A 50-State Tax Lesson for the President

The Wall Street Journal

By ARTHUR LAFFER AND STEPHEN MOORE

Comments by Jim Campbell

Revisionist historians would have us believe that the tax policy of Art Laffer,  implemented by President Ronald Reagan adversely affected the U.S. Economy when  the opposite is the case.  Who you going to believe, the socialists professors or me? 

In the link above Professor Paul Krugman tells us, that “Reaganomics” was a failure. The Reagan economy was a one-hit wonder. Yes, there was a boom in the mid-1980s, as the economy recovered from a severe recession. But while the rich got much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most Americans.  Yea Mr. “I’ve never lived a day in the private sector,” sing to your choir nobody else can hear your pitch.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it, I’m J.C. and I approve this message.

For 16 years before Ronald Reagan’s presidency, the U.S. economy was in a tailspin—a result of bipartisan ignorance that resulted in tax increases, dollar devaluations, wage and price controls, minimum-wage hikes, misguided spending, pandering to unions, protectionist measures and other policy mistakes.

Time is running out for the failed economic policies of Barrack Obama

When Reagan entered center stage. His first tax bill was enacted in August 1981. It included a sweeping cut in marginal income tax rates, reducing the top rate to 50% from 70% and the lowest rate to 11% from 14%.

What the Reagan Revolution did was to move America toward lower, flatter tax rates, sound money, freer trade and less regulation. The key to Reaganomics was to change people’s behavior with respect to working, investing and producing. To do this, personal income tax rates not only decreased significantly, but they were also indexed for inflation in 1985. The highest tax rate on “unearned” (i.e., non-wage) income dropped to 28% from 70%. The corporate tax rate also fell to 34% from 46%. And tax brackets were pushed out, so that taxpayers wouldn’t cross the threshold until their incomes were far higher.

The true lesson to be learned from the Reagan presidency is that good economics isn’t Republican or Democrat, right-wing or left-wing, liberal or conservative. It’s simply good economics. President Barack Obama should take heed and not limit his vision while seeking a workable solution to America’s tragically high unemployment rate. Will he? Unlike Bill Clinton who would do anything to get reelected, Obama will cling to his Marxist ways.

Over the past decade, states without an income levy have seen much higher growth than the national average. Which state will be next to abolish theirs?

Barack Obama is asking Americans to gamble that the U.S. economy can be taxed into prosperity. That’s the message of his campaign for the Buffett Rule, which raises income-tax rates on millionaires to a minimum of 30%, and for the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. He wants to raise the highest income tax rate by 20%, double the rate on capital gains, add a new 3.8% tax on all capital earnings, and nearly triple the dividend tax rate.

The Years of Shame

PAUL KRUGMAN

New York Times

Comment by Jim Campbell

What to the theories of Paul Krugman and Barak Obama have in common?

Quite simply they both lead to failed economic policy. 

You can’t have it both way Mr. Krugman.  You call yourself an economist.  If that be the case you have no conscious because your economic theories hurt those they are implied to help.  Paul Krugman has written over 200 books and received the Nobel Prize.  His education in the far left universities, Yale and M.I.T.  He also writes on political and economic topics for the general public, as well as on topics ranging from income distribution to international economics. He’s a European globalist and his thinking falls more in line with the socialism. Remember our “news” reporters think of themselves as centrists.

The clueless Krugman begins to wonder how soon his policies will make the U.S. dollar rival the 100 trillion dollar Zimbabwe dollar

Krugman considers himself a liberal and is sometimes accused of making politically convenient arguments that are not based on proper economic reasoning.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it, I’m J.C. and I approve this message.

Is it just me, or are the 9/11 commemorations oddly subdued?

Lessons from Europe: No, social democracy doesn’t ‘work’

Comment by Jim Campbell

Indeed one is hard pressed to point to countries that are not in the midst of economic upheaval whose economic model is socialism.  The elite look at members of societies  as pawns in a three-dimensional game chess called  “social engineering or social justice.”

As Margaret Thatcher has been credited with saying, (no records or tapes indicate that she did so), ‘One of the problems of socialism is eventually you run out of other people’s money,’ (to spend)

This is the future, those who became subjects of the “Nanny State,” were made promises, health care, pensions.  When there is no money, to keep those promises, the riots begin.  America cannot be far behind with 50% of the population receiving bribes for votes from Uncle Sam’s Plantattion.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it, I’m J.C. and I approve this message.
No, social democracy doesn’t ‘work.’

Winston Churchill said, “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

By BRET STEPHENS

Wall Street Journal

‘The real lesson from Europe,” wrote Paul Krugman in January 2010, “is actually the opposite of what conservatives claim: Europe is an economic success, and that success shows that social democracy works.” Here are some postcards from the social democracy that works.

• In Britain, 239 patients died of malnutrition in the country’s public hospitals in 2007, according to a charity called Age U.K. And at any given time, a quarter-million Britons have been made to wait 18 weeks or longer for medical treatment. This follows a decade in which funding for the National Health Service doubled.

London Riots, worse in UK history.

Rioters in Greece: Poster children for social democracy.

• In France, the incidence of violent crimes rose by nearly 15% between 2002 and 2008, according to statistics provided by Eurostat. In Italy violent crime was up 38%. In the EU as a whole, the rate rose by 6% despite declines in robbery and murder.

• As of June 2011, Eurostat reports that the unemployment rate in the euro zone was 9.9%. For the under-25s, it was 20.3%. In Spain, youth unemployment stands at 45.7%, which tops even the Greek rate of 38.5%. Then there’s this remarkable detail: Among Europeans aged 18-34, no fewer than 46%—51 million people in all—live with their parents.

Krugman: Death Panels, VAT Will Fix Debt Crisis

News Max

Absolutely let’s listen to the guy who still believes in the repudiated economic theories of John Maynard Keynes.  Let’s just call him the uber-Democrat that could find his ass with both hands in the dark.  Why this guy is considered an economic pundit by the news networks is rather astounding.  Then again actually it’s not, he is “them.”  That’s my story and I’m sticking to it, I’m J.C.

Whoops, this could actually work.  No Paul you don’t need more taxes to turn thing around, but death panels for progressives would work.

Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman says the only way the U.S. will get its debt crisis under control is by the use of “death panels” and a national sales tax.

The national sales tax, referred to as value-added tax (VAT), which governments across Europe use widely, will help cut the U.S deficit, Krugman argues.

Krugman made his comments on ABC’s “This Week with Christiane Amanpour” during a roundtable discussion about the economy and the recent findings of the U.S. Debt Reduction Commission.

Here’s the key excerpt:

“Some years down the pike, we’re going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes. It’s going to be that we’re actually going to take Medicare under control, and we’re going to have to get some additional revenue, probably from a VAT. But it’s not going to happen now.”

Canada Cut Spending, Economy Grew

Downsizing the Federal Government
Yes, George Bush ran up the deficit.  That being said, it happens when a country goes to war.  He went of the rails with his $500 billion transfer of wealth to the Medicare drug prescription program.  

Lost upon those that follow the failed teachings of John Maynard Keynes is the lesson that his teaching lead to the inevitable bankruptcy of nations.

Think Iceland and Greece with many more to follow. California is already bankrupt, it’s only a matter of time when the “leaders” show the juevos to file with the courts.

The would result in Unions, being brought back to the bargaining table and given a wake up call that their pensions and benefits are not going to be payed unless great concessions are made immediately.  That’s my story and I’m sticking to it, I’m J.C.

We’ve had huge federal deficit spending in recent years–$459 billion in FY2008, $1.4 trillion in FY2009, $1.5 trillion in FY2010, and now an estimated $1.4 trillion in FY2011. Despite all the spending, the economy is still sluggish, private investment remains in the tank, and the unemployment rate is stuck at near 10 percent.

The Bush/Obama Keynesian spending experiment has obviously failed. Yet eminent economists Paul Krugman and Martin Feldstein think that the government hasn’t spent enough. They argue that a war-sized package of fresh spending is what the doctor orders for our sick economy.

Rats leaving Obama’s sinking Ship

by Paul A. Rahe

Big Business

I doubt that Barack Obama cares one whit. His aim was the transformation of a country that he sincerely hates, and Orszag and Romer have loyally served his purpose – as Geithner and Summers still do.

Ten months back, at the very end of September, I posted online a brief piece entitled Obama’s Wrecking Crew, in which I drew attention to a column in The New York Post in which Charles Gasparino reported two items of interest.

First, that the titans of Wall Street – men such as Morgan Stanley’s John Mack, BlackRock’s Larry Fink, Greg Fleming (once at Merrill Lynch), JP Morgan’s Jamie Dimon, and Goldman Sachs’ Lloyd Blankfein – were beginning, in private, to express grave misgivings concerning the Obama administration’s stewardship of the economy.