See the lengths they're willing to go to, the back-asswards arguments they're willing to make, to avoid admitting the obvious, that tax revenues are coming in not only higher than they were but higher than expected and rising at a faster rate than before.
There's no debating this. There are (a) what tax revenues were, (b) what they were projected to be with the tax cuts, (c) what they were projected to be without the tax cuts, and (d) what tax revenues actually are. If (d) is the highest and Fed policy is neutral or restrictive, then the tax cuts paid for themselves. PERIOD.
And that's what has happened. Meanwhile SPENDING is up by 3.5 TIMES CPI. We KNOW cutting that to 2X solves the problem - why not just do that???
And it's NOT true that revenue always goes up - it FELL when Bush '41 raised taxes! And it WAS JFK's tax cuts - he proposed them, then he DIED, then LBJ pushed JFK's proposed legislation through. LBJ's effort but JFK's idea.
2007-03-23
06:11:23
·
4 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
Trickle down economics didn't work, eh?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1229294/posts
http://www.nytimes.com/specials/downsize/21cox.html
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1988/05/art1full.pdf
http://www.frbsf.org/econrsrch/wklyltr/el97-07.html#winners
http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/1999p/ar95.html
http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/25/pf/record_millionaires/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/28/news/economy/millionaire_survey/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/28/news/economy/millionaires/?cnn=yes
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/bg1773.cfm
2007-03-23
06:17:01 ·
update #1