The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates

Oh yea and as time goes on, we are understanding what a complete mess Reagan was and the polls are showing this as he's fallen to 18th on teh Sienna Poll. I expect further drop as the debt looms larger and become more of an issue than it is today.

 

You're right, but what you're leaving out is the tax cuts preceded and precipitated the debt monster. Also, going to the 1902's. the tax cuts ledd to teh Great Depression since they didn't deficit spend back then other than wartime. So 3 huge times when tax cuts crashed the nation, we've recovered from 2 of them via tax increases, this 3rd one has yet to be recovered and why? No one has raised the taxes yet.

Trinnity is a young, hot chick, she, as virtually all young people, are just sounding boards of their parents so she knows not of what she speaks. She won't be back in this thread.

 

...STUDIES THAT HAVE SUPPORTED.... Yea, from The Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, etc.

 

Studies that have been published in some of the most respected economic journals. The "its biased, but I cannot say how" argument is too common on here, given it merely shows lazy thought

 

Well, show the articles, pls not from Heritage, Cato or the other biased sites. To pots those, we post Moveon and we'll all circle jerk. Post some obviously objective articles/data.

 

There are hundreds. Here's one chosen randomly: Spiegel and Templeman (2004, A non-singular peaked laffer curve: debunking the traditional Laffer Curve, American Economist, Vol. 48(2), pp. 61-66)

 

DUH! We're trying to starve your welfare state out of existence but you (*)(*)(*)(*)ers won't let it just die.

 

Please show me where the use of term "general welfare" in the Constitution means SSI, food stamps, or any of the current definition of the word "welfare".

 

This is an interesting point. The term "Welfare" used to describe social concern for the needy came about in the early 1900s. That was not a usage of the term when the constitution was written.

 

Well, make your point. Try to use objective authors for credibility. BTW, you can also show me one major federal tax cut over the last 100 years that has been collectively beneficial for the US.

 

Show me the word, "slavery," oh wait we did that and it wasn't codified either. Pssst: the US Const is a joke, it was then, it is now.

 

Already have. You've merely replied with vacuous humph. It does your position no good. Indeed, it ensures that your position lacks credibility

 

So the OP is disingenuous **********y. Got it.

 

I think the defenders of the OP need to see these graphs again.

 

This is like saying, please show me in the Constitution where semiautomatics receive 2nd Amendment protection. Or where does it ban electronic bugging of phonex -- doesn't mention electronics or phones, so it must be OK to bug phones.

Pitiful.

In any case, you've misread the Constitution (predictably). It give Congress the POWER to tax to promote the general welfare, and what the general welfare is, Congress has to decide. And if we don't like their determination, we have a vote to change it.

So your entire understanding of the process is typical **********y.

 

Silly, deluded, progressive.

The constitution defines very specifically what the federal government can do to promote the general welfare. SSI, Medicare, and foodstamps ain't on that list. Neither was is provided by the founding fathers.

The second amendment is right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. A semiautomatic is just an arm.

I don't justify electronic evesdropping being part of the Consititution.

If I am wrong, all you have to do is show me the verbiage in the Constitution. I'll wait.

 

The founding fathers definately didn't establish "welfare" as we currently use the word.

 

No, they pandered to slavery.

 

Nor is it excluded.

Only under a militia, while being well regulated, with or w/o thehyphen. If you want to revise the 2nd and place periods where there were none, yiou can, just don't aske me to play along.

Nor is abortion, prohibition of abortion, equality in schools, gun ownership outside of militias, limits on bullet caliber, emminent domain or lack of, or a million other issues not covered under the US Const. Fortunately justices on both sides have seen this and realize the US Const is just a burden now, they must decide what works best for the people and apply it rather than throw away the country under some antiquated concept.

Just as they can't show you, you can't show them. Arrogant Constitutionalists run around thinking they're right and everyone else is wrong. The US Const was a godd start, but that's like using logic from your 20's by which to run the rest of your life and justices have determined that.

 

Of course the do have the right http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Some nuts think the only Constitution is the BOR; nuts. They also ignore the Article and preamble too. Most so-called Constitutionalists have a very limited understanding of the US Const.

 

I didn't assert a point, you did, I merly asked for you to validate it.

 

If you weren't so keen on this ridiculous routine of your, you'd have realised I already have. Multi-peaked laffer curves? Yep, supported by published empirical evidence into peer reviewed academic journal

 

Of course, it's about me, ad hominem style. We notice how you are unwilling to support your claim other than name dropping.

 

I've referred to the analysis into multi-peaked laffer curves and supported it with published peer reviewed academic analysis. Your routine, designed only to hide from the debate, is all rather old-hatted