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

Nov 2005
8,558
3,014
California
I don't walk away from the Discussion... There is nothing to walk away from, I am totally right on this.. and the fact is the END of the discussion.
So claimeth you as justification for walking away from the facts.


ONLY CONGRESS CAN BORROW MONEY.
So when you Post something like REAGAN'S DEFICT, OBAMA'S DEFICIT, CLINTON SURPLUS..
it is a STATEMENT MADE OUT OF IGNORANCE. period.
Then there are a whole lot of ignorant Repubs out there who say the same damn thing.
As I pointed out earlier, TRUMP HIMSELF ALSO was trying to blame his current deficit problems on Obama. But of course, you don't call him an idiot, do you...


Presidents are like my Teenage Daughter... the House and Senate are like me Her Father, and Her Mother...
My Teenage Daughter says... I want to go to Lucky Brand and buy me a 150 dollar pair of Jeans..
Well the Congress (Parents in this example) both houses, Come together and say... NOPE... sorry, here is $30 go to Walmart or Goodwill and buy a pair of jeans... We are not going to borrow money for that. (We do not raise the debt Ceiling)
That is a really bad analogy as Congress and the President have checks and balances against each other.
Thus, my analogy which you ignored.
The husband has the checkbook, but he only wrote checks for what the wife told him to write checks for. It would be illogical to ignore the fact that the wife is the primary influencer on the finances even though she technically doesn't hold the checkbook.
 
Dec 2018
1,356
771
Unionville Indiana
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 see the 10/2008 to 9/2009 and the 10/2009 to 9/2010 rows with the most red $$'s. Guess what? Those were the months of Bush's Great Recession and in times of recession federal tax revenue plummets big league! For further explanation:


... In 2009, federal receipts were $419 billion below 2008 levels, a 17 percent drop, which was the largest decline from one year to the next in more than 70 years. Individual income tax receipts decreased by 20 percent, and corporate income tax revenues plummeted by more than 54 percent, which means corporations paid less than half in taxes than they paid the year before.

Of course, the main culprit here is the economic recession. Corporations paid lower taxes because they made lower profits. Individuals paid less in taxes because they lost their jobs, didn’t get raises, and didn’t make as much on their investments. The tax cuts directed at both families and businesses passed as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act had a part to play here as well—about 15 percent of the decline in tax revenues can be attributed to provisions in ARRA—but the overall trend was driven primarily by the weak economy. ...

Breaking Down the Deficit - Center for American Progress
 
Last edited:
May 2019
291
41
Oklahoma
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.
Except that it's literally, right this second...

Growing the economy.
 
Nov 2005
8,558
3,014
California
Except that it's literally, right this second...
Growing the economy.
No. Trump's tax cuts are not "growing the economy".
You're confusing two things happening at the same time with a "causal" relationship. Just because two things happen doesn't mean that one thing caused the other.
It’s official: The Trump tax cuts were a bust
A new report further undermines Trump’s claim that the tax cuts were economic ‘rocket fuel’
Trump tax cuts fail to boost investment or employment but pile on debt
 
Likes: leekohler2
Apr 2013
37,519
25,575
La La Land North
No. Trump's tax cuts are not "growing the economy".
You're confusing two things happening at the same time with a "causal" relationship. Just because two things happen doesn't mean that one thing caused the other.
It’s official: The Trump tax cuts were a bust
A new report further undermines Trump’s claim that the tax cuts were economic ‘rocket fuel’
Trump tax cuts fail to boost investment or employment but pile on debt
Trump's tax cuts are sure growing the government debt. He is achieving record growth rates. Yay him.
 
Dec 2018
2,710
851
New England
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?
Oh that's easy. In your story the individual has an income problem. But what does your tale have to do with the federal debt?
 
Dec 2018
2,710
851
New England
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.
Clara, you do make up the silliest shite sometimes.

The vast majority of government spending is on individuals, not corporations. I posted this graph before, but it's worth posting again here:

1562932354626.png

Two things to notice. First, tally up the %s of payments that go to individuals. It's about 2/3rds of all federal spending. Then look how those categories have grown over the last several decades. The idea that we're "spending on corporations" and not people is ridiculous.

And BTW, the government printing more money does not create more wealth; it simply dilutes it. That is why the household budget analogy is appropriate. At the end of the day governments, no matter how large, have the same issue as a simple family unit: cash flow. You need more money coming and than going out or the debt builds up. And when income increases YOY at a healthy clip and the debts still pile up, there is really only one conclusion: a spending problem.
 
Dec 2018
1,356
771
Unionville Indiana
The vast majority of government spending is on individuals, not corporations. I posted this graph before, but it's worth posting again here:

View attachment 4379

Two things to notice. First, tally up the %s of payments that go to individuals. It's about 2/3rds of all federal spending. Then look how those categories have grown over the last several decades. The idea that we're "spending on corporations" and not people is ridiculous.

And BTW, the government printing more money does not create more wealth; it simply dilutes it. That is why the household budget analogy is appropriate. At the end of the day governments, no matter how large, have the same issue as a simple family unit: cash flow. You need more money coming and than going out or the debt builds up. And when income increases YOY at a healthy clip and the debts still pile up, there is really only one conclusion: a spending problem.
Contrary to RW folklore, surpluses in the Social Security Trust Fund help finance the federal debt.
 
Dec 2015
16,429
15,265
Arizona
Clara, you do make up the silliest shite sometimes.

The vast majority of government spending is on individuals, not corporations. I posted this graph before, but it's worth posting again here:

View attachment 4379

Two things to notice. First, tally up the %s of payments that go to individuals. It's about 2/3rds of all federal spending. Then look how those categories have grown over the last several decades. The idea that we're "spending on corporations" and not people is ridiculous.

And BTW, the government printing more money does not create more wealth; it simply dilutes it. That is why the household budget analogy is appropriate. At the end of the day governments, no matter how large, have the same issue as a simple family unit: cash flow. You need more money coming and than going out or the debt builds up. And when income increases YOY at a healthy clip and the debts still pile up, there is really only one conclusion: a spending problem.
AND once again, I am talking apples and you are talking pineapples. But we agree on this phrase:
You need more money coming and than going out or the debt builds up.....which is exactly what I've been saying...only better. :D I'm surprised it took you this long to come around.
 
Last edited: