This is the kind of thing the Dems are planning to force on us in the next session, and which the president is prepared to veto.
JFK gave a speech in 1962, to a group of economists I believe, in which he explained his intentions regarding tax cuts, which in his view increase, not decrease, government revenue.
The tax cuts passed, government revenue increased, and JFK was proven right.
During the Reagan administration, government revenues TRIPLED because of Reagan's agenda of tax cuts.
During the Bush administration, each of the last few years has set a blockbuster new record of government revenues, all based on the Bush tax cuts.
When the tax burden decreases, more business is done; when making profits is penalized less, it is pursued more.
And more economic activity means more jobs, which means lower unemployment and increases in income across the spectrum.
Recently, Charlie Rangel (D. New York) claimed that if the Alternative Minimum Tax is to be dealt with, repealed or whatever, then that tax cut would need to be "paid for" by increases in other taxes.
Rangel has never been publicly challenged on this concept; he has never faced the fact that tax cuts are their own revenue generators, that they pay for themselves; nor has he admitted the opposite, that tax increases REDUCE government revenue by stifling the kind of economic activity which results in tax money flowing to government.
I will vote for whichever candidate brings this up, often and loudly. It is a basic, a staple of economics, that ought to be taught in schools and mentioned in public by every conservative and Republican.
Cut taxes and you increase government revenue; increase taxes and you decrease government revenue. History proves it time and time again.
IF Rangel and the Dems want more money to spend, they should simply cut more taxes.
Their plan to broaden and increase tax burdens on everyone proves they do not really want more revenue; they want more CONTROL, more power, over everything and everyone.
This is what you get when you vote Democrat. Reduced economic activity, increased unemployment, more burden on the taxpayer for unemployment and welfare, and a circular increase of taxes because of THAT.
End of story.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment