Rachel Maddow GOP tax bonus for rich ignores failure of Reaganomics

[ScottBrown666]

HiImBobBum Even if your claims are true, it's just a red herring. It doesn't justify tax cuts for the rich, by any means. The 2 percent tax cut meant almost nothing to most working class, but from each billionaire it would yield tens of millions. The average american (averaged including all billionaires and millionaires) would only have a tax cut of 5,000. So we saddled our children with 6 billion dollars more of debt per year to help billionaires alone, not even including millionaires. F&$%.

[HiImBobBum]

Democrats spend much more (debatable if they spend it better) than Republicans spend, even on the egregious Bush wars. Medicare = 4x war spending during Bush years. There're some CBO statistics in link 1.

Washington Examiner - /blogs/beltway-confidential/li­ttle-known-fact-obama039s-fail­ed-stimulus-program-cost-more-­iraq-war

Washington Examiner - /politics/2009/02/obamas-trill­ions-dwarf-bushs-dangerous-spe­nding

CBS News - /stories/2010/02/01/politics/m­ain6162494 (.sh tml)

[Asenueh]

@HiImBobBum Those links were from an unknown staff writer of a questionable periodical with a chart from an unknown source with unqualified, unspecific statistics. Shakespeare had a line from the "Merchant of Venice," "The Devil can cite scripture to own purpose." So it is with statistics. You can "prove" any point you want by manipulating the population or variables.

And the stimulus didn't fail. Creating jobs generates tax revenue to offset its costs.

[HiImBobBum]

@Asenueh If you want to act like statistics are meaningless, then you shouldn't be so quick to complement Rachel Maddow's statistics and information.

The sources were the Congressional Budget Office and CBS News. Those aren't unknown or unqualified, your statements are blatant lies. If they're unknown, you wouldn't know they're unqualified, which they aren't.

Jobs + tax revenue, but that doesn't make stimulus effective enough. YOU ASKED ME TO SHOW STATISTICS ON democratic spending, so I did.

[Asenueh]

@HiImBobBum I have more faith in the use of statistics by Rachel Maddow, Ph.D., than I do some unknown blogger who doesn't cite his sources. I saw no reference to the CBO, nor any detail putting the chart in context. I've spent decades doing data processing, so I can say from experience the blogger didn't give enough detail to be relevant.

[ScottBrown666]

@HiImBobBum Even if your claims are true, it's just a red herring. It doesn't justify tax cuts for the rich, by any means. The 2 percent tax cut meant almost nothing to most working class, but from each billionaire it would yield tens of millions. The average american (averaged including all billionaires and millionaires) would only have a tax cut of 5,000. So we saddled our children with 6 billion dollars more of debt per year to help billionaires alone, not even including millionaires. F&$%.

[HiImBobBum]

The one thing that this video left out is that debt only increases if taxes go down and spending remains high. If government spending is cut more than taxes and reigned in to a responsible level, then the historic trend of tax increase in proportion to government growth can finally be reversed. The charts that didn't go up during this video are government and war spending, because those charts are sick and look scary.

[Asenueh]

@HiImBobBum It wasn't left out.  Another Rachel Maddow Show addressed how deficit increased under GOP leadership wa-a-a-ay more than under Democrats because they maintained spending while cutting revenue to pay for it. It was also GOP VP Dick Cheney who said, "Deficits don't matter." If you say that was irresponsible policy, I'd agree with you.

[HiImBobBum]

@Asenueh Well, Republicans do do that, & it is irresponsible. However, under Democrats, they increase taxes & spending. Together, they are a deficit & government growth machine. When shows like this criticize Republicans, but fail to mention liberals, (Clinton increased & created the taxes which Bush later cut in the "Bush tax cuts", to balance the budget for his increased spending) I'd say that a lot is "left out". That said, Clinton was a better politician, at least his theft was sustainable.

[Asenueh]

@HiImBobBum What spending have Democrats increased moreso than Republicans? Under G. W. Bush we started two wars that weren't paid for as well as a Medicare prescritpition drug program; also not paid for. Dr. Maddow had a program about that.