95% of people, thus keeping the vast majority of them shortly after dems spent a decade crying about how they added to the deficit, and did nothing for the economy.
That's a continuing screwed up view considering I showed you that revenues went up after Bush increased spending.
Why doesn't Obama increase spending and see if tax revenue grows by 40 %. oh wait... spending without tax cuts... led to this economy on the cliff. you leftist are committed to stupidity even in the face of budget proof. tax cuts work throughout US history... http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/taxcutfacts.htm Clinton Tax Cuts: In 1997 President Bill Clinton signed a tax cut bill that, among other things, created a new $500 child tax credit, raised the income limit for deductible IRAs, nearly doubled the estate tax exemption, and slashed the capital gains tax rate by a whopping 28%. The reduction in the capital gains tax was especially helpful. In 1995, just over $8 billion in venture capital was invested. By 1998, the first full year in which the lower capital gains rates were in effect, venture capital activity reached almost $28 billion, more than a three-fold increase over 1995 levels, and it doubled again in 1999. At the same time, total federal revenue rose every year after the 1997 tax cuts. In addition, itâs worth noting that total federal revenue grew at a slightly faster rate in the three years after the 1997 tax cuts than it did in the three years before them. From 1994 to 1996, total federal revenue grew by $200 billion, from $1.26 trillion to $1.45 trillion, an increase of 16%. From 1998 to 2000, total federal revenue grew by $300 billion, from $1.72 trillion to $2.02 trillion, an increase of 17%. Moreover, although the economy was doing respectably well in the four years before the 1997 tax cuts, it did considerably better after the tax cuts. For example, from 1993 to 1996, the economy grew at an annual rate of 3.2%, but the annual growth rate jumped to 4.2% after the tax cuts (both rates are adjusted for inflation). In the four years before the tax cuts, the rate of real wage growth was only 0.8%, but it rose to 6.5% after the tax cuts. Dr. J. D. Foster: The Clinton years present two consecutive periods as experiments of the effects of tax policy. The first period, from 1993 to 1996, began with a significant tax increase as the economy was accelerating out of recession. The second period, from 1997 to 2000, began with a modest tax cut as the economy should have settled into a normal growth period. The economy was decidedly stronger following the tax cut than it was following the tax increase. . . . The economy averaged 4.2 percent real growth per year from 1997 to 2000--a full percentage point higher than during the expansion following the 1993 tax hike. Employment increased by another 11.5 million jobs, which is roughly comparable to the job growth in the preceding four-year period. Real wages, however, grew at 6.5 percent, which is much stronger than the 0.8 percent growth of the preceding period (illustrated in the graph below). Finally, total market capitalization of the S&P 500 rose an astounding 95 percent. . . In summary, coming out of a recession into a period when the economy should grow relatively rapidly, President Clinton signed a major tax increase. The average growth rate over his first term was a solid 3.2 percent. In 1997, at a time when the expansion was well along and economic growth should have slowed, Congress passed a modest net tax cut. The economy grew by a full percentage point-per-year faster over his second term than over Clinton's first term. (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Re...-the-Clinton-Tax-Hike-Produced-the-1990s-Boom) JFK Tax Cuts: President John F. Kennedy's tax cuts were the biggest of the modern tax cuts. The Tax Foundation explains: Contrasting the size of the tax cuts with national income shows that the Kennedy tax cut, representing 1.9% of income, was the single largest first-year tax-cut of the post-WW II era. The Reagan tax cuts represented 1.4% of income while none of the Bush tax cut even breaks 1% of income. The Kennedy tax cuts would only have been surpassed in size by combining all three Bush tax cuts into a single package. Comparing the size of these tax cuts with the federal budget shows that Kennedyâs tax cuts represented 8.8% of the budget. In 1981, Reaganâs tax cuts represented 5.3% of the budget. Each of Bushâs tax cuts are smaller than ReaganâsâEGTRRA (3.8%), JCWA (2.5%) and the 2003 Tax Cut (1.8%). When the Bush tax cuts are combined (8.1%), they would be larger than Reaganâs tax cut, yet smaller than Kennedyâs tax cut. ("Fiscal Facts," http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/323.html) The result? JFKâs tax cuts were passed in the summer of 1964. From 1965 to 1968, total federal revenue rose by an impressive 30%, from $117 billion to $153. Some argue that 1968 should be omitted from such calculations, since a tax increase was passed that year. However, the 1968 tax increase (The Revenue and Expenditure Control Act) was not passed until June of that year, so for at least half of 1968 the JFK tax rates were still in effect. In any event, if we omit 1968, we still get a very impressive revenue growth rate: From 1965 to 1967, total federal revenue rose by 27%, from $113 to $149 billion Moreover, if we compare revenue growth from 1961-1964 to 1965-1967, we find that revenue rose more rapidly in the latter period: From 1961 to 1964 revenue grew by 12% ($101 billion to $113 billion), but from 1965 to 1967 revenue grew by 27% ($117 billion to $149 billion): So the rate of revenue growth more than doubled after the tax cuts were passed. Looking at revenue growth in relation to inflation from JFK's first year to the last year his tax rates were in effect, i.e., 1961 to 1968. we see the following: From 1961 to 1968, total federal revenue rose from $101 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 52%, for an average growth rate of 6.5% per year. Total inflation for that period was only 19.13%, an average of only 2.4% per year. From 1961 to 1967, total federal revenue rose from $101 billion to $149 billion, an increase of 48%, for an average growth rate of 6% per year. Total inflation for those years was only 13.76%, an average of only 1.96% per year. Additionally, JFKâs tax cuts led to the rich paying a larger share of income taxes: Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent. (http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/wm327.cfm)
Going forward its spending with large tax increases. Read something less leftist than Krugman like Pravda. The payroll tax cut was temporary and not really any different than the money sent back by Bush.
Quote from Ricter: Read a newspaper, please. -------- LOL You still read newspapers for your news, Ricter? There's nothing like being a day late and a dollar short.
http://now.msn.com/pravda-calls-obama-a-communist Boy, does it cause a stir when a major Russian news site calls your president a Communist. (Particularly when that news site is Pravda, once the official newspaper of the Soviet Union.) But the old Commie rag doesnât seem to be afraid of controversy this week as its opinion piece "Obamaâs Soviet Mistake" makes its way around the Internet. The biting critique, which refers to the U.S. prez as a "Communist without question" has everyone pointing fingers, many of them decidedly mocking ones. Liberals joke that conservatives finally agree with Russia, while conservatives retort that they do agree with this claim â it was âilliteratesâ who re-elected Obama. Click to see more on msnNOW.com, updated 24 hours a day. === (PRAVDA) Putin in 2009 outlined his strategy for economic success. Alas, poor Obama did the opposite but nevertheless was re-elected. Bye, bye Miss American Pie. The Communists have won in America with Obama but failed miserably in Russia with Zyuganov who only received 17% of the vote. Vladimir Putin was re-elected as President keeping the NWO order out of Russia while America continues to repeat the Soviet mistake. After Obama was elected in his first term as president the then Prime Minister of Russia, Vladimir Putin gave a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in January of 2009. Ignored by the West as usual, Putin gave insightful and helpful advice to help the world economy and saying the world should avoid the Soviet mistake. .... Well, any normal individual understands that as true but liberalism is a psychosis . O'bomber even keeps the war going along the Mexican border with projects like "fast and furious" and there is still no sign of ending it. He is a Communist without question promoting the Communist Manifesto without calling it so. How shrewd he is in America. His cult of personality mesmerizes those who cannot go beyond their ignorance. They will continue to follow him like those fools who still praise Lenin and Stalin in Russia. Obama's fools and Stalin's fools share the same drink of illusion. Reading Putin's speech without knowing the author, one would think it was written by Reagan or another conservative in America. The speech promotes smaller government and less taxes. It comes as no surprise to those who know Putin as a conservative. Vladimir Putin went on to say: "...we are reducing taxes on production, investing money in the economy. We are optimizing state expenses. The second possible mistake would be excessive interference into the economic life of the country and the absolute faith into the all-mightiness of the state. Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/pravda-obama-re-elected-by-illiterate-society/#k2J5vRD9TMAm9189.99