That’s an old and annoying Democrat talking point: Rich boss pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. Indeed, raising the cap gains tax would reduce investment, which is the opposite of what we need. Besides that, Buffet’s tax rate is only lower because he isn’t counting the corporate tax which is paid on that money too.

It’s annoying that our ‘leadership’ is unwilling to fix things. Here’s a campaign slogan: Don’t fix it, tax’n patch it. Our debt is racing toward $20 Trillion, and the best idea they have is a runt version of the trickle-style stimulus we’ve been using. We’re going to trickle ourselves to death.

We need serious reform! What about reforming Medicare? Use means testing or raise the age. Because if we can get the deficit under control, the debt won’t matter. YES – our $15 trillion debt is offensive. But with the size of our GDP, it’s manageable. What makes it not manageable is the deficit and the lack of willingness to balance the damn budget.

If we could get the deficit under control, then we could do something serious, like drop $4-5 trillion on infrastructure updates. Maybe we could set up a smart-grid, something that could actually handle and distribute all this electricity the Liberals are demanding to magically appear from wind and solar. Maybe we could set up a super-broadband, and bring it to every town. Maybe we could update some water and sanitation.

What about reforming the tax system? You want to increase exports? How about taxing all the shit we buy, which includes all the imports we buy, and stop taxing the American work that goes into making our exports? Something like Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan. That kind of change would be profoundly good for both business and government efficiency.

What about zeroing the cap gains tax??? Yeah, it would hurt Warren Buffet’s feelings… But all the non-deranged people and businesses would have to let go of their money. They’re hanging onto it out of uncertainty: Risk. The way you overcome risk is with reward. Lower taxes on investment means higher reward, resulting in higher tolerated risk, and thus investment.

What about all these rich people who aren’t struggling? We could just tax them more to pay for bills labeled according to the electorate’s biggest current concern. Then we wouldn’t have to do any actual reform right now that could frighten old people and threaten Obama’s reelection. Even if we can’t force it through, we’ll be able to vilify the Republicans and set them up as the “Party of No,” or the “Anti-Jobs Party.” We’re already trying to get, “The Tea Party Recession” out there in preparation. Yes We Can! Yes We Can!

S&P, US credit rating now AA+ due to our not addressing out wild debt growth. No surprise.

Thought? Besides the obvious – Next time let’s make sure our Presidential hires specify specifically what they mean by ‘change.’

The lamb stuck to its gun, and the wolf finally relented on its dinner demands and started paddling with its tinny little paws.

It looks like this agreement on raising the debt ceiling passed. Second coming postponed another few months.

It passed the House 269-161. It split the Dem right down the middle: 95-95. Republicans 174-66.

The Senate passed the bill to raise the debt ceiling today, which will be signed into law shortly, staving off America’s default on its debt until 2012, coinciding with the foretold end of the world.

Besides naming buildings after dead soldiers, this is the first piece of bipartisan legislation old Hope-n-Change has presided over. We haven’t seen this in a while. We can thank the Tea Party patriots/racists for pulling this circus back to the middle of the fair ground.

NO YOU CAN’T
NO YOU CAN’T
NO YOU CAN’T

It looks like they finally struck a deal. And it’s a hell of a good deal for Conservatives. This thing better slip through the House, or we’re going to have to check the water or air inside the Republican’s half of congress. There might be a leak, allowing crazy to seep in from the Democrat’s side.

No tax hikes. $1 trillion in cuts over 10 years. A committee to cut an additional $1.5 trillion by the end of the year, with a trigger if that does not occur which will cause cross the board cuts, half being defense cuts. Obama gets $1.2 trillion in debt increase.

Like I said before – who are you going to replace them with? More partisans that reflect our currently divided society? We need rational, pragmatic, cool-headed leaders. (As opposed to politicians that manage to achieve a slick image) Anyone we kick out now will be replaced by a Tea Party Conservative or an Obama Democrat. We need more Boehners and McCains to bridge the divide between hard-math Tea Partiers and –let’s write a bill and figure in savings from leaving Afghanistan in the future and call it a spending cut– Harry Reid.

Boehner is cool. He’s not a weird ideologue like his Pelosi and Obama counterparts. He’s been trying to put together a deal. His problem is that he needs to pull something together between Obama and the Tea Party. Tea Party won’t move for obvious reasons, they were elected to counter the Obama tide. And Obama is stuck in his ideology.

I see the old problem of poor negotiation skills. It’s like I’ve stated before: The strongest leverage one can have in a negotiation – is the ability to withdraw from the negotiation. The Dems certainly can’t withdraw. They’re in charge, and their ideology relies on wild spending.

The only thing keeping the Republicans in the negotiation, politically, is public opinion. And when it comes to the conservative Republicans, and especially the Tea Partiers – some of whom don’t want the ceiling to rise at all – public opinion prevents them from compromising, so they have the strongest of strong positions. They’re using that position to try and purchase some long-term spending controls — God bless their hearts.

This is why the Dems demagogue. It’s all they have — public opinion. This is why Obama/Dems needs to move to the middle, rather than posting signs on the Left calling it the middle. This is the logical reality. They’ll never get the ardent Tea Partiers, but they can get enough Republicans if they’d only embrace some actual math. Obama’s expectations were odd. It’s as if he expects his charm to cause people to do things against their own interest and against their ideology.

Of course, Obama also has his hard Left breathing down his back. But he shouldn’t let that affect him. I suspect Liberal calls are what caused Obama to retract the deal he and Boehner were working on, the one right before Boehner gave up on direct negotiation with Obama (a task Boehner described as “negotiating with Jello,” which I’m sure we can all understand. Obama never really says anything concrete.) Obama will have the Liberal’s support no matter what, even if they’re butt-hurt and pissy. So it’s not as if he needs to pander to them.

But since no one seems to understand negotiation, now we’re doing this bill-voting show… I don’t know what’s going to happen. Reid’s bill will slip through the Senate no doubt. I bet if they allowed some reasonable amendments they would get enough Republicans to pass the House. I wouldn’t bet on the Dems allowing any reasonable amendments though… If I were to guess, I’d say this thing will crash into the deadline for sure, and the Dems will pull some bullshit to raise the ceiling, something that will get us past the election without any spending cuts.

Regardless, the Tea Party really mucked up some good Republican political strategy. It would have been cool if they took those bullshit “tax increases,” the private jet deduction and whatever the other one(s) were, and agreed to them. The zero tax increase adherence isn’t logical if you can trade some zero-impact bullshit tax deductions for leverage in getting some serious spending controls set in stone.

Eeeehhhwww…. I let a zucchini grow super big in my garden as an experiment. Big zucchini isn’t very good. Tough. I bet it would do well in soup. That was the goal of this particular zucchini, but I already had some zucchini soup made.

If we replace congress to send a message, as some suggest, we’ll replace them with ideologues. And the message they take is the message the loud people make, and the loud people are all ideologues.

It’s been like compounding waves. Bush wasted beloved Bubba’s son Al in a controversial election, ending any hope for the Progressive agenda at the time. Then the Republicans legislated aggressively. The laws they passed came through with bipartisan support, and those laws otherwise would have been palatable by Dems if the President wasn’t a Republican, and weren’t very Conservative. But they still trampled the minority and pissed people off, especially when they cut taxes and talked about ending the filibuster.

The Dems saw their chance to strike back when the post-war strategy failed, and they went after him hard, disregarding troop safety or our actual work in Iraq. Certain politicians road this wave, and in 2008, with the help of a recession, the Dems took the presidency and both houses.

The Dems followed up on none of the war ‘ending’ promises, mostly because the revised Bush strategies worked, and they entered reality once in office. They legislated far more aggressively than the Republicans, passing partisan legislation, spending literally every dollar they could. They talked about ending the filibuster.

So all the anti-war independents, fiscal Conservatives, and ideological Republicans suddenly appeared in a powerful mass called the Tea Party. Within two short years, 8-years’ worth of shift occurred and effectively 2008 happened to the Dems. The Republicans couldn’t take both houses and the presidency — obviously. But they effectively crippled the two branches they couldn’t take by hiring people so seriously dedicated to fiscal discipline and not joining the Washington machine, that won’t raise the precious debt ceiling, and we all think we’re going to die.

So now what? I only see people getting louder. Dems are lashing out at Tea Partiers with the same vitriol they’re now famous for. Regular Republicans are mostly quiet, just trying to survive the Tea Party. Like Boehner. He chose a good time to be elected Speaker didn’t he? Tea Party in his party and Obama leading the other.

It’s like a lamb with a shotgun stranded in a life boat with a wolf. What are they going to settle on through negotiation?  The liberal would say “not drowning”.

The problem isn’t drowning though stupid. They’re in a boat. I was going to use an island, but then I’d have to explain that the island is small and lacking vegetation…

I’d like to see a movement that would dispatch some of these overly dramatic politicians. There was some show on Public Radio where they were playing some clips. The “holding a gun to the county’s head” is popular, as is comparing the Tea Party to Hezbollah and terrorists.

One lady claimed the “Republicans” were ‘fraging’ the American people — frag as in the colloquial term used to describe intentionally killing a fellow soldier. She explained it…

Another said elderly people were calling her office “sobbing” because they were worried they wouldn’t get their checks, and that soldiers in Afghanistan keep asking if they’ll be getting paid. Then she says, “Shame on you Republicans for making that happen!” –Yeah, stupid Republicans! What the hell man? If only the Democrats could get full and total power in Washington. Then all the problems would like, get solved and stuff.

It’s no wonder no one will make decisions in Washington. True, both parties are guilty of demagoguery. In this case though, one side is willing (struggling) to make the tough decisions and the other is struggling to vilify them for it while offering no solutions other than borrowing and spending. Of course, for that one side to suddenly become honest required a crop of consciously and intentionally single term congress people.

We should just confiscate ALL of the income from everyone who makes more than 250k this year. (1.4 Trillion) That will almost pay for the 1.6 Trillion Obama wants the ceiling raised. Budget balanced.

Speaking of demagoguery and fiscal insanity — I saw Barney Frank on C-SPAN yesterday, and again today on FOX. Neither time was he wearing his goofy glasses. He needs those back. Without them he looks like just a regular crazy ranting lunatic old man.

How do you guys like the new press secretary, Jay Carney, the one who looks like a 23-year-old? I think he’s doing a pretty good job — and that’s saying A LOT considering his boss. He’s a lot better than Mr. Smirks-a-lot the pretentious dismisser. Gibbs… Boy was he ever in the wrong position. Isn’t there a dog in the Whitehouse he could be looking after? Don’t let him around people.

Whow… Reid’s bill got shot down hard. 50-49 it got thrown out…. Well short of the current necessary 60 senatorial votes to pass anything. lol Didn’t make it to a vote. Didn’t make it to the House.

I was thinking it might get enough votes from Republicans like Brown. Brown said he’d vote for both bills. I guess not.

Baa, baa…

This is so funny. I can’t help but to laugh. I’m watching the House debates on the Boehner bill for raising the debt ceiling. This is how the debate is going:

A Democrat takes a turn and demagogues the bill based on one or more of the following arguments.
This bill will…
End medicate and social security.
Destroy the economy.
…on the backs of the poor and elderly.
Protects the rich [from our righteous anger].
“Big Oil!”
“Slashing education!”
Something about country clubs…
Political theater.
Why don’t you work with us???
Come to the middle you guys. It’s way over here on the left, btw, you extremists.
“They’re trying to dismantle the government! It’s a freighting time!”
“Literally holds a gun to the head of the American Economy.”
“Worst bill that anyone could imagine in the history of this nation!!!” — D-Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee (How does one qualify such a statement?)
“Bush recession”

Then a Republican says his thing. The bill isn’t doing any of that. We’re just trying apply some rational level of responsibility to our money spending. America would like that to happen. Medicare will die if we don’t so something about our spending.

The funniest thing is when the Dems complain about the Tea Party Republicans, when it was just 1-3 years ago that they were shocking the shit out of us spending unprecedented amounts of money and caused us to hire those crazy folks just to counter the dam President. — Backlash — it’s what got you your President, dumbasses. Now we’ve got a government full of idealistic kids and poets expert in demagoguery. I hope we elect some adults come 2012.

I wish we could turn bogus arguments into energy. C-SPAN would be our national energy source if we could… I really shouldn’t be watching this, but I just finished to do list for the next week.

Boy… The house is having trouble coming to order. The jerks keep chit-chatting while a representative is speaking.

My favorite analogy so far: We’re like a family that earns 50k per year, spends 80k per year, and has a credit card balance of 300k.

Favorite Democratic definition: Balanced Budget Amendment = Republican Dogma. (Beats out “tax saving” = tax increase)

Favorite logical consequence of Dem arguments: A balanced budget amendment is radical.

We need to increase tax revenue, not necessarily tax rates. The core problem is the bad economy, growing medical quality (notice I didn’t say costs), and entitlements that haven’t been adjusted for 50 years of change, including increased medical quality that has people living into their 100s and not just their 60s and 70s when SS was constructed.

Raising tax rates won’t fix any of this, and any intellectually honest person with even the slightest understanding of economics will agree that raising tax rates right now could easily decrease revenue, and make the problems worse. Just because the last few harvests have been poor doesn’t mean we should fall to the temptation of selling the tractor… We’re undergoing some serious economic change and we need our “rich” to invent the new economy before our rivals do and we end up behind or buried.

I watched Charlie Rose yesterday. He had a political analyst on there who said something I’ve heard multiple times since the speech, on NPR and FOX, which makes a lot of sense. Basically, according to the commentator(s), Obama’s strategy – political strategy – was to wait for the Republicans to come out with their radical Teapartyish budget reform plan, let it scare everyone into pooping their pants, then appear on TV with a 45 minute speech doing his election-2008 shtick, criticizing all the easy targets of the Republican plan and offering an “alternative” in the form of inspiring moderate ambiguous intangible rhetoric.

But the strategy sort of failed. People didn’t poop their pants after hearing Paul Ryan’s plan. Instead, people praised Ryan – including The Economists magazine – for finally offering some seriously needed reforms. The only partially scary sounding part of the plan is turning Medicare into the type of insurance buying system that Congress gets. Democrats are running around trying to hype it up, calling it a ‘voucher’ plan – which it isn’t. It’s a copy of the prescription drug plan, which works well. Instead of having a monstrous government agency controlling the prescription drug benefits, Medicare recipients have a choice between several private companies. You just check a box. If you want to change you can. The different companies all have to fight over you. Payments to these companies come directly from the government, no vouchers.

And people all this time have been wondering where the hell the President has been. We’ve got serious problems, people are worried about the debt and the future, one guy has produced a plan, but all Obama has done is criticize that plan without offering a solution of his own. People don’t like that. This is lack of leadership. This is indeed political pooplery.

This is a good one. Pelosi is trying to sell the health reform bill as something helpful to the economy. lol She’s like that sales person who will swear to the patron dying on the sales floor that this juicer will fix the problem. lol Or the idiot on the radio talking about how calcium supplements will prevent cancer – but you have to take his special coral calcium, you can’t just take Tums. Oh what? You’re not worried about Cancer? Everyone in your family dies of heart disease? Well – it just so happens that my coral calcium will prevent heart disease – yes – it’s a heart-health supplement actually.

We all know, and it has been said over and over again, that our economy needs something new, a jolt.  And I believe that this legislation will unleash tremendous entrepreneurial power into our economy. — Pelosi

This reminds me of a skit by that Canadian comedy group – The Kids in the Hall:

The car won’t start, so the ‘husband’ gets out and kicks the tire. He looks to the ‘wife’, now in the driver’s seat. “Try it now.” Nothing. He opens the hood, “Try it now.” Nothing. He closes the hood. “Try it now.” Nothing.

He ends up changing the tire, and I forget what else, everything but fix the damn engine, but it’s about the same as Pelosi’s logic when it comes to economics. Nothing about passing a bill that forces companies to provide health insurance if they have more than 50 employees will stimulate entrepreneurship.

*sigh*

It’s just ridiculous. This is something around a 10% increase (probably more) in employee costs. That might not seem like much to a foolish congresswoman who’s never had to earn a living, but when you realize that a successful business is usually functioning on a profit margin of single percentage points, and that most entrepreneurial ventures fail, and that the ones that do succeed do so only after several years of losing money – you’ll understand how difficult these fancy new taxes will make it to do the things our economy needs us to do: innovate, risk, and invest.

The only entrepreneurial powers this will unleash are new solutions to keep your staff under 50 members.

Scott Brown elected Massachusetts State Senator

Do you think a woman who had posed nude could ever achieve national political office?

Disaster in Haiti

The only hope long term for Haiti is a deadly disease that only affects jerks. That’s the only hope for a lot of developing nations criminally ruled by jerks. The CIA got close with AIDS, but they didn’t realize back then that butt-sex and being a jerk were not mutually inclusive. Ah well, dreams for the next conservative administration.

‘We are the world’ Haiti relief recording session begins

These people need to be stopped. Send your money to Red Cross.

State of the Union address

I don’t know why people take Obama’s speeches to seriously. I mean, they were never meant to be taken literally. His message is one of hope and change. We can all learn valuable lessons from his speeches but – lol – you can’t apply those ideas directly to policy – that was never the intended purpose of his message.

Toyota Recall

Yeah! Another fat-cat scapegoat! Yeah, let’s get’m! Whoohoo!

Obama getting tough on China for trade agreement infractions

I’m getting tough on my credit cards too. I’m taking a different approach though. I’m paying off the debt – or at least trying.

Underpants bomber now talking, encouraged by parents

Wow Obama administration! Way to go getting the kid to ignore his lawyer’s advice. If only all terrorists had responsible parents. And thanks for telling us about it too. Now all of America knows how great of a job you’re doing protecting us. Hey, so have you gone ahead and put Al Qaeda on the list to receive your FUCKING news letter yet?

Sarah Palin to receive $100k speaking fee for Tea Party Convention

Only a Liberal would find this controversial. She’s a Conservative from Alaska. What do you think she’s going to do with the cash? Buy something with it? You give those people a rifle and a pair of boots – a few years later they’ve got a city with a shipping port. Watch, she’ll invest in some unknown little jackass somewhere and turn another baby-blue state red. Astroturf my ass… U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A

Healthcare reform bill stalled

Ok guys, I get it. You got caught up in all the inaugural excitement. We elected Obama assuming “change” meant a thoughtful approach, but you thought we gave you a mandate to turn the country on its keel. So you went after you’re dreams: single payer, sky-rocketing business costs, and reduced carbon output. I can’t blame anyone for going after their dreams. And hey, at least you go that juicy stimulus!

But those darn Democrats, they got in your way. Single payer was compromised into single payer under a different name – then into a public option. Then even that was compromised – first into some fancy long winded name coined by Pelosi that essentially meant public option, and finally, a year later, into nothing more than a list new regulations – more similar to the Republican alternative to Hillary Care than the brilliant progressive stride we were all assuming would slide through. (Eh, regardless of the naïve math and unfunded state Medicaid mandates) And to add insult to injury, you have to buy some of those Dem votes too.

And darn-it – you could have passed it. Hell, you could have passed a bill covering sea lions FFS. I know you’d like to blame the Republicans, but shit man – you knew you had all the power and that’s how you wrote the bill. No Republican could have voted for that thing any more than you guys could all climb on board with invading Iraq! Or – wait. You got tricked on that one – hu? Well, you know what I mean. You can’t blame the dog you’re walking when you walk into a pole – even if he was enthusiastic about it.

So the question is: What now. Indeed, this bill is shot to shit. Stack that monstrosity on the back of the toilet in the staff bathroom. But what now? Should you pole-vault over the wall with Pelosi? Should you try to come to some reasonable consensus with a few reasonable Republicans? Should you keep this unorganized circus with your ring leader off in his own ring singing his poems?

I’m not sure what you should do. I’d like to see some actual reform though.

Congress to cut funding for KSM trial in NY

Every time anyone asks Obama or anyone in his admin a question about trying KSM in civilian court, they duck the question and assure us he’ll be convicted and executed. So if this is just going to be a $1 billion show trial – why not just “have the trial” (wink-wink)? You know – take a few days off, “have the trial,” print up some transcripts and stuff, execute the bastard, and use the $1 billion on some new Predator drones or something.

Don’t ask don’t tell – once again up for debate

What part of “don’t ask don’t tell” is so hard to understand?

I get so irritated by noisy dove, because he has become a wind bag. It’s a bunch of emotion-laden ideas that “make sense” and are “logical,” but are backed up by little actual substance (i.e. facts). It reminds me earily of Limbaugh and Beck.

I don’t mean for Noisy Dove to sound like an ideologue. Indeed, it’s often a form of therapy for me. I simply summarize some news and give my evaluation of it without sighting the facts I use. This is because I’m lazy, and a lot of stuff I generally feel like anyone interesting in Noisy Dove should already know – thing like: China lies about its emissions, socialism isn’t defined as total socialism, and 1+1=2 no matter what. I’ll try to be more thorough from now on.

Also – do you actually read the articles? I ask because often I’ll write a very thoughtful two sided piece about an Obama decision only to have the editor in chief superimpose Obama’s likeness onto the face of a donkey, or onto the butt of a dog with his lips puckered. As funny as many of the images are – they are often out of context and can make Noisy Dove seem belligerently partisan. But what can I do? It’s the editor’s prerogative.

So let’s see. You don’t believe in trickle-down or that tax cuts increase tax revenue. You even talk of Regan.

First, Regan had a recession and an energy crisis, like the gas problem we’ve had. Yet, despite this, his policies caused the largest economic expansion during peace time, starting in 1982, and created 35 million jobs.

• Joint Economic Committee, The Great Expansion: How It Was Achieved and How It Can Be Sustained, U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, 106th Cong., 2nd Sess., April 2000, pp. 4-6.

You claim, after accosting me for my emotional Noisy Dove rants, that I offer no facts. Yet you say you don’t believe tax cuts increase tax revenue. Why not? Tax revenue in 1980 was $500 billion and in 1990 it was $1 trillion. That’s an increase wouldn’t you say? Laffer curve – look it up.

• U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2001: Historical Tables, February 2000, Table 1.3, p. 23.

The rich paid more taxes under Regan’s policies because they were making more money to tax. And they had more money because Regan cut taxes allowing them to invest more. He also encouraged investment. Indeed, many people became rich – that’s good.

The ‘gap’ that you are talking about – I asked you to clarify earlier – but you didn’t. So, I’ll assume you’re talking about the graph Obama’s people like to talk about, the one the Liberals are constantly pointing to. It was the one they used in their initial budget. It was a graph showing the % control of wealth. (I wish I could find it. )

Never mind. I found it. It’s a redo of the same graph by someone who obviously understands it though. LOL The trick is that what you’re looking at is %. As Noisy Dove also likes to repeat, the left sees income as a constant – not something people produce. So if the rich are getting a higher % of income while the poor a lower % – that equates to the rich bringing home more money while the poor bring home less. But that’s false – obviously.

It showed the difference between the poor and rich increasing in the past few decades. So, if the bottom 10% had their incomes increase by 3 times, and the top 10% had their incomes increase by 4 times, this graph would show a ‘gap’ in the increase, as though the rich were taking something from the poor. This is a classic socialist argument. It’s a false one too. The rich aren’t taking anything. They are creating wealth and the bottom % are benefiting with an increase standard of living – trickle down. Everyone is growing, but the ‘rich’ – the entrepreneurs – are growing fastest.

It’s actually quite funny. The very graph so many socialist use to show a disparity between the rich and poor is actual empirical evidence for trickle-down theory. It’s only logical anyway. I mean, the only way trickle-down wouldn’t work is if people found a way to make money without hiring anyone, buying materials, or using energy – and then horded all the cash. Likewise, the only was trickle-up wouldn’t work is if poor people put all their extra money into saving and paying off dept – like they are doing now – the reason the stimulus checks failed – Bush and Obama’s.

Reagan had to stop the crazy inflation of the late 70’s (Carter’s stagflation), so he tightened money. Houses had like a 12% mortgage rate when we were kids. Despite this, once Regan’s policies were in place, by 1983, the policies of reducing taxes, spending, regulation, and inflation resulted in unprecedented economic growth.

• This economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II
• United States Government, Fiscal Year 2001: Historical Tables, February 2000, Table 1.3, p. 23.

The economy grew by a third – ffs (can’t let down Justin). Also, Regan didn’t invent this type of economic thinking. One guy you might like – JFK – he did a similar thing:

“The 1960s and 1980s were periods of record sustained high growth, mainly due to the tax cuts and reforms enacted at the beginning of each decade by Kennedy and Reagan, respectively.

The JFK administration, against the advice of many economic advisers, began cutting taxes in 1962, starting with businesses. An investment tax credit encouraged investment and changes in depreciation costs lowered the cost of capital for businesses. The top corporate rate fell from 52 to 48 percent, and the top individual marginal tax rate fell from 90 to 70 percent. The empirical evidence shows that these tax cuts stimulated growth:”  http://taxesandgrowth.ncpa.org/news/do-taxes-affect-economic-growth

• Between 1962 and 1969, investment grew at an annual rate of 6.1 percent, far higher than the 3 percent annual rate for 1959-1962 and the 2.3 percent rate for 1969-1972 (While Carter was doing what Obama is doing now), after the JFK tax reforms had been repealed.
• Real GNP grew 4.5 percent during the 1960s, higher than the 2.4 percent growth rate seen from 1952-1960.
  • “Taxes and Long-Term Economic Growth,” House Joint Economic Committee Report, February 1997.http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/longterm/longterm.htm

In 1991, after the Reagan rate cuts were well in place, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in income paid 25 percent of all income taxes; the top 5 percent paid 43 percent; and the bottom 50 percent paid only 5 percent. To suggest that this distribution is unfair because it is too easy on upper-income groups is nothing less than absurd.

• U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2001: Historical Tables, February 2000, Table 1.3, p. 23. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/icb2001.pdf

As for the Regan policies cutting aid to the poor, and causing homelessness, I can’t find anything substantiating this or refuting it. According to the fact’s I’m finding Regan actually increased domestic spending. (see chart above) This sounds more like the Liberal style of attack than actual fact – or just the general politician’s argument. You know, saying someone is against heathcare reform because they didn’t vote for Pelosi-care, or saying someone is for the war because they supported development of IED resistant vehicles. It’s just stupid.

The facts is – Regan helped the poor in ways no government bureaucracy could. He stopped Carter’s inflation and unemployment. People tend to propagate ideas like Regan destroyed the inner-cities and odd things like that. More likely the damage being done to inner-cities was the flight of factories from within them and the subsequent evacuation of people to suburbs in their fancy new cars – leaving only the poor who were too poor to leave. The only thing at fault for this is an increasing standard of living. So I guess you could blame Regan – his policies did increase everyone’s standard of living quite a bit. We went from one car to a family to one car to a person – from one TV to one TV in each room – from renting to purchasing homes.

And claiming Regan “ballooned” the debt is totally unfair, especially after you complain about his disregard for the poor. And not to mention he was defeating the Soviet Union – ffs.

Contrary to the Liberal sales pitch, inflation-adjusted defense spending increased 50% between 1980 and 1989. After the cold war the spending was reduced and fell by 15 percent between 89 and 93. Means-tested entitlements (poor people aid) – not including SS or Medicare – rose by over 102% between 80 and 93, and continue to do so.

• U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2001: Historical Tables, February 2000, Table 1.3, p. 23.

Regan’s policies were sound enough that Bill Clinton, as did Bush Sr., continued them resulting in the continued economic success we all grew up accustomed to and that gave us a surplus despite continued increases in entitlements. In other words, Regan’s economic policies did work. They balanced the budget, just not in his term, which would have been a hell of a thing to ask.

Actually, Clinton even followed the Regan philosophy of increased self reliance and reduced Federal involvement with his welfare reform bill: http://www-cgi.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/news/9608/22/welfare.sign/ . Of course, Obama reversed Clinton’s reform in the stimulus bill: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTY3NzZhNDBkNjU5MjAzZTE4YmQ4MmU5MTk2YTIxNTQ

And George W, he continued the policies as well. You again Dr. Dove– unfairly claim – “That didn’t exactly work out either.”Maybe with facts we can see what really went on. Hmmmm. Now let’s see. What happened during the Bush administration that might have hampered the economic progress the Bush tax cuts likely made? Hmmmm. Oh wait. Could it have been – oh – terrorists using airliners to destroy the world trade canters and cripple the financial district?????????????? I don’t want to irritate you with my wind-bag-ed-ness, but are you fucking kidding me????????? People were shitting their pants Dr. Dove!!!!!! People were stocking plastic and duct tape in case of a chemical attack!!!!!! People were afraid to go to work let along the fucking shopping mall! And what kind of investment climate is that – fucking airplanes crushing building out of the blue…?

And as you know, we went to war. So your claim is miserably unfair – and I think – roundly disproven, if not simply by the fact that the economy continued to grow well, despite domestic attacks and war, until the collapse of the housing bubble and subsequent failure of the derivatives market and the subsequent credit crunch.

So you see? Tax cuts work. Call it JFK’s economic policy if it makes your Liberal bone less tender. And stop absorbing these weird Liberal lies. You even had me believing the one about Regan’s policies being bad for the inner-cities… shit. I’m glad you compelled me to look into it. See – this is the value of discussion.