Liberals are too stupid to understand that previous tax cuts by Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush all created larger revenue than the revenue of their predecessors, all of who had higher marginal rates. And they are dumber than a box of rocks to conclude that therefore lower tax rates caused higher deficits.What they are too stoopid to understand is that if spending was not increased in years when tax rates were cut, the deficit would have been smaller than in previous years. They also are too dense to understand that most of the increased spending during those years in which tax rates were reduced came about primarily due to democrats' lust for increased spending. I say primarily because in good faith, Reagan and Bush senior (who trusted democrats' promise to cut spending in the future if only we can raise taxes now)both raised taxes for the good of the country and got the blame for the deficits caused by the democrats who lied and did not cut the spending as they promised. Bush Jr. was no fiscal conservative and he went along with much of the democrats (and too many RINO's) lust for increased spending, so he takes some of the blame for the deficits under his administration. But have you ever met a democrat over several decades other than JFK who sought to decrease tax rates or decrease spending? If so, it's an outlier.So deficits are therefore not caused by lowering tax rates since they have always resulted in higher revenues. But if spending increases at a greater rate than the rate of the revenue increase resulting from the tax cuts, then OF COURSE you are going to have increasing deficits. Duh!How can liberals be so stunningly obtuse and continue to argue otherwise?
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Rat