Obamanomics - Using Law As An Instrument Of Plunder

[Bill Call]

Because of the Kennedy tax cuts, tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent. Because of the Regan tax cuts, total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s.

Within a certain range tax cuts increase revenue.

The problem that Kennedy and Reagan ran into was that congress increased spening much faster than revenue. If the government spent as much today (in inflation adjusted dollars) as it did in 1965 the feds would be spenidng $2.5 TRILLION dollars less each year. You would think that with an extra $2.5 TRILLION dollars we would have fewer economic problems not more, that is if more government spending is the key to prosperity.

[ryan costa]

John F. Kennedy:

Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.

Because of the Kennedy tax cuts, tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent. Because of the Regan tax cuts, total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s.

Reagan's tax cuts resulted in drastically raising the annual deficits. the tax revenue increases were partly the result of masked inflation and subsidized low credit.

You make a good point though. We should raise taxes to what Kennedy had cut them to. However, we can lower social security taxes to what they had been during the 1960s. This should help owners of small businesses and most Americans. After a few decades of that we can lower them to what Reagan had and have the same kind of "growth" everyone was so happy about in the 1980s: great sprawl, rampant wall street speculation, massive downsizing and liquidation fueled by leveraged buyouts and mergers and acquisitions, and not invading and occupying Lebanon after random terrorists kill a few hundred U.S. Military Men.

[ryan costa]

Because of the Kennedy tax cuts, tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent. Because of the Regan tax cuts, total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s.

Within a certain range tax cuts increase revenue.

The problem that Kennedy and Reagan ran into was that congress increased spening much faster than revenue. If the government spent as much today (in inflation adjusted dollars) as it did in 1965 the feds would be spenidng $2.5 TRILLION dollars less each year. You would think that with an extra $2.5 TRILLION dollars we would have fewer economic problems not more, that is if more government spending is the key to prosperity.

Before Kennedy-Johnson, old people died a lot faster.

The conditions built into economic theories supporting free trade are that taxes are raised to correct spillover costs, structural readjustment, and to help offset the losses of the "losers". not to mention all this "compete in the 21st century" garbage. the sloganeers leave that part of the recipe out.
In the mean time we've been able to offset de-industrialization with artificially low credit to prop up the construction of sprawl. this lead to "oil addiction" and the "national interests" section of "foreign policy" and "geo-politics".