uh ya it is, lets see what are the tax rates of the richest people right now, what is the state of the economy? What points in history correlate with economic prosperity, perhaps there is a clear correlation to be found, inverse or positive, wait there is why am i debating such a clear fact?
Correlation does not equal causation, my friend. There are often too many uncontrollable variables to make such direct comparison.
If you're referring to the post-WWII boom, then let's not forget that most of the world was on the Bretton-Woods gold standard which, though imperfect, slowed the rate of inflation and forced governments to be at least somewhat fiscally responsible. Lower inflation, of course, promotes saving, which in turn promotes economic growth by providing funds for investment. Also, government deficits dip into investment funds, thereby crowding out private investment and economic growth - so the fiscal responsibility during the post-WWII boom could be partially attributed for the boom itself.
If you're referring to higher tax rates under Clinton, then let's not forget that Clinton actually cut the capital gains tax (which increased tax revenue) while it was Bush Sr. who initially raised taxes causing the economy to remain weak. Under Clinton and the Congressional Republicans, government spending as a share of GDP as well as government deficits shrunk, which could partially explain the strong 1990's economy. Also, let's not forget that the USA was riding the wave of a tech boom, which drove the strong economic growth of the late 90's.
And how about a counter-example? Calvin Coolidge cut the top income tax rate from 65% to 20%; by the end of his term 98% of Americans paid no income tax. Economic growth averaged 7% per year, inflation 0.4%, and unemployment 3.3%. He also cut the national debt by 25%
(1). Now it is entirely possible that the economy would have boomed regardless of Coolidge's economic policies, but it seems rather self-evident that his hardline fiscal conservatism at least contributed to the strong economic performance of the 1920s.
what you are suggesting is that the stance to never raise taxes has any factual backing, it is absurd.
Well, I meant that tax-rates NOW should not be raised, not *necessarily* that tax rates (or government revenues) should never be increased.
I believe that given an agreed-upon proper role and correct size of government, that tax revenues should equal if not exceed government spending. Obviously, perpetual deficits are not good for the economy and they are not any way to fund a government.
That said, the main problem NOW is not insufficient revenue, but out-of-control government spending. Under George W. Bush, government spending as a share of the economy increased from around 18% of GDP to almost 21% of GDP. So RINO Bush Jr. was a bigger spender than Blue Dog Democrat Bill Clinton - but even these numbers don't tell the whole story! After all, GDP growth averaged 2-3% per year - so government spending corrected for inflation can GROW while government spending as a share of GDP falls. And when you look at the raw numbers, Bush Jr. increased real discretionary spending by 104% compared to Clinton's 11%
(2). Obama, of course, has taken Bush's Big Government policies and put them on steroids. Government spending as a percent of GDP has increased to 25% during his Presidency. Had Bush taken Clinton's budget and grew it only to keep up with inflation - and had Obama then taken Bush's budget and grown it only to keep up with inflation - government spending as a percent of GDP would be historically low, we'd have large budget surpluses, and we could easily afford to cut taxes in order to stimulate further economic growth.
There are clearly circumstances were some people should pay more tax, some people should pay less, raising or declining income tax has clear economical reprocussions.
The only thing that raising income taxes accomplishes is slower economic growth. You cannot expect individuals to fund more economic growth after you take away more of their resources.
The staunch stance without consideration is the position of a closed minded zealot.
Trust me, there is a lot of consideration that has led me to my stance on political and economic issues.
Saying no never any abortions is again a insane positions, there are a multitude of factors which dictate the context and thus the outcome required.
Your point?
I am pro-choice, BTW.
You seem to be missing the point of the article, perhaps you didn't even read it.
you see your problem and that of other republicans is that you do not understand this article. It is from a skeptical approach, something you guys lack. For example, things are never black and white, saying no tax raises effectively takes persausion, reason and argument out of the equation because despite attempts to sway you one way or the other (you may be right even) you already have the answer. Open mindedness is all about delaying conclusion and accounting for extraneous variables. Coming to firm conclusions after intense debate, eliminating factors and when those cannot be fully elucidated you make you best choice from the best evidence you have. Saying no to all abortions is also absurd. I think there are circumstances when you should be able to and others when you should not, that is the stance of an open minded reasonable person, saying NO ABORTIONS is akin to religious people and the bible.
Perhaps you should use your own skeptical approach on your own belief that all Republicans believe certain ideas without any serious consideration.
Believe me - I have not gotten to the positions I support now without a lot of kicking and screaming along the way. I used to be a leftist myself.
i could destroy you so intensely that it scares me the power i wield, please help me and save yourself from the misery of humiliation.
You're so wrong that your unyielding high opinion of yourself is downright laughable. I literally LOL'd reading this line.
your starting position is not based on axioms, thus i can defeat your position and anything you say based on your false axioms.
If it is not based on axioms, you cannot defeat anything based on false axioms.
You sound like you just started taking a logic course your freshman year in college and have gotten drunk on the ability to spew philosophy terms regardless of their application to the discussion at hand.
its obvious that obtaining the most information increases the likelihood of making the correct decision, however, the republican party are become anti-intellectual and basing beliefs off of clearly false premises.
you can believe what you like and have your own thoughts but your not entitled to your own facts, mmmmmmmmmkay...
The Ron Paul wing of the GOP is quite intellectual, certainly more-so on economic issues than you.