Tax Cuts Steal Democracy

[sakinago]

Tax Cuts do a lot of things; increase deficits, explode debts, hurt wage growth...but in concert with unlimited campaign contributions, they actually steal our democracy. The average politician spends about 80% of their time raising money. And from whom are they generally raising the most money? From wealthy donors. And what benefits wealthy donors? Tax cuts. Here are some handy charts showing the extent of the theft of wealth and democracy by the 1% and their Conservative and Neo-Liberal enablers. Since the Reagan tax cuts, working people’s share of the benefits from increased productivity took a sudden turn down:

This resulted in intense concentration of wealth at the top:

And forced working people to spend down savings to get by:

Which forced working people to go into debt: (total household debt as percentage of GDP)

None of which has helped economic growth much: (12-quarter rolling average nominal GDP growth.):

So the conclusion? Trump and the Conservatives' "tax reform" is just more of the same we've heard from them since 1980, and is just a thinly veiled attempt to redistribute wealth from the middle and bottom to the top.

First statement of increase deficits is false...and by explode debt I assume your referring to national debt?

https://object.cato.org/images/pubs/commentary/030304-1.gif

The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates

The Coolidge tax cuts: tax revenue increased 61%, the Kennedy tax cuts: tax revenue increased 62% , and Reagan tax cuts: 94% tax revenue increase.

Second claim of exploding debt is false. Usually debt is caused by spending outside of ones means. The US has been posting record number tax revenues the past couple years...yet our debt has exponentially grown over the past 16 years? So how did you reach your conclusion there?

It turns out the rich actually pay more taxes when taxes are lower. Coolidge tax cuts: tax burden of the rich rose from 44% to 78%, Kennedy tax cuts: tax burden of rich rose 57%, Reagan tax cuts: from 48% to 57%.

Ok so we got your first faulty assumptions out of the way. How exactly is increased taxing going to stop politicians from spending 80% of their careers fundraising? How does that make sense? I agree it's a problem they spend so much time doing this, but it's not unreasonable to assume that big donors would be more willing to try to buy influence if you're going after their pockets.

Let's move on to your snapshot graphs. They're telling an incomplete story. If these graphs or so set in stone for all of America, then how is that 70% of Americans will spend at least a year in the top 20%, 53% will spend at least a year in the top 10%, and 11% will spend at least a year in the top 1%.

Income inequality and the myth of the 1% and the 99%

Also take a look at this Forbes article that takes a more critical look at Piketty's economics.

Dispelling Myths About Income Inequality

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

If paying taxes it the price of living in this country, then why the fuck doesn't the poor pay that price?

Ummm...they do in the form of sales and excise taxes. Also, because they're poor. Too poor to pay taxes. How did that happen? Because Conservatives cut taxes and their wages didn't increase.

So explain to me how this isn't a circular argument you are making; You complain the wealthy pay too much in taxes, so Conservatives cut taxes, then complain that the people Conservatives just cut taxes for aren't paying enough in taxes! The only reason 47% of people "pay no taxes" is because Conservatives made it that way when they cut taxes. Duh. So many arguments from the right are circular like that. Take welfare, a favorite punching bag for the right. You complain about all the people on welfare, yet you oppose raising the minimum wage which would move people off welfare (since welfare benefits are determined by income), and thus result in less welfare spending. So explain to me how that argument isn't circular either. Because from where I stand, it sure seems circular to me.

Hmmm. Why should they sit back, do nothing but poke out welfare children, get free education for their children, get welfare, healthcare, and eventually social security that they never put a dime in?

Ahhhh yes, the "welfare queen" myth. Unfortunately, this tired old trope is contradicted by the fact that Conservatives reformed welfare in the 90's to tie benefits to a work requirement. What that means is that you don't get welfare unless you are a) working a job that pays so little, you qualify for benefits, b) in job training or c) in school. That was a consequence of the 1996 Personal Work Responsibility Act (Welfare Reform) that was championed by Conservatives then as "the end of welfare as we know it". So if you are complaining about welfare today, that means one of two things; 1) The welfare reform done by Conservatives in 1996 was flawed and their pronouncement of the reform was just lip service to a bad idea, or 2) The welfare reform done by Conservatives in 1996 did work, and Conservatives are just lying about welfare today.

So which is it? Were they lying then or are they lying now?

Before FDR, people never starved because family took care of family

First of all - not true at all. Secondly, plenty of people starved before FDR. The stock market crash of 1929 happened 4 years before FDR was sworn in. The Dust Bowl also started before FDR was sworn in. Did people not starve from that? Also, the idea of having family live under one roof for their entire lives is an antiquated one, and not one our society accepts today, nor is it even viable when low-income workers have to work multiple jobs and hours in order to survive. Add to that cuts Conservatives make to Medicaid and the costs of treating a sick, elderly relative are too prohibitive for most middle and lower-class folks. People can't simply stay home and take care of gramps as his Alzheimer's gets worse and worse. You need trained medical professionals to do that. Are you telling me you would be totally OK with wiping up the feces three or more times a day while also trying to work 8 hours a day full time? How would that even work? Would you have to take a break from work to go home and clean gramps up? How do you think your boss will respond to you leaving every couple hours to go home and take care of your relative? And what if you don't have a car and have to take public transportation? And what if you live an hour's drive away? These are the questions that Conservatives never seem to ask when they propose such silliness.

As for the average SS benefit, before the Sexual Predator(Bill Clinton) in 1993 raised the taxes on Social Security, you got more Social Security to live off of.

So that's a distortion. Not all taxes on SS got hit with an increase. Just those benefits for high-income earners (anyone in the top tax bracket). From the SSA:

"In 1993, legislation was enacted which had the effect of increasing the tax put in place under the 1983 law. It raised from 50% to 85% the portion of Social Security benefits subject to taxation; but the increased percentage only applied to "higher income" beneficiaries. Beneficiaries of modest incomes might still be subject to the 50% rate, or to no taxation at all, depending on their overall taxable income."

So how much MORE do RICH people have to pay for you to be satisfied? 50%, 75%, 100% of their income should be taxed? Once you start taking all the money from the RICH you don't have RICH any more, then more middle class have to pay, soon there is no middle class anymore and the US of A then becomes Venezuela. Some people like John F'ing Kerry(who won 3 purple hearts), find ways to avoid paying taxes while they(liberals) bitch and moan how unfair it is that the Rich don't pay. Liberals are all about "Do as I say, not as I do".. But as the Chart(and you love to use charts, this IRS chart shows WHO pays the most taxes...Dumbass, liberals never fucking learn... Wait till you get older then you will see how wrong liberals really are...


John Kerry Saves $500,000 By Docking 76-Foot Luxury Yacht Out Of State | The Huffington Post
Senator Rangel Fails to Pay His Taxes - Judicial Watch
Daschle failed to pay $128,000 in taxes

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Tax Cuts do a lot of things; increase deficits, explode debts, hurt wage growth...but in concert with unlimited campaign contributions, they actually steal our democracy. The average politician spends about 80% of their time raising money. And from whom are they generally raising the most money? From wealthy donors. And what benefits wealthy donors? Tax cuts. Here are some handy charts showing the extent of the theft of wealth and democracy by the 1% and their Conservative and Neo-Liberal enablers. Since the Reagan tax cuts, working people’s share of the benefits from increased productivity took a sudden turn down:

This resulted in intense concentration of wealth at the top:

And forced working people to spend down savings to get by:

Which forced working people to go into debt: (total household debt as percentage of GDP)

None of which has helped economic growth much: (12-quarter rolling average nominal GDP growth.):

So the conclusion? Trump and the Conservatives' "tax reform" is just more of the same we've heard from them since 1980, and is just a thinly veiled attempt to redistribute wealth from the middle and bottom to the top.

First statement of increase deficits is false...and by explode debt I assume your referring to national debt?

https://object.cato.org/images/pubs/commentary/030304-1.gif

The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates

The Coolidge tax cuts: tax revenue increased 61%, the Kennedy tax cuts: tax revenue increased 62% , and Reagan tax cuts: 94% tax revenue increase.

Second claim of exploding debt is false. Usually debt is caused by spending outside of ones means. The US has been posting record number tax revenues the past couple years...yet our debt has exponentially grown over the past 16 years? So how did you reach your conclusion there?

It turns out the rich actually pay more taxes when taxes are lower. Coolidge tax cuts: tax burden of the rich rose from 44% to 78%, Kennedy tax cuts: tax burden of rich rose 57%, Reagan tax cuts: from 48% to 57%.

Ok so we got your first faulty assumptions out of the way. How exactly is increased taxing going to stop politicians from spending 80% of their careers fundraising? How does that make sense? I agree it's a problem they spend so much time doing this, but it's not unreasonable to assume that big donors would be more willing to try to buy influence if you're going after their pockets.

Let's move on to your snapshot graphs. They're telling an incomplete story. If these graphs or so set in stone for all of America, then how is that 70% of Americans will spend at least a year in the top 20%, 53% will spend at least a year in the top 10%, and 11% will spend at least a year in the top 1%.

Income inequality and the myth of the 1% and the 99%

Also take a look at this Forbes article that takes a more critical look at Piketty's economics.

Dispelling Myths About Income Inequality

The debt increased under Reagan because Tipp O'Oneil, who promised to stop illegal immigration if Reagan allowed amnesty for those in the country, LIED to Reagan and spent like drunken liberals, with more welfare to those illegals and other liberal programs. Yet just like stupid liberals(I know redundant statement) they believe what their political hacks tell them, instead of researching the PROOF of how corrupt the Dumbocrats really are..

 

[The Derp]

Gates Jobs Brin Bezos are unaccountable??? Actually they are accountable to us for their very survival. If they don't please us we drive them into bankruptcy. Why do you think Amazon sells us so much great stuff at a loss?? Thats unaccountable???

No, they are not accountable. Not sure what you're referring to.

 

[jillian]

Tax Cuts do a lot of things; increase deficits, explode debts, hurt wage growth...but in concert with unlimited campaign contributions, they actually steal our democracy. The average politician spends about 80% of their time raising money. And from whom are they generally raising the most money? From wealthy donors. And what benefits wealthy donors? Tax cuts. Here are some handy charts showing the extent of the theft of wealth and democracy by the 1% and their Conservative and Neo-Liberal enablers. Since the Reagan tax cuts, working people’s share of the benefits from increased productivity took a sudden turn down:

This resulted in intense concentration of wealth at the top:

And forced working people to spend down savings to get by:

Which forced working people to go into debt: (total household debt as percentage of GDP)

None of which has helped economic growth much: (12-quarter rolling average nominal GDP growth.):

So the conclusion? Trump and the Conservatives' "tax reform" is just more of the same we've heard from them since 1980, and is just a thinly veiled attempt to redistribute wealth from the middle and bottom to the top.

tax cuts do what they always do.... redistribute wealth to the top 1%

funny how the rednecks don't get it

 

[jillian]

Tax Cuts do a lot of things; increase deficits, explode debts, hurt wage growth...but in concert with unlimited campaign contributions, they actually steal our democracy. The average politician spends about 80% of their time raising money. And from whom are they generally raising the most money? From wealthy donors. And what benefits wealthy donors? Tax cuts. Here are some handy charts showing the extent of the theft of wealth and democracy by the 1% and their Conservative and Neo-Liberal enablers. Since the Reagan tax cuts, working people’s share of the benefits from increased productivity took a sudden turn down:

This resulted in intense concentration of wealth at the top:

And forced working people to spend down savings to get by:

Which forced working people to go into debt: (total household debt as percentage of GDP)

None of which has helped economic growth much: (12-quarter rolling average nominal GDP growth.):

So the conclusion? Trump and the Conservatives' "tax reform" is just more of the same we've heard from them since 1980, and is just a thinly veiled attempt to redistribute wealth from the middle and bottom to the top.

First statement of increase deficits is false...and by explode debt I assume your referring to national debt?

https://object.cato.org/images/pubs/commentary/030304-1.gif

The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates

The Coolidge tax cuts: tax revenue increased 61%, the Kennedy tax cuts: tax revenue increased 62% , and Reagan tax cuts: 94% tax revenue increase.

Second claim of exploding debt is false. Usually debt is caused by spending outside of ones means. The US has been posting record number tax revenues the past couple years...yet our debt has exponentially grown over the past 16 years? So how did you reach your conclusion there?

It turns out the rich actually pay more taxes when taxes are lower. Coolidge tax cuts: tax burden of the rich rose from 44% to 78%, Kennedy tax cuts: tax burden of rich rose 57%, Reagan tax cuts: from 48% to 57%.

Ok so we got your first faulty assumptions out of the way. How exactly is increased taxing going to stop politicians from spending 80% of their careers fundraising? How does that make sense? I agree it's a problem they spend so much time doing this, but it's not unreasonable to assume that big donors would be more willing to try to buy influence if you're going after their pockets.

Let's move on to your snapshot graphs. They're telling an incomplete story. If these graphs or so set in stone for all of America, then how is that 70% of Americans will spend at least a year in the top 20%, 53% will spend at least a year in the top 10%, and 11% will spend at least a year in the top 1%.

Income inequality and the myth of the 1% and the 99%

Also take a look at this Forbes article that takes a more critical look at Piketty's economics.

Dispelling Myths About Income Inequality

The debt increased under Reagan because Tipp O'Oneil, who promised to stop illegal immigration if Reagan allowed amnesty for those in the country, LIED to Reagan and spent like drunken liberals, with more welfare to those illegals and other liberal programs. Yet just like stupid liberals(I know redundant statement) they believe what their political hacks tell them, instead of researching the PROOF of how corrupt the Dumbocrats really are..

so Reagan was a moron who got duped?

damn you're an idiot

 

[The Derp]

why be stupid and liberal?? Check the price of gold then!!!!

That's not how inflation is measured.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Tax Cuts do a lot of things; increase deficits, explode debts, hurt wage growth...but in concert with unlimited campaign contributions, they actually steal our democracy. The average politician spends about 80% of their time raising money. And from whom are they generally raising the most money? From wealthy donors. And what benefits wealthy donors? Tax cuts. Here are some handy charts showing the extent of the theft of wealth and democracy by the 1% and their Conservative and Neo-Liberal enablers. Since the Reagan tax cuts, working people’s share of the benefits from increased productivity took a sudden turn down:

This resulted in intense concentration of wealth at the top:

And forced working people to spend down savings to get by:

Which forced working people to go into debt: (total household debt as percentage of GDP)

None of which has helped economic growth much: (12-quarter rolling average nominal GDP growth.):

So the conclusion? Trump and the Conservatives' "tax reform" is just more of the same we've heard from them since 1980, and is just a thinly veiled attempt to redistribute wealth from the middle and bottom to the top.

tax cuts do what they always do.... redistribute wealth to the top 1%

funny how the rednecks don't get it

How does allowing someone to keep more of THEIR own money, considered a redistribution of wealth? You just cant get more stupid than a liberal. Slap yourself on the back there jillian you just graduated with the Obamaphone lady for lacking intelligence.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Tax Cuts do a lot of things; increase deficits, explode debts, hurt wage growth...but in concert with unlimited campaign contributions, they actually steal our democracy. The average politician spends about 80% of their time raising money. And from whom are they generally raising the most money? From wealthy donors. And what benefits wealthy donors? Tax cuts. Here are some handy charts showing the extent of the theft of wealth and democracy by the 1% and their Conservative and Neo-Liberal enablers. Since the Reagan tax cuts, working people’s share of the benefits from increased productivity took a sudden turn down:

This resulted in intense concentration of wealth at the top:

And forced working people to spend down savings to get by:

Which forced working people to go into debt: (total household debt as percentage of GDP)

None of which has helped economic growth much: (12-quarter rolling average nominal GDP growth.):

So the conclusion? Trump and the Conservatives' "tax reform" is just more of the same we've heard from them since 1980, and is just a thinly veiled attempt to redistribute wealth from the middle and bottom to the top.

First statement of increase deficits is false...and by explode debt I assume your referring to national debt?

https://object.cato.org/images/pubs/commentary/030304-1.gif

The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates

The Coolidge tax cuts: tax revenue increased 61%, the Kennedy tax cuts: tax revenue increased 62% , and Reagan tax cuts: 94% tax revenue increase.

Second claim of exploding debt is false. Usually debt is caused by spending outside of ones means. The US has been posting record number tax revenues the past couple years...yet our debt has exponentially grown over the past 16 years? So how did you reach your conclusion there?

It turns out the rich actually pay more taxes when taxes are lower. Coolidge tax cuts: tax burden of the rich rose from 44% to 78%, Kennedy tax cuts: tax burden of rich rose 57%, Reagan tax cuts: from 48% to 57%.

Ok so we got your first faulty assumptions out of the way. How exactly is increased taxing going to stop politicians from spending 80% of their careers fundraising? How does that make sense? I agree it's a problem they spend so much time doing this, but it's not unreasonable to assume that big donors would be more willing to try to buy influence if you're going after their pockets.

Let's move on to your snapshot graphs. They're telling an incomplete story. If these graphs or so set in stone for all of America, then how is that 70% of Americans will spend at least a year in the top 20%, 53% will spend at least a year in the top 10%, and 11% will spend at least a year in the top 1%.

Income inequality and the myth of the 1% and the 99%

Also take a look at this Forbes article that takes a more critical look at Piketty's economics.

Dispelling Myths About Income Inequality

The debt increased under Reagan because Tipp O'Oneil, who promised to stop illegal immigration if Reagan allowed amnesty for those in the country, LIED to Reagan and spent like drunken liberals, with more welfare to those illegals and other liberal programs. Yet just like stupid liberals(I know redundant statement) they believe what their political hacks tell them, instead of researching the PROOF of how corrupt the Dumbocrats really are..

so Reagan was a moron who got duped?

damn you're an idiot

No jillian, you are the idiot, if you are promised by a liberal to make a deal, would you believe what the liberal tells you?

 

[The Derp]

So how much MORE do RICH people have to pay for you to be satisfied?

Whoa...hold on a second. Back up. We have to address your original claim that Clinton raised taxes on SS. You implied that was on everyone's Social Security, but the facts are that it was on "higher-income earners", not those with modest incomes. Let's be clear what we are talking about here. Clear and specific. Because I am tired of arguing with semi-informed folks who make generalized arguments with vague claims, and who then expect to be taken seriously. You need to be held accountable for your misstatement. You made a claim that was wrong. I pointed out how it was wrong. Rather than own up to that, you try to change the subject. This isn't a moral argument. This is a fiscal one. When you get into the squishy "feelings" arguments like you're trying to do here, the argument ceases to be about facts and instead becomes one of emotion. The Conservatives are much more comfortable making an emotional argument than a factual one. Which is why after 7 years, there was no Obamacare replacement plan from the Conservatives. The reason is obvious; they don't have one because they refuse to do the hard work of actually developing one.

As for the tax rates. Who cares if the wealthy pay a higher average effective rate? They should because they are seeing all the income gains.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

why be stupid and liberal?? Check the price of gold then!!!!

That's not how inflation is measured.

Not to a liberal at least.
Back in 1933 a $20 gold piece(1oz of gold) was valued at ?

20$ , so it would cost you 20, $1 bills to buy that gold. When FDR stole all the gold from its citizens or face jail time(only coin collectors didn't have to give up their gold) the government paid $25 dollars for that gold, what did it do for that 1oz of gold? Did it make the gold more valuable? NOPE. It made the dollar shrink by 25%. Today that dollar is valued at 1/1250th of a dollar, that is inflation. It would be much higher except for the bond buying by the fed to keep inflation rates down. Thank Obama for having Janet do him that favor. The central bank still has 4 trillion FAUX dollars which will eventually cause gold to go even higher. That is how stupid you liberals are.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

So how much MORE do RICH people have to pay for you to be satisfied?

Whoa...hold on a second. Back up. We have to address your original claim that Clinton raised taxes on SS. You implied that was on everyone's Social Security, but the facts are that it was on "higher-income earners", not those with modest incomes. Let's be clear what we are talking about here. Clear and specific. Because I am tired of arguing with semi-informed folks who make generalized arguments with vague claims, and who then expect to be taken seriously. You need to be held accountable for your misstatement. You made a claim that was wrong. I pointed out how it was wrong. Rather than own up to that, you try to change the subject. This isn't a moral argument. This is a fiscal one. When you get into the squishy "feelings" arguments like you're trying to do here, the argument ceases to be about facts and instead becomes one of emotion. The Conservatives are much more comfortable making an emotional argument than a factual one. Which is why after 7 years, there was no Obamacare replacement plan from the Conservatives. The reason is obvious; they don't have one because they refuse to do the hard work of actually developing one.

As for the tax rates. Who cares if the wealthy pay a higher average effective rate? They should because they are seeing all the income gains.

In France they taxed all their rich people 75%. In Montgomery County Maryland they had a millionaire tax. Do you want to know what happened after that?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

So how much MORE do RICH people have to pay for you to be satisfied?

Whoa...hold on a second. Back up. We have to address your original claim that Clinton raised taxes on SS. You implied that was on everyone's Social Security, but the facts are that it was on "higher-income earners", not those with modest incomes. Let's be clear what we are talking about here. Clear and specific. Because I am tired of arguing with semi-informed folks who make generalized arguments with vague claims, and who then expect to be taken seriously. You need to be held accountable for your misstatement. You made a claim that was wrong. I pointed out how it was wrong. Rather than own up to that, you try to change the subject. This isn't a moral argument. This is a fiscal one. When you get into the squishy "feelings" arguments like you're trying to do here, the argument ceases to be about facts and instead becomes one of emotion. The Conservatives are much more comfortable making an emotional argument than a factual one. Which is why after 7 years, there was no Obamacare replacement plan from the Conservatives. The reason is obvious; they don't have one because they refuse to do the hard work of actually developing one.

As for the tax rates. Who cares if the wealthy pay a higher average effective rate? They should because they are seeing all the income gains.

Just because you want to take it up the ass, doesn't mean the rest of US do. If you want to make sure the bankrupt federal government continues to run, then please donate FREELY as much as you want. If the government cant control its spending, then I don't have to support paying for that FRAUD. When is the government going to cut back on their feckless spending. They have more fraud, waste and abuse than any RICH person. If the government could start showing more responsibility for tax dollar spending, I might actually want to help more.

9 Government Programs Your Tax Dollars Are Being Wasted On

The nation needs to adhere to former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s exhortation that “the Federal Government should be the last resort, not the first,” when considering federal spending. According to Heritage’s Romina Boccia, an effective solution would be to establish an independent Waste Commission that “could overcome the budget process’s tendency toward wasteful spending on failed and duplicative programs, and encourage lawmakers to eliminate and consolidate federal operations where appropriate.”

 

[The Derp]

The Coolidge tax cuts: tax revenue increased 61%, the Kennedy tax cuts: tax revenue increased 62% , and Reagan tax cuts: 94% tax revenue increase.

First of all, this isn't true. As we see here from the Tax Policy Center, federal receipts in current dollars for the Presidents you described grew thusly (in billions):

1981: $599.3
1989: $991.1
Difference of $391.1
$391.1/$599.3 = 65% not 94%.

And over the same amount of time, what happened to the deficit?

1981: -$79.0
1989: -$152.6
Difference of -$73
-$73B/-$79B = 93%

So in order to grow receipts by 65%, Reagan had to grow the deficit by 93%.

So your original premise (and Cato's) starts out completely wrong.

Let's also remember that the end of Reagan's term was frought with the S&L Collapse which was immediately followed by a recession.

Second claim of exploding debt is false. Usually debt is caused by spending outside of ones means. The US has been posting record number tax revenues the past couple years...yet our debt has exponentially grown over the past 16 years? So how did you reach your conclusion there?

The debt grew because you cut revenues! When Bush and the Conservatives cut taxes, they reduced revenues below 2000 levels for four straight years. It took the inflation of a subprime mortgage bubble beginning in 2004 for revenues to reach what they were 5 years prior. Of course, all those revenue gains during Bush from 2005-2007 were due to the housing bubble and nothing more. Again, looking at the tax policy center:

Reciepts (in billions)
2000: $2,025.2
2001: $1,991.1 (Bush Tax Cuts Passed)
2002: $1,853.1
2003: $1,782.3 (Bush Tax Cuts Accelerated)
2004: $1,880.1 (Subprime Bubble Starts)

So right there, revenues were reduced below 2000 levels. That's due entirely, 100% to the Bush Tax Cuts.

And what did the Bush Tax Cuts produce? No jobs. The first four years of the Bush Tax Cuts saw job loss of about 700,000. After 8 years of Bush Tax Cuts, the economy lost net 460,000 jobs.

Bringing up Coolidge is just a folly because it was Coolidge's laissez-faire approach to regulation and taxation that led to the Stock Market Crash.

The debt increased under Reagan because Tipp O'Oneil, who promised to stop illegal immigration if Reagan allowed amnesty for those in the country, LIED to Reagan and spent like drunken liberals, with more welfare to those illegals and other liberal programs. Yet just like stupid liberals(I know redundant statement) they believe what their political hacks tell them, instead of researching the PROOF of how corrupt the Dumbocrats really are..

???? The President signs the budget, not Congress. Secondly, the spending that increased was Defense Spending. Social Spending declined during Reagan, particularly things like Section 8 Housing, which is how we have a homelessness crisis today. So not sure what "welfare" you are referring to. No clue at all.

 

[The Derp]

so Reagan was a moron who got duped?

Right!? They canonize Reagan as this great, wonderful man. So great and wonderful that he was easily duped by Tip O'Neill? So if that's the case, then Reagan wasn't that great, was he? I mean if he was so easily duped, right? LOL.

 

[The Derp]

How does allowing someone to keep more of THEIR own money, considered a redistribution of wealth? You just cant get more stupid than a liberal. Slap yourself on the back there jillian you just graduated with the Obamaphone lady for lacking intelligence.

I want everyone here to notice the argument track this particular Conservative is making. He knows there is no economic or fiscal argument he can make in support of this policy. Remember, the original claim of tax cuts was that they would generate so much economic activity, we'd be awash in revenues. When they turned out not to be true, Conservatives moved the goalposts and said that tax cuts need time to work. When that turned out not to be true, Conservatives moved the goalposts again and said that tax cuts only work when coupled with spending cuts. When that turned out not to be true, Conservatives moved the goalposts yet again to a philosophical argument about "keeping one's money". They know that there is no empirical evidence to support the economic and fiscal claims of tax cuts, so rather than own up to the flawed ideology, they double down on it by making it into a philosophical argument. Because they think emotion can carry them over facts. Well here's the thing, pal; when people get tax cuts they do not spend more. Instead, what happens is they save or pay down debt, which reduces demand in the marketplace, which lowers revenues, which results in job loss. If "letting people keep more of what they earn" translated to economic growth, how come the Bush years had the worst economic growth since the Great Depression? How come household debt skyrocketed? How come the wealthy increased their savings, not their spending? The answer is because tax cuts never deliver on the promises made of them. They're just a Trojan Horse to get spending cuts on programs Conservatives are ideologically opposed to, but lack the courage to repeal through legislation. So they backdoor it by manufacturing deficits and using those manufactured deficits as justification to cut spending. Those spending cuts are almost always operational and cause the programs to fail. Then Conservatives point to the failing programs and use them as an excuse to sell them off to private interests (usually their donors) who profit off them at our expense while not producing any tangible improvement.

So Conservatives deliberately sabotage government so they can then break it down and sell it off to the rich.

 

[The Derp]

No jillian, you are the idiot, if you are promised by a liberal to make a deal, would you believe what the liberal tells you?

What deal? What are you talking about? Reagan wanted more spending, and that's what he got. Particularly in defense. Oh, also, your argument contradicts itself. You claim on the one hand that tax revenues grew 65% (not 94%, that was wrong) and that was thanks to the tax cuts, but at the same time you say that spending increased. So how is the supposed revenue growth the result of tax cuts and not increased spending? Seems to me it was more about the spending and not the tax cuts. Receipts actually dropped from 1982 to 1983. How could that be the case if tax cuts increase revenue?

The lesson is beware Conservatives bearing numbers. Those numbers are almost always exaggerated, misrepresented, or fabricated.

 

[The Derp]

In France they taxed all their rich people 75%. In Montgomery County Maryland they had a millionaire tax. Do you want to know what happened after that?

In Kansas they cut taxes to 0 for "small farms" (Really pass-through entities, not farms) and the result was GDP growth and job growth that lagged the national average and was below all of its neighbors including Illinois.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

so Reagan was a moron who got duped?

Right!? They canonize Reagan as this great, wonderful man. So great and wonderful that he was easily duped by Tip O'Neill? So if that's the case, then Reagan wasn't that great, was he? I mean if he was so easily duped, right? LOL.

Again I ask you , if a liberal made a deal with you, would you believe what he said? Yes or No?
as for your question

As for the tax rates. Who cares if the wealthy pay a higher average effective rate? They should because they are seeing all the income gains.

What would be a sufficient amount for the RICH to pay in taxes that would make you happy? 50%, 75% 100%?
also, I think that the wealthy who pay a higher average effective rate would care, because under the equal protection clause, if someone pay only 10% in taxes, shouldn't everyone else pay the same? That is equal protection, or do you hate the Constitution?
Conservatives believe in limiting government because it is up to the citizens to take care of their own citizens, not some bloated bureaucracy, where the people in charge only look out for themselves by stealing the livelihood of others so they can give it to people like you, who don't want to have to work hard to succeed in this country. You can keep on harping about being a Commie, that you are, it doesn't work, never had and never will. Here is a flaming liberal who says the same thing. Just cant get more stupid than an uninformed liberal.

 

[The Derp]

Just because you want to take it up the ass, doesn't mean the rest of US do.

LOL! Well, it's not liberals who get caught in airport bathrooms soliciting gay sex. And why are you making homophobic attacks? That is so 1993, and not very Raven.

If you want to make sure the bankrupt federal government continues to run, then please donate FREELY as much as you want. If the government cant control its spending, then I don't have to support paying for that FRAUD. When is the government going to cut back on their feckless spending. They have more fraud, waste and abuse than any RICH person. If the government could start showing more responsibility for tax dollar spending, I might actually want to help more.

Not sure what you're talking about with regard to fraud, but most of the waste in government spending is on Defense.