Calvin Coolidge Economics
Since the Income Tax was enacted in 1913, the U.S. has had just one period of true "net" prosperity.
That took place in the 1920's, during the presidency of Calvin Coolidge, building on the plan devised by Treasury Secretary, Andrew Mellon.
What brought about this prosperity far more than anything else? Government spending as a percent of GDP was reduced-significantly.
Were there tax cuts? Yes but. Were there significant tax cuts? Yes but. The but is the most important point.
What Was Even More Important Than Cutting Taxes??
Reducing the cost of government (as a percent (%) of GDP) is what brought the success. The tax cuts were just a subset of--spending a smaller (percentage) of the country's national income-GDP, then called GNP.
Reducing spending as a percent of income, reduces wasted dollars (the cost of bureaucrats, plus bureaucratic inefficiencies, waste, fraud and unnecessary and duplicative programs.)
So in the case of President Coolidge, true prosperity was achieved by cutting taxes and cutting spending. True prosperity could also take place by cutting out all inefficiencies in government, without cutting taxes.
Besides the fact that all positives under Pres. Coolidge were the best ever, almost miraculously, Total Debt was actually reduced by a whopping 25% from $22 billion to $16 Billion. See all data below.
If Government Took Only What It Needed, China Would Still Owe Us
Taxes would never have to be cut, if, to begin with, government took only what it needed to provide essential services under the Constitution. In fact the amount government would actually need, to be in step with Constitutional limitations, would be so much shockingly less than it is today, Americans might be in a state of disbelief upon knowing the true numbers.
Average income per person would be higher in the thousands of dollars, for doing the same thing each worker is now doing.
The federal government is jam packed with waste, fraud and duplication. There is no challenging this point. Our Government Accountability Office (GAO) issues the reports every year-has for decades and the waste has been enormous.
President Obama himself, on July 26, 2010 acknowledged that in just 1 area [of thousands] $110 billion--with a (b), mistakenly went out in checks, to scam artists, among others. The GAO recently upgraded that number to $125.4 billion.
GAO: Fed Govt Fails Yearly Audit, Continues Its 100% Failure History
Unnecessary spending is so enormous, the federal government has failed its required yearly audit, in every one of the last 13 years in which it's been conducted, as required by law since the mid 1990's.
A small portion of the report, says essentially, negatives cannot even be measured; a starting point can't be found to see where the money is going. An excerpt below:
..."The U.S. Government Accountability Office said it could not render an opinion on the 2010 consolidated financial statements of the federal government, because of widespread material internal control weaknesses, significant uncertainties, and other limitations."...
Bill Clinton's Economy Had Much To Brag About, But Did Not Achieve True "Net" Prosperity
During President Bill Clinton's presidency, we had outstanding gains in most segments of the economy, save one.
Unlike President Coolidge's very large decrease in the national debt, under President Clinton, the debt just kept building, just not as much as it had before him.
Under the presidencies of each, the cost of government as a % of GDP was cut. Most of the other positives for taxpayers and the economy were very good for both presidents but they were much better under President Coolidge because the cut in the percentage of government was much greater.
This does not detract from President Clinton's economic gains, it only drives home the point that reduced government spending through the proper allocation of resources, yields increased growth, revenue and jobs in direct proportion to the percentage by which the cost of government is reduced.
President Clinton did very well with debt compared to those before and after him. Similar to President Coolidge, related to the direction of spending, Mr. Clinton reduced the overall cost of government-from 20% to 18 1/2% but did not limit spending to the extent President Coolidge did.
Had the Clinton spending limitations, matched the results of Cal Coolidge, the national debt instead of increasing from $4.5 trillion to 5.9 trillion, would have decreased from $4.5 trillion to $3. 4 trillion.
President Obama Has Virtually Guaranteed Long Term Sluggishness
President Obama has increased federal spending from 20% to a whopping 25%, a highly destructive action. This is what yields the projection by the Federal Reserve, of years of a sluggish economy and high unemployment.
Other Gains of The Coolidge/Mellon Economy
-The Coolidge policies took more than a million people off the income tax rolls
-As a result 98% of Americans paid no income tax at the end of his term
-Real economic growth averaged 7% per year while he was in office--the highest growth on record
-Inflation averaged only 0.4%-lowest increase on record
-Investment, manufacturing output, and disposable income rose dramatically
-Unemployment averaged 3.3%
Why, How, Such Gains Took Place
-By 1920 the top tax rate had reached 75% causing a weak U.S.economy
-1921 the Mellon Tax Cuts Began
-1922 We Spent 12.67% of GDP to Produce Weak Revenues of $73.4 billion
-1923 We reduced spending to 11.27% Of GDP to produce strong revenues of $85.4 billion
-1929 The more we contained spending, the faster the economy grew. Spending still held at 11.27% of GDP through 1929 producing extremely strong revenues of $103.6 billion
It is time to tell your U.S. Senator and U.S. House rep: Make all political decisions a subset of your overall goal of reducing the cost of the federal government from 25% to 18%-NOW.
Wouldn't be a bad idea to tell your local Mayor and Council and your Governor and state legislature to likewise, make appropriate percentage reductions.
:whip: :+waving-5
Since the Income Tax was enacted in 1913, the U.S. has had just one period of true "net" prosperity.
That took place in the 1920's, during the presidency of Calvin Coolidge, building on the plan devised by Treasury Secretary, Andrew Mellon.
What brought about this prosperity far more than anything else? Government spending as a percent of GDP was reduced-significantly.
Were there tax cuts? Yes but. Were there significant tax cuts? Yes but. The but is the most important point.
What Was Even More Important Than Cutting Taxes??
Reducing the cost of government (as a percent (%) of GDP) is what brought the success. The tax cuts were just a subset of--spending a smaller (percentage) of the country's national income-GDP, then called GNP.
Reducing spending as a percent of income, reduces wasted dollars (the cost of bureaucrats, plus bureaucratic inefficiencies, waste, fraud and unnecessary and duplicative programs.)
So in the case of President Coolidge, true prosperity was achieved by cutting taxes and cutting spending. True prosperity could also take place by cutting out all inefficiencies in government, without cutting taxes.
Besides the fact that all positives under Pres. Coolidge were the best ever, almost miraculously, Total Debt was actually reduced by a whopping 25% from $22 billion to $16 Billion. See all data below.
If Government Took Only What It Needed, China Would Still Owe Us
Taxes would never have to be cut, if, to begin with, government took only what it needed to provide essential services under the Constitution. In fact the amount government would actually need, to be in step with Constitutional limitations, would be so much shockingly less than it is today, Americans might be in a state of disbelief upon knowing the true numbers.
Average income per person would be higher in the thousands of dollars, for doing the same thing each worker is now doing.
The federal government is jam packed with waste, fraud and duplication. There is no challenging this point. Our Government Accountability Office (GAO) issues the reports every year-has for decades and the waste has been enormous.
President Obama himself, on July 26, 2010 acknowledged that in just 1 area [of thousands] $110 billion--with a (b), mistakenly went out in checks, to scam artists, among others. The GAO recently upgraded that number to $125.4 billion.
GAO: Fed Govt Fails Yearly Audit, Continues Its 100% Failure History
Unnecessary spending is so enormous, the federal government has failed its required yearly audit, in every one of the last 13 years in which it's been conducted, as required by law since the mid 1990's.
A small portion of the report, says essentially, negatives cannot even be measured; a starting point can't be found to see where the money is going. An excerpt below:
..."The U.S. Government Accountability Office said it could not render an opinion on the 2010 consolidated financial statements of the federal government, because of widespread material internal control weaknesses, significant uncertainties, and other limitations."...
Bill Clinton's Economy Had Much To Brag About, But Did Not Achieve True "Net" Prosperity
During President Bill Clinton's presidency, we had outstanding gains in most segments of the economy, save one.
Unlike President Coolidge's very large decrease in the national debt, under President Clinton, the debt just kept building, just not as much as it had before him.
Under the presidencies of each, the cost of government as a % of GDP was cut. Most of the other positives for taxpayers and the economy were very good for both presidents but they were much better under President Coolidge because the cut in the percentage of government was much greater.
This does not detract from President Clinton's economic gains, it only drives home the point that reduced government spending through the proper allocation of resources, yields increased growth, revenue and jobs in direct proportion to the percentage by which the cost of government is reduced.
President Clinton did very well with debt compared to those before and after him. Similar to President Coolidge, related to the direction of spending, Mr. Clinton reduced the overall cost of government-from 20% to 18 1/2% but did not limit spending to the extent President Coolidge did.
Had the Clinton spending limitations, matched the results of Cal Coolidge, the national debt instead of increasing from $4.5 trillion to 5.9 trillion, would have decreased from $4.5 trillion to $3. 4 trillion.
President Obama Has Virtually Guaranteed Long Term Sluggishness
President Obama has increased federal spending from 20% to a whopping 25%, a highly destructive action. This is what yields the projection by the Federal Reserve, of years of a sluggish economy and high unemployment.
Other Gains of The Coolidge/Mellon Economy
-The Coolidge policies took more than a million people off the income tax rolls
-As a result 98% of Americans paid no income tax at the end of his term
-Real economic growth averaged 7% per year while he was in office--the highest growth on record
-Inflation averaged only 0.4%-lowest increase on record
-Investment, manufacturing output, and disposable income rose dramatically
-Unemployment averaged 3.3%
Why, How, Such Gains Took Place
-By 1920 the top tax rate had reached 75% causing a weak U.S.economy
-1921 the Mellon Tax Cuts Began
-1922 We Spent 12.67% of GDP to Produce Weak Revenues of $73.4 billion
-1923 We reduced spending to 11.27% Of GDP to produce strong revenues of $85.4 billion
-1929 The more we contained spending, the faster the economy grew. Spending still held at 11.27% of GDP through 1929 producing extremely strong revenues of $103.6 billion
It is time to tell your U.S. Senator and U.S. House rep: Make all political decisions a subset of your overall goal of reducing the cost of the federal government from 25% to 18%-NOW.
Wouldn't be a bad idea to tell your local Mayor and Council and your Governor and state legislature to likewise, make appropriate percentage reductions.
:whip: :+waving-5