Heh,Heh, just consider the source.

I agree, Maddog. The source tells you all you need to know.

Ah-hem...cough. Allow the master to interpret. Obviously, if it's not from a (R) columnist or blogger, it's only conjecture...rubbish even. Laughable. Just Google the author's name, Isaac William Martin, and check out his accomplishments...extremely credible with awards to boot. Oh, the irony in it all. I'm certain that many others have done their own diligence and know better than all the touting and spouting over who's handled taxes and the economy better. It's the game that must be played in the end but, the end game 'score' is all that matters.

Reagan lowered the top income rate dramatically from 70% in '81 to 28% in '86. But, he had to raise taxes at least (5) times due to rising deficit and debt burden in '82, 84, '85, '86, and '87. That also included eliminating business tax breaks as well as increases in several other areas. So, in the end, people enjoyed an initial cut in taxes( more money in their pockets) but the debt and deficit rose quickly. This resulted in him having to 'take the candy away', in increments, in order to 'slow down the decaying tooth'.

In relation to the overall GDP, he did actually lower the taxes...but you see the caveat to that. Gotta give him his due. Obama didn't 'raise' taxes, he only allowed the Bush tax cuts to expire because it wasn't even helping. During his first term, the Bush taxes were in tact...and people still complained about the economy. They still had the same money they always had for the first four years of his term. Then, they have hemorrages when he decides to raise revenues through taxes raises, eliminations, and other budget deals...just like Reagan did.

Same basic plan implemented by a different man...and everyone cried, "FOWL!!" You make the call...

Do not spend money like a fool woukl bring the tax structure into balance.

What more evidence does one need to know that they have been played?