Re: Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 06:56:49 -0600, Mitchell Holman
<Noemail@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>Stevie Nichts <nix2nichts@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:7dc0e0b8-aeff-4b94-ab16-
>24242fb4c326@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> On Feb 20, 10:41 am, "Jorge W. Arbusto, Presidentchul Candydate"
>> <CleaninOutTheStab...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> Stevie Nichts wrote:
>> 
>>> > And how did things work out? Laffer is convinced that the
>>> > reduction of the top tax rate from 70% to 28% during the Reagan
>>> > years paid for itself--
>>>
>>> The deficit--which Reagan harped on during the presidential
debates--tripl
>> ed
>>> at the end of his second term.
>> 
>> Because Congressional spending far outstripped revenues.
>
>
>  Because Reagan never submitted a single balanced budget. 

Reagan had two goals.

One---(based on faulty economic theory) that if you
give the wealth class money---they will "trickle it"
down.  Never showed any sign of working then--nor has
it now.

Two, to build a military he could use to promote his
dreams of grandeur and self-serving obsession with
power.

He was a disgusting asshole---still is

However, some poetic justice remains

He will NEVER out****ne the paragon of American hero and
leader****p that FDR gave us in the last 150 years (for
liberals) that did so much for America in economic
disaster and wartime---no matter how many awards,
wreaths, or praise is heaped on him by failied
conservatism.