Love this article on trickle down economics (Reagonomics)

just kidding

with that pathetic USSR mythical boogey man media concoction Reagan created.

Words escape me.

Wow.

Why the wealthy are job killers.

The top 400 people (families) own the same wealth as the bottom 150 million in the United States.

The reason why in the 50's and 60's when top tax rate was 92% more jobs were created because the tax system encouraged rich people to invest the money rather than let it sit around and get taxed.

Today's tax code, written by rich people, encourages wealth hoarding, which is a job killer, and is why 10 years after the Bush tax cuts we still have the highest unemployment since the Great Depression.

Our income inequality is greater than a standard Banana Republic.

 

But god forbid those hard workin, productive "job creators" are taxed just another 4%/5% back to Clinton rates though the repubs scream about the deficit & the top rate is lower than it's been in 70 yrs, LOL. And that tax policy & incentives have heavily favored them for the past decade (really much longer) coupled with them being the 1's who primarily utilize the loopholes & tax havens. If eliminating all the loopholes & alot of deductions were possible, you could cut the rate by 5%/10% (like JFK did from 90% to 70%) & still generate more revenues , but alot of folks would end up screamin/kickin that they were then paying more than with the higher rate. 

Folks talk about unemployment & the deficit being our 2 biggest economic probs right now, but raising rates slightly for the wealthiest is "unacceptable" when cuts have already proven not to help create jobs in a global economy even during the Bush yrs with the housing bubble, much less a depressed one like now. So why is it unacceptable?? And yes, everyone pretty much agrees that spending needs to be cut severely (though the where, how & how much are debatable matters), but outside partisan politics which is what it's all about & with the deficit out of control, why shouldn't we do both?

Vanzack,

The top 400 people (families) own the same wealth as the bottom 150 million in the United States.

And?

The reason why in the 50's and 60's when top tax rate was 92% more jobs were created because the tax system encouraged rich people to invest the money rather than let it sit around and get taxed.

This presupposes that rich people don't invest their money now.

Which is abjectly false of course.

Today's tax code, written by rich people, encourages wealth hoarding, which is a job killer, and is why 10 years after the Bush tax cuts we still have the highest unemployment since the Great Depression.

You can provide no facts or data supporting this assertion.

Further, you can not explain why the unemployment rate was 4.6% when Harry & Nancy took over, nor can you explain why federal revenues increased by 44% in the 3 years after the Bush tax cuts were enacted.

But let me help you, here is a rich person explaining why there are no jobs (and it has nothing to do with "tax cuts")

Thanks for participating.

but raising rates slightly for the wealthiest is "unacceptable" when cuts have already proven not to help create jobs

Er, after the Bush tax cuts, the unemployment rate went down.

that 5% of total wealth needs to be transferred to its rightful owners.



Again, words escape me.

Our income inequality is greater than a standard Banana Republic.

Actually, it isn't.

But I think you should rush around being concerned about how much money people make. Because it is all of yours and the government's business.

I mean, you're doing it for the common good, right?

Wrong again - unemployment reached a 14 yr high of 6.5% by the end of Oct '08 (before the meltdown) up from 4.7% a yr earlier and went over 7% by his last month in office.' This despite inheriting a reasonably strong economy & a record budget surplus not to be confused with the deficit.

Also, by any measure, under the Bush admin there was the weakest job growth rate of any 2 term admin in modern history (despite 52 mos of very modest gdp growth in the midst of a housing bubble) further underscoring how the tax cuts primarily for the wealthy did not help job creation whatsoever. And had the crisis at the end of '08 happened 6 mos or a yr earlier, his numbers would have looked far worse on all fronts. Obama not only inherited the worst recession since the great depression, but also the natural & ongoing fallout from it which will last for years to come.

14daroad - try again with a little more accuracy & perspective. You're starting sound just like rushbo & Hannity with your misleading info (if not outright false) & blind partisanship

Can we get some references for all of these stats being thrown out?

Vanzack and those agreeing with the other persons ideas that he is copy & pasting, do you think the only thing keeping the unemployed from gaining employment, is a lack of capital? Because that sounds what you are suggesting

 

No time now but just go to google & do a couple searches. Varies slightly depending on the source, but it's all there

No time now but just go to google & do a couple searches.

Gee, I wonder why you're saying that?

And had the crisis at the end of '08 happened 6 mos or a yr earlier, his numbers would have looked far worse on all fronts.

And had the crisis happened 6 months later, Bush would have been out of office.

unemployment reached a 14 yr high of 6.5% by the end of Oct '08

Obama would run your grandmother over to have 6.5% unemployment.

But I love, love watching you people pretend 6.5% unemployment is "high" after what this clown has done to America.

but it's all there




What is all there?

Oh, I know what is there, unemployment was at 4.6% when Harry & Nancy were sworn in.

I know what is there, the federal deficit was $265 billion when Harry & Nancy were sworn in.

14daroad - try again with a little more accuracy & perspective.

Um, you can't demonstrate anything, not one single thing, I've said is factually incorrect.

If anyone hasn't made up their mind about the economic situation in this country then read the thread about Steve Wynn. If you already have your mind made up then I guess it doesn't matter.

Where are you facts refuting them? You talk a lot of whiny shit, but never back it up.

Of course umemployment went down after the Bush tax cuts. It was a quick fix to a horrible problem. People however, didnt know this. Everyone thought things were back on track and went out and bought shit and bought houses.. Now flash to 2008 and people realize the last 15ish years have been snowballing. Is this untrue?

 Comparing pre 1992 to the present is assinine. The world has changed in unbelievably since then. To compare what Reagan did or got credit for to GWB or Obama is like comparing Trumans war strategy to Washingtons.....

Where are you facts refuting them?

You mean other than the fact that after the Bush tax cuts were enacted federal revenues increased and unemployment decreased?

Stanford economist John Taylor discusses the root causes of the recessions in the 80's and now his column today , in the WSJ.

 Tax revenue went up every year from 2004 thru 2007 from 1.88 trillion to 2.5 trillion.https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Yeah, I said that in my previous post. Thats all you got?

Thats all you got?

No. Here is a good read on how the Democrats created the housing mess.

And here is another one.