The Front Page Cover
~ Featuring ~
'Tax Cuts for the Rich'?
by Thomas Sowell
.
Top Headlines
Insurer Aetna posts loss, considers exiting more liar-nObamaCare exchanges. (Reuters)
Trump administration delays liar-nObamaCare calorie rule. (The Washington Free Beacon)
Statement from the Chairman of Heritage's Board of Trustees on Resignation of Jim DeMint. (The Heritage Foundation)
U.S. taxpayers pay about $1.2 billion to incarcerate 41,528 illegal immigrants. (National Review)
Underreported: How building a border wall changed San Diego. (The Daily Signal)
Study indicates most U.S. homes worth less than before the crash. (Bloomberg)
Trump campaign accuses CNN of "censorship" for refusing "First 100 Days" ad. (LifeZette)
Iran is using $1.7 billion in liar-nObama bucks to fund unprecedented, massive military buildup. (The Washington Free Beacon)
China demands halt to US missile shield in S. Korea. (Agence France Presse)
Middlebury students vote to protest discipline of Charles Murray protesters. (The Federalist)
Policy: How to solve the pre-existing condition problem. (National Center for Policy Analysis)
Policy: Murder isn't a nationwide problem. (Real Clear Policy) ~The Patriot Post
.
.
liar-nObama Ducks Lawsuit Server at DC House
by Barry Soetoro
{thesleuthjournal.com} ~ Raw video of man trying to serve liar-nObama court papers at liar-nObama’s DC mansion!... Watch as Secret Service blocks this Process Server from approaching liar-nObama’s front door — and writes down HIS personal information instead of telling him where to find liar-nObama. Larry Klayman (Freedom Watch) filed this lawsuit against liar-nObama, and sent the court papers to liar-nObama’s house at 2446 Belmont in the Kalorama neighborhood of Washington DC. But liar-nObama escapes justice by fleeing “to Tahiti” for a month!... http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/raw-footage-obama-ducks-lawsuit-server-dc-house/
.
The Whole World Just Learned About
The BAD NEWS N. Korea Just Got
by Mac Slavo
{shtfplan.com} ~ With China issuing a final warning to North Korea earlier today, and U.S. President Donald Trump keeping all options on the table... as he prepares a response to continued North Korean military posturing and rhetoric, Army General Raymond A. Thomas confirmed in sworn testimony to a Congressional sub committee that special operations teams will be utilized as part of any conflict with the rogue state and would likely be sent in to secure and/or destroy North Korean nuclear facilities in the event of war:... http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/u-s-general-confirms-special-operations-teams-will-be-sent-to-take-out-north-korean-nuke-sites_05032017.
North Dakota Demands U.S. Taxpayers
Pay for Pipeline Protest Cleanup
by Bob Adelmann
{thenewamerican.com} ~ When the last of the pipeline protesters were removed, some by force, from the Dakota Access campsites in late February, Morton County Sheriff Kyle Kirchmeier thought that would be the end of it... and folks could get back to their regular lives: Except for the bills. Many of those good citizens of Morton County, North Dakota, lent a hand to law enforcement, offering volunteer services to help out. This included the local Comfort Inn, which offered free rooms to the protesters caught out in the cold. That Good Samaritan effort lasted until some of them trashed several rooms, leaving the bills for cleanup and repair to the owners...Way not have the protestors and their supporters pay for the damage?
.
Spicer Spinning Continuation Of Repairs Begun
Under Obama As Trump Border Wall
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ The reporter, “Charlie,” quotes President Trump from a January interview for his question, in which he derided the “little toy walls” in use on the southern border... paraphrasing his comments further by saying, “I don’t know why they’re even wasting their time.” He asks, “Why is the government focused so much on existing border security measures rather than fighting for the wall that he promised in this bill?” Spicer thanks Charlie for the opportunity to show the slides and make his sales presentation, one which appears intended to convince those who had hoped for the promised construction of a border wall that that’s what they’re getting with the Democrat / Ryan spending surrender. Spicer points to slides of dilapidated fencing, saying “this is the kind of barrier that exists throughout our country.” The truth is that there are many different kinds of barriers, some like those, some better, some worse and many areas where there is no physical barrier at all...http://rickwells.us/spicer-spinning-continuation-repairs-begun-obama-trump-border-wall/
.
Ex-CIA Case Sabrina DeSousa, IPT's Hoekstra,
Describe Her Brush With Italian Prison
by IPT News
by IPT News
{investigativeproject.org} ~ For weeks, former CIA Officer Sabrina DeSousa expected a knock on her door that would lead her to an Italian prison over a 2003 rendition she never participated in... Her plight changed for the better when IPT Senior Shillman Fellow Pete Hoekstra – a former House Intelligence Committee chairman – took up her case with Trump administration officials. https://www.investigativeproject.org/6074/ex-cia-case-officer-sabrina-desousa-ipt-hoekstra
VOICE VIDEO: at the site
.
.
by Thomas Sowell
{jewishworldreview.com} ~ One of the painful realities of our times is how long a political lie can survive, even after having been disproved years ago, or even generations ago.
A classic example is the phrase "tax cuts for the rich," which is loudly proclaimed by opponents, whenever there is a proposal to reduce tax rates. The current proposal to reduce federal tax rates has revived this phrase, which was disproved by facts, as far back as the 1920s -- and by now should be called "tax lies for the gullible."
How is the claim of "tax cuts for the rich" false? Let me count the ways. More important, you can easily check out the facts for yourself with a simple visit to your local public library or, for those more computer-minded, on the Internet.
One of the key arguments of those who oppose what they call "tax cuts for the rich" is that the Reagan administration tax cuts led to huge federal government deficits, contrary to "supply side economics" which said that lower tax rates would lead to higher tax revenues.
This reduces the whole issue to a question about facts -- and the hard facts are available in many places, including a local public library or on the Internet.
The hardest of these hard facts is that the revenues collected from federal income taxes during every year of the Reagan administration were higher than the revenues collected from federal income taxes during any year of any previous administration.
How can that be? Because tax RATES and tax REVENUES are two different things. Tax rates and tax revenues can move in either the same direction or in opposite directions, depending on how the economy responds.
But why should you take my word for it that federal income tax revenues were higher than before during the Reagan administration? Check it out.
Official statistics are available in many places. The easiest way to find those statistics is to go look at a copy of the annual "Economic Report of the President." It doesn't have to be the latest Report under President Trump. It can be a Report from any administration, from the liar-nObama administration all the way back to the administration of the elder George Bush.
Each annual "Economic Report of the President" has the history of federal revenues and expenditures, going back for decades. And that is just one of the places where you can get this data. The truth is readily available, if you want it. But, if you are satisfied with political rhetoric, so be it.
Before we turn to the question of "the rich," let's first understand the implications of higher income tax revenues after income tax rates were cut during the Reagan administration.
That should have put an end to the talk about how lower tax rates reduce government revenues and therefore tax cuts need to be "paid for" or else there will be rising deficits. There were in fact rising deficits in the 1980s, but that was due to spending that outran even the rising tax revenues.
Congress does the spending, and there is no amount of money that Congress cannot outspend.
As for "the rich," higher-income taxpayers paid more -- repeat, MORE tax revenues into the federal treasury under the lower tax rates than they had under the previous higher tax rates.
That happened not only during the Reagan administration, but also during the Coolidge administration and the Kennedy administration before Reagan, and under the G.W. Bush administration after Reagan. All these administrations cut tax rates and received higher tax revenues than before.
More than that, "the rich" not only paid higher total tax revenues after the so-called "tax cuts for the rich," they also paid a higher percentage of all tax revenues afterwards. Data on this can be found in a number of places, including documented sources listed in my monograph titled "'Trickle Down' Theory and 'Tax Cuts for the Rich.'"
As a source more congenial to some, a front-page story in the New York Times on July 9, 2006 -- during the Bush 43 administration -- reported, "An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year." Expectations, of course, are in the eye of the beholder.
'Tax Cuts for the Rich'?
{jewishworldreview.com} ~ One of the painful realities of our times is how long a political lie can survive, even after having been disproved years ago, or even generations ago.
A classic example is the phrase "tax cuts for the rich," which is loudly proclaimed by opponents, whenever there is a proposal to reduce tax rates. The current proposal to reduce federal tax rates has revived this phrase, which was disproved by facts, as far back as the 1920s -- and by now should be called "tax lies for the gullible."
How is the claim of "tax cuts for the rich" false? Let me count the ways. More important, you can easily check out the facts for yourself with a simple visit to your local public library or, for those more computer-minded, on the Internet.
One of the key arguments of those who oppose what they call "tax cuts for the rich" is that the Reagan administration tax cuts led to huge federal government deficits, contrary to "supply side economics" which said that lower tax rates would lead to higher tax revenues.
This reduces the whole issue to a question about facts -- and the hard facts are available in many places, including a local public library or on the Internet.
The hardest of these hard facts is that the revenues collected from federal income taxes during every year of the Reagan administration were higher than the revenues collected from federal income taxes during any year of any previous administration.
How can that be? Because tax RATES and tax REVENUES are two different things. Tax rates and tax revenues can move in either the same direction or in opposite directions, depending on how the economy responds.
But why should you take my word for it that federal income tax revenues were higher than before during the Reagan administration? Check it out.
Official statistics are available in many places. The easiest way to find those statistics is to go look at a copy of the annual "Economic Report of the President." It doesn't have to be the latest Report under President Trump. It can be a Report from any administration, from the liar-nObama administration all the way back to the administration of the elder George Bush.
Each annual "Economic Report of the President" has the history of federal revenues and expenditures, going back for decades. And that is just one of the places where you can get this data. The truth is readily available, if you want it. But, if you are satisfied with political rhetoric, so be it.
Before we turn to the question of "the rich," let's first understand the implications of higher income tax revenues after income tax rates were cut during the Reagan administration.
That should have put an end to the talk about how lower tax rates reduce government revenues and therefore tax cuts need to be "paid for" or else there will be rising deficits. There were in fact rising deficits in the 1980s, but that was due to spending that outran even the rising tax revenues.
Congress does the spending, and there is no amount of money that Congress cannot outspend.
As for "the rich," higher-income taxpayers paid more -- repeat, MORE tax revenues into the federal treasury under the lower tax rates than they had under the previous higher tax rates.
That happened not only during the Reagan administration, but also during the Coolidge administration and the Kennedy administration before Reagan, and under the G.W. Bush administration after Reagan. All these administrations cut tax rates and received higher tax revenues than before.
More than that, "the rich" not only paid higher total tax revenues after the so-called "tax cuts for the rich," they also paid a higher percentage of all tax revenues afterwards. Data on this can be found in a number of places, including documented sources listed in my monograph titled "'Trickle Down' Theory and 'Tax Cuts for the Rich.'"
As a source more congenial to some, a front-page story in the New York Times on July 9, 2006 -- during the Bush 43 administration -- reported, "An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year." Expectations, of course, are in the eye of the beholder.
Comments