AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

The problem with MACs-conservatives is that they've memorized that "tax cuts helps our economy," but they have never shown evidence that it does.

When Kennedy came into office in 1961, the top marginal rate of individual income tax was 91%, compared with 39.6% today. The top corporate rate was 52%; today it is 35%, with much ampler depreciation allowances.

Quote:

The problem with MACs-conservatives is that they've memorized that "tax cuts helps our economy," but they have never shown evidence that it does.

So the increase in money to the treasury after the JFK tax cuts in 1962 didnt happen either?

Comments on: Most Companies Pay No Federal Income Tax
GAO Study Also Finds 68% Of Foreign Companies In U.S. Avoid Corporate Taxes

More Than Half of US Companies Pay No Income Tax

August 12, 2008 · 40 comments

According to the Government Accountability Office, in any given year, at least 60% of US corporations surveyed paid no federal income tax liability for 1998 to 2005 (the years studied). That statistic includes corporations of varied sizes.

Over 60% of corporations pay no income taxes.

That's not the argument you are making; you are saying tax cuts are needed to improve our economy.

Another tactic used by MACs-conservatives. Divert the argument into something else.

If they already don't pay taxes, why do you want to create more tax cuts? DUH!

JANUARY 28, 2009
200 Economists Urge Tax Cuts Instead of Stimulus Spending
by Joseph Henchman

The Cato Institute has a full-page letter in the New York Times today signed by 200 economists, regarding assertions by President Obama and Vice-President Biden that "all economists" support the spending stimulus proposals put forth by the Administration:

Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance.

More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’s "lost decade" in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/24249.html

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts"and the Facts

Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.

Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.

Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.

Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.

Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.

Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.

Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.

Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."
Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.

Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.

Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.
Thorough discussion here:
http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.cfm

But let’s go further back and take a look at the average increases in national debt by president. It is most useful to look at the national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP). GDP is the total market value of all final goods and services produced within the country in a given period of time (usually a calendar year). Since 1945, there have been seven presidential terms held by Democrats and nine held by Republicans. During every term held by a Democratic president since this time, that president has reduced the national debt as a percentage of GDP. The Roosevelt/Truman administration made the greatest dent with a 24.3% reduction. By contrast, only three terms held by a Republican president since 1945 showed a reduction in the national debt as a percentage of GDP. Further, Eisenhower made the most significant reduction for Republicans at a 10.8% decline between 1953 and 1957. This is less than half the decline made by the Democrats Roosevelt/Truman. Even further, every single Republican president since 1973 (beginning with Nixon/Ford) has increased the national debt as a percentage of GDP. Let’s summarize: Since 1946, Democratic presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.2% per year. The Republican presidents increased the national debt by an average of 9.7% per year. Republican presidents out-borrowed and out-spent Democratic presidents by a three-to-one ratio. Putting that in very real terms, for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 59 years, Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.99.

Actually, as posted I think on the economy thread, it is more like 43% of individual tax payers who don't pay any federal taxes and at least another 10% pay very little.

The problem with MACs-conservatives is that they've memorized that "tax cuts helps our economy," but they have never shown evidence that it does.

http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TablePrint.asp?FirstYear=1965&LastYear=2008&Freq=Year&SelectedTable=5&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&MaxValue=14412.8&MaxChars=8&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Legal=&Land=
YEAR.....GPD....4 year increase
1976 " 1,825.3 --------------
1977 -- 2,030.9 CARTER
1978 -- 2,294.7
1979 -- 2,563.3
1980 -- 2,789.5 ... + 964.20
1981 "- 3,128.4 REAGAN
1982 "- 3,255.0
1983 "- 3,536.7
1984 "- 3,933.2 ... + 1143.70
1985 "- 4,220.3 REAGAN
1986 "- 4,462.8
1987 "- 4,739.5
1988 "- 5,103.8 ... + 1170.60
1989 "- 5,484.4 BUSH 41
1990 "- 5,803.1
1991 "- 5,995.9
1992 "- 6,337.7 ... + 1233.90
1993 "- 6,657.4 CLINTON
1994 "- 7,072.2
1995 "- 7,397.7
1996 "- 7,816.9 ... + 1479.20
1997 "- 8,304.3 CLINTON
1998 "- 8,747.0
1999 "- 9,268.4
2000 "- 9,817.0 ... + 2000.10
2001 "- 10,128.0 BUSH 43
2002 "- 10,469.6
2003 "- 10,960.8
2004 "- 11,685.9 ... + 1868.90
2005 "- 12,421.9 BUSH 43
2006 "- 13,178.4
2007 "- 13,807.5
2008 "- 14,208.7 ... + 2522.80
2009 ---.......... OBAMA

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2051527/posts
Lowest and Highest Income Tax Rates 1977 to 2008

1977-1981............... 15 brackets 14% 70% CARTER
1982-1986............... 12 brackets 12% 50% REAGAN
1987...................... 5 brackets 11% 38.5% REAGAN
1988-1990............... 3 brackets 15% 33% REAGAN/BUSH41
1991-1992............... 3 brackets 15% 31% BUSH 41
1993-2000............... 5 brackets 15% 39.6% CLINTON
2001...................... 5 brackets 15% 39.1% BUSH 43
2002...................... 6 brackets 10% 38.6% BUSH 43
2003-2007................ 6 brackets 10% 35% BUSH 43
2007-2008................ 6 brackets 10% 35% BUSH 43

But there is something to be said for the man to be head of the household and responsible for its security, safety, and material success, and for the woman to be the heart of the household and responsible for its transquility, comfort, peace, and being a place of refuge. Neither is more important than the other, neither less necessary, and neither presumes that each won't at times help each other and/or each assume the duties of the other.

I think men are wired for such a role and are most at peace in such a role. Same for the women. I do not suggest there are never exceptions or anomalies. I do not assume that all people are competent to carry out any particular role. But overall, I think it is wrong to denigrate people who are simply assuming a natural role in the scheme of things or suggest that they are somehow lacking because that is where they are most comfortable.

My brand of feminism exalts women as pretty impressive creatures capable of many magnificent things and who are worthy of respect, appreciation, and opportunity to compete. It also exalts men as pretty impressive creatures capable of many magnificent things and who are worthy of respect, appreciation, and opportunity to compete. And it makes it okay to recognize that men and women are not the same kinds of creatures and will often be capable of excellence in different things and that both are important in the grand scheme of things.

MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY:

The claim of the plaintiff, who is a married woman, to be admitted to practice as an attorney and counselor at law is based upon the supposed right of every person, man or woman, to engage in any lawful employment for a livelihood....

On the contrary, the civil law, as well as nature herself, has always recognized a wide difference in the respective spheres and destinies of man and woman. Man is, or should be, woman's protector and defender. The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life. The Constitution of the family organization, which is founded in the divine ordinance as well as in the nature of things, indicates the domestic sphere as that which properly belongs to the domain and functions of womanhood. The harmony, not to say identity, of interest and views which belong, or should belong, to the family institution is repugnant to the idea of a woman adopting a distinct and independent career from that of her husband. So firmly fixed was this sentiment in the founders of the common law that it became a maxim of that system of jurisprudence that a woman had no legal existence separate from her husband, who was regarded as her head and representative in the social state, and, notwithstanding some recent modifications of this civil status, many of the special rules of law flowing from and dependent upon this cardinal principle still exist in full force in most states. One of these is that a married woman is incapable, without her husband's consent, of making contracts which shall be binding on her or him. This very incapacity was one circumstance which the Supreme Court of Illinois deemed important in rendering a married woman incompetent fully to perform the duties and trusts that belong to the office of an attorney and counselor.

It is true that many women are unmarried and not affected by any of the duties, complications, and incapacities arising out of the married state, but these are exceptions to the general rule. The paramount destiny and mission of woman are to fulfill the noble and benign offices of wife and mother. This is the law of the Creator. And the rules of civil society must be adapted to the general constitution of things, and cannot be based upon exceptional cases.

Show me both of my posts that contradicts?

The problem with MACs-conservatives is that they've memorized that "tax cuts helps our economy," but they have never shown evidence that it does.
They're like parrots/robots who repeat things without answering any of our questions about evidence/proof for their rhetoric. That's what robots do; they can't answer questions.

ican, You should share that chart with fellow MACs-republicans. We (us liberals - all of us are tagged that by MACs-republicans) know all of that!