Economists' View of Obama Plan

[flapjack]

Economists Statement on Barack Obama's Risky Economic Proposals
100 Economists Warn That With Current Weak Financial Conditions Barack Obama's Proposals Run A High Risk Of Throwing The US Into A Deep Recession


ARLINGTON, VA -- Today, McCain-Palin 2008 released the following statement signed by 100 distinguished and experienced economists at major American universities and research organizations, including five Nobel Prize winners Gary Becker, James Buchanan, Robert Mundell, Edward Prescott, and Vernon Smith. The economists explain why Barack Obama's proposals, including "misguided tax hikes," would "decrease the number of jobs in America." The prospects of such tax rate increases under Barack Obama are already harming the economy. The economists conclude that "Barack Obama's economic proposals are wrong for the American economy." The proposals "defy both economic reason and economic experience."

The full economists' statement on Barack Obama's economic proposals and a complete list of economists who support it follows:

Barack Obama argues that his proposals to raise tax rates and halt international trade agreements would benefit the American economy. They would do nothing of the sort. Economic analysis and historical experience show that they would do the opposite. They would reduce economic growth and decrease the number of jobs in America. Moreover, with the credit crunch, the housing slump, and high energy prices weakening the U.S. economy, his proposals run a high risk of throwing the economy into a deep recession. It was exactly such misguided tax hikes and protectionism, enacted when the U.S. economy was weak in the early 1930s, that greatly increased the severity of the Great Depression.

We are very concerned with Barack Obama's opposition to trade agreements such as the pending one with Colombia, the new one with Central America, or the established one with Canada and Mexico. Exports from the United States to other countries create jobs for Americans. Imports make goods available to Americans at lower prices and are a particular benefit to families and individuals with low incomes. International trade is also a powerful source of strength in a weak economy. In the second quarter of this year, for example, increased international trade did far more to stimulate the U.S. economy than the federal government's "stimulus" package.

Ironically, rather than supporting international trade, Barack Obama is now proposing yet another so-called stimulus package, which would do very little to grow the economy. And his proposal to finance the package with higher taxes on oil would raise oil prices directly and by reducing exploration and production.

We are equally concerned with his proposals to increase tax rates on labor income and investment. His dividend and capital gains tax increases would reduce investment and cut into the savings of millions of Americans. His proposals to increase income and payroll tax rates would discourage the formation and expansion of small businesses and reduce employment and take-home pay, as would his mandates on firms to provide expensive health insurance.

After hearing such economic criticism of his proposals, Barack Obama has apparently suggested to some people that he might postpone his tax increases, perhaps to 2010. But it is a mistake to think that postponing such tax increases would prevent their harmful effect on the economy today. The prospect of such tax rate increases in 2010 is already a drag on the economy. Businesses considering whether to hire workers today and expand their operations have time horizons longer than a year or two, so the prospect of higher taxes starting in 2009 or 2010 reduces hiring and investment in 2008.

In sum, Barack Obama's economic proposals are wrong for the American economy. They defy both economic reason and economic experience.

Robert Barro, Harvard University

Gary Becker, University of Chicago

Sanjai Bhagat, University of Colorado

Michael Block, University of Arizona

Brock Blomberg, Claremont-McKenna University

Michael Bordo, Rutgers University

Michael Boskin, Stanford University

Ike Brannon, McCain-Palin 2008

James Buchanan, George Mason University

Todd Buchholtz, Two Oceans Fund

Charles Calomiris, Columbia University

Jim Carter, Vienna VA

Barry Chiswick, University of Illinois at Chicago

John Cogan, Hoover Institution

Kathleen Cooper, Southern Methodist University

Ted Covey, McLean VA

Dan Crippen, former CBO Director

Mario Crucini, Vanderbilt

Steve Davis, University of Chicago

Christopher DeMuth, American Enterprise Institute

William Dewald, Ohio State University

Frank Diebold, University of Pennsylvania

Isaac Ehrlich, State University of New York at Buffalo

Paul Evans, Ohio State University

Dan Feenberg, NBER

Martin Feldstein, Harvard University

Eric Fisher, California Polytechnic State University

Kristin Forbes, MIT

Timothy Fuerst, Bowling Green State University

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Hudson Institute

Paul Gregory, University of Houston

Earl Grinols, Baylor University

Rik Hafer, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville

Gary Hansen, UCLA

Eric Hanushek, Hoover Institutions

Kevin Hassett, American Enterprise Institute

Arlene Holen, Technology Policy Institute

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain-Palin 2008

Glenn Hubbard, Columbia University

Owen Irvine, Michigan State University

Mike Jensen, Harvard University

Steven Kaplan, University of Chicago

Robert King, Boston University

Meir Kohn, Dartmouth

Marvin Kosters, American Enterprise Institute

Anne Krueger, Johns Hopkins University

Phil Levy, American Enterprise Institute

Larry Lindsey, The Lindsey Group

Paul W. MacAvoy. Yale University

John Makin, American Enterprise Institute

Burton Malkiel, Princeton University

Bennett McCallum, Carnegie-Mellon University

Paul McCracken, University of Michigan

Will Melick, Kenyon College

Allan Meltzer, Carnegie-Mellon University

Enrique Mendoza, University of Maryland

Jim Miller, George Mason University

Michael Moore, George Washington University

Robert Mundell, Columbia University

Tim Muris, George Mason University

Kevin Murphy, University of Chicago

Richard Muth, Emory University

Charles Nelson, University of Washington

Bill Niskanen, Cato Institute

June O'Neill, Baruch College, CUNY

Lydia Ortega, San Jose State University

Steve Parente, University of Minnesota

William Poole, University of Delaware

Michael Porter, Harvard University

Barry Poulson, University of Colorado, Boulder

Edward Prescott, Arizona State University

Kenneth Rogoff, Harvard University

Richard Roll, UCLA

Harvey Rosen, Princeton University

Robert Rossana, Wayne State University

Mark Rush, University of Florida

Tom Saving, Texas A&M University

Anna Schwartz, NBER

George Shultz, Stanford University

Chester Spatt, Carnegie-Mellon University

David Spencer, Brigham Young University

Beryl Sprinkle, Former Chair Council of Economic Advisers

Houston Stokes, University of Illinois in Chicago

Robert Tamura, Clemson University

Jack Tatum, Indiana State University

John Taylor, Stanford University

Richard Vedder, Ohio University

William B. Walstad, University of Nebraska

Murray Weidenbaum, Washington University in St. Louis

Arnold Zellner, University of Chicago

 

[BobbyBlueChip]

Any word if these guys are for McCain's new bailout that was announced last night?

 

[flapjack]

Any word if these guys are for McCain's new bailout that was announced last night?

No idea what they think, but it sounds like a crap plan to me. Where's the personal reponsibilty these days?

 

[StevieD]

These guys are mostly or all members of the Hoover Institute. The same guys that got us into this mess in the first place.

The Hoover Institution is influential in the American conservative and libertarian movements, and the Institution has long been a place of scholarship for high profile conservatives with government experience. A number of fellows have connections to or positions in the Bush administration, and other Republican administrations. On September 8, 2007 the Hoover Institution announced that former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld had accepted an invitation to join the institution as a one-year visiting fellow [2] [3]. A non-political figure who played a key role in the Bush Administration's Iraq policy, Retired Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, former commander of the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), recently joined the Hoover Institution (as the first Annenberg Distinguished Visiting Fellow) [4]. Other fellows of the Institution include such high profile conservatives as Condoleezza Rice, George Shultz, Newt Gingrich, Thomas Sowell, Dinesh D'Souza, Shelby Steele, Edwin Meese and Pete Wilson. In 2001, Hoover acquired Policy Review magazine from the Heritage Foundation

 

[flapjack]

These guys are mostly or all members of the Hoover Institute. The same guys that got us into this mess in the first place.

I was not aware the Hoover institute got us into the sub-prime mess - or that all these economists where members of it. But, do you disagree with any of the economic statements made in that release?

 

[Nosigar]

These guys are mostly or all members of the Hoover Institute. The same guys that got us into this mess in the first place.

Huh...? I'm pretty sure it was people not paying their debts that got us into this mess.

Well, also political correctness by politicians wanting to appease fringe special interest groups.

The greed will always be there. No one is above that.

 

[Nosigar]

Any word if these guys are for McCain's new bailout that was announced last night?

Any socialist should be for it.

 

[StevieD]

I was not aware the Hoover Institute got us into the sub-prime mess - or that all these economists where members of it. But, do you disagree with any of the economic statements made in that release?

These guys are for less and less regulation. Yes, Barmy Frank a Dem was for it too. But these guys have led the charge for less regulation. And that is what got us into this mess. The guys that were supposed to be the watch dogs along with the guys who are paid millions because they are supposed to know better, were in bed together robbing us blind.

 

[saint]

I wonder what these economists' views of the present economy was 3-6 mos ago. If they are so fawking great why couldn't 20 of the 100 seen the mess we are in now coming a while back?

 

[flapjack]

These guys are for less and less regulation. Yes, Barmy Frank a Dem was for it too. But these guys have led the charge for less regulation. And that is what got us into this mess. The guys that were supposed to be the watch dogs along with the guys who are paid millions because they are supposed to know better, were in bed together robbing us blind.

I dont know near as much as these guys or other economists, but even my simple undergrad degree in econ taught me the basic benefits of free trade, capitalism, etc. Obama's socialist ideas for the economy will wreck us. We are currently in a crisis. It will pass, like all others have before - even the great depression. Things will get better - and then down the line, worse, then better, etc. Capitialism is not a perfect system. It's subject to unforseen problems that will rise up through inovation and evolution.

The only way we don't bounce back is if we panic and start implementing a socialized economy that'll bring us constant stagnation, high unemployment and slow growth - see just about every socialized economy in Europe. Once you've given out entitlements, its much harder to take them away. If you start redistributing wealth by taxing those that are doing well at higher rates, then handing out $3000 checks to families who do not pay any taxes in the 1st place, you will never be able to take those checks away from them down the line. Those at the top that are funding everyone else will find a way to get around high tax rates and you will drive our best and brightest to seek wealth elsewhere, move more jobs overseas, etc. Or, just decide its not worth the back breaking work to build a company and get taxed the bejesus out of when they can be lazy and get checks from the government.

 

[StevieD]

I dont know near as much as these guys or other economists, but even my simple undergrad degree in econ taught me the basic benefits of free trade, capitalism, etc. Obama's socialist ideas for the economy will wreck us. We are currently in a crisis. It will pass, like all others have before - even the great depression. Things will get better - and then down the line, worse, then better, etc. Capitialism is not a perfect system. It's subject to unforseen problems that will rise up through inovation and evolution.

The only way we don't bounce back is if we panic and start implementing a socialized economy that'll bring us constant stagnation, high unemployment and slow growth - see just about every socialized economy in Europe. Once you've given out entitlements, its much harder to take them away. If you start redistributing wealth by taxing those that are doing well at higher rates, then handing out $3000 checks to families who do not pay any taxes in the 1st place, you will never be able to take those checks away from them down the line. Those at the top that are funding everyone else will find a way to get around high tax rates and you will drive our best and brightest to seek wealth elsewhere, move more jobs overseas, etc. Or, just decide its not worth the back breaking work to build a company and get taxed the bejesus out of when they can be lazy and get checks from the government.

Trickle down doesn't work. You are correct that the higher income earners cannot be taxed at outragous rates. But it is a balancing act. Right noe they can stand a higher rate. The middle class is getting dqueezed from all sides. The middle class needs relief. The high income earners are doing fine.

 

[flapjack]

Trickle down doesn't work. You are correct that the higher income earners cannot be taxed at outragous rates. But it is a balancing act. Right noe they can stand a higher rate. The middle class is getting dqueezed from all sides. The middle class needs relief. The high income earners are doing fine.

The higher income earners are ALWAYS doing fine. That is why they are the higher earners in the 1st place. It always sounds good to take away from the best and give to the lesser. Trickle down sounds bad, but that is how capitalism works. Its easy to make capitalism sound bad. Socialism is easy to make sound good. But, we all know socialism has been tried for a 100+ years and always flopped no matter the country. Conversly, capitalism has risen us up from nothing to a world our grand parents could never even imagine. Kennedy came into power promising to halve the top income bracket and grow the economy - and he did! If he ran today, he'd be considered right of Reagan. These days, being rich is like saying you have the plauge. Back in the day, people wanted to learn from the rich and successful. They appreciated that those with money or success had done something to get it. These days, they are more concerned about tearing them down or shaming them. Its more about how dare they work smarter or work harder than me?

 

[StevieD]

The higher income earners are ALWAYS doing fine. That is why they are the higher earners in the 1st place. It always sounds good to take away from the best and give to the lesser. Trickle down sounds bad, but that is how capitalism works. Its easy to make capitalism sound bad. Socialism is easy to make sound good. But, we all know socialism has been tried for a 100+ years and always flopped no matter the country. Conversly, capitalism has risen us up from nothing to a world our grand parents could never even imagine. Kennedy came into power promising to halve the top income bracket and grow the economy - and he did! If he ran today, he'd be considered right of Reagan. These days, being rich is like saying you have the plauge. Back in the day, people wanted to learn from the rich and successful. They appreciated that those with money or success had done something to get it. These days, they are more concerned about tearing them down or shaming them. Its more about how dare they work smarter or work harder than me?

Like I said you have to look at the tax rates. Look at the rates that Kennedy cut.


In recent days, backers of George W. Bush's proposed tax rate reduction have been running advertisements featuring John F. Kennedy supporting his 1963 tax cut. This has brought forth a predictable response from the Kennedy family, which has denounced the ads and argue that Kennedy would oppose the Bush plan were he still alive. That may or may not be true. But what is indisputable is that the Kennedy tax cut, enacted in 1964 after his death, was as much of a tax cut for the rich as Bush's.

In his tax message to Congress in 1963, Kennedy asked that the top income tax rate be brought down from 91 percent to 65 percent. His goal was to reduce all statutory income tax rates by about 30 percent, including a reduction in the bottom tax rate from 20 percent to 14 percent. Subsequently, Congress only reduced the top rate to 70 percent. Nevertheless, this constitutes a significantly larger tax cut than Bush's proposal to bring the top rate down from 39.6 percent to 33 percent. The law passed by a Democratic Congress in 1964 lowered the top rate by 23 percent, while Bush's plan would only lower it by 17 percent.

Looking at how the tax cut affected people at different income levels, the largest reduction in taxes went to those with adjusted gross incomes between $50,000 and $100,000. That is equivalent to an income of $300,000 to $600,000 today. People in this bracket got a tax cut equal to 4.3 percent of their income. Those at the top of the income distribution, with incomes over $1 million, equal to $6 million today, got a tax cut of 3 percent. By contrast, those at the bottom of the distribution, with incomes below $5,000, saved only 2.5 percent.

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), who was elected to his brother's Senate seat in 1962, twice voted in favor of lowering the top income tax rate from 91 percent to 70 percent in 1964. He and President Kennedy's daughter Caroline now charge that the Kennedy tax cut was less tilted toward the wealthy than is Bush's. They say this: "Only 6 percent of President Kennedy's tax cut went to those earning over $300,000 in today's dollars. The Bush tax cut gives them seven times that amount, an irresponsible 43 percent."

It is true that those with incomes above $300,000 in today's dollars got about 6 percent of the total Kennedy tax cut. However, the analogy to the Bush plan is not valid.

What the Kennedys are trying to do is equate the top 1 percent of taxpayers today with the top 1 percent in 1962. But they have made a mistake in assuming that incomes are distributed the same way today as they were in 1962. Today, an income over $300,000 in adjusted gross income would put someone into the top 1 percent. The equivalent income of $50,000 in 1962, however, put one into just the top 0.2 percent; that is, the top two-tenths of 1 percent. To be in the top 1 percent in 1962, one only needed an income of $25,000. Those with incomes above this level got 14 percent of the Kennedy tax cut.

Moreover, the comparison that the Kennedys are making to the Bush tax cut is flawed for several reasons. First, the 43 percent figure (actually 45 percent) comes from a leftist group called Citizens for Tax Justice that uses a definition of income different from that upon which the Kennedy tax cut figures are based. Under CTJ's definition of income, one needs $373,000 to get into the top 1 percent.

CTJ also includes in its analysis the estate tax. They treat it as if it is paid annually out of one's income, rather than from assets at death. Since Bush plans to abolish the so-called death tax, this makes the tax cut for the wealthy seem much bigger than it actually is. A recent Treasury Department analysis of the Bush tax bill, using a definition of income comparable to those for the Kennedy tax cut and excluding the estate tax, found that 25.4 percent of the benefits would go to those with incomes above $200,000. Since this is an income level below the cutoff for the top 1 percent, the benefits for this group would be less.

Thus an honest comparison between the Kennedy and Bush tax cuts would conclude that they are more alike than the Kennedy family would like to believe. The share of the Bush tax cut going to the top 1 percent is about 21 percent--50 percent larger than this group got under the Kennedy tax cut, but nowhere near the 7 times larger that the Kennedy family charges.

The important point here is that once upon a time, in the not-too-distant past, there was a Democratic president who was not obsessed with class warfare, as today's Democrats are. He was willing to cut tax rates for all taxpayers, including those at the very top of the income distribution. Today's Democrats don't actually want to cut taxes at all. They only want to send out government checks to people who don't pay income taxes and call them tax cuts, while denying tax relief to those who pay the vast bulk of the federal government's bills.

As recently as 1981, there were still Democrats around who thought like John F. Kennedy. One was a congressman from Detroit, Michigan named William Brodhead. Although a self-professed liberal, backed by organized labor, he argued that Ronald Reagan was mistaken to phase-in his reduction in the top tax rate from 70 percent to 50 percent, because the people affected by the top rate are those who make the investments that create the jobs. Said Brodhead, "We have to reduce taxes on wealthy people to have more investment."

With polls showing strong support for a tax cut, and deteriorating economic conditions, it appears that a major tax cut this year is a certainty. If Democrats want to have some say in how the bill is shaped, they are going to have to give something. They should follow Brodhead's lead and press for an immediate reduction in the top rate from 39.6 percent to 33 percent, not phased-in over 5 years as in the House-passed bill. This would instantly change the terms of debate and put enormous pressure on Republicans to respond by supporting Democrat efforts to give more relief to those with low incomes.

Source: Bruce Bartlett, senior fellow, National Center for Policy Analysis, March 19, 2001.

 

[buddy]

Back in the day, people wanted to learn from the rich and successful. They appreciated that those with money or success had done something to get it. These days, they are more concerned about tearing them down or shaming them. Its more about how dare they work smarter or work harder than me?

Spare me. If someone in my neighborhood were to hear you spout that crap, you'd have your tires flattened.

Have you ever heard of robber barons? Ever heard of unfair business practices? Ever heard of fraud, misrepresentation, deception or anyone of a thousand other exploitive, underhanded techniques used by capitalists to satisfy their greed?

I would think there's a pretty healthy percentage of "rich" people today that deserve to be torn down and shamed.

 

[flapjack]

Spare me. If someone in my neighborhood were to hear you spout that crap, you'd have your tires flattened.

Rest assured, anyone with ambition in your neighborhood is studying those that have started their own business or "made it out of the neighborhood", not the dude sitting on his stoop talking about how he wants to flatten the tires of that no good kid across the street who made good. Have a few 40's and teach him a leason for his uppity, ambitous behavior. Based on your response, , I can only guess you are upset that that guy made good and not you. Lets knock back a few more and flatten that guys tires. That will make us feel better. Thats the American way right? Tear down those dirty, greedy, successful bastards - until it happens to us or our kids, then its just good old fashion hard work.

 

[flapjack]

In recent days, backers of George W. Bush's proposed tax rate reduction have been running advertisements featuring John F. Kennedy supporting his 1963 tax cut. This has brought forth a predictable response from the Kennedy family, which has denounced the ads and argue that Kennedy would oppose the Bush plan were he still alive. That may or may not be true. But what is indisputable is that the Kennedy tax cut, enacted in 1964 after his death, was as much of a tax cut for the rich as Bush's.

In his tax message to Congress in 1963, Kennedy asked that the top income tax rate be brought down from 91 percent to 65 percent. His goal was to reduce all statutory income tax rates by about 30 percent, including a reduction in the bottom tax rate from 20 percent to 14 percent. Subsequently, Congress only reduced the top rate to 70 percent. Nevertheless, this constitutes a significantly larger tax cut than Bush's proposal to bring the top rate down from 39.6 percent to 33 percent. The law passed by a Democratic Congress in 1964 lowered the top rate by 23 percent, while Bush's plan would only lower it by 17 percent.

Looking at how the tax cut affected people at different income levels, the largest reduction in taxes went to those with adjusted gross incomes between $50,000 and $100,000. That is equivalent to an income of $300,000 to $600,000 today. People in this bracket got a tax cut equal to 4.3 percent of their income. Those at the top of the income distribution, with incomes over $1 million, equal to $6 million today, got a tax cut of 3 percent. By contrast, those at the bottom of the distribution, with incomes below $5,000, saved only 2.5 percent.

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), who was elected to his brother's Senate seat in 1962, twice voted in favor of lowering the top income tax rate from 91 percent to 70 percent in 1964. He and President Kennedy's daughter Caroline now charge that the Kennedy tax cut was less tilted toward the wealthy than is Bush's. They say this: "Only 6 percent of President Kennedy's tax cut went to those earning over $300,000 in today's dollars. The Bush tax cut gives them seven times that amount, an irresponsible 43 percent."

It is true that those with incomes above $300,000 in today's dollars got about 6 percent of the total Kennedy tax cut. However, the analogy to the Bush plan is not valid.

What the Kennedys are trying to do is equate the top 1 percent of taxpayers today with the top 1 percent in 1962. But they have made a mistake in assuming that incomes are distributed the same way today as they were in 1962. Today, an income over $300,000 in adjusted gross income would put someone into the top 1 percent. The equivalent income of $50,000 in 1962, however, put one into just the top 0.2 percent; that is, the top two-tenths of 1 percent. To be in the top 1 percent in 1962, one only needed an income of $25,000. Those with incomes above this level got 14 percent of the Kennedy tax cut.

Moreover, the comparison that the Kennedys are making to the Bush tax cut is flawed for several reasons. First, the 43 percent figure (actually 45 percent) comes from a leftist group called Citizens for Tax Justice that uses a definition of income different from that upon which the Kennedy tax cut figures are based. Under CTJ's definition of income, one needs $373,000 to get into the top 1 percent.

CTJ also includes in its analysis the estate tax. They treat it as if it is paid annually out of one's income, rather than from assets at death. Since Bush plans to abolish the so-called death tax, this makes the tax cut for the wealthy seem much bigger than it actually is. A recent Treasury Department analysis of the Bush tax bill, using a definition of income comparable to those for the Kennedy tax cut and excluding the estate tax, found that 25.4 percent of the benefits would go to those with incomes above $200,000. Since this is an income level below the cutoff for the top 1 percent, the benefits for this group would be less.

Thus an honest comparison between the Kennedy and Bush tax cuts would conclude that they are more alike than the Kennedy family would like to believe. The share of the Bush tax cut going to the top 1 percent is about 21 percent--50 percent larger than this group got under the Kennedy tax cut, but nowhere near the 7 times larger that the Kennedy family charges.

The important point here is that once upon a time, in the not-too-distant past, there was a Democratic president who was not obsessed with class warfare, as today's Democrats are. He was willing to cut tax rates for all taxpayers, including those at the very top of the income distribution. Today's Democrats don't actually want to cut taxes at all. They only want to send out government checks to people who don't pay income taxes and call them tax cuts, while denying tax relief to those who pay the vast bulk of the federal government's bills.

As recently as 1981, there were still Democrats around who thought like John F. Kennedy. One was a congressman from Detroit, Michigan named William Brodhead. Although a self-professed liberal, backed by organized labor, he argued that Ronald Reagan was mistaken to phase-in his reduction in the top tax rate from 70 percent to 50 percent, because the people affected by the top rate are those who make the investments that create the jobs. Said Brodhead, "We have to reduce taxes on wealthy people to have more investment."

With polls showing strong support for a tax cut, and deteriorating economic conditions, it appears that a major tax cut this year is a certainty. If Democrats want to have some say in how the bill is shaped, they are going to have to give something. They should follow Brodhead's lead and press for an immediate reduction in the top rate from 39.6 percent to 33 percent, not phased-in over 5 years as in the House-passed bill. This would instantly change the terms of debate and put enormous pressure on Republicans to respond by supporting Democrat efforts to give more relief to those with low incomes.

Source: Bruce Bartlett, senior fellow, National Center for Policy Analysis, March 19, 2001.

Could not agree more.

There can be no doubt that cutting taxes, which JFK was wise to do - as was Reagan, has brought this country unparelled prosperity.

 

[buddy]

Rest assured, anyone with ambition in your neighborhood is studying those that have started their own business or "made it out of the neighborhood", not the dude sitting on his stoop talking about how he wants to flatten the tires of that no good kid across the street who made good.

Don't bother telling me, I already know.....You had a paper route and a lemonade stand when you were a little boy. By any chance, are you originally from Bowling Green, Ky? Nice chatting with ya'. I'm takin' an excedrin and going to bed.

 

[flapjack]

Don't bother telling me, I already know.....You had a paper route and a lemonade stand when you were a little boy. By any chance, are you originally from Bowling Green, Ky? Nice chatting with ya'. I'm takin' an excedrin and going to bed.

I guess I sound a little like Don Draper, don't I?

 

[StevieD]

Could not agree more.

There can be no doubt that cutting taxes, which JFK was wise to do - as was Reagan, has brought this country unparelled prosperity.

You miss the point of the argument. The point is that Kennedy cut them from a tax rate of 91% and Reagan cut them from a rate of 70% at todays rates it makes sense to up the percent they are taxed at. Don't worry, they will get by.