It's all about political correctness. It has now become politically incorrect in the U.S. to criticize the rich and wealthy. Conservatives are now playing the "class warfare" card just like how liberals have been playing the "race" card. Only in the U.S. do u see people bitch and get sensitive about "class warfare" when someone brings up that the richest 1% owns over 43% of the total wealth. Grow a pair and start calling them for who they really are; greedy plutocrats who don't give a fuck
Taxing the rich can only be beneficial for the long haul IF we close our borders and start legislating more protectionist policies... this idealistic globalism nonsense is a tool of the elites to increase their profits and infect the world with US-style corporatism.
The average American does not benefit nearly as much from the globalized economy as big business and banking cartels do!! We gotta wake up people...
Less class warfare = 2012 presidential candidate, Ron Paul, says he doesn't believe cutting entitlements to the poor is the way to balance the budget. He has GREATER ideas. Check him out!
Ryan wants to go to Coolidge tax rates. then find. Let's go back to the rates that help caused the depression. When rates were high. Corporations put more back into the business. When the rates were low, they kept it for themselves. Cut taxes as meant less revenue. Ryan, Reagan felt to cut taxes and borrow more. He started cutting taxes, then, he discovered he had to raise them.
@jrwel14 do you have proof that confirms Cooledge caused the great depression and PLEASE PROVIDE SOURCES. When WHAT rates are high? Corporations put more back into the business WHEN??Your comment "Cut taxes as meant less revenue" cutting taxes historically has meant MORE revenue to the gov THATS A FACT. Your comment"He started cutting taxes, then, he discovered he had to raise them." What the hell does this even mean?
@tbwil11 One, everytime the rates were very low. The economy suffered. One rates were higher. the economy prospered far longer than the brief times with low taxes. Income tax rates. Do a search. "Top Marginal tax rates per year. " The Ben Stein article with that "liberal fool" Buffet stated that the last year under Clinton. had more revenue than the first year with Bush's tax cuts. More taxes not less meant more revenue.( Part 1)
@jrwel14 Part 2In fact, the federal government collected roughly $1.004 trillion in income taxes from individuals in fiscal 2000, the last full year of President Bill Clinton’s merry rule. It fell to a low of $794 billion in 2003 after Mr. Bush’s tax cuts (but not, you understand, because of them, his supporters like to say). Only by the end of fiscal 2006 did income tax revenue surpass the $1 trillion level again" Try to explain why some banana Republics have better income equality than we do
@jrwel14 you said;"It fell to a low of $794 billion in 2003 after Mr. Bush’s tax cuts" The Bush tax cuts went INTO EFFECT FULLY IN 2003!! DUH Then you said;"Try to explain why some banana Republics have better income equality than we do" what the hell do you even mean by this one, are you preparing to launch into the class warfare rhetoric that is popular lately?
@tbwil11 Part 3 In fact, the federal government collected roughly $1.004 trillion in income taxes from individuals in fiscal 2000, the last full year of President Bill Clinton’s merry rule. It fell to a low of $794 billion in 2003 after Mr. Bush’s tax cuts (but not, you understand, because of them, his supporters like to say). Only by the end of fiscal 2006 did income tax revenue surpass the $1 trillion level again. From the REPUBLICAN economist Ben Stein.
@jrwel14 You do realize there was a tax cut in 97 that caused an economic expansion up to 2000, right? And that the economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts, oh maybe because of 9-11? In the six quarters following the cuts, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters. In the 3 or 4 years following the Bush tax cuts of 03, the budget deficit fell by $217 billion mostly because of revenue growth. Ben Stein is an actor.
@tbwil11 Interesting how you pull the conservative ,"troll" remark! LOL! give you part of an article written by Ben Stein about the REAL effects of tax cuts. And, you couldn't take the truth! So, THANKS!
"Economist Mike Kimel notes that the last five Democratic Presidents (Clinton, Carter, LBJ, JFK, and Truman) all reduced public debt as a share of GDP, while the last four Republican Presidents (GW Bush, GHW Bush, Reagan, and Ford) all oversaw an increase in the country’s indebtedness" part A
@jrwel14 PART B "Economic historian J. Bradford DeLong observes a contrast not so much between Republicans and Democrats, but between Democrats and "old-style Republicans (Eisenhower and Nixon)" on one hand (decreasing debt), and "new-style Republicans" on the other (increasing debt)." Where's the old style Republicans? This country needs em! New ones lie about trickle down, Fox saying that Obama's trip to India cost more than the war in Iraq.This, "Fleece the rich." means to tax everyone else.
@jrwel14 part1)Well thats funny how you chime in after i made the troll charge, hmmm. Let me remind you of the unanswered q's THAT YOU IGNORED AGAIN; You do realize there was a tax cut in 97 that caused an economic expansion up to 2000, right? And that the economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts, oh maybe because of 9-11? In the six quarters following the cuts, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.
@jrwel14 part2)In the 3 or 4 years following the Bush tax cuts of 03, the budget deficit fell by $217 billion mostly because of revenue growth.ARE YOU TELLING ME NOW that Smoot Hawley and the trade war of the 30's had nothing to do with the depression?That it was tax cuts in the 20's?And that Hoovers and FDR's tax increases on the early 30's had nothing to do with it lasting till WWII? Seriously??WILL YOU ELABORATE NOW how you came to this without resorting to cut & paste?
@jrwel14 Clinton had Newt and the repub congress who loosened regulations and spent more responsibly than any other in recent history as evidenced by them dragging Clinton to the table on the 97 tax cuts. JFK was a BIG tax cutter, LBJ dessimated the black community with his war on poverty and I dont think you want to defend the worthless Jimma Carter, do ya?
@tbwil11 Well, Jimmy did better with the debt than the Republicans! Go to Presidentialdebt org. Caution, though. You will find that Reagan increased the debt 186%. That's from his huge tax cuts. Then raising taxes 6 times. And, having to ask Congress several times to increase the debt ceiling. So, his philosphy was to say he would cut taxes. then, borrow more.
@jrwel14 part1) ARE YOU ON CRACK??? I lived thru the Carter years! Reagan increased debt because he had a contentious DEM congress. Would you trade that debt for the Iron Curtain back?? Let me remind you of this already covered ground THAT YOU AGAIN IGNORED.....
@tbwil11 I was born during the Korean war. So? Carter with the debt. 36% Reagan 168%, Bush1, 49%, Clinton 22%, Bush 2, 75% Obama to end of 2010 28% Reagan increased debt because with his huge tax cuts. He had to borrow more. He ended up having to raise taxes 6 times. His people just couldn't say it!
@jrwel14 Look old man, you and I are relatively the same age, the DEBT is a result of budget DEFICITS over time. The tax cuts DID NOT CAUSE the deficit SPENDING, loggerheads with the congress did. Reagan traded off higher deficits for the spending after the DAMAGE that the worthless one Carter had inflicted during his presidency. I asked you if you would rather have the Iron Curtain back but you didnt answer.
@tbwil11 Of course not. You didn't answer my :"Economist Mike Kimel notes that the last five Democratic Presidents (Clinton, Carter, LBJ, JFK, and Truman) all reduced public debt as a share of GDP, while the last four Republican Presidents (GW Bush, GHW Bush, Reagan, and Ford) all oversaw an increase in the country’s indebtedness" Or, my listing of how much each president has raised the debt, either. o, I answered yours doubt if you will do the same.
@jrwel14 the Reagan recovery averaged 7.1% economic growth over the first seven quarters, the Obama recovery has produced less than half that at 2.8%, with the last quarter at a dismal 1.8%. After seven quarters of the Reagan recovery, unemployment had fallen 3.3% from its peak to 7.5%, with only 18% unemployed long-term for 27 weeks or more. After 7 quarters of the Obama recovery, unemployment has fallen only 1.3% from its peak, with a postwar record 45% long-term unemployed.
@tbwil11 So you agree that all the Democrats and the older Republicans did better with the debt than from Reagan on. THANKS! What about this." From that Republican economist er you say Actor Ben Stein. In his article NO More VOODOO Economics. "The grown-ups like Bill Clinton and Robert Rubin, his Treasury Secretary (who actually balanced the budget) left the federal fiscal scene ten years ago. " So where's the GOP Congress you stated that created the surplus?
@jrwel14 The hell I do old man, the debt is a different debate. You're all over the place dammitt, pick a topic man, is it revenues to the govt, or tax rates and the ecomony or deficits or DEBTS. Not interested in the least in Stein, Clinton's success was the frugal 94 congress who eased regs on business and dragged the man whore to the table for a balanced budget several times.
@tbwil11 Not interested in Stein. Since he agrees with raising the taxes on the rich? What about Trump? since he wants to tax the wealthy. Still cling to the GOP Congress concerning Cinton? The Conservatives have trained you well. "Always blame the other side." But, the more I have discussions wit conservatives. The more I learned that in many ways. they have really screwed up the country. But, thanks for saying that the new Republicans really messed up our debt. Those like Ryan.will hurt us
@jrwel14 OK old man, since you are a trained porpoise for big govt dems You're all over the place dammitt, pick a topic man, is it revenues to the govt, or tax rates and the ecomony or deficits or DEBTSClinton's success was the frugal 94 congress who eased regs on business and dragged the man whore to the table for a balanced budget several times.
@jrwel14 the Reagan recovery averaged 7.1% economic growth over the first seven quarters, the Obama recovery has produced less than half that at 2.8%, with the last quarter at a dismal 1.8%. After seven quarters of the Reagan recovery, unemployment had fallen 3.3% from its peak to 7.5%, with only 18% unemployed long-term for 27 weeks or more. After 7 quarters of the Obama recovery, unemployment has fallen only 1.3% from its peak, with a postwar record 45% long-term unemployed.
@jrwel14 You do realize there was a tax cut in 97 that caused an economic expansion up to 2000, right? And that the economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts, oh maybe because of 9-11? In the six quarters following the cuts, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.
@jrwel14 In the 3 or 4 years following the Bush tax cuts of 03, the budget deficit fell by $217 billion mostly because of revenue growth.ARE YOU TELLING ME NOW that Smoot Hawley and the trade war of the 30's had nothing to do with the depression?That it was tax cuts in the 20's?And that Hoovers and FDR's tax increases on the early 30's had nothing to do with it lasting till WWII? Seriously??WILL YOU ELABORATE NOW how you came to this without resorting to cut & paste?
@tbwil11 Smoot hawley did help create the depression. Just don't agree with Bachmann calling them Democrats. The taxcuts did not help the economy. Explain to me why the 3 times our country had the lowest taxes. 1928 25% 1929 24% 1989 28% and now at 35% that our country was in a depression, then 2 Recessions.
@jrwel14 Dont know to what you are referring with Bachmann, though I think she would be years ahead of our present community organizer in chief. I have already put the numbers up that PROVED the tax cuts of the 20's 60's and 80's caused an economic expansion that carried all earners from the bottom to the top of the scare upwards. Tell me how the govt taking money out of the private sector via tax increases will create jobs.
@jrwel14 help create hell, it along with the Hoover/FDR tax increases spelled doom right up until WWII. Tell me how the govt taking money out of the private sector via tax increases will create jobs and what good does it do for someone who makes more than you to have a higher % of their income confiscated by the damned govt.
@tbwil11 Tax cuts for the rich have made the richer vastly richer. They’ve made the middle class poorer. They’ve made the poor desperate, something that Ryan’s budget cuts would aggravate further. Income disparity is at record highs in this country. Even in the Robber Baron era, the gap between the rich and the rest of us wasn’t this wide. Tax rates on the very wealthy have never been lower. So, "out of the private sector". You feel that everyone else should pay taxes. Not those with companies.
@jrwel14 Now why do you wanna come back at me with class warfare horseshit? You keep putting this crap out there without real evidence.Tax cuts for the rich have made the rich richer?...you mean by letting them keep their own earnings? Please explain how that makes the mc "poorer", and stay on that point...Not having that money confiscated and taken out of the private sector, how?
@tbwil11 As Buffet told Ben Stein. "There is class warfare. It's being done by the rich and the rich are winning". Ben Stein agreed. People like you feel that the only ones who shouldn't be taxed are the rich and their corporations. "For, it hurts the economy and jobs." BIG BS! Trump said he would tax the wealthy, Buffet said he should be taxed more. Stein agreed. Gates and his dad tried to pass a law where the rich in Washington would be taxed. Guess they, "Hate the Rich!
@jrwel14 Do you have any facts or original thoughts of your own instead of worthless quotes from second rate actor/economists? Buffett is a hypocrite, he donated half of his income to Gates' charity, think he claimed it on his taxes? SURE HE DID if he has half a brain! He pays what he wants to because he can adjust his income with dividend payments and stock options just like most other wealthy folks when tax RATES get excessive. He also doesnt buy US debt which would help the economy.
@tbwil11 Worthless quotes? because they don't agree with you? If, they did, You would yell,"Go baby Go! You tell em!" You guys make me laugh! Maybe you guys are the hypocrites. Oh, yes. The actor? economists? Trump is neither. He was a one person that the tea party wanted for president. Wondered what they would say if his first act would be to tax the wealthy. Love how you side says when someone doesn't agree with you. Then, he's a RHINO or hypocrite. Priceless.
@jrwel14 No hard head, "worthless quotes" because they are the OPINIONS of tv personalities and aren't backed up by the numbers. I called Buffett a hypocrite because HE CONTROLS how much...well now Im repeating what you ignored in the previous thread...which is what you keep doing over and aver. I keep providing historical FACTS and instead of rebutting them, you just ignore and go back to opinions and quotes. Oh and the whole Tea Party didnt want to see Trump run, thats bull.
@jrwel14 part 2) trump was entertainment and he was able to do what a regular politician couldnt do and that was make incendiary statements and push the prez where he wanted the focus to go. Most conservatives saw the birther movement as moot and a distraction, and that includes most of the Tea Party. But instead of the dialog veering off into Trumpland, would ya please comment on my points in the previous posts that were direct rebuttals to your statements?
@tbwil11 Face it. You feel that even though the taxes were at their lowest we had a depression or recession. Was because of some strange coincindence . You will continue to believe that. And, yell anyone who doesn't agree with you either a liberal. As, (if that would explain it)Or, a Rhino. Noticed your "tree hugging Dems" remark. Guess you feel we can save money or save the planet. Not, both. You seem very? popular on this video. Everyone loves to comment to your remarks.
@jrwel14 What the hell is wrong with you? Coincidence? Really? After the facts and lengthy explanations that prove my points, you ignore it all and come up with coincidence? You didnt rebut any of it. If you disagree you could at least do me the honor of trying to pick apart the details in my argument? Why do you keep posting back if you're just gonna ignore what I say?
@tbwil11 What prove your points? If you did what I did and looked at the top marginal tax rates per year. Unemployment per year, etc. You would find what I did. That low taxes never helped the economy, or jobs. High taxes never hurt. Started checking when I heard the Big Republican tax lie that Reagan's budget director stated. (Now, I guess he will be called a turncoat) How dare him go against the 1 item that the conservatives live for.) It's their holy grail.
@jrwel14 Yep, I most certainly did prove my point, you just choose to ignore it, though you offer no rebuttals to specific assertions that I made, as far as debating skills or ability to argue facts, you've been pretty danged impotent. Which of the facts that I presented to you was inaccurate? Give me one.
@tbwil11 Your whole life is inaccurate. You rely on some pie in the sky dream about having the rich save your poor unmeaningful existence. Just accept that with higher taxes we had a good economy. Then Bush dropped tax rates to historically low proportions. Now we have a $14T national debt. Somehow from 2001-2008 we accumilated $11.2T of that national debt. I got it now, you teabaggers do not know how to subtract. Tax money surplus, no tax money deficit. Get it? Pluses and minuses. hehehehe
@tbwil11 You proved nothing. Except that you will continue like all conservatives to believe that low taxes helps the economy and jobs. IT NEVER DID! 1952 91% tax rate unemployment 3.0% 1968 tax 75% jobs 3.6 In January 2001, with the budget balanced and clear sailing ahead, the Congressional Budget Office forecast ever-larger annual surpluses indefinitely. The outlook was so rosy, the CBO said, that Washington would have enough money by the end of the decade to pay off everything it owed.
@jrwel14 PART B"The biggest culprit, by far, has been an erosion of tax revenue triggered largely by two recessions and multiple rounds of tax cuts. Together, the economy and the tax bills enacted under former president George W. Bush, and to a lesser extent by President Obama, wiped out $6.3 trillion in anticipated revenue. That’s nearly half of the $12.7 trillion swing from projected surpluses to real debt. Federal tax collections now stand at their lowest level as a percentage of the economy.
@jrwel14 PART C"Federal tax collections now stand at their lowest level as a percentage of the economy in 60 years.Big-ticket spending initiated by the Bush administration accounts for 12 percent of the shift. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have added $1.3 trillion in new borrowing.
Obama’s 2009 economic stimulus, a favorite target of Republicans who blame Democrats for the mounting debt, has added $719 billion — 6 percent of the total shift, according to the new analysis of CBO data.
@jrwel14 Your cut and paste no thinking quote is from a WaPo reporter Lori Montgomery who fails to acknowledge that rolling those gigantic spending increases back to the 07,08 levels would erase the deficit. It is HER OPINION that tax cuts are the "biggest culprit" to the lower revenues, where does the high unemployment rate figure into her thought process?Oh, it doesnt. Obama is spending 1.003 trillion PER YEAR more than Bush( who also spent too much)We have a spending problem.
@tbwil11 My no thinking quote? Guess when the truth hurts . It's better to deny it or label it, isn't it? ABC news did a bar and graph where Bush's tax cuts, raised the unemployment rates compared to previous administrations.
@tbwil11 Learned from a long time ago. That conservatives will believe whatever they want. No matter what facts are given to them. Question, which party caused the Depression? (Pure Republican). At least from 1921 to 1929, The President and Congress were Republican. In 1931 the House became controlled by The Dems. So, this the president was GOP but Congress was Dem is a pure conservative lie. And, if it's Congress and not the President that controls spending. Then, why blame Obama now?
@jrwel14 (cont'd) And, in the 1950s when the last time the Republicans had a balanced budget? Congress was controlled by the Democrats in BOTH parties. From 1953 to 1981. both the House and senate were Democrait controlled.
@jrwel14 I already explained who caused the depression, you ignored everything I said instead of offering a fact to rebut anything. You sit there and cast aspersions on conservatives when it is you who ignores the rational debate in a childish display of denial. There are plenty of MY rebuttals to YOUR points, but NONE to mine, go ahead, look back through the thread old man because age is supposed to bring maturity but you have consistently been an immature coward.
@tbwil11 So you agreed what cause the depression? Good! Wasn't high taxes. Taxes dropped severely during the 1920s. Wasn't the Democrats. Congress was controlled by the Republicans.
@jrwel14 (tbwil11) Looked at Your channel. Saw that video by the Cato Institute. No wonder you believe as you do.They are like the Heritage Foundation. Funded by the Koch brothers.
@tbwil11 Heritage is funded by Koch. And, Koch is doing it's best to destroy the middle class. Which by the way was to a very large part created by the Unions. "Heritage Foundation is also a part of the Koch Foundation Associate Program."
"It was founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane, who remains president and CEO, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries, Inc., the second largest privately held company (after Cargill) by revenue in the United States."
@jrwel14 I issued a challenge to find any inaccuracies in my posts, I answered YOUR post, will you answer mine? How bout we start with your FIRST assertion about the depression since you repeatedly made charges and ignored when I shot holes in your argument.
@tbwil11 Bet you didn't know that George wasn't much into politics until Bush came along. You guys use the same old comments. Must have a book of answers to use or something.
@jrwel14 part1)Yeah those same ol' comments....like asking questions and providing facts to rebut your historical inaccuracies. You debate like a 10 year old girl. Gonna blame Bush for Soros???REALLY???The man who said "The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States?? From CBS 60 Minutes' own Steve Croft (certainly no conservative)"George Soros is an evil man. He's anti-God, anti-family, anti-American, and anti-good." He killed and robbed his own Jewish people."
@jrwel14 part2) "Calling himself a philanthropist, Soros' role is to tighten the ideological stranglehold of globalization and the New World Order while promoting his own financial gain. He is without conscience; a capitalist who functions with absolute amorality." Are you proud to have this guy on your team?In 2008, Soros donated $5,000,000,000 to the Democratic National Committee, DNC, to insure Obama's win and wins for many other Alinsky trained Radical Rules Anti-American Socialist.
@tbwil11 Will add this. You mention the "evil Soros. But, you idolize Koch and his Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation. Same thing, unless you're a Conservative. For conservatives make their own laws and facts.
@jrwel14 I find it sad that you are so incapable of open debate that you could make the comparison between a ruthless truly evil person like Soros, who has the stated goal of hurting American economics and two libertarian philanthropists whose worst crimes seems to be that they agree with many scientists who see global warming as a politically correct hoax foisted on the American public and they donated to conservatives. What "laws or facts" did I make up? Will you step up this time?
@tbwil11 Find it sad that you could yell "evil Soros" But, glorify the Koch brothers. But, you couldn't be a conservative otherwise. Right? many scientists? Guess if you refer to those who profit from denying global warming. Like the Koch brothers. Scientific question? Which is drier? Air at Antartica or Death Valley? and, why? Hint: Answer explains the more violent storms we have been having. The answer is basic science, too.
@jrwel14 WTF, I didnt even know who the Koch brothers were before you brought it up, much less glorify them. Another diversion, another dodge. I issued a challenge to find any inaccuracies in my posts, I answered YOUR post, will you answer mine? How bout we start with your FIRST assertion about the depression since you repeatedly made charges and ignored when I shot holes in your argument.
@jrwel14 The lack of intelligence ismystifying. Nobody is saying that global warming doesn't exist. Many scientists agree that warming is happening--but it is normal part of the cycle of cooling and warming of the Earth(ie there have been 4 known ice ages and several warming periods, all without human interaction). The difference is that many libs believe that they can legislate "green" intiatives which will actually have an effect on natural global phenomenon, all the while fleecing taxes.
@jrwel14 part3)George has been contributing a $ billion plus to the DNC since CLINTON (before GW) came on the scene. The guy is truly an evil bastard. He is quoted in an austrailian paper saying that "America, as the centre of the globalised financial markets, was sucking up the savings of the world. This is now over. The game is out...the time has come for "a very serious adjustment in American's consumption habits". He implied that he was the one with the power to bring this about.
@jrwel14 part4)now back to the real topic, my challenge to you. Are you man enough or will you continue to deflect, bob and weave like a chicken shit?
@jrwel14 Oh my, I am unpopular with.....you and some immature person dumb enough to make his moniker "teabaggersblow" and for all I know you may be the same person. How will I ever get over it. I dont think a 5 year old would provide the facts and figures that you keep running and deflecting the conversation away from...chicken shit.
@jrwel14 part1)The 29 crash was partly brought on by congress' consideration of Smoot Hawley, then the next year HOOVER signed the bill into law amidst protests from more that a thousand leading economists at the time. Between 1929 and 1934, an international trade war brought U.S. exports and imports down by 66%, unemployment went to nearly 30% and the Gross National Product was cut by half. That IS THE REAL story behind your facts. Govt meddling in the private sector caused
@jrwel14 Part 2) the great depression, higher taxes by Hoover and then Roosevelt kept us there and I gave you proof of that in an earlier post.When the tax rate was raised on folks earning over $100,000 from 25 to 62%, the share of taxes from them fell from 50 to 27%. In late 1920s the top tax rate was 25%, the economy was strong, and those earning over $100,000 paid up to 2/3 of all income taxes.High tax rates stifled the economy and encouraged tax avoidance, and shrank tax revenues.
@jrwel14 I already explained who caused the depression, you ignored everything I said instead of offering a fact to rebut anything. You sit there and cast aspersions on conservatives when it is you who ignores the rational debate in a childish display of denial. There are plenty of MY rebuttals to YOUR points, but NONE to mine, go ahead, look back through the thread old man because age is supposed to bring maturity but you have consistently been an immature coward. Here, I'll help.
@jrwel14 I issuesd a challenge to find any inaccuracies in my posts, I answered YOUR post, will you answer mine? Heres a reminder.
You do realize there was a tax cut in 97 that caused an economic expansion up to 2000, right? And that the economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts, oh maybe because of 9-11? In the six quarters following the cuts, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.
@tbwil11 Your rebuttals are like a slow boat to china. Whatever floats a teabagger's boat ends up screwing over America. Banana boat republicans never cared about equality .................but they sure can make up an equation that will crash a housing market while they sift off profits to offshore accounts.
@tbwil11 The working poor get 1% interest on holdings. The rich do far better in interest rates. The poor pay sales tax on their measly $20,000 yearly paycheck. The poor pay no income tax on that $20,000. A hedge fund manager being taxed at the 15% rate now enacted, is a lesser tax rate than most people making $50,000 a year. And dumbfucks like him or her give their money to some guy named Madoff because of the greed factor. It is time the government got just as greedy as the old rich bastards.
@tea why would the "working poor" get 1% on holdings? What is stopping them from making the same decisions with their money that I make? How much sales tax is on food? Your question "It is time the government got just as greedy as the old rich bastards." the govt has the guns...period. There is NO role for govt to play G_d and dont you ever forget it. Had I been able to take advantage of a private retirement account or other investment incentive I wouldnt be beholdin to SSI now
@tbwil11 What a crock! Anyone with a brain stem attached knows even one million gets higher interest rates that one thousand. Grow up dude and quite drinking the tea.
@tbwil11 You teabaggers ARE as slow as Bachmann. Tell lies then act all indignant when you get called for being a dumbass. Typical UP is DOWN ideology from teabaggers.
@teabaggersblow Yeah I know...you nuanced big govt intellectuals really have it all figured out. And that Bachmann must be really dumb to have her Master of Laws degree. But then again, you telegraphed what an intellectual giant you are with your name.
@tbwil11 What ivy league school did she get it from? None that I know of. Read the new Rolling Stone article about you bwaindead hero. She did better than her graduating class. 70% of them failed the bar exam. I guess God helped her pass that too. Real devine intervention since she tells more lies than Carter has got pills.
@teabaggersblow Rolling Stone is bird cage liner, though I guess it is probably scholarly reading material for you. She probably doesnt think there are 57 states though. Carter has pills?? Billy Beer yeeeaah. And no rice burners, I drive Silverados...smoke belching diesels for you eco-minded tree hugging dems.
@tbwil11 In my eyes you are nothin' more than a rice burning cunt that would rather suck the cogs dry off some CEO than work to pay your fair share of the American dream. hehehe Fuck a cog licking republican.
@teabaggersblow Oh man that hurt.... I mean.... with that last post it is obvious you have so much credibility and maturity, how will I ever recover (deep sigh, wipes a tear).
@jrwel14 part2) but lets look at the census numbers that tell a different story, and please dont ignore these without any rebuttal; Households earning less than $35,000 a year went from 44.5% in 1980 to 38.4% in 2005. Households earning 35,000-75,000 went from 38.2% in 80 to 33.3% in 2005. Households earning more than $75,000 a year went from 17.4% in 80 to 28.3% in 2005, up considerably.
@jrwel14 part 2)ERTL in 81 cut all income taxes 25%. TEFRA in 82 was business and excise taxes and the removal of some business tax deductions.TEFRA was a sucker punch from democraps in that it was sold by promising $3 in cuts to $1in tax hike which they never delivered. Recovery started Nov 82 and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 90 when the tax increases of the 90 budget deal killed it,spending was 21.2 in 89
@jrwel14 Let me remind you of the unanswered q's THAT YOU IGNORED AGAIN; You do realize there was a tax cut in 97 that caused an economic expansion up to 2000, right? And that the economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts, oh maybe because of 9-11? In the six quarters following the cuts, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.
@jrwel14 part2)In the 3 or 4 years following the Bush tax cuts of 03, the budget deficit fell by $217 billion mostly because of revenue growth.ARE YOU TELLING ME NOW that Smoot Hawley and the trade war of the 30's had nothing to do with the depression?That it was tax cuts in the 20's?And that Hoovers and FDR's tax increases on the early 30's had nothing to do with it lasting till WWII? Seriously??WILL YOU ELABORATE NOW how you came to this without resorting to cut & paste?
@jrwel14 can you answer anything factually instead of anecdotal nonsense? Buffett gets most of his compensation in stock options and dividend payments...HE chooses how much he wants to expose to taxation based ON TAX RATES.You said;"everytime the rates were very low. The economy suffered, Bullshit, Prove it. Clinton was enjoying the added economic EXPANSION AFTER THE 97 CUTS and Bush was having TO CONTEND WITH 9-11.
@tbwil11 First if you looked at top margina tax rates per year. You would find. That when the taxes dropped to the lowest in our history. 25% in 1925, 28% in 1988 and now 35% A Depression or Recession followed. That IS basic fact. When, the taxes were far higher, the economy prospered for a lenghty time. 1946-1980 there were 70-92%.The only time when taxes were lower than the 24% in 1929. was 1913-1915 7% and 1916 at 15% 1917 went to 67% then to 1921 73% TO 1924 56-46% huge drop to 25% Part 1
@jrwel14 Part 2 So it drops to 25% in 1925, 1929 25%. STOCK MARKET CRASH! That Larry Kudlow needs a new job. LOW TAXES HAVE NEVER HELPED PEOPLE FIND JOBS. PERIOD! Buffet, being one of the top billionaires in this country. He knows what works. He knows how to run a business. More so than Ryan. Remember when Reagan got it back to 28% . A recession DID follow! History proves your side wrong.
@jrwel14 part1)The 29 crash was partly brought on by congress' consideration of Smoot Hawley, then the next year HOOVER signed the bill into law amidst protests from more that a thousand leading economists at the time. Between 1929 and 1934, an international trade war brought U.S. exports and imports down by 66%, unemployment went to nearly 30% and the Gross National Product was cut by half. That IS THE REAL story behind your facts. Govt meddling in the private sector caused
@jrwel14 Part 2) the great depression, higher taxes by Hoover and then Roosevelt kept us there and I gave you proof of that in an earlier post.When the tax rate was raised on folks earning over $100,000 from 25 to 62%, the share of taxes from them fell from 50 to 27%. In late 1920s the top tax rate was 25%, the economy was strong, and those earning over $100,000 paid up to 2/3 of all income taxes.High tax rates stifled the economy and encouraged tax avoidance, and shrank tax revenues.
@tbwil11 And, I showed you that years before the Depression. When taxes were dropping. The Depression was the result. And, if higher taxes kept us in the Depression. Then, why did our country do so well in the 1950s with 91-92%? The responses that your side makes shows that you don't base them on facts. And, 1956 was the LAST time the Repulicans had a balanced budget, WITH 91% rates! Employment had no difference with low or high rates. Larry is a nut!
@jrwel14 The Depression was the result OF WHAT??? DO YOU READ??? Your comment" The responses that your side makes shows that you don't base them on facts" ARE U SERIOUS???EVERYTHING I HAVE PROVIDED YOU HAS BEEN FACTUAL!!!
@tbwil11 Your side ignores some facts. And, don't base the rest on facts. The 3 times we had the lowest taxes. We had a Depression or recession. 1929 24% depression. 1990 28% recssion, 2007 35% recesion.
1980 70%,1986 50%, 1987 38%, then 1988 28%, 1990 28% (There's that steady lowering of taxes that happened before the depression. )
1990 Recession. Reagan cut taxes and spent more to compensate. He had to raise taxes 6-8 times. His people just couldn't call it that. Part 1
@tbwil11 Part 2 The second interesting fact is what happens when we have historically low taxes. From 1925 to1931, 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. now part 3
@jrwel14 I was going to ask where part 1 was but I saw it in my email inbox and understand why you deleted it; it was FULL of inaccuracies as are parts 2&3.So you are telling me now that Smoot Hawley and the trade war of the 30's had nothing to do with the depression?That it was tax cuts in the 20's?And that Hoovers and FDR's tax increases on the early 30's had nothing to do with it lasting till WWII? Seriously??Can you elaborate on how you came to this without resorting to cut & paste?
@tbwil11 Didn't delete it. Unless I posted it twice. Why delete something that shows the truth?
Smoot Hawley prolonged the depression. But, Bachmann said they were Democrats. which is how I learned about it. Can you explain why the old Republicans did better than the newer ones since Nixon with the debt? And, All of the Democratic presidents since Truman did a good job with the debt?
@jrwel14 Smoot Hawley went from 30 to 34 until it was repealed and you want to contend it prolonged the depression until WWII????IN 41????REALLY???????Based on what???
@tbwil11 Noticed you haven't said anything about:"Economic historian J. Bradford DeLong observes a contrast not so much between Republicans and Democrats, but between Democrats and "old-style Republicans (Eisenhower and Nixon)" on one hand (decreasing debt), and "new-style Republicans" on the other (increasing debt)." BEN STEIN is also a well loved Republican Economist. On Fox alot.
When taxes were at the lowest. The economy suffered. Last half of the 1920s 25% Depression 1929. 1988-1990 28% early 1990s. recession. Now, it is at the 3rd lowest at 35%. We are in a big recession We did better with 91% rates in the 1950s. Ryan is a typical conservative liar.
@jrwel14 Tax cuts in the 1920s reduced the top rate from 71 percent to 24 percent. The economy boomed, growing by 59 percent between 1921 and 1929. Kennedy reduced the top rate from 91 percent to 70 percent. These lower rates, along with lower taxes on savings and investment are associated with the longest economic expansion in American history.Reagan's tax cuts ushered in America's longest peacetime expansion, created 20 million new jobs and pushed incomes and living standards to record highs
@tbwil11 Tac cuts in the 1920s led to the Depression. Just like the 28% in 1988-1990 led to the Recession in the early 1990s. Now, they are at the third lowest at 35%. What kind of economy do we have now? Reagan took a 50 year low in the debt. Lied about trickle down. So people would accept his huge tax cuts for the rich. And, started the debt to the moon. His tax loopholes also helped create the Enron fiasco. Reagan with Bush also expanded government the most. (cont'd)
@jrwel14 Part1)How can you make such an absurd contention when faced with the fact that the economy grew by 59% between 1921 and 1929. Maybe you are confused by the fact that in 1930, Herbert Hoover raised tax rates from 25% to a max of 63%, and Franklin Roosevelt boosted them to 79% later in the decade. The 1930s saw the economy much in the same place, though somewhat worse than the present Keynesian induced feeble economy we have now thanks to Dems like you.
@tbwil11 Will add, Reagan also said "When Unions and Collective bargaining are forbidden. Freedom is lost." Too bad Scott Walker didn't hear that. The conservatives don't care. The high tax rates you spoke of? Our economy did better. Than when they were at their lowest. You stated, "the longest economic expansion." The last time the Republicans had a balanced budget. Was in 1956 with 91% rates. Conservatives never learn. Conservatives spend more, have higher unemployment rates. (cont'd)
@jrwel14 Part2)Not traditional unions, Walker is standing up to public sector unions. How dare he ask a govt worker whose total compensation is $77,857 with 190 school days per year (about $258 per day) to contribute some of their own earnings to their pensions and 6% towards their own health care premiums like private sector folks do. The audacity of the man to want gov employees to pay comparable rates as the great unwashed whom offspring they are teaching.
@tbwil11 Part 3. "But today, thanks to tax cuts and massively increased military spending, the Bush administration has transformed, according to the Congressional Budget Office, a ten-year projected surplus of $5.6 trillion to a deficit of $4.4 trillion: a turnaround of $10 trillion in roughly 32 months"
Trump said to tax the rich. Buffet wants it. Gates and his dad tried to pass a law where the rich would be taxed in Washington state. Conservatives have hurt this country too long.
@jrwel14 Part3)Increased military spending BULLSHIT, we are at historic lows as a % of gdp in our level of military spending even with the Iraq and Afghan wars. There NEVER WAS a surplus when Clinton left office because HE INCLUDED THE FICA numbers in with the general treasury and even so, GW was in office only months when the biggest attack on American soil took place because someone was getting blowjobs from a girl his daughters age when he shoulda been takin care of the nations business.
@jrwel14 Part4)If the top earners were made up of the elitist types like Warren Buffett or Gates or Trump it may be easier to embrace the "soak the rich" mentality (not really) but the fact of the matter is that small business owners filing personal returns are a BIG part of that top percent group and they are the engine driving this economy.
@jrwel14 Nope, you're wrong. We are sayin that the gov is too damned big and spending is outta control. Cut it first. Look, all of those evil "rich" folks aren't just the Bill Gates , Warren Buffett types, they are also small business owners and entrepreneurs who are the engine of our economy. How does it benefit you if someone else pays more of their earnings to a big oversized powerful intrusive government? It doesnt, it just gives the gov more power and money to waste.
@tbwil11 No am right. have had discussions with tea partiers. Love how they list all the taxes that our founding fathers didn't have. And, they list ones like the gasoline tax. never said the rich are evil. Just this the rich pay taxes is a joke. The GAO said that most corporations pay 0 taxes.
@jrwel14 I am a member of the Tea Party and I'm tellin ya that Govt has to curb spending now. You are right about wealthy folks spending habits and there is nothing immoral about it. If you were faced with paying more in taxes than what you could make off of tax free municipal bonds or other tax shelters, which would you choose? When the tax rates were cut in the 20's 60's 80's(Reagan) the rich exposed more of their earnings to taxation and as a result are paying a large part of the fed burden.
@tbwil11 Know it has to curb spending. But, Ben Stein said we need to raise taxes. The 28% of the late 1980s led to the recession of the early 90s. Ryan types want to cut spending, give the rich lower tax rates. Which means cutting even more spending. This country has done better with the tax and spend than reagan's cut taxes and borrow mentality.
@jrwel14 NO we haven't, I have to respectfully disagree with you on that one, Stein may have been good in Ferris Bueller but... well n/m. I'm guessing Stein was referring to the need for increased revenues, but we dont have a revenue problem we have a SPENDING problem. Nonetheless,when taxes were cut in the 20's, revenues rose 61%, when JFK cut them in the 60's, revenues rose 62%, when Reagan cut taxes in the 80's, revenues rose 99.4%..these increases were the result of expansion in the economy
@tbwil11 Yes we have. Reagan's trickle down created the top earners making 80% more in income during his presidency. The other 90% income was flat. We need to cut spending AND raise taxes. That is so simple for everyone but conservatives. Guess they can't admit that they were wrong . Reagan also increased the debt by 189%. More than any other president. Ryan is a joke. His 25% rate help create the depression.
@jrwel14 EVERYBODY made more after Reagan's tax cuts. Households earning less than $35,000 a year went from 44.5 percent in 1980 to 38.4 percent in 2005.Households earning 35,000-75,000 38.2 percent in 80went to 33.3 percent in 2005. But Households earning more than $75,000 a year went from 17.4 percent in 80 to 28.3 percent in 2005. Congress was a big part of that debt, too. Regardless, would you trade the fall of the communist empire for smaller expenditures during the end of the cold war?
@jrwel14 I remember how much easier it was to get a job during Reagans time than Carter. Class warfare BS gets old. What is this resentment with wealthy folks?Most of them worked their way there or invented a better mouse trap to get them there. When I meet someone who has done well I dont think to myself"the gov should take more of their money", NO I think, "how did they get there and can I emulate it".
@tbwil11 Have nothing against the rich. there is an artivle written by Ben stein about Buffet.“There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
"In fact, the federal government collected roughly $1.004 trillion in income taxes from individuals in fiscal 2000, the last full year of President Bill Clinton’s merry rule. It fell to a low of $794 billion in 2003 after Mr. Bush’s tax cuts " (cont'd)
@jrwel14 (cont'd)"By this time, we Republicans had added a mere $2.7 trillion to the national debt. So much for tax cuts adding to revenue" So, Google"In Class Warfare, Guess Which Class Is Winning" So, this so called class warfare being directed at the rich. Is a typical big joke made by the GOP and their rich buddies. And, the lie was old when they first said it! Buffet wants to raise taxes on the rich. Ben stein agrees.Trump said he would tax the wealthy.
@jrwel14 Warren Buffett is a liberal hypocrite. Tax cuts cause economic expansion which results in more revenues to the fed. Tax revenues in 2006 were 18.4%of gross domestic product (GDP), which is actually above the 20-year, 40-year, and 60-year historical averages. Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990 after Reagans tax RATE reductions.
@tbwil11 Maybe it's the conservatives are the hypocrites. Noticed you didn't say anything about Ben stein or Trump. Guess conservatives never will admit that the class warfare being AGAINST the rich is a big lie. Ben Stein agreed. But, teabaggers want this country to return to the days of Daniel Boone. Where several have listed the taxes that our founding fathers didn't have to pay. And, they list taxes like the gasoline tax. One website said that ALL government spending is waste. (cont'd)
@jrwel14 (cont'd) And, when the website said that ALL government spending is a waste. They listed the Militray and the pentagon. So, guess we can't protect ourselves. Never seen 1 comment from a teabagger that would give a good reason why if low taxes are so good. Then, why did the country do so well in the 1950s with 91-92% rates. The more I hace checked. The more I have seen that too low taxes have done more harm than to much.
@jrwel14 And, finally tbwill11. You said,"who has done well I dont think to myself"the gov should take more of their money." People like you are so protective of the rich. Like all conservatives who want to give them tax cuts and cut programs that help theaverage. guy. Ryan for one. BUT, GIVING THE RICH TAX CUTS HAVE NEVER HELPED IN CREATING JOBS. PERIOD!
@jrwel14 No, "people like me" are protective of our individual liberties and we realize that a big govt with big entitlements robs a society of motivation and self reliance.You want to help the average guy then you create the environment and incentive for him to succeed and get out of his way, you dont try to give him a handout so he will become dependent on you.The rich pay more in taxes when incentives to shelter earnings is less AND IT DOES CAUSE EXPANSION IN THE ECOMOMY AND NEW JOBS
@tbwil11 look, the more I have checked on it. The more I have discovered that too low taxes as hurt. It never helped the people get jobs. never helped the economy. Just made the rich richer. Which is why one of the rich Buffet said what he did. And, a Republican economist agreed. (Ben Stein) Now, I bet he will be called a hypocite. It all started when another Republican (who you will call a hypocrite) reagan's budget director. Mentioned the Big Tax Lie of the Republicans. (cont'd)
@tbwil11 "In those years where the top tax rate was 70% or above, GDP growth averaged 9.0% and job growth averaged 2.6%. Conversely, in those years where the tax rate was 40% or below, GDP growth was an anemic 4.4% and job growth was… well actually there was no job growth. The average for the 37 years where top tax rates were the lowest, job growth averaged zero!" Google "The Relationship Between Tax Rates & Job Growth" Can't copy and paste statements from over 3 dozen locations. (Cont'd)
@jrwel14 But, in anycase. Keep finding more locations on the internet where they dispute what the Conservatives say about low taxes are good. But, as that 1 man said, Trickle down has never worked. At least for the average guy. It was designed to help the rich only.
@tbwil11 Why should I? Have kept the same 1 account on Youtube since the beginning. look at when I signed up by going to my channel. have nothing to hide.
@jrwel14 Look, google is loaded with all kinds of left wing sources, you really have to try hard to come up with conservative sites, same with big media. Doesnt make them any more credible
@tbwil11 Left wing sources? Like the IRS? The bureau of Labor statistics? Those left wing sites? Now, on the conservative side. There is the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Think I heard that the last one was founded by the Koch brothers. Oh, yes. And, Foxnews. the Obama's trip to India cost as much as 2 billion.
@jrwel14 No one said the IRS was left wing...Gestapo maybe. Instead of doing the popular thing and smearing those sites you listed, why dont you give me the instances where they lied and please provide sources
@tbwil11 Never said the IRS was a leftwing site. YOU staated that the sources I have gotten my information from, Must be left wing. NEVER get my info from those sites. People would just dispute it. Some people say how Reagan lowered the unenployment rates. But, 1982 it was 9.7%, in 1983 it was 9.6&. He raised the debt 189%. He raised taxes 6-8 times. have to look at the correct figure. when taxes are higher. Corp. put the money back into the business. When, they are low, they keep it.
@jrwel14 Part1)You made a bit of a leap there, I didnt accuse you of anything and I didnt tell you to NEVER do anything, pal. Deficithawker had the same argument and tried to convince me that Reagan raised taxes, but the truth is in the details.
@jrwel14 PART2) ERTL in 81 cut all income taxes 25%. TEFRA in 82 was business and excise taxes and the removal of some business tax deductions.TEFRA was a sucker punch from democraps in that it was sold by promising $3 in cuts to $1in tax hike which they never delivered. Recovery started Nov 82 and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 90 when the tax increases of the 90 budget deal killed it,spending was 21.2 in 89
@tbwil11 And, you said that Recovery stated 1982 and lasted 92 months. What were the real tax rates in 1988-1990? 28%! Everytime the rates were very low. We had a Depression or Recession.Early 1990s, a recession. But, the times you mentioned where the economy did great. taxes were far higher. 1950s 91-92% That's so simple for anyone but conservatives. Conservatives love the rich at the expense of everyone else. Bachmann said she would support NO federal income taxes for 1 year.
This has been flagged as spam show
It's all about political correctness. It has now become politically incorrect in the U.S. to criticize the rich and wealthy. Conservatives are now playing the "class warfare" card just like how liberals have been playing the "race" card. Only in the U.S. do u see people bitch and get sensitive about "class warfare" when someone brings up that the richest 1% owns over 43% of the total wealth. Grow a pair and start calling them for who they really are; greedy plutocrats who don't give a fuck
wangsta25 2 months ago
Taxing the rich can only be beneficial for the long haul IF we close our borders and start legislating more protectionist policies... this idealistic globalism nonsense is a tool of the elites to increase their profits and infect the world with US-style corporatism.
The average American does not benefit nearly as much from the globalized economy as big business and banking cartels do!! We gotta wake up people...
bobshenix 5 months ago
Yes it is Class Warfare.
Paul Ryan is declaring war on the Working Class and the Poor. Paul Ryan doesn't think they are working enough and doesn't think they are poor enough.
MsZeitgeist85 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Less class warfare = 2012 presidential candidate, Ron Paul, says he doesn't believe cutting entitlements to the poor is the way to balance the budget. He has GREATER ideas. Check him out!
vechorik 6 months ago
As, buffet said the Republicans want to get rid of inheritance taxes. So, they can tax the average guy.
jrwel14 8 months ago
Ryan wants to go to Coolidge tax rates. then find. Let's go back to the rates that help caused the depression. When rates were high. Corporations put more back into the business. When the rates were low, they kept it for themselves. Cut taxes as meant less revenue. Ryan, Reagan felt to cut taxes and borrow more. He started cutting taxes, then, he discovered he had to raise them.
jrwel14 8 months ago
@jrwel14 do you have proof that confirms Cooledge caused the great depression and PLEASE PROVIDE SOURCES. When WHAT rates are high? Corporations put more back into the business WHEN??Your comment "Cut taxes as meant less revenue" cutting taxes historically has meant MORE revenue to the gov THATS A FACT. Your comment"He started cutting taxes, then, he discovered he had to raise them." What the hell does this even mean?
tbwil11 8 months ago
@tbwil11 One, everytime the rates were very low. The economy suffered. One rates were higher. the economy prospered far longer than the brief times with low taxes. Income tax rates. Do a search. "Top Marginal tax rates per year. " The Ben Stein article with that "liberal fool" Buffet stated that the last year under Clinton. had more revenue than the first year with Bush's tax cuts. More taxes not less meant more revenue.( Part 1)
jrwel14 8 months ago
@jrwel14 Part 2In fact, the federal government collected roughly $1.004 trillion in income taxes from individuals in fiscal 2000, the last full year of President Bill Clinton’s merry rule. It fell to a low of $794 billion in 2003 after Mr. Bush’s tax cuts (but not, you understand, because of them, his supporters like to say). Only by the end of fiscal 2006 did income tax revenue surpass the $1 trillion level again" Try to explain why some banana Republics have better income equality than we do
jrwel14 8 months ago
@jrwel14 you said;"It fell to a low of $794 billion in 2003 after Mr. Bush’s tax cuts" The Bush tax cuts went INTO EFFECT FULLY IN 2003!! DUH Then you said;"Try to explain why some banana Republics have better income equality than we do" what the hell do you even mean by this one, are you preparing to launch into the class warfare rhetoric that is popular lately?
tbwil11 8 months ago
@tbwil11 Part 3 In fact, the federal government collected roughly $1.004 trillion in income taxes from individuals in fiscal 2000, the last full year of President Bill Clinton’s merry rule. It fell to a low of $794 billion in 2003 after Mr. Bush’s tax cuts (but not, you understand, because of them, his supporters like to say). Only by the end of fiscal 2006 did income tax revenue surpass the $1 trillion level again. From the REPUBLICAN economist Ben Stein.
jrwel14 8 months ago
@jrwel14 You do realize there was a tax cut in 97 that caused an economic expansion up to 2000, right? And that the economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts, oh maybe because of 9-11? In the six quarters following the cuts, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters. In the 3 or 4 years following the Bush tax cuts of 03, the budget deficit fell by $217 billion mostly because of revenue growth. Ben Stein is an actor.
tbwil11 8 months ago
@jrwel14 How much do you get paid to troll on these sites? Where does the money come from??
tbwil11 8 months ago
@tbwil11 Interesting how you pull the conservative ,"troll" remark! LOL! give you part of an article written by Ben Stein about the REAL effects of tax cuts. And, you couldn't take the truth! So, THANKS!
"Economist Mike Kimel notes that the last five Democratic Presidents (Clinton, Carter, LBJ, JFK, and Truman) all reduced public debt as a share of GDP, while the last four Republican Presidents (GW Bush, GHW Bush, Reagan, and Ford) all oversaw an increase in the country’s indebtedness" part A
jrwel14 8 months ago
@jrwel14 PART B "Economic historian J. Bradford DeLong observes a contrast not so much between Republicans and Democrats, but between Democrats and "old-style Republicans (Eisenhower and Nixon)" on one hand (decreasing debt), and "new-style Republicans" on the other (increasing debt)." Where's the old style Republicans? This country needs em! New ones lie about trickle down, Fox saying that Obama's trip to India cost more than the war in Iraq.This, "Fleece the rich." means to tax everyone else.
jrwel14 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jrwel14 part1)Well thats funny how you chime in after i made the troll charge, hmmm. Let me remind you of the unanswered q's THAT YOU IGNORED AGAIN; You do realize there was a tax cut in 97 that caused an economic expansion up to 2000, right? And that the economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts, oh maybe because of 9-11? In the six quarters following the cuts, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.
tbwil11 8 months ago
@jrwel14 part2)In the 3 or 4 years following the Bush tax cuts of 03, the budget deficit fell by $217 billion mostly because of revenue growth.ARE YOU TELLING ME NOW that Smoot Hawley and the trade war of the 30's had nothing to do with the depression?That it was tax cuts in the 20's?And that Hoovers and FDR's tax increases on the early 30's had nothing to do with it lasting till WWII? Seriously??WILL YOU ELABORATE NOW how you came to this without resorting to cut & paste?
tbwil11 8 months ago
@jrwel14 Clinton had Newt and the repub congress who loosened regulations and spent more responsibly than any other in recent history as evidenced by them dragging Clinton to the table on the 97 tax cuts. JFK was a BIG tax cutter, LBJ dessimated the black community with his war on poverty and I dont think you want to defend the worthless Jimma Carter, do ya?
tbwil11 8 months ago
@tbwil11 Well, Jimmy did better with the debt than the Republicans! Go to Presidentialdebt org. Caution, though. You will find that Reagan increased the debt 186%. That's from his huge tax cuts. Then raising taxes 6 times. And, having to ask Congress several times to increase the debt ceiling. So, his philosphy was to say he would cut taxes. then, borrow more.
jrwel14 8 months ago
@jrwel14 part1) ARE YOU ON CRACK??? I lived thru the Carter years! Reagan increased debt because he had a contentious DEM congress. Would you trade that debt for the Iron Curtain back?? Let me remind you of this already covered ground THAT YOU AGAIN IGNORED.....
tbwil11 8 months ago
@tbwil11 I was born during the Korean war. So? Carter with the debt. 36% Reagan 168%, Bush1, 49%, Clinton 22%, Bush 2, 75% Obama to end of 2010 28% Reagan increased debt because with his huge tax cuts. He had to borrow more. He ended up having to raise taxes 6 times. His people just couldn't say it!
jrwel14 8 months ago
@jrwel14 Look old man, you and I are relatively the same age, the DEBT is a result of budget DEFICITS over time. The tax cuts DID NOT CAUSE the deficit SPENDING, loggerheads with the congress did. Reagan traded off higher deficits for the spending after the DAMAGE that the worthless one Carter had inflicted during his presidency. I asked you if you would rather have the Iron Curtain back but you didnt answer.
tbwil11 8 months ago
@tbwil11 Of course not. You didn't answer my :"Economist Mike Kimel notes that the last five Democratic Presidents (Clinton, Carter, LBJ, JFK, and Truman) all reduced public debt as a share of GDP, while the last four Republican Presidents (GW Bush, GHW Bush, Reagan, and Ford) all oversaw an increase in the country’s indebtedness" Or, my listing of how much each president has raised the debt, either. o, I answered yours doubt if you will do the same.
jrwel14 8 months ago
@jrwel14 the Reagan recovery averaged 7.1% economic growth over the first seven quarters, the Obama recovery has produced less than half that at 2.8%, with the last quarter at a dismal 1.8%. After seven quarters of the Reagan recovery, unemployment had fallen 3.3% from its peak to 7.5%, with only 18% unemployed long-term for 27 weeks or more. After 7 quarters of the Obama recovery, unemployment has fallen only 1.3% from its peak, with a postwar record 45% long-term unemployed.
tbwil11 8 months ago
@jrwel14 Actually I did when I pointed out the difference between DEBT and DEFICIT SPENDINBG CONTROLLED BY CONGRESS
tbwil11 8 months ago
@tbwil11 So you agree that all the Democrats and the older Republicans did better with the debt than from Reagan on. THANKS! What about this." From that Republican economist er you say Actor Ben Stein. In his article NO More VOODOO Economics. "The grown-ups like Bill Clinton and Robert Rubin, his Treasury Secretary (who actually balanced the budget) left the federal fiscal scene ten years ago. " So where's the GOP Congress you stated that created the surplus?
jrwel14 8 months ago
@jrwel14 The hell I do old man, the debt is a different debate. You're all over the place dammitt, pick a topic man, is it revenues to the govt, or tax rates and the ecomony or deficits or DEBTS. Not interested in the least in Stein, Clinton's success was the frugal 94 congress who eased regs on business and dragged the man whore to the table for a balanced budget several times.
tbwil11 8 months ago
@tbwil11 Not interested in Stein. Since he agrees with raising the taxes on the rich? What about Trump? since he wants to tax the wealthy. Still cling to the GOP Congress concerning Cinton? The Conservatives have trained you well. "Always blame the other side." But, the more I have discussions wit conservatives. The more I learned that in many ways. they have really screwed up the country. But, thanks for saying that the new Republicans really messed up our debt. Those like Ryan.will hurt us
jrwel14 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jrwel14 OK old man, since you are a trained porpoise for big govt dems You're all over the place dammitt, pick a topic man, is it revenues to the govt, or tax rates and the ecomony or deficits or DEBTSClinton's success was the frugal 94 congress who eased regs on business and dragged the man whore to the table for a balanced budget several times.
tbwil11 8 months ago
@jrwel14 the Reagan recovery averaged 7.1% economic growth over the first seven quarters, the Obama recovery has produced less than half that at 2.8%, with the last quarter at a dismal 1.8%. After seven quarters of the Reagan recovery, unemployment had fallen 3.3% from its peak to 7.5%, with only 18% unemployed long-term for 27 weeks or more. After 7 quarters of the Obama recovery, unemployment has fallen only 1.3% from its peak, with a postwar record 45% long-term unemployed.
tbwil11 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jrwel14 You do realize there was a tax cut in 97 that caused an economic expansion up to 2000, right? And that the economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts, oh maybe because of 9-11? In the six quarters following the cuts, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.
tbwil11 8 months ago
@jrwel14 In the 3 or 4 years following the Bush tax cuts of 03, the budget deficit fell by $217 billion mostly because of revenue growth.ARE YOU TELLING ME NOW that Smoot Hawley and the trade war of the 30's had nothing to do with the depression?That it was tax cuts in the 20's?And that Hoovers and FDR's tax increases on the early 30's had nothing to do with it lasting till WWII? Seriously??WILL YOU ELABORATE NOW how you came to this without resorting to cut & paste?
tbwil11 8 months ago
@tbwil11 Smoot hawley did help create the depression. Just don't agree with Bachmann calling them Democrats. The taxcuts did not help the economy. Explain to me why the 3 times our country had the lowest taxes. 1928 25% 1929 24% 1989 28% and now at 35% that our country was in a depression, then 2 Recessions.
jrwel14 7 months ago
Comment removed
tbwil11 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jrwel14 Dont know to what you are referring with Bachmann, though I think she would be years ahead of our present community organizer in chief. I have already put the numbers up that PROVED the tax cuts of the 20's 60's and 80's caused an economic expansion that carried all earners from the bottom to the top of the scare upwards. Tell me how the govt taking money out of the private sector via tax increases will create jobs.
tbwil11 7 months ago
@jrwel14 help create hell, it along with the Hoover/FDR tax increases spelled doom right up until WWII. Tell me how the govt taking money out of the private sector via tax increases will create jobs and what good does it do for someone who makes more than you to have a higher % of their income confiscated by the damned govt.
tbwil11 7 months ago
@tbwil11 Tax cuts for the rich have made the richer vastly richer. They’ve made the middle class poorer. They’ve made the poor desperate, something that Ryan’s budget cuts would aggravate further. Income disparity is at record highs in this country. Even in the Robber Baron era, the gap between the rich and the rest of us wasn’t this wide. Tax rates on the very wealthy have never been lower. So, "out of the private sector". You feel that everyone else should pay taxes. Not those with companies.
jrwel14 7 months ago
@jrwel14 Now why do you wanna come back at me with class warfare horseshit? You keep putting this crap out there without real evidence.Tax cuts for the rich have made the rich richer?...you mean by letting them keep their own earnings? Please explain how that makes the mc "poorer", and stay on that point...Not having that money confiscated and taken out of the private sector, how?
tbwil11 7 months ago
@tbwil11 As Buffet told Ben Stein. "There is class warfare. It's being done by the rich and the rich are winning". Ben Stein agreed. People like you feel that the only ones who shouldn't be taxed are the rich and their corporations. "For, it hurts the economy and jobs." BIG BS! Trump said he would tax the wealthy, Buffet said he should be taxed more. Stein agreed. Gates and his dad tried to pass a law where the rich in Washington would be taxed. Guess they, "Hate the Rich!
jrwel14 7 months ago
@jrwel14 Do you have any facts or original thoughts of your own instead of worthless quotes from second rate actor/economists? Buffett is a hypocrite, he donated half of his income to Gates' charity, think he claimed it on his taxes? SURE HE DID if he has half a brain! He pays what he wants to because he can adjust his income with dividend payments and stock options just like most other wealthy folks when tax RATES get excessive. He also doesnt buy US debt which would help the economy.
tbwil11 7 months ago
@tbwil11 Worthless quotes? because they don't agree with you? If, they did, You would yell,"Go baby Go! You tell em!" You guys make me laugh! Maybe you guys are the hypocrites. Oh, yes. The actor? economists? Trump is neither. He was a one person that the tea party wanted for president. Wondered what they would say if his first act would be to tax the wealthy. Love how you side says when someone doesn't agree with you. Then, he's a RHINO or hypocrite. Priceless.
jrwel14 7 months ago
@jrwel14 No hard head, "worthless quotes" because they are the OPINIONS of tv personalities and aren't backed up by the numbers. I called Buffett a hypocrite because HE CONTROLS how much...well now Im repeating what you ignored in the previous thread...which is what you keep doing over and aver. I keep providing historical FACTS and instead of rebutting them, you just ignore and go back to opinions and quotes. Oh and the whole Tea Party didnt want to see Trump run, thats bull.
tbwil11 7 months ago
Comment removed
tbwil11 7 months ago
@jrwel14 part 2) trump was entertainment and he was able to do what a regular politician couldnt do and that was make incendiary statements and push the prez where he wanted the focus to go. Most conservatives saw the birther movement as moot and a distraction, and that includes most of the Tea Party. But instead of the dialog veering off into Trumpland, would ya please comment on my points in the previous posts that were direct rebuttals to your statements?
tbwil11 7 months ago
@tbwil11 Face it. You feel that even though the taxes were at their lowest we had a depression or recession. Was because of some strange coincindence . You will continue to believe that. And, yell anyone who doesn't agree with you either a liberal. As, (if that would explain it)Or, a Rhino. Noticed your "tree hugging Dems" remark. Guess you feel we can save money or save the planet. Not, both. You seem very? popular on this video. Everyone loves to comment to your remarks.
jrwel14 7 months ago
@jrwel14 What the hell is wrong with you? Coincidence? Really? After the facts and lengthy explanations that prove my points, you ignore it all and come up with coincidence? You didnt rebut any of it. If you disagree you could at least do me the honor of trying to pick apart the details in my argument? Why do you keep posting back if you're just gonna ignore what I say?
tbwil11 7 months ago
@tbwil11 What prove your points? If you did what I did and looked at the top marginal tax rates per year. Unemployment per year, etc. You would find what I did. That low taxes never helped the economy, or jobs. High taxes never hurt. Started checking when I heard the Big Republican tax lie that Reagan's budget director stated. (Now, I guess he will be called a turncoat) How dare him go against the 1 item that the conservatives live for.) It's their holy grail.
jrwel14 7 months ago
@jrwel14 Yep, I most certainly did prove my point, you just choose to ignore it, though you offer no rebuttals to specific assertions that I made, as far as debating skills or ability to argue facts, you've been pretty danged impotent. Which of the facts that I presented to you was inaccurate? Give me one.
tbwil11 7 months ago
@tbwil11 Your whole life is inaccurate. You rely on some pie in the sky dream about having the rich save your poor unmeaningful existence. Just accept that with higher taxes we had a good economy. Then Bush dropped tax rates to historically low proportions. Now we have a $14T national debt. Somehow from 2001-2008 we accumilated $11.2T of that national debt. I got it now, you teabaggers do not know how to subtract. Tax money surplus, no tax money deficit. Get it? Pluses and minuses. hehehehe
teabaggersblow 7 months ago
@teabaggersblow More mature comments, my whole life is inaccurate, wow. You are one helluva debater.
tbwil11 7 months ago
@tbwil11 Once a rice burner always a rice burner.
teabaggersblow 7 months ago
@tbwil11 You proved nothing. Except that you will continue like all conservatives to believe that low taxes helps the economy and jobs. IT NEVER DID! 1952 91% tax rate unemployment 3.0% 1968 tax 75% jobs 3.6 In January 2001, with the budget balanced and clear sailing ahead, the Congressional Budget Office forecast ever-larger annual surpluses indefinitely. The outlook was so rosy, the CBO said, that Washington would have enough money by the end of the decade to pay off everything it owed.
jrwel14 7 months ago
@jrwel14 PART B"The biggest culprit, by far, has been an erosion of tax revenue triggered largely by two recessions and multiple rounds of tax cuts. Together, the economy and the tax bills enacted under former president George W. Bush, and to a lesser extent by President Obama, wiped out $6.3 trillion in anticipated revenue. That’s nearly half of the $12.7 trillion swing from projected surpluses to real debt. Federal tax collections now stand at their lowest level as a percentage of the economy.
jrwel14 7 months ago
@jrwel14 PART C"Federal tax collections now stand at their lowest level as a percentage of the economy in 60 years.Big-ticket spending initiated by the Bush administration accounts for 12 percent of the shift. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have added $1.3 trillion in new borrowing.
Obama’s 2009 economic stimulus, a favorite target of Republicans who blame Democrats for the mounting debt, has added $719 billion — 6 percent of the total shift, according to the new analysis of CBO data.
jrwel14 7 months ago
@jrwel14 Your cut and paste no thinking quote is from a WaPo reporter Lori Montgomery who fails to acknowledge that rolling those gigantic spending increases back to the 07,08 levels would erase the deficit. It is HER OPINION that tax cuts are the "biggest culprit" to the lower revenues, where does the high unemployment rate figure into her thought process?Oh, it doesnt. Obama is spending 1.003 trillion PER YEAR more than Bush( who also spent too much)We have a spending problem.
tbwil11 7 months ago
@tbwil11 My no thinking quote? Guess when the truth hurts . It's better to deny it or label it, isn't it? ABC news did a bar and graph where Bush's tax cuts, raised the unemployment rates compared to previous administrations.
jrwel14 7 months ago
@jrwel14 and you still bob and weave, what an impotent boob, I expected more.
tbwil11 7 months ago
@tbwil11 Learned from a long time ago. That conservatives will believe whatever they want. No matter what facts are given to them. Question, which party caused the Depression? (Pure Republican). At least from 1921 to 1929, The President and Congress were Republican. In 1931 the House became controlled by The Dems. So, this the president was GOP but Congress was Dem is a pure conservative lie. And, if it's Congress and not the President that controls spending. Then, why blame Obama now?
jrwel14 7 months ago
@jrwel14 (cont'd) And, in the 1950s when the last time the Republicans had a balanced budget? Congress was controlled by the Democrats in BOTH parties. From 1953 to 1981. both the House and senate were Democrait controlled.
jrwel14 7 months ago
@jrwel14 I already explained who caused the depression, you ignored everything I said instead of offering a fact to rebut anything. You sit there and cast aspersions on conservatives when it is you who ignores the rational debate in a childish display of denial. There are plenty of MY rebuttals to YOUR points, but NONE to mine, go ahead, look back through the thread old man because age is supposed to bring maturity but you have consistently been an immature coward.
tbwil11 7 months ago
@tbwil11 So you agreed what cause the depression? Good! Wasn't high taxes. Taxes dropped severely during the 1920s. Wasn't the Democrats. Congress was controlled by the Republicans.
jrwel14 7 months ago
@jrwel14 (tbwil11) Looked at Your channel. Saw that video by the Cato Institute. No wonder you believe as you do.They are like the Heritage Foundation. Funded by the Koch brothers.
jrwel14 7 months ago
@jrwel14 Ok, since you LOATHE Heritage or Cato, can you present any evidence that they have advanced fallacies as facts?
tbwil11 7 months ago
@tbwil11 Heritage is funded by Koch. And, Koch is doing it's best to destroy the middle class. Which by the way was to a very large part created by the Unions. "Heritage Foundation is also a part of the Koch Foundation Associate Program."
jrwel14 7 months ago
@jrwel14 And Cato?
"It was founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane, who remains president and CEO, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries, Inc., the second largest privately held company (after Cargill) by revenue in the United States."
jrwel14 7 months ago
@jrwel14 SO WHAT? WHERE ARE THE FALLACIES
tbwil11 7 months ago
@jrwel14 I issued a challenge to find any inaccuracies in my posts, I answered YOUR post, will you answer mine? How bout we start with your FIRST assertion about the depression since you repeatedly made charges and ignored when I shot holes in your argument.
tbwil11 7 months ago
@jrwel14 Yeah I know, they just no George Soros, are they?
tbwil11 7 months ago
@tbwil11 Bet you didn't know that George wasn't much into politics until Bush came along. You guys use the same old comments. Must have a book of answers to use or something.
jrwel14 7 months ago
@jrwel14 part1)Yeah those same ol' comments....like asking questions and providing facts to rebut your historical inaccuracies. You debate like a 10 year old girl. Gonna blame Bush for Soros???REALLY???The man who said "The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States?? From CBS 60 Minutes' own Steve Croft (certainly no conservative)"George Soros is an evil man. He's anti-God, anti-family, anti-American, and anti-good." He killed and robbed his own Jewish people."
tbwil11 7 months ago
@jrwel14 part2) "Calling himself a philanthropist, Soros' role is to tighten the ideological stranglehold of globalization and the New World Order while promoting his own financial gain. He is without conscience; a capitalist who functions with absolute amorality." Are you proud to have this guy on your team?In 2008, Soros donated $5,000,000,000 to the Democratic National Committee, DNC, to insure Obama's win and wins for many other Alinsky trained Radical Rules Anti-American Socialist.
tbwil11 7 months ago
@tbwil11 Will add this. You mention the "evil Soros. But, you idolize Koch and his Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation. Same thing, unless you're a Conservative. For conservatives make their own laws and facts.
jrwel14 7 months ago
@jrwel14 I find it sad that you are so incapable of open debate that you could make the comparison between a ruthless truly evil person like Soros, who has the stated goal of hurting American economics and two libertarian philanthropists whose worst crimes seems to be that they agree with many scientists who see global warming as a politically correct hoax foisted on the American public and they donated to conservatives. What "laws or facts" did I make up? Will you step up this time?
tbwil11 7 months ago
@tbwil11 Find it sad that you could yell "evil Soros" But, glorify the Koch brothers. But, you couldn't be a conservative otherwise. Right? many scientists? Guess if you refer to those who profit from denying global warming. Like the Koch brothers. Scientific question? Which is drier? Air at Antartica or Death Valley? and, why? Hint: Answer explains the more violent storms we have been having. The answer is basic science, too.
jrwel14 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jrwel14 WTF, I didnt even know who the Koch brothers were before you brought it up, much less glorify them. Another diversion, another dodge. I issued a challenge to find any inaccuracies in my posts, I answered YOUR post, will you answer mine? How bout we start with your FIRST assertion about the depression since you repeatedly made charges and ignored when I shot holes in your argument.
tbwil11 7 months ago
@jrwel14 The lack of intelligence ismystifying. Nobody is saying that global warming doesn't exist. Many scientists agree that warming is happening--but it is normal part of the cycle of cooling and warming of the Earth(ie there have been 4 known ice ages and several warming periods, all without human interaction). The difference is that many libs believe that they can legislate "green" intiatives which will actually have an effect on natural global phenomenon, all the while fleecing taxes.
kndrice 7 months ago
@kndrice Agree the lack of intelligence on the right is mystifying. Like, " a snowstorm in the winter proves no global warming, etc."
jrwel14 7 months ago
@jrwel14 part3)George has been contributing a $ billion plus to the DNC since CLINTON (before GW) came on the scene. The guy is truly an evil bastard. He is quoted in an austrailian paper saying that "America, as the centre of the globalised financial markets, was sucking up the savings of the world. This is now over. The game is out...the time has come for "a very serious adjustment in American's consumption habits". He implied that he was the one with the power to bring this about.
tbwil11 7 months ago
@jrwel14 part4)now back to the real topic, my challenge to you. Are you man enough or will you continue to deflect, bob and weave like a chicken shit?
tbwil11 7 months ago
@tbwil11 You sound like a 5 year old. Have noticed you aren't very popular on this video.
jrwel14 7 months ago
@jrwel14 Oh my, I am unpopular with.....you and some immature person dumb enough to make his moniker "teabaggersblow" and for all I know you may be the same person. How will I ever get over it. I dont think a 5 year old would provide the facts and figures that you keep running and deflecting the conversation away from...chicken shit.
tbwil11 7 months ago
@jrwel14 part1)The 29 crash was partly brought on by congress' consideration of Smoot Hawley, then the next year HOOVER signed the bill into law amidst protests from more that a thousand leading economists at the time. Between 1929 and 1934, an international trade war brought U.S. exports and imports down by 66%, unemployment went to nearly 30% and the Gross National Product was cut by half. That IS THE REAL story behind your facts. Govt meddling in the private sector caused
tbwil11 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jrwel14 Part 2) the great depression, higher taxes by Hoover and then Roosevelt kept us there and I gave you proof of that in an earlier post.When the tax rate was raised on folks earning over $100,000 from 25 to 62%, the share of taxes from them fell from 50 to 27%. In late 1920s the top tax rate was 25%, the economy was strong, and those earning over $100,000 paid up to 2/3 of all income taxes.High tax rates stifled the economy and encouraged tax avoidance, and shrank tax revenues.
tbwil11 7 months ago
@jrwel14 I already explained who caused the depression, you ignored everything I said instead of offering a fact to rebut anything. You sit there and cast aspersions on conservatives when it is you who ignores the rational debate in a childish display of denial. There are plenty of MY rebuttals to YOUR points, but NONE to mine, go ahead, look back through the thread old man because age is supposed to bring maturity but you have consistently been an immature coward. Here, I'll help.
tbwil11 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jrwel14 There are plenty of rebuttals to your points, but none to mine, go ahead, look back through the thread.
tbwil11 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jrwel14 I issuesd a challenge to find any inaccuracies in my posts, I answered YOUR post, will you answer mine? Heres a reminder.
You do realize there was a tax cut in 97 that caused an economic expansion up to 2000, right? And that the economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts, oh maybe because of 9-11? In the six quarters following the cuts, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.
tbwil11 7 months ago
@tbwil11 But that is just one. There are plenty of rebuttals to your points, but none to mine, go ahead, look back through the thread.
tbwil11 7 months ago
@tbwil11 Your rebuttals are like a slow boat to china. Whatever floats a teabagger's boat ends up screwing over America. Banana boat republicans never cared about equality .................but they sure can make up an equation that will crash a housing market while they sift off profits to offshore accounts.
teabaggersblow 7 months ago
@tbwil11 The working poor get 1% interest on holdings. The rich do far better in interest rates. The poor pay sales tax on their measly $20,000 yearly paycheck. The poor pay no income tax on that $20,000. A hedge fund manager being taxed at the 15% rate now enacted, is a lesser tax rate than most people making $50,000 a year. And dumbfucks like him or her give their money to some guy named Madoff because of the greed factor. It is time the government got just as greedy as the old rich bastards.
teabaggersblow 7 months ago
@tea why would the "working poor" get 1% on holdings? What is stopping them from making the same decisions with their money that I make? How much sales tax is on food? Your question "It is time the government got just as greedy as the old rich bastards." the govt has the guns...period. There is NO role for govt to play G_d and dont you ever forget it. Had I been able to take advantage of a private retirement account or other investment incentive I wouldnt be beholdin to SSI now
tbwil11 7 months ago
@tbwil11 What a crock! Anyone with a brain stem attached knows even one million gets higher interest rates that one thousand. Grow up dude and quite drinking the tea.
teabaggersblow 7 months ago
@teabaggersblow anyone with a brain stem knows that govt is not G_d, grow up and see that everyone has choices
tbwil11 7 months ago
@tbwil11 You teabaggers ARE as slow as Bachmann. Tell lies then act all indignant when you get called for being a dumbass. Typical UP is DOWN ideology from teabaggers.
teabaggersblow 7 months ago
@teabaggersblow Yeah I know...you nuanced big govt intellectuals really have it all figured out. And that Bachmann must be really dumb to have her Master of Laws degree. But then again, you telegraphed what an intellectual giant you are with your name.
tbwil11 7 months ago
@tbwil11 What ivy league school did she get it from? None that I know of. Read the new Rolling Stone article about you bwaindead hero. She did better than her graduating class. 70% of them failed the bar exam. I guess God helped her pass that too. Real devine intervention since she tells more lies than Carter has got pills.
teabaggersblow 7 months ago
@teabaggersblow Rolling Stone is bird cage liner, though I guess it is probably scholarly reading material for you. She probably doesnt think there are 57 states though. Carter has pills?? Billy Beer yeeeaah. And no rice burners, I drive Silverados...smoke belching diesels for you eco-minded tree hugging dems.
tbwil11 7 months ago
@tbwil11 In my eyes you are nothin' more than a rice burning cunt that would rather suck the cogs dry off some CEO than work to pay your fair share of the American dream. hehehe Fuck a cog licking republican.
teabaggersblow 7 months ago
@teabaggersblow Oh man that hurt.... I mean.... with that last post it is obvious you have so much credibility and maturity, how will I ever recover (deep sigh, wipes a tear).
tbwil11 7 months ago
@tbwil11 heheheYour ass hurts that much huh? No wonder women don't like that cup of tea either.
teabaggersblow 7 months ago
Comment removed
teabaggersblow 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jrwel14 part2) but lets look at the census numbers that tell a different story, and please dont ignore these without any rebuttal; Households earning less than $35,000 a year went from 44.5% in 1980 to 38.4% in 2005. Households earning 35,000-75,000 went from 38.2% in 80 to 33.3% in 2005. Households earning more than $75,000 a year went from 17.4% in 80 to 28.3% in 2005, up considerably.
tbwil11 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jrwel14 part 2)ERTL in 81 cut all income taxes 25%. TEFRA in 82 was business and excise taxes and the removal of some business tax deductions.TEFRA was a sucker punch from democraps in that it was sold by promising $3 in cuts to $1in tax hike which they never delivered. Recovery started Nov 82 and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 90 when the tax increases of the 90 budget deal killed it,spending was 21.2 in 89
tbwil11 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jrwel14 Let me remind you of the unanswered q's THAT YOU IGNORED AGAIN; You do realize there was a tax cut in 97 that caused an economic expansion up to 2000, right? And that the economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts, oh maybe because of 9-11? In the six quarters following the cuts, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.
tbwil11 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jrwel14 part2)In the 3 or 4 years following the Bush tax cuts of 03, the budget deficit fell by $217 billion mostly because of revenue growth.ARE YOU TELLING ME NOW that Smoot Hawley and the trade war of the 30's had nothing to do with the depression?That it was tax cuts in the 20's?And that Hoovers and FDR's tax increases on the early 30's had nothing to do with it lasting till WWII? Seriously??WILL YOU ELABORATE NOW how you came to this without resorting to cut & paste?
tbwil11 8 months ago
@jrwel14 can you answer anything factually instead of anecdotal nonsense? Buffett gets most of his compensation in stock options and dividend payments...HE chooses how much he wants to expose to taxation based ON TAX RATES.You said;"everytime the rates were very low. The economy suffered, Bullshit, Prove it. Clinton was enjoying the added economic EXPANSION AFTER THE 97 CUTS and Bush was having TO CONTEND WITH 9-11.
tbwil11 8 months ago
@tbwil11 First if you looked at top margina tax rates per year. You would find. That when the taxes dropped to the lowest in our history. 25% in 1925, 28% in 1988 and now 35% A Depression or Recession followed. That IS basic fact. When, the taxes were far higher, the economy prospered for a lenghty time. 1946-1980 there were 70-92%.The only time when taxes were lower than the 24% in 1929. was 1913-1915 7% and 1916 at 15% 1917 went to 67% then to 1921 73% TO 1924 56-46% huge drop to 25% Part 1
jrwel14 8 months ago
@jrwel14 Part 2 So it drops to 25% in 1925, 1929 25%. STOCK MARKET CRASH! That Larry Kudlow needs a new job. LOW TAXES HAVE NEVER HELPED PEOPLE FIND JOBS. PERIOD! Buffet, being one of the top billionaires in this country. He knows what works. He knows how to run a business. More so than Ryan. Remember when Reagan got it back to 28% . A recession DID follow! History proves your side wrong.
jrwel14 8 months ago
@jrwel14 part1)The 29 crash was partly brought on by congress' consideration of Smoot Hawley, then the next year HOOVER signed the bill into law amidst protests from more that a thousand leading economists at the time. Between 1929 and 1934, an international trade war brought U.S. exports and imports down by 66%, unemployment went to nearly 30% and the Gross National Product was cut by half. That IS THE REAL story behind your facts. Govt meddling in the private sector caused
tbwil11 8 months ago
@jrwel14 Part 2) the great depression, higher taxes by Hoover and then Roosevelt kept us there and I gave you proof of that in an earlier post.When the tax rate was raised on folks earning over $100,000 from 25 to 62%, the share of taxes from them fell from 50 to 27%. In late 1920s the top tax rate was 25%, the economy was strong, and those earning over $100,000 paid up to 2/3 of all income taxes.High tax rates stifled the economy and encouraged tax avoidance, and shrank tax revenues.
tbwil11 8 months ago
@tbwil11 And, I showed you that years before the Depression. When taxes were dropping. The Depression was the result. And, if higher taxes kept us in the Depression. Then, why did our country do so well in the 1950s with 91-92%? The responses that your side makes shows that you don't base them on facts. And, 1956 was the LAST time the Repulicans had a balanced budget, WITH 91% rates! Employment had no difference with low or high rates. Larry is a nut!
jrwel14 8 months ago
@jrwel14 The Depression was the result OF WHAT??? DO YOU READ??? Your comment" The responses that your side makes shows that you don't base them on facts" ARE U SERIOUS???EVERYTHING I HAVE PROVIDED YOU HAS BEEN FACTUAL!!!
tbwil11 8 months ago
Comment removed
jrwel14 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tbwil11 Your side ignores some facts. And, don't base the rest on facts. The 3 times we had the lowest taxes. We had a Depression or recession. 1929 24% depression. 1990 28% recssion, 2007 35% recesion.
1980 70%,1986 50%, 1987 38%, then 1988 28%, 1990 28% (There's that steady lowering of taxes that happened before the depression. )
1990 Recession. Reagan cut taxes and spent more to compensate. He had to raise taxes 6-8 times. His people just couldn't call it that. Part 1
jrwel14 8 months ago
@tbwil11 Part 2 The second interesting fact is what happens when we have historically low taxes. From 1925 to1931, 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. now part 3
jrwel14 8 months ago
@jrwel14 I was going to ask where part 1 was but I saw it in my email inbox and understand why you deleted it; it was FULL of inaccuracies as are parts 2&3.So you are telling me now that Smoot Hawley and the trade war of the 30's had nothing to do with the depression?That it was tax cuts in the 20's?And that Hoovers and FDR's tax increases on the early 30's had nothing to do with it lasting till WWII? Seriously??Can you elaborate on how you came to this without resorting to cut & paste?
tbwil11 8 months ago
@tbwil11 Didn't delete it. Unless I posted it twice. Why delete something that shows the truth?
Smoot Hawley prolonged the depression. But, Bachmann said they were Democrats. which is how I learned about it. Can you explain why the old Republicans did better than the newer ones since Nixon with the debt? And, All of the Democratic presidents since Truman did a good job with the debt?
jrwel14 8 months ago
@jrwel14 Smoot Hawley went from 30 to 34 until it was repealed and you want to contend it prolonged the depression until WWII????IN 41????REALLY???????Based on what???
tbwil11 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tbwil11 Noticed you haven't said anything about:"Economic historian J. Bradford DeLong observes a contrast not so much between Republicans and Democrats, but between Democrats and "old-style Republicans (Eisenhower and Nixon)" on one hand (decreasing debt), and "new-style Republicans" on the other (increasing debt)." BEN STEIN is also a well loved Republican Economist. On Fox alot.
jrwel14 8 months ago
@tbwil11 You teabaggers would argue with a fencepost. Take a deep breath and please refrain from any sudden outbreaks.
teabaggersblow 7 months ago
When taxes were at the lowest. The economy suffered. Last half of the 1920s 25% Depression 1929. 1988-1990 28% early 1990s. recession. Now, it is at the 3rd lowest at 35%. We are in a big recession We did better with 91% rates in the 1950s. Ryan is a typical conservative liar.
jrwel14 8 months ago
@jrwel14 Tax cuts in the 1920s reduced the top rate from 71 percent to 24 percent. The economy boomed, growing by 59 percent between 1921 and 1929. Kennedy reduced the top rate from 91 percent to 70 percent. These lower rates, along with lower taxes on savings and investment are associated with the longest economic expansion in American history.Reagan's tax cuts ushered in America's longest peacetime expansion, created 20 million new jobs and pushed incomes and living standards to record highs
tbwil11 8 months ago
@tbwil11 Tac cuts in the 1920s led to the Depression. Just like the 28% in 1988-1990 led to the Recession in the early 1990s. Now, they are at the third lowest at 35%. What kind of economy do we have now? Reagan took a 50 year low in the debt. Lied about trickle down. So people would accept his huge tax cuts for the rich. And, started the debt to the moon. His tax loopholes also helped create the Enron fiasco. Reagan with Bush also expanded government the most. (cont'd)
jrwel14 8 months ago
@jrwel14 Part1)How can you make such an absurd contention when faced with the fact that the economy grew by 59% between 1921 and 1929. Maybe you are confused by the fact that in 1930, Herbert Hoover raised tax rates from 25% to a max of 63%, and Franklin Roosevelt boosted them to 79% later in the decade. The 1930s saw the economy much in the same place, though somewhat worse than the present Keynesian induced feeble economy we have now thanks to Dems like you.
tbwil11 8 months ago
@tbwil11 Will add, Reagan also said "When Unions and Collective bargaining are forbidden. Freedom is lost." Too bad Scott Walker didn't hear that. The conservatives don't care. The high tax rates you spoke of? Our economy did better. Than when they were at their lowest. You stated, "the longest economic expansion." The last time the Republicans had a balanced budget. Was in 1956 with 91% rates. Conservatives never learn. Conservatives spend more, have higher unemployment rates. (cont'd)
jrwel14 8 months ago
@jrwel14 Part2)Not traditional unions, Walker is standing up to public sector unions. How dare he ask a govt worker whose total compensation is $77,857 with 190 school days per year (about $258 per day) to contribute some of their own earnings to their pensions and 6% towards their own health care premiums like private sector folks do. The audacity of the man to want gov employees to pay comparable rates as the great unwashed whom offspring they are teaching.
tbwil11 8 months ago
@tbwil11 Part 3. "But today, thanks to tax cuts and massively increased military spending, the Bush administration has transformed, according to the Congressional Budget Office, a ten-year projected surplus of $5.6 trillion to a deficit of $4.4 trillion: a turnaround of $10 trillion in roughly 32 months"
Trump said to tax the rich. Buffet wants it. Gates and his dad tried to pass a law where the rich would be taxed in Washington state. Conservatives have hurt this country too long.
jrwel14 8 months ago
@jrwel14 Part3)Increased military spending BULLSHIT, we are at historic lows as a % of gdp in our level of military spending even with the Iraq and Afghan wars. There NEVER WAS a surplus when Clinton left office because HE INCLUDED THE FICA numbers in with the general treasury and even so, GW was in office only months when the biggest attack on American soil took place because someone was getting blowjobs from a girl his daughters age when he shoulda been takin care of the nations business.
tbwil11 8 months ago
@jrwel14 Part4)If the top earners were made up of the elitist types like Warren Buffett or Gates or Trump it may be easier to embrace the "soak the rich" mentality (not really) but the fact of the matter is that small business owners filing personal returns are a BIG part of that top percent group and they are the engine driving this economy.
tbwil11 8 months ago
@tbwil11 When people yell don't tax the rich. All they are saying is to tax everyone else.
jrwel14 8 months ago
@jrwel14 Nope, you're wrong. We are sayin that the gov is too damned big and spending is outta control. Cut it first. Look, all of those evil "rich" folks aren't just the Bill Gates , Warren Buffett types, they are also small business owners and entrepreneurs who are the engine of our economy. How does it benefit you if someone else pays more of their earnings to a big oversized powerful intrusive government? It doesnt, it just gives the gov more power and money to waste.
tbwil11 8 months ago
@tbwil11 No am right. have had discussions with tea partiers. Love how they list all the taxes that our founding fathers didn't have. And, they list ones like the gasoline tax. never said the rich are evil. Just this the rich pay taxes is a joke. The GAO said that most corporations pay 0 taxes.
jrwel14 8 months ago
@jrwel14 I am a member of the Tea Party and I'm tellin ya that Govt has to curb spending now. You are right about wealthy folks spending habits and there is nothing immoral about it. If you were faced with paying more in taxes than what you could make off of tax free municipal bonds or other tax shelters, which would you choose? When the tax rates were cut in the 20's 60's 80's(Reagan) the rich exposed more of their earnings to taxation and as a result are paying a large part of the fed burden.
tbwil11 8 months ago
@tbwil11 Know it has to curb spending. But, Ben Stein said we need to raise taxes. The 28% of the late 1980s led to the recession of the early 90s. Ryan types want to cut spending, give the rich lower tax rates. Which means cutting even more spending. This country has done better with the tax and spend than reagan's cut taxes and borrow mentality.
jrwel14 8 months ago
@jrwel14 NO we haven't, I have to respectfully disagree with you on that one, Stein may have been good in Ferris Bueller but... well n/m. I'm guessing Stein was referring to the need for increased revenues, but we dont have a revenue problem we have a SPENDING problem. Nonetheless,when taxes were cut in the 20's, revenues rose 61%, when JFK cut them in the 60's, revenues rose 62%, when Reagan cut taxes in the 80's, revenues rose 99.4%..these increases were the result of expansion in the economy
tbwil11 8 months ago
@tbwil11 Yes we have. Reagan's trickle down created the top earners making 80% more in income during his presidency. The other 90% income was flat. We need to cut spending AND raise taxes. That is so simple for everyone but conservatives. Guess they can't admit that they were wrong . Reagan also increased the debt by 189%. More than any other president. Ryan is a joke. His 25% rate help create the depression.
jrwel14 8 months ago
@jrwel14 EVERYBODY made more after Reagan's tax cuts. Households earning less than $35,000 a year went from 44.5 percent in 1980 to 38.4 percent in 2005.Households earning 35,000-75,000 38.2 percent in 80went to 33.3 percent in 2005. But Households earning more than $75,000 a year went from 17.4 percent in 80 to 28.3 percent in 2005. Congress was a big part of that debt, too. Regardless, would you trade the fall of the communist empire for smaller expenditures during the end of the cold war?
tbwil11 8 months ago
@tbwil11 Everybody as in the rich? Then, yes their income went up 80%. The other 90%? their income went flat. The poorest people lost a -4.4%.
jrwel14 8 months ago
@jrwel14 I remember how much easier it was to get a job during Reagans time than Carter. Class warfare BS gets old. What is this resentment with wealthy folks?Most of them worked their way there or invented a better mouse trap to get them there. When I meet someone who has done well I dont think to myself"the gov should take more of their money", NO I think, "how did they get there and can I emulate it".
tbwil11 8 months ago
@tbwil11 Have nothing against the rich. there is an artivle written by Ben stein about Buffet.“There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
"In fact, the federal government collected roughly $1.004 trillion in income taxes from individuals in fiscal 2000, the last full year of President Bill Clinton’s merry rule. It fell to a low of $794 billion in 2003 after Mr. Bush’s tax cuts " (cont'd)
jrwel14 8 months ago
@jrwel14 (cont'd)"By this time, we Republicans had added a mere $2.7 trillion to the national debt. So much for tax cuts adding to revenue" So, Google"In Class Warfare, Guess Which Class Is Winning" So, this so called class warfare being directed at the rich. Is a typical big joke made by the GOP and their rich buddies. And, the lie was old when they first said it! Buffet wants to raise taxes on the rich. Ben stein agrees.Trump said he would tax the wealthy.
jrwel14 8 months ago
@jrwel14 Warren Buffett is a liberal hypocrite. Tax cuts cause economic expansion which results in more revenues to the fed. Tax revenues in 2006 were 18.4%of gross domestic product (GDP), which is actually above the 20-year, 40-year, and 60-year historical averages. Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990 after Reagans tax RATE reductions.
tbwil11 8 months ago
@tbwil11 Maybe it's the conservatives are the hypocrites. Noticed you didn't say anything about Ben stein or Trump. Guess conservatives never will admit that the class warfare being AGAINST the rich is a big lie. Ben Stein agreed. But, teabaggers want this country to return to the days of Daniel Boone. Where several have listed the taxes that our founding fathers didn't have to pay. And, they list taxes like the gasoline tax. One website said that ALL government spending is waste. (cont'd)
jrwel14 8 months ago
@jrwel14 (cont'd) And, when the website said that ALL government spending is a waste. They listed the Militray and the pentagon. So, guess we can't protect ourselves. Never seen 1 comment from a teabagger that would give a good reason why if low taxes are so good. Then, why did the country do so well in the 1950s with 91-92% rates. The more I hace checked. The more I have seen that too low taxes have done more harm than to much.
jrwel14 8 months ago
@jrwel14 And, finally tbwill11. You said,"who has done well I dont think to myself"the gov should take more of their money." People like you are so protective of the rich. Like all conservatives who want to give them tax cuts and cut programs that help theaverage. guy. Ryan for one. BUT, GIVING THE RICH TAX CUTS HAVE NEVER HELPED IN CREATING JOBS. PERIOD!
jrwel14 8 months ago
@jrwel14 No, "people like me" are protective of our individual liberties and we realize that a big govt with big entitlements robs a society of motivation and self reliance.You want to help the average guy then you create the environment and incentive for him to succeed and get out of his way, you dont try to give him a handout so he will become dependent on you.The rich pay more in taxes when incentives to shelter earnings is less AND IT DOES CAUSE EXPANSION IN THE ECOMOMY AND NEW JOBS
tbwil11 8 months ago
@tbwil11 look, the more I have checked on it. The more I have discovered that too low taxes as hurt. It never helped the people get jobs. never helped the economy. Just made the rich richer. Which is why one of the rich Buffet said what he did. And, a Republican economist agreed. (Ben Stein) Now, I bet he will be called a hypocite. It all started when another Republican (who you will call a hypocrite) reagan's budget director. Mentioned the Big Tax Lie of the Republicans. (cont'd)
jrwel14 8 months ago
@jrwel14 Please refute the numbers then
tbwil11 8 months ago
@tbwil11 "In those years where the top tax rate was 70% or above, GDP growth averaged 9.0% and job growth averaged 2.6%. Conversely, in those years where the tax rate was 40% or below, GDP growth was an anemic 4.4% and job growth was… well actually there was no job growth. The average for the 37 years where top tax rates were the lowest, job growth averaged zero!" Google "The Relationship Between Tax Rates & Job Growth" Can't copy and paste statements from over 3 dozen locations. (Cont'd)
jrwel14 8 months ago
@jrwel14 But, in anycase. Keep finding more locations on the internet where they dispute what the Conservatives say about low taxes are good. But, as that 1 man said, Trickle down has never worked. At least for the average guy. It was designed to help the rich only.
jrwel14 8 months ago
@jrwel14 Didnt you post under the name deficithawker or ubscared in previous months?
tbwil11 8 months ago
@tbwil11 Why should I? Have kept the same 1 account on Youtube since the beginning. look at when I signed up by going to my channel. have nothing to hide.
jrwel14 8 months ago
@jrwel14 Look, google is loaded with all kinds of left wing sources, you really have to try hard to come up with conservative sites, same with big media. Doesnt make them any more credible
tbwil11 8 months ago
@tbwil11 Left wing sources? Like the IRS? The bureau of Labor statistics? Those left wing sites? Now, on the conservative side. There is the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Think I heard that the last one was founded by the Koch brothers. Oh, yes. And, Foxnews. the Obama's trip to India cost as much as 2 billion.
jrwel14 8 months ago
@jrwel14 No one said the IRS was left wing...Gestapo maybe. Instead of doing the popular thing and smearing those sites you listed, why dont you give me the instances where they lied and please provide sources
.
tbwil11 8 months ago
@tbwil11 Never said the IRS was a leftwing site. YOU staated that the sources I have gotten my information from, Must be left wing. NEVER get my info from those sites. People would just dispute it. Some people say how Reagan lowered the unenployment rates. But, 1982 it was 9.7%, in 1983 it was 9.6&. He raised the debt 189%. He raised taxes 6-8 times. have to look at the correct figure. when taxes are higher. Corp. put the money back into the business. When, they are low, they keep it.
jrwel14 8 months ago
@jrwel14 Part1)You made a bit of a leap there, I didnt accuse you of anything and I didnt tell you to NEVER do anything, pal. Deficithawker had the same argument and tried to convince me that Reagan raised taxes, but the truth is in the details.
tbwil11 8 months ago
@jrwel14 PART2) ERTL in 81 cut all income taxes 25%. TEFRA in 82 was business and excise taxes and the removal of some business tax deductions.TEFRA was a sucker punch from democraps in that it was sold by promising $3 in cuts to $1in tax hike which they never delivered. Recovery started Nov 82 and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 90 when the tax increases of the 90 budget deal killed it,spending was 21.2 in 89
tbwil11 8 months ago
@tbwil11 And, you said that Recovery stated 1982 and lasted 92 months. What were the real tax rates in 1988-1990? 28%! Everytime the rates were very low. We had a Depression or Recession.Early 1990s, a recession. But, the times you mentioned where the economy did great. taxes were far higher. 1950s 91-92% That's so simple for anyone but conservatives. Conservatives love the rich at the expense of everyone else. Bachmann said she would support NO federal income taxes for 1 year.
jrwel14 8 months ago