Reducing the tax burden allows more investment and growth of the
economy, creating more tax payers with a smaller tax burden instead of
fewer tax payers with a greater tax burden. John Kennedy did the same.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* "emily.ma...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]"
<FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
*To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Monday, December 28, 2015 2:57 PM
*Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why the Trumpies hate the Media
Re: "While taxes were reduced, revenues more than doubled."
The argument that the near-doubling of revenues during Reagan's two
terms proves the value of tax cuts is an old argument. It's also
extremely flawed.
At 99.6 percent, revenues did nearly double during the 80s. However,
they had likewise doubled during EVERY SINGLE DECADE SINCE THE GREAT
DEPRESSION! They went up 502.4% during the 40's, 134.5% during the
50's, 108.5% during the 60's, and 168.2% during the 70's. At 96.2
percent, they nearly doubled in the 90s as well. Hence, claiming that
the Reagan tax cuts caused the doubling of revenues is like a rooster
claiming credit for the dawn.
Furthermore, the receipts from individual income taxes (the only
receipts directly affected by the tax cuts) went up a lower 91.3
percent during the 80's. Meanwhile, receipts from Social Insurance,
which are directly affected by the FICA tax rate, went up 140.8
percent. This large increase was largely due to the fact that the FICA
tax rate went up 25% from 6.13 to 7.65 percent of payroll.
The reference to the doubling of revenues under Reagan commonly refers
to TOTAL revenues. These include the above-mentioned Social Insurance
revenues for which the tax rate went UP. It seems highly hypocritical
to include these revenues (which were likely bolstered by the tax
hike) as proof for the effectiveness of a tax cut.
Hence, what evidence there is suggests there to be a correlation
between lower taxes and LOWER revenues, not HIGHER revenues as
suggested by supply-siders. There may well be valid arguments in favor
of tax cuts. But higher tax revenues does not appear to be one of them.
http://www.econdataus.com/taxcuts.html
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote :
By the end of the seventies we had a stagnate economy with high
interest rates and high rate of inflation.BTW Nixon was a liberal
Republican followed by Ford , not much better then Carter who saw the
economy crater .Yes, in the Reagan era, a lot of wealth was created
but I'm not sure how you can say it didn't benefit the country. All
kinds of jobs were created. It was the largest expansion of the
economy we had ever seen. While taxes were reduced, revenues more than
doubled. Perhaps you mean there weren't more or enough *freebies*
handed out as gifts to voters. At the same time, Reagan drove the
Soviet Union into bankruptcy trying to keep up with our rebuilding of
our military. The cold war ended along with Soviet communism and the
Iron curtain fell.
Oh yes, I'll say what I will about unions. Their purpose has served
it's time and are now out dated. They are a bunch of crooks. I was a
member of a union for 28 years. I don't know where you get the idea
that without them, companies don't reinvest in themselves. That is how
companies grow. I'll agree that in many cases CEO can be over
compensated. However, they are responsible for insuring that a company
makes a profit and keep investors happy and investing. BTW, many union
pension funds are invested in companies that rely on those profits to
pay pensions for more than their own workers. Your average union
pension is probably heavily invested in companies they like to demonize.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* "olliesedwuz@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
*To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Monday, December 28, 2015 8:14 AM
*Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why the Trumpies hate the Media
I remember back in the 1970's, when communications, travel, and
banking were all regulated by the Feds. Nobody thought of it as
socialism, and the industries so regulated were guaranteed a profit.
In the post - Reagan era of deregulation, there has been a lot of
wealth created, but very little of it has benefited the country as a
whole. In fact one of the major effects of deregulation has been the
wholesale destruction of the unions, and any upward pressure on wages.
Say what you will about unions, but they are the only mechanism the
little guy has, for increasing that paycheck. Without them, profits do
not get reinvested in companies. Instead, CEOs in their blind quest to
become ever richer, use them for stock buybacks, artificially boosting
the company's equity and earning themselves fat bonuses, again.
No one in the US is advocating socialism, nor are Obama and Clinton
"lefties". The idea is laughable. Clinton's NAFTA deal and others were
largely responsible for knocking down trade barriers, and sending
millions of jobs overseas.
I resent this idea started by the B actor Reagan that the Federal
Government is too big and corrupt to get anything done, including the
management of social programs. It is poisonous thinking, and very
anti-social for the country as a whole. Like it or not, the government
is ours and we own it. That puppet Reagan's stunted and dark thinking
has become some sort of mantra for the Republicans seems to me
astonishingly unpatriotic. Too often it is now used as an excuse for
the rich to deny their obligation to help this country, vs. seeing it
simply as another economic market for further plunder.
So, now that we have an economy largely composed of massive
multinational corporations, what is wrong with providing a safety net
for those who for whatever reason, fall outside the needs of the
corporate interests that govern us? This is not a cry for socialism,
it is simply a fair thing to do, given the way our system works.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote :
Raul Castro? Is this some kind of straw man argument? Your entire
Democratic party is advocating socialism without using the word.
Bernzie being the exception. They all want the same thing, total
government control by taxation or regulation.
Obama and Clinton are only centrists from a Bernzie Sander's point of
view.
You're not in favor of *handouts* but.... we don't hand out enough. Right!
Quite frankly, it's cheaper to do business over seas than the US due
to government regulation, taxation and union demands, more Democratic
meddling.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* "olliesedwuz@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
*To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Sunday, December 27, 2015 7:04 AM
*Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why the Trumpies hate the Media
"the far left"??!? As in similar in political outlook to say, Raul
Castro of Cuba?? And who, exactly, in the US Government, has
advocated, or worse, acted on, such an ideological vision? I am pretty
confident I can wait here for days without a name from you, even down
to the level of city dogcatcher, because *they don't exist*.
Obama is a centrist, like Clinton was. The only difference is the
color of his skin. His concern over the demise of social programs is
well founded, when our previous President advocated the destruction of
Social Security. "Put it all in the stock market", he and his cronies
said, and he would have, but he had no mandate from Congress. A good
thing, as we would have had millions in the street when the market
crashed.
I am not in favor of handouts, but the current Republican domestic
philosophy, and tax policy, seems to be, "I got mine, screw you",
justified on the basis of some waste and corruption wrt social
services programs. A very cold-hearted way of thinking, and obviously
biased when no such scrutiny is applied to say, military programs, or
corporate welfare.
The Republicans scream about losing American jobs, while advocating
constantly for ways to ship jobs overseas. It is ironic that the only
thing keeping our economy afloat are all the cheap products from
China, the Far Left, Communist nation, on which our continued
prosperity depends. Calling Obama "far left" is quite funny from that
perspective, as it is the Republicans who are driving us further into
China's hands.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <awoelflebater@...> wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote :
Ollie, you make an awful lot of assumptions here. You assume that,
because a person in congress opposes the policies of the *far left*,
that they are racist and that they oppose those policies because the
person implementing them has dark skin. How simple minded can you get?
If you are white, I would have to believe that you are seriously
suffering from *white guilt* and trying to absolve yourself by
leveling such a charge.Next year, the excuses will be that we need a
*woman* to lead the country and if elected and she faces any
resistance, it will be because she's female in a patriarchal society.
This is meant to appeal to the base instincts of the *low information*
voter, an appeal to the emotions of the ignorant.
Damn the fact that these very policies have driven poverty higher
than ever, that black unemployment levels are the highest in decades,
more people are on government assistance than ever. Damn the fact that
our current president has more than doubled the national debt of all
other presidents before him with nothing to show for it, that we owe
much of that debt to China. That money generating businesses are
leaving our country in droves.
Damn the fact that he threw hard fought, won and costly victories back
to our enemies that has embolden them, That our once stable allies
don't trust the word of our leaders. That once dangerous terrorists
that had been locked up have been returned to the battle field to
continue killing again.
Damn the fact that he opens our borders to whoever wants to come
here, without due process, driving down wages for our own citizens,
while subsidizing the substandard wages of the * illegal immigrants*
with government social program hand outs that cost all other tax payers.
Damn the fact that because of him, the people have put more
Republicans in office than any time since the end of the civil war
with nothing to show for it because they fear being labeled *racist*
and give him just about anything he wants including another trillion
dollar plus budget this year.
Ollie, you have got to be kidding me! You are one of these low
information voters that have drunk the Kool-aide. Of course, any one
with a brain can figure out that the purpose of these policies is to
bring about a complete collapse of the current social and economic
system in place and replacing it with the purest form of socialism
which will not redistribute wealth but redistribute poverty and
suffering. Be careful of what you wish for. The *right* is armed and
dangerous and will only tolerate so much of the left's shenanigans.
This is exactly the mindset, the one that you voice here, that scares
the bejeebers out of me, Mike. Add that to the fact that you claim
those "on the right" are "armed and dangerous" isn't lessening this
feeling I have. That's all America needs, is a bunch of Kool Aid drunk
right wingers emerging from their villages with flaming torches,
pitchforks and no teeth (thanks to unaffordable health and dental) and
screaming for banishment of those seeking asylum in the US and to rid
the country of "socialistic" programs. You live in a dreamworld, Mike.
Not one thing you say here is, I believe, true but it sure gives me a
glimpse into one mindset present day US residents have and it is fear
driven.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* "olliesedwuz@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
*To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Saturday, December 26, 2015 4:03 AM
*Subject:* [FairfieldLife] Re: Why the Trumpies hate the Media
Please put me on your list too. Barack Obama is one of our better
Presidents. I find it appalling that the many racists in the US
Congress see fit to obstruct him, simply because of the color of his
skin. Anyway, just for you old white racists, I would LOVE it if we
had another black man (or a black woman for a change) for President,
only this time, two black parents, and that beautiful dark, dark skin
and full lips. I hope whomever it is, they give you a big bear hug, a
wet kiss on the cheek, and knock that silly pillow case off your
pointed little head.
Merry Christmas to you, and in the TRUE spirit of Jesus Christ, May
God Bless Barack Hussein Obama!!!
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <emptybill@...> wrote :
*/Someone's "principle political view" is irrelevant if their
personhood stinks./**/
/**That iswhat shills like**//**Oprah claimed about “The One”. Only he
was /not/ presented as a “stinking personhood” but rather as a
unifying saint. *
**
*This is why Em’ likes him … wondrous /Barack Osama/, the great
divider. He is the epitomee of the political liar – promising to unite
all while following the plan of Saul Alinsky (Radical Marxist/Apostate
Jew): *
**
*/“Lest we /**/forget/**/at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment
to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and
history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history
begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who
rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he
at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”/*
*//*
*/“What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it
is to what they believe it should be. The Prince
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince> was written by Machiavelli
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli> for the Haves
on how to hold power. /**Rules for Radicals**/is written for the
Have-Nots on how to take it away."/*
*/Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky/***
**
*Chanukistani proly double votes … both Canadian and US elections.
What do you expect from a dual? Em’ proly votes for whomever sounds
most neo-Marxist. *
**
*I say - /hypocrite swine/ … give up your possessions and give it all
away. Problem is the swine only want to give away other people’s
rights and possessions. *
**
*Don’t worry though - Hillary will show them! *
*After all, she’s a self-professed lover of Alinsky too. *
