This is the weakest "appeal to authority" argument I have seen in quite some time. It is, in addition, factually incorrect.
Liberals do tend to let even reason, logic, and their education (as well as basic econ 101) cloud their judgement. Why, I will never know.
With a couple of bucks going to a social program or two. And ofcourse to pay the salary of our worthy elected officials.
From the 1950's through 1964 the marginal tax rate on highest incomes was 90%From '64-81 it was 70%. The US had its longest fairly modern period of expansive growth from post WWII in 1945 till the early 1970's when the first oil crisis hit. There were some short term recessions in that period but there were also extremely high taxes on the ultra wealthy. Didn't stop that boom though. It was market driven. Of interest during the early 1970's the AMT (alternative minimum tax) was established because the super wealthy had so many opportunities for tax breaks that some were paying NO taxes. In the 1990's the US had a technology driven boom. It was mostly the result of huge expansion in the telecom industry. Primarily the result of the break up of AT&T and enormous technological growth from development and competititon. That was during a period of higher taxes than the 2000's. It was market driven. Lower taxes and some more money flows into the economy. How well it is spent and utilized to grow the economy is a whole other story. The tech boom (mostly telecom) that ended in the early 2000's was from over expansion and what were fundamentally great investment opportunities in the earlier part of the decade became bullshit opportunities and shams. The market had been met. Most of the stuff about taxes driving the economy is political bs. Low interest rates, increases in efficiency, new technology, new demand, etc. are the fundamental bases for growth. When any of those aspects changes for the worse...the economy starts to tank. Lots of the economic surge in the 80's was a result of the growth in tech, low interest rates and a real estate boom. Lower taxes also helped. Most deep research economists will easily describe market reasons for growth. Politically tied in economists will tie it to some bs about whatever current president there is. The Clinton economists tied it to balanced budgets. The Bush economists tie it to taxes. Do the long term research. Check it out yourselves.
Damn, communists. Spending was a bit lower than, wasn't it? We're killing ourselves now. Spending is the problem. I'd consider it a huge victory if we spend as much as we did in the 40's. Taxes would be low and our debt would shrink incredibly fast. But who am I kidding!?
Wow Rick that is quite a graph. Astounding. As a side note, I think in the 50's and earlier 60's a big part of govt spending went to debt reduction after WWII when federal debt went through the roof (for a good reason).
I'm nearly a pre-new deal believer, actually more pre-16th amendment. I don't like the federal government spending anything, unless it has to be spend. It goes to reason if we cut spending across the board (and dissolve or reduce programs), we could slowly reduce taxes. We have to have a stronger concensus on our spending, insteady of pandering to groups or organizations.
Ha. I'm sort of the other side. I don't mind the govt. spending if it makes sense. I'm definately for the govt spending w/test programs before it goes whole hog across the country w/ big programs. I'm definately for tough analysis before pandering to any groups with spending...so that makes us closer. Unfortunately its easier in this system for pandering spending rather than testing out stuff. Businesses test market stuff all the time. States could test stuff. The gov could test stuff before they go with huge programs.
I don't think half of what our government spends on is Constitutional. I see some reasoning in somethings, more than others; but I believe we should appropriately follow lawful routes in putting those in place, not just letting the courts manipulate the meaning for political gain. Call me idealistic, but I tend to look at the whole Constitution as a document to follow, rather than taking it in piecemeals (like some tend to do).