if you believe the wealthy do not pay their share, then you should research it, because you are ignorant. the fact is you cannot possibly understand the tax code if you think the rich get off easily. saying that is ignorant or dishonest, plain and simple.
It seems to me that the right wingers here keep bragging about how much money they are making. Well, that must mean that Bill Clinton's Presidency must have put a few dollars in their pockets. And it also begs the followup question that if they are doing so well, why did they need the tax cut so bad? After all, Bush is borrowing money to pay for the tax cut. How does that make America stronger?
There are many reasons that the tax cuts will prove to be beneficial to the American Economy. First of all, tax cuts have been proven to help raise federal revenue as seen by the revenue expansion of the 1980s. Starting in 1981 and ending in 1983 President Reagan reduced taxes by 25 percent, also in those years the federal revenue dropped from 312.5 billion to 275.3 billion. However, starting in 1984 federal revenue started to increase and in 1986 reached a level that was higher than when the first tax cuts were first introduced in 1981. In 1986 a 3 percent increase for the top marginal rate was introduced and most of the upper income taxpayers would pay at least 31 percent. The very next year federal revenue dropped from 346.5 billion to 325.0 billion, then in 1988 the federal revenue jumped up to 349.0 billion and in 1989 jumped to 354.4 billion. It also helps to raise the GDP, gross domestic product, had an average growth of 3.5 percent. This is compared to the years 1990-2001, when taxes were increased, where the GDP only had an average growth of 2.95 percent. Tax cuts also lead to job growth due to increased consumer spending that in turn leads to businesses making more of a profit and being able to hire more people. Take for example the Reagan tax cuts that led to the creation of 20 million jobs. From 1980-82 the unemployment rate rose 7.0 to 9.5 percent, however when the tax cuts started taking effect in 1982 the unemployment rate started to drop and by 1989 it had dropped 4.3 percent, from 9.5 percent to 5.2. Income also grows as a result of tax cuts from 1981-1989 the median family income rose from $32,190 to $36,062. The median income for males rose from $ 19,372 to $20,968 and the median income for females rose from $7,848 to $10,144. All that information was gleaned from many different websites, most of it came from link though
The tax revenues under Reagan rose because the economy went into an inevitable upswing, similar to what it is doing right now. If nothing is done to the economy it will rise and fall on its own. That is what happened under Reagan. Every time the economy rises, guess what folks? Tax revenues rise. But apparently to right wing dittoheads, they think this very logical and natural phenomenon, which occurred under Reagan also, was due to TAX CUTS. In fact the tax cuts resulted in huge budget deficits rising every year of Reagan's Presidency as they went from about $68 billion when he took office to nearly $300 billion when he left. The National Debt spiraled out of control under Reagan and it took Reagan's successors nearly ten years to get it all back under control from his irresponsible fiscal policy, a policy that Bush is determined to duplicate.
I have several times referred to right wing mythology or right wing dogma, which is nothing more than a series of right wing lies that the average right wing idiot WANTS to be true, so they repeat them over and over until people assume that they ARE true. It is the same principle as Hitler's BIG LIE theory. But a lie is still a lie. One of these tenets of right wing mythology is that Reagan's tax cuts RAISED tax revenue. It is a lie. When the Economy rebounded with one of its inevitable upswings, right wingers claimed that the natural rise in tax revenue was due to tax cuts. Reagan's tax cuts resulted in huge out of control Budget deficits and an enormous increase in our National Debt. Another tenet/lie of their mythology is that "Reagan won the Cold War." When Reagan took office he was told that the USSR was tottering on the brink of economic collapse. He ignored it, pictured the Soviet Union as this huge constant threat and raised defense spending when it was unnecessary. When it did collapse, as the CIA had predicted it would to Reagan in 1980, the right wing comic book minds claimed it was all due to Reagan. Another lie.
I might add also that Reagan's fiscal policy was not only not novel or "conservative" but was in fact based on John Maynard Keynes theories, who was the arch liberal of the Depression who has been hated by every right wing moron for 70 years. Keynes said that deficit spending would pump new money into an economy and would give it a SHORT TERM shot in the arm or boost and would create jobs in the short run. That is what Reagan did. Keynes did NOT say that govts should adopt it as a permanent method of running their business. Right wingers have adopted it apparently as a permanent philosophy (Note Cheney saying that "deficits dont' matter, Reagan proved that."), renamed it "supply side economics," and have marketed its a a flim-flam con job on the American people as a way to have it all, but never have to pay for it. Well, we will "have to pay for it." Not now, but in the decades to come when the bills come due.
Voodoo Economics, it's a Republican Tradition Using a massive tax cut for the wealthiest Americans to fire up the economy is a brilliant idea. In theoryÉ Unfortunately in the real world theory is often far from fact. In theory, it is analogous to generating electricity by use of a controlled fusion reactor. Simply put, a massive influx of power applied to the reactor is required to heat the reactor material up until it attains a point of critical mass, after which it is able to continue easily on itÕs own power, thereby creating a dirt cheap self sustaining electrical supply. Sounds great in theory but even though multiple billions have been spent in the effort it has yet to happen in reality. A large top loaded tax cut is a lot like that initial influx of power needed to drive the reactor to critical mass. It has been tried in the past and has yet to pay back more money towards long term national debt reduction than was initially pulled out of the treasury to fuel the process. When we the taxpayers accept a top loaded tax cut like BushÕs, we are in effect gambling with our federal treasury money that the wealthiest people will invest their tax savings wisely in American business and in so doing, make so much more personal profit than they would have made otherwise without that additional investment that, even at the lower rate, they will send more money into the treasuryÕs coffers while at the same time stimulating the economy. Unfortunately, the ultra wealthy and corporations are far too savvy to fall for that. They stimulate the economy all right, but by the use of every tax loophole imaginable, some legal some not so legal, they manage to avoid paying their taxes. This in effect results in a net increase in the budget deficit and a further strain on the economy due to the interest that must be paid on the debt which by definition ballooned when we gave the investors that free loan with which to make more profit for themselves in the first place. So big tax cuts do stimulate the economy but they donÕt help lower the ever growing budget deficit that makes our government more dependent on foreign money backing the loans paying the interest on AmericaÕs long term debt because tax avoidance among the wealthiest Americans stops the economy and government synergy from ever achieving the critical mass required to sustain itself. Without the theoretically projected tax money generated by the additional profits being paid, the tax cut in reality is not fiscally responsible tax policy for the government but simply a windfall profit for the Republican core constituency, the ultra wealthy, and a free handout to them from the rest of us. In addition, once we as patriotic citizens have dutifully invested our tax refund in American businesses, these same businesses have begun to outsource their manufacturing and service jobs out side the country, costing jobs and income for Americans while the companies still enjoy their new massive tax cut and near negligible taxes. What would Dubya do, you ask? ÒOne of the ways we've got to make sure that we keep our economy strong is to be wise about how we spend our money. If you overspend, it creates a fundamental weakness in the foundation of economic growth. And so I'm working with Congress to make sure they hear the message -- the message of fiscal responsibility.Ó Bush Òstressing Budget Discipline and Fiscal Restraint in Iowa [9/16/02] About 6 months after this statement, Bush proposed his budget that would sink the government more than $374 billion into deficit. National Journal noted on 2/12/02, that BushÕs own 2004 budget figures show that without the Bush tax proposal, the deficit would drop after 2006, but with the Bush tax cuts the deficit will continue to grow.
Some Bush numbers: 29,000- The number of American troops killed, wounded, injured orbecome so ill as to require evacuation from Iraq. This totals almost an entire divison. 0-Number of WMD found in Iraq. $100 billion- The cost of the war in Iraq ti the American people by the end of 2003. 1983-The year Donald Rumsfeld presented Saddam Hussein with a pair of golden spurs $127 billion dollars Amount of US budget SURPLUS in 2001 when GWHB became president. $374 bilion- Amout of US budget DEFICIT in fiscal year 2003 $1.58 billion-Average amount the US national debt increase each day 1.57 million- record number of bankruptcies in 2002 2.4 million- number of Americans who have lost jobs since Bush took office 1,000- number of new jobs created since December 9,000,000- number ofd Americans unemployed $10.9 million-Average wealth of Bushs' original cabinet $42,000- averagsavings each member of cabinet is expected to save in taxes as a result of tax cuts on capitalgains and dividend taxes $116,000-Amount VP Cheney is going to save from these tax cuts 43.6 million Americans without health care 58 million-Number of acres of public lands opened to road building, logging and drilling and mining. 200- numberof public health and environmental laws Bush has attempted to downgrade or do away with. Regarding "outsourcing" of American jobs: Sending jobs overseas help U.S./ Pres. Bush supports the shift of U.S. jobs overseas. Seattle Times/L.A. Times "When a good or service is produced more cheaply overseas, it makes more sense to import it than to make or provide it domestically" Gregory Mankiw, White House economist Hourly wage rates in some of the countries where we are "outsourcing": Colombia-$1.05 Costa Rica-$2.36 Dominican Republic-$1.62 El Salvador-$1.38 Haiti-$0.49 Honduras-$1.31 Jamaica-$1.80 Nicaraugus-$0.76 Source-Womens Wear Daily Some firms that have "Outsourced": Aetna Alamo Rent-a-car American Standard American Express At&t NBlack and Decker Levis Strauss Lee Jeans Kwikset Locks Eastman-Kodak The list goes on and on. Would someone please explain to me how losing all these jobs is good for America. :geaux: :helmet: :lsug: :helmet: :geaux:
What a crock. The rich before Bush were hardly oppressed tax-wise. Under our old tax laws, we enjoyed the longest economic expansion in our history which created thousands of new rich people. To argue that Bush was "liberating" our oppressed rich people is a joke. What he was doing was buying votes.
