I suggest you refer to the capital gains cuts that Reagan made in the wake of destruction left him by the Carter administration.So, that's why I keep asking for any historical evidence that shows tax cuts work to stimulate the economy, or that it effects the economy at all.
Then please explain to me why it is that when we see tax rates go up we read of receipts go down, and vice versa?When the economy was doing well, we were at the higher tax rate. The eoconmy went south with the tax cuts in place. So, I'm not convinced tax cuts maen anythign at all concerning the economy.
Who said I was basing my discussion today on anything from the American Thinker? That would be you obfuscating.Yes, when a bias reader anaylises it, then that bais is transfered to the analysis. So, when you read the American non-thinker, their ananylsis would never ever say it was a good thing.
I have requested repeatedly for you to give me a list of accepted sources by you, however when ever I use a source, what I find is that if it disagrees with you, you then dismiss it as opinion, or bias, or anything other than addressing what it talks about to continue your DNC far left tripe. So have out with it Joe, name the sources that you want, or start arguing the fact presented you, this other tactic is beneath you.Instead, you need something more objective.
That's rich...So I have to argue my case from a box that only you approve of, using language that only you approve of, and anything that is actually in the bill that is written in vague language, or could be destructive but isn't only because it hasn't taken effect yet can not be used is that it?Not that you have to like the bill, but hyperbolic nonsense doesn't work as an argument that will convince anyone actually trying to figure it out. Such is only something the biased partisan can praise.
IOW, agree or be quiet.....Nice.