Posts Tagged ‘malaise’

Barack Obama: The ONLY President Who Could Make Jimmy Carter’s ‘Malaise’ Actually Look GOOD

November 30, 2011

Jimmy Carter is infamous for many things.  But he’s probably the most infamous for his “malaise” speech.

It was the speech of a man who had no idea how to solve a crisis.

In fact, regarding the central economic problem imploding America, Jimmy Carter said:

“It would be misleading for me to tell any of you that there is a solution to it.”

But Ronald Reagan had a solution.  He turned America around rather than lecturing the nation about what was wrong with it.

Obama has America full of malaise and more, because he, too, is a completely failed leader with zero ideas:

September 29:

The way I think about it is, this is a great, great country that had gotten a little soft and we didn’t have that same competitive edge that we needed over the last couple of decades. We need to get back on track.”

November 12:

But we’ve been a little bit lazy, I think, over the last couple of decades. We’ve kind of taken for granted — well, people will want to come here and we aren’t out there hungry, selling America and trying to attract new business into America.”

See the “Jimmy Obama” video for more:

Obama has actually surpassed Jimmy Carter as the worst failure this country has ever known:

Barack Obama: Making “Malaise” Look Good
By fitsnews • on November 29, 2011

You’ve no doubt heard the comparisons before, but now it’s official: U.S. President Barack Obama is a worse president than Jimmy Carter.

At least that’s the opinion of the American people, as conveyed to Gallup pollsters.

“President Obama’s slow ride down Gallup’s daily presidential job approval index has finally passed below Jimmy Carter, earning Obama the worst job approval rating of any president at this stage of his term in modern political history,” writes Paul Bedard of U.S. News and World Report.

“Since March, Obama’s job approval rating has hovered above Carter’s, considered among the 20th century’s worst presidents, but today Obama’s punctured Carter’s dismal job approval line,” Bedard continues.

According to Gallup, here are the approval ratings for ten of the last twelve presidents (including Obama) at this point in their administrations:

Dwight Eisenhower: 78 percent
George W. Bush: 55 percent
Harry S. Truman: 54 percent
Ronald Reagan: 54 percent
George H.W. Bush: 52 percent
Jimmy Carter: 51 percent
Bill Clinton: 51 percent
Richard M. Nixon: 50 percent
Lyndon B. Johnson: 44 percent
Barack Obama: 43 percent

This list obviously doesn’t include John F. Kennedy, who was assassinated on November 22, 1963. Kennedy was polling at 58 percent in a poll taken nine days before his death, however. The list also doesn’t include former president Gerald Ford, who left office in January 1977 after serving less than two-and-a-half years as president.

Amazingly, despite his historically awful approval ratings Obama is still even money to defeat even the most “electable” Republican challenger – which should tell you all you need to know about the ideological bankruptcy of the current crop of GOP contenders.

As for the last paragraph, I agree – to a limited degree.  I’ve been appalled at how pathetic the GOP field has largely become.  Mitt Romney is a pandering flip flopper who is only surpassed by Barack Obama for saying one thing and then saying another.

Here’s the UK Telegraph’s Top Ten list of Obama flip flops

Notice that it doesn’t even include Obama’s abject hypocrisy and self-righteous demagoguery regarding the debt ceiling.

As bad as Mitt Romney is, he won’t have much of a problem blowing Obama out of the water on the charge of flip flopping.  To call Obama a “serial liar” has the defect of being unfair to serial liars.  But that said, Mitt Romney is truly pathetic.  And it makes me sad that he’s my party’s probable nominee.

To suggest that Newt Gingrich is “intellectually bankrupt” only goes to reveal the serial bias of the author of the above article.  Even Bill Clinton lavished praise on Newt Gingrich about being something very different indeed from “intellectually bankrupt.”

But Newt Gingrich has his own set of “issues” that undermine him as a legitimate conservative.  Here’s one:

Here’s another:

“I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering,” he said when asked about Ryan’s plan to transition to a “premium support” model for Medicare. “I don’t think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate.”

And I’m only slightly happier about his candidacy than I am about Mitt Romney’s.

Fwiw, I don’t trust Mitt Romney because he is the kind of man who will tell you whatever you want him to tell you to get elected; and he’ll say one thing and say another and then deny that he ever contradicted himself.  I don’t trust Newt Gingrich because the man is brilliant – but seems to desperately want everyone to celebrate that brilliance.  Just for one example, if he doesn’t tow the line on the global warming agenda (see him sitting on Nancy Pelosi’s couch above), the media will depict his view as ignorant in ten thousand different stories.  And I seriously wonder if the man’s ego can withstand the criticism of the “intelligentsia.”

Btw, here’s a sad, pathetic comparison as to the things that Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Barack Obama have in common.  It doesn’t make any of them look very good.

And in that sense it’s like 2008 all over again.

There comes a point of no return for a nation.  And one of the things that herald that point of no return is a nation’s inability to recognize that their leader is going to lead them straight to hell.  I fear that we’ve reached that point of no return in this our very own God damn America.

Such a nation will go down hard.  And it deserves to go down hard.

Barack Obama is an abject failure.  Four more years of Obama is tantamount to a vote for the United States of America to slit its own throat and then stagger around like a headless chicken before it collapses for good.

The problem is that the worst failure in American history will have a billion dollar political warchest from all the crony capitalist deals he’s made to rob America blind.  And that when America needed one most, the GOP couldn’t produce another Ronald Reagan.

Instead, we have the choice between a couple of guys who won’t be that good at getting America back to where it needs to be versus a complete failure who will utterly implode this country.

Will Americans actually vote to re-elect the worst president in history?  Will we actually vote for a guy who is so bad that he actually makes even Jimmy Carter look good?

All I can say is, “Lord, please don’t give us the leaders we deserve.”

Shovel-Ready Projects: Obama Admits $862 Billion Was Pissed Away On Idiotic Libthink

October 14, 2010

We spent 862 BILLION dollars – actually $3.27 TRILLION when you factor in interest and the cost of extending all the programs Obama created – on what even Obama now admits was a completely bogus premise.

Now all we have to wait for is for Obama to realize that his other “success” – ObamaCare – was a dismal failure at best, too.

October 13, 2010 11:45 AM
Obama: “No Such Thing as Shovel-Ready Projects”
Posted by Stephanie Condon

With unemployment hovering near 10 percent nearly two years after President Obama signed his economic stimulus package, Mr. Obama is acknowledging that, despite his campaign promises, “there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects.”

The president gave that remark in an hour-long interview with the New York Times.

Mr. Obama also told the Times that he should have “let the Republicans insist on the tax cuts” in the stimulus, rather than including them himself, so the package would have seemed more like a compromise. The stimulus package, which the Congressional Budget Office said this year will cost $862 billion, included $236 billion in tax cuts. Nevertheless, the president said in the interview that he comes across as “the same old tax-and-spend Democrat.”

When the president campaigned for the stimulus package at the start of his presidency, he and others in his administration repeatedly insisted the investments would go to “shovel-ready” projects — projects that would put people to work right away. As recently as August, however, local governments were still facing delays spending the money they were allocated from the stimulus, CBS News Correspondent Nancy Cordes reported.

Couldn’t help but laugh at the way Obama phrased a couple of things.  He says he “should have ‘let the Republicans insist on the tax cuts’ in the stimulus, rather than including them himself, so the package would have seemed more like a compromise.”  Because appearances are everything, aren’t they???  And if we’d just pitched it this way, and given Republicans just a tiny little bit of input, then maybe we could have blamed yet ANOTHER liberal-created mess on Republicans.

And “comes across as “the same old tax-and-spend Democrat.”  Do ya THINK???

Obama “comes across as “the same old tax-and-spend Democrat” the way most human beings come across as bipedal hominids.  It’s just pretty much what you are, dude.  I’m sorry you can’t bring yourself to see the real picture when you look in the mirror:

Gold reached the highest constant-dollar value ever recorded during the last year of the Carter administration.  Adjusted for inflation, that is a much better price than the new all-time-high we just saw today under Barry Hussein.  By the time Obama leaves office in utter disgrace, you can rest assured that gold will be in the stratosphere, as desperate investors look for anything that Obama can’t ruin.

One picture says a thousand words about the two times when gold shot through the roof:

And those thousand words can only describe the failure of Democrats, given the fact that not since the Carter years have Democrats had so much power in Congress.  And not since the Carter years have we seen such miserable failure.  And – while many people have bought the liberal media lie that Bill Clinton was a successful president – the truth is that Bill Clinton was such a dismal failure that he suffered the worse ever (until NOW) political defeat in American history in 1994.  That was the year of the “Republican Revolution” that swept Republicans into power in numbers never before seen.  It was those Republicans – and not Bill Clinton – who generated the economic success that led to the balanced budget that Republicans promised as the number one plank in the “Contract with America.”

Enter that old Carter “malaise,” that old Carter “crisis of confidence,” as the American people finally come to realize that their president knows less about how the economy works than most of them know about brain surgery.

Tax Cuts INCREASE Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues

September 8, 2010

We keep seeing the same liberal argument being played over and over again.  As the mainstream media seek to make their case to the American people that the Bush tax cuts should expire, one of the primary strategies being employed is to claim that Republicans are refusing to “pay for” their extension of the tax cuts.  And that therefore the Republicans will hike the deficit.  The problem is that it’s a false premise, based on a static conception of human behavior that refuses to take into account the fact that people’s behavior changes depending upon how much of their money they are allowed to keep, and how much of their money is seized from them in taxation.

As bizarre as it might seem, it is seen as perverse these days to suggest that allowing someone to keep more of the money he or she invests would stimulate people to take more risks by investing in businesses and products, and that such increased investment in business and products would in turn stimulate more economic growth.  Common sense has become akin to rocket science these days.

Then again, liberals aren’t doing much for rocket science, either.

Let’s take a look at the current facts, and then examine the history of our greatest tax-cutting presidents.

The Falsehood That Democrats Are ‘Cutting’ Taxes

Democrats say they are cutting taxes on “95% of Americans, but argue that giving the same tax cut benefits to the remaining 5% would hike the deficit and be fiscally irresponsible.

Well, for one thing, the Democrats are flat-out lying when they say they are cutting taxes for 95% of Americans.  That can’t possibly be true, because as a matter of simple fact a whopping 47% of American households pay no federal income taxes whatsoever.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Tax Day is a dreaded deadline for millions, but for nearly half of U.S. households it’s simply somebody else’s problem.

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That’s according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization. [...]

The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners — households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 — paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.

What Democrats are doing – deceitful liars that they are – is giving Americans “tax credits” and calling them “tax cuts.”

tax cut is a reduction in the percentage or amount of taxes that is being imposed on a citizen.  The government is cutting the amount it had been collecting from taxpayers.  A government cannot “cut” a citizen’s taxes unless that citizen had been paying taxes in the first place.

A tax credit is when you give someone money that has been collected from another taxpayer.  It is redistribution of wealth.  It is what Karl Marx described as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”  Do you notice that “to” in the middle?  It means, “transferring the wealth from one government-penalized group of people TO another government-privileged group of people.”  It is what Obama described as “spreading the wealth around.”

What Obama and the Democrats in Congress propose is NOT a “tax cut.”  And it is nothing but a lie to call it that.  And every single journalist who has suggested that it is a tax cut is as much of a liar as the Democrats are.

That’s the first point.  Democrats are advancing a central tenet of Marxism and deceitfully and even demagogically relabeling it as “capitalism.”  And the media helps them get away with it.

The Falsehood That Cutting Taxes For the Rich – But NOT The Other Classes – Contributes To the Deficit

Next comes the idea Democrats argue that tax cuts for the rich contribute to the deficit.

Let’s say for the sake of argument (just for the moment; I’ll prove it’s wrong below) that tax cuts for the rich raise the deficit.  Let me ask you one question: how then do tax cuts for the rest of us not ALSO raise the deficit???

Why wouldn’t raising taxes on the middle class and the poor not correspondingly lower the deficit?  So why aren’t Democrats going after them?

Are Democrats too stupid to realize that there just aren’t enough rich people to pay off our deficit, especially when this president and this Congress have raised said deficit tenfold over the last Republican-passed budget deficit?  The last budget produced by congressional Republicans was in 2007.  That year, the deficit was approximately $160 billion; now under Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid it is $1.6 TRILLION a year as far as the eye can see.

Wouldn’t ANY tax cuts raise the deficit?  And shouldn’t we therefore tax the bejeezus out of EVERYBODY to lower the deficit?  Wouldn’t every single dollar collected reduce the deficit correspondingly?

Let me put it concretely: say I took a $100 bill out of the wallet of a millionaire.  And then say I took a $100 bill out of the wallet of a poor person.  If I took both bills to a Democrat, would he or she be able to tell the difference?  Would he say, “Ah, THIS bill will lower the deficit because it comes from a rich person; but THIS one clearly won’t because it clearly came from a poor person.”

Update, Sep. 10: A study by the Joint Tax Committee, using the same static methodology that I refer to in my opening paragraph, calculate that the government will lose $700 billion in revenue if the tax cuts for the top income brackets are extended.  And that sounds bad.  But they also conclude that the Bush tax cuts on the middle class will cost the Treasury $3 TRILLION over the same period.  If we can’t afford $700 billion, then how on earth can we afford $3 trillion?  And then you’ve got to ask how much the Treasury is losing by not taxing the poor first into the poorhouse, and then into the street?  And how much more revenue could we collect if we then imposed a “street” tax? [end update].

Hopefully you get the point: if tax cuts for the rich are bad because they increase the deficit, then they are equally bad for everyone else for the same exact reason.  And so we should either tax the hell out of everyone, or cut taxes for everyone.  And a consistent Democrat opposed to “deficit-hiking tax cuts for the rich” should be for raising YOUR taxes as much as possible.

Republicans don’t fall into this fundamental contradiction (see below), because they don’t believe that tax cuts create deficits.  Democrats do.  Which means they are perfectly content with shockingly supermassive deficits – as long as its 95% of Americans who are creating those deficits, rather than 100%.

Joe Biden said it was a patriotic duty to pay higher taxes.  And yet Democrats are trying to make 95% of Americans unpatriotic traitors who don’t care about their country?

Now, Democrats will at this point repudiate logic and punt to the issue of “fairness.”  But “fairness” is a very subjective thing, when one group of people decide it’s “fair” for another group of people to hand over their money while the first group pays nothing.  Even George Bernard Shaw – a socialist, mind you – understood this.  He pointed out the fact that “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.”

Which is to say it’s NOT fair at all.  Paul may think it’s fair, but poor Peter gets screwed year after year.

And it is a fundamental act of hypocrisy – not to mention advancing yet ANOTHER central tenet of Marxist class warfare – to claim to oppose tax cuts for the rich in the name of the deficit, but not to oppose tax cuts for everyone else.

And for the record, I despise both hypocrisy AND central tenets of Marxism.  Which is why I despise the Democrat Party, which is both hypocritical and basically Marxist.

[Update, September 20] Brit Hume demolished the Obama-Democrat argument regarding the Bush tax cuts being a “cost” to the government, saying:

But the very language used in discussing these issues tells you something as well. In Washington, letting people keep more of their own money is considered a cost. As if all the money really belongs to the government in the first place in which what you get to keep is an expenditure.”

And, again, that mindset about government control and in fact government ownership over people’s wealth represents a profoundly Marxist view of the world. [End update].

For what it’s worth, Democrats will only maintain the massive contradiction of “tax cuts for the rich raising the deficit” for so long.  Obama already admitted he was willing to go back on his promise to raise taxes on the middle class.  And his people are already looking to tee off on middle class tax hikes.  In addition, if you have any private retirement funds, they may well be coming after you soon.

The Falsehood That Tax Cuts Increase The Deficit

Now let’s take a look at the utterly fallacious view that tax cuts in general create higher deficits.

Let’s take a trip back in time, starting with the 1920s.  From Burton Folsom’s book, New Deal or Raw Deal?:

In 1921, President Harding asked the sixty-five-year-old [Andrew] Mellon to be secretary of the treasury; the national debt [resulting from WWI] had surpassed $20 billion and unemployment had reached 11.7 percent, one of the highest rates in U.S. history.  Harding invited Mellon to tinker with tax rates to encourage investment without incurring more debt. Mellon studied the problem carefully; his solution was what is today called “supply side economics,” the idea of cutting taxes to stimulate investment.  High income tax rates, Mellon argued, “inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw this capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities. . . . The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up, wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people” (page 128).

Mellon wrote, “It seems difficult for some to understand that high rates of taxation do not necessarily mean large revenue to the Government, and that more revenue may often be obtained by lower taxes.”  And he compared the government setting tax rates on incomes to a businessman setting prices on products: “If a price is fixed too high, sales drop off and with them profits.”

And what happened?

“As secretary of the treasury, Mellon promoted, and Harding and Coolidge backed, a plan that eventually cut taxes on large incomes from 73 to 24 percent and on smaller incomes from 4 to 1/2 of 1 percent.  These tax cuts helped produce an outpouring of economic development – from air conditioning to refrigerators to zippers, Scotch tape to radios and talking movies.  Investors took more risks when they were allowed to keep more of their gains.  President Coolidge, during his six years in office, averaged only 3.3 percent unemployment and 1 percent inflation – the lowest misery index of any president in the twentieth century.

Furthermore, Mellon was also vindicated in his astonishing predictions that cutting taxes across the board would generate more revenue.  In the early 1920s, when the highest tax rate was 73 percent, the total income tax revenue to the U.S. government was a little over $700 million.  In 1928 and 1929, when the top tax rate was slashed to 25 and 24 percent, the total revenue topped the $1 billion mark.  Also remarkable, as Table 3 indicates, is that the burden of paying these taxes fell increasingly upon the wealthy” (page 129-130).

Now, that is incredible upon its face, but it becomes even more incredible when contrasted with FDR’s antibusiness and confiscatory tax policies, which both dramatically shrunk in terms of actual income tax revenues (from $1.096 billion in 1929 to $527 million in 1935), and dramatically shifted the tax burden to the backs of the poor by imposing huge new excise taxes (from $540 million in 1929 to $1.364 billion in 1935).  See Table 1 on page 125 of New Deal or Raw Deal for that information.

FDR both collected far less taxes from the rich, while imposing a far more onerous tax burden upon the poor.

It is simply a matter of empirical fact that tax cuts create increased revenue, and that those [Democrats] who have refused to pay attention to that fact have ended up reducing government revenues even as they increased the burdens on the poorest whom they falsely claim to help.

Let’s move on to John F. Kennedy, one of the most popular Democrat presidents ever.  Few realize that he was also a supply-side tax cutter.

Kennedy said:

“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.”

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference


“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.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

“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.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”


“It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today’s economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”


“Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session.


“A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.”

– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill

Which is to say that modern Democrats are essentially calling one of their greatest presidents a liar when they demonize tax cuts as a means of increasing government revenues.

So let’s move on to Ronald Reagan.  Reagan had two major tax cutting policies implemented: the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) of 1981, which was retroactive to 1981, and the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

Did Reagan’s tax cuts decrease federal revenues?  Hardly:

We find that 8 of the following 10 years there was a surplus of revenue from 1980, prior to the Reagan tax cuts.  And, following the Tax Reform Act of 1986, there was a MASSIVE INCREASE of revenue.

So Reagan’s tax cuts increased revenue.  But who paid the increased tax revenue?  The poor?  Opponents of the Reagan tax cuts argued that his policy was a giveaway to the rich (ever heard that one before?) because their tax payments would fall.  But that was exactly wrong.  In reality:

“The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.”

So Ronald Reagan a) collected more total revenue, b) collected more revenue from the rich, while c) reducing revenue collected by the bottom half of taxpayers, and d) generated an economic powerhouse that lasted – with only minor hiccups – for nearly three decades.  Pretty good achievement considering that his predecessor was forced to describe his own economy as a “malaise,” suffering due to a “crisis of confidence.” Pretty good considering that President Jimmy Carter responded to a reporter’s question as to what he would do about the problem of inflation by answering, “It would be misleading for me to tell any of you that there is a solution to it.”

Reagan whipped inflation.  Just as he whipped that malaise and that crisis of confidence.

This might explain why a Gallup poll showed that Ronald Reagan is regarded as our greatest president, while fellow tax-cutting great John F. Kennedy is tied for second with Abraham Lincoln.  Because, in proving Democrat policies are completely wrongheaded, he helped people.  Including poorer people who benefited from the strong economy he built with his tax policies.

Let’s move on to George Bush and the infamous (to Democrats) Bush tax cuts.  And let me quote none other than the New York Times:

Sharp Rise in Tax Revenue to Pare U.S. Deficit
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: July 13, 2005

WASHINGTON, July 12 – For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.

A Jump in Corporate Payments On Wednesday, White House officials plan to announce that the deficit for the 2005 fiscal year, which ends in September, will be far smaller than the $427 billion they estimated in February.

Mr. Bush plans to hail the improvement at a cabinet meeting and to cite it as validation of his argument that tax cuts would stimulate the economy and ultimately help pay for themselves.

Based on revenue and spending data through June, the budget deficit for the first nine months of the fiscal year was $251 billion, $76 billion lower than the $327 billion gap recorded at the corresponding point a year earlier.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that the deficit for the full fiscal year, which reached $412 billion in 2004, could be “significantly less than $350 billion, perhaps below $325 billion.”

The big surprise has been in tax revenue, which is running nearly 15 percent higher than in 2004. Corporate tax revenue has soared about 40 percent, after languishing for four years, and individual tax revenue is up as well
.

[Update, September 20: The above NY Times link was scrubbed; the same article, edited differently, appears here.]

Note the newspaper’s use of liberals favorite adjective: “unexpected.” They never expect Republican and conservative polices to work, but they always do if they’re given the chance.  They never expect Democrat and liberal policies to fail, but they always seem to fail every single time they’re tried.

For the record, President George Bush’s 2003 tax cuts:

raised federal tax receipts by $785 billion, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. In fiscal 2007, which ended last month, the government took in 6.7% more tax revenues than in 2006.

These increases in tax revenue have substantially reduced the federal budget deficits. In 2004 the deficit was $413 billion, or 3.5% of gross domestic product. It narrowed to $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006 and $163 billion in 2007. That last figure is just 1.2% of GDP, which is half of the average of the past 50 years.

Lower tax rates have be so successful in spurring growth that the percentage of federal income taxes paid by the very wealthy has increased. According to the Treasury Department, the top 1% of income tax filers paid just 19% of income taxes in 1980 (when the top tax rate was 70%), and 36% in 2003, the year the Bush tax cuts took effect (when the top rate became 35%). The top 5% of income taxpayers went from 37% of taxes paid to 56%, and the top 10% from 49% to 68% of taxes paid. And the amount of taxes paid by those earning more than $1 million a year rose to $236 billion in 2005 from $132 billion in 2003, a 78% increase.

Budget deficits are not merely a matter of tax policy; it is a matter of tax policy AND spending policy.  Imagine you have a minimum wage job, but live within your means.  Then you get a job that pays a million dollars a year.  And you go a little nuts, buy a mansion, a yacht, a fancy car, and other assorted big ticket items such that you go into debt.  Are you really so asinine as to argue that you made more money when you earned minimum wage?  But that’s literally the Democrats’ argument when they criticize Reagan (who defeated the Soviet Union and won the Cold War in the aftermath of a recession he inherited from President Carter) and George Bush (who won the Iraq War after suffering the greatest attack on US soil in the midst of a recession he inherited from President Clinton).

As a result of the Clinton-era Dot-com bubble bursting, the Nasdaq lost a whopping 78% of its value, and $6 trillion dollars of wealth was simply vaporized.  We don’t tend to remember how bad that economic disaster was, because the 9/11 attack was such a huge experience, and because instead of endlessly blaming his predecessor, George Bush simply took responsibility for the economy, cut taxes, and fixed the problem.  The result, besides the above tax revenue gains, was an incredible and unprecedented 52 consecutive months of job growth.

Update September 12: Did somebody say something about “jobs”?  Another fact to recognize is the horrendous damage that will be done to small businesses and the jobs they create if the tax cuts for the “rich” aren’t continued.  As found in the Wall Street Journal, “According to IRS data, fully 48% of the net income of sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations reported on tax returns went to households with incomes above $200,000 in 2007.” Further, the Tax Policy Center found that basically a third of taxpayers who are expected to be in the top tax bracket in 2011 generate more than half their income from a business ownership.  And while Democrats love to point out that their tax hikes on the so-called rich only impact 3% of small businesses, the National Federation of Independent Business reports that that three percent employs about 25 percent of the nation’s total workforce.  “Small businesses that employ 20 to 250 workers are the most likely to be hit by an increase in the top two tax rates, according to NFIB research. Businesses of this size employ more than 25 percent of the U.S. workforce.”  So if you want jobs and an economic recovery, you simply don’t pile more punishing taxes on those “rich” people.  Especially during a recession [End update].

We’re not arguing theories here; we’re talking about the actual, empirical numbers, literally dollars and cents, which confirms Andrew Mellon’s thesis, and Warren Harding’s and Calvin Coolidge’s, John F. Kennedy’s, Ronald Reagan’s, and George W. Bush’s, economic policies.

Harding and Coolidge, Reagan and Bush, with Democrat JFK right smack in the middle: great tax cutters all.

The notion that small- and limited-government conservatives who want ALL Americans to pay less to a freedom-encroaching government are somehow “beholden to the rich” for doing so is just a lie.  And a Marxist-based lie at that.

[Update, 12/15/10]: Check out these numbers as to how the Reagan tax cuts INCREASED the taxes paid by the wealthy, and REDUCED the taxes paid by the middle class and the bottom 50% of tax payers:

Income tax burdens (from the Joint Economic Committee for the US Congress report, 1996):
1981: top 1% of earners paid 17.6% of all personal income taxes
1988: top 1% of earners paid 27.5% of all personal income taxes (+ 10%).

1981: top 10% of earners paid 48% of all personal income taxes
1988: top 10% of earners paid 57.2% of all personal income taxes (+ 9%).

So rich clearly paid MORE of the tax burden when their tax rates were LOWERED.

For the middle class:
1981: middle class paid 57.5% of all personal income taxes
1988: middle class paid 48.7% of all personal income taxes (- 9%).

The middle class’ tax burden went DOWN by 9%.  They paid almost 10% LESS than what they had been paying before the Reagan cuts.

For the bottom 50%:
1981: bottom 50% paid 7.5% of all personal income taxes
1988: bottom 50% paid 5.7% of all personal income taxes (- 2%).

So the Joint Economic Economic Committee concludes that if you lower the tax rates on the rich, the rich wind up paying MORE of the tax burden and the poor end up paying LESS.  When you enact confiscatory taxation policies, the people who can afford it invariably end up protecting their money.  They do everything they can to NOT pay taxes because they are getting screwed.  When the rates drop to reasonable rates, they don’t shelter their money; rather, they take advantage of their ability to earn more – and improve the economy by doing so – by investing.  If you take away their profit, you take away their incentive to improve the economy and create jobs.

Some articles to read:

The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates

Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenues and Help Low Income Families

[End Update, 12/15/10]

Obama Wreckovery Adding Whopping 260 Jobs PER STATE

June 30, 2010

Rush Limbaugh made me aware of the math: what’s 13,000 jobs divided by 50 states?  An infinitesimal 260 jobs per state.

So much for Obama’s “recovery.”

And, of course, it gets even worse when you divide that 13,000 jobs by the 57 states that Obama claimed he had visited [I'd forgive him for that if he were born in Kenya; but given that he claims to be a natural-born American, the '57 states' thing will always remain an example of the quintessential ignorance about America and everything American of our current president to me].

260 jobs per state.  That’s a record to boast about.  Want to wait in a line to get one of those jobs?

Report: Private sector added only 13,000 jobs in June

The private sector of the U.S. economy added only 13,000 jobs in June, according to ADP employment services, a disappointing number that came in below estimates and portends bad things from the government’s June jobs report due out Friday.

In May, according to ADP, the private sector added 57,000 jobs. But in June? Statistically, across a workforce as big as the United States’? Zero job growth; 13,000 new jobs is a statistically meaningless number.

This is bad news for the economy. If the ADP report is seconded by the Labor Department’s June jobs report, it means that the private sector — which is the engine of growth in this economy, lest we’ve forgotten that, amid all of our various government stimulus programs and subsides — is refusing to add jobs. That means employers are not comfortable enough with their prospects to hire.

In May, according to the government, the economy added more than 440,000 jobs. But almost every one of those was a census worker, jobs that will go away when the count ends in the fall.

Today’s report adds to concerns that the economic recovery is stalling and gives ammunition to the more bearish among us who worry that we’re headed into a double-dip recession.

That “Welcome back, Carter” “malaise” is just an accepted fact from the Obama administration.  They may say something different when they know their statements are going to be publicized, but here’s what they say in private when they think only their worshipers are around:

Vice President Joe Biden gave a stark assessment of the economy today, telling an audience of supporters, “there’s no possibility to restore 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession.”

Now, let’s go back to September of last year, when Joe Biden said of the stimulus:

In my wildest dreams, I never thought it would work this well.”

Now we find that same guy saying all the jobs that were lost are gone forever.  How’s that for the stimulus working beyond your wildest dreams?

Gateway Pundit includes a graph summarizing the results of Obama’s wreckovery:

Let’s see.  Thanks to Obama, taxes on businesses are going to skyrocket – especially the small businesses, who file primarily as individuals and therefore fall prey to Obama’s shocking increases on those earning more than $250,000 a year.  Businesses are being forced to take into account that they won’t have nearly as much money under Obama, and must therefore plan accordingly.

From Politico:

… Obama’s stated plan to raise taxes on households making $250,000 or more in income is a tax increase on small business. The simple answer to this dilemma can be found in the IRS Statistics of Income Bulletin (Table 1.4, for those who are interested).So what do the data say?

In 2006 (the latest year available), $706 billion of such income was reported to the Internal Revenue Service. Of this, about half was reported by households in the top marginal income tax rate. Interestingly, two-thirds of this income was reported by households making $250,000 per year or more — the very same households that Obama wants to increase taxes on.

Intellectually bankrupt liberals are hyping the Marxist class warfare strategy of demonizing businesses.  But when the government taxes businesses and business owners, businesses and those who own them merely a) raise their prices and pass those taxes on to you the customer, and b) invest less and hire less.  And who ends up getting hurt the most?

Thanks to Obama, taxes on those who create wealth and build the economy by investment are going to shelter their money.  Stephen Moore put it this way:

[I]f you think it’s bad this year, you’re right. It’s going to get a whole lot worse next year because the Bush tax cuts expire. That means that we’re going to see an increase in the capital gains tax. We’re going to see an increase in the tax on dividends, perhaps a doubling or tripling of that tax. And then we’re also talking about higher income tax rates next year. So this is going to be a tough year this year, but I think things get a whole lot worse next year as we see rates across the board increase. And let’s not forget, there’s also a lot of talk about a value-added tax on top of all of that. [...]

[T]here’s something called the Laffer curve, and that’s especially true with these investment taxes. I think it’s a big mistake to be raising taxes on stocks and investment at the very time we need businesses to be doing more investment. So a lot of economists think we’re going to have a pretty good year this year, in 2010, but once those new taxes kick in, in 2011, might cause a double-dip recession.

Intellectually bankrupt liberals are hyping the Marxist class warfare strategy of demonizing private investors.  But they are trying to kill the geese that lay the golden eggs.  Rich private investors create opportunities for businesses to grow by their investments.  And private investors – who are investing their own money rather than someone else’s as government bureaucrats always do – are rewarding well-run businesses that will make the most of their capital to most effectively expand and create jobs.

If you tax the investments and seize the profits that investors took risks to obtain, then they will risk less and invest less.  It is as simple as that.  You are killing businesses by taking away the investments that sustain their growth.

Thanks to Obama, the cost of providing health care to employees will go up shockingly.  And employers will HAVE to provide health care insurance, or pay fines.

It’s been a banner week for Democrats: ObamaCare passed Congress in its final form on Thursday night, and the returns are already rolling in. Yesterday AT&T announced that it will be forced to make a $1 billion writedown due solely to the health bill, in what has become a wave of such corporate losses.

This wholesale destruction of wealth and capital came with more than ample warning. Turning over every couch cushion to make their new entitlement look affordable under Beltway accounting rules, Democrats decided to raise taxes on companies that do the public service of offering prescription drug benefits to their retirees instead of dumping them into Medicare. We and others warned this would lead to AT&T-like results, but like so many other ObamaCare objections Democrats waved them off as self-serving or “political.”

Dumbass quiz: do you think that makes a business more or less likely to hire a new employee?

Meanwhile, Obama will massively tax every American by forcing them to buy health insurance, leaving us all with less money to spend purchasing goods and services from businesses.

Thanks to Obama, banks will soon face onerous new regulations that will burden the economy by sustaining the credit crisis:

While certain ramifications of the legislation will only emerge over the coming years, our initial reaction is that this bill will further hinder the U.S. economy’s already fragile recovery. Tough new restrictions on traditional credit products and more onerous capital requirements will further curtail credit availability and product innovation, including affordable credit options designed for higher-risk customer segments. As a result, both industry and economic growth will likely be suppressed for an extended period as banks continue to de-leverage and develop a more thorough understanding of the broad-based structural changes likely to affect the industry in the coming years.

Thanks to Obama, energy will ultimately become far more expensive to already-squeezed businesses.  As Obama taxes productivity, there will be less and less incentive to be productive.

And the added cost to the average household will be some $1,761 a year, leaving us all with less money to spend.  And thus hurting businesses even more.

You add all of these disastrous Obama policies up and you get… absolutely nothing.  At least nothing in terms of jobs.

One day Barack Obama will surely end up in hell, and Karl Marx will say to him, “Well done, my good and faithful servant.”


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 516 other followers