Wow! Lower taxes actually means more revenue?!?

"Is there more sanity in the federal budget than people think?

The latest budget numbers closing out fiscal year 2004 show slower spending growth, stronger tax receipts, and a $413 billion deficit that came in about $100 billion less than the Office of Management and Budget predicted at the start of the year and $64 billion lower than the Congressional Budget Office estimate."

My goodness, Bout Time is incorrect, economics is still working according to logic and against Kerry's rantings? It's good to see that facts known since the days of JFK are still in sync with the universe :


www.nationalreview.com...

Hmmph, funny how Reagan and Bush are villified by the liberal crowd for cutting taxes yet, WOW it seems to actually work. Where are all the liberal commnetators???? Rant?, BT? any comments?

Where are all the liberal commnetators????

Don't worry, I'm sure we will hear from them just as soon as they conspire and determine the best way to spin the facts. It's hard work to constantly deny facts and keep in mind, it IS Sunday which is generally a day of rest.

Jemison

One good side effect of Kerrys candidacy is that he has been MIA in the senate and was unable to spend $100,000,000 billion on social programs.

Really though supply side economics has a proven track record going back over four decades. The Clinton administation had especially good results due to this economic policy.

The only thing I can figure that the liberals have against this is it somewhat short circuits their vote buying machine.

IMHO I think they believe that if the government is not stuffing their pockets with others money or they are not directing the expenditure of someone elses money on "programs" - somethings not right.

Originally posted by Jemison

Where are all the liberal commnetators????

Don't worry, I'm sure we will hear from them just as soon as they conspire and determine the best way to spin the facts. It's hard work to constantly deny facts and keep in mind, it IS Sunday which is generally a day of rest.

Jemison

It's all short term!!1 Look at the long term effects!111 It's been steady downward!11

[liberal sarcasim]

This will work if the government control spending and yes that is something that had been talk about but not put into effect.

Originally posted by marg6043
This will work if the government control spending and yes that is something that had been talk about but not put into effect.

We agree on something!

Whoohoo!


As for the results, the graphs and data for this are here:

taxesandgrowth.ncpa.org...


also thread on data

www.abovetopsecret.com...

EDIT: Nevermind.

[edit on 24-10-2004 by curme]

This is one it would seem even a child could grasp.

The more money a company has the more it can spend to expand.

The more money the workers get to keep the more money they spend on the products companies make which in turn makes the company expand, work more hours, etc; which in turn creates more workers and as the demand for workers grow the companies have to raise pay to keep good workers, etc, etc, etc.

Other than the military needed to protect the country the government creates NOTHING. I dont know the exact numbers but I believe that its along the lines of for every 5$ you pay in to the government you get 1$ in services and I think that is being generous.

Since I have had surgery I have had to deal with several government agencies and none of those I dealt with would last one day in privite business. Where as the privite business rewards hard work and fires those that doont pull their wait those in Government jobs know that almost NOTHING can get them fired which means you have 5 overpaid people doing one persons job.

Originally posted by Amuk
This is one it would seem even a child could grasp.

SNIP

The more money a company has the more it can spend to expand.
NOTHING can get them fired which means you have 5 overpaid people doing one persons job.

Spot on m8! It works but a liberal can do this as it doesnt 'feed' his voters for the next election.

Shhh. Don't tell BT this is working again as he said it could not.
Imagine if Bush and Clinton had continued Reagan's plan, rather than increasing taxes as they did.

Aside from the clue of the ad asking for donations to the RNC, does anyone know who Lawrence Kudlow is?

Lawrence Kudlow is CEO of Kudlow & Co., LLC, an economic and investment research firm in New York City.

Larry is co-host of CNBC's "Kudlow & Cramer," which airs nightly from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. He is also economics commentator for CNBC. Mr. Kudlow is a nationally syndicated columnist. He is a contributing editor of National Review magazine, as well as a columnist and economics editor for National Review Online. He is the author of "American Abundance: The New Economic and Moral Prosperity," published by Forbes in January 1998.

Recently, he was named a Distinguished Scholar of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Arlington, Virginia.

For many years Mr. Kudlow served as chief economist for a number of Wall Street firms. Recently, Mr. Kudlow was a member of the Bush-Cheney Transition Advisory Committee. During President Reagan's first term, Mr. Kudlow was the associate director for economics and planning, Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President, where he was engaged in the development of the administration's economic and budget policy.

In addition, he has testified as an expert witness on economic matters before several congressional committees. He has also presented testimony at several Republican Governors Conferences.

Mr. Kudlow began his career as a staff economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, working in the areas of domestic open market operations and bank supervision.

Mr. Kudlow was educated at the University of Rochester and Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. He is a member of the Union League Club, the Capitol Hill Club and the National Women's Republican Club. Mr. Kudlow is an avid tennis player and golfer. He and his wife Judy live in New York City and Redding, Connecticut.

A cheerleader for a cheerleader. Maybe Larry has a slight spin?
Nothing is wrong with cutting taxes, as Kerry has said time and again, you just have to do it responsibly.
I just can't believe so many are quick to quote someone with such an obvious agenda..

Cut taxes responsibly? I'm sorry, am I missing something here?
What is responsible?
First, I'd say that taxes should be cut for those who are paying taxes in. Now, what is responsible, making it a certain percentage across the board? That's about what happened. Now, those making more money would, of course, get more back. Fair enough, as they paid more in. Since the upper 10% pay about 50% of the income tax, sounds like they are doing pretty good for us. I, by the way, like my measely pennies back, too.

But, looking at it from a mere "responsible" standpoint, since it is clear that those with the wealth are the ones who are able to create more jobs (Hey, don't come to me for a job. I'd like to help you out, but I'm an employee, too. Go to one of those evil wealthy folks; they create all the jobs!), they should get the largest tax cuts if anyone is going to get them. That way, more jobs will be created (As must be happening if the revenue is larger, as it happened with Reagan, who took the idea from JFK), more people will be hirted, more room for advancement occurs, higher wages because of that, etc. (Eco 101). That would be the responsible thing to do. Allow me to be a bit greedy with my money and ask that we aren't totally responsible when it comes to revving up the economy. My few hundred won't do that much good spent at Wal-Mart on a national level, but it'll help me out a little bit!

By the way, curme, the NRO is advertising for RNC donations. This is the author:
� Larry Kudlow, NRO's Economics Editor, is CEO of Kudlow & Co. and host with Jim Cramer of CNBC's...

He might have an idea about economics.
The award winning Economics dude who just came out last week or so ago saying that the tax cuts were a good start, but we need deeper ones to offset the tax hikes of the last 12 years before Bush 43 so that we can really set'er to sail, do ytou think he's only a Repub stooge? Come on!

Well curme I think you just pointed out why no source is a credible source to liberals.
You feel that kudlow s not credible because he helped advise the republicns on fiscal policy which makes him a cheerleader. However I would suspect that the reason he was offered those positions is because he knows what he is talking about.
No I don't think his article is spin, I think its probably based on the advice he gave.
In other words he doesn't belive what he wrote because its policy, its policy because he believes what he wrote.

Basic economics wll tell you that the lower taxes are the greater the growth.