-
Laughing to Keep From Crying
May 17, 2013 | 1 comment
-
I’m Melting, Melting!
May 16, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Delaware’s Unclaimed Property Racket: John Gotti Would Be Proud
May 16, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Rep. Cleaver: GOP Concerns with IRS Due to Obama’s Skin Color
May 16, 2013 | 9 comments
-
Lawsuit Accuses IRS of Stealing Medical Records of 10 Million Americans
May 15, 2013 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
H/T Bob Beauprez
The next time you hear a liberal tell you about how much tax cuts “cost” the government (and putting aside the obvious objection that the money doesn’t belong to the government, so cuts can’t actually “cost” it anything), here, in Investors Business Daily, is what you need to know to set them straight:
From JFK To Bush, Treasury Swelled After Tax Cuts
View all comments (13) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Ross Kaminsky
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/10/18/intellectual-ammunition-tax-cu
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
mike 3/505| 10.18.12 @ 5:16PM
Ross My Friend,
I am flat out tired of having to explain these simple things to liberals/statists. I have come to the point that if someone uses language such as, "tax cuts cost the government...." I'm just gonna use some of Skinner's operant conditioning on them. Like swatting a dog on the nose with a newspaper when he pees on the floor...sooner or later, they will get the message and quit saying stupid stuff id you swat them on the nose.
Simon Templar| 10.18.12 @ 5:22PM
You swat them on the nose by saying to them that they are being ridiculous and apparently do not want a serious discussion as the premise itself incorrect and there is nothing to substantiate it. Then you walk away.
I share the same frustration..know what you mean mike3/505.
Butch| 10.18.12 @ 5:28PM
Just the opposite is true. In the U.S., lowered rates have led to higher revenues every time they've been tried, including for Coolidge/Mellon in the 20s. It's happened recently in several foreign countries as well.
I set everybody straight every time they talk about "cost" to the government. "Tax expenditure": Orwell, call your office.
JD| 10.18.12 @ 6:34PM
The WSJ's Washington Wire has an item on Romney's deduction caps raising $1.3 trillion in federal revenue over 10 years. Leftists are complaining that it would impose a hardship!
First they complain that a $5 trillion cut is bad, now giving $1.3 trillion back is also bad.
And their language - it would unduly target people with big mortgage deductions! Um, so, you mean the RICH! You're complaining that Romney would raise taxes on the RICH? Democrats are doing that?
My head hurts...
C Bowen | 10.18.12 @ 6:43PM
Is the point that if you love Big Government, you should love minor cuts to the income tax rate?
This is stupid, and not remotely conservative.
Eliminate the income tax, the inheritance tax, the Milton Friedman payroll tax and the rest of the Marxist tax policy and reduce the size of government.
RJ| 10.18.12 @ 7:00PM
My favorite Obama moving-target comment happened in the 2008 campaign when he was asked how he was going to raise government revenues. His answer included raising the capital gains tax rate. The questioner then said historically that action has led to less revenue, not more. Obama's comeback was OK, but we need to do it to be "fair." So to increase revenue, he will reduce revenue in the pursuit of "fairness." Little surprise that he has choked the economy.
Other favorites by Little Lord Fauntleroy:
“I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” October 2008
“the private sector is doing fine. Where we’re seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government” - June 2012
“if you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen” (July 13, 2012)
Mike G| 10.18.12 @ 7:08PM
Ask a liberal:
Collecting taxes involves work of some type:
actually collecting the money, putting it into the bank, assuring that the tax payer receives proper credit, etc. All of this is now done with computers, but someone must check on the computers occasionally, inputting data and whatnot . So if the government doesn't need to do these things because the taxes aren't collected, how does that cost money?
RJ| 10.19.12 @ 1:30AM
Liberals believe in government "stimulus" so why do they think taxes are necessary? If government can create prosperity out of nothing, it doesn't need taxes.
aware| 10.19.12 @ 5:33AM
Irrelivent. Here is the real story in 1 chart.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:XHGOHTlnt64J:www.glencoe.com/sec/socialstudies/economics/econprinciples2001/pdfs/C10-01C-820487.pdf+tovernment+expenditure+per+capital+adjusted+for+infaltion&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESj26VCvaKwrsEleh9tUpDr1N1qxtY0aP1k0xqshnShycqgIKCqUklbiL2EdOYCZHhi2uqgxPjyuqQ6v3emDv5lzIPWYU4x2qZ9DK7x0PfqvZ4xzS057ubYr5q7LPv7yv-O668Mn&sig=AHIEtbTYCKkvTTj1WBmXKW9Z4vEX_Wcyaw
Republicans have had 60 ruling years since the New Deal to reduce "government", or even "limit" it. Conservatives have had over 20 ruling years since 1964 to prove the same thing.
The result: abject failure. Unless it was never the plan. Once again you are being lied to for your vote.
HR| 10.19.12 @ 10:47AM
People tend not to take seriously any post beginning with a word the poster couldn't be bothered to spell correctly.
JimH| 10.19.12 @ 7:41AM
Are you saying that not reducing government revenue is a good thing?
Ross Kaminsky| 10.19.12 @ 10:40AM
I'm for reducing gov't revenue. It's the only way to get them to cut spending. My point is that the liberals only argument against tax cuts (at least the only one they're willing to make in public) is that it will "cost" the government money. It is therefore useful to educate the public that that claim is wrong -- even though you and I know that the liberals don't just want to redistribute money to and through government; they also want to punish the rich just because it will make the liberals feel better about themselves.
HR| 10.19.12 @ 11:00AM
To my indescribable dismay, what I've been running into over & over during this campaign season are folks who don't care about evidence, facts or intellectual-- anything, really. Intelligent, reasonable people whose answer to "why are you voting for Obama?" is little more substantive than "I like him". And they say it like it's a completely acceptable reason to support a leader of the free world! The conversation doesn't even begin because they're not hiring a leader for their own government and the world's most powerful nation, they're voting for prom king.
Don't get me wrong, Ross. I greatly appreciate this effort. But I was already voting for Romney/Ryan, anyway.