"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:25:37 -0500, "Adam Corolla"
wrote:

It's a typical neocon tactic. Repeat a lie often (Democrats are big
spenders!) then speak as though the lie is common knowledge ("Why would
anyone vote for a Democrat--we need to DEcrease spending!") and no one
seems
to check the facts to find out it's a lie.


So you are saying that all the entitlements, including LBJs Great
Society, were NeoCon constructs?

Tax and Spend = Democrats

Or was Midnight Basketball something a Neocon dreamed up?

Oh, now there's a big-spending program. g Dem' basketballs cost like hell.
And turning on the lights after midnight probably bankrupted the state of
Illinois, at least. g


Hardly a lie to call Democrats big spenders. Or was FDR a Neocon too?

Now about the single biggest tax increase in US history....that NeoCon
Clinton...right?


http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1765.cfm

sigh Gunner, will you PLEASE start reading those long articles that you
point people to, which you claim say one thing, but which actually say the
opposite? You'll save everyone some time and yourself some ...oh, never
mind, you probably don't care.

Here's what Laffer says in that article. First, it was mostly about capital
gains taxes (his favorite subject, for a reason that would be obvious if you
thought about it -- cut tax rates on capital gains and people cash in to get
the lower rates, which increases tax revenues, temporarily), not income
taxes or total taxes, and he pointed out that the capital gains tax was
increased from 20% to 28% in 1986. Then he says this:

"Reducing the capital gains tax rate from 28 percent back to 20 percent in
1997 was an unqualified success, and every claim made by the critics was
wrong. The tax cut, which went into effect in May 1997, increased asset
values and contributed to the largest gain in productivity and private
sector capital investment in a decade. It did not lose revenue for the
federal Treasury."

Now, let's see if you remember who was president in 1997, hmm?

BTW, that is not to say Laffer is right -- he engages in some tricky
slight-of-hand, as he often does. Only that your reference says the opposite
of what you claim.

--
Ed Huntress