You mean when Al Gore led the charge to “create” the internet first with his efforts in the Senate then as VP? And turn it from a government research into an open system for commerce?

The last great Democratic President, John Kennedy, said exactly the opposite. Comment by m12 — May 10, 2007 @ 11:40 am

The opposite of what? That taxes *can* increase economic growth? And do you mean the Kennedy that dropped the tax rates from the 90% level?

“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.” Comment by m12 — May 10, 2007 @ 11:40 am

That’s only true if capital is scarce, or additional capital would stimulate the economy by new corporate investments – neither of which is true in our current highly liquid capital environments. If you really want to compare the capital markets of the 1960s with the 21st century – you’re delusional.

“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.” Comment by m12 — May 10, 2007 @ 11:40 am

Once again, tax rates were 90%, and the economic growth needed freed capital. Ironically these changes in taxation also resulted in the stagflation of the 1970s as the capital and lending markets were destabilized by the emergence of globalization.

“In today’s economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.”
Comment by m12 — May 10, 2007 @ 11:40 am

Yeah, from 90%. The problem with you wingnuts is that you all still live in the 1950s and 1960s, and the ignorance and naivety of that generation. Catch up to the present – ignoramus.

Well, yeah, he did a good job with the internet’s emergence. But that’s not the historical norm.

The last great Democratic President, John Kennedy, said exactly the opposite.

“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.”

“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”

“In today’s economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.”

What’s so secret about the AMT? Bush never touched it; Clinton hiked the AMT rates back in 1993.

This is entirely correct. The Republics are salivating at the prospect of the Democrats trying to impeach Bush. The minute it happens the Republics will start yelling about the Democrats trying to take over the Whitehouse by impeaching Bush/Chaney (can’t do one without the other). Until the smoking gun comes out of the closet, or the Republics start seeing their poll numbers in the 28% range, it will not be possible to impeach either Bush or Chaney. So, why attempt to do something that is bound to fail and will generate a lot of bad publicity for the Democrats when they are trying desperately to do something about Iraq? Bush will never be impeached. The smoking gun will cause Chaney to resign so Bush can appoint another Republican to take his place, and then Bush will resign. The Republics WILL NOT do anything that may allow the Democrats to take over the Whitehouse before 2009.

Comment by Wayne — May 9, 2007 @ 8:47 pm

Did you miss this sentence?
“Skelton (D-MO), with the support of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), says he plans to bring a stand-alone habeas bill to the floor. ”
——–
This is why I blog here. The people here are more patriotic, intelligent, not party centric…. truly free thinkers.
Comment by JTitor — May 9, 2007 @ 11:38 pm

ROTFLMAO, Now that is fun-ny!

Martin Gifford.

No, actually, they haven’t, which is why you can’t find a single reputable economist who will claim that they have. The Bush administration itself has had to admit that the tax cuts will not pay for themselves. And now that we’re entering the slow part of the business cycle, matters are going to get worse.

Well, if you have the same open flow of capital that we have now, then of course their money would leave the country – but that’s what’s already happening (happened) st*pid child! That’s why there are so few well paying manufacturing jobs, why salaries aren’t going up, but why wall street is going up. Companies and the wealthy are increasingly “international” in their incomes.

The tax cuts have raised revenue. Federal receips went from $1.8 trillion in 2003 to $2.4 trillion in 2006 after the tax cuts. Comment by m12 — May 10, 2007 @ 1:15 am

When Clinton took office, tax receipts were just over 1 trillion, when he left office 8 years later they were almost 2.1 trillion. Kind of makes Bush look like the “bush-league” by comparison… And just think *genius*, Clinton increased taxes at the beginning of his administration – and look at *his* increase in tax receipts! Sorry, but you’ve just been punked – punk!

You mean the 1.8, that had dropped from almost 2.1 billion in 2000? Is that the revenue you were referring to?

Is that the “new-math” you’re using?

You should look up the AMT – that’s the *secret* tax increase that was used to raise revenues *child*.

“Budget analysts inside and outside the government said the positive turn is likely to be short-lived.”

By the way, you are right. In real dollars some of the Reagan deficits were larger than Bush’s…barely. Nice to know we can trust the Republicans to screw our kids (no, not a Mark Foley reference but…)

The tax cuts have raised revenue. Federal receips went from $1.8 trillion in 2003 to $2.4 trillion in 2006 after the tax cuts.

Weed is not good for you m12. Neither is stupidity.