Tax Cuts, Especially For The Rich, Have No Significant Impact On Economic Growth

I have some news for Republicans and other fellow Americans who believe tax cuts for the rich will help the economy. If you think the rich are “job creators” and that their wealth will trickle down to the rest of us then you took the bait and swallowed it whole. The rich, along with their bought politicians, have you hook, line, and sinker. How much more evidence do you need that tax cuts, especially tax cuts for the rich, do not have any significant impact on economic growth? I don’t care what prominent Republican politicians and right-wing pundits are saying, it is entirely possible they are wrong. It’s also entirely possible they might not have your interests in mind when it comes to tax policy.

Look at the last 11 years since the first “Bush tax cuts” of 2001 (followed by another round of tax cuts during war-time in 2003 — a whole other topic). What do we have to show for these massive (and they are massive) tax cuts? A “lost decade” where most of the wealth created went to the top 1% and median income actually decreased. The average yearly tax cut for the top 1% was five figures. What economic growth resulted from this huge gift to wealthy elites? Oh yeah, we got the worst recession since the great depression.

If what I’ve said so far is unconvincing then how about this: every time we cut taxes for the rich without cutting spending that means we will all be paying for these tax cuts with interest. I know fiscal conservatives will say we should cut spending and then we can have tax cuts that don’t cost us down the road, but this position fails to acknowledge reality. We have a huge deficit to make up before we can even get the point of being able to afford tax cuts. Americans have shown in poll after poll that they are unwilling to accept any measurable cuts to Medicare, Social Security and other programs, and congress has no spine when it comes to meaningful cuts to military spending. Add in the Bush tax cuts and we have just accounted for 90% of the pie (possibly more). Something has to give. Either we all agree we’re fine with screwing poor people and the elderly or we agree that we can no longer afford to keep taxes at historic lows and instead we need to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire at the end of the year and begin paying for the services we demand.

Based on the Left Call Polling results (top right sidebar), it appears many agree we need to start paying for government and stop kicking the can down the road. At the time this article was published, 49 out of 54 think we should let all Bush tax cuts expire.


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditPin on PinterestShare on TumblrDigg thisShare on StumbleUponShare on LinkedInEmail this to someone

GovernmentTax Fairness

#Bush tax cuts#economic growth#economy#fiscal conservative#medicare#military#Republican#rich#social security#spending#spending cuts#tax cuts#taxes#wealthy

  • Corybruntz

    I laughed at the part where you said tax cuts dont stimulate economic growth. You must be right, giving more money to the government has to make everyone richer, duh! I should ignore basic econ 101 rules and history that PRECEDED this decade. You are comparing apples to oranges. Tax cuts + large deficit spending and artificial interest rates = the recession. Look at Reagan’s terms and you’ll see the economy benefited when he cut taxes and then slumped when he raised them. Please explain further as to how taking money from an individual increases their wealth? I guess I should give away all my money so I’ll be filthy rich!

    • Actually, there is no part where I said tax cuts don’t stimulate economic growth. What I said was that tax cuts, especially to the rich, have no significant impact. That’s not the same thing as saying no impact. Sure, more money in the pockets of lower and middle income workers will allow for some extra discretionary spending but it’s minimal. If government instead used that money for targeted projects to improve schools, bridges, and other infrastructure the per dollar payoff would be much greater than in the form of a tax cut that has no target for where it improves the economy. After all, we have tons of infrastructure that needs improvements. These improves will then promote economic growth in the future. Just look at the highway system as a perfect example of a government works project that created unprecedented economic growth.

      So yes, you ARE ignoring history.

      I’d like to know how you explain the 90s economy when taxes were raised, particularly the top tax rate. I would also like to know how you explain the booming economy of the 50s and 60s when all taxes were higher and the top tax rate was over 90%.

  • Craftycri

    David wrote: “I have some news for Republicans and other fellow Americans who believe
    tax cuts for the rich will help the economy. If you think the rich are
    “job creators” and that their wealth will trickle down to the rest of us
    then you took the bait and swallowed it whole. ”

    What do the poor do with their money? Well, they pay rent,
    buy food, clothes, put gas in the car or buy bus/subway tickets… sometimes they
    go to movies, eat out. If you will notice the trickle up is a one-time consumption
    with no residual benefit, that is, there is no monetary accrual from the rent
    paid, the food turns to sewage, the gas to smog, the movie into a distant


    What do the rich do with their money? Stuff it in
    mattresses? Light cee-gars with C-notes? Where it is true the rich “consume” as
    the poor, they didn’t get rich by consumin’, they got rich by investing either
    in themselves or in others who provided goods and services to their fellow man
    (theoretically still possible). Unlike Government “goods” and “services” the
    private sector providers actually have to be of benefit to humanity; both in
    quality and cost, to survive.


    Guided Self Interest demonstrates indicates that people who have
    something to lose are FAR more vested, more trustworthy, more reliable a
    steward of their investment than those who do not, therefore, failing government
    services continue to exist, soaking good money after bad, year after year.


    In the end we see three options for the creation of a thriving economy:
    1) Trickle-up or Take it from the rich and give it to the poor: where government
    largess to “the poor” may spur a short-term benefit to the national economy;
    aka Stimulus, it cannot provide any lasting benefit, for once the money is
    spent… its gone; give a man a fish. There is nothing left; no job, no equipment, no infrastructure… there is the fish’s bones and a pile of crap.
    2) Pissed Away or Take it from the rich and give it to the Government: Bureaucrats never stand
    personally accountable for fraudulent schemes, failed services, or for fiscal irresponsibility.
    Like Solyndra, they can just shrug and say to a half a BILLION dollar loss…
    well… oops. Therefore, the bloated institution of Government, -of all places-,
    is the worst place to park anyone’s dollars; rich or poor, unless absolutely unavoidably
    necessary; buying roads, bridges, libraries, Aircraft Carriers, etc. and only
    then with a HUGE dose of skepticism and oversight.
    And finally, 3) Trickle-down or Become Rich by being a benefit to humanity:
    -encouraging people who have a vested interest in the success of their enterprise
    to provide a benefit to their fellow man; goods and services, -emboldening people
    who will suffer loss if their investment fails to meet their fellow man’s
    expectations both in cost and quality, -empowering people to invest their own wealth, their sweat, their dreams into ventures which promise to benefit themselves and others, is therefore not only moral, but a far more reliable vehicle in which
    to carry the blessings of liberty to the entire spectrum of our society; from the least to the


    Where class warfare historically has made for good slogans; Tax
    the Rich, From each according to his
    ability, to each according to his
    need, Steal from the Rich and give to the poor, making the proponent sound kind
    and compassionate to the plight of their fellow man, its implementation makes for
    wretchedly inhumane economies, destroying the very people the politicians
    ostensibly were promising to help; for a good civics lesson on this fact
    research Marx, Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers Party or just
    visit Greece. 

    • Nobody supports corrupt government. But I would also hope nobody supports corrupt private business. But what’s the difference? Government is supposed to be accountable to the American people. Private business are not accountable to anyone but their shareholders. The primary goal of a for-profit business is to make a profit. If that means some people get left behind, so be it. Government’s primary goal is to serve the people. Nobody said government isn’t flawed and that there isn’t corruption, but we don’t fix that by deciding to dismantle government and expect corporations to pick up the slack. And I’m sorry, the idea that if a company provides lousy service they will go out of business is a conservative fantasy. A company can provide adequate service to thousands, even millions of people and provide lousy or no service for many millions more and they can do this while being highly profitable. This is why we should not be privatizing things that should be considered “public services”. There is no accountability for private businesses to ensure that everyone has equal access to these public services.

      As for the consumption part of your argument that you start off with. You do know that the economy is 3/4 consumption, right? All those things you mention might be consumed and gone, but the money used to purchase goods went to the businesses that produce the goods. Hence, trickle-up. You completely ignore the money exchange and pretend that the consumption by the poor has no benefit to the economy.

      • Craftycri

         David wrote: “Private business are not accountable to anyone but their
        shareholders. The primary goal of a for-profit business is to make a profit. If
        that means some people get left behind, so be it. Government’s primary goal is
        to serve the people.”

        David, I’m not sure if you are aware of this, but “for-profit business”
        earnings are based upon their ability to provide a service to their fellow man;
        WMT (WalMart), X (US Steel), and one of your favorites NYT (The New York
        Times). As you notice, all these companies are actively engaged in providing to
        people; you for instance, goods and services which they hope you’ll like. The
        better they do this, the greater the demand for their service, and thus the
        more profit they generate. If they fail to provide a quality service at an
        acceptable price (as defined by the free market), the demand for their service
        will drop along with their profit, their shareholders will demand a resolution
        or they will move their money elsewhere. This is Econ 101.

        Government, otoh, is driven by voters rather than shareholders, those who receive
        a benefit; whether in the form of a good, service or actual money, are able to
        vote on its continuation, distribution and cost. David, think for a moment,
        will these be motivated to vote for its
        termination? Will these rather be motivated to have the service maintained,
        even expanded regardless of its cost?

        Consider if you, as a McDonalds’ consumer, were able to vote, with other
        McDonalds consumers, on the price they charge for a Big Mac. The trend would be
        always to decrease the price you had to pay and the Holy Grail would be free
        Big Mac’s for everyone! Of course this would never work in a free market but
        not so for the public sector. Government has the power to tax. Therefore, those
        who are NOT consumers of McDonalds can be forced to pay for those who ARE. And
        be honest David, would you turn down a free McDonalds burger? Would the fiscal
        inequity sour the delicious special sauce all that much?  And what would you think about those nasty
        folks who want to take your burgers away? Greedy Rich, Evil Conservatives, I’m entitled to my burger! … I can hear it now.

        Where we both are concerned about the vices of man, your fear is of the private sector; businesses don’t care
        about people except insofar as it financially benefits them, and mine of the public sector; for where a business may be
        failing, unable to compete in the free market, demand for their good/service
        falling, they cannot FORCE me (or you, or anyone) to pay for it regardless, the
        government can and does.

        McDonalds never asked me to pay for anything I didn’t want, to fund things I
        believe are harmful to myself and others, they never threatened me with jail or
        seizure of all my possessions if I didn’t buy your burger… the Greed of
        Government, David will destroy both the payers and the takers, it will destroy
        the very society it claims to protect.

        Consider Obama, Greece, virtually the entire EU, the former USSR, look at the economies “Spread the
        Wealth Around” proponents have created, look at human suffering, at the capital
        loss, the poverty, at the financial generational slavery they are responsible for,
        and then tell me again about all benevolent, humane, and compassionate benefits of Government and its largess.

        David, our founding fathers believed Government was a necessary evil, it was better than anarchy, but not by much.

        • Your example on voting is akin to direct democracy. What we have in this country is a representative democracy, although it is increasingly resembling a representative oligarchy.

          So it comes down to trust in fellow human beings to do the right thing in a representative democracy. In conversations like this one, I’ve come to the conclusion that conservatives have an inherent distrust of other people, especially when it comes to the public sector. It seems conservatives are always looking for the possible hidden motives and agendas of other human beings instead of trying to work together to solve problems. This distrust mostly disappears when it comes to the “free market,” however. In that arena it seems conservatives find it easy to look the other way when it comes to corruption.

          Because of this distrust of fellow human beings, conservatives have put their faith in the “free market” as a way to regulate goods and services and take as much of the distrust of fellow man out of the equation and instead allow market forces to determine the outcome.

          The problem is that there is no such thing as a free market because there will always be powerful players that have the ability to manipulate the market. A government of the people can serve to at least partially level the playing field. And when government isn’t working, we need to make it work.

          Don’t confuse anything I’ve said here as being anti-capitalism. I’m talking about sensible regulation of industries and I’m talking about human services that should not be for-profit. Take for example, health care, particularly health care insurance. Is it more efficient to have dozens (hundreds even) of different health care financiers with different standards, each one skimming a profit off the top? Or is it more efficient to operate one health care financing system with low overhead costs? And I’m not even talking about “socialized medicine” yet. I’m just talking about JUST the financing of health care.

          • Craftycri

             David wrote: “Your example on voting is akin to direct democracy. What we have in this
            country is a representative democracy, although it is increasingly
            resembling a representative oligarchy.”

            Surely you jest, my example can be cited over and over from Farm subsidies to school meals (breakfast, lunch, and supper), from public housing, to minimum wage, come on, you know the list of democrat dependency programs; aka entitlements, far better than I. Once started, people become *dependent* upon them and beholding to the party and people who keep their feed train running. They hate anyone who threatens this train, like the “rich”, or conservatives who are just greedy, they want to keep all their money, kick the poor out on the street and and watch them starve.

            But, lets be honest, you knew this, you are just feigning ignorance… right? Yeah, right…

          • If this rationalization is what allows you to sleep at night then so be it.

            It is not greedy to care about the plight of fellow human beings. It is not greedy to want to help out those who are less fortunate. And when people who are less fortunate receive that help they ARE NOT greedy either.

            It’s your inherent distrust of fellow human beings along with assuming the worst in people that has brought you to the conclusion that helping people creates dependency and greed.

          • Craftycri

             No, the greed of the Left is in the taking by force from one person to give (aka redistribute) to another. This is done to ensconce themselves in the body politic as deeply as possible ensuring life long access to power.

            As any Dem knows, from Obama to Rep. Chaka Fattah, dependency purchased with other people’s dollars is the surest way to ensure a constituency’s vote, year after year, election cycle after election cycle.

            And what is especially surprising is how cheaply that vote can be bought.

            Ahh well, its all fun and games for the Left right up until they run out of other people’s money… then all the love and peace turns into riots and molotov cocktails.

          • First, I’m not a Democrat.

            Second, that is a really cynical way to view people. Maybe that is the motivation of some people, and I guess you assume it is the motivation of all on the left. I can assure you it’s not my motivation. I have no concern for greed or power grabs. What I want from government and social policy is a caring and compassion for fellow human beings. And if you can believe that, is it possible you could believe that is true of others on the left as well? And if so, does that possibly change your critique in any way?

          • Craftycri

             David, why is it a generally a bad idea to feed bears?

            You want to spin your argument as one of trust, you trust others and I do not, you believe in the virtues of man where I see nothing but the vices…

            David, as a realist I understand that humanity trends toward their vices, that virtues take work, thought, and determination. I believe my fellow citizens are capable, resourceful, creative, and good, but I nevertheless lock my front door, my car and my locker; helping to keep honest people honest.

            Otoh, you, and those of your progressive perspective, prey upon people’s vices by telling them they are victims of “powerful players” who rig the game, that without government punishing this group, restraining them, fleecing them of their ill gotten gains and returning it back to its “rightful owners”, all hope is lost. Your side hammers them day after day, speech after speech, how with out progressives, average people have no chance, that their failure is not their fault, that an evil group of people has cheated them out of any hope for success and happiness. That only progressives, socialists, Marxists can right the wrongs, level the playing field, lower the sea levels, they are the lone voice crying in the wilderness: “workers of the world UNITE”.

            In so doing you feed man’s vices of despair, hatred, envy, lust, and sloth and, as I have said repeatedly, as history amply demonstrates, the Progressive agenda, whether by intent or accident, will inevitably DESTROY those you claim to love and trust.

            Therefore, David, you and your agenda is neither loving or trusting, proving you are what you claim to despise.

          • Wow, you think you have me figured out don’t you? I guess you could say the same of me towards you.

            I’m not saying trust people to a fault. I’m saying that I don’t want public policy and congressional legislation being written from the perspective of distrust and assuming the worst in people. I’m also saying that I want a more level playing field where democracy represents the poor as it does the rich. As Jon Stewart said, “the poor have shitty lobbyists.”

            And then there is this…

            “In the absence of proper government, the strong will simply take from the weak.” -Chris Hayes

          • Craftycri

            “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it”

            – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

  • Craftycri

    David wrote: What I want from government and social policy is a caring and compassion
    for fellow human beings. And if you can believe that, is it possible
    you could believe that is true of others on the left as well? And if so,
    does that possibly change your critique in any way?

    I mean no disrespect, but the term “useful idiot” comes to mind, not because I think you are stupid or that I think human kindness and graciousness is, but because those on the Left are clearly utilizing your goodness for ulterior goals.

    I would point out to you that Government and its arbitrary declaration of “entitlement” of necessity and from the outset, is the worst vehicle to accomplish your goal in that people must be FORCED to pay for *your* (or someone’s) vision and definition of caring and compassion. Obama, for instance, pays as little as he can and to obtain MORE of his income, he claims he must be forced by the tax code to fork it over.

    I have no problem with voluntary charity, I contribute to several myself, however *I* choose to which I contribute; I appreciate the Salvation Army, I don’t like the United Way. I can exercise my freedom with *my* money to help others as I see fit and I can monitor the charity to ensure that they are a good steward of my money, however, your model has me helping others as YOU see fit, even when I vehemently disagree.

    David, you giving help to the poor and needy is moral and laudable, you literally putting a gun into someone’s chest and *taking their money* to give to the poor and needy is a FELONY! Until you understand this, you will continue to be what the progressives calls a “useful idiot”.

    I would also I would urge you to research the Jamestown Colony and their experimentation with socialism… all kidding aside, I believe it will change your mind if you truly are altruistic and wanting to help your fellow man and help you better understand mine.

    • Let’s look at one component of how government can work for the betterment of society. You do know that it was government policy, particularly in the tax code that created the period of greatest equality and economic growth in this country mid-century, right? Sure, WWII got us out of the depression, but it was a belief in a government by the people that built a large, robust middle class. For example, it was government that built the highway system that led to an unprecedented private business expansion into new territories.

      What I understand is that people will be left behind and that ONLY government can enact the policies and tax code necessary to help those who are disenfranchised through no fault of their own. It’s not about punishing the rich. It’s not about stealing from the rich. It’s about a tax code that is based on ability to pay.

      Where does the anti-tax stance end? Taxes are at historic lows, how much lower do you want them to go? Conservatives can continue to make their argument about how taxes should be lowered until taxes are zero. The argument for lower taxes will always be the same from conservatives no matter where tax rates are. But it is the height of irresponsibility to advocate tax cuts when we have a massive federal deficit and long-term debt, just the same as it was irresponsible to cut taxes at a time of war, never before done until the Bush administration. We asked the military to go to war (not the country) and we didn’t ask anyone to sacrifice anything, even when it came to paying for the war. Instead, we decided future generations will pay for our wars.

      I have NOT been co-opted by a covert leftist agenda. I’d like to apply Occam’s Razor to this conversation. Is it more likely that there is a covert leftist agenda to take advantage of caring individuals in order to advance an ideology of stealing from the rich to give to the poor? Or is it more likely you misunderstand fellow Americans with a liberal perspective?

      • Craftycri

        David, IF you were serious about helping people, you would actually put results over the satiating of your “feelings”.

        I don’t dispute your “care”, I have just pointed out, repeatedly, that your programs  DO  NOT  WORK , in fact, they leave the people you claim to “care” about worse off; the New Deal, the War on Poverty, Obamanomics with its deficit spending and Obama Care, have not and CAN NOT produce the results promised and have (WILL), to the program, cost EXPONENTIALLY more than predicted.

        Do you realize that there are MORE people in poverty now than BEFORE LBJ’s  “war on poverty”? Further, do you realize that prior to ’64 that poverty was NOT institutionalized, that is, people moved in and OUT of poverty VASTLY more than today; and this across every demographic sector.

        After TRILLIONS of dollars spent to satisfy your longing to “help”, your emotional drive to “care”, your side has NOTHING to show for it but ruin and heartbreak for those you’ve “helped”.

        Therefore, using lex parsimoniae, we are forced to one of two conclusions:

        A) You know the above and really don’t care, therefore demonstrating you are, in fact, a liar


        B) You are ignorant of the above and/or are laboring under the childish delusion that caring is all about “intent”: “its the thought that counts”, not results, therefore demonstrating you are, in fact, a “useful idiot”

        I did not and do not believe you are a liar so, that left only one option, the simplest explanation based upon the facts and your claim (OR).

        • So your “intent” is tough love? If we just give the rich more money (in the form of tax cuts) and take away from the poor (by cutting assistance) then by an act of “tough love” we will help lift millions out of poverty? How does that work again? I hate to break it to you, but most people do not choose to be poor. They do not choose to be dependent on others. This idea that we create dependency by helping others is bullshit. If that’s true, then why stop with ending government assistance? If we create dependency by helping others than do away with charities as well.

          The New Deal is responsible for lifting millions out of poverty. Social Security alone can make that claim.

          There will always be people at the bottom of the ladder. I’m at least admitting it. Once we can admit that (and do away with this idea that everyone can be successful and wealthy) then we can focus on making government accountable everyone, including the most vulnerable and disenfranchised. There aren’t really good paying jobs for everyone that wants one. There will always be labor intensive jobs that pay shit and we expect that someone will do those jobs. These are the cold hard facts. Some of us recognize this and so we know that those who are successful in America and can afford to pay a little more tax, should do so.

          If your value system doesn’t align with this, then so be it.

          • Craftycri

             David, you are wealth of emotionally based wishful thinking, a simple wiki search on the poverty stats from 1950-present will show you are wrong. This is not “outcome based” economics, research your claims before you make an ass of yourself again.

            You also failed to research the “institutionalization” of poverty SINCE the implementation of the New Deal, I suggest you research that too.

            In light of these two facts, your response makes it clear that 1) You know, or should know, your programs DO NOT WORK, and 2) despite your bleeding heart appeals, you don’t care.

            Ignorance can be corrected, stupidity can’t…

            “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results”
            -Albert Einstein

          • It seems many times when I’ve had a back and forth dialog with conservatives/Republicans (or their sympathizers) in the comments section it always devolves into a one-way street of personal insults. Go through all these comments and try to find a place where I insulted you personally or questioned your intellect. You won’t find it. But I can find several instances where you have insulted me and where I’ve attempted to maintain the high ground and not respond directly to those insults. But you continue to do so. Therefore this conversation is done. Feel free to reply, but I no longer consider you worthy of my time. But thanks for visiting my site.

          • Craftycri

             David, you accused me and/or conservatives, of numerous maladies, among them callous disregard for people’s suffering, and a perspective based in fear of our fellow citizens, etc.

            For the record, I have stated and I do not believe you are stupid, but I KNOW by your statements and rhetoric that you are in fact ignorant, whic is NOT an insult nor intended as such, as I said, that can be fixed if you want to.

            I have repeatedly noted that you are a broken record, doing the same things over and over, you continue to advocate spending money on the same things regardless of the cost and failure. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid are bankrupt, they are funded with borrowed money. Taxing the rich is merely a slogan, a gimmick, it will not stem the overwhelming flood of red ink that is the Liberal Agenda.

            The quote from Einstein was not to suggest you were “insane” but to relate this to the conversation and my perspective.

            I don’t blame you for terminating the conversation, you have been shown to be a fraud and a shill…

            And for the record, those terms are not intended as insults, but as accurate (as demonstrated in our conversation here) representations of your conduct.


      • Craftycri

         BTW, you do realize we have no money, that “taxing the rich” at a rate of 100%, AND confiscating ALL their wealth to “spread around” would only balance our National budget for a little over 4 months.

        I would urge you to look at Greece, David, because THAT’S where your ideas are taking us all…

        Please read this carefully, let it sink in:

        We HAVE NO MORE MONEY, the programs we have NOW are UNFUNDED, being sustained by BORROWED MONEY (this is why we have to continually “raise the debt ceiling”). If we TOOK all the wealth from millionaires and billionaires we would be broke in less than 5 months and they and their investments in our economy would be GONE.

        In very short order, if something does not stop the progressive’s runaway
        train, our economy will CRASH, our borrowed money will inflate beyond any value
        (QE 1-?), and the truth of the progressive’s agenda and disposition will
        be exposed; the Occupy moment, May Day Protesters, and Black Bloc tactics… look at SF and Seattle, this is not about compassion and caring, it is about power
        and greed by any means.

        David, your “power players” KNOW THIS, anyone with any sense at all KNOWS THIS, this is clearly seen in history and their own documentation as the Leftist, Marxist, Progressive agenda, and YOU are a part of it, whether by accident or intent; a difference which, at the end of the day, really makes no difference.

        • So you are telling me that taxes are not at historic lows? I never said our huge deficit and massive long-term debt was going to be solved by taxes alone. I do believe cuts need to be made. But when taxes are at historic lows, when investment income is taxed at a lower rate than earned income, I would say increasing taxes (even just a little bit) should be done BEFORE we start taking an axe to programs for the poor.

          As for the reasons why we have so much debt, a lot of it is due to a “starve the beast” mentality among Republicans along with a delusional American public that thinks we can keep cutting taxes while still enjoying government programs. You fail to acknlowedge that along with spending increases, we’ve also continually lowered tax rates over the past 50 years. It’s NOT just an issue of spending. If tax rates had been frozen at 1950-60s levels we would not have anywhere near the massive debt that we have now.

          YES WE DO HAVE MONEY! This is the richest country on the F’n planet. The problem is a LARGE percentage of this country’s wealth is concentrated among several hundred super-wealthy individuals due to fiscal policy that has heavily favoreed wealthy and powerful interests. Again, “the poor have shitty lobbyists.”

          • Craftycri

             David, I need you to focus, I am, again, going to you actual facts, facts which you can look up, you can research, you can verify, please try to address them in any response.

            We are so badly in debt that if we were to raise taxes to 100% on the “several hundred super-wealthy individuals” AND confiscate ALL their property converting it into public funds to pay for your precious social programs…

            We could run the government for around FOUR months.

            And bear in mind, we could only do that ONCE!

            Raising their income taxes even by 50% would only run the Government couple of days at the most. It would essentially be trying to get to the moon by jumping… real high!

            David, do you know what “austerity programs” are? Do you know WHY they are implemented? Do you realize that when you run out of OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY, like a dying star, our entire nation collapses in upon itself.

            Your precious social programs WILL, of necessity, come to an end, by sound fiscal policy OR by lack of funds driven by a global refusal of our bonds. Either way, the people you want to help WILL suffer because of it and the society you want to create WILL collapse, just as every other socialistic, progressive, Marxist attempt has and will. The only hope is, we can shut off the socialistic faucet before there is nothing left to salvage.

            As for being the “richest country on the F’n planet”, because of your wonderful liberal policies (particularly the CRA) we are no longer the largest economy… and with a 2.2 GDP, MEXICO is actually kicking our economic ass.

            And this is just the beginning of the fun if Progressivism isn’t debunked and discarded, and that right soon!

          • I’m quite focused. As I said, tax increases alone will not solve the problem. But taxes are at historic lows (since inception of the federal income tax), that’s something you can look up. If we are serious about tackling the defict and debt we will not take tax increases off the table. That is simply foolish.

            Forget about the long-term debt for a second. Do you know that if congress does nothing before the end of the year, the budget deficit is “mostly” solved on it’s own because of all Bush tax cuts expiring as well as $2 trillion in spending cuts that kick in?

            And do you remember the last time we had a budget surplus? Oh yeah, that was under a Democratic administation. You have to go back to Eisenhower to find the last Republican administration which balanced the budget. That’s a hell of a track record for fiscal responsibility.

            Republican deficit hawks can teach us a lesson about responsible spending when they are able to demonstrate they are responsible. And that doesn’t just include spending cuts. Being responsible stewards of the federal budget means a balanced approach. If taxes are at historic lows, a balanced approach is going to require tax increases.

          • Craftycri

            David, PLEASE research your work!

            The Bush Tax Cuts were estimated to cost -OVER TEN YEARS- $1.35 Trillion, but in actuality, according to the CBO, cost $1.28 Trillion. It is expected that for 2012 the cost will be around $100 Billion off a $3.456 TRILLION Federal expenditure.

            Now it doesn’t take much grey matter to realize that the retirement of the Bush Tax Cuts is essentially a rounding error, the penny you toss in the tray by the register.

            Seriously, David… these FACTS were not hard to find, try it some time.

          • Craftycri


            I have been reminded that you do not want to repeal ALL the Bush Tax cuts, only those for the “rich”, which amount to roughly $20 Billion a year…

            Which is about 75% of ONE percent of the Fed’s expenditure for this year.

            Seriously Dave, I am beginning to wonder if you aren’t somewhat challenged. 🙂