net job loss at that time was 330,000. The number of jobs lost versus the number of jobs created led to a net loss then over the three years of 200 and some odd thousand, 300,000, 330, and that's slowly being wiped out now with the new job creation that's happening with our roaring economy which is leading the world out of its recession, that's not being reported here.

The Investors Business Daily today has a story by Jed Graham, "For nearly a year a debate has been brewing over which of the government's employment measures is wrong. Monthly payroll figures derived from a survey of 160,000 employers show a net loss of 537,000 jobs the past two years. But, the monthly survey of about 60,000 households shows the U.S. has added 2.4 million jobs in that span." Well, we just heard CNN report there are two and a half million jobs lost. Now we find out from Investors Business Daily there are other government numbers that show 2.4 million jobs have been created.

Come on, folks, use your brains on this. This is an ever-expanding economy, I don't care whether we're in a down cycle or not we're always expanding. The population base is always expanding. We are pretty near the statistical full employment number anyway. It's just not logical to assume that all we do is lose jobs. And he didn't say on CNN net job loss, that's not what they're trying to do. They're trying to create the impression that there are two and a half people that used to work that don't because they can't. And that's not what happens. People find work and leave work all the time. It is a cycle, you know it yourself. This idea that there haven't been any jobs created, these guys that report this know this is all a bunch of bohunk but that doesn't fit the agenda, it doesn't fit what the purpose here is. This is to paint a picture of doom and gloom of the U.S. economy, going into this election season, because it matches what? It matches precisely the Democratic Party presidential election playbook. And it just isn't the case. It's the exact opposite.

The economy is roaring back. It's bringing the world back out of its global recession. There are jobs being created. We just had a story the other day of all the unreported self-employed jobs that these employment surveys do not cover. And there were 15 million jobs, net 15 million jobs that do not get reported as people employed in this country. Well, throw that in and it wipes out any of Bill Schneider or any other Democrat's number of two million or two and a half million jobs lost. All of this is a crock. This is the most powerful economic engine in America, and it's rolling, and it's expanding and it is growing. We are the wealthiest country on the face of the earth. To try to paint a picture of this country as a soup line, soup kitchen on the way to depression, is simply purposeful dishonesty, pure and simple.

Wonderful post #73! I can't cut and paste a favorite part or parts because your commentary was inspired top to bottom...

Thank you for stating it so beautifully!