So the answer is to continue lowering taxes until revenues fall. That way the citizens do not have their productivity curtailed, and the government gets the maximum money in revenues.

"Fair" is when every man pays the same rate. Currently we have an unfair tax code which inordinately benefits the non-productive members of society.

Countries with tax rates of 40% are those who also have 10% plus unemployment, so there is no need to copy their failure.

Yet now we have the lowest average unemployment rates of the the last three decades, so there goes another of your "theories".

We also cut taxes to get out of recessions, so it is common sense that lower tax rates do not lead to recessions, but helps to avoid them.

Uh, the only joke here is your half-baked analogy.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

What you don't grasp is that a dollar spent by the government is VERY often a dollar irrationally spent. Tax money spent EASILY makes wealth disappear - as in the failed energy boondoggles of the 1970s.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

True, so we should focus on spending the money in ways that create wealth, such as top-notch infrastructure. The point is that our economy was very unstable before we, and all other developed nations, started taxing the top bracket at least 30 percent. So the idea that "tax cuts are always good" hold no water if history is taken into account. Tax cut's only help if the people who receiving the cut have zero stagnant wealth, meaning they will put their tax returns back into the their local economies. Billionaires typically don't need an extra couple of thousand, so given them a break will not change a thing (they already have plenty of wealth being withheld from the flow of the economy).

But back to the point: Obama's plan to put more money into the hands of those whose life it will impact most makes a lot of sense (more sense than putting it into a dead-end war). Obama, if president, is thinking in ways that will benefit us all.

While the GOP held both the White House and Congress, they expanded government more than any other group in the history of our federal government (so if big government means "liberal", these GOP politicians were the biggest liberals of all time).

Obama, whose emphasis is on using government sources in more useful ways, will use his speaking skills to put great political pressure on Congress to retract that wasted expansion, and reapply that money to areas that matter, such as infrastructure, health care, and things that benefit the people as a whole (by reducing the number of desperate people out there, which reduces crime, which in turn, helps all local businesses. The GOP created a lot of waste while they were in charge, and Obama will have a big job in cleaning it all up.

__________________
Sarah "Barracuda" Palin: 10 Red Flags

Your OP used a very broad definition of "infrastructure" - that's a word that to most people means such as roads, bridges, water and sewage systems, airports etc. If you got that word from the Obama campaign, then it's an equivocation that manipulates words by using the fact that most people support needed infrastucture (conventional definition) to get support for government boondoggles for the politically connected.

Supply proof. Reagan's tax cuts launched one of the greatest economic booms in american history. Ireland created an economic miracle by capping corporate taxes at 10%.

This is pure liberal propaganda. More affluent people invest money from tax breaks - this provides capital for new plants and equipment - I assure you they don't put it in tin cans in their back yard.

Your understanding of economics is naive.

Yep, that's right. There are many things about Bush that makes him at least 50% liberal, I always got a laugh out of liberals calling him a "right winger" - he isn't even a conservative.

Obama isn't going to clean anything up. He has a bunch of advisers who are clearly using him to replace previous wasreful spending with new wasteful spending.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847