Why Reagan/Bush Tax Cuts hurt the economy PT1

The result of Reagan/Bush tax cuts is bad news for the economy. Thom Hartmann explains clearly how tax cuts do NOT equal jobs.

PART 2 is located here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pqe8gQOu3k

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Reaganomics
• tax
• cuts
• breaks
• republican
• democrats
• tcot
• teaparty
• economics
• economy
• recession
• depression

[fleaone2000]

The federal government has a $1.2 trillion unfunded obligation to pay medical costs for retired federal workers and military personnel. Medicare and Social Security push the nation’s unfunded promises above $50 trillion.

[boredjoewo]

@fleaone2000 In a previous video of mine Alan Greenspan explained how the Reagan tax cuts made the fiscal issues we now face WORSE. ALAN GREENSPAN said Trickle Down FAILED as it allowed the negative compounding of dollars. If you compound money to the positive at lowlevels you generate massive amounts in time however if you make cuts you see the contrary results...you lose more money down the road. The Reagan tax cuts did not pay for themselves nor did the Bush tax cuts hence the hole is deeper

[fleaone2000]

Tax cuts are for all taxpayers, not just business owners! In addition, the business owner does spend personal money and spends it on products that creates jobs all over the United States!

[boredjoewo]

@fleaone2000 We have seen what the rich do with their tax breaks...and that is either send it to a Swiss bank account or China. BOTH kill our economy by actually reducing the money circulating within the USA. If someone is rich...they have money in the bank. So why dont they hire people if they have money in the bank already? Giving them more is not prodding them to do something with it.BTW for rich people to hire people they need to RETURN the cash to the company debunking the "rich hires" meme

[2112fastjazz]

@fleaone2000 Dear fleaone2000. The explanation is correct. For #1 Your right, everyone gets a tax cut, but 20% out of a Million, is alot different than 20% of 30 or 40 thousand. Duh. #2 We use government to employ Police, Fire Fighters, Military, Education, infrastructure rebuilding & social services just to name a few. Are you saying all those things are a waste of money?? Hell, we should be able to health care to the list, but we can't because of too many GREEDY people on top control congress

[Deanlaw]

Everyone knew this in the 30's? Then why did the Great Depression last the entire decade? This guy's argument is based on the premise that if the rich keep their money others can't make any. That's completely ignorant. In e-v-e-r-y case where taxes were cut, including JFK, Reagan and Bush, tax revenues significantly increased. The Bush tax cuts resulted in a doubling of tax revenues. Supply side creates wealth. Demand re-allocates it.

[Tsnore]

REM's epithet for the Reagan period - Ignoreland - is still appropriate.

[fleaone2000]

All this guy is about is spending money that he has not earned!

Most people know how to spend their own money better than any government agency.

The only money that should be spent is outlined in the U.S. Constitution. Any thing else is done for political reasons for incumbents to get reelected!

If you do not understand the basic principle of economic freedom, then what you will get is a "planned society" from Progressives along the lines of Germany and Russia that started in the late 30's

[fleaone2000]

Explanation is incorrect! Thorn is pacing and leading people to believe that all tax cuts go to business people. WRONG! Also, using government as an employment source is a waste of money! Once a government worker is hired, automatically the U. S. taxpayer goes on the hook for even higher taxes to pay a salary that is higher than what private industry would pay & puts taxpayers on the hook for fringe benefits and retirement benefits that most of us can only dream of. A prescription for socialism!