It's Time To Kill The Absurd Notion Cutting Taxes For The Rich Grows The Economy

Dec 2012
20,721
8,547
California
It's Time to Kill the Absurd Notion That Cutting Taxes on the Rich Grows The Economy



It is standard procedure for large organizations to select one person to represent and speak for their organization, and it is equally true in the political world where one person speaks on behalf of the entire party. For a country, it falls on the government to speak for, and represent, the will of the people as a population, and for over thirty years Republicans have taken it upon themselves to speak for the population they claim demanded that government protect the wealthy and their corporations at the expense of the people.

According to a twisted economic theory promoted during the Reagan administration, the key to a thriving economy was cutting government spending and giving the proceeds to the richest Americans and corporations that failed to deliver jobs or economic growth for the people.

Still, for the past four-and-a-half years Republicans continued to claim they spoke for the people they argued whole-heartedly supported pursuing an anti-government agenda comprised of gutting domestic programs that killed millions of jobs to fund greater tax cuts for the rich and corporations.

Prior to, and throughout, their 5 week vacation this past August, Republicans boasted that when they returned from their hiatus they would ramp up their “fight against Washington for all Americans” and drastically cut domestic spending and oppose taxes on the rich and corporations because as House Speaker John Boehner said, “it’s what the American people want us to do.”

According to a recent poll, what the American people overwhelmingly want Congress to do is increase government spending to create jobs, protect Social Security and Medicare, and expand social programs by requiring corporations and the wealthy to pay higher taxes to “shoulder more of the burden of supporting government.”

The poll’s results reveal a year-long trend among Americans who favor abandoning the Reaganomics of tax cuts for the rich and shrinking government down to a size Republicans can “drown it in a bathtub,” and is a stark departure from what Republicans claim the people demand from Congress.

In fact, the poll revealed that 68% support strengthening the economy with job creation while only 28% support teabagger and Republican policies of cutting corporate and the wealthy’s taxes, slashing domestic spending, and reducing government to cut the nation’s deficit.

The poll also revealed that even teabagger Republicans favor progressive tax and spend policies by 25%, and that nearly 80% of all respondents want corporate tax loopholes closed to fund government spending.

Republicans claim the American people oppose closing corporate loopholes because it is a “tax hike” on corporations that have posted record profits and claimed most of the wealth from the tepid recovery after Republicans crashed the economy in 2008.

Voters also favor maintaining current tax rates on offshore corporate profits and enacting the “Buffet Rule” on income over $1 million by a surprising 70% that Republicans oppose as a brutal imposition on “job creators.” The poll’s results belie a perpetual Republican assertion that the American people believe the richest Americans pay too much income tax and deserve greater tax breaks such as those in the Ryan Budget.

This latest poll reinforces, and is consistent with, several other polls during the past year the belie Republican claims that Americans demand a “cut spending” only economic approach such as an ABC News/Washington Post poll in October showing that nearly 60% of Americans favor a combination of spending cuts and tax increases.

Five different CBS News/New York Times polls this year produced nearly identical results to the latest poll including an Associated Press survey that showed 6 in 10 voters support the “Buffett Rule” of a minimum tax rate of 30% on incomes over $1 million. The Hart poll found that, like Gallup polls going back nearly ten years, an overwhelming two-thirds majority of Americans believe corporations pay too little in taxes that is contrary to what Republicans claim Americans believe.

Republicans are completely out of touch with the American people who are finally coming to their senses after three decades of handing over their tax dollars to the rich and their corporations and funding the taxpayer largesse by cutting government.

Last week going into to bicameral budget negotiations Ayn Rand sycophant Paul Ryan flatly stated that any talk of new revenue from closing corporate and wealthy tax loopholes is “not going anywhere” as he proposed drastic cuts to Medicare and Social Security on top of more cuts to safety nets.

The latest poll reinforces the argument that the public is deeply opposed to the Republican sequester that has cut services and slated to kill an additional 1 million jobs within the next year. If nothing else, the poll’s findings reveal that Americans reject the Republican’s three-decade old contention that job creation and economic prosperity depends on reduced taxes on the rich that has never borne fruit.

Ronald Reagan has been dead for over nine years and it is time to kill his absurd notion that cutting taxes on the rich and corporations would produce a balanced budget, create jobs and economic growth, and engender marvelous prosperity and wealth for working Americans.

What Reagan’s three-decade experiment in tax cuts for the rich and Draconian cuts to government spending have produced is massive federal debt, job losses, cuts to safety nets, and worse-than decreasing wages that put 2012 median wages at their lowest levels since 1998.

All the while the richest Americans pay a significantly smaller share of their incomes than workers earning close to poverty level wages; billionaires pay next-to-nothing to support the government they have profited from in ways most Americans could only dream of.

Republicans claim they speak for the American people, and to a point they may be right, but it is not the great majority of Americans. They speak for the Koch brothers, Wall Street CEOs, the extremely wealthy, and corporations that all demand cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, infrastructure improvements, healthcare, and education to make room for greater tax cuts for themselves.

Conversely, the American people support expanding and strengthening Social Security by finally eliminating the cap on earnings that will keep the New Deal program solvent forever, and spending on programs that create jobs and prosperity for all Americans as well as assist the most vulnerable citizens.

The people are weary of seeing Republicans take everything they have; their retirement, wages, healthcare, and nutrition assistance for the poor and then have the audacity to claim it is what the people want. Democrats would be wise to pay heed to the preponderance of poll results that decry three decades of Reaganomics and support the tax and spend policies the majority of Americans clearly and overwhelmingly support.
LOL, no, really, LOL.
 
Dec 2018
2,088
1,235
Unionville Indiana
Yes, l and there was NO COMPETITION, the rest of the industrial world was blown to hell in a World War.. WE WERE THE ONLY MAN STANDING...
Horse shit.

OECD / OEEC members enjoyed real GDP growth averaging over 4% per year in the 1950s, and nearly 5% per year in the 1960s, compared with 3% in the 1970s and 2% in the 1980s -- Marglin, Stephen A.; Schor, Juliet B. The Golden Age of Capitalism. Clarendon Press. 1990.


FYI, Kennedy cut the top marginal rate from 91% to 70%. BECAUSE HIGH TAXES WERE CAUSING A RECESSION...
Yes, after his assassination, a 71% top marginal rate went into effect. Those rates are still 20% higher than what Bernie Sanders is now advocating. Would JFK's top marginal rate work for you? Of course, there's also a boom and bust economic cycle which has little to do with tax rates.

Historical Highest Marginal Income Tax Rates


Before frauds, like Arthur Laffer, were worshiped by the GOP, U.S. tax rates were more progressive and egalitarian.


"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." -- Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Oct. 28, 1785.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2018
4,006
1,152
New England
NO! No! The problem of the debt IS and remains excess spending and inadequate revenue to cover excess spending.
Mathematically, yes. From a practical standpoint, no.

Let's imagine this as a domestic issue. You have a friend, and he's run up his credit card debt. He promises to do something about it, including getting a new job that earns more. He lands a new job that pays him 6% more than his old job, and remarkably his new employer also gives him 6% raises on his salary each every year. Five years on, he's deeper in debt than he ever was. Now, does your friend have an income problem or a spending problem?
 
Dec 2018
2,088
1,235
Unionville Indiana
Mathematically, yes. From a practical standpoint, no.

Let's imagine this as a domestic issue. You have a friend, and he's run up his credit card debt. He promises to do something about it, including getting a new job that earns more. He lands a new job that pays him 6% more than his old job, and remarkably his new employer also gives him 6% raises on his salary each every year. Five years on, he's deeper in debt than he ever was. Now, does your friend have an income problem or a spending problem?
Here's my little parable: Let's imagine this as a domestic issue. You have a friend, and his wages increase less than the cost of living year after year. He promises to get a new position that pays more, but wages are dropping in other jobs he's qualified for too. He finally lands a new job that pays him 1% more than his old job, and his new employer only gives him 1% raises each year, but inflation is 3% annually. Five years on, he's deeper in debt than he ever was. Now, does your friend have an income problem or a spending problem?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Clara007
Nov 2012
11,051
9,260
nirvana
Horse shit.

OECD / OEEC members enjoyed real GDP growth averaging over 4% per year in the 1950s, and nearly 5% per year in the 1960s, compared with 3% in the 1970s and 2% in the 1980s -- Marglin, Stephen A.; Schor, Juliet B. The Golden Age of Capitalism. Clarendon Press. 1990.




Yes, after his assassination, a 71% top marginal rate went into effect. Those rates are still 20% higher than what Bernie Sanders is now advocating. Would JFK's top marginal rate work for you? Of course, there's also a boom and bust economic cycle which has little to do with tax rates.

Historical Highest Marginal Income Tax Rates


Before frauds, like Arthur Laffer, were worshiped by the GOP, U.S. tax rates were more progressive and egalitarian.


"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." -- Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Oct. 28, 1785.
https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=02CE412B-9CF2-4780-A454-B4430D3D0D39
 
Dec 2015
18,039
17,159
Arizona
Mathematically, yes. From a practical standpoint, no.

Let's imagine this as a domestic issue. You have a friend, and he's run up his credit card debt. He promises to do something about it, including getting a new job that earns more. He lands a new job that pays him 6% more than his old job, and remarkably his new employer also gives him 6% raises on his salary each every year. Five years on, he's deeper in debt than he ever was. Now, does your friend have an income problem or a spending problem?
See---there's the problem. For some reason, people ALWAYS want to think of the government budget as a household budget. Politicians like to describe the government as a household. This is particularly popular for GOP politicians...because they automatically assume that "we the people" are stupid. Papa always paid down the debt. Mama put her extra pennies in a jar and Little Johnny saved his lunch money....all for a rainy day or to help pay the bills. We must "tighten our belt", right?
We are a responsible, stable government that issues its own currency and nothing like a household. Our government can not only issue our own currency but make choices on where that money is spent. It's supposed to be spent on PEOPLE FIRST. Corporations are NOT people. If they were, they would ACT like people and they don't. Corporations have been given MULTIPLE opportunities (for decades) to show their "personhood" so we've learned the hard way that they aren't about to share the wealth. Corporate power has been misused and abused by CEOs and lobbyists. Their only interest is in their shareholders. So, tax cuts for the wealthy and the corporate elites has not worked and will not work. There is NO trickle down. Never was.
 
May 2019
844
186
USA
No. It doesn't.
Other than you two CLAIMING that, you have presented no COMPREHENSIVE data on the subject to show that.

You have tried to cherry-pick certain data to claim evidence, but I showed how your summation was egregiously flawed.



Yeah. It does!
First of all, the graph:
View attachment 4358
Secondly, as part of me disproving you in that post which I just linked to...
Clinton with a Democrats controlled the Congress.
1991-92 - $205 billion - This is what Clinton started with.
1992-93 - $164 billion
1993-94 - $101 billion
ONLY DEMOCRAT controlled congress during this period and the deficit was cut in OVER HALF.

Moreover, whereas the looking at the Dem controlled Congress under Clinton saw the deficit drop over $100 billion in two consecutive Congressional periods (cut in half), the next $100 billion drop took FIVE Congressional periods after the Dems lost control over congress (and Repubs seized control).



Your lying is egregious. Starting with Reagan:
Republican president => DEFICIT GROWS
Democrat president => DEFICIT SHRINKS

Who is in charge of Congress is irrelevant.
You keep saying "looking at the data", but you cannot quote the data because the data disproves you.
I am quoting the data to disprove you.
You are wrong. Its really that simple. Obviously you can not understand or read the data that was presented. So, here you go.
Screenshot_2019-07-11 U S Federal Deficits, Presidents, and Congress.png

Now that I have your attention. Do you see the little dollar signs all the way to the right? That is the deficit size if the are in red. If they are in black then its a surplus. Do you see the little D and the little R's? That means Democrat or Republican. The very first D or R is the President. The last two is Congress. Now tell me again about who controlled Congress with the lowest deficit during the Clinton years? Tell me who controlled congress when there actually a surplus during the Clinton years? Come on now, this is not to hard to do. Its literally right in front of you now.
 
Last edited:
Nov 2005
9,219
3,681
California
You are wrong. Its really that simple. Obviously you can not understand or read the data that was presented. So, here you go.
View attachment 4360

Now that I have your attention. Do you see the little dollar signs all the way to the right? That is the deficit size if the are in red. If they are in black then its a surplus. Do you see the little D and the little R's? That means Democrat or Republican. The very first D or R is the President. The last two is Congress. Now tell me again about who controlled Congress with the lowest deficit during the Clinton years? Tell me who controlled congress when there actually a surplus during the Clinton years? Come on now, this is not to hard to do. Its literally right in front of you now.
I am using the data you have presented. If you didn't understand that, then there is no hope for this discussion.

Again, YOU CHERRY-PICK the data. You want to talk about "who controlled congress when there actually a surplus during the Clinton years"?
But don't stop looking there. Look AFTER THEN as well. 2003-2006 also included a Republican dominated congress as well.
And what color are the little $$$ there???
Come on. You can say it...
THEY ARE RED, aren't they...

Another data point (since you can only comprehend the color of the dollar signs) is how often does each party of congress see themselves in the red / black?
There is a whole lot of Republican congress $$$$$ on that graph that you're ignoring to fixate on the three sections where the dollar signs are black.

Again, this is about looking at THE WHOLE PICTURE and not just cherry-picking segments that you like.

Also, it is stupid to just talk about the budget value without addressing its history. It is illogical to blindly expect that the $200 billion budget deficit of one year can be automatically turned into a surplus the next.
This is about THE CHANGES IN DEFICIT.
Republicans presidents INCREASE the deficit.
Democrat presidents DECREASE the deficit.