Posts Tagged ‘NFIB’

An Excellent Short Summary Of Obama’s ‘If You’ve Got A Business, You Didn’t Build That’ View

July 24, 2012

What makes this nice is that it is short and sweet:

7/17/2012 @ 10:43AM
Obama: Small Business Didn’t Build It

President Obama just threw a grenade at small business. He implied that everything is done in a community setting with the government or outside help. He is implying that individualism and individual achievements should not be highlighted, as everyone and everything needs help. In his speech yesterday, President Obama referenced the involvement of the government in the development of the internet and in building roads and bridges. He is correct to say the government did involve themselves in those endeavors. That was the government of the people, by the people and for the people.

If we get into a discussion whether business owners want the government as their partners, the President is on the wrong side of the tracks. What is being debated is the matter of degree. How much government? How big should government be? Small businesses give back through taxes, jobs and charity but not by enlarging government. This is all about an attack on individualism and individual achievement. The implications is clearly is that we need the government and we need big government. Not a great position for capitalism, small business or entrepreneurs.

There’s your short summary of Obama’s rhetoric.  If you’d like to hear a little more, then please keep reading.

The two major groups representing small businesses – the Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Businesses – have both publicly decried Obama’s “you didn’t build that” attack against small business owners (I found the link available here).

What do the small businesses that together historically create 3 out of every 4 jobs in America say?  77 percent of small business owners have been saying that the Obama administration has been HURTING them.  And only 1 in 5 small businesses plan to hire any workers under Obama; and nearly 80% of small businesses want Obama to get his government the hell out of their way; and 90% of them are concerned about Obama’s massive social spending and their being demonized to pay for it all.

When both the Chamber of Commerce and the NFIB repeatedly say a president sucks for creating business growth, and when survey after survey of small business owners validate what these two small business organizations are saying, then that president SUCKS.  If you want Marxism, then don’t listen to the Chamber of Commerce or the NFIB.  If you want a job and the opportunity to advance your fortunes in a nation that has historically been better than any other at allowing the opportunity to do do, then get this joker out of the White House.

Obama – the failed president who a short time ago said “the private sector’s doing fine” – has demonstrated that he has no business talking about businesses.  He is simply an ignorant fool who does not understand how a free market functions.  And that is why he has spent the last four years unsuccessfully attempting to “fundamentally transform” America into a centrally planned economic system that has failed wherever it has taken root.

This is what Obama said in context (an expanded section of Obama’s words and a link to Obama’s entire speech is available at that link):

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.

Obama’s fellow liberal Democrat Elizabeth Warren helps us understand what Obama was saying and what he intended to say:

“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever,’” Warren said. “No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.

“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.”

These two doctrinaire liberals couldn’t be more clear – which makes it frankly amazing that the left would now try so hard to twist their words now that their policies are being exposed for what they clearly and truly are: they are saying that businesses do not deserve to take pride and responsibility in their own success because the Government (with a big “G” because that is how they view government) contributed to that success by building roads and bridges and providing schools and other infrastructure.  And they are using that as their justification that business owners therefore owe far more in taxes than they have been paying.  Because the Government is more responsible for their success than they are. 

That is PRECISELY what Obama was saying.

And that is why Jack Gilchrist as a successful small business employer is so pissed off at Obama:

Obama is saying that we should all be worshiping Government and wanting it to expand more and more because it made every “independent” human success possible.  I pointed out that on that reasoning we should really be worshiping the sun because, heck, it made Obama’s Government possible, didn’t it?

In another comment I explained this to a liberal who never has and never will comprehend how the American economy functions:

There is absolutely no question and any honest person knows there is no question that what Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren are saying is that all people who build businesses are really just pirating off government infrastructure, such that they have no right to take any meaningful credit for the success of their businesses. And therefore business owners ought to be willing to pay their real god the Government what it is due with their sacrificial offering of high taxes.   But that is simply bullcrap because: 1) Given that both successful people and unsuccessful people alike have all benefited equally from schools and roads, how can the schools and roads then possibly be the cause of the successful people’s success? It was those business owners’ hard work, risk, more hard work and good decisions that made them successful, not the public schools and roads that welfare slackers get just as much of as small business owners get.  And 2) Given that these business owners were already forced to pay for this stuff by their already too-high taxes, it is frankly despicable for Obama to suck out business owners’ tax money for services, and then turn around and argue that because the government provided those services that Obama forced the business owners to pay for therefore meant that the business owners who were forced to pay for those services aren’t truly responsible for all the hard work and risks that they took that had nothing to do with the government.

As an example, I went to a public school when I was a kid. Do you know why I went to a public school? Because liberals forced my parents to pay property taxes that went into public schools and ONLY into public schools. My parents wanted us to go to Christian schools, but at that time they couldn’t pay the taxes that funded the government schools AND at the same time pay in addition to those taxes to send us to a Christian school. If my parents had been allowed to use their property tax money to instead send us to Christian schools, then THAT’S where we would have gone. If liberals had any decency they would be for VOUCHERS that allow parents to choose which schools to send their kids to.  Instead, they condemn millions of children to failing government schools.  And then take credit for it.

So what liberals are in fact doing is 1) forcing Americans to contribute to a government system and then 2) saying that since we benefited from the system that we were forced to contribute to, we are therefore not allowed to take any credit for our success that was based on our risks, our initiative, our investments and our time and our work. Instead Government should get all the credit and liberals can then justify their forcing people to pay even higher taxes on the basis of the taxes that they have already been forced to pay.

You can sum Obama’s policies up with three words “Government as God.”

When Karl Marx said that “religion is the opiate of the masses,” the point he was driving home was that God is an illusion that was keeping the people satisfied in their economic misery.  Marx believed that economic reality was the ONLY reality.  And he believed that if his economic and political Marxism replaced God with “the State” (i.e., “the Government”), that the people would find the true happiness they had wrongly been seeking in God.

And of course all they found was misery and death.  Every SINGLE time any form of Marxism was tried.

When Obama says – as a false, heretic “Christian” – that salvation is “collective salvation,”  (see also here) you can understand that in light of Marxist liberation theology (and see also here) that he is referring to “collectivist salvation.”  For Barack Obama, salvation is not related to sin, but rather to poverty, and the solution to poverty is not individuals improving their lot with hard work, but a Utopian redistributive state.

Karl Marx was wrong.  History has proven that his ideas were wrong for the world.  And Barack Obama is wrong and history has proven that his ideas are wrong for America.

The Worm Is Beginning To Turn On ObamaCare

January 21, 2011

Things are rapidly getting out of hand for ObamaCare.

The House just voted to repeal it with a bipartisan vote of 245-189 (with three Democrats joining all the Republicans).

For the record, the vote in favor of repealing ObamaCare was far higher than the vote to pass the damn thing (219 – barely above the minimum necessary for passage).

26 states are now officially on board with Florida to challenge ObamaCare in federal court.  The Florida State Attorney General said last night on Fox News’ “Greta” program that 2 more states have promised that they will be on board, and she has been in talks with several other states.

More than half the states now want ObamaCare tossed into the trash where it belongs.

Democrats and the mainstream media have routinely sneered about what a useless and time-wasting “symbolic” gesture this vote was.  One can only wonder: during the dark and dreadful reign of Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat majority during the last two years, more than 400 bills were passed that were not taken up in the Senate.  And that was during a period in which Democrats RAN the Senate.  Did the Democrats and the mainstream media come unglued over those “time wasting gestures”????  I don’t think so.

Americans for Tax Reform has compiled a long list of new tax hikes that ObamaCare is burdening the US economy with – in direct contradiction to Obama’s incredibly deceitful promise that “your taxes won’t go up one dime.”

These taxes include:

  1. Individual Mandate Excise Tax
  2. Employer Mandate Tax
  3. Surtax on Investment Income
  4. Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans
  5. Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax
  6. Medicine Cabinet Tax
  7. HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike
  8. Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka“Special Needs Kids Tax”
  9. Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers
  10. Raise “Haircut” for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI
  11. Tax on Indoor Tanning Services
  12. Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D
  13. Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike
  14. Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals
  15. Tax on Innovator Drug Companies
  16. Tax on Health Insurers
  17. $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives
  18. Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2
  19. Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting
  20. “Black liquor” tax hike
  21. Codification of the “economic substance doctrine”

And new studies are demonstrating that ObamaCare is a job murderer:

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Douglas Elmendorf recently spoke at the University of Southern California about the economic impact of Obamacare. He predicts that Obamacare will further depress the nation’s employment picture.

CBO’s analysis of Obamacare predicts that it will reduce the amount of labor being used in the economy by roughly half a percent. Elmendorf states that this impact will be small, but in reality the impact is small only in relative terms. For instance, a half-percent loss in jobs in the American economy today would translate into about 750,000 additional Americans losing work.

And the NFIB estimate is even more dismal:

Just as serious for the economy is the fact that Obamacare will cause significant job losses for the U.S. economy. A study by the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) found that the employer mandate  could lead to the elimination of 1.6 million jobs between 2009 and 2014, with 66 percent of those coming from small businesses.

And the Democrats loaded up ObamaCare with so many faulty assumptions that the actual numbers of jobs destroyed will undoubtedly be worse.

Democrats played all kinds of gimmicks to get a CBO score that created the illusion that ObamaCare will reduce the deficit.  Because Democrats in office agree with fellow liberal Bill Maher’s take on the American people:

“Or take the health care debate we’re presently having: members of Congress have recessed now so they can go home and “listen to their constituents.” An urge they should resist because their constituents don’t know anything.”

But even “stupid” people are smart enough to know that claiming that ObamaCare will ADD 35 million people to the health care rolls and actually cost LESS MONEY is itself a stupid claim.  They may not understand just how despicably deceitful Democrats were in manufacturing the numbers to get the CBO score (such as taxing ten years and only giving benefits for 6 years; such as double counting savings from revenue sources such as Medicare and Social Security; such as imposing all kinds of taxes that nobody knew about when this monstrosity was passed; omitting the so-called “doctor fix”, etc.), but they know something is very wrong.

Most Americans also know what the overwhelming majority of doctors know:

Nearly two-thirds of U.S. doctors surveyed fear healthcare reform could worsen care for patients, by flooding their offices and hurting income, according to a Thomson Reuters survey released Tuesday.

The survey of more than 2,900 doctors found many predict the legislation will force them to work harder for less money.

“When asked about the quality of healthcare in the U.S. over the next five years, 65 percent of the doctors believed it would deteriorate with only 18 percent predicting it would improve,” Thomson Reuters, parent company of Reuters, said in a statement.

The worm is indeed beginning to turn on ObamaCare, indeed.

And maybe the worm is beginning to turn inside Obama’s scrawny gut, too.

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]

VIA CNBC: ‘Many Firms Reluctant To Hire Because Of [Democrats’] Taxes, Rules’

January 13, 2010

Enjoy your unemployment, courtesy of the Obama administration.

And understand that the fact that you NEED unemployment is also courtesy of the Obama administration.

Is Obama helping the economy, or hurting it?  What we find out is that businesses and the people who actually hire and create jobs understand that what Obama has already done has been bad, and what he is trying to do is even worse.

The key phrase of the article is “paralyzing uncertainty.”

Obama, thy name is turd.  And according to Rasmussen, 53% of the American people now recognize it.

Many Firms Reluctant to Hire Because of New Taxes, Rules
Published: Tuesday, 12 Jan 2010
By: Albert Bozzo
Senior Features Editor

A potential wave of new regulation and higher taxes may be scaring many businesses from hiring, prolonging any rebound in employment, say business groups and economists.

The prospect of increased federal and state regulation and taxes has been particularly disruptive to the hiring plans of small- and medium-sized businesses, which have historically generated about two-thirds of the nation’s jobs.

“I don’t really see the private sector hiring much in the next few months,” says Brian Bethune, an economist at Global Insight. “For the small-business sector there is just too much uncertainty about what happens beyond 2010.”

Not only is the Obama administration seeking to push through major overhauls of energy and health care policy, it is also expected to impose dozens of new workplace rules and raise income taxes.

As Washington and Wall Street grow increasingly restless about the unusually slow pace of job creation and the risk of a so-called jobless recovery, key business groups have begun to bang the drum more loudly.

In reporting that its small business optimism index fell for the second straight month in December, the National Federation of Independent Business Tuesday said members’ No. 2 reason for not expanding payrolls was the prospect of government policy initiatives.

Twelve percent said it was not a good time to expand because of the political environment. Over the next three months, 15 percent said they plan to reduce employment, while eight percent plan to create new jobs.

“We’re hearing it more and more from our membership,” says Bill Rys, the NFIB’s tax counsel. “At the federal level, there’s uncertainty about tax rates, health care costs, energy costs. You also have what’s going on at the state and local levels, with new fees and taxes. They’re reluctant to jump back in.”

Rys says the effect has been more pronounced in the past few months, perhaps mirroring the legislative progress of the massive health care reform bill, the highly-publicized Copenhagen climate change conference and new EPA rules on carbon emissions, as well as the approach of 2010, when the near decade-long Bush administration tax cuts are expected to expire.

The NFIB has some 350,000 members with an average size of eight to ten employees.

Much like the severity of the recession, the degree of potential government change is a historic first for many business owners.

“When they went into business this isn’t something they considered,” says Rys.

The American Chamber of Commerce’s latest economist forecast cited similar impediments.

“To create jobs we must ease the uncertainty over tax increases as well as health, environmental, labor, legal  and fiscal policies,” the group’s president and CEO Thomas J. Donohue said in a speech Tuesday.

Chamber members are predominantly small companies with ten or less employees.

In a recent interview with CNBC.com, the group’s chief economist, Martin Regalia, described a paralyzing uncertainty over policy issues, saying that many members “had adopted an attitude of survival” and “few talked about net new hiring.”

If so, that will not go unnoticed. Small businesses were hemorrhaging jobs in the first quarter of 2009 when the recession was cutting deep into the economy.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, companies with 1-4 employees lost 140,000 jobs in that period; firms with 10-19 employees shed 220,000 jobs. (That’s the most recent period covered by the data.)

Some of those jobs as well as new ones would normally be created in the coming year.

Coming out of the previous two recessions, companies in the two groups were responsible for net job gains relatively soon after the downturn had ended and picked up momentum as the recovery was established.

In the third quarter of 1993, the 1-4-employee group created about 120,000 jobs, while the 14-20-person group added 60,000. That may not seem like a lot, but the workforce was much smaller then.

Near the peak of the last economic recovery, the two groups were combining for more than 140,000 jobs a quarter.

Though data for the past three quarters isn’t available, people who follow small- and medium- sized business say anecdotal evidence from owners is compelling

“A lot of small, medium sized businesses are waiting to see what health care is going to mean, in terms of cost,” says John Challenger, of the outplacement firm Challenger, Grey and Christmas, “I think they’re also waiting and seeing on the estate tax. The other one I hear the most about is the union issue—the worry that there could be much higher labor costs, that might curtail hiring.”

Amid the massive uncertainty, there are levels of certainty.

It’s unclear, for instance, what health care will cost small businesses, which tend not to provide it to employees. There’s talk of some kind of exemption, but it’s not clear yet.

The cost for those providing insurance will go up—at least in the short term; fees for health insurers, medical devices and branded drugs, for instance, start to kick in 2011 and work their way into the broader cost chain.

On another front, the Obama administration has said it intends to introduce some 90 new workplace rules this year.

Two thousand and ten may also bring the approval of cap-and-trade legislation, which given the complex scientific and economic models involved, will create another long list of question marks.

Changes in tax law are almost a certainty, even if the specifics are still unclear. The estate tax, which—as part of the Bush tax cut plan—is zero in 2011, is expected to be raised in future years and that change may even be made retroactive.

Income taxes for the two highest tax brackets are expected to rise; the Obama administration at various times has said taxes will be increased on people earning 200,000 or $250,000.

“When people talk about who’s making above $200,000, it tends to pull in a lot of small business people,” says Mark Calabria of the Cato Institute, a former senior staffer on the Senate Banking Committee.

Budget-strapped states have already raised taxes or intend to do so.

Unlike the complex tax structure of global corporations, there are few or any loopholes.

“If you are talking about the entrepreneurial class, they run a small business, have a handful of employees and they just report that as regular income,” adds Bethune.

Less income, more expenses—it’s hardly a prescription for expansion, says experts.

Small- and medium-sized business owners are still recovering from the real estate collapse and the credit crunch; it is not uncommon for them to use real estate as collateral or credit lines to make payroll.

On top of that, like big business, they’re still waiting for a return in demand

“It may mean you take less investment chances,” says Challenger. In that context, jobs are looking might chancy.”

Over the next three months, 15 percent said they plan to reduce employment, while eight percent plan to create new jobs.” There’s your practical definition of ‘one step forward, two steps back.'”

Less income, more expenses—it’s hardly a prescription for expansion.”  There’s your expression of common sense that Democrats will never comprehend.

Now, you might well be dumber than stupid, and continue to blame Bush for the economic collapse rather than placing much of the blame squarely on Democrats where it belongs, but the fact remains: Republicans have been saying this from day 1.  And they were right, and Democrats are being proven to be 100% wrong.

Obama’s claims of “shovel-ready jobs” should be greeted by hysterical mocking laughter, if only the man’s utter failure wasn’t creating so much misery and suffering.

We find that that the country’s that ignored Obama’s government stimulus mindset have done far, far better than the countries that paid attention to the community organizer.

Obama says “green jobs” are the answer.  But Obama is an idiot.

When you take the “National debt road trip,” you’ll find Obama driving the debt like a drunken, raving maniac.

Obama and the Democrats have also lied about damn near everything.

And the result of the Obama administration – from his opening porkulus to the present moment – is that he has done everything imaginable to drive employment down and the employment rate up.

The simple fact of the matter is that Obama – not Bush, Obama – has now presided over more jobs lost than any president since 1940.

And all our failure-in-chief can do is change an already sick twisted joke of a “job counting” system related to his stimulus (the category of “saved” jobs had NEVER existed prior to Obama inventing it as a self-marketing ploy – and the lamestream media revealed that they were dishonest propagandists by allowing the bogus category to be used on their airwaves).  Obama has finally abandoned the continuous campaign of lies and incompetence used to calculate how many jobs he “created or saved,” only to now embrace an even WORSE standard: from now on, Obama will take credit for any job that got any stimulus money at all.

So if you had your job before the Obama stimulus, and you would have had your job AFTER the Obama stimulus, if the place you work for got any stimulus money, Obama will claim credit for your job.

I’m sick of this man’s demagoguery.  I’m sick of his Bush-blaming.  I’m sick of his self-serving excuses.  I’m sick of his idiotic lies.

And I’m utterly heartsick at the massive damage this clown is doing to our country.

I got into blogging due to the revelations about the “reverend” and “church” that Obama chose to join and associate himself with for 23 years.  I had never been particularly involved with politics up to that time.  But as I watched hateful statement after hateful statement emerging from Obama’s church and from Obama’s pastor – to the cheering of the vile congregation – I knew that Barack Hussein was an evil man who would destroy this country if he were elected president.

And a year after his misrule, every single thing I feared when I saw Obama’s pastor spout evil, hateful, racist, unAmerican, Marxist filth back in March of 2008 has come true in spades.

Obama Job Summit Deliberately Snubs Primary Job Creators

December 4, 2009

Do you remember Obama publicly attacking the U.S. Chamber of Commerce over it’s opposition to ObamaCare? Obama sure does.

Barack Obama is a petty, vindictive man.  And petty men do petty, vindictive things.  He is the kind of man who deceitfully and cynically claimed that he would uniquely transcend the political divide – only to be the most politically divisive figure we have ever seen in the White House.  And he is the kind of man who would cut off his nose to spite America’s face.

Case in point: the Obama job summit.

Obama gathered liberal economists (no conservatives allowed), pro-Democrat corporate CEOs, and union chiefs to tell him only what he wanted to hear.

But one business group was entirely shut out by Barack Obama, namely, the U.S. Chamber of commerce, which represents businesses that employ 115 million Americas (well more than half of the total U.S. work force).  And, according to USCoC executive vice president of government affairs Bruce Josten, “Not only were we not invited, but not a single business organization HQd in Washington DC was invited.”

Small businesses create three out of every four jobs in America.  Not that Obama gives a damn.

The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) – which also crossed Obama on ObamaCare – was also deliberately excluded.

Just in case anybody actually believed the White House or lamestream media propaganda that Obama’s “job summit” had anything to do with actually creating jobs.

An incredibly petty and vindictive president decided to punish the Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business for refusing to help him small business destroy jobs.   And in doing so, he is punishing millions of American workers.

Just imagine a job summit which is openly hostile to the actual creators of jobs.  Just imagine that job summit being depicted as being for the purpose of informing the president of all of the job-creating possibilities, when no one who disagreed with the president’s leftist views was even allowed to attend.

After agreeing with Judge Andrew Napolitano’s point that America is not going to have any meaningful job creation as long as the Obama administration continues recklessly printing, borrowing and spending trillions of dollars even as it utterly abandoning free market principles, Josten went on to say:

We need to get some certainty back in the American economy.  And right now you have a business community that doesn’t know what their tax liabilities are going to be a year from now; have no idea what their health care costs are going to be next year; have no idea what their energy costs are going to be next year; and have no idea what kind of credit is going to be available next year.  So this ‘big bang theory’ of using the crisis if you will – as the administration said some time ago – to move and overhaul entire swaths of the American economy, at this point is fueling uncertainty in the business community – and I would suggest to your listeners – in the American public.  And that’s a prescription to defer making any decisions.

And let’s not forget other abominations to business such as the union-agenda-imposing “card check” that would massively add to businesses’ costs if passed.

In other words, YOU ARE THE PROBLEM, OBAMA.

For all of Obama’s demagoguing and demonizing the Bush administration, this is Barack Obama’s economy (and any real leader would have long-since quit trying to blame his predecessor and started taking responsibility for what is happening in the country during his watch anyway).  It is HIS policies that have prevented the economy from recovering.  It is HIS policies that are killing jobs by creating paralyzing fear and uncertainty.

According to Jesus (see Luke 14:28), any wise man sits down and counts his costs before beginning a project.  But how can a business man do so in the climate of fear that Obama has created?

Statistically, this recession should have ended a while back, as the economy attained equilibrium and recovered on its own.  The average length of a recession is 11 monthsIt’s only when elitist statist bureaucrats start screwing around with all the economic levers because they think they know better than the free market system that we get long-term economic recessions and depressions.

Obama “turned fearmongering into an art form” while he force-fed his massive pork-laden stimulus onto the nation:

As he tells it, today’s economy is the worst since the Great Depression. Without his Recovery and Reinvestment Act, he says, the economy will fall back into that abyss and may never recover.

He promised us that if his stimulus passed, he would be able to keep unemployment under 8%.  Now it’s in double digits.  The rate dropped 2/10ths of a percent this month from last, primarily due to the fact that more people are simply giving up even bothering to look for jobs:

The unemployment rate also dropped because fewer people are looking for work. The size of the labor force, which includes the employed and those actively searching for jobs, fell by nearly 100,000, the third straight decline. That indicates more of the unemployed are giving up on looking for work.

The participation rate, or the percentage of the population employed or looking for work, fell to 65 percent, the lowest since the recession began.  Once laid-off people stop hunting for jobs, they are no longer counted in the unemployment rate.

The bait-and-switch and shell games being played by the mainstream media and the White House propagandists continues at Titanic-about-to-plough-into-an-iceberg pace.  Bad economic news that is not as bad as it could have been is projected as good news, while seriously bad news is buried in the 22nd paragraph of an optimistically-entitled and positively-spun article.

What we have is a numbers game in which actual unemployment could literally soar, even as the “official” unemployment rate actually decreases.

But you can bet your boots that actual unemployment will continue to go up.

Obama and his propagandists have since incessantly argued that they “underestimated” how bad the economy that “Bush left them” actually was.  That’s how they explain away their pathetic failure to do what they promised they could do if the got their porkulus.  But that argument utterly fails because Obama repeatedly compared it to the Great Depression.  In fact, Paul Volcker, the Chair of Obama’s handpicked President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, back on February 20th actually told us the situation “may be WORSE than the Great Depression.”

So I’ll leave it to you to figure out how the Obama administration could have argued on the one hand that the economy was the worst since, or even worse than, the Great Depression on the one hand, and then turned around on the other hand and said that they didn’t realize how bad the economy actually was.  Because if you know anything at all about the terrible conditions of the Great Depression, you know that our present economic situation has never been even close to being as bad as the Great Depression.

But don’t worry.  If you feel left out because you haven’t been able to experience the Great Depression, Obama’s policies are making sure you’ll be able to enjoy a Great Depression of your own soon.

Now we know this was just liberals using a “crisis” as an “opportunity.” As Obama’s Chief of Staff put it:

EMANUEL: You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before. This is an opportunity.

The point is that this unemployment “crisis” is just another “opportunity” for Barry Obama to “fundamentally transform America” and pay off his pro-liberal corporate and union special interests doing it.

Obama’s decision to deliberately snub the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business in a “job summit” was either pathologically petty, idiotically incompetent, or both.  And the American people are going to suffer as a result.

If anybody should have been snubbed from attending the jobs summit, Barry Hussein, it was YOU.

As for the three-quarters of American workers who get their jobs from small businesses, well, screw you people.  That’s the “change” you get.