Forums | MacLife

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

You're all generalizing too much.
In my little area people have been bitching for 20 years about government spending.

Uh-huh. And have they been voting for the party that believes in taxing and spending or the party that believes in spending and cutting taxes?

Illinois has a mixed voting record over the years. The last several have been throw the bums out mode state wise. We had a long string of Rep governors with a long history of Dem US Senators for instance.
You might have heard of Durbin and Obama

In this county, finances are under control. The local polls lives wouldn't be worth living if they didn't control spending.

robco wrote:

So, when can we declare Reaganomics a failure? Tax cuts != economic prosperity.

Tax cuts or deficit stimulus spending are only slightly different methods of the same general strategy.
Are you saying the Obama policy is a failure?

I wonder what kind of spending exactly has been bitched about in the IL neck of the woods kev inhabits.

edit:
beddy's keyboard is quicker.

Last edited by daemon (2009-09-28 9:00 pm)

Farmerkev wrote:

daemon wrote:

I wonder what kind of spending exactly has been bitched about in the IL neck of the woods kev inhabits.

Federal and state (it's a mess too).

Yeah. We're all in a fix.

I meant specific appropriations.

maybe you should move out here and grow potatoes.

Farmerkev wrote:

robco wrote:

So, when can we declare Reaganomics a failure? Tax cuts != economic prosperity.

Tax cuts or deficit stimulus spending are only slightly different methods of the same general strategy.
Are you saying the Obama policy is a failure?

No, they're not. Tax cuts don't give us anything. Tax cuts benefit the wealthy. Cutting the tax rate on the most wealthy has only served to make the wealthy more wealthy.

The stimulus is keeping ordinary people employed and going to projects that will help everyone. Only a small fraction of the population benefits by cutting taxes on the wealthy. Trickle-down economics is a myth.

robco wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

robco wrote:

So, when can we declare Reaganomics a failure? Tax cuts != economic prosperity.

Tax cuts or deficit stimulus spending are only slightly different methods of the same general strategy.
Are you saying the Obama policy is a failure?

No, they're not. Tax cuts don't give us anything. Tax cuts benefit the wealthy. Cutting the tax rate on the most wealthy has only served to make the wealthy more wealthy.

The stimulus is keeping ordinary people employed and going to projects that will help everyone. Only a small fraction of the population benefits by cutting taxes on the wealthy. Trickle-down economics is a myth.

That's simply not true. The tax cuts helped the middle class and took millions more people off the tax payer rolls as well as added to the money supply.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/102.html

Farmerkev wrote:

That's simply not true. The tax cuts helped the middle class and took millions more people off the tax payer rolls as well as added to the money supply.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/102.html

That's not quite the entire story though, is it...

WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 — Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.

The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline.

Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners.

Though tax cuts for the rich were bigger than those for other groups, the wealthiest families paid a bigger share of total taxes. That is because their incomes have climbed far more rapidly, and the gap between rich and poor has widened in the last several years.

Put another way: rich families were the undisputed winners from President Bush’s tax cuts, but people in the bottom half of the earnings scale were not paying much in taxes anyway.

Which would be great, if we weren't running huge deficits. 

Link.

bratboy wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

That's simply not true. The tax cuts helped the middle class and took millions more people off the tax payer rolls as well as added to the money supply.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/102.html

That's not quite the entire story though, is it...

WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 — Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.

The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline.

Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners.

Though tax cuts for the rich were bigger than those for other groups, the wealthiest families paid a bigger share of total taxes. That is because their incomes have climbed far more rapidly, and the gap between rich and poor has widened in the last several years.

Put another way: rich families were the undisputed winners from President Bush’s tax cuts, but people in the bottom half of the earnings scale were not paying much in taxes anyway.

Which would be great, if we weren't running huge deficits. 

Link.

Robco said the only people helped were the rich and I showed that wasn't true.

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

You're all generalizing too much.
In my little area people have been bitching for 20 years about government spending.

Uh-huh. And have they been voting for the party that believes in taxing and spending or the party that believes in spending and cutting taxes?

Illinois has a mixed voting record over the years. The last several have been throw the bums out mode state wise. We had a long string of Rep governors with a long history of Dem US Senators for instance.
You might have heard of Durbin and Obama

In this county, finances are under control. The local polls lives wouldn't be worth living if they didn't control spending.

Right. Says the guy in one of the most corrupt states in the union.

I'd rather have a person who favored tax and spend in office than a slash and spend conservative.

Everyone forgets that Bush 43 has destroyed two budget surpluses, and left the economies of both entities in much worse shape than when he entered either office.

I feel like I should mention PAYGO a few more times, and the Republicans failure to renew it, and the total lack of grass-roots conservative comment on it.

As well as the fact that increasing the deficit during the boom of a business cycle is extremely irresponsible.  Points I haven't seen a single conservative protester make.

radarman wrote:

The only people left who support Reaganomics are the wealthy, and the mentally incompetent.

I'd like to see the research behind that claim. How are the researchers defining "mentally incompetent' ??