cawacko
Well-known member
I can respond to all of these but I must ask, how does having taxes cut for all people impoverish the middle and lower classes? (talking personal income taxes here)
McCain ad
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
I can respond to all of these but I must ask, how does having taxes cut for all people impoverish the middle and lower classes? (talking personal income taxes here)
Here’s the problem. You’re basically describing socialism. And I have to ask; who gives a fuck?
In case you haven’t noticed, the leftmost party we have in this country, just authorized a fucking fisa “compromise” which was nothing more than a complete and total cave-in to the administration who uses the constitution for toilet paper. In other words, we don’t have a left in this country. So why the fuck are you wasting time bitching about something that doesn’t exist?
We do have one radical party that has taken control, and in case you didn’t notice, it’s the radical right. Deregulation, war, tax cuts during war for the rich and for corporations, inequality we haven’t seen since the gilded age, a broken health care system, MORE TAX CUTS, weakening of labor laws, impotent unions. And all of that has done this country a lot of good hasn’t it?
And people are sitting here bitching about a left that exists in a few outlands of san Francisco coffee houses and could not be further away from power if they were Barney fucking Ruble, while a radical right wing revolution has taken place right under their noses.
And I really have to go back to my first question, which was: Who gives a fuck?
You have more fucking questions than the Rainman. Here is one for you; explain how the largest level of inequality since the gilded age has been good for the shrinking middle class the expanding poor, or anyone other than the people Bush calls “my base, the haves and the have mores”?
cawacko
Well-known member
The results show a large number of people moving up the economic ladder in our country. The results show the largest period of expansion in our country. Pro growth tax policies are not impoverishing our country. It is not a zero sum game.
cawacko
Well-known member
what's 'this'? the last 30 years? Yes.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Technically, economically we have seen growth in each quarter other than the first quarter of 2001. Is it high growth? No.... especially not the last two quarters. Is it going to get worse? Maybe. The housing problems are largely priced into the market, but the credit card problem could dwarf it if we don't see the Fed act to strengthen the dollar (which would help lower the costs of commodities and relieve pressures on consumer spending).
cawacko
Well-known member
Remember we are talking a 30 year window here.
C'mon. That's lazy, and you're trying to be too cute.
You know more than this economically. Bush's tax cuts were supposed to produce all kinds of growth, and they didn't; in fact, our economic fundamentals as a nation have rarely been worse. Yes, "everyone got a tax cut," but those on the top reaped exponentially more, at the EXPENSE of those on the bottom & in the middle, because they're the ones who are watching the living expenses skyrocket while their wages stagnate. And instead of all of this "pro growth" policy you refer to, we have gotten unabashed deficit spending and a deficit that even Nixon's economic advisor calls immoral, because it will basically have to be paid by future generations.
Stop playing stupid on this. This has been the most fiscally irresponsible admin in memory, and we're all going to be paying for it for a long, long time.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I know that is what you and Desh were talking about, somehow I had the impression Lorax was referring to the Bush tenure.
cawacko
Well-known member
Desh specifically said conservative policies have been shown to have failed over the past 30 years. Thus my view was from a 30 year time frame or for the sake of argument when Reagan became President which was '81 so we are speaking of roughly a 27 year period. So that time frame definitely encompasses Bush but he is only a third of it. Her argument was coming from a larger picture time frame.
It is a debate we have had here before arguing whether America was better off economically from the '50's through the '70's vs. the '80's through today.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Without question he was fiscally irresponsible (along with the Rep Congress for 6 years and the Dem Congress for 1). But lets take a reality check. For 48 years now we have had unabashed deficit spending. It is equally irresponsible for Clinton and the Rep Congress (six years) and Dem Congress (two years) to have raised the national debt every year during one of the greatest economic booms our country has seen. $1.6 trillion they added to the debt (yes, it is dwarfed by Bush) over that time is atrocious. It was a time of relative peace coupled with an economic boom..... yet they increased our national debt every single fiscal year.
Annie
Not So Junior Member
You are trying to make sense and be even handed. Do you get the impression that most here are looking for that? If I question anything about Obama, mind you I'm from IL, where the media has been a bit inquisitive, I'm labled racist, right wing.
You’re full of shit. I called you a racist when you were compulsively posting Rev. Wright and Ayers crap pieces. I stand by that. That is a racist attack on the man, and though you will meet a lot of dummies who don’t get what that is, I’m not one of them. I don’t care if you don’t like it. But twisting that into “if I question anything about obama I’m labeled a racist” is a crock of shit.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
It is largely on this issue that I have always been a registered Independent. In my lifetime, I have not witnessed a reduction in our national debt in a fiscal year. Over that time both parties have been in complete control and in total minority. Neither has shown the ability to show fiscal responsibility. Though there have been flashes from time to time.
The closest was an actually fiscally conservative R congress, and mid-road D.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Yes, but that same (or very similar) R Congress turned very irresponsible once they received an R President.
evince
Truthmatters
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1127-25.htm
For more than 25 years, Business Week has conducted an annual survey of the earnings of chief executive officers of the largest U.S. corporations. In 1980, those executives earned 42 times as much as the average American worker, a ratio larger than the corresponding ratios for such countries as Japan and Germany even today. By 2000, however, American CEOs were earning 531 times the average worker's salary. The gains have been even larger for those above CEOs on the income ladder.
With corporate malfeasance much in the news, we know that at least some of the spectacular corporate pay packages were not won on merit. Most of them, however, are a simple consequence of market forces. As local markets have given way to regional, then national, and now global markets, even a few slightly improved executive decisions can now add hundreds of millions of dollars to the bottom line.
More generally, rapid pay growth at the top owes much to the spread of reward structures once confined largely to markets for sports and entertainment. In these "winner-take-all markets," small differences in performance often translate into enormous differences in economic reward. Now that we listen mostly to recorded music, the world's best musicians can literally be everywhere at once. The electronic news wire has allowed a small number of syndicated columnists to displace a host of local journalists. And the proliferation of personal computers has enabled a handful of software developers to replace thousands of local tax accountants. Each change has benefited consumers but has also led to greater inequality.
Around the globe, income inequality has been growing for essentially similar reasons. In most countries, public policy has attempted to counter this trend. Not in the United States. With the market's push toward greater inequality already apparent, for example, Congress reduced the top marginal income tax rate from 50 percent to 28 percent during the 1980s.
These tax cuts have increased inequality not only through their direct effects on after-tax incomes, but also through indirect effects on federal spending policies. Although supply-side economists predicted that the cuts would increase tax revenues by stimulating more than enough income growth to offset the lower rates, this did not happen, and hence the large budget deficits of the 1980s.
Those deficits were eliminated during the Clinton years but have reappeared, larger than ever, under President Bush, who has reduced tax rates on earnings, dividends and large inheritances. Once the enabling legislation is fully phased in, more than half of the resulting cuts - 52.5 percent, according to one recent estimate - will go to the top 5 percent of earners. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office now forecasts deficits larger than $300 billion for each of the next six years.
For more than 25 years, Business Week has conducted an annual survey of the earnings of chief executive officers of the largest U.S. corporations. In 1980, those executives earned 42 times as much as the average American worker, a ratio larger than the corresponding ratios for such countries as Japan and Germany even today. By 2000, however, American CEOs were earning 531 times the average worker's salary. The gains have been even larger for those above CEOs on the income ladder.
With corporate malfeasance much in the news, we know that at least some of the spectacular corporate pay packages were not won on merit. Most of them, however, are a simple consequence of market forces. As local markets have given way to regional, then national, and now global markets, even a few slightly improved executive decisions can now add hundreds of millions of dollars to the bottom line.
More generally, rapid pay growth at the top owes much to the spread of reward structures once confined largely to markets for sports and entertainment. In these "winner-take-all markets," small differences in performance often translate into enormous differences in economic reward. Now that we listen mostly to recorded music, the world's best musicians can literally be everywhere at once. The electronic news wire has allowed a small number of syndicated columnists to displace a host of local journalists. And the proliferation of personal computers has enabled a handful of software developers to replace thousands of local tax accountants. Each change has benefited consumers but has also led to greater inequality.
Around the globe, income inequality has been growing for essentially similar reasons. In most countries, public policy has attempted to counter this trend. Not in the United States. With the market's push toward greater inequality already apparent, for example, Congress reduced the top marginal income tax rate from 50 percent to 28 percent during the 1980s.
These tax cuts have increased inequality not only through their direct effects on after-tax incomes, but also through indirect effects on federal spending policies. Although supply-side economists predicted that the cuts would increase tax revenues by stimulating more than enough income growth to offset the lower rates, this did not happen, and hence the large budget deficits of the 1980s.
Those deficits were eliminated during the Clinton years but have reappeared, larger than ever, under President Bush, who has reduced tax rates on earnings, dividends and large inheritances. Once the enabling legislation is fully phased in, more than half of the resulting cuts - 52.5 percent, according to one recent estimate - will go to the top 5 percent of earners. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office now forecasts deficits larger than $300 billion for each of the next six years.