Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
the 47% is what is in Romney's heart
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Gxg (G²)" data-source="post: 61551600" data-attributes="member: 238335"><p>It's interesting studying history and remembering what others said on Reagan when he was alive.</p><p> </p><p>One person whom I think you'd enjoy is Bruce Bartlett. He was one of the originators of Reaganomics, the supply-side economic theory that conservatives have clung to for decades. He had an excellent book on the issue entitled <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=o4XRM6TlbmQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+New+American+Economy:+The+Failure+of+Reaganomics+and+a+New+Way+Forward+regulation&source=bl&ots=RBbmnyogsq&sig=lbTgJe7LdPzciGhYpBodHFD78Og&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rHt4UOyaPIGm8QSFtYGgCw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20New%20American%20Economy%3A%20The%20Failure%20of%20Reaganomics%20and%20a%20New%20Way%20Forward%20regulation&f=false" target="_blank"><em>The New American Economy: </em><span style="color: #000000">The Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward</span><em>.</em></a></p><p> </p><p style="text-align: center"><a href="http://www.frumforum.com/the-new-american-economy/" target="_blank"><img src="http://economistmom.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/bruce-bartlett-new-american-economy.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></a></p><p></p><p>For a review on the work, one can go here to <a href="http://economistmom.com/2009/10/how-true-fiscal-conservatives-talk-about-tax-policy/" target="_blank"><span style="color: #1122cc">EconomistMom.com »</span></a><a href="http://economistmom.com/2009/10/how-true-fiscal-conservatives-talk-about-tax-policy/" target="_blank">How True Fiscal Conservatives Talk About Tax Policy</a>. As she noted on the book:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px"><p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype'"><span style="font-size: 12px">The </span></span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/business/07leonhardt.html?_r=2" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype'"><span style="font-size: 12px">New York Times&#8217; David Leonhardt</span></span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype'"><span style="font-size: 12px"> wrote a really nice story about Bruce&#8217;s current perspective on supply-side economics and tax policy and how the Republican Party has lost its fiscally-conservative way (emphasis added):</span></span></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'"><span style="font-size: 12px">[P]erhaps the most persistent &#8212; and thought-provoking &#8212; conservative critic of the party has been </span></span><a href="http://capitalgainsandgames.com/about-site" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'"><span style="font-size: 12px">Bruce Bartlett</span></span></a><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'"><span style="font-size: 12px">. Mr. Bartlett has worked for </span></span><a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/jack_f_kemp/index.html?inline=nyt-per" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'"><span style="font-size: 12px">Jack Kemp</span></span></a><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'"><span style="font-size: 12px"> and Presidents Reagan and </span></span><a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/george_bush/index.html?inline=nyt-per" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'"><span style="font-size: 12px">George H. W. Bush</span></span></a><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'"><span style="font-size: 12px">. He has been a fellow at the </span></span><a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/cato_institute/index.html?inline=nyt-org" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'"><span style="font-size: 12px">Cato Institute</span></span></a><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'"><span style="font-size: 12px"> and the </span></span><a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/h/heritage_foundation/index.html?inline=nyt-org" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'"><span style="font-size: 12px">Heritage Foundation</span></span></a><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'"><span style="font-size: 12px">. He wants the </span></span><a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/your-money/planning/estate-planning/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'"><span style="font-size: 12px">estate tax</span></span></a><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'"><span style="font-size: 12px"> to be reduced, and he thinks that </span></span><a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'"><span style="font-size: 12px">President Obama</span></span></a><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'"><span style="font-size: 12px"> should not have taken on health reform or </span></span><a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'"><span style="font-size: 12px">climate change</span></span></a><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'"><span style="font-size: 12px"> this year.</span></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'">Above all, however, he thinks that <strong>the Republican Party no longer has a credible economic policy. It continues to advocate tax cuts even though the recent Bush tax cuts led to only mediocre economic growth and huge deficits&#8230;</strong></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'"><span style="font-size: 12px">On the spending side, Republican leaders criticize Mr. Obama, yet <a href="http://economistmom.com/2009/10/how-true-fiscal-conservatives-talk-about-tax-policy/#" target="_blank">offer</a> no serious spending cuts of their own&#8230;</span></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'"><strong>How, Mr. Bartlett asks, is this conservative? How is it in keeping with a party that once prided itself on fiscal responsibility </strong>&#8212; the party of President </span></span><a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/e/dwight_david_eisenhower/index.html?inline=nyt-per" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'"><span style="font-size: 12px">Dwight Eisenhower</span></span></a><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'"><span style="font-size: 12px"> (who </span></span><a href="http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/03/fiscal-responsibility-party-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'"><span style="font-size: 12px">refused to cut taxes</span></span></a><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'"><span style="font-size: 12px"> because the budget wasn&#8217;t balanced) or of the first President Bush (whose tax increase helped create the 1990s surpluses)?</span></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'"><span style="font-size: 12px">&#8220;So much of what passes for conservatism today is just pure partisan opposition,&#8221; Mr. Bartlett says. &#8220;It&#8217;s not conservative at all.&#8221;&#8230;</span></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype'"><span style="font-size: 12px">True fiscal conservatives should be advocating a more balanced budget, certainly after we&#8217;ve recovered from the aftermath of this recession. (Bill Clinton made this his final point in his prepared </span></span><a href="http://us.hsmglobal.com/interior/index.php?p=speaker&idPersona=12914&idEvento=184&idCMSIdioma=1" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype'"><span style="font-size: 12px">remarks to the World Business Forum</span></span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype'"><span style="font-size: 12px"> in New York City on Wednesday.) True fiscal conservatives understand that while the <em>benefit </em>of low <a href="http://economistmom.com/2009/10/how-true-fiscal-conservatives-talk-about-tax-policy/#" target="_blank">tax rates</a> is improved economic incentives for <em>private</em>-sector work and saving, the <em>cost</em> of low tax rates is the reduced <em>public </em>saving that arises from a larger budget deficit (or smaller surplus). The benefits were more likely to outweigh costs back in the days when marginal tax rates were very high. But now it&#8217;s a totally different story</span></span>:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'"><span style="font-size: 12px">[Bruce's] conservatism starts with the idea that high taxes are no longer the problem, even if complaining about them still makes for good politics. This year, <a href="http://economistmom.com/2009/10/how-true-fiscal-conservatives-talk-about-tax-policy/#" target="_blank">federal taxes</a> are on pace to equal just 15 percent of </span></span><a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/united_states_economy/gross_domestic_product/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'"><span style="font-size: 12px">gross domestic product</span></span></a><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'"><span style="font-size: 12px">. It is the </span></span><a href="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'"><span style="font-size: 12px">lowest share since 1950</span></span></a><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'"><span style="font-size: 12px">.</span></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'">As the economy recovers, taxes will naturally return to about 18 percent of G.D.P., and Mr. Obama&#8217;s proposed rate increase on the affluent would take the level closer to 20 percent. But some basic arithmetic &#8212; the Medicare budget, projected to soar in coming decades &#8212; <strong>suggests taxes need to rise further, and history suggests that&#8217;s O.K.</strong></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'"><span style="font-size: 12px">For one thing, past tax increases have not choked off economic growth. The 1980s boom didn&#8217;t immediately follow the 1981 Reagan tax cut; it </span></span><a href="http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/26/obama-budget-reagan-clinton-bush-opinions-columnists_higher_taxes.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'"><span style="font-size: 12px">followed his 1982 tax increase</span></span></a><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'"><span style="font-size: 12px"> to reduce the deficit. The 1990s boom followed the 1993 Clinton tax increase. Tax rates matter, but they&#8217;re nowhere near the main force affecting growth.</span></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'"><span style="font-size: 12px">And taxes are supposed to rise as a country grows richer&#8230;</span></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype'"><span style="font-size: 12px">Bruce argues that while the first goal of modern conservatism should be to keep government from getting too big, the second:</span></span></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'"><span style="font-size: 12px">&#8230;<strong>should be to keep taxes from being increased in the wrong ways.</strong> Supply-side economics is based on the idea that higher tax rates discourage work and investment, two crucial ingredients for economic growth. But higher taxes on consumption don&#8217;t have nearly the same effect as taxes on incomes or companies. If anything, consumption taxes encourage savings, which lifts investment.</span></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'"><span style="font-size: 12px">So Mr. Bartlett advocates a value-added tax &#8212; a federal sales tax &#8212; which most other rich countries </span></span><a href="http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_GX/global/services/tax/indirect-tax/vat-gst/article/f839dff2d42fb110VgnVCM100000ba42f00aRCRD.htm" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'"><span style="font-size: 12px">have</span></span></a><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'"><span style="font-size: 12px">&#8230;</span></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype'"><span style="font-size: 12px">Even worse though, is to <em>cut</em> taxes in the wrong ways&#8211;such that even as public saving is harmed via deficit financing, private incentives to save and invest and work are harmed as well. Or such that most of the tax cutting agenda consists of a prior Administration&#8217;s tax policy that a new Administration understands has been proven to <em>not </em>pass the cost-benefit test.</span></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype'"><span style="font-size: 12px">Bruce Bartlett is a true fiscal conservative who&#8217;s telling us taxes have to rise. Concord Coalition Executive Director </span></span><a href="http://www.concordcoalition.org/about-us/national-staff/bbixby" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype'"><span style="font-size: 12px">Bob Bixby</span></span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype'"><span style="font-size: 12px"> is another one.</span></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> </p><p>Marshalling compelling history and economics, he explains in his book how economic theories that may be perfectly valid at one moment in time under one set of circumstances tend to lose validity over time because they are misapplied under different circumstances. Bartlett makes a compelling, historically-based case for large tax increases, once anathema to him and his economic allies. In <em>The New American Economy</em>, Bartlett seeks to clarify a compelling and way forward for the American economy.</p><p> </p><p>And we definately need to find compelling ways of changing things, as the way that "<a href="http://stopmakingsense.org/category/global-elite/" target="_blank">Trickle Down" was advocated was like having a wolf at the front door appear to be like a puppy/pet dog ...and ignoring the fact that it was not meant to be your friend.</a> The system really doesn't work and<a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7272411/78761161#c78761161" target="_blank"> people need to stop lying as if it ever was meant to do so in all times/settings</a>...</p><p> </p><p> </p><p style="text-align: center"><a href="http://hitormiss.yolasite.com/hit-or-miss/trickle-down-economics-rich-uncle-pennybags-and-you-in-15-minutes-" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-PGfyCplfABM/T0py8Qz9jrI/AAAAAAAAEt4/-OVvI05cjis/417186_10150580549596275_177486166274_9463441_1265030735_n.jpg&sa=X&ei=ioB4UMSoLoeY9QT45oDYBg&ved=0CAsQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNF5w79HpMzTcQNrUua-WGe4wQfY6Q" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></a></p><p></p><p style="text-align: center"><a href="http://hitormiss.yolasite.com/hit-or-miss/trickle-down-economics-rich-uncle-pennybags-and-you-in-15-minutes-" target="_blank"><img src="http://hitormiss.yolasite.com/resources/Trickle_Down_Economics_1.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Gxg (G²), post: 61551600, member: 238335"] It's interesting studying history and remembering what others said on Reagan when he was alive. One person whom I think you'd enjoy is Bruce Bartlett. He was one of the originators of Reaganomics, the supply-side economic theory that conservatives have clung to for decades. He had an excellent book on the issue entitled [URL="http://books.google.com/books?id=o4XRM6TlbmQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+New+American+Economy:+The+Failure+of+Reaganomics+and+a+New+Way+Forward+regulation&source=bl&ots=RBbmnyogsq&sig=lbTgJe7LdPzciGhYpBodHFD78Og&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rHt4UOyaPIGm8QSFtYGgCw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20New%20American%20Economy%3A%20The%20Failure%20of%20Reaganomics%20and%20a%20New%20Way%20Forward%20regulation&f=false"][I]The New American Economy: [/I][COLOR=#000000]The Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward[/COLOR][I].[/I][/URL] [CENTER][URL="http://www.frumforum.com/the-new-american-economy/"][IMG]http://economistmom.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/bruce-bartlett-new-american-economy.jpg[/IMG][/URL][/CENTER] For a review on the work, one can go here to [URL="http://economistmom.com/2009/10/how-true-fiscal-conservatives-talk-about-tax-policy/"][COLOR=#1122cc]EconomistMom.com »[/COLOR][/URL][URL="http://economistmom.com/2009/10/how-true-fiscal-conservatives-talk-about-tax-policy/"]How True Fiscal Conservatives Talk About Tax Policy[/URL]. As she noted on the book: [INDENT][INDENT][FONT=Palatino Linotype][SIZE=3]The [/SIZE][/FONT][URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/business/07leonhardt.html?_r=2"][FONT=Palatino Linotype][SIZE=3]New York Times’ David Leonhardt[/SIZE][/FONT][/URL][FONT=Palatino Linotype][SIZE=3] wrote a really nice story about Bruce’s current perspective on supply-side economics and tax policy and how the Republican Party has lost its fiscally-conservative way (emphasis added):[/SIZE][/FONT] [INDENT][FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=3][P]erhaps the most persistent — and thought-provoking — conservative critic of the party has been [/SIZE][/FONT][URL="http://capitalgainsandgames.com/about-site"][FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=3]Bruce Bartlett[/SIZE][/FONT][/URL][FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=3]. Mr. Bartlett has worked for [/SIZE][/FONT][URL="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/jack_f_kemp/index.html?inline=nyt-per"][FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=3]Jack Kemp[/SIZE][/FONT][/URL][FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=3] and Presidents Reagan and [/SIZE][/FONT][URL="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/george_bush/index.html?inline=nyt-per"][FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=3]George H. W. Bush[/SIZE][/FONT][/URL][FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=3]. He has been a fellow at the [/SIZE][/FONT][URL="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/cato_institute/index.html?inline=nyt-org"][FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=3]Cato Institute[/SIZE][/FONT][/URL][FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=3] and the [/SIZE][/FONT][URL="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/h/heritage_foundation/index.html?inline=nyt-org"][FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=3]Heritage Foundation[/SIZE][/FONT][/URL][FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=3]. He wants the [/SIZE][/FONT][URL="http://topics.nytimes.com/your-money/planning/estate-planning/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier"][FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=3]estate tax[/SIZE][/FONT][/URL][FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=3] to be reduced, and he thinks that [/SIZE][/FONT][URL="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per"][FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=3]President Obama[/SIZE][/FONT][/URL][FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=3] should not have taken on health reform or [/SIZE][/FONT][URL="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier"][FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=3]climate change[/SIZE][/FONT][/URL][FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=3] this year.[/SIZE][/FONT] [SIZE=3][FONT=Trebuchet MS]Above all, however, he thinks that [B]the Republican Party no longer has a credible economic policy. It continues to advocate tax cuts even though the recent Bush tax cuts led to only mediocre economic growth and huge deficits…[/B][/FONT][/SIZE] [FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=3]On the spending side, Republican leaders criticize Mr. Obama, yet [URL="http://economistmom.com/2009/10/how-true-fiscal-conservatives-talk-about-tax-policy/#"]offer[/URL] no serious spending cuts of their own…[/SIZE][/FONT] [SIZE=3][FONT=Trebuchet MS][B]How, Mr. Bartlett asks, is this conservative? How is it in keeping with a party that once prided itself on fiscal responsibility [/B]— the party of President [/FONT][/SIZE][URL="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/e/dwight_david_eisenhower/index.html?inline=nyt-per"][FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=3]Dwight Eisenhower[/SIZE][/FONT][/URL][FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=3] (who [/SIZE][/FONT][URL="http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/03/fiscal-responsibility-party-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html"][FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=3]refused to cut taxes[/SIZE][/FONT][/URL][FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=3] because the budget wasn’t balanced) or of the first President Bush (whose tax increase helped create the 1990s surpluses)?[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=3]“So much of what passes for conservatism today is just pure partisan opposition,” Mr. Bartlett says. “It’s not conservative at all.”…[/SIZE][/FONT] [/INDENT][FONT=Palatino Linotype][SIZE=3]True fiscal conservatives should be advocating a more balanced budget, certainly after we’ve recovered from the aftermath of this recession. (Bill Clinton made this his final point in his prepared [/SIZE][/FONT][URL="http://us.hsmglobal.com/interior/index.php?p=speaker&idPersona=12914&idEvento=184&idCMSIdioma=1"][FONT=Palatino Linotype][SIZE=3]remarks to the World Business Forum[/SIZE][/FONT][/URL][FONT=Palatino Linotype][SIZE=3] in New York City on Wednesday.) True fiscal conservatives understand that while the [I]benefit [/I]of low [URL="http://economistmom.com/2009/10/how-true-fiscal-conservatives-talk-about-tax-policy/#"]tax rates[/URL] is improved economic incentives for [I]private[/I]-sector work and saving, the [I]cost[/I] of low tax rates is the reduced [I]public [/I]saving that arises from a larger budget deficit (or smaller surplus). The benefits were more likely to outweigh costs back in the days when marginal tax rates were very high. But now it’s a totally different story[/SIZE][/FONT]: [INDENT][FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=3][Bruce's] conservatism starts with the idea that high taxes are no longer the problem, even if complaining about them still makes for good politics. This year, [URL="http://economistmom.com/2009/10/how-true-fiscal-conservatives-talk-about-tax-policy/#"]federal taxes[/URL] are on pace to equal just 15 percent of [/SIZE][/FONT][URL="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/united_states_economy/gross_domestic_product/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier"][FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=3]gross domestic product[/SIZE][/FONT][/URL][FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=3]. It is the [/SIZE][/FONT][URL="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205"][FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=3]lowest share since 1950[/SIZE][/FONT][/URL][FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=3].[/SIZE][/FONT] [SIZE=3][FONT=Trebuchet MS]As the economy recovers, taxes will naturally return to about 18 percent of G.D.P., and Mr. Obama’s proposed rate increase on the affluent would take the level closer to 20 percent. But some basic arithmetic — the Medicare budget, projected to soar in coming decades — [B]suggests taxes need to rise further, and history suggests that’s O.K.[/B][/FONT][/SIZE] [FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=3]For one thing, past tax increases have not choked off economic growth. The 1980s boom didn’t immediately follow the 1981 Reagan tax cut; it [/SIZE][/FONT][URL="http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/26/obama-budget-reagan-clinton-bush-opinions-columnists_higher_taxes.html"][FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=3]followed his 1982 tax increase[/SIZE][/FONT][/URL][FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=3] to reduce the deficit. The 1990s boom followed the 1993 Clinton tax increase. Tax rates matter, but they’re nowhere near the main force affecting growth.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=3]And taxes are supposed to rise as a country grows richer…[/SIZE][/FONT] [/INDENT][FONT=Palatino Linotype][SIZE=3]Bruce argues that while the first goal of modern conservatism should be to keep government from getting too big, the second:[/SIZE][/FONT] [INDENT][FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=3]…[B]should be to keep taxes from being increased in the wrong ways.[/B] Supply-side economics is based on the idea that higher tax rates discourage work and investment, two crucial ingredients for economic growth. But higher taxes on consumption don’t have nearly the same effect as taxes on incomes or companies. If anything, consumption taxes encourage savings, which lifts investment.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=3]So Mr. Bartlett advocates a value-added tax — a federal sales tax — which most other rich countries [/SIZE][/FONT][URL="http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_GX/global/services/tax/indirect-tax/vat-gst/article/f839dff2d42fb110VgnVCM100000ba42f00aRCRD.htm"][FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=3]have[/SIZE][/FONT][/URL][FONT=Trebuchet MS][SIZE=3]…[/SIZE][/FONT] [/INDENT][FONT=Palatino Linotype][SIZE=3]Even worse though, is to [I]cut[/I] taxes in the wrong ways–such that even as public saving is harmed via deficit financing, private incentives to save and invest and work are harmed as well. Or such that most of the tax cutting agenda consists of a prior Administration’s tax policy that a new Administration understands has been proven to [I]not [/I]pass the cost-benefit test.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Palatino Linotype][SIZE=3]Bruce Bartlett is a true fiscal conservative who’s telling us taxes have to rise. Concord Coalition Executive Director [/SIZE][/FONT][URL="http://www.concordcoalition.org/about-us/national-staff/bbixby"][FONT=Palatino Linotype][SIZE=3]Bob Bixby[/SIZE][/FONT][/URL][FONT=Palatino Linotype][SIZE=3] is another one.[/SIZE][/FONT] [/INDENT][/INDENT]Marshalling compelling history and economics, he explains in his book how economic theories that may be perfectly valid at one moment in time under one set of circumstances tend to lose validity over time because they are misapplied under different circumstances. Bartlett makes a compelling, historically-based case for large tax increases, once anathema to him and his economic allies. In [I]The New American Economy[/I], Bartlett seeks to clarify a compelling and way forward for the American economy. And we definately need to find compelling ways of changing things, as the way that "[URL="http://stopmakingsense.org/category/global-elite/"]Trickle Down" was advocated was like having a wolf at the front door appear to be like a puppy/pet dog ...and ignoring the fact that it was not meant to be your friend.[/URL] The system really doesn't work and[URL="http://www.fark.com/comments/7272411/78761161#c78761161"] people need to stop lying as if it ever was meant to do so in all times/settings[/URL]... [CENTER][URL="http://hitormiss.yolasite.com/hit-or-miss/trickle-down-economics-rich-uncle-pennybags-and-you-in-15-minutes-"][IMG]http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-PGfyCplfABM/T0py8Qz9jrI/AAAAAAAAEt4/-OVvI05cjis/417186_10150580549596275_177486166274_9463441_1265030735_n.jpg&sa=X&ei=ioB4UMSoLoeY9QT45oDYBg&ved=0CAsQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNF5w79HpMzTcQNrUua-WGe4wQfY6Q[/IMG][/URL][/CENTER] [CENTER][URL="http://hitormiss.yolasite.com/hit-or-miss/trickle-down-economics-rich-uncle-pennybags-and-you-in-15-minutes-"][IMG]http://hitormiss.yolasite.com/resources/Trickle_Down_Economics_1.jpg[/IMG][/URL][/CENTER] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
the 47% is what is in Romney's heart
Top
Bottom