Republican Funded Study Shows Taxing the Wealthy Does Not Hurt Economy

Discussion in 'Economy' started by Rshermr, Dec 7, 2012.

  1. Rshermr
    Offline

    Rshermr VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2012
    Messages:
    5,804
    Thanks Received:
    287
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Location:
    LaConner, WA
    Ratings:
    +855
    A recent Republican Study meant to show that taxing the wealthy, or as Republicans call them, the job makers, would hurt the economy, including unemployment. The results came back. the republicans looked at the results, and then they shelved the report. Because, the report showed just the opposite of what they intended for it to show. It showed that taxing the wealth did not hurt the economy at all. In fact it showed it did the opposite.

    Here is the link:
    Tax the Rich, Kill the Economy? Here's Proof It Doesn't Work That Way - DailyFinance
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. Wiseacre
    Offline

    Wiseacre Retired USAF Chief Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,025
    Thanks Received:
    1,192
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Ratings:
    +1,194

    You sir are an ideological fool/tool and a liar as well. The study in question was not a republican one, it was not requested by them, and they didn't shelve anything, although they did ask the CRS to take it off their website, which the CRS did. The link says nothing about any of that stuff, you made all that crap up, or maybe you copied it from the usual far left loon websites you adore.

    Turns out the author of the study did it on his own, for political reasons. No one requested it, the guy was a democrat of course, a former Clinton employee, and the study was flawed in a number of ways. In other words, total bullshit, just like the crap you post. He is almost a big an asshole as you are.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2012
  3. kiwiman127
    Offline

    kiwiman127 Comfortably Moderate Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Messages:
    8,414
    Thanks Received:
    2,580
    Trophy Points:
    315
    Location:
    4th Cleanest City in the World-Minneapolis
    Ratings:
    +3,841
    But,,,,,,,
     

    Attached Files:

  4. Wiseacre
    Offline

    Wiseacre Retired USAF Chief Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,025
    Thanks Received:
    1,192
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Ratings:
    +1,194

    Nice chart --- but it proves nothing. Those job creation numbers for 35% are pretty much fucked up by the last 4 years of Obamanomics. Do you want to posit that the Great Recession and resulting UE was soley due to the Bush Tax Cuts? Somebody like Rshermr would, he's an ideologue. Didn't think you would though.

    About those high rates in the 80s and 90s, not a lot of people actually paid those rates, certainly not on most of their income. Any person who thinks we could return to those rates is really foolish. There are many studies that indicate that behavior changes when tax rates change, raise rates and rich folks find ways to avoid paying more, and that means less economic growth. You wanna debate that?
     
  5. kiwiman127
    Offline

    kiwiman127 Comfortably Moderate Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Messages:
    8,414
    Thanks Received:
    2,580
    Trophy Points:
    315
    Location:
    4th Cleanest City in the World-Minneapolis
    Ratings:
    +3,841
    I think no matter what the rates are, people (and not just the rich) are always looking for ways to pay less.
     
  6. Wiseacre
    Offline

    Wiseacre Retired USAF Chief Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,025
    Thanks Received:
    1,192
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Ratings:
    +1,194

    Absolutely. But the rich guys have more resources to help them reduce their taxes than the average Joe does. The main point is, they are not puting as much money into investments in the economy as they might have if the tax rate was lower. The question is, how much less and what is the impact. The answer is, it depends on a lot of things. When Clinton was president the impact was less cuz the economy was booming; I think the impact today would be more negative. At one time both Clinton and Obama said basically the same thing, but of course that was before it became politically advantageous to demonize the rich.
     
  7. Rshermr
    Offline

    Rshermr VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2012
    Messages:
    5,804
    Thanks Received:
    287
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Location:
    LaConner, WA
    Ratings:
    +855
    That would be your opinion. And you know how much I respect your opinion.

    Did not shelve it? Guess that depends on what you call shelve.
    " The Congressional Research Service has withdrawn an economic report that found no correlation between top tax rates and economic growth, a central tenet of conservative economic theory, after Senate Republicans raised concerns about the paper’s findings and wording."
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/b...al-research-services-report-on-tax-rates.html
    So, when you say it was taken down by the Congressional Research Center you miss the point that they did so based on a "request from Senate Republicans. Under no circumstances would it have been taken down otherwise. Because, you see, no democrats requested it be taken down, nor did they have anything to do with taking it down. The republican senators pressured the director of the CRS to take it down, and he did. Because the repubs asked for the report. Therefore, you see, the director felt that they had the right to take it down. You see, wiseacre, the CRS does not do studies for the fun of it. Congressmen must request it. And dems new nothing about it until it was posted on the congressional web site. Now, there are only republicans and democratic leadership that could ask for such a study. So, since it was a surprise to the dems, who do you suppose asked for the report?

    "The decision, made in late September against the advice of the agency’s economic team leadership"
    Now, since the economic team that produced the report did not want to take it down, why do you suppose they did so, wiseacre. Pretty obvious, is it not.

    More fuel to the Yep, the repubs got it taken down, is:
    "That’s not how these debates are supposed to go. Criticize the report. Dismiss it. Ignore it. Release your own. But don’t get it pulled."
    The tax report Senate Republicans don’t want you to see

    so, wiseacre says
    So, now you also have the NY Times article and the Washington Post piece. Sorry, there are no far left loon sites that I ever use. Don't frequent them and don't quote them. But I see some comments of yours that must have come from your favorite bat shit crazy web sites.

    Sorry, but if you are saying that the author of the report did the report on his own, that would be a bald faced lie. The CRS does not do reports or studies on their own. They must be requested by congress. Nice try, though. The repubs did put pressure on the director of the CRS to take the report down from it's site, which is obvious, to anyone but a con tool like you. By the way, that was the only place that it existed. And that site was not available to anyone but congressional members. So, why pressure anyone to take it down? Obvious enough, they did not want it to get out to the public. And no, senate democrats had no hand in taking it down. As a matter of fact they did not want it taken down.
    So, you have decided the director, who took it down, is a democrat and an asshole. That would be your opinion. Hell, I am sure you are an asshole. But it really makes no difference what your opinion is, or what my opinion is.

    Your opinion of the validity of the report is typical of con tools, also. You are doing what cons also do when impartial services produce a report that you do not like. Attack, attack, attack. Not on validity, because the economists who did this study stand by it. And they, my poor con tool, are much more believable than republican politicians who do not like the results of the stucy. Or any other politician, for that matter. And, by the way, wiseacre, they sure as hell know more about the study and its findings than you. Because you are an economic wasteland.
     
  8. Rshermr
    Offline

    Rshermr VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2012
    Messages:
    5,804
    Thanks Received:
    287
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Location:
    LaConner, WA
    Ratings:
    +855
    So, wiseacre says:

    And your proof of that statement is???? the report refuted that statement. History refutes that statement. So, you must have some impartial study that shows you are correct. Oh, hell, no you don't.

    Really? I was there. And Clinton's favorite saying during the campaign was "it's the economy, stupid". remember? Do you suppose he was saying that because the bush 1 economy was booming? Unemployment was very close to where it is today. And, after the tax increase, unemploynent went down, month after month, year after year. And the economy went nuts after the tax increase.
    http://www.davemanuel.com/historical-unemployment-rates-in-the-united-states.php

    And that is not true. If you have some proof, lets see it. But, it is the dogma that the bat crap crazy con web sites use. the rest of that sentence is pure don dogma. That is to say, dogma. Perhaps you would like to show me a statement by this pres that demonizes the rich. Perhaps that is why you do not use links.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2012
  9. Wiseacre
    Offline

    Wiseacre Retired USAF Chief Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,025
    Thanks Received:
    1,192
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Ratings:
    +1,194

    Tell you what, I can live with opinions that differ from my own. But your crap is so off the wall wrong and filled with lies and misinformation that it's hard to ignore. However, I'll give it a shot. I'm done with you, you ain't worth the time and trouble.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2012
  10. rdean
    Online

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,061
    Thanks Received:
    6,881
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +14,905
    Republicans don't believe in study or data or stuff like that. Too close to "science".
     

Share This Page