Economic Recovery Could Be Just Two Months Away

But, President Obama simply won’t do what’s obviously needed. He’s too steeped in his socialistic rhetoric constantly railing against the rich and trashing tax cuts that aren’t simply wealth transfers to the poor. Still, if Obama could just break away from the proletariat propaganda, the Bolshevik “bull-ship” (substitute appropriate word here), he could be a hero and be heralded forevermore.

However, liberal politicians constantly pooh-pooh tax cuts even though they’re conclusively the best way to curtail economy downturns. With a marginal tax rate cut, America wouldn’t need government policy wonks and their trillion dollar expenditures.

And for some reason, Obama abhors individuals who dare to make $250,000/yr or more. If a taxpayer earns just $249,999.99, he’s okay. But one extra penny, he’s greedy and a scourge to society and so must pay. Actually, socialists hate these individuals because they directly compete for subjects in the peasant class.

Individuals making these amounts run small companies that create most of the new jobs. In 2004, they created all the new jobs fueling the economic recovery that liberals deny even today. And for every job that they create, it’s one less person who’ll need welfare, unemployment and thus won’t need Obama, our messiah.

Yes, successful entrepreneurs just interfere with Obama’s selling of his sickening stench of socialistic services. Someone who makes only $50000/yr might say, like that Catholic priest living in Nazi Germany, “I didn’t care when Obama taxed to death incomes over $250000/yr because I didn’t make that much. Then, he over-taxed incomes greater than $100000/yr. Again, I didn’t care. Finally, he came after me, but there was nobody left to protect my income.”

The truth is if you’re paying the marginal tax rate you’re not rich. You may be well off, not hurting for money, or living from paycheck to paycheck, but you’re not rich. The rich simply do not pay the marginal tax rate. For example, Teresa Heinz Kerry makes $60 to $80 million a year on assets of $1 billion. She paid $623,000 in 2003, according to the New York Al Timezerra, a mere 1%.

On W’s watch, the Bureau of Labor Statistics simply spells it out. When the true marginal tax rate cut (39% to 35%) was passed in June 2003, the steady job loss since 2000 ended just two months later in August.

9 million jobs were eventually created ended only when Democrats took over congress. When Ronald Reagan was president, he passed his infamous tax cut in July 1981, but the economic recovery didn’t begin until March of 1983.

Of course, Democrats did what they do best, demagogue, attacking “Reaganomics” and caterwauling that his policies were creating the deepest recession since the Great Depression. Reagan’s approval rating that was near 70% when he left office in 1989 actually plummeted to almost Bush’s level (30%) bottoming at 35% positive and 56% negative in January 1983.

Like Bush, he was under intense pressure to change course aided albeit by the DNC media, their daily drumbeat of the plight of the unemployed barely eking by. Interestingly when Democrats like Obama or Clinton are president, the DNC media reports how the recession is actually good for Americans.

Stories abound where the unemployed are enjoying time off. Recent grads are being praised for giving up their dreams of killer money on greedy Wall Street, and instead choosing non-profits or the Peace Corps. As CNN reports, students are now “free to do whatever they want to do.” But, Republican presidents get no such rosy reminiscing. So, like in 2006, Republicans in 1982 lost seats in the House, 26 to be exact.

But by 1984, Democrats stopped attacking “Reaganomics” because the economic situation had dramatically improved. So much so, Reagan proclaimed it “morning in America” and was re-elected with 59% of the vote. From then on he was a “messiah” for conservatives and many Reagan Democrats.

Of course, Democrats will claim that since the tax cut was passed in 1981, and the recovery didn’t begin until March 1983, it really wasn’t the tax cut that caused it. Yeah, the recovery would have just happened anyway. Maybe, it was karma, just luck, or even star-alignment. But, that’s what can be expected from people who believe that lending to NINJA (No Income, No Job and Assets) borrowers would never have serious repercussions.

The fact liberals ignore is that Reagan’s tax cut, which reduced the marginal rate to 28%, wasn’t implemented until January 1983. The American people suffered an additional two years because class envy clowns in congress must hamper tax cuts anyway they can. Still, after just two months in effect, 91 consecutive quarters of economic growth began.

So, one question remains. How many times do tax cuts have to work until it’s not considered mere coincidence?