This is rich. From the party who invented “revising history”, comes the claim that others are now doing it. Stop the presses.
No, Larry, this is truth at its finest. For those interested in historical truth, here it is:
The tax cuts of the 1920s
Significant reductions in tax rates were instituted in the 1920s dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. The result? Revenue from personal taxes increased substantially despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.
The Kennedy tax cuts
Under President Hoover, tax rates increased significantly compounded in the 30s by Roosevelt, by increasing personal tax rates by more then 90%. President Kennedy understood that high tax rates damaged the economy and accordingly reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. The result? Tax revenues rocketed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, (an increase of 62 percent , 33% after adjusting for inflation).
According to President John F. Kennedy:
“Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.”
The Reagan tax cuts
Tax bracket creep and the inflation of the 70s caused millions of taxpayers to be placed into higher tax brackets despite the fact that their inflation-adjusted incomes had not risen. To address this and to improve general economic conditions, President Reagan instituted large tax rate reductions during the 1980s. The result? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s. Once the tax cut took effect in January 1983, income tax revenues rose significantly, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).
The Bush tax Cuts
The Bush tax cut of 2003 resulted in predictions, from the left, that we would suffer from enormous revenue shortfalls and greater deficit spending. The result? Tax revenues in 2006 were actually above the levels projected before the 2003 tax cuts. Immediately before the 2003 tax cuts, the CBO projected a 2006 budget deficit of $57 billion, yet the final 2006 budget deficit was $247 billion. The $190 billion deficit increase resulted from federal spending that was $237 billion more than projected. Revenues were actually $47 billion above the projection, (made before the cuts!)
The problem we face really has nothing to do with how much revenue we have. The real problem is that the spenders in congress keep spending way more than the money we bring in and that is the reason why we face the enormous national debt that exists today. I think both you fellas are not carefully reading my posts. I have consistently said that continuous deficit spending with resulting massive national debt is a problem caused by both parties. We are currently under an administration that has shattered all previous records. You can use whatever smoke and mirrors you like, (such as the numbers are not inflation adjusted) but the truth is that we cannot keep up this pace of deficit spending with a resulting record national debt.
Lastly, Larry, I am absolutely amazed at your attitude toward "corporations". Who in the blazes do you think owns stock in these corporations. You too should read my posts a little more carefully. I said:
Your concern that corporations will make a profit is perhaps the most revealing part of your post. Why would anyone be opposed to a corporation making a profit? This is a perfect example of why the last election went in the direction that it did. If your concern is corruption, then we are in agreement that it should be corrected. If you are opposed to corporations making a profit, then we must part company. By the way, isn't Dirty Parts a "CORPORATION"?
Since you have no problem with a corporation making a profit, then we are in agreement. If there is corruption, then we should address that problem.
Even though it is nearly impossible to keep this thing on tract, I will do it again. I would rather have a congress that is attempting to make money as opposed to one who has been out of control for many decades. If you-all feel that I have lampooned your heroes, it is because I meant to do so. Which part of my statements, that Mr. Obama, Mr. Reagan, and Mr. Bush spent too much, isn't getting through?
