What are you going to do confiscate their wealth and have the former middle class gather and throw cash out for them to grab? That's not how it works. The left wants everyone to focus on hatred and resentment of the wealthy because it lets everyone ignore the fact that socialistic policies actually do NOTHING to grow the middle class or help the poor or anything else. Liberal economic policies that favor free enterprise and competition and reward risk taking help them. As well as the wealthy.

This is a complete chicken-or-the-egg scenario. There is no downside for a wealthy person to keep all of their money. None. If the money funnels up and stays there, no I'm-gonna-call-you-all-communists-whenever-I-want diatribes are gonna change that.

That's not true. FIrst of all we are not speaking of wealthy individuals but of companies. Companies from large to medium to small naturally seek to grow and expand. They will always do so unless given disincetives. When they grow they create opportunity for the rest of society.

I realize you worked for the financial industry. The financial industry was totally screwed up through the removal of proper incentive. Risk was eliminated and therefore foolish irrational economic decisions were made. In many ways this led to the crisis. These companies should have been allowed to fail or should not have been allowed to control so much capital that their failure could destroy the whole system. The macro laws hold true however. Entities will do what they percieve to be in their rational self interest if left alone and that will help society as a whole through growth and expanded capital and opportunity.

Rich raised the question "What has a rich person ever done to you?" I found this question at face value to mean "How dare you question the rich?" I gave a personal example of the actions of one rich person.

The very rich guy that was just sent to prison for shipping knowingly contaminated peanut butter that killed people, what'd he do to anybody?

Yes, the financial industry, as you point out. Where I'm coming from is this...that whole thing was concepted and executed...by a bunch of very rich people. I think it's always a good idea to keep benefits of doubts in check.

There are criminals and bad people everywhere. That's why we have laws and that's why I support reasonable regulation of industry.

It has been proven time and again that when the income tax rates are greatly reduced the economy takes off, unemployment drops dramatically and tax revenue pours into the government. This of course is what the Democrats must work against!

Wrong again....... worked pretty well when Bush did it, right?

_________________________________________________________________

It sure did work well.
When president Bush cut the federal income tax rates the effect was to stop the downhill economic situation leftover from the Clinton administration, brought unemployment to the lowest level in over 70 years (with actual full time jobs) and increased tax revenue in the Treasury to the highest level in American history.

It was not until 2007 when Reid and Pelosi took control of Congress that the economy died.

More proof that YOU are an uninformed pile of scat. 😛 😮

____________________________________________________________________

You provide no proof other than the fact that you are simply too ignorant to understand the facts.

It has been proven time and again that when the income tax rates are greatly reduced the economy takes off, unemployment drops dramatically and tax revenue pours into the government. This of course is what the Democrats must work against!

Wrong again....... worked pretty well when Bush did it, right?

Actually it worked very well. Check the middle Bush years and he economy expanded greatly, much greater than over the Obama years and this was a recovery from a recession brought about in part by the effects of 9/11.. The financial crisis that led to the large recession of 2008 was not caused by excessive tax cuts.

It has been proven time and again that when the income tax rates are greatly reduced the economy takes off, unemployment drops dramatically and tax revenue pours into the government. This of course is what the Democrats must work against!

Wrong again....... worked pretty well when Bush did it, right?

Actually it worked very well. Check the middle Bush years and he economy expanded greatly, much greater than over the Obama years and this was a recovery from a recession brought about in part by the effects of 9/11.. The financial crisis that led to the large recession of 2008 was not caused by excessive tax cuts.

911 happened on bush's watch, as did the worst economic disaster since the great depression.

[Edited on 9/30/2015 by pops42]

_____________________________________________________________________

9/11 happened as a result of Clinton’s failure to respond to the numerous Al Qaeda attacks against the U.S. during his administration.

The 9/11 Islamic Extremist Terrorists we in the U.S. and training for the 9/11 attacks during the Clinton administration.

And no, the Carter recession was far worse than the 2008 recession.

For that matter pops, what was the reason for the 2008 recession and under which president were those policies put in place?

It should not be hard to figure that out. Every real economist and both political parties agree on the reason.

Let’s see if pops has a clue.

What are you going to do confiscate their wealth and have the former middle class gather and throw cash out for them to grab? That's not how it works. The left wants everyone to focus on hatred and resentment of the wealthy because it lets everyone ignore the fact that socialistic policies actually do NOTHING to grow the middle class or help the poor or anything else. Liberal economic policies that favor free enterprise and competition and reward risk taking help them. As well as the wealthy.

This is a complete chicken-or-the-egg scenario. There is no downside for a wealthy person to keep all of their money. None. If the money funnels up and stays there, no I'm-gonna-call-you-all-communists-whenever-I-want diatribes are gonna change that.

That's not true. FIrst of all we are not speaking of wealthy individuals but of companies. Companies from large to medium to small naturally seek to grow and expand. They will always do so unless given disincetives. When they grow they create opportunity for the rest of society.

I realize you worked for the financial industry. The financial industry was totally screwed up through the removal of proper incentive. Risk was eliminated and therefore foolish irrational economic decisions were made. In many ways this led to the crisis. These companies should have been allowed to fail or should not have been allowed to control so much capital that their failure could destroy the whole system. The macro laws hold true however. Entities will do what they percieve to be in their rational self interest if left alone and that will help society as a whole through growth and expanded capital and opportunity.

Rich raised the question "What has a rich person ever done to you?" I found this question at face value to mean "How dare you question the rich?" I gave a personal example of the actions of one rich person.

The very rich guy that was just sent to prison for shipping knowingly contaminated peanut butter that killed people, what'd he do to anybody?

Yes, the financial industry, as you point out. Where I'm coming from is this...that whole thing was concepted and executed...by a bunch of very rich people. I think it's always a good idea to keep benefits of doubts in check.

There are criminals and bad people everywhere. That's why we have laws and that's why I support reasonable regulation of industry.

Very nice.

It has been proven time and again that when the income tax rates are greatly reduced the economy takes off, unemployment drops dramatically and tax revenue pours into the government. This of course is what the Democrats must work against!

Wrong again....... worked pretty well when Bush did it, right?

Actually it worked very well. Check the middle Bush years and he economy expanded greatly, much greater than over the Obama years and this was a recovery from a recession brought about in part by the effects of 9/11.. The financial crisis that led to the large recession of 2008 was not caused by excessive tax cuts.

The Middle Bush Years...how much of that expansion was a direct result of the tax cuts and how much of it was a direct result of the real estate bubble?

The Last Bush Years it all collapsed. Why didn't all that growth from the tax cuts mitigate some of that horrific loss?

Most of the Bush Tax Cuts were made permanent in 2013. Why didn't the Bush Tax Cuts provide stronger aid for the recovery?

The Bush Tax Cuts were enacted around the same time that we commenced massive military operations that had quite an adverse effect on the deficit. Was that, in retrospect, a good or bad thing to do?

It has been proven time and again that when the income tax rates are greatly reduced the economy takes off, unemployment drops dramatically and tax revenue pours into the government. This of course is what the Democrats must work against!

Wrong again....... worked pretty well when Bush did it, right?

Actually it worked very well. Check the middle Bush years and he economy expanded greatly, much greater than over the Obama years and this was a recovery from a recession brought about in part by the effects of 9/11.. The financial crisis that led to the large recession of 2008 was not caused by excessive tax cuts.

Nope! It does not work well and it never has. This is just a case of when something false is said over and over enough times, some people start to believe it without actually checking the facts. If you can find evidence of the tax cuts stimulating the economy for any time other than a VERY temporary bump on this chart, feel free to point it out. It looks to me like GDP growth is steady regardless of tax rates, or even declining after the Bush tax cuts.

http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/thesignal/Top-Marginal-Tax-Rate-and-GDP-Growth.pn g">

It has been proven time and again that when the income tax rates are greatly reduced the economy takes off, unemployment drops dramatically and tax revenue pours into the government. This of course is what the Democrats must work against!

Wrong again....... worked pretty well when Bush did it, right?

Actually it worked very well. Check the middle Bush years and he economy expanded greatly, much greater than over the Obama years and this was a recovery from a recession brought about in part by the effects of 9/11.. The financial crisis that led to the large recession of 2008 was not caused by excessive tax cuts.

911 happened on bush's watch, as did the worst economic disaster since the great depression.

[Edited on 9/30/2015 by pops42]

_____________________________________________________________________

9/11 happened as a result of Clinton’s failure to respond to the numerous Al Qaeda attacks against the U.S. during his administration.

The 9/11 Islamic Extremist Terrorists we in the U.S. and training for the 9/11 attacks during the Clinton administration.

And no, the Carter recession was far worse than the 2008 recession.

For that matter pops, what was the reason for the 2008 recession and under which president were those policies put in place?

It should not be hard to figure that out. Every real economist and both political parties agree on the reason.

Let’s see if pops has a clue.

You can try to rewrite history all you want, but not even Republicans will believe this clueless version of it.

It has been proven time and again that when the income tax rates are greatly reduced the economy takes off, unemployment drops dramatically and tax revenue pours into the government. This of course is what the Democrats must work against!

Wrong again....... worked pretty well when Bush did it, right?

Actually it worked very well. Check the middle Bush years and he economy expanded greatly, much greater than over the Obama years and this was a recovery from a recession brought about in part by the effects of 9/11.. The financial crisis that led to the large recession of 2008 was not caused by excessive tax cuts.

911 happened on bush's watch, as did the worst economic disaster since the great depression.

[Edited on 9/30/2015 by pops42]

_____________________________________________________________________

9/11 happened as a result of Clinton’s failure to respond to the numerous Al Qaeda attacks against the U.S. during his administration.

The 9/11 Islamic Extremist Terrorists we in the U.S. and training for the 9/11 attacks during the Clinton administration.

And no, the Carter recession was far worse than the 2008 recession.

For that matter pops, what was the reason for the 2008 recession and under which president were those policies put in place?

It should not be hard to figure that out. Every real economist and both political parties agree on the reason.

Let’s see if pops has a clue.

You can try to rewrite history all you want, but not even Republicans will believe this clueless version of it.

_____________________________________________________________________

Just the facts which neither of you have or can prove wrong.

So, pops and 2112 have no idea what was the reason for the 2008 recession and under which president were those policies put in place?

This is not surprising. The factually challenged can only cry but just don't know why.

It has been proven time and again that when the income tax rates are greatly reduced the economy takes off, unemployment drops dramatically and tax revenue pours into the government. This of course is what the Democrats must work against!

Wrong again....... worked pretty well when Bush did it, right?

Actually it worked very well. Check the middle Bush years and he economy expanded greatly, much greater than over the Obama years and this was a recovery from a recession brought about in part by the effects of 9/11.. The financial crisis that led to the large recession of 2008 was not caused by excessive tax cuts.

911 happened on bush's watch, as did the worst economic disaster since the great depression.

[Edited on 9/30/2015 by pops42]

_____________________________________________________________________

9/11 happened as a result of Clinton’s failure to respond to the numerous Al Qaeda attacks against the U.S. during his administration.

The 9/11 Islamic Extremist Terrorists we in the U.S. and training for the 9/11 attacks during the Clinton administration.

And no, the Carter recession was far worse than the 2008 recession.

For that matter pops, what was the reason for the 2008 recession and under which president were those policies put in place?

It should not be hard to figure that out. Every real economist and both political parties agree on the reason.

Let’s see if pops has a clue.

You can try to rewrite history all you want, but not even Republicans will believe this clueless version of it.

_____________________________________________________________________

Just the facts which neither of you have or can prove wrong.

So, pops and 2112 have no idea what was the reason for the 2008 recession and under which president were those policies put in place?

This is not surprising. The factually challenged can only cry but just don't know why.

Your ignorance of the facts is stunning, but not surprising.

He doesn't even know what a fact is.

Nope! It does not work well and it never has. This is just a case of when something false is said over and over enough times, some people start to believe it without actually checking the facts. If you can find evidence of the tax cuts stimulating the economy for any time other than a VERY temporary bump on this chart, feel free to point it out. It looks to me like GDP growth is steady regardless of tax rates, or even declining after the Bush tax cuts.

I'm not sure I agree with the premise that putting more money in the consumers
pocket doesn't benefit the economy in a stimulating manner. Sending it to DC instead
certainly doesn't stimulate economic activity and none of it ever goes to debt reduction
so that's a moot argument.

Just from a moral standpoint, isn't allowing a worker to enjoy more of the fruits of their
labor the right thing to do?

Nope! It does not work well and it never has. This is just a case of when something false is said over and over enough times, some people start to believe it without actually checking the facts. If you can find evidence of the tax cuts stimulating the economy for any time other than a VERY temporary bump on this chart, feel free to point it out. It looks to me like GDP growth is steady regardless of tax rates, or even declining after the Bush tax cuts.

I'm not sure I agree with the premise that putting more money in the consumers
pocket doesn't benefit the economy in a stimulating manner. Sending it to DC instead
certainly doesn't stimulate economic activity and none of it ever goes to debt reduction
so that's a moot argument.

Just from a moral standpoint, isn't allowing a worker to enjoy more of the fruits of their
labor the right thing to do?

The thing is that the tax rate decreases for most "workers" doesn't really amount to a ton of real dollars in their paycheck. For the wealthy, even a small tax cut results in a bunch of "real" money in their bank accounts, and probably that money doesn't get spent because they were already the one's spending money.

The only time in the last few decades that we weren't adding to the national debt was when we had a tax increase. It might not have been directed toward that purpose, but if you can reduce the deficit by increasing revenue and keeping spending under control (and yes, that is a critical part of it), then we can start paying off debt.

As for the morality of taxes, that depends on what you get for your tax money. I personally hate that the biggest chunk of my tax money goes to fight unnecessary wars places like Iraq, and I don't find it a very moral use of my hard earned money at all. There is no real benefit to having such large military, and it is quite ridiculous that we spend more on our military than the next 10 countries combined. I don't mind when my tax money goes to pay seniors on social security or medicare as they worked their entire lives to get that money. If the US had socialized medicine, I wouldn't mind paying for that as I am getting a return for my dollars. I don't mind my tax money going to benefits for veterans. I don't mind my tax money paying for repair of roads and bridges, as I get a benefit for that. All those are moral uses of my tax dollars. I'm not very fond of my tax dollars going to subsidize very profitable companies, especially those very profitable companies who do nothing but use those extra profits only to prop up their bottom line and not use it to invest in anything that will be of benefit to the population as a whole. So, I would say the morality of it all depends on the return on investment. Of course I don't have a say in where every dollar I pay in taxes goes (other than voting for people that have the same priorities as I do), but nothing is free in life and as long as we see benefits in funding the government I'm not going to consider taxes in general as immoral.

Nope! It does not work well and it never has. This is just a case of when something false is said over and over enough times, some people start to believe it without actually checking the facts. If you can find evidence of the tax cuts stimulating the economy for any time other than a VERY temporary bump on this chart, feel free to point it out. It looks to me like GDP growth is steady regardless of tax rates, or even declining after the Bush tax cuts.

I'm not sure I agree with the premise that putting more money in the consumers
pocket doesn't benefit the economy in a stimulating manner. Sending it to DC instead
certainly doesn't stimulate economic activity and none of it ever goes to debt reduction
so that's a moot argument.

Just from a moral standpoint, isn't allowing a worker to enjoy more of the fruits of their
labor the right thing to do?

The thing is that the tax rate decreases for most "workers" doesn't really amount to a ton of real dollars in their paycheck. For the wealthy, even a small tax cut results in a bunch of "real" money in their bank accounts, and probably that money doesn't get spent because they were already the one's spending money.

The only time in the last few decades that we weren't adding to the national debt was when we had a tax increase. It might not have been directed toward that purpose, but if you can reduce the deficit by increasing revenue and keeping spending under control (and yes, that is a critical part of it), then we can start paying off debt.

As for the morality of taxes, that depends on what you get for your tax money. I personally hate that the biggest chunk of my tax money goes to fight unnecessary wars places like Iraq, and I don't find it a very moral use of my hard earned money at all. There is no real benefit to having such large military, and it is quite ridiculous that we spend more on our military than the next 10 countries combined. I don't mind when my tax money goes to pay seniors on social security or medicare as they worked their entire lives to get that money. If the US had socialized medicine, I wouldn't mind paying for that as I am getting a return for my dollars. I don't mind my tax money going to benefits for veterans. I don't mind my tax money paying for repair of roads and bridges, as I get a benefit for that. All those are moral uses of my tax dollars. I'm not very fond of my tax dollars going to subsidize very profitable companies, especially those very profitable companies who do nothing but use those extra profits only to prop up their bottom line and not use it to invest in anything that will be of benefit to the population as a whole. So, I would say the morality of it all depends on the return on investment. Of course I don't have a say in where every dollar I pay in taxes goes (other than voting for people that have the same priorities as I do), but nothing is free in life and as long as we see benefits in funding the government I'm not going to consider taxes in general as immoral.

I would. In some of the higher taxed States there are folks losing 50%+ of their income to taxation. That's legalized theft. Not being allowed to keep even half your income? Of course, likely as not these are the ones that are labeled as "greedy."

The whole debate needs to change, and the first debate point would be to label the government as greedy and proceed from there.

Just from a moral standpoint, isn't allowing a worker to enjoy more of the fruits of their
labor the right thing to do?

I would absolutely agree with this. But since 2000, worker productivity has gone up, the middle class is shrinking, poverty levels are rising, and more and more of the wealth is concentrated in the top 1%. Is there nothing wrong with that side of the coin?

Just from a moral standpoint, isn't allowing a worker to enjoy more of the fruits of their
labor the right thing to do?

I would absolutely agree with this. But since 2000, worker productivity has gone up, the middle class is shrinking, poverty levels are rising, and more and more of the wealth is concentrated in the top 1%. Is there nothing wrong with that side of the coin?

In reality, if they would make the capital gains tax the same as other income, that would produce a lot of revenue and be more fair. There is no reason I can think of why real estate speculators and stock traders shouldn't pay the same tax rates as somebody who works a real job for a living. I would much prefer that over taxing working people more.

Just from a moral standpoint, isn't allowing a worker to enjoy more of the fruits of their
labor the right thing to do?

I would absolutely agree with this. But since 2000, worker productivity has gone up, the middle class is shrinking, poverty levels are rising, and more and more of the wealth is concentrated in the top 1%. Is there nothing wrong with that side of the coin?

In reality, if they would make the capital gains tax the same as other income, that would produce a lot of revenue and be more fair. There is no reason I can think of why real estate speculators and stock traders shouldn't pay the same tax rates as somebody who works a real job for a living. I would much prefer that over taxing working people more.

__________________________________________________________________

Why would you want to increase cap. gains taxes?
Capital Gains are what people earn on their investments meaning the people that invest their money (which has already been taxed when it was earned) and in turn help stimulate the economy.

Are you one the the Democrats pushing for the new tax on peoples 401k and other retirement plans?

Just from a moral standpoint, isn't allowing a worker to enjoy more of the fruits of their
labor the right thing to do?

I would absolutely agree with this. But since 2000, worker productivity has gone up, the middle class is shrinking, poverty levels are rising, and more and more of the wealth is concentrated in the top 1%. Is there nothing wrong with that side of the coin?

In reality, if they would make the capital gains tax the same as other income, that would produce a lot of revenue and be more fair. There is no reason I can think of why real estate speculators and stock traders shouldn't pay the same tax rates as somebody who works a real job for a living. I would much prefer that over taxing working people more.

__________________________________________________________________

Why would you want to increase cap. gains taxes?
Capital Gains are what people earn on their investments meaning the people that invest their money (which has already been taxed when it was earned) and in turn help stimulate the economy.

Are you one the the Democrats pushing for the new tax on peoples 401k and other retirement plans?

Because somebody has to fund the government, and I have no idea why somebody making money on capital gains should be paying less taxes than somebody who makes money working a real job. And I don't agree with you that all capital gains help stimulate the economy. How does a person who bought a building 5 years ago and and is selling it now helping the economy more than a doctor who goes to work everyday at a job?

Just from a moral standpoint, isn't allowing a worker to enjoy more of the fruits of their
labor the right thing to do?

I would absolutely agree with this. But since 2000, worker productivity has gone up, the middle class is shrinking, poverty levels are rising, and more and more of the wealth is concentrated in the top 1%. Is there nothing wrong with that side of the coin?

In reality, if they would make the capital gains tax the same as other income, that would produce a lot of revenue and be more fair. There is no reason I can think of why real estate speculators and stock traders shouldn't pay the same tax rates as somebody who works a real job for a living. I would much prefer that over taxing working people more.

__________________________________________________________________

Why would you want to increase cap. gains taxes?
Capital Gains are what people earn on their investments meaning the people that invest their money (which has already been taxed when it was earned) and in turn help stimulate the economy.

Are you one the the Democrats pushing for the new tax on peoples 401k and other retirement plans?

Because somebody has to fund the government, and I have no idea why somebody making money on capital gains should be paying less taxes than somebody who makes money working a real job. And I don't agree with you that all capital gains help stimulate the economy. How does a person who bought a building 5 years ago and and is selling it now helping the economy more than a doctor who goes to work everyday at a job?

______________________________________________________________________

1.) “Because somebody has to fund the government”
- By that I assume you mean government waste, fraud and corruption?

2.) “I have no idea why somebody making money on capital gains should be paying less taxes than somebody who makes money working a real job”
- The people who make capital gains made the money to invest by working a real job and have already paid the full income taxes on wages. Lower tax rates are established to encourage people to invest in companies and to save money via 401k plans and other retirement plans as well as their pensions.

3.) “I don't agree with you that all capital gains help stimulate the economy”
- I never said all. The rest of the answer is above.

1.) “Because somebody has to fund the government”
- By that I assume you mean government waste, fraud and corruption?

No, by that I mean paying for roads and bridges to be built and maintained, the EPA to keep our air and drinking water clean, health inspectors to make sure the food we eat is safe, health care for our vets, air traffic controllers to make sure planes don't fall from the sky, social security for our elderly, national parks to protect our national treasures, the FBI to catch bad guys, and the list goes on and on. As much as you think you hate the government, you can't live without the services they provide. Food you eat gets transported to near where you live on roads built with tax dollars. Medicine that keeps you healthy was researched using your tax dollars. I'm pretty sure if your house was on fire you'd call the fire department, and guess how the fire department is funded. Never mind, your not smart enough to figure it out. The fire department is part of the government too. You keep saying that the government needs to do more about ISIS. I guess you think that can be done for free. So, if you don't think the government does anything for you, that is total BS. Every single American receives benefits from their tax dollars.

It has been proven time and again that when the income tax rates are greatly reduced the economy takes off, unemployment drops dramatically and tax revenue pours into the government. This of course is what the Democrats must work against!

Wrong again....... worked pretty well when Bush did it, right?

Actually it worked very well. Check the middle Bush years and he economy expanded greatly, much greater than over the Obama years and this was a recovery from a recession brought about in part by the effects of 9/11.. The financial crisis that led to the large recession of 2008 was not caused by excessive tax cuts.

911 happened on bush's watch, as did the worst economic disaster since the great depression.

[Edited on 9/30/2015 by pops42]

1. WHo is to blame for 9/11 is beyond the scope of this discussion. Why you would bring that up is a mystery to me. I was simply pointing out that 9/11 drove the economy into recession. The Bush tax cuts effectively helped the economy recover.
2. I stated that the financial crisis which did happen under the watch of Bush and a Democratic Congress was not caused by excessive tax cuts as many seem to imply. You simply ignored that and stated that the financial crisis happened when Bush was president. That entirely begs the point.

It has been proven time and again that when the income tax rates are greatly reduced the economy takes off, unemployment drops dramatically and tax revenue pours into the government. This of course is what the Democrats must work against!

Wrong again....... worked pretty well when Bush did it, right?

Actually it worked very well. Check the middle Bush years and he economy expanded greatly, much greater than over the Obama years and this was a recovery from a recession brought about in part by the effects of 9/11.. The financial crisis that led to the large recession of 2008 was not caused by excessive tax cuts.

The Middle Bush Years...how much of that expansion was a direct result of the tax cuts and how much of it was a direct result of the real estate bubble?

The Last Bush Years it all collapsed. Why didn't all that growth from the tax cuts mitigate some of that horrific loss?

Most of the Bush Tax Cuts were made permanent in 2013. Why didn't the Bush Tax Cuts provide stronger aid for the recovery?

The Bush Tax Cuts were enacted around the same time that we commenced massive military operations that had quite an adverse effect on the deficit. Was that, in retrospect, a good or bad thing to do?

The "massive military operatiions" were undertaken for reasons m, whether you agree with them or not, that were beyond the scope of the economy just as Obama's health care law was undertaken for reasons that have nothing to do with the economy.

Our society is highly complex as you know and many things have different causes and effects. In my experience partisans always blame the actions of the party they hate for the bad things and vice versa. I'm sure you are right that the RE bubble had an effect on the expanding economy in 2006 though I believe very strongly that the tax cuts when made helped spur the initial recovery while Obama's actions stalled a recovery which remains anemic. The point of this thread is that companies will behave rationally in their own self interest. If they are encouraged to grow and expand they will do so. If they are encouraged to issue dividends they will do so. If they are encouraged to horde cash they will do so. If they are encouraged to declare bankruptcy and go out of business they will do so. When it comes to encouraging growth and expansion, the best thing the government can do is to do as little as possible to interfere with the market. To the extent that there are other considerations (safety, the environment, civil rights, national security etc.) that's fine but it should be acknowledged that this government interference will necessarily have an effect on growth and economic expansion and therefore economic mobility and all the good stuff that goes with growth. Most liberals don't want to concede this at all. They either believe or pretend to believe that government interference actually helps growth while the opposite actually hurts it. That is simply not true.

I am not an absolutist. I am not a libertarian. I believe there is an important role for government in regulating and overseeing businesses in the name of the things I mentioned above, safety, the environment, civil rights etc. But NOT in the name of so-called social justice which is just another way of saying socialism, stopping growth and profit because it's not fair.

Nope! It does not work well and it never has. This is just a case of when something false is said over and over enough times, some people start to believe it without actually checking the facts. If you can find evidence of the tax cuts stimulating the economy for any time other than a VERY temporary bump on this chart, feel free to point it out. It looks to me like GDP growth is steady regardless of tax rates, or even declining after the Bush tax cuts.

I'm not sure I agree with the premise that putting more money in the consumers
pocket doesn't benefit the economy in a stimulating manner. Sending it to DC instead
certainly doesn't stimulate economic activity and none of it ever goes to debt reduction
so that's a moot argument.

Just from a moral standpoint, isn't allowing a worker to enjoy more of the fruits of their
labor the right thing to do?

The real stimulis is leaving capital in the hands of businesses and giving them an incentive to use it productively. That is the very thing the left rails againt. We already have the highest corporation tax in the industrial world. Lower that and business will take off.

Just from a moral standpoint, isn't allowing a worker to enjoy more of the fruits of their
labor the right thing to do?

I would absolutely agree with this. But since 2000, worker productivity has gone up, the middle class is shrinking, poverty levels are rising, and more and more of the wealth is concentrated in the top 1%. Is there nothing wrong with that side of the coin?

In reality, if they would make the capital gains tax the same as other income, that would produce a lot of revenue and be more fair. There is no reason I can think of why real estate speculators and stock traders shouldn't pay the same tax rates as somebody who works a real job for a living. I would much prefer that over taxing working people more.

That would simply depress growth even more and hurt a lot of ordinary people who sellt heir homes.

Just from a moral standpoint, isn't allowing a worker to enjoy more of the fruits of their
labor the right thing to do?

I would absolutely agree with this. But since 2000, worker productivity has gone up, the middle class is shrinking, poverty levels are rising, and more and more of the wealth is concentrated in the top 1%. Is there nothing wrong with that side of the coin?

In reality, if they would make the capital gains tax the same as other income, that would produce a lot of revenue and be more fair. There is no reason I can think of why real estate speculators and stock traders shouldn't pay the same tax rates as somebody who works a real job for a living. I would much prefer that over taxing working people more.

That would simply depress growth even more and hurt a lot of ordinary people who sell their homes.

Home sales are handled differently that other capital gains now (the $250,000/$500,000 exception) and could certainly continue to be so.

I am not an absolutist. I am not a libertarian

And you are certainly not an economist.

I am not an absolutist. I am not a libertarian

And you are certainly not an economist.

Checkmate

Nope! It does not work well and it never has. This is just a case of when something false is said over and over enough times, some people start to believe it without actually checking the facts. If you can find evidence of the tax cuts stimulating the economy for any time other than a VERY temporary bump on this chart, feel free to point it out. It looks to me like GDP growth is steady regardless of tax rates, or even declining after the Bush tax cuts.

I'm not sure I agree with the premise that putting more money in the consumers
pocket doesn't benefit the economy in a stimulating manner. Sending it to DC instead
certainly doesn't stimulate economic activity and none of it ever goes to debt reduction
so that's a moot argument.

Just from a moral standpoint, isn't allowing a worker to enjoy more of the fruits of their
labor the right thing to do?

The real stimulis is leaving capital in the hands of businesses and giving them an incentive to use it productively. That is the very thing the left rails againt. We already have the highest corporation tax in the industrial world. Lower that and business will take off.

I find it interesting that many Liberals scoff at the idea that additional money in consumers pockets as a result of tax cuts do little or nothing to stimulate economic activity. But on the other hand, additional money in consumers pockets from raising the minimum wage would. Doesn't square up.

Nope! It does not work well and it never has. This is just a case of when something false is said over and over enough times, some people start to believe it without actually checking the facts. If you can find evidence of the tax cuts stimulating the economy for any time other than a VERY temporary bump on this chart, feel free to point it out. It looks to me like GDP growth is steady regardless of tax rates, or even declining after the Bush tax cuts.

I'm not sure I agree with the premise that putting more money in the consumers
pocket doesn't benefit the economy in a stimulating manner. Sending it to DC instead
certainly doesn't stimulate economic activity and none of it ever goes to debt reduction
so that's a moot argument.

Just from a moral standpoint, isn't allowing a worker to enjoy more of the fruits of their
labor the right thing to do?

The real stimulis is leaving capital in the hands of businesses and giving them an incentive to use it productively. That is the very thing the left rails againt. We already have the highest corporation tax in the industrial world. Lower that and business will take off.

I find it interesting that many Liberals scoff at the idea that additional money in consumers pockets as a result of tax cuts do little or nothing to stimulate economic activity. But on the other hand, additional money in consumers pockets from raising the minimum wage would. Doesn't square up.

It only helps the economy if it gets spent.

I am not an absolutist. I am not a libertarian

And you are certainly not an economist.

You don't have to be an economist. Just to have common sense which socialists lack because their beliefs are based on the ideology of Karl Marx. Basic laws of supply and demand are as old as the Bible.

Nope! It does not work well and it never has. This is just a case of when something false is said over and over enough times, some people start to believe it without actually checking the facts. If you can find evidence of the tax cuts stimulating the economy for any time other than a VERY temporary bump on this chart, feel free to point it out. It looks to me like GDP growth is steady regardless of tax rates, or even declining after the Bush tax cuts.

I'm not sure I agree with the premise that putting more money in the consumers
pocket doesn't benefit the economy in a stimulating manner. Sending it to DC instead
certainly doesn't stimulate economic activity and none of it ever goes to debt reduction
so that's a moot argument.

Just from a moral standpoint, isn't allowing a worker to enjoy more of the fruits of their
labor the right thing to do?

The real stimulis is leaving capital in the hands of businesses and giving them an incentive to use it productively. That is the very thing the left rails againt. We already have the highest corporation tax in the industrial world. Lower that and business will take off.

I find it interesting that many Liberals scoff at the idea that additional money in consumers pockets as a result of tax cuts do little or nothing to stimulate economic activity. But on the other hand, additional money in consumers pockets from raising the minimum wage would. Doesn't square up.

It only helps the economy if it gets spent.

What's your point? If your taxes got cut you wouldn't spend any of that money?