Featured Post

1210. Presidential Debate - Trump and Harris Ridiculous

 So was there a winner of the Presidential debate or just another setup with ABC? I'll agree that Kamala was more composed and the strat...

Monday, September 14, 2009

27. “The End of Prosperity …” by Laffer, Moore and Tanous.”

09/13/2009

Biscuits for Reading. That’s the program I’m on now since Master caught me reading his book. Although you don’t have to give me a biscuit to read – I enjoy reading – I certainly have the Master trained. Next he’ll be reading it too me if I just go up to it and sniff it or lick it. Huh! You tell me who’s the boss.

Anyway, another book was put beside my food dish. If smelled good – readable good – so here I am telling you about it.

What do presidents Harding, Coolidge, John F. Kennedy, Reagan, and George W. Bush have in common? Certainly not all Democrats or Republicans. They and their administration all led the recovery of the economy to a boom by lowering taxes WHILE increasing tax revenues. You better reread that, especially the word WHILE. How can than be? Didn’t the big O say he will RAISE taxes to lower the deficit? Maybe history should be reviewed to see how well the economy prospered during their administrations. Join with me reading “The End of Prosperity – How higher Taxes will Doom the Economy” by Arthur Laffer, Stephen Moore and Peter Tanous.” Or look it up elsewhere.

What I already gleamed in the first four chapters is that the economic policy is not Democrat, not Republican. So clear your mind of political bias. Also, the economic theory that was applied was SUPPLY-SIDE economics. Funny though that the Democrats bashed Reagan and Bush supply-side economics and the Republicans bashed Kennedy’s supply-side economics policy with the same stupid arguments. What does that tell you? Simply, that there is no interest by either party to understand or to accept the other party’s policies. There is no effort to learn from history. There are no representatives who seek the facts. The first, and unfortunately final, reaction is to always oppose the other party. What a bunch of morons! Yes, I’m a dog and go around smelling butts. But I don’t kiss-*ss those of the same breed and bite those who aren’t.

Even the late Teddy Kennedy and John’s daughter Caroline put their party first (see book re letter they sent to the authors) before the ACCOMPLISHMENTS of John F. Kennedy:
  • He sponsored legislation to cut income taxes by 30%.
  • This spurred economic growth and job creation.
  • The tax cuts were responsible for the INCREASE in tax revenues.
  • The tax cuts motivated workers to be more productive which in turn drove the businesses to invest more capital.
  • The end result was a robust growth of the economy.
The same case can be mode for the other presidents who utilized supply-side economics. By the way, supply-side economics is batting a thousand; all presidents who used it have grown the economy.
Is supply-side economics just tax cuts? No. The authors define it as “expanding the supply of goods and services through all sorts of incentives (and by knocking down negative incentives)." Policy imperatives include:
  • Free trade.
  • Stable prices and sound money.
  • Light and efficient regulation of industry.
  • Reform of welfare programs to encourage work.
  • A generous immigration policy.
    Less costly and more efficient government.”
Here are some quotes from the book:
JFK: “No American is ever made better off by pulling a fellow American down, and every American is better off whenever any one of us is better off. A rising tide raises all boats.”
Coolidge in 1924 State of Address: “his plan ‘would actually yield more revenues to the government if the basis of taxation were scientifically revised downward.'” And his prediction came true.
Coolidge argued the merits of his plan: “Experience does not show that the higher [tax] rate produces the larger revenue. Experience is the other way. There is no escaping that when the taxation of large incomes is excessive, they tend to disappear.” Why you ask? Suppose you were taxed at 90% of your income like high taxpayers were at one time, would you work? If so, how productive would you be? Coolidge understood the Laffer Curve: Zero revenue can be expected if the taxes are 0% or 100%. From 0% to some best tax rate, revenues will increase. An increase of the tax rate above that best tax rate will yield less and less revenue. Pull the historical statistics and normalize them for inflation and you will see for yourself what this book is trying to get you to understand.
Democrat Wilbur Mills in his speech on the floor of the House re Kennedy’s legislation: “Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt in my mind that this tax reduction bill, in and of itself, can bring about an increase in the gross national product of approximately $50 billion in the next few years. If it does, those lower rates of taxation will bring in at least $12 billion in additional revenue…the larger the revenues derived from the additional income will result in the federal budget being balanced sooner than would be the case in the absence of the tax cut.” Mills and Kennedy were right.
Facts after facts are presented in this enlightening book that support supply-side economics and temper the myths that this is party-aligned. It clearly uncovers, as Bill O’reilly would say, the Patriots and the Pinheads in the past and in Congress today. It’s time to abandon party politics. We need to get the pinheads out of Congress and recapture our economy and humanity. It’s Common Scents folks – your common sense that needs to be awakened.
Pant, pant…give me a biscuit…thank you.

No comments:

Post a Comment