Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The left is butthurt over the fact that they will have to pay more - they thought it would only come from the " evil rich "
Clinton made the wealthy pay their fair share, the economy skyrocketed.
Actually, the economy worsened after Clinton raised tax rates. The economy grew at 4.5% in the twelve months before the tax hikes. After the tax hike was enacted, the economy slipped to a 2-3% growth rate for 1993 and into 1994. It was only in 1995, after Clinton LOWERED the capital gains in November of 1994 that the stock market rose, interest rates fell, and the economy took off, leading to a rise in tax revenues.
So, I'd agree with you, but you're wrong.
Take that historical evidence along with the recent examples in France, UK, and California and I have to wonder WHY you want to raise tax rates.
Actually, when Reagan's tax rate cuts where fully implemented in 1983, the economy took off. It expanded at 3.5% in 1983 and 6.8% in 1984, which was the highest single year growth rate in 50 years. In 1986, they lowered tax rates again (15 and 28 percent). The economy grew even more throughout the decade. In fact, the National Bureau of Economic Research in 1999 declared the period 1982-99 "the longest sustained period of prosperity in the 20th century".
Now what were you saying about "tanking the economy"?
It's been proven that everyone pays their fair share fiscal plans lead to booming economies.
Well, the rich today pay a bigger proportion of the overall tax burden then they did under Clinton. How's that not their "fair share". Similarly, America has the most progressive tax structure in the world. That is, our rich pay a larger proportion of the overall tax burden than in any other country in the world. Still not "fair" enough for you?
Either way, you're continuing to overlook the historical reality of raising tax rates on the rich. It very often leads to LOWER tax revenues.
So again, I ask, what specifically do you hope to accomplish by raising tax rates on the rich?
links?
Actually, the economy worsened after Clinton raised tax rates. The economy grew at 4.5% in the twelve months before the tax hikes. After the tax hike was enacted, the economy slipped to a 2-3% growth rate for 1993 and into 1994. It was only in 1995, after Clinton LOWERED the capital gains in November of 1994 that the stock market rose, interest rates fell, and the economy took off, leading to a rise in tax revenues.
So, I'd agree with you, but you're wrong.
Take that historical evidence along with the recent examples in France, UK, and California and I have to wonder WHY you want to raise tax rates.
Actually, when Reagan's tax rate cuts where fully implemented in 1983, the economy took off. It expanded at 3.5% in 1983 and 6.8% in 1984, which was the highest single year growth rate in 50 years. In 1986, they lowered tax rates again (15 and 28 percent). The economy grew even more throughout the decade. In fact, the National Bureau of Economic Research in 1999 declared the period 1982-99 "the longest sustained period of prosperity in the 20th century".
Now what were you saying about "tanking the economy"?
Well, the rich today pay a bigger proportion of the overall tax burden then they did under Clinton. How's that not their "fair share". Similarly, America has the most progressive tax structure in the world. That is, our rich pay a larger proportion of the overall tax burden than in any other country in the world. Still not "fair" enough for you?
Either way, you're continuing to overlook the historical reality of raising tax rates on the rich. It very often leads to LOWER tax revenues.
So again, I ask, what specifically do you hope to accomplish by raising tax rates on the rich?
links?
The heartbreak of economic illiteracy on parade. ^^^
Basic economic facts than anyone with a modicum of knowledge should already know have to be explained to TMN.
BTW, TMN, if you ever split with you husband, you should hook up with bob collum. He's your type.
Except with the Clinton tax rates came some drastic cuts. No such cuts are forthcoming.
cuts will be forthcoming after the lame ducK congress changes hands willow. This is enough to do for the lame duck session.
One great big pile of freshly shat out liberal bullshit. The cuts never come. Asshole.
cuts will be forthcoming after the lame ducK congress changes hands willow. This is enough to do for the lame duck session.
One great big pile of freshly shat out liberal bullshit. The cuts never come. Asshole.
Why would someone like West (R-Fl), who will be leaving in January, care since he got booted to the curb this past election.
You should feel lucky that the Lame Duck Congress is even doing this much.
And all Reagan had to do to get growth was triple the debt and let the S+Ls run wild and BUST. Great idea. And now Boooosh and RR's brainwashed legacy. How bout growing the nonrich and the country for a change, with education and intelligent, safe growth- with education and training fcs?
As a result, Democrats will win both the House and the Senate in 2014.
And all Reagan had to do to get growth was triple the debt and let the S+Ls run wild and BUST. Great idea. And now Boooosh and RR's brainwashed legacy. How bout growing the nonrich and the country for a change, with education and intelligent, safe growth- with education and training fcs?
You seem to forget that Reagan had to deal with a spend-crazy Congress. Of course nobody blames Tip O'Neill for wasting the increased revenue, just blame Reagan for the deficit.
Kind of like in time all reasonable people WILL blame Obama, not Boehner for the biggest deficit in history.
No administration, credit or blame, has ever been referred to by the name of the Speaker of the House.
Boo f'in hoo, the crybaby right wingers are throwing a temper tantrum, refusing to bring up a vote on the fiscal cliff negotiations in their usual fashion of holding the middle class hostage to defend the rich, and because of this, have decided to force the nation to go over the fiscal cliff.
I'm actually not upset with this decision, it will cost the right wingers direly in 2014
Update: No settlement on fiscal cliff as House declines a vote | The Raw Story
Boo f'in hoo, the crybaby right wingers are throwing a temper tantrum, refusing to bring up a vote on the fiscal cliff negotiations in their usual fashion of holding the middle class hostage to defend the rich, and because of this, have decided to force the nation to go over the fiscal cliff.
I'm actually not upset with this decision, it will cost the right wingers direly in 2014
Update: No settlement on fiscal cliff as House declines a vote | The Raw Story
