Willful Ignorance of History (Obama and JFK)

The American Spectator has a great post about Obama’s destructive behavior and the success of JFK and Reagan in cutting taxes on the rich and its affect on job growth (Red Planet h/t):

With 15 million workers unemployed and another 11 million underemployed, President Obama recently decided that the answer was to hit the road and throw some anti-rich red meat to some friendly stadium audiences.

At a Labor Day rally in Milwaukee, Mr. Obama declared that the United States “didn’t become the most prosperous country in the world by rewarding greed and recklessness.”

He didn’t say whether we became the most prosperous country via income redistribution and mandatory wealth spreading.

He also didn’t say whether the “greed” accusation applied to folks like Jay-Z and Lady Gaga or just to the regular capitalists and entrepreneurs who run America’s car repair shops and jewelry stores on Main Street.

He also didn’t say whether his definition of “recklessness” includes the nonstop and decentralized risk-taking that’s inherent in a free enterprise economy, a system rooted in what Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter called “creative destruction.”

[….]

Mr. Obama also declared that “anyone who thinks we can move this economy forward with a few doing well at the top, hoping it’ll trickle down to working folks running faster and faster just to keep up — they just haven’t studied our history.”

In fact, the history of the 1960s and 1980s, under Democrat and Republican presidents, shows that the benefits of cuts in top marginal income tax rates clearly trickled down to help “working folks” in the form of more jobs, less unemployment, less poverty, less inflation, and higher wage growth.

The John F. Kennedy income tax cuts of 30 percent that were enacted in 1964, cutting the top marginal federal income tax rate from 91 percent to 70 percent, were followed by several years of 5 percent real GDP growth per year, dropping the unemployment rate from 5.2 percent in 1964 to 3.5 percent in 1969, a lower jobless rate than the 4.0 percent unemployment rate that’s generally defined as “full employment.”

Similarly, the Ronald Reagan income tax cuts produced real average annual GDP growth of 3.2 percent from 1981 to 1989, a higher growth rate than existed before and after the Reagan years — the 2.8 percent average real annual growth in the pre-Reagan years from 1974 to 1981, or the 2.1 percent growth in the post-Reagan years from 1989 to 1995.

Following the Reagan cut in the top marginal federal income tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent, unemployment was cut in half, from 9.7 percent in 1982 to 5.3 percent in 1989.

And the impact on the poor? The real income, adjusted for inflation, of the poorest fifth of U.S. households increased 12 percent in the Reagan era, reversing a 17 percent decline in their average real income from 1979 to 1983 before Reagan’s pro-growth tax cuts kicked in.

The poverty population in the U.S., after growing by 7 million in the late 1970s, dropped by 4 million in the 1980s. The real median income, adjusted for inflation, of African-American households increased by 17 percent from 1982 to 1989, reversing a 10 percent decline from 1978 to 1982.

Obama’s strategy? Ignore the aforementioned history and raise taxes on “the rich” during a recession, for “fairness.” That’s a clear policy of economic and political “recklessness,” a strategy that will keep millions of people needlessly unemployed.

…(read more)…

 

Coo-Coo for Co-Co Puffs~AFL-CIO President

BigGov h/t:


 

  • The AFL-CIO is one of the single largest contributors to President Obama and the Democratic Party
  • They reap enormous, direct benefits from the ever-expanding size of the federal government
  • The AFL-CIO ran itself insolvent in the 2008 presidential election–spending millions more than the union had taken in from dues, and later engaged in “creative accounting” to conceal their financial hardships
  • The AFL-CIO has pledged to spend upwards of $53 million in the waning days of the midterm election
  • Mr. Trumka has also said that he “watched (tea party protesters) spit at people, I watched them call John Lewis the n-word,” even though he is nowhere to be found on any of the videos of the alleged incident
  • Mr. Trumka has also said, in reference to the Tea Party Movement: “There are forces in our country that are working hard to convert justifiable anger about an economy that only seems to work for a few of us into racist and homophobic hate and violence directed at our President…”

…(read more)…

Viral Anthony Weiner Rant Unfounded

Hyscience wrote a good response to this “viral temper tantrum” that has Democrats apparently proud… even though Weiner is upset about hiding legislation. One must keep in mind that it was the Democrats who chose to require a two-thirds majority. They could have passed it with a simple majority if they so chose. They wanted a bunch of other bills passed with it, so they chose to go the two-thirds majority route and didn’t have  all the Democrats on-board. That’s number one. Number two is that the The GOP only wants to make sure the bill is paid for before it passed. This, apparently, is not important to the Democratic party. I have a checking account, does that mean just because I have no money in it but still have blank checks I can write as many as I like? Well?

According to the NY Post, King, a key backer of the bill, had moments earlier accused Democrats of staging a “charade” (emphasis added):

The rift developed over how the bill was put before the chamber.Democratic leaders opted to consider it under a procedure that requires a two-thirds vote for approval rather than a simple majority. The move blocked potential GOP amendments to the measure.

King said Democrats were “petrified” about casting votes on amendments, possibly including one that would ban aid from going to illegal immigrants sickened by trade center dust. King said the bill was more important than “a campaign talking point.”

Also via Eye Blast, Weiner’s attack wasn’t limited to just the house floor because he was also freaking out of Fox News this morning. This debate, or shouting match, between him and Peter King (R-NY) actually better explains exactly why Weiner was all worked up and exactly who he was screaming at the whole time.


….As pointed out over at The Hill, King defended his objection by saying:

“Anthony can rant and rave all he wants on the House floor, he did not answer one point that I made last night,” he said. “I’ve done everything I possibly can. The fact is this should not be a partisan issue, I have been very, very critical of the Republican Party.

“The bottom line is the Democrats control the House and they pulled a procedural gimmick starting ten days ago, and they lost the nerve to bring it to the floor on a real vote,” …

Here’s a take home message for Mr. Weiner. Follow House procedures and stop trying to finagle funding for illegal aliens – then you won’t have to throw embarrassing temper tantrums on the House floor. And, by the way, the American people deserve to know if the bill requires American taxpayer dollars to be paid to illegal aliens – and we deserve to know in “advance” of its passage.

…(read more)…

Well said Hyscience! Well Said