Barney Frank: I’ve never seen a tax cut feed hungry children

Barney Frank: “I’ve never seen a tax cut feed hungry children”

That's because he's never pulled his head out of his arse long enough to see ANYTHING of true value… in ANYTHING.

NOTE: The following is from an article published on August 13, 2003 by Daniel Mitchell, Ph.D. (link to article: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2003/0…).

NOTE2: Danny, I'm aware of, and can understand (from your point of seeing things) your reticence about initially acknowledging the efficacy of anything that comes from sources such as “The HERITAGE FOUNDATION”. I do believe, however, that we both (and most of the other concerned citizens that frequent this site) acknowledge TRUTH, and its foundational supporting facts, when they are shown as such (in this case, the figures representing the times, percentages, and fiscal results OF said tax cuts).

…as an aside, Danny. You suggested HEAVILY in another thread, where I posted a link to the words of the Constitution, that somehow, due to the site it appeared on (WallBuilders.com)… that it was heavily suspect to be inaccurate/mis-worded. I have checked the document, as they list it on that link against several other sites' copy/paste wording of our Constitution (including the ones found at usconstitution.net, and even archives.gov…) I found NO added/deleted/changed words OR punctuation.

By all means, if you ever find errors in ANY reference materials I link to or mention, feel free to point those errors out. For as we both know, Danny, TRUTH… will set us FREE.

CM Sackett

Now, to the article:

“The tax cuts of the 1920s
Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.

According to then-Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon:

The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities or to find other lawful methods of avoiding the realization of taxable income. The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up; wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people.

The Kennedy tax cuts
President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).

According to President John F. Kennedy:

Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.

The Reagan tax cuts
Thanks to “bracket creep,” the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).

According to then-U.S. Representative Jack Kemp (R-NY), one of the chief architects of the Reagan tax cuts:

At some point, additional taxes so discourage the activity being taxed, such as working or investing, that they yield less revenue rather than more. There are, after all, two rates that yield the same amount of revenue: high tax rates on low production, or low rates on high production.

2) The rich pay more when incentives to hide income are reduced.

The tax cuts of the 1920s
The share of the tax burden paid by the rich rose dramatically as tax rates were reduced. The share of the tax burden borne by the rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928.

The Kennedy tax cuts
Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.

The Reagan tax cuts
The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.”

Another favorite REAGAN truth comes to mind, concerning such a vulgar assault against Common Sense, and the Heart of the American citizenry…

“From time to time, we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule… that government by an 'elite' group is superior to governance for, by and OF THE PEOPLE.

Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity… to govern someone else?”
~1st Inaugural Address~

Bwaney's Fwanks is just a tupid little faggot.

Maybe I'm just hearing wrong, but don't big corporations give BIG donations to charities that feed children. Tax cuts to working class families mean more money to buy food. Complete and utter moron.

Barney also never saw a tax feed a hungry child.

Taxes are a necessary evil, or they are simply an evil, depending upon whether their purpose is necessary or not.

Production is the source of all wealth, the existence of which is the first predicate of any tax. Taxes (in our system of government), however, necessarily take individuals out of the universe of producers (government functionaries) and commit their potential to activities that consume and redistribute wealth rather than produce it. For roads and bridges, courts of law and standing armies, this drain on prosperity is an acceptable sacrifice. To subsidize non-productivity, however, the sacrifice is suicidal: prosperity demands as close to 100% participation in wealth production as the physical and mental capacity of the population will allow. As potential producers are removed from the universe of contributors, production falls and, with it, the sum of all wealth which, necessarily, entails that there is less wealth to accrue to the benefit of the sum of all people. More people will “require” assistance, more taxes levied, more people taken from productive enterprise to manage the systems of taxation and redistribution and so the cycle goes.

In the best of all possible worlds there will be some who simply cannot produce and, if Baxter's call to empathy (“There, but for the Grace of God, go I.”) should have a place in all human hearts, we are duty-bound to be helpful toward our neighbor. There is world of difference, however, between inevitable, accidental poverty and poverty by choice and design, which choice is the inexorable product of all but the most indispensable of taxes, those which support the context in which people labor, but not the people, themselves, whose labor it is upon which all taxes depend.

Barney has been fed from the public trough so long, he has forgetten that most folks work for food.

Tax cuts have fed plenty of children because it allows the parents who earned the money to keep more of it for their families. What Barney meant was it's hard to feed his welfare leftist constituents children when his socialist party isn't able to steal money from hard working conservative parents in the form of higher taxes to redistribute to his costituency. Barney the socialist fudge packer.

HEY BARNO………. RAISING TAXES FEEDS KIDS LESS. BUT IT FEEDS YOUR BANK ACCOUNT DON'T IT, YOU CRIMINAL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Since when did gays care about children except to rape them?

And Please Media do your job and tell we the people the gimmick that the Democrats use to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.
Because if the rich Democrats like Barney Kerry ect Obama were paying taxes they would be the first to demand tax cuts.

well with a progressive income tax, in which the rich are taxed more than the poor, most government money would come from people who could afford it, instead of hungry kids' mouths. Too bad Bush cut taxes for the rich, increasing the amount of govt money that comes from the poor

Income tax aside- which should not be progressive so that everyone can feel the impact of government overspending and thus be incentivized to limit the spending and growth of government.

The other taxes are the killers. The invisible taxes you pay when you buy a product in which major necessary steps in its procurement are taxed by government (transportation, fees, regulations, fuels and raw materials). Those are the hidden taxes I can think of- add in consumption taxes in which there is a sales tax and an additional tax for beverage, grocery, gas guzzler- whatever tax you can think of. Cigarette, booze- all those taxes add up and affect the poor much more directly than the income tax does.

As far as your claim that the poor have to pay more because Bush's tax cuts were unfair- here is the tax breakdown during Bush's years:

Bottom 50% of income earners (people not taking welfare and actually working) Earned 13% of all the income and paid 3% total taxes.

Top 1% of income earners made 19% of all the money and paid 37% of all the taxes.

Top 10% of income earners made 44% and paid 68% of all the taxes

Top 25% of income earners made 66% and paid 85% of all the taxes.

According to you, for the top 25% income level people (the richest) paying 85% of the tax dollars the government gets from the income tax is not enough.

The top 10% pay more than 2/3 of all income tax dollars and that is not enough.

It is not a problem that even America's poor live in relative luxury compared to the rest of the world, but you want everyone to have the same things- Here's the deal- We all can, it's just a matter of how hard you work to get them. No one deserves any other person's money for free. You are not entitled to my bank account because I worked hard, or went to school, or have a profitable talent. Sorry, you have the right to pursue happiness, but you are not guaranteed it with someone else's money.

Barney's office probably looks and runs exactly like a Benny Hill episode, with a twist.

If a family has more money because of less taxes they can feed their children or maybe the children of others in their family or make a donation to a charity of their choice.
Maybe Harvard didn't teach simple stuff like common sense. This is one of the dumber thing BF has said.

The privileged ones don't even have to pay taxes- Hell, the Secretary of the Treasury doesn't have to.