Rachel Maddow GOP tax bonus for rich ignores failure of Reaganomics

[SilentExchange1]

2:30



[HopeForPeaceNow]

I love how BONER claims the rich need a tax cut with the AEI symbol behind him.

Any of you conservatives know who funds American Enterprise Institute?

Can you say "Corporate Power Grid"?

I knew you could.

[getplaning]

Economic growth has been slowing in the US for 30 years. Furthermore, marginal tax rates have been decreasing over the same 30 year period.Reducing tax rates did not make the economy grow. In the intermediate term, dramatic cutbacks in federal spending, along with further reductions in consumer spending driven by high unemployment are likely to further slow GDP growth over the next several years — and maybe longer. Reagan's legacy may be that he is the president that ultimately ruined America.

[Reynard13Fuchs]

Republican: We need to cut the taxes because eventually, the economy will be stimulated with the money of the higher wealth. We, the republicans, will invest and will take donations from corporations to keep tax cuts in place. The average American should start investing with like us too. The American Dream lives.

Average American: But I don't have any money to invest with. I'm already working two jobs along with my wife, and she's working two jobs too. And we still rely on Food Stamps.

(Cont.)

[Reynard13Fuchs]

Republicans: You don't get it, you should have already been investing, and if you had gone to college, you wouldn't be in the situation you are in now. It's really not my concern. Oh yes, we are also cutting welfare services, public services and increasing the social security age to manage the loss in tax revenue. But don't worry about your national security, we are increasing the National Defense budget to keep us safe.

[xadam2dudex]

Reaganomics was the stupidest idea I have ever heard..I couldn't believe how people believed this shit when he ran for office..how stupid can people be...I hate the rich.. they have stolen the 99% of people blind and impoverished the world for 1000's of yrs..these scumbag republicans should be push off a plank in shark infested waters

[jdick0009]

Of course here only represents part of the story. Between 1983 to 1987, the federal deficit fell from 6% to 3.2% of GDP. Between 1980 and 1988 GDP went from -.4% to 4.1%. Inflation went from 13% to 4%. The unemployment rate went down with 21 million new jobs. AND take into account that most of the spending increases were at the DoD which put the fork in the USSR we'd failed to do since the 50s. Not to mention, tax receipts went up after we cut taxes! What a clown this woman is.

[kandy1958]

Rachel sarcastically:" Rich people are the one who invest, give them money...." Why do liberals always say that a tax cut "gives" the rich people money. It's their money to begin with, NOT THE GOVERNMENTS MONEY.

[TAz69x]

@kandy1958 Do you understand the effect tax cuts have on the Federal budget, and the slowdown of the economy and cuts of jobs?

[kandy1958]

@TAz69x Yes I do. And so did Reagan. Rachel doesn't. She's a stupid liberal bitch on a stupid Liberal cable channel that very few people watch.

[TAz69x]

@kandy1958 LOL, no Reagan didn't

Wiki "Starve the Beast", there should be something there about the failed fiscal concept

[kandy1958]

@TAz69x OK, Reagan didn't understand economics, but Clinton did, right?

[kandy1958]

@TAz69x Wiki? You get your economics from Wiki? Now I understand. Good luck with that. Say, how's that hope and change working for you?

[TAz69x]

@kandy1958 haha, I expected that kind of response; no, UofA analytical economics courses did

peace my dumbass friend, when your reply doesn't even address my point, you're pointless to talk to, and have shit to offer

also check out their electron article, and point out the parts that are wrong

Wiki has basic outlines for generally known things, and even some of the obscure

you'd be fine to shut the fuck up and read a little before pointless internet sparring and baiting (your first post)

[kandy1958]

@TAz69x My first post was correct. The money belongs to the people who earned it. You are welcome to; as are all libs welcome to give ALL your money to Barry and see if he can create at least one job. OR perhaps I should assume you're on the gimme gimme end of this and you pay no taxes at all. Peace to you dumbass.

[kandy1958]

@TAz69x If you'd like your point addressed, see the top paragraph, then argue that point, then go fuck yourself. ENJOY!!!!

[TAz69x]

@kandy1958 LOL, I'm not even reading your replies anymore as they're entirely vacuous

just saw a +1 in my comment inbox, so had to remember to block your dumb ass and remind your retarded self to stop replying

[tbwil11]

Sept 30, 2003 NYTimes "The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Dunno why someone would mark this for removal. Must be someone who doesn't like to debate FACTS when it doesn't support their shortsighted view.

[MrClaydough]

@tbwil11 heh heh Removal? Like bullshit from ur bunghole? Bush had super majoritys and you rely on a newspaper clipping of Bush recommendation? heh heh WTF? Look moron...what bill was it that was denied? NAME OF THE BILL? DUH? IT DOESNT EXIST GOOBER. The Repugs did nothing about housing mkt, wall st/banks/fannie mae. In fact they did 'diddly fucking squat'. Except...turn us from a lender nation to borrowong from commies.

AND DONT SPAM ANYBODY...not this goober either. heh heh

[tbwil11]

@MrClaydough Because Ytube wont allow addresses to post. The name of the 05 bill was S. 190: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005. Now you can keep ignoring the facts I've been giving you if you want, doesn't make them any less true.Bush shoulda been more forceful conservative, less bipartisan, BTW,he didn't have a super majority, Obama did though.Dont know what u meant by spam comment, if someone would rather mark as spam instead of refute post then that makes them a pussy

[tbwil11]

@MrClaydough But the bigger message that should be gleaned from this debacle is that compassion should not be the role of the gov. This was gov meddling in the private sector combined with dereg without adequate oversight and Repubs should have been better at heading it off just like the class whorefare dems shouldn't have done it in the first damned place.

[MrClaydough]

The whole issue of 'Hey I'm your congressman/person and I'm going to cut your taxes is PURE BULLSHIT!

Hey...I'm going to vote in favor of a war!~

And I'm going to lower your taxes!

REALLY...'Why don't you fucking blow me instead, and we'll call it even'. heh heh

When you've cut them to zero, let me know.

[tbwil11]

@MrClaydough Dont like my hero Reagan huh, OK, lets look at history for a minute,in the 1920s, they dropped from 70% to less than 25%, revenues($ to the guv) rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928.Hoover raised rates in the 1930s,Roosevelt doubled down and raised them back to 90%. Kennedy saw hi tax hurting the economy, reduced the top tax rate from 90%to 70 and revenues climbed again from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968.Look it up, tax cuts of 20's, 60's and 80's.

[shandcunt]

It's funny how people still don't understand this, people that don't recognise their responsibility to pay taxes, why would anyone want people earning over $250,000 to get a tax cut, if you are earning over $250,000 a year you can afford to pay tax.

[441meatloaf]

@shandcunt

A lot of it in fact. Why people don't see it?? Perhaps they are blinded by Republicans and their propaganda. Republicans are always on tax cuts because majority of them are business man or owners in shares of a corporation. A prime example is the pharmaceuticals in USA. A lot of them are owned by Republicans and obviously they vouch for tax cuts and politicians get money from them to run their campaign.

[rickbar123]

Try to tell this to a Tea Bagger. Like talking to a rock.

[tbwil11]

@rickbar123 She flat out LIED at 5:33. Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s,taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners went from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.The rich pay more when incentives to hide income are reduced. All those increases in revenues were directly attributed to economic growth which is what happened when the govt lowers taxes.

[rickbar123]

@tbwil11 Your info comes from the Heritage foundation, sorry, don't waste the keystrokes.

[rickbar123]

@tbwil11 I did not attack anything. I did not discredit anything. Your right, I do not know where you got those numbers. Yes, the bike and the chickens are nice. Tx.

[kemo555555]

@tbwil11 - Well yeah, when the rich take on a larger percent of the wealth, of course they will pay more in taxes. Its simply math. Your playing with percentages to try to prove the lie of Reaganomics. Nice try. If you take in the big picture, you lose the argument.

[tbwil11]

@kemo555555 Well then why don't you just take this opportunity to explain specifically which percentages were played with and what your big picture is. While you are at it, enlighten me as to what exactly is someones fair share? How Much?

[MrClaydough]

@kaptkemoIQ55 heh heh Really Goober? Do you think it was an accident that Reagan had to raise taxes in 83, his 2nd year in office for middle class, as receipts had not kept up with spending? So you want to argue history do ya? Well....alrighty then. heh heh

Duh...nothing personal but if you or any other right wing fagaphonies want to take this to a Las Vegas betting line...baby needs new shoes.

[441meatloaf]

@MrClaydough

The fact is the government soon or later had to increase taxes. Its a golden rule in economics that of we don't want to increase taxes in the current period then taxes must increase in the second period because government budget must be covered by the taxes.

So Regan either way had to increase the tax either way at later periods. Even if Reagan cut govt spending the continuous war that USA had in the 80s in Afghan drove spending up.

[tbwil11]

@MrClaydough Do you even know the circumstances behind that 1983 tax increase or what it even was? No, because if you were informed on the subject you would realize the absurdity of your post. It was a "bi-partisan" compromise with the dems holding congress, specifically Tip Oneil to "rescue" that great ponzi scheme, Social Security.

[MrClaydough]

@tbwil11 83 Tax increase had nothing to do with Soc/Sec. It was because tax cuts for wealthy didn't bring in receipts to equal spending. Pure n' simple! BET ME?

Reagan tripled the fed/budget deficit...

Unemployment soared to 10.8% after tax break for upper crust...

Reagan grew the size of fed/govt....outdone only by Dubbers n HBush

He had largest tax raise in Cal/history

He raised taxes as Prez 11 times...7 out of 8 years.

Sold illegal arms to terrorist!

As you we're saying...heh heh

[tbwil11]

@MrClaydough That particular 1983 tax increase had EVERYTHING to do with SSI. In 83 a large Democratic majority in the House prompted Reagan to compromise with Tip Oneil, a 'bipartisan" effort. Executive Order 12402 January 15, 1983 created the commission. During the 1980s, after the tax cuts, total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent, income tax revenues climbed by more than 54 percent by 1989. The share of income taxes paid by the top 10% jumped from 48.0% in 1981 to 57.2 % in 1988.

[MrClaydough]

@tbwil11 THOSE ARE ALL LIES! Everyone...no such revenues existed. What ever gains we're mad it was by one Rayguns 11 tax increases.

LET ME EXPLAINS SOMETHING MORON! Soc/Sec does not go into general fund. It has nothing to do with the budget. It had nothing to do with Clinton balancing the budget nor Raygun n Bushies depleting the budget thru 'trickle down' unfunded war and tax breaks for upper crust.

[tbwil11]

@MrClaydough My whole point(that you missed) was that the 83 tax increase was a SSI increase ONLY. During the 1980s the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) of 1981 CUT personal taxes by 25%, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 cut them again. TOTAL federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990.Revenues from INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAXES rose from $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990.The rich pay more when incentives to hide income are reduced.

[MrClaydough]

@tbwil11 Ok...look. You're obviously a pretty decent guy. But ur bullshit info just dont fly They raised taxes in 83 Not on Soc/security Raygun raised taxes on the middle class As Tax breaks for da upper crust did pass Now don't make write a song And make you look like a right wing ding dong We can all be friend n disagree But when you piss down my back don't call it ....Rain mo fo heh heh BULLSHIT! All Ragonomics is pure Bullshit! Again...Reagan/Bush/created 75% of all debt!!

[tbwil11]

@MrClaydough Nope, you're wrong on this. That specific tax hike was Social Security Amendments of 1983

H.R. 1900/P.L. 98-21, signed into law April 20, 1983.Reagan did raise other taxes after the initial 81 cut, but he was great because of his ideology, less gov-more personal responsibility. That damn SSI is going broke. Look, my collar is blue but if I'd been able to take the money from fica taxes and invest it instead of paying it to the gov, I'd be getting ready to retire soon.

[tbwil11]

@MrClaydough As for the rest of the post, not sure where you are getting Rea/Bush created 75% of all debt, but WSJ article says" In 20 months, Mr. Obama will add as much debt as Mr. Bush ran up in eight years." Man the trail is about to leave the rails! I oppose Obama because of his leftist ideology. The first black president SHOULD have been someone with the mindset of a Tom Sowell or Walter Williams, look up their vids here on YTube instead of listening to this fact distorting snake, Maddow.

[MrClaydough]

@tbwil11 heh heh Again...more lies. Bush created 5.3 trillion dollar deficit, after budget surplus.

Obama was handed a job mkt, losing 3 million jobs from Bush last 12 months, and 'brink of great depression. Another thing you fagaphonies like to leave out, is Obama puts the wars on budget, and doesnt hide it in discretionary spending. Add interest and borrowing from Red China for 2 stupid wars..No wonder!

But hey..the prez is willing to cut lunches for poor people..that should make you happy.

[tbwil11]

@MrClaydough Now there you go again injecting unprovoked insults in an otherwise civil discussion with someone 3000 mi away (assuming ur on the left coast).We will find agreement in ur reference of GW's overspending via inability to veto pork though. The "stupid wars" reference I'd rather not debate... as a father of an Iraqi war vet and a possible Afghanistan for a second son I tend to get rather animated. I do support Obama's sending more to Afghanistan just like I did support GW when he did.

[Stingerbillion]

@MrClaydough I agree.

[MrClaydough]

@tbwil Thats the biggest Crock of Bullshit ever served. Not a fact from ur fagaphonie bunghole. Why did he create all the deficit? Duh? Oh...it was the commies. heh heh

Bushies and Reagan/3 presidents created more deficit than last 8 presidents!

So lets go back to Hoover. No..lets don't! More trickle down that didn't work, gave money to wealthy bankers, and thru deregs caused same depression we see today.

You lying ass morons want to argue numbers? Oh yeah! BLOW ME...

tax/rev climbed my ass!

[tbwil11]

@MrClaydough We will not be able to survive as a nation without a reduction in govt spending. From the WSJ; "In 20 months, Mr. Obama will add as much debt as Mr. Bush ran up in eight years. "From CNS "In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.

[441meatloaf]

@tbwil11

Really? then tell me why majority of economics history considers Reagan tax notion was a terrible policy?

Higher tax rate does not imply economic growth. Higher tax in the current period only implies that govt got more money to spend in the future which can lower taxes. Or higher tax rate now to cover for previous generations of bad debt.

Low tax rate does not directly lead to economic growth. Economic growth relies on other factors mainly on TFP. You suck at economics.

[tbwil11]

@441meatloaf We will need to grow our way out by emulating the lessons learned from the tax cuts of the 20's,60's & 80's.From L Whitman "The way to reverse the economic slowdown is to reduce government barriers to economic expansion imposed by high tax rates on working, saving, investing, and business development. The less government punishes these activities, the more these positive forces of economic growth will flourish". AND we need to show vigilance in keeping an eye on the govt's size

[shandcunt]

@tbwil11 Where can i get this totally factual information you mention? where did you get your figures?

[ihateumore100]

Tax break for the rich, middle class eat sh%$t, millionaires eat steak, " GOP Xmas ". I like that song.

[Vicious75]

The poorest American is still VERY WEALTHY compared with the rest of the global population. Some people live on less than a dollar a day. We are very fortunate to be Americans. We are very fortunate to live in America. And yet rather than be happy with what you have, you covet your neighbor's success.

[Madjacker08]

@Vicious75 Really? America is a great nation, so lets just stand back and watch republicans and the wealthy rape and pillage it until there is nothing left but decades of deficits to pay for. I am so priviledged to live here, how dare I have outrage.

[Vicious75]

@Madjacker08

The folks who are naive enough to think that the Democrats are Good and the Republicans are Bad crack me up. They are opposite ends of the same hog.

[AllanR2D2]

Why are Democrats so concerned with how much money the gov't has instead of the economic well-being of the American public? Democrats display deficits but never display gov't income from taxes. Gov't always spends more than they take in - unless there is a conservative Republican Congress slamming on the spending brakes. RINO Republicans may as well be Democrats. But Nancy Pelosi summed up the Democrats perfectly when she proclaimed, "it's so much fun spending other people's money!"

[441meatloaf]

@AllanR2D2

Democrats care about the money because Republicans spend too much and wasted it. If Democrats don't start putting a stopper on spending then govt actions can cause recessions. Especially the one we are having from 2008. Why did the housing crisis happen? Because the govt failure to look at the matter and dumb republicans decided to put more free lunch packages for the people and kept rolling the debt carpet longer.

Govt yes will spend more than they tax, but not always.

[tbwil11]

@441meatloaf If you think that the dem party is interested in curbing spending then send me a postcard from la la land. For every cut Obama put out there he proposed 6 spending increases. BTW it was dim wit Carters creation "Community Reinvestment Act" that was at the root of the housing crisis. It was given real teeth to set the ball rolling in 95 by another dem, Clinton. Bush tried to stop it, McCain tried to stop it and both were attacked by Maxine Waters(dem)and others as racists.

[MrClaydough]

@tbwil11 heh heh Repugs held control of both house for 12 years, which means held leadership in all committees. So now we learn that deregs and bundling of faulty mortgages and hedge funds along with 'trickle down' and Bushes 5.3 trillion deficit [as with Reagan 5 trillion] had nothing to do with collapse of Money mkt, Wall st and Housing/auto market.

Hhmmm. This sounds like a typical idiot who thought the A.R.M. [adjustable rate mortgage] was a great idea. Cool..I'll get the paperwork. lol

[tbwil11]

@MrClaydough Ahhh, but you overlook one of the root causes of the mess,sub prime mortgage securities,govt intrusion in the private sector thru Community Reinvestment Act, created by worthless Carter, then given teeth in 95 by Clinton. GW tried to stop it in o3, McPain in 05, but they were blocked by Dems Frank, Maxine Waters, Dodd etc.You offer a far too simplified synopsis in your post and it isn't accurate. The present Keynesian spending has added as much debt as Bush ran up in eight years.

[MrClaydough]

@tbwil11 05 Repugs held all 3 branches and control of 'the purse' and 'ALL COMMITTEES'. Say what? Does your bunghole get sore pulling this crap and calling it info. Was Waters or Frank head of committee...were there more Dems than Repugs on committee? DUH?

Reagan, Bush and Bush, created more Nat'l debt than 'ANY AND ALL OTHER PREVIOUS 9 PRESIDENTS! Sorry...now go by urself some 'Glenn Beck' vaseline.

Sorry...but the A.R.M. was single worst atrocity, to home buyers and R.E. Mkt. Still is...

[tbwil11]

@MrClaydough Why would you get so angry and insulting at a polite exchange of information?Are you denying the role of the Community Reinvestment Act in the housing debacle?Do you realize the variable rate mortgage(that you referenced in your post)was a tool used and concocted by Fannie Mae to increase the # of subprime loans that the banks HAD to issue or face stiff penalties?Did you know Prez O worked at Miner, Barnhill and Galland,a lawfirm that sued banks for not issuing enough subprimeloans?

[441meatloaf]

@tbwil11

You must be joking when you said Bush tried to stop it. Bush didnt give a jack shit in the economy. Bush's entire president years were trying to invoke middle east into giving USA more oil at a cheaper price and earning profit from the war.

Bush wasn't even bothered about the problems of ongoing mortgage and CDOs. In fact during the Bush admin, the problems got even worse when govt and Fed gave out more free lunch packages to the already current mortgage debt.

[tbwil11]

@441meatloaf I can assure you I was not joking when I told you that GW tried to put the brakes on it. Want proof? In 2003 GW proposed a new agency to oversee Fannie and Freddie. According to the Sept 30, 2003 NYTimes "The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." Barney Frank and Melvin Watts were two very vocal DEMOCRATIC opponents to the proposed reforms. Are you a US citizen?

[441meatloaf]

@tbwil11

If Bush proposed such a policy then why did banks in 2004 along with the feds proposed a shit policy of "No asset policy?" If the financial sector under GW was considered a overhaul then we wouldn't consider Bush a failure as US president to oversee problems.

[441meatloaf]

@tbwil11

McCain couldnt stop anything. McCain didnt even have any power to influence anything. (What are you smoking?) Clinton didnt stop anything either. But what Clinton did that Bush didnt was to keep an eye for the problem. Clinton made small policies in and out correcting issues keeping things under control and out of the water.

Bush drove into the water by lack of management and his obsession with war.

[tbwil11]

@441meatloaf While I never cared for McCain's "bi-partisan" tendencies (they usually ended up with his thumb in my eye)he did CO-SPONSOR A BILL called " The Housing Enterprise Regulatory Act of 2005"along with Hagel, Dole, and Sununu which would regulate Fannie and Freddie but it was blocked again by Dems Dodd and OBAMA among others.Google it, govtrack.us, bill s190. As far as your asinine statements on Clinton, he was a benefactor of the 94 congress and the contract with America.How old are u?

[441meatloaf]

@tbwil11

Obama is trying to impose higher taxes for the rich, but Dems are not as powerful as Republicans are in the USA so his proposition for higher taxes got rejected. Obama only cuts what needs to be cut. Obama's major spending only amounted to stimulus packages not other things.

[tbwil11]

@441meatloaf concerning your statements on Obama imposing higher taxes on the rich...WHY??? About 700,000 of those rich are the employers of folks, that's right, small business owners! It doesn't make ANYTHING "FAIR" WHEN THE BLOATED WASTEFUL INEFFICIENT GOVT GETS MORE OF PRIVATE CITIZENS MONEY...THEY JUST HAVE MORE TO WASTE!! Just because those covetous jealous ones who "CANT" want the gov to take away from those who "CAN AND DO"doesn't justify the plunder of achieving Americans.

[MrClaydough]

@tbwil11 Total bullshit from ur bunghole. If we set 'median tax rate for wealthy' back to Clinton era, we'd have no budget mess. Except for lying fake wars and Commie China bill to be paid [thanx dubbers] by our children.

Now what was so hard to understand, when i said that Reagan n' Bushies created 75% of all debt. And more debt than 'any and all' previous 9 Presidents.

Wouldn't wanna take that bet would ya? There is a Las Vegas betting line. heh heh

In fact 75% probably wrong..closer to 85%

[tbwil11]

@MrClaydough Dude, what is this fixation u have on bungholes? Doesn't sound healthy, would rather hear your rhymes.Regardless,you overlook an exceptionally thrifty 94 congress in the man whore's(slick willie) success as well as a couple of 90's "bubbles"(tech and housing).You cant consider urself to be intellectually honest if you dont take all of the dynamics of the time period into acct. I want smaller govt, its not about party affiliation.Do you agree with the present spending path we're on?

[tbwil11]

@MrClaydough I like and respect GW, gave my beer money for a couple of weeks to his first run against 'ol Woodie, I don't regret it for a minute.That being said it was folks like me who were his outspoken critics during his big spending second term and make no mistake about it we were very vocal. Some of his policies were thwarted by his base. I can honestly say it is not about party affiliation it IS about the ideology of self reliance and the defense of it from big gov "compassionate" leftists

[tbwil11]

@MrClaydough BTW, did you catch any of the Sowell or Williams vids I mentioned? What did you think of them?

[441meatloaf]

@tbwil11

So you think taxing more in middle class and lower class is more efficient than rich people?? That thinking is particularly why tax hikes like in Canada HST is the cause of decline in consumption which trickle effect to lower economic activity.

Poor people are already poor, you give them a higher tax rate then its the same as stealing their family income which leads them to spend nothing. Rich people don't contribute anything into the society except earns most of the wealth.

[tbwil11]

@441meatloaf I think you made a bit of a leap there Skippy,I don't want to raise taxes on ANYONE especially in a poor economy,I think there are plenty of cuts both in responsibilities and budgetary that can be made to get control of the deficit. "Rich people don't contribute anything into the society except earns most of the wealth"dude are you aware that a large # of those evil rich are small business owners who EMPLOY FOLKS?Do u realize the top 50% pay 97% of the fed tax burden here in the US?

[441meatloaf]

@tbwil11

And earn more wealth through investment in stock market. Who gains from these people?? Poor dont, neither does the economy. It is also the rich people that causes economic instability like the financial crisis and their mortgage buy ups.

So you think its efficient and fair to steal money from poor people's wallet?? It is exactly the reasoning why Laffer economics and Reagan tax economics are seen as poor decisions.

[tbwil11]

@441meatloaf Man you gotta let go of the coveting and class whorefare thinking. Do you have a 401k and is it invested mainly in stocks like mine and millions of other blue collar Americans? How specifically do "rich people cause economic instability"?Have you read the previous posts referencing the Community Reinvestment Act? You sound like you would prefer the gov to redistribute wealth from those evil rich folks but that totally disregards the virtue of freedom and controlling your own destiny

[tbwil11]

@441meatloaf Continued...controlling your own destiny. How? Because a gov big enough to GIVE you everything you need is a govt big enough to TAKE everything you have. Governmental "compassion" removes the important element of self motivation from the folks who benefit from the entitlements. "I dont have to worry about it, the gov (insert bureaucratic branch here) is taking care of it." Didnt we learn anything from the fall of the Soviet Empire?

[441meatloaf]

@tbwil11

And as well for that question I asked you and since you havnt responded yet, you dont know much about this side of economics issue.

[Muttdc12]

Exactly

[Muttdc12]

@ajendus

Show me your specific references and I'll be glad to research. Show me the history you're talking about and where you read it so I can see exactly what you're talking about. You sound like you really know what you're talking about so show me and maybe it'll change my mind.

[Muttdc12]

@moionfire

INCREDIBLY FALSE: The top 10% earned 45.77% of total income while they paid 69.94% of total income tax. Very patriotic on their part and very over-taxed on your part. Almost 50% of all households pay no taxes at all. Seriously? And you guys want to gripe that the "rich" don't pay enough. Stop the class warfare. It falls flat and is as old as the race card.

[nippletease]

obama sold out cuz these republicans r pausing everything in congress... nothing can get done becuz they want to give the rich a break, just like wat reagan did.. n as we can see.. ms maddow showed us perfectly tat giving tax cuts to these rich happy basterds dnt do shit for ne 1 else... obama sold out but idnt think he had ne other choice.. so once again the american people, no matter wat party they r in or support.. r fucked hard .. inside their tight asses .. imma watch porn, reality sucks

[Vicious75]

@nippletease

1. The Congress didn't vote to decrease taxes, they voted not to increase them. Calling that a tax cut is pretty ludicrous.

2. The Democrats had majorities is both houses of Congress. They could've railroaded any piece of legislation through that they wanted and the Republicans wouldn't be able to do anything about it because they don't have the votes.

3. Why do you want people who are two weeks away from being private citizens determining the direction of the nation?

[iLuvAkeys4ever]

The Republicans are Darwinists they believe in "only the strong will survive" to such an extent that they actually create policies to make the strong stronger and the weak weaker! (The rich richer and the poor poorer) If they succeed there will be a revolution in the USA.

[Muttdc12]

The top yen percent pay over seventy percent of all of the nation's taxes! How on Earth is that giving into their will?

[Moionfire]

@Muttdc12 That is because the top 10% earn 70% of all wealth.... Those who earn more should pay more...

[Vicious75]

@Moionfire

Many wealthy people pay more in a matter of years than you do in a lifetime...what's your beef? Sounds like you're jealous of the rich folk...

[TheMusketITuckedIt]

The sad thing about all this is that Republicans will get what they want and extend tax cuts for the richest Americans, whereas they refused to vote for an extension of unemployment benefits so desperately needed by so many just to stay afloat of the deep waters that is the consequences of this recession. Americans tend to have selective memory when it comes to these kind of things because we're now going to repeat history.

[Marchant2]

So, it's the baggers and other Righties who are out to destroy the country after all. Duh!! And Obama will play along. Maybe he's not as smart as we all hoped.

[johnsmaa]

Remember Obama's plan is almost the same thing. But, instead of tax cuts, where successful businesses are allowed to keep the money they earn, Obama favors granting *unearned* tax revenue to *failing* businesses in the form of bailouts. Economics is called "the dismal science" because it is a fact that the lifestyle of the poor can only improve when the rich get silly rich. By fighting it you only hurt everyone, dramatically, and that is why we are at the eve of economic collapse.

[HarrisonDG]

how could people not see that this ACTOR was a puppet of the military industrial complex? bush sr. even tried to have him assassinated, JFK-style!

[ugottabanass]

The tax rates are not the problem in the country, it is the people spending the

money.

Be they R or D they have never spent within their means...as we are forced to do.

If you "earned" 2 million this year, would you be happy about paying 600,000 to the government? Can the rich afford it? YES.. should they pay for constant waste? NOBODY SHOULD !! Seriously ...it would be great to make 2 mil. now tell me

if you did, that you would be happy to pay the 600,000

[HarrisonDG]

@ugottabanass ignorance at its best

[Vicious75]

Why the hell should the federal government be entitled to 70% of anyone's earning?

[canucks16]

@Vicious75 becasue they create the enviroment that allowed that person to earn so much money and it will hopefully be spent on those that need it.

[Muttdc12]

@evilgibson

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think you made the #1 argument in favor of term limits.

[Muttdc12]

@jay20872

You'll have to enlighten me since you are so much further evolved than I.

What is it about any of my post that make me a moron. Last time I checked, I made no assault on you. Why take that sort of tone toward me? Has internet anonymity completely trashed manners and civility?

[Muttdc12]

Why can't the Lefties understand that a tax on the rich is a tax on everyone? Rich people have mostly worked hard to be there. They are going to protect their profit margin. Raise taxes on them and the price of their product or service goes up. They still make the same but EVERYONE is paying more for EVERYTHING. Yes, even the more downtrodden (which us who they're trying to help the most) are now paying more for everything as well.

[smegmasaurus]

@Muttdc12 Regardless of what you think you know about the subject of economics, it is far from science and has no basis in reality. The truth is this: everything makes the price of everything else go up and nothing ever make the price of anything go down. Greed is infectious and incurable, it needs to be controlled. Unfortunately, the rich control the machinery of government and therefore they will always be free to indulge their greed and usurp more than their share of resources.

[mrjamesrex]

@smegmasaurus This reply makes me question whether you have idea on how the economy works, much less any idea on what the concept of economics is. 1) Poor people can't purchase resources, so the individuals who hold capital, actually deserve the resources that they purchase. 2) How do you propose to control greed without slowing the economy (GDP growth rates among European countries vs. US)? 3) You don't have anything to back up any of your assertions; at least economics tries.

[smegmasaurus]

@mrjamesrex Economics has no connection to the real world. It is not a science. It's doctrines are nothing more than assumption and speculation. I realized this after majoring in Finance for three years. So yes, I do know something of the "art" of economics. I was being facetious when I said "everything makes the price of everything else go up and nothing ever make the price of anything go down" but I guess you didn't get it.

[Jay20782]

@Muttdc12 You sir, are a fucking idiot.

[penn919]

@Muttdc12

So are you suggesting that we all just bend over for the rich and give in to all their demands? You don't get it dude, surrendering to their every will is exactly what's keeping us down. Their only interest is in acquiring more wealth for themselves and screwing over the little guy. If they had it all their way, it would be impossible for any of us to achieve their level of success. That's because blocking small businesses from entering markets is part of their business. wise up man.

[ajendus]

@Muttdc12 Specious reasoning; in practice is doesn't work that way. It just doesn't. Really... it doesn't. History tells a story that your logic contradicts.

[elitesoldier55]

regardless if trickle down economics works or not the rich don't pay ANY taxes because they keep their money offshore. No taxes in the caymans!!

[mrjamesrex]

If you take a drop of food coloring, a condensed $88,025 drop of food coloring, and drop it into a bowl of water, the coloring will diffuse throughout the water. It will not remain as a single drop like it was before. It will not suspend itself in the water, floating as a chunk of coloring. It will spread out and reach the edge of the bowl; it will change the color of the water. No, it won't be the same as the condensed drop, but it will color the water. And the water will be better off.

[smegmasaurus]

@mrjamesrex That is one of the worst, if not the worst analogy I have ever heard. Are you quoting someone? If so please share the source.

[mrjamesrex]

@smegmasaurus No. But the analogy holds when discussing the idea of the money multiplier, which is the basis of the "trickle-down" theory. Individuals have two options in with their money: consume or save. If an individual consumes, they purchase goods with money. These dollars then flow into the bank accounts of the producers of the goods, who then choose to consume or save with it. If I split my consumption among 90 different producers, I would raise each person's wage by a smaller amount.

[smegmasaurus]

@mrjamesrex That sounds very nice on paper and makes you sound smart, but your analogy still makes me cringe. Economic assumptions (I hesitate to even give them the authority of the word ""theory") can not be compared to a chemical reaction which can be scientifically measured and reproduced.  However, since you seem to be so fond of it, allow me to play along.

[smegmasaurus]

@mrjamesrex Your food coloring is equivalent to the amount of excess wealth the richest people will gain from these tax cuts. The glass of water represents the wealthy people who will benefit from the tax cuts. The food coloring will be distributed among them, but not to the people who really need it because they are not in this glass(class) They are in a nearly empty cup that is evaporating as fast as any trickle from the rich glass drops in. (Disgusting economic assumption.)

[mrjamesrex]

Ms. Maddow stated that 90% of Americans only had gains of $636 on their wages. She also stated that 1% of Americans had gains of $88,025 on their wages. Therefore, if we weight the gains in wages by the percentages of the population, the following results occur. 1 Wealthy American gains $88,025 and 90 poor Americans (total) gain $57,240. A difference of $30785 results. So yes, rich Americans gained $30,785 more dollars than poor Americans.

[Vicious75]

@mrjamesrex

how can 90% of Americans be poor? Where the hell are we? Africa?

[mrjamesrex]

It should be understand that a tax cut is not a giving back of some individuals portion of income. It is taking less of an individuals income. A tax cut for the rich is not a refund from the government. It is still money that an individual had to earn. It is still money that an individual had to allocate time to gain. Reagan's tax cuts are not the driving force behind an increase in the national debt; the Cold War is. Quite a large confounding factor when evaluating the tax cuts.

[sirius300zx96]

We (Cheney and Bush) didn't learn about Vietname. So we repeat the same mistake with Iraq. We didn't learn what happened econimcally in 1980s. Now it's going to repeat. Thank you repugnantcans and your voters... actually not.

[Vicious75]

@sirius300zx96

YOU ARE A FLAMING EFFING MORON!

Bush and Cheney just didn't go to war on their own. They got permission from Congress. Congress isn't supposed to do that shit. That's why we have a process for Declaring War.

What you're saying is that you're pissed off at George W. Bush and Dick Cheney because the Congress didn't learn the lessons of history or follow their rules. Hell, there are Congressman who were in Congress before we were in Vietnam and they VOTED to let this happen.

[sirius300zx96]

@Vicious75 Hey who lied to Congress you certified Jackass about WMD, Yellowcake...

[Muttdc12]

Cont.

Strict communism has done.

[Muttdc12]

Down to an individual level.

I am interested in encouraging entrepreneurship rather than basically punishing it when it's a success. I'm not saying they shouldn't be taxed but some think they should be responsible for everything, every program, and everyone in this nation. There will ALWAYS be overachievers and underachievers. I just don't know how you balance human nature through government. There is no bill or program, short of communism, that will ever do that. An we've all seen how well st

[Muttdc12]

I agree 100%. no matter your side. They are ALL doing more harm than good. I have to state again, I am real and the business situation I stated earlier is real. You do not fix that by demonizing rich people and business owners any more than you can fix it by defending people that will not get a job because it will keep them from qualifying for welfare. the solution is somewhere between and the class warfare that the parties have created does nothing but destroy the country down to an individual

[evilgibson]

Those that argued trickle down actually worked, you are very shortminded of what actually happened.

Management vs Unions increased, bloodthirsty CEOs came and went through companies savagely removing American's from their jobs before they moved on, job security became a bonus, not a right.

Let me ask, how many of you actually have a company-owned retirement plan in the previous decade? Oh, that's right. No one.

[Vicious75]

@evilgibson

The only part of the economy where union membership is growing is in the public sector. Public sector jobs are commonly funded by taxes.

Unions always try to negotiate more for their membership.

So if Unions are trying to negotiate for more, and the people they represent have jobs funded by taxation what do you think is going to be happening to taxes for the rest of your life?

[spacezupe]

Actually it did trickle down...in China.

[Muttdc12]

mostly to blame for the slow "recovery."

[Muttdc12]

Cont.

can't help but trip over their own idiocy.

To make it as real as possible; I own a small business and would like to expand. If my taxes go up or I continue to feel squeezed by this government, I will not. If I were to expand, it would create construction jobs and a new full time job. That is lost when people like me feel confused by what our government is doing or has planned for the future. I don't know how you label where this fits or how you may demonize it but it's a fact and it's m

[Muttdc12]

I don't expect to change anyone's mind as you will certainly not change mine.

I tire of the class warfare. I am not rich and would not be affected directly if the "rich" had to pay more. I have never had a ton of money and have never felt that the rich were evil or that I deserved something of theirs. I try to discuss, not attack. I would appreciate the same courtesy in your replies to me. I think that is more productive than trying to make those that disagree appear to be mere morons that can

[Muttdc12]

Cont..

Better economy. She left out the fact that the government takes in more total revenue when taxes are lower and people are out spending.

[KaizerRyu83]

@Muttdc12 This is an oft repeated and demonstratively false claim. When taxes are cut in the way Reagan did so, the government sees its revenue crumble and we end up with the exploding deficits he and GW left us. When the income tax was upwards of 90% on the middle of the last century, we were doing quite well as a country. Our economy has been on a rollercoaster ever since the top tax bracket was given such a huge reduction, and it's no secret why to anyone who actually understands the issue.

[KaizerRyu83]

Bah. I meant to say "when the Income tax was upwards of 90% *on the top tax bracket*", not in general.

[Muttdc12]

Republicans absolutely care about poor people too. That's just ridiculous to post that. NOBODY likes to see people struggle and i don't care what party to identify with. Don't you get tired of the "class warfare" argument? The tax cuts were across the board. And be honest; "poor" people don't pay taxes anyway. I made very little money ten years ago and got money back. I didn't save that money. I spent it. That's the idea. More money in EVERYONE'S pocket, more spending by us as individuals, bett

[jephbennett]

@Muttdc12

There's nothing ridiculous about posting facts and logically sound beliefs.

Republicans have used every opportunity to weaken or destroy any support systems for the poor, and in doing so have funneled vast amounts of resources from the middle class to the wealthiest 2% of the country. They are bought and paid for by corporate wealth and big business and everybody except the most foolish know it.



[jephbennett]

The fact that you think getting "money back" means you were both poor and not paying taxes is ludicrous. A couple making $50k/year pay over $6k in taxes. Getting back $1800 doesn't enable them to purchase a home, because all credit has been locked up due to a housing crash cause by deregulation, another gift from the conservative republicans. Every time republicans are in charge, jobs go DOWN and the debt goes UP, so forgive us for not buying your poison philosophy.

[evilgibson]

@Muttdc12

I don't think Republicans nor Democrats see it like you think. #1 priority on their plate is to always get reelected. Which is easier 1) Getting a couple thousand from hundreds of voters from donators 2) One big score from the super rich who just wants you to "take another gander" at a few bills.

It wouldn't matter if Jesus, Ghandi, or Buddha were president, it would not remove congressmen greed.

[jstnxprsn1]

The obvious thing is being overlooked in this debate. The tax cuts have been in effect for years, SO WHERE ARE THE FREAKIN" JOBS?

Everybody should be working by now, instead a huge number of Americans are out of work. There's another name for "trickle down economics" -

Golden Showers"

[ShinobiBoiX]

Is it just me, or do a lot of people in this country still hold a strong belief in this "Reaganomics" method?

[strifeprime]

I don't agree with Rachel on many things, but on the failure of Reaganomics, she is dead on.

[undri]

cut all taxes, boycott the government.

[lyletuck]

@undri Hello. If you're trolling, I'll bite. No taxes means no public schools, no public libraries, no public transportation, no army, no navy, no air force, no coast guard, no marines, no firemen, no police, no street crews, no street lights, no parks, no public fountains, no public trash cans, no public postal service, no medical care for old people, no disaster relief for floods or storms or quakes or volcanoes. Does that really sound good to you?

[undri]

@lyletuck You started out right by adding the term "public" in front of those services. However I hope you're not implying that the only reason any of those services are available to the people is the government and without the government nobody else could do any of that?

Because obviously, streets can only be built by politicians. -.-

[tylerlikesmen1]

@undri lol tardface

[suckithardnfast]

WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?! How could anyone have let something like this go ahead? I am glad I wasn't a taxpayer in the 80s!

[cambonator]

@suckithardnfast

You're still paying into Reaganomics. The tax policies have not really changed since then....

[mj9collins]

@suckithardnfast It's worse now. Reagan cut taxes from 70% to 50% on the top bracket, now is is 34ish%?

[clemsonpoker]

If Democrats sold truth half as effectively as Republicans sell their lies, America might not be in such a downward spiral.

[Liivey]

Americans WAKE UP and realize that the Republican leaders just don't give a damn about the poor and the struggling middle-class who have faced a recession. PEOPLE .....THEY DON'T CARE ! They are fighting for the wealthy 2% while they ignore the 98% middle-class. Giving TAX BREAKS to the wealthy didn't work during the Reagan presidency, it DIDN'T WORK during Bush's presidency and it just WON'T work this time around.

750,000 jobs were lost under GWB. OBAMA must fight back NO comprise.

[RalucadnelpS]

@Liivey youtube comments will change the world

[HarrisonDG]

@Liivey and how are the democrats different? oh wait, theyre WORSE. people hide behind this false left-right paradigm, but if you take a step back you can see that obama is just as bad as bush and worse. we're still in wars for no reason other than financial, hes giving trillions to corporations that are in the gov't pockets like NBC. werent we supposed to leave middle east by 2011? oh wait then it was 2012. now its 2014. whats next? tnx obama for tricking the masses into believing in ur"change"

[xaviqaz]

@Liivey Switzerland: the wealthy pay 11.5% to the federal government. Big corporations pay 8.5%. And the people are not starving. The country is doing well, unemployment is below 4% and budgets are balanced.

[441meatloaf]

@Liivey

Obama cannot fight back against the republicans. Several months ago Obama agreed to cut taxes for the rich for a certain time period upon that the Republicans must guarantee that after Obama presidency end they will increase the taxes.

And that notion has already been signed in the congress. Reason why Obama want to do it?? Probably Obama is losing his presidency and support and internal power in the government especially all those idiots that opposed his Health Plan and tax hikes.

[Stingerbillion]

@Liivey I agree. F-ing republicans!

[Avery1now]

<3 Rachel.