The Big Republican Lie on Tax Cuts

[Dick Tuck]

Its more than the tax rates..

Its the overall deregulation of finance and industry that encourages rampant speculation

Yes, Wall Street is like the Wild West, it's almost totally deregulated.

Did you see that 1000 pt drop in five minutes last spring?

In what turned out to be a software error. Didn't Bush remove the program trading rules that Reagan put in after a similar thing happened in '87?

 

[Dick Tuck]

Democrats need to run on a 90% income tax platform or maybe a 100% tax like Obama's father's wanted.

Will they grow a sac and run on their Inner Marxist or will they lie like Andy Cuomo in NY and run on spending cuts and no new taxes?

Nice way to ignore that lower taxes brought recession and depression, its very easy ignore truth like that when you your head is up your ass.

Nice way to ignore the fact that increased taxation of those who would invest does not help an economy... and quite obvious that you are ignorant enough to not understand the difference between coincidence and causation.. tax increases were not the cause of any boom in 93 and government is not the sole reason for private market up or down turns

What an ignorant piece of logic. It's income that's being taxed, Einstein, and by taxing income, you're encouraging long term investment as the best way to generate and preserve wealth. And tax increases in '93 encouraged significant foreign investment by making the dollar the best value. What was the dollar v euro in 1993 v 2000? What was the dollar v euro in 2001 v 2009? Do you know what value means? I think not. Do you not understand how funding tax cuts financed by debt effects the value of our currency?

 

[Dick Tuck]

Whatever you tax the other guy folks say... if we confiscated every dollar of wealth owned by every man, woman, child and business in this country, we'd still be 50% off the mark of paying off all the obligations. So the notion that you will increase taxes by 10% on 1% of the population and all is well is totally retarded. End of story. It's just class envy childishness. But hey, have fun with it.

Progressive taxation is good public policy. It encourages those who can afford to invest to invest, and doesn't straddle those who can least afford it with money that's better for the economy when it's being spent.

 

[Dick Tuck]

if tax cuts for the rich creates jobs....They still have tax cuts RIGHT NOW. Where da jobs at?

China and India.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Its the overall deregulation of finance and industry that encourages rampant speculation

ahh, so with almost a century of Democrat monopoly on all legislation, they took steps to fix that right?

No? Why not?

Yes, they did fix it. Reagan's deregulation broke it again, as shown in the collapse of the S&L industry. Republican deregulation of investment banking resulted in the latest near meltdown. I'm sure the Republicans will again try the same insane thing over and over and expect a different result.

 

[Bern80]

Nice way to ignore that lower taxes brought recession and depression, its very easy ignore truth like that when you your head is up your ass.

Nice way to ignore the fact that increased taxation of those who would invest does not help an economy... and quite obvious that you are ignorant enough to not understand the difference between coincidence and causation.. tax increases were not the cause of any boom in 93 and government is not the sole reason for private market up or down turns

You have no facts, just emotion and your urge to Monica Lewinsky the rich. George W. Bush's tax cuts have been in place for a decade. The FACTS: ZERO private sector jobs; a lost decade. The failed 'Reagan' revolution over the last 30 years is coming home to roost. It has failed as miserably and as clearly as the Bolshevik revolution. Tax cuts for the wealthy did NOT trickle down, it trickled UP. All it created is the greatest wealth disparity since the year before the Great Depression, a middle class on the ropes and ZERO private sector jobs over the last decade.

And you right wing pea brains and teabaggers want to do MORE of the same, but this time with malice toward the middle class, the unemployed and the poor.

Lost Decade for American Income - WSJ.com

The downturn that some have dubbed the "Great Recession" has trimmed the typical household's income significantly, new Census data show, following years of stagnant wage growth that made the past decade the worst for American families in at least half a century.

The bureau's annual snapshot of American living standards also found that the fraction of Americans living in poverty rose sharply to 14.3% from 13.2% in 2008—the highest since 1994. Some 43.6 million Americans were living below the official poverty threshold, but the measure doesn't fully capture the panoply of government antipoverty measures.

The inflation-adjusted income of the median household—smack in the middle of the populace—fell 4.8% between 2000 and 2009, even worse than the 1970s, when median income rose 1.9% despite high unemployment and inflation. Between 2007 and 2009, incomes fell 4.2%.

"It's going to be a long, hard slog back to what most Americans think of as normalcy or prosperous times," said Nicholas Eberstadt, a political economist at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute.

The data, released Thursday, underscore the extent to which U.S. households relied on government benefits—and each other—to weather the recession and how living standards at the middle of the middle class have stalled. The report comes as the economy is at the center of a vigorous debate over how government policy can best help the poor and unemployed.

...

The median household income fell 0.7% to $49,777 in 2009, down 4.2% since 2007, when the recession started, the Census Bureau said.

The bureau said that the drop in income in the recent recession, so far, wasn't much different from those recorded in the early 1990s and early 2000s recessions, and was actually smaller than the 6% drop recorded in the deep recession of the early 1980s.

But there is a difference this time: In the prior three recessions, incomes fell after years of upswing, then resumed growing once the downturn ended. The decline this time comes on top of a long period in which incomes stagnated even through the recovery of 2003 to 2007.

I dion't see anyone here claiming there is one single cure all for a lack of jobs. There are all kinds of variables. Tax rates are just one of them. But let's address the obvious. Yes it's try lower taxes may not always create jobs if other economic factors are not right. But does anyone here really want to argue that higher tax rates actually help create jobs? I didn't think so. Lower tax rates may not always help but they certainly can't hurt, so what are you lefties arguing against?

 

[shintao]

The best way to test the tax cut, is just stop paying taxes. How would that work out for everybody.

 

[shintao]

I dion't see anyone here claiming there is one single cure all for a lack of jobs. There are all kinds of variables. Tax rates are just one of them. But let's address the obvious. Yes it's try lower taxes may not always create jobs if other economic factors are not right. But does anyone here really want to argue that higher tax rates actually help create jobs? I didn't think so. Lower tax rates may not always help but they certainly can't hurt, so what are you lefties arguing against?

I don't see lower tax rates helping this depression, so do they hurt? Well, only if we can afford to pay a billion a day interest on the debt. This discussion seems to run along the lines of America being in the box, and that ain't so. The weathly aren't investing in America or creating jobs here. However the consumer is buying here, so who should get the tax cut, and who should pay higher tax rates?

 

[Bern80]

I dion't see anyone here claiming there is one single cure all for a lack of jobs. There are all kinds of variables. Tax rates are just one of them. But let's address the obvious. Yes it's try lower taxes may not always create jobs if other economic factors are not right. But does anyone here really want to argue that higher tax rates actually help create jobs? I didn't think so. Lower tax rates may not always help but they certainly can't hurt, so what are you lefties arguing against?

I don't see lower tax rates helping this depression, so do they hurt? Well, only if we can afford to pay a billion a day interest on the debt. This discussion seems to run along the lines of America being in the box, and that ain't so. The weathly aren't investing in America or creating jobs here. However the consumer is buying here, so who should get the tax cut, and who should pay higher tax rates?

No one should. If that is where you want to center the argument, around who should pay and how much, then I would say you are playing the politicians. Are tax code is ridiculous. Why we can't have a fair tax where everyone pays the same percentage on consumables and that's what government has to work with, is beyond me.

And the debt is not the fault of the American citizens. It is the fault of irresponsible spending in Washington, so I don't really see the debt as a justification for raising people's taxes either.

 

[JimH52]

I love this thread!

 

[shintao]

I dion't see anyone here claiming there is one single cure all for a lack of jobs. There are all kinds of variables. Tax rates are just one of them. But let's address the obvious. Yes it's try lower taxes may not always create jobs if other economic factors are not right. But does anyone here really want to argue that higher tax rates actually help create jobs? I didn't think so. Lower tax rates may not always help but they certainly can't hurt, so what are you lefties arguing against?

I don't see lower tax rates helping this depression, so do they hurt? Well, only if we can afford to pay a billion a day interest on the debt. This discussion seems to run along the lines of America being in the box, and that ain't so. The weathly aren't investing in America or creating jobs here. However the consumer is buying here, so who should get the tax cut, and who should pay higher tax rates?

No one should. If that is where you want to center the argument, around who should pay and how much, then I would say you are playing the politicians. Are tax code is ridiculous. Why we can't have a fair tax where everyone pays the same percentage on consumables and that's what government has to work with, is beyond me.

The fair tax, is no tax. I don't see how taxing consumables will help the federal debt. They already tax the consumables. ie gasoline

I might add, if you are saying tax everything from candy bars to coats, that is government intervention at its highest level. They would have their finger in everything at the local level ~ a police state.

And the debt is not the fault of the American citizens. It is the fault of irresponsible spending in Washington, so I don't really see the debt as a justification for raising people's taxes either.

Your government, your tax, $1.2 Billion a day interest. Vote for change.............

Meantime, check my blog. All Volunteer Government Party (AVGP)

 

[Bfgrn]

I dion't see anyone here claiming there is one single cure all for a lack of jobs. There are all kinds of variables. Tax rates are just one of them. But let's address the obvious. Yes it's try lower taxes may not always create jobs if other economic factors are not right. But does anyone here really want to argue that higher tax rates actually help create jobs? I didn't think so. Lower tax rates may not always help but they certainly can't hurt, so what are you lefties arguing against?

I don't see lower tax rates helping this depression, so do they hurt? Well, only if we can afford to pay a billion a day interest on the debt. This discussion seems to run along the lines of America being in the box, and that ain't so. The weathly aren't investing in America or creating jobs here. However the consumer is buying here, so who should get the tax cut, and who should pay higher tax rates?

I am all for tax cuts and incentives for companies and individuals that create jobs here. But the ones that outsource jobs to 3rd world countries, tax the living shit out of them. I would go even farther...charge them extra fees for water, sewer, utilities, roads, fire and police protection for their corporate offices. If they don't like it, they can go live in the squalor their 3rd world wages support.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Nice way to ignore that lower taxes brought recession and depression, its very easy ignore truth like that when you your head is up your ass.

Nice way to ignore the fact that increased taxation of those who would invest does not help an economy... and quite obvious that you are ignorant enough to not understand the difference between coincidence and causation.. tax increases were not the cause of any boom in 93 and government is not the sole reason for private market up or down turns

You have no facts, just emotion and your urge to Monica Lewinsky the rich. George W. Bush's tax cuts have been in place for a decade. The FACTS: ZERO private sector jobs; a lost decade. The failed 'Reagan' revolution over the last 30 years is coming home to roost. It has failed as miserably and as clearly as the Bolshevik revolution. Tax cuts for the wealthy did NOT trickle down, it trickled UP. All it created is the greatest wealth disparity since the year before the Great Depression, a middle class on the ropes and ZERO private sector jobs over the last decade.

And you right wing pea brains and teabaggers want to do MORE of the same, but this time with malice toward the middle class, the unemployed and the poor.

Lost Decade for American Income - WSJ.com

The downturn that some have dubbed the "Great Recession" has trimmed the typical household's income significantly, new Census data show, following years of stagnant wage growth that made the past decade the worst for American families in at least half a century.

The bureau's annual snapshot of American living standards also found that the fraction of Americans living in poverty rose sharply to 14.3% from 13.2% in 2008—the highest since 1994. Some 43.6 million Americans were living below the official poverty threshold, but the measure doesn't fully capture the panoply of government antipoverty measures.

The inflation-adjusted income of the median household—smack in the middle of the populace—fell 4.8% between 2000 and 2009, even worse than the 1970s, when median income rose 1.9% despite high unemployment and inflation. Between 2007 and 2009, incomes fell 4.2%.

"It's going to be a long, hard slog back to what most Americans think of as normalcy or prosperous times," said Nicholas Eberstadt, a political economist at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute.

The data, released Thursday, underscore the extent to which U.S. households relied on government benefits—and each other—to weather the recession and how living standards at the middle of the middle class have stalled. The report comes as the economy is at the center of a vigorous debate over how government policy can best help the poor and unemployed.

...

The median household income fell 0.7% to $49,777 in 2009, down 4.2% since 2007, when the recession started, the Census Bureau said.

The bureau said that the drop in income in the recent recession, so far, wasn't much different from those recorded in the early 1990s and early 2000s recessions, and was actually smaller than the 6% drop recorded in the deep recession of the early 1980s.

But there is a difference this time: In the prior three recessions, incomes fell after years of upswing, then resumed growing once the downturn ended. The decline this time comes on top of a long period in which incomes stagnated even through the recovery of 2003 to 2007.

Facts will be ignored by those blinded by ideology. Their plan is give the rich tax cuts and hope they dont take the money and run. Awesome plan that one.

 

[shintao]

I dion't see anyone here claiming there is one single cure all for a lack of jobs. There are all kinds of variables. Tax rates are just one of them. But let's address the obvious. Yes it's try lower taxes may not always create jobs if other economic factors are not right. But does anyone here really want to argue that higher tax rates actually help create jobs? I didn't think so. Lower tax rates may not always help but they certainly can't hurt, so what are you lefties arguing against?

I don't see lower tax rates helping this depression, so do they hurt? Well, only if we can afford to pay a billion a day interest on the debt. This discussion seems to run along the lines of America being in the box, and that ain't so. The weathly aren't investing in America or creating jobs here. However the consumer is buying here, so who should get the tax cut, and who should pay higher tax rates?

I am all for tax cuts and incentives for companies and individuals that create jobs here. But the ones that outsource jobs to 3rd world countries, tax the living shit out of them. I would go even farther...charge them extra fees for water, sewer, utilities, roads, fire and police protection for their corporate offices. If they don't like it, they can go live in the squalor their 3rd world wages support.

Why should we allow outsourcing at all in America? Either hire America workers, or leave. I recall Canada pitching fit when Americans said buy only American products as one means of stimulating the economy. Maybe it was over pharmaceuticals. I thought, what gall those people have to think we should sink for them.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Nice way to ignore the fact that increased taxation of those who would invest does not help an economy... and quite obvious that you are ignorant enough to not understand the difference between coincidence and causation.. tax increases were not the cause of any boom in 93 and government is not the sole reason for private market up or down turns

You have no facts, just emotion and your urge to Monica Lewinsky the rich. George W. Bush's tax cuts have been in place for a decade. The FACTS: ZERO private sector jobs; a lost decade. The failed 'Reagan' revolution over the last 30 years is coming home to roost. It has failed as miserably and as clearly as the Bolshevik revolution. Tax cuts for the wealthy did NOT trickle down, it trickled UP. All it created is the greatest wealth disparity since the year before the Great Depression, a middle class on the ropes and ZERO private sector jobs over the last decade.

And you right wing pea brains and teabaggers want to do MORE of the same, but this time with malice toward the middle class, the unemployed and the poor.

Lost Decade for American Income - WSJ.com

The downturn that some have dubbed the "Great Recession" has trimmed the typical household's income significantly, new Census data show, following years of stagnant wage growth that made the past decade the worst for American families in at least half a century.

The bureau's annual snapshot of American living standards also found that the fraction of Americans living in poverty rose sharply to 14.3% from 13.2% in 2008—the highest since 1994. Some 43.6 million Americans were living below the official poverty threshold, but the measure doesn't fully capture the panoply of government antipoverty measures.

The inflation-adjusted income of the median household—smack in the middle of the populace—fell 4.8% between 2000 and 2009, even worse than the 1970s, when median income rose 1.9% despite high unemployment and inflation. Between 2007 and 2009, incomes fell 4.2%.

"It's going to be a long, hard slog back to what most Americans think of as normalcy or prosperous times," said Nicholas Eberstadt, a political economist at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute.

The data, released Thursday, underscore the extent to which U.S. households relied on government benefits—and each other—to weather the recession and how living standards at the middle of the middle class have stalled. The report comes as the economy is at the center of a vigorous debate over how government policy can best help the poor and unemployed.

...

The median household income fell 0.7% to $49,777 in 2009, down 4.2% since 2007, when the recession started, the Census Bureau said.

The bureau said that the drop in income in the recent recession, so far, wasn't much different from those recorded in the early 1990s and early 2000s recessions, and was actually smaller than the 6% drop recorded in the deep recession of the early 1980s.

But there is a difference this time: In the prior three recessions, incomes fell after years of upswing, then resumed growing once the downturn ended. The decline this time comes on top of a long period in which incomes stagnated even through the recovery of 2003 to 2007.

I dion't see anyone here claiming there is one single cure all for a lack of jobs. There are all kinds of variables. Tax rates are just one of them. But let's address the obvious. Yes it's try lower taxes may not always create jobs if other economic factors are not right. But does anyone here really want to argue that higher tax rates actually help create jobs? I didn't think so. Lower tax rates may not always help but they certainly can't hurt, so what are you lefties arguing against?

Increasing the debt for so the uber rich can haz more money

 

[Bfgrn]

I don't see lower tax rates helping this depression, so do they hurt? Well, only if we can afford to pay a billion a day interest on the debt. This discussion seems to run along the lines of America being in the box, and that ain't so. The weathly aren't investing in America or creating jobs here. However the consumer is buying here, so who should get the tax cut, and who should pay higher tax rates?

I am all for tax cuts and incentives for companies and individuals that create jobs here. But the ones that outsource jobs to 3rd world countries, tax the living shit out of them. I would go even farther...charge them extra fees for water, sewer, utilities, roads, fire and police protection for their corporate offices. If they don't like it, they can go live in the squalor their 3rd world wages support.

Why should we allow outsourcing at all in America? Either hire America workers, or leave. I recall Canada pitching fit when Americans said buy only American products as one means of stimulating the economy. Maybe it was over pharmaceuticals. I thought, what gall those people have to think we should sink for them.

One of our right wing 'friends' has a signature that says 'We need another Reagan'

What America needs is another John F. Kennedy. A people's president. I can't imagine a president today from either party making this remarks. JFK is truly provocative and stark in his honesty. It is not hard to understand what happened in Dallas.

News Conference 30 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum

Small excerpt:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAVAJ6mwBVE]YouTube - Kennedy denounces steel price hike[/ame]

The first 7 minutes is the President's remarks...
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWKImfw3nLE&feature=PlayList&p=B21A3C6AB0785137&index=0&playnext=1]YouTube - JFK PRESS CONFERENCE (APRIL 11, 1962)(PART 1)[/ame]

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I'm still waiting for an explanation of how taking more and more of people's money helps the economy.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

People whine about how every year they have less money to spend, then argue they should pay more taxes. Huh?

 

[Oddball]

I'm still waiting for an explanation of how taking more and more of people's money helps the economy.

It's not about helping the economy...It's about knocking the eeeeevil wealthy down a few pegs.

It's no more complicated than pure, unvarnished envy and covetousness.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I'm still waiting for an explanation of how taking more and more of people's money helps the economy.

It's not about helping the economy...It's about knocking the eeeeevil wealthy down a few pegs.

It's no more complicated than pure, unvarnished envy and covetousness.

And then what, bitching that they won't hire you? I must be missing something....