Is there any historical evidence that lowering taxes promotes US economic prosperity? To the best of my recollection, in my lifetime (which has been short), it has not worked. I would love to hear from those who have greater historical knowledge.
Lowering taxes to promote the economy reminds me of trickle-down economics that was largely debunked in the 80s.
Lowering taxes is the classic capitalist smokescreen. It is a scheme used to privatize government functions
I think it's just too broad an issue (e.g. how do you even define/agree on what constitutes US "prosperity"?) and too difficult to correlate anything accurately.
But...people will try.
And, from what I have seen from some of the people here so far, you will see more pompous bullshit then you will probably be able to stand. I have never seen people try to string so many disparate issues in one sentence before (the GDP, GNP, price of oil, price of gold, federal funds rate, trade policies, value of the dollar, etc.).
Warren Buffet - a democrat - would tend to keep it simple.
I bet you Barack will change right before the election and say he will not hike the capital gains tax 
He wont have any choice but to tax anything he can to pay for all the entitlements he has promised. It is not the federal gov task to GIVE us a living. It is a gov which gets OUT of the WAY that does its job best. Obama and his wife are socialisitic in their views.....Let us give to the gov cause they know best how to portion out the wealth. Fuck that.....I worked for what I have. No one gave me anything.....I went and got it for myself. And if you cant do that..then boo hoo.....get off your ass and try harder.
What do you do for a living?
I will give you 10 examples (and I could probably give you 100) of how the government makes it possible for you to do what you do.
You should read John Locke sometime, but it might be over your head.
be over your head as well.
But just fiction.
What do you do for a living St Croix? Are you making your living without the support of the state?
Bet not.
Like I said, interesting fiction.
There ARE 100's of things that the government spends my money on that I use utilize and benefit from, but to say that those things are the primary reason for my prosperity is, well, in your own words, just dumbshit.
Ahhhh....and now the requisite personal attack and name calling. I work for a true american pioneer who used his mind and back to build a unique and super company. The gov gave him the freedom to do that. How? By staying out of the way and letting the marketplace say if his company lived or not. I am sorry you feel the need to attack me personally but I expected as much. By the way, my sons are in Afgan. fighting so YOU can have the freedom to call me whatever you want. Your welcome!
By saying things like "the government stayed out of his way and let the marketplace say if his company lived or not" you are displaying ignorance. I could call it ignorance, or I could just say you are a dumbshit, because it is a more colorful term. I chose the latter.
What business did your "true american pioneer" start?
And...I don't give a shit about you sons.
"I don't give a shit about you sons."
Only care about yourself do you, you piece of shit.
Just like, if you read his earlier posts, he doesn't give a shit about anyone who can't "do it on their own", etc.
The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of people in this country who can't do it on their own. Might not be you, and it might not be him - but there are plenty of people out there. For them, some sort of safety net should be expected from a compassionate society. The "do it on your own" segment of society thumbs their nose daily at the less fortunate amoung us, because they don't give a shit about them. They care about "getting theirs" and keeping their taxes low.
Also, I don't believe he has sons in Afgan. And, if he does, it is a disgrace to the service they are doing to have their father throw that around in people's faces on what is essentially an escort website.
What entitlements did Obama promise? Please tell me. Do you just like to say that or do you have some basis for your words?
I find it hard to belive you asked, "What entitlements. National health insurance doesn't meet that definition? Please........
We can get into statistics, debate what is or is not an entitlement, etc. But the plain fact of the matter is that Sen Obama is just the wrong guy, period. Will his time come...perhaps when he gets some experience and decides where he stands on the issues. He is the most liberal senator there is and Biden is the fourth most liberal. Now to me that says the scales are tilted WAYYYYYYY too far to the left. We simply agree to disagree I suppose. After all this is America.
considering the potential cost to taxpayers. Both Obama and Clinton have mentioned that health care is a right. Last time I checked the Constitution, health care was not mentioned. What's next, housing, transportation, food, vacation? The point is we have enough entitlements which consume 62% of the federal budget.
willing to limit your rights to those that appear in the constitution? Have you read it all?
You state that entitlements comprise 62% of the budget.
Regarding entitlements, below is what comprises the bulk of that 62%:
Social Security is 21%
Medicare is 15%
Unemployment and Welfare is 12%
Medicaid is 8%
What of these entitlements would you like to cut?
Please-How are Medicare, Social Security and Unemployment insurance entitlements if working people pay taxes on them from their wages. How can Social Security be an entitlement if, you draw it at age 62 but continue to work for whatever reason, and the Soc Sec tax continues to be taken from your wages, AND, if your wages are more than $13,350/year, one dollar for every two dollars of the amount you earn over $13,350 is withheld from your Soc Sec payments until you reach full retirement age? Also, at age 62, your benefit is reduced by 20% of your full retirement amount, and you never get it back. You might say that , well, you'll get more out of it than you ever put into it. Bullshit. My father worked all his life, and died 10 days after his 65th birthday. Never saw a penny of it. When you are elgible for Medicare, you sure as hell better have a supplemental health insurance policy, 'cause Medicare don't pay for a lot of shit. Unemployment insurance? I got layed off, (furloughed), in January, this year. Applied for unemployment insurance--I live in NJ and was crew based in Ohio. Sorry, not gonna get any. Figure that one out.
Sorry MRB........just picked the biggest one. The other BIG one is taxing successful people to give to not so successful people. While not thought of generally as a true entitlement what he is doing is saying that because of my hard work and success, someone who decided NOT to work so hard is entitled to some of my compensation.
But other then that and his numerous purposely vague references to positions he may, or may not, take that is all I can think of right now. If you like I can do some digging and come up with others....but I choose to work PRODUCTIVELY and supply something that people need. Not like Mr Community Organizer who has spent his life on the public payroll supplying nothing but......Present!
So glad he showed up...aren;t we?
It is wealth redistribution which is every bit as socialistic as massive entitlement programs, but it in itself is not an entitlement. It just pays for them.
"Free", excuse I meant taxpayer paid health care is going to be bigger than all the other entitlement programs put together with the exception of social security. there really is no need to mention any of the others.
JFK was a firm believer in the theory that if you lower taxes you increase government revenue because the result is business is encouraged to make more money, resulting in more government income.
If you look at the last few years, government income has gone up with lover taxes.
If someone saves $100 on taxes there are three things he can do with it. Spend it, invest it, and put it under his couch. The first two generate further income for the government, the third is rare.
not some guy's belief. It was a serious question to which I did not know the answer. The question had no partisan agenda.
As for your conclusions:
If they spend it, the government does get some lesser revenue. So, why not keep the full amount in the first place?
If they invest it, corporate profits go up. So what? Is that the goal of our economic policy? Our economic problems are global, not the result of middle America failing to spend enough money at Walmart.
If they put it under the couch, we're all fucked.
I don't see the benefit.
but I disagree with your original premise that Reagan's trickle down economics were "largely debunked". Speaking as a man who has been in business since the eighties, I believe Reagan's policies ushered in the decades of prosperity that followed.
You may not be old enough to remember the pain of the Carter years, but I do. Our little credit crunch and overdue burst of the housing bubble are nothing compared to double digit interest, unemployment and inflation. Carter may not have caused all the damage, Nixon shares the blame, but if we had continued with the policies of the Carter administration we may never have got out of the mess that we were in.
Cutting taxes has worked well in many cases where tax rates were too high and were discouraging economic activity. Not only has this worked in the past in the U.S., it's also worked well in Sweden, Germany and several other much more socialist nations.
Unfortunately for the corporate fundamentalists, this approach only works when tax rates (actually tax burdens are more important than rates) are already too high. In historical terms, tax rates in the U.S. are not very high on individual income and the tax burden on corporations is very, very low. There is no reason to believe that we are in a situation in which high taxes are discouraging economic activity unless one believes the preachers of corporate fundamentalism.
Our economic experiences during the CLinton administration directly contradict the idea that tax cuts are needed to stimulate the economy. Clinton was successful in trading support for things like welfare reform for increasing taxes and we saw how the economy responded.
We don't need lower taxes. If anything, we need higher taxes, especially on those who have benefitted disproportionately from the past economic booms.