http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo86.html

“The first British settlers of America arrived in Jamestown, Virginia, in May of 1607. There, in the Virginia Tidewater region, they found incredibly fertile soil and a cornucopia of seafood, wild game, and fruits of all kind. But within six months, all but 38 of the original 104 Jamestown settlers were dead, most having succumbed to famine. Two years later, the Virginia Company sent 500 more settlers, and within six months 440 had died of starvation or disease. This was known as “the starving time” (See Warren Billings, ed., The Old Dominion in the Seventeenth Century: A Documentary History of Virginia, 1606–1689).

In his excellent book, The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity through the Ages, Tom Bethell cites an eyewitness to the starving time who diagnosed the cause, in old English, as “want of providence, industrie and government, and not the barenness and defect of the Countrie, as is generally supposed.” The reason for this “want” of “industrie,” as Philip A. Bruce noted in his Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century (p. 212), was that “The settlers did not have even a modified interest in the soil. . . . Everything produced by them went into the store, in which they had no proprietorship.” That is, there were no well established property rights; the first British settlers practiced agricultural socialism and, like socialism everywhere, it was an unmitigated disaster.

The problem was that all of the men were indentured servants who had no significant financial stake in the fruits of their own labor. For seven years, all that they produced was to go into a common pool to be used, supposedly, to support the colony and to generate profits for the Virginia Company. Working harder or longer provided them with no rewards, so they shirked – and starved. ”
Read the rest.
(cont…)

There is the only proof you need to know that when the government takes our money we are always worse off.
And that when our efforts are freed up to spread as we see fit in the market it flourishes.

I said earlier;
“Yes, capital gains tax cuts invariably result in a revenue increase the next year, because investors aren’t idiots: If they see a cut coming, they’re likely to make adjustments to capital gains generating transactions which result in our revenue gains.”

So spare me your attitude that I dont know about things when I clearly mention them.

Revenue Effects
Over the past several years, a debate has ensued regarding the revenue cost of cutting
capital gains taxes (see CRS Report 97-559, The Revenue Cost of Cutting Capital Gains
Tax Rates, for further discussion). For example, when the President proposed a 30%
exclusion in 1990, Treasury estimates showed a $12 billion gain in revenue over the first
five years, while the Joint Committee on Taxation found a revenue loss of approximately
equal size.
Although the estimates seemed quite different, they both incorporated significant
expected increases in the amount of gains realized as a result of the tax cut. For example,
the Treasury would have estimated a revenue loss of $80 billion over five years with no
behavioral response, and the Joint Tax Committee a loss of $100 billion. (The gap
between these static estimates arose from differences in projections of expected capital
gains, a volatile series that is quite difficult to estimate.)

JMJ

I also can google info to support my claim that Charlie knew what he was talking about.
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/kerpen200604110850.asp

Every round of cuts in the cap-gains tax for individuals has been a triumph. In 1978, 1981, 1997, and 2003 the capital-gains rate for individuals was cut and the stock market rallied strongly, driving sizable increases in tax revenues. Cutting the cap-gains tax is the ultimate supply-side win-win. The most recent reduction, in 2003, breathed life back into the stock markets from the moment it was conceived, triggering a remarkable rally that is still underway.

Cap-gains tax revenues jump in response to rate cuts since these reductions boost the after-tax return on capital, making more economic endeavors profitable, while unlocking the longer-term gains that free up capital stocks for more efficient use. Revenue estimators consider the unlocking effect, but they ignore the growth effects — which is why they consistently fail to predict the revenue-increasing effects of rate reductions.

That enough for you?
Charlie mentioned the F A C T and both candidates knew he was right and so they both did a doo doo dance around it.

I’m not stupid, as much as your uppity little self would like to think.
The point is this.
Charlie Gibson asked why Obama or Clinton Would raise the tax and neither of them could answer it with any of the crap you came up with. Because they know the math doesnt add up in light of the fact the tax cut boosted revenues. And they knew he was right. PERIOD !
As much as I dislike both candidates I think they know just a little bit more about this than you, otherwise they would of used your arguement

http://time-blog.com/curious_capitalist/2008/01/do_capital_gains_tax_cuts_incr.html

JMJ

JMJ;
“Funny, in a way, by Voo Doo economics very own standards the tax cut on capital gains help fund the bubble that is bursting now ”
“Liberals are too educated to fall for that sort of voo doo, snake oil, pseudo-economics!”
The real simplistic take here is the one the liberals put out. And that simplicity is to just bend us over instead of crunching numbers, cutting spending in other areas to afford all the stuff they promise.
Charlies question was a “gotcha” question and it was based on the fact that you need revenues to pay for all this stuff but yet you want to raise the gains tax when the fact and proof of the matter shows that whenever the gains tax has been raised, revenues dropped.
So if you are offering health care and whatever else your economic rationale doesnt support your plans.
The tax cut is provable by any standard that it raised revenues. Especially history, as Charlie Gibson mentioned.
When you raise the tax, revenues go down. Everytime its been dropped, revenues went up.
This frees up more cash for investors perform other investments and endeavors. It infuses more money into the system.
As far as the bubble goes, you yourself admit that the capital gains cut created a bubble which is basically the growth it was intended to create. How or why that bubble popped is another matter that has nothing to do with the fact that if the libs need money to pay for all the stuff thay want to hand out they would be smart to not re enstate the gains tax to higher levels.
Neither candidate addressed the basic point, that cutting the capital gains tax increases investment AND government revenues. The fact is that they cant make their big picture work with the plans they mention.
I’m grasping what you’re saying.
You’re saying ” how do I get out of this?”
There are a lot of opinions on the effects of the gains tax. But one thing is undeniable. They raise revenues when they are dropped.
You cant blame the bubble burst on the cut, thats just stoopid. You can only give credit for the bubbles growth to the cut, not the pop
What was done with the revenues by the fed and the investor is where the blame should lay.
But like I said before. Libs would rather have that money in their hands

Micky, you’re just not following my argument. I never said anything like “the cut in capital gains tax was voodoo economics.” That’s an extremely simplistic take. I said that the cut in the capital gains tax is not provably the reason the revenues went up - and even if it was the reason, we now see the terrible consequences of that cut, together with the current state of the regulations and laws related to the sectors from which these gains are accrued. I just don’t think you’re grasping what I’m saying here, Micky.

Voo Doo economics are for fools and thieves. Either you’re gullible enough to believe such nonsense, or you’re profiting from it. I’m sorry, but that’s just the way I see it.

JMJ

As far as Hawaii goes. That statement was just another example of liberal elite ignorance.
If anyone has more right or reason to bitch than anyone else its us folks here. On top of the majority Dems here and everything else we have to pay shipping for every damn thing we get.
Instead, why dont you move here and then see if you want to be so casual about the government squeezing you some more.
What do you know about Hawaii other than Magnum PI and Hawaii Five O ?
Sheeze we had ATMs before anyone else. We have anything and everything you have on the mainland its just on a different scale. Including crooked liberals.
And as much as you would like to think I’m some lost island boy i’ll have you know I’ve spent a total of 25 years on the mainland, both coasts.

And no, I do not want to argue whether there should be taxes, go ahead try to change it around, you think you would know by now that doesnt work with me.
I wanted to drive my point home that Charlie Gibson was right and you were not.
And I believe I succeeded in squishing your assinine claim that the cut in capital gains tax was voodoo economics.

And if you think “liberals” in America today are the “greedy” and “eilte” then I would suggest moving back to the mainland for a while. Real life here in the states ain’t much like Hawai’i.

JMJ