The Republican Lie on Tax Cuts

1. 82

   kerrygposted 13 years ago

   Republicans have repeated the lie that tax cuts are always good for the economy so often that all of Washington seems absolutely convinced that it's true. The conventional wisdom is so established on this that all a Republican has to say is, "Everyone knows you don't raise taxes in the middle of a recession..." Or in good times or in mediocre times or ever. All tax cuts are always good.
   
   Republicans add another layer of absurdity to this as they say that tax cuts always lead to more revenue for the federal government because of supply-side economics. The economy expands, people make more money and the government collects more in taxes even though it takes a smaller percentage. Great theory -- how about if we cut taxes down to 1 percent? Would the government still get more revenue?
   
   The question isn't whether tax cuts or tax increases are always the right answer. The question is at what level of taxes do we stimulate the economy, collect enough revenue to run a functioning government and let people keep as much of their income as we can. No one, not even the world's biggest liberal, wants to pay more in taxes personally. We just want to find the right balance so that everyone wins.
   
   When you look to see what that right level is in our history, what you find is very interesting. In our glory years between 1945-1965 (these are the years that the Republicans dream of going back to), the top marginal tax rate fluctuated between 77 percent and 94 percent. I was stunned when I first learned that. People's heads would explode if you suggested those levels now. Yet, it worked for us for decades as we built the great American middle class and our manufacturing base.
   
   The second interesting fact is what happens when we have historically low taxes. From 1925 to 1931, the highest marginal tax rate was as low as it has almost ever been -- between 24-25 percent. And between 2003-2010, the highest marginal tax rate was also at one of its lowest points -- 35 percent. So, what happened when we had these really low tax rates? The Great Depression and the Great Recession.
   
   In fact, when you look at when the economy takes off and when it slows down, it almost perfectly matches the fluctuation of our tax rates. Except the correlation is the exact opposite of conventional wisdom -- the economy crashes after tax cuts and takes off after tax increases.
   
   Now, conservative critics will scream that correlation does not equal causation. Yes, but it's pretty good evidence. And you have no counter evidence. If you see that every time someone jumps out of a building, they come crashing down. You can argue about causation all you want, but my guess is you're not going to jump out of the building.
   
   Yet we do. We have been religiously cutting taxes since 1980. How has that worked out for us? We've had median wages stagnating, manufacturing disappearing and now enormous unemployment. If tax cuts are so great, why did our economy get pulverized after Bush passed the two largest tax cuts in history?
   
   Of course, the reality is that America has been sold this bill of goods by the very people who stand to benefit the most from cutting taxes to the rich -- the rich. And it has worked for them. Since 1980, the average after-tax income for the top 1% of this country has risen by 281%. The average household in the top 1% saw their wealth go up by a whopping, unbelievable $973,100. See, the tax cuts worked for somebody. The people who pushed for them. Mission accomplished!
   
   At this point, you have to be curious as to why the economy goes up when we raise taxes, especially at rates that seem to defy common sense. I was a Reagan Republican growing up because the top tax bracket of 70 percent seemed crazy to me and he brought that down. I thought a rate that high couldn't possibly be the right balance.
   
   But now that I am a small business owner I get it. You see if taxes are low, like 20 percent, as a partner in my small business I am motivated to take out our profits as income for myself. Let's say my share of the business led to $100,000 in profits. If taxes are 20 percent, I pay $20,000 and keep $80,000. I can live with that split.
   
   But what happens when taxes are high? If I have to pay 60 percent, then I'm left with only $40,000 and the government takes $60,000. That sucks. I don't want to "lose" all that money. So, what do I do instead? I re-invest it in the business, so I don't have to pay taxes!
   
   If at the end of the year, my tax bill is zero, then I pay zero. Instead, by plowing the profits back into the business I help to grow it and make it even more profitable down the road. I might even hire more people with the extra money I kept in the business because that's a lot better option than just handing it over to the government.
   
   So, higher taxes don't lead to more investment and higher employment because I'm a liberal who likes to give away my money to the government. They lead to those good results for the exact opposite reason -- because I don't want to give away my money to the government.
   
   Logic, you can't beat it. Unless of course you have a lot of money and you just buy off the whole system. And that's where we stand now, with the truth turned on its head. But the next time someone claims tax cuts help the economy, don't let them get away with that bald-faced lie.
   
   Source

   replyreport
   1. 61

      lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Except the "facts" aren't facts at all by a perversion of the truth of history. But suppose the tax rate was 94% or let's take the opposite of what you said 99% don't you think people with means would look for ways to avoid paying that much?
      
      How about the morals of a government taking 99% of your money, or 94%, or even 70%, do you think it's morally right for a government to do that?
      
      The real question that you progressive liberals have to answer is what do you mean by "FUNCTIONING GOVERNMENT"?
      
      If you define that as an entity that supplies all of peoples needs, wants and desires while ensuring social and economic equality, then yes, a tax rate of 99% or 100% would be appropriate. The trouble is, that kind of government is what America is rejecting right now, it's not what we want. What we want is a government whose sole function is to keep us free, we'll take care of the rest ourselves thank you very much! For that a tax rate of perhaps 20% maximum ought to do it!

      replyreport
      1. 60

         couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         100% is never appropriate.  I did that when I was 2.  it's called living home with mommy and daddy changing my diapers.
         
         I'm think 10% flat tax across the board would supply the gov. nicely.  Maybe they'd have to live within their meant, too.  No more RockNRoll parties at the whitehouse, no more private plane, nancy.

         replyreport
      2. 82

         kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         "A perversion of the truth of history?"
         
         Top marginal income tax rates, 1913-2008: http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-o … ual-1.html

         replyreport
      3. 60

         JOE BARNETTposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         lady love - how many agencies protect you just to make it through a week. those agencies have to be paid for. but the tax rate used to be 70% then 39 and bush temporarily lowered it to 36%. now it will go back to 39% per geo. w. bush. it has nothing to do with any liberal agenda

         replyreport
   2. 0

      Stevennix2001posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      don't all politicians lie to some degree?

      replyreport
      1. 63

         Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Lying isn't confined to politicians.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Stevennix2001posted 13 years agoin reply to this

            i know. i was speaking in generalities.

            replyreport
2. 60

   couturepopcafeposted 13 years ago

   Ok, somebody help me out.  Am I not reading KerryG correctly, or are there 3 contradictions in this explanation?
   
   Marginal tax is on the last dollar earned - look it up for an in-depth explanation - and is at a much higher rate than average tax.  The statistics supplied here are out of context.
   
   My tax cut is doing well by me.  I have more money.
   
   The economics of overseas manufacturing is very complicated.  I was against it (still am) but then took a class on Global Economics so at least I understand it now.  But getting more money in your paycheck has nothing to do with companies using foreign manufacturers.  It has more to do with - to put it simply - the company's bottom line in dollars.
   
   The war had quite a lot to do with the economy (not debating the war itself) because so many things just shut down and so much was spent on the war itself.  Again, had nothing to do with tax breaks or cuts.
   
   Then you talk about your small business and you make sense until the end.  Investing in your own business is indeed growing the economy and "working for you" as you put it.  You have a bigger business, hopefully making more money and supplying jobs so others have money as well (people who pay taxes and support the government further).
   
   I just think your logic is off here.  Higher taxes - you can't invest in your company because you need what's left after taxes to live.  Or you can starve and invest in your company.
   Lower taxes - you can do both.
   
   What am I missing?

   replyreport
   1. 63

      Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      How much lower? That's the question. The tax cutters are more motivated by shrinking the government than creating jobs and economic activity or reducing the deficit. Their claims that tax cuts result in increased tax revenues have been proved false.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         "Their claims that tax cuts result in increased tax revenues have been proved false."
         
         No it hasn't.
         http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12172
         
         Do not read a thread on this site from a liberal and actually think it will contain facts, misdirection and name calling but never facts.

         replyreport
         1. 63

            Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Cato is an extreme libertarian organization founded with money from the evil, big oil Koch billionaires.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Yep, misdirection and name calling.
               
               I hope you don't drive a car or you may be contributing to the "evil."

               replyreport
         2. 71

            livewithrichardposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            From your link:
            
            
            
            I see only one flaw here. They have the tax cuts right now and for the past several years, so where are the jobs?
            
            They're not creating jobs, they're hoarding their money...which is fine with me, they earned it, but don't claim the tax cuts create jobs.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               There is no incentive to create jobs.
               
               That is the entire point.

               replyreport
               1. 71

                  livewithrichardposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  I'm lost then. I thought the incentive to extend the tax cuts was that the cuts would result in a net gain of jobs. 
                  
                  If there is no incentive to extend the tax cuts then...?
                  
                  I doubt it will ever happen but I would be in favor of a flat rate sales tax or the Fair Tax proposed by Neil Boortz and Congressman John Linder.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     "I'm lost then. I thought the incentive to extend the tax cuts was that the cuts would result in a net gain of jobs."
                     
                     Why are you lost?
                     
                     We are in a recession, with the tax cuts posed to expire people are afraid to invest. Taxing those who create the jobs wont result in new jobs but will do just the opposite.
                     
                     Government cannot create wealth they can only take it, however they can make it easier for citizens to create wealth.
                     
                     For some reason Obama and the democrats have no interest in doing that.

                     replyreport
                     1. 63

                        Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        You're sounding like a Keynesian.

                        replyreport
                     2. 71

                        livewithrichardposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        You said "There is no incentive to create jobs."
                        
                        You're suggesting that the wealthy haven't been earning any profits since Obama took office.  They've been hoarding their profits just in case the tax cuts expire?  Or, have they been reinvesting their profits in areas where they can gain even more profits like the broken real estate market or stocks and commodities? Or better yet, they took "stimulus" money from the government and instead of investing it back in their infrastructure they bought back their own shares at incredible discounts?
                        
                        The fact is, wealthy business owners will not want their profits going to the Government so they will reinvest in their businesses which will create jobs.
                        
                        The net tax gain the Obama administration is hoping for will not be met, however with the net gain in jobs also comes a net gain in consumers. 
                        
                        It's consumers that stimulate this economy not big business, not the government.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           "It's consumers that stimulate this economy not big business, not the government."
                           
                           That is half true.
                           
                           Big business can stimulate the economy, they do it everyday, they would stimulate more if they knew they could keep their money.
                           
                           There is NO incentive to create jobs when wealth will be stolen to provide for a bigger government.
                           
                           I do not mean to imply that there have been no profits, but there could and should be more profits.
                           
                           "Or, have they been reinvesting their profits in areas where they can gain even more profits like the broken real estate market or stocks and commodities?"
                           
                           Like you said "it's their money".
                           
                           Small business provides more jobs than big, the small guys are set to get taxed more and more. We can argue all day and night but that is why we are not going anywhere economically.

                           replyreport
                        2. 78

                           lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           That's right. And the ones who spend are being cut down to barely survival mode BY business!!
                           No one can afford the prices they charge!
                           
                           As long as the prevailing philosophy is profits over people, the people LOSE.
                           
                           And your profits sink with no one having money to buy your over-priced commodities.
                           
                           Cost of living is the problem, not taxes.

                           replyreport
            2. 78

               lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Thank You!!!!
               
               We LOST jobs from 2000-2008.....remember???
               
               Out-Source. Not for America.

               replyreport
         3. 60

            JOE BARNETTposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            you are wrong jim don't know what you read but it's not true

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               "you are wrong jim don't know what you read but it's not true"
               
               I must be wrong because you provided a brilliant argument and included proof too.
               
               Let me see if I can be as right as you.
               
               You are wrong joe, don't know what you read but its not true.
               
               Whew, glad I'm right again.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Joe Badtoeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  You're always right
                  
                  even when you know you're wrong
                  
                  that's how you win...
                  
                  only in your head though.
                  
                  Still you have that 'lady' of lurve to keep you company
                  
                  Such mental heavyweights.....

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Read my reply to Joe, then come back and prove me wrong. We'll see who is the "mental heavy weight" here! LOL

                     replyreport
                  2. 60

                     Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     When will you provide proof that I'm wrong?

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Joe Badtoeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        I don't need to there are plenty of fellow Americans that do that do on a daily basis. I'm happy to sit back and watch you two keep digging holes for yourselves.
                        
                        Remember to kick a hungry child tomorrow you know they deserve it.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           You gotta remember, Joe is true bleeding heart.  Not a bad thing to feel but certainly doesn't do anything to provide solutions.

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              Joe Badtoeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              yep you're right
                              
                              as opposed to cold unemotional selfish right wingers who only give a hoot about themselves and have such limited intelligence and vision that they can't see beyond their noses.
                              
                              I'm not sure right wing conservatives know what a heart actually is let alone one that bleeds.
                              
                              And the right wing solution to society's problems is what exactly? Invent a war kill lots of people including your own, lie to the population about the reasons for going to war and waste over a trillion dollars killing these people and then blame everything on a guy who's been in office for several months and who is fighting to create a fairer nation for all of the people but is being blocked at every turn by the same right wing nutjobs who put the country in debt in the first place.
                              
                              Is that your idea of a solution?
                              
                              I'm just glad the majority of Americans don't think like you, Hunty boy and lady with no love otherwise the world would be in bad shape.

                              replyreport
      2. 61

         lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Really? When? By Whom? The idea that increasing taxes is good for the economy is not advocated by anyone, even Obama! To advocate such a concept is in opposition to intelligent thought and to common sense! You would have to prove that government creates wealth! How can they? Whatever money they have, they have taken from the economy! The government is a consumer of wealth, they are a "cost" for doing business. If it were true that the government created wealth then all we would need to do to eliminate global poverty is put everyone to work for the government! It's an absurd suggestion! It's like Pelosi arguing that unemployment and food stamps is the best stimulus, that every dollar spent by the government returns 1.79! If you believe that, you no doubt believe in the tooth fairy!

         replyreport
         1. 82

            kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Um, did you actually read the article? I even bolded some of the important points and everything.

            replyreport
         2. 60

            JOE BARNETTposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            what are you on? this current tax cut sponsored by g.w. bush will add 4 trillion dollars to the deficit over ten years. i'll say it again . . . it will "ADD" 4 trillion, while we are trying to pay it off.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Don't be silly! The tax cut doesn't do anything to the deficit!
               
               Do you work? Do you collect a pay check? Do you spend more every week than what's in your pay check? Suppose your employer cuts your pay. do you borrow money from the bank to keep spending at the same level, or even raise your spending?
               
               The problem with those on the left is they refuse to use common sense in analyzing government fiscal policy. The current tax rate is the law of the land, to keep that law the same does nothing to the deficit or the national debt, spending more than you're taking in means you must borrow and there is a cost for borrowing to, and that's what is "costing" 4 trillion dollars!
               
               Wake up!!

               replyreport
               1. 82

                  kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  LOL
                  
                  
                  
                  http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036

                  replyreport
                  1. 63

                     Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     That's a very revealing chart. Nothing like facts. Thanks.

                     replyreport
                     1. 66

                        Flightkeeperposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        CBPP is an extreme liberal organization founded with money from the evil, big Soros-funded organizations and Soros himself.

                        replyreport
                  2. 61

                     lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     I don't know why you're laughing, your link validates everything I said. I didn't assign fault, I only pointed out that the problem isn't Bush tax cuts, the problem is government spending! It doesn't matter who is doing the spending, be it Bush or Obama. Yes Bus was a big spender and he created the deficit, but what has Obama done to reduce it? Nothing, he's actually doing more to make it worse! How can he enact all these new entitlements, new bureaucracies and new regulations without spending more money? He can't! Health care alone is 1 trillion and we ALL know that's a bogus estimate, as passed this will probably be more like 6 trillion! The stimulus, already 1 trillion, and the whole point of that was to "stimulate" the economy, which obviously hasn't worked.
                     
                     Fighting over who is more responsibile for getting us here is a useless exercise, electing those that will actually make the hard and painful decisions to get us out should now be our focus, and Obama and the democrats obviously are NOT what this country needs now.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        PrettyPantherposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        "Fighting over who is more responsibile for getting us here is a useless exercise, electing those that will actually make the hard and painful decisions to get us out should now be our focus, and Obama and the democrats obviously are NOT what this country needs now."
                        
                        I agree with this statement, except there is one very big flaw in your argument.  Since the current crop of Republicans is not offering anything NEW or anything DIFFERENT from the last crop of Republicans, then it is of utmost importance to remember what the last crop of Republicans did when they were in charge.
                        
                        It equally important that we remember that the last crop of Republicans also campaigned on fiscal responsibility, then conveniently forgot about it when they were elected.  Why should anyone expect it to be any different this time?
                        
                        I, for one, would rather Congress spend my hard-earned money on health care than on stupid and unnecessary wars, so my vote will be for those who share those values.

                        replyreport
                        1. 82

                           kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Exactly!

                           replyreport
            2. 60

               couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               J.B. -  with respect, only if the government keeps spending beyond their budget.  One major problem I see is that we, Americans, want our cake and we want to eat it, too.  Some of us want lots of great stuff built - roads, bridges, etc., but we don't want to pay for them.  Others want to do nothing and have money given to them.  Bottom line, our government spends too much, is too big, has too many departments, overseers, committees, offices, and representatives.  Cuts need to be made.  Thank God I don't have to do it but if I did, it would be one heck of a daunting task.  So what's the solution?  Flat tax across the board, no loopholes, no deductions, no freebies.  Consistent income to support the government and more after tax dollars for the rest of us.  And to JoeBadtoe - I even advocate spending on the destitute and weary.

               replyreport
   2. 60

      JOE BARNETTposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      you are missing quitr a bit. when taxes are high. the company works hard to make there owed tax come to zero. they are able to do this by re- investing the company with equiptment and or whatever. the logic is why should i give the gov't 60,000 when i can invest it in my company. this is how jobs are created. otherwise the rich just get richer. six ,7 or eight vacation homes, $600,000 watches just to name all of which are juxury items. the so called social agenda that they say would be initiated by obama is a hoax. they lie for the richest people in america

      replyreport
   3. 62

      KFlippinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Not much.  I wonder how many elderly will let themselves die before 12/31/10 and thus try to prevent the "redistribution" of their hard won, hard worked for, land and cattle, or BBQ joint, or Pop's Print Shop.  Distract and deny.....facts are facts, it is not in any way about middle class vs rich, the tax code is a myriad of regulations and the consequences of ignoring, taking a long congressional vacation rather than address the expiration of the Bush Era tax cuts, is a monumental Mistake, IMO, and will have far reaching consequences, most of which the "tax and spend liberal Democrats" (to quote Obama)  are quite aware of, and on board for.
      
      The "Tax and Spend Democrat" Social Lie is Big, Deep, Far-Reaching -- not cut and dried between true rich and middle and poor, that is the biggest LIE of all, and the impact to the middle class, that has fought so hard to be middle class, follow that American Dream of hard work and progress, ha ha, will be further distance between the upper and lower classes based on income and assets -- that's the hidden issue of Obama and Pelosi choosing not to address this issue -- in no way is it cut and dried by class based on true wealth -- they want it all, and let the chips of the assets of the middle class fall even more as they may -- they could care less. 
      
      The gap between the mostly, IMO, liberal super rich, and the plain old poor, will -- cause the government doesn't give me enough 'benefits' to not be poor, OR the government took it it AlL cause my parents were middle class, WILL become HUGE on this current BS course of this great country.  What a Joke.

      replyreport
3. 60

   Jim Hunterposted 13 years ago

   Here's some more tax facts.
   
   http://www.taxfoundation.org/

   replyreport
4. 60

   Jim Hunterposted 13 years ago

   And some more for the politically challenged.
   
   Who said I wasn't politically correct?
   
   http://eyeonfreedom.com/index.php/democ … e-fantasy/

   replyreport
   1. 60

      couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I don't know about politically correct but your avatar cracks me up every time I see it!

      replyreport
5. 93

   Pcunixposted 13 years ago

   Unfortunately. most people believe the lies of the ultra-rich.
   
   It's sad, because we are heading for a economy like the poorest countries of the world: a few very wealthy at the top and the rest struggling to survive.  The people who understand that the least are unfortunately already at the lower end of the earning curve and their poor knowledge of history is just going to drive them down farther.
   
   As we see here, you can't get by the ignorance.  I see it every week and hear it from the people around me - they completely fail to understand the necessity of progressive taxation and indeed are generally ignorant as to the value of taxes to begin with.
   
   They don't see past the nonsense.  The Republican/Tea Party candidates shovel lies about waste and other foolishness while they make empty promises that even a cursory inspection would identify as impossible. But these people swallow it and spit it back, just as we see here.
   
   To them I have only this to say: you may get what you so foolishly hope for.  If you do, you will live to regret your ignorance.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I doubt I will! I'm already dealing with the regret of the democrats control of government and what they've done to this economy. More people than ever before are in poverty, getting food stamps and unemployment, forclosures continue to rise home values fall, unemployment has never been this high for this long! It's a historic economic catastrophe brought to us by the democrats and their big government policies...that's the truth as plain as the nose on your face and everyone in this country knows it which is why we will see the democrats swept from office! You can keep quoting from your book of democrat socialist fairy tales, but Americans aren't stupid.

      replyreport
      1. 93

         Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         But you fail to undersand the cause.  I don't expect to change your mind - people who don't understand history are doomed to repeat it and that is exactly what is going to happen here.
         
         You WILL regret your votes.  That is inevitable.  You'll drive this country into the ground and then we'll have to come back again and rebuild it.  There will be a lot of suffering in between.
         
         Happy November.  Celebrate hard, because there will be massive pain following.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            "But you fail to undersand the cause."
            
            Ok, whats the cause?
            
            "Happy November.  Celebrate hard, because there will be massive pain following."
            
            Gee, you celebrated in November of 2008 and I bet you thought Obama would right the ship.
            
            How long before his economic policies start to work?

            replyreport
            1. 93

               Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Jim, there is no point in my (or anyone else) talking to you.
               
               You'll see, and you will regret your choices.  Until then, be happy.

               replyreport
            2. 60

               Joe Badtoeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               How can you possibly stick all the blame on a President who's inherited a shit heap from the previous government. I mean seriously is that all you have in your tank?

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Joe Badtoeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  sorry I was of course referring to that mighty political god
                  
                  Jim Hunter the Great.

                  replyreport
         2. 61

            lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I understand history all right, like when FDR's policies kept this country in depression for his entire four terms doing things exactly like Obama! As you say we those that don't study history (or only study their view of history but not the actual facts like president Obama) are doomed to repeat it! We're repeating history right now!

            replyreport
   2. 60

      Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      "It's sad, because we are heading for a economy like the poorest countries of the world:"
      
      Thats right we are headed that way.
      
      What is your answer?
      
      Keep voting for the people taking us there.
      
      Fine job.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Joe Badtoeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         No silly
         
         We are going to elect you president and lady lurve as your VP then everything will be ok. It will be ok with you mighty intellectuals in charge won't it?
         
         You are headed towards a poor economy because of banks. greed and Bush's extraordinary f**k ups oh and the wars that were fabricated by a Republican Party who now proclaim they did nothing wrong. A` trillion dollars well spent eh? how come thousands of young US citizens defending their country were killed for oil? yet those that caused the war and the war debt are still alive and prosperous?
         
         Let;s not let that get in the way of jimhuntyladyluvonomics.
         
         small things come to small people - now both of you hold out your hands.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Joe Badtoeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            sheeeeeeeeeeit!!!!
            
            no response from the right wing apologists
            
            well dang if I didn't hit a goddamn nerve!!

            replyreport
6. 66

   Flightkeeperposted 13 years ago

   Original OP When you look to see what that right level is in our history, what you find is very interesting. In our glory years between 1945-1965 (these are the years that the Republicans dream of going back to), the top marginal tax rate fluctuated between 77 percent and 94 percent. I was stunned when I first learned that. People's heads would explode if you suggested those levels now. Yet, it worked for us for decades as we built the great American middle class and our manufacturing base.
   
   Let's see, the top marginal tax rate only applied to people making over $200,000 from 1945 to 1947. From 1948-1965 the top marginal rate applied to people making over $400,000.  Let's get some historical perspective.  How many people were making over $200,000 during those years? In 1945 the median income for all families was $2,379 ( http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-002.pdf ). How many people were making over $400,000 during those years? The median family income in 1948 was $3,200. In 1965 the median family income was $6900.  Here's my conclusion, I would say that only the Rockefellers and Vanderbilts and that gilted level paid that top marginal rate.  And yes, heads should explode when that top marginal rate is applied now because it would apply to people making over $370,000 which means a larger percentage of Americans would be paying over 70% and higher of their income to the government than any time before.  The median family income in 2008 was $50,000.
   
   The second interesting fact is what happens when we have historically low taxes. From 1925 to 1931, the highest marginal tax rate was as low as it has almost ever been -- between 24-25 percent. And between 2003-2010, the highest marginal tax rate was also at one of its lowest points -- 35 percent. So, what happened when we had these really low tax rates? The Great Depression and the Great Recession.
   
   The reason the marginal tax rates from 1925-1931 were so low was because Treasury Secretary Mellon wanted to boost growth and it did that; GNP rose to an annual growth of 4.7% through 1929 and unemployment went down to 3.2%( http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0302-13.pdf ). What brought on the Great Depression was the stock market crash of 1929 not the tax cuts. More people invested more of their money in an unregulated market and were getting richer on paper.
   
   As for the Great Recession of 2003-2010, what are you talking about?  We are currently in this hole because people took on mortgage they couldn't afford thinking they could flip the property, which caused real estate prices to rise in an unsustainable way.  It was all built on a house of cards.  It wasn't the cuts in taxes that caused it.  And the Great Zero thought the best way to address a recession was to pile on more debt so that we can pay more taxes?!  And the Democrats think that would be okay because of a misinterpretation of top marginal tax rates?!!!
   
   This whole piece just tells me that the Dummycrats are just plain old buttfuglystupid when it comes to economics.  The Republicans didn't lie, it's just that the Dummycrats are economic morons.
   
   Sheesh!

   replyreport
   1. 78

      lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Actually, is there anything Republicans do BUT lie???
      
      I'm being serious.

      replyreport
      1. 66

         Flightkeeperposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Your post definitely confirms to me that the Dummycrats lie.

         replyreport
      2. 63

         Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Sometimes they beat their children and cheat on their wives.

         replyreport
         1. 66

            Flightkeeperposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            
            
            

            replyreport
            1. 63

               Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Touche'.

               replyreport
7. 62

   KFlippinposted 13 years ago

   So, would NaANaANaA--BooBooBoo, be a better response to this opening comment/topic that will die shortly as it is incorrect, IMO STRICTLY, and the American voters will show that shortly???   SHORTLY.....SUCH A PUNGENT WORD OF THE MOMENT......SHORTLY....... have you thought about which Party most Pungently stinks with Lies and Thievery????  Give it a moment of real thought, and real hope that you won't lose whatever is left to you and/or your kids, or grand kids, or nieces or nephews.
   
   
     Best to all...............Katie

   replyreport