"Hope and Change"...Still? Looking Back at 4 Years of "Change" -- Fox and Friends -- 5-30-12

Hats off to Chris White -- Fox News Associate Producer, for putting together this brilliant video compilation of what the past 4 years of 'Hope and Change" has REALLY brought to this country.

• Category

  News & Politics

[69palmharbor]

suckers!!! I MISS BUSCH!!

[Dread Storm]

Let some libtards argue this. heh

Well done.

[Scotter Adams]

No act in the last quarter century had a more profound impact on the U.S. economy of the eighties and nineties than the Reagan tax cut of 1981. Reagan's tax cuts, combined with an emphasis on federal monetary policy, deregulation, and expansion of free trade created a sustained economic expansion creating America's greatest sustained wave of prosperity ever. The economy grew by more than a third in size producing a $15 trillion increase in American wealth. Consumer, investor confidence soared.

[Scotter Adams]

Kennedy brought up the issue of tax reduction in his 1963 State of the Union address. His initial plan called for a $13.5 billion tax cut through a reduction of the top income tax rate from 91% to 65%, reduction of the bottom rate from 20% to 14%, and a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 52% to 47%The first attempt at passing the tax cuts was rejected by Congress in 1963. After Kennedy was assassinted in Nov., Lyndon B. Johnson offered a plan called "The Revenue Act of 1964. (cont. below)

[Scotter Adams]

The goal of the tax cuts were to raise incomes, increase consumption, and increase capital investments. Evidence shows that these goals were met to some degree by the tax cut. Unemployment fell from 5.2% in 64 to 4.5% in 65, and fell to 3.8% in 66. Estimates predicted a loss of revenue as a result of tax cuts, however, tax revenue increased in 64 and 65 This doesn't sound like a failure to me. Kennedy and Johnson were democrats too. When left /right didn't matter as much as what was needed

[Scotter Adams]

I don't think the gov. is forced to cut people. They have the option to cut wages and keep workers, but they just don't do it. The private workforce sacrificed to some extent to keep their jobs available. I have sacrificed to the point where I don't even make enough to pay Fed withholding. The gov. should be doing all they can to make my business more productive so I can contribute my fair share to their pool. But little has happened to help. More taxes and higher wages sure won't help.

[Scotter Adams]

That's exactly why they shouldn't get so big to begin with. How can we continue to spend based on "fairness" and not what is actually available to spend? All successful companies know how much they can spend on payroll and how many workers they need to prosper. Why can't the government figure out how to do this? Because they don't try. But they always cut jobs which hurts their ability to be effective. If you dont have the $ for the # of people you need, then you pay them too much. Simple

[Scotter Adams]

I was attempting to be ironic, about Mitt. He was applying for a lower paying job than he currently has, was what I meant to say. For a guy that is labeled as rich and non caring of the avg. guy, I thought his willingness to take a huge paycut to try to help our country was a very unselfish move. I like the "glass is half-full" way of looking at stuff. We will never know if he would have done a good job. That's fine. With another 4 years Mr. Obama should be able to right the ship.

[Scotter Adams]

The gov. needs to do some serious changes to prioritizing the $ they spend. For example, in OR, they should be able to calculate the number of teachers needed per district, then look at the amount of money they bugeted for teachers, and pay them from what is there. Nobody,with a clue, decides that teachers should make a "fair" wage and then hire too few to do a quality job of teaching because there is not enough funds. Insane! FIRST hire the proper amount, THEN discuss what they should get paid

[Scotter Adams]

Changes in spending HAVE to happen. There is no way we can go on spending whatever we want, and then searching for a band-aid to fix it. Taking away subsidies, or taxing more is not the way to fix the problem and does nothing to change bad habits. The fundamental way of prioritizing spending needs to change. This isn't a math problem, as much as a poor way to operate. I have nothing against wealthy paying more, but nobody wants to throw more at the same old lame approach that does not work