Lets talk about income inequality

[Quantum Windbag]

All this amounts to is: The rich are too rich. They prosper too much, and no, they didn't build that.

Gosh liberals, you have zero case.

Actually it is slowing the whole economy. Haven't you noticed?
Record High Income Inequality Threatens U.S. Growth - Economic Intelligence (usnews.com)

And the data you provided proves it is being caused by the Federal Reserve's policy of Quantitative Easing, and that, as soon as they stop, the market will correct. Why do you think the Democrats didn't want Summers appointed? Was it because they are worried about poor people?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Even one of CNN's Angry old white drunkards gets tbis one: What will the United States be like if there is no middle class? ? Cafferty File - CNN.com Blogs

That isn't an example of a country, is it?

Okay dufus.

It's an obvious to even the brain dead example of a rant on thr USA becoming a nation without a middle class, but according to you...

...everyone in the world who speaks of nations without a middle class is in error in doing so.

Need a definitional example of insanity or stupidity?

You said that third world means no middle class, you were wrong.

You said that the lack of a middle class is the reason countries collapse, but cannot provide a single example.

You said that there are countries right now that do not have a middle class, but have not provided a single example.

Why am I stupid again?

 

[georgephillip]

Idiot, the 10% starts at 150K per year. Are you retarded to name 150k per year "very rich"?

"Of the gains made by the top 10 percent, almost none went to the 90 percent to 95 percent group; in fact, the great bulk of gains went to the top 1 percent. In turn, the bulk of the gains of the top 1 percent went to the top 0.1 percent; and the bulk of those gains went to the top 0.01 percent. We really are talking about the flourishing of a tiny elite."

A tiny elite of 400 Americans controls more wealth than the poorest 150 million Americans.
Does that conform to your understanding of democracy?

The (Very) Rich Are Getting (Much) Richer

Yes, that does conform to a true understanding of democracy. Political freedom is not measured in dollars and cents.

In an economic upturn, the super rich earn more of the generated wealth because they have much more of their assets invested in the economy. If you own 100 shares of a stock, and that stock goes up one dollar, you have made $100, less costs. If you own a million shares, you make a million dollars, less costs. If you don't have anything invested in the market, then you make nothing. That is how the system works. But, you can also spend your time bitching about those who are making money. That is the liberal/socialist way.

Do you accept the following definition?

"Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination."

Currently, elected Republicans AND Democrats depend on 1% of citizens to fund their election campaigns and retirements. It's hard for any rational person to see how that form of government is not an oligarchy (rule by the few) as opposed to "rule by the many."

Democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your stock market example is also suspect as it implies an exchange that hasn't been tilting from investment towards speculation over the past four decades, which is exactly what happens when rich parasites can play the market without owning a single share of stock.

 

[TemplarKormac]

All this amounts to is: The rich are too rich. They prosper too much, and no, they didn't build that.

Gosh liberals, you have zero case.

Actually it is slowing the whole economy. Haven't you noticed?
Record High Income Inequality Threatens U.S. Growth - Economic Intelligence (usnews.com)

Here's a newsflash hotshot, lack of tax revenue from working people is what's slowing this economy down. You have millions of unemployed people out there who, if employed, could generate billions in additional revenue. That isn't to say that the Fed's policy of Quantitative Easing isn't playing a role in this either.

But oh hey, you think keeping them on Welfare and Foodstamps will help this economy. .

 

[MikeK]

Yes, that does conform to a true understanding of democracy. Political freedom is not measured in dollars and cents.

In an economic upturn, the super rich earn more of the generated wealth because they have much more of their assets invested in the economy. If you own 100 shares of a stock, and that stock goes up one dollar, you have made $100, less costs. If you own a million shares, you make a million dollars, less costs. If you don't have anything invested in the market, then you make nothing. That is how the system works. But, you can also spend your time bitching about those who are making money. That is the liberal/socialist way.

I don't think there are many who spend their time "bitching" about those who are making reasonable amounts of money in honest and ethical ways. But if you'll take the time to watch the video via the link in my signature line you will find quite a bit to "bitch" about.

A great deal of money was made in the decades between the late '40s and early '80s but there were none of the protests we're hearing today. The reason for that is those were the formative years of the Great American Middle Class. a social phenomenon which was facilitated by regulations imposed by the financial component of FDR's New Deal. People were getting rich back then -- lots of them. There were plenty of millionaires but almost no billionaires and working class Americans were earning equitable wages. Owing to banking and Market regulations an equitable percentage of wealth was distributed downward and American society was the model for a re-developing post-war world.

The devious financial maneuverings which brought that era to its end, and which accounts for the presently inequitable redistribution of the Nation's wealth resources, are the result of incremental deregulation and the kind of financial conniving that would subject its perpetrators to prison terms if our political and judicial systems were not so obviously corrupted. That is what the "bitching" is about. It's not the fact that some people are "making money." It's the amounts of money being made, the ways in which it's happening, and the fact that it's being hoarded by a very small group of individuals who may be regarded as the emerging ruling class.

 

[Brain357]

All this amounts to is: The rich are too rich. They prosper too much, and no, they didn't build that.

Gosh liberals, you have zero case.

Actually it is slowing the whole economy. Haven't you noticed?
Record High Income Inequality Threatens U.S. Growth - Economic Intelligence (usnews.com)

Here's a newsflash hotshot, lack of tax revenue from working people is what's slowing this economy down. You have millions of unemployed people out there who, if employed, could generate billions in additional revenue. That isn't to say that the Fed's policy of Quantitative Easing isn't playing a role in this either.

But oh hey, you think keeping them on Welfare and Foodstamps will help this economy. .

So your saying because the government is collecting less in taxes due to the unemployed the economy is slow? Taxes take money out of the economy. Please explain how taking more money out of the economy would speed it up.

We'd have less unemployed if the 1% would stop sending jobs overseas while they give themselves raises.

 

[Brain357]

All this amounts to is: The rich are too rich. They prosper too much, and no, they didn't build that.

Gosh liberals, you have zero case.

Actually it is slowing the whole economy. Haven't you noticed?
Record High Income Inequality Threatens U.S. Growth - Economic Intelligence (usnews.com)

And the data you provided proves it is being caused by the Federal Reserve's policy of Quantitative Easing, and that, as soon as they stop, the market will correct. Why do you think the Democrats didn't want Summers appointed? Was it because they are worried about poor people?

I'm not really a fan of the fed in general, but lets hear your explanation of how the QE is causing income inequality.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually it is slowing the whole economy. Haven't you noticed?
Record High Income Inequality Threatens U.S. Growth - Economic Intelligence (usnews.com)

And the data you provided proves it is being caused by the Federal Reserve's policy of Quantitative Easing, and that, as soon as they stop, the market will correct. Why do you think the Democrats didn't want Summers appointed? Was it because they are worried about poor people?

I'm not really a fan of the fed in general, but lets hear your explanation of how the QE is causing income inequality.

Let me get this straight, you are completely ignorant about what QE does?

Poor Richard's News - Yep. QE is propping up the stock market
Why Bernanke's Quantitative Easing, Loathsome to Many, Actually Boosts the Stock Market - Forbes

 

[Brain357]

And the data you provided proves it is being caused by the Federal Reserve's policy of Quantitative Easing, and that, as soon as they stop, the market will correct. Why do you think the Democrats didn't want Summers appointed? Was it because they are worried about poor people?

I'm not really a fan of the fed in general, but lets hear your explanation of how the QE is causing income inequality.

Let me get this straight, you are completely ignorant about what QE does?

Poor Richard's News - Yep. QE is propping up the stock market
Why Bernanke's Quantitative Easing, Loathsome to Many, Actually Boosts the Stock Market - Forbes

No I know exactly what it does. You posted two links about it propping up the stock market. Is that why you think we have so much inequality then? Because the stock market is high? Do explain your position completely so we can discuss it.

 

[Londoner]

Good thing we aren't on the brink of deflation then.

When there are too many consumer dollars chasing too few goods, you get inflationary pressure.

When there are too few consumer dollars chasing too many products, you get deflationary pressure - and it's why our businesses have had to lay off so many workers: because they lack a sufficient volume of consumers.

Of course, the fed has used every trick in the book, including quantitative easing, to prevent a full blown deflationary spiral - but this runs the risk of making the landing harder.

Prior to Reagan, the Fed concerned itself with full employment. This was done partly to prevent the kind deflationary pressure that results in spiraling layoffs. Then uncle Milty convinced us that the Fed was causing inflation ... which was eating away at the very purchasing power needed for economic growth. So we shifted to supply side economics and austerity, and we spent 30 years brainwashing people against government intervention on the labor & demand side... which left us in no position to launch the kind of stimulus needed in 2008.

Crude Keynesianism is when you continue to apply stimuli to the economy after the growth engine has started and things are red hot.

Crude Reaganomics is when you continue to apply austerity after demand is dead.

During the postwar years, prior to the Republican takeover of the economy, there was more balance to our fiscal policy. Meaning: the government supported labor/consumption (with favorable labor & trade policies, along w/generous education, health, retirement, & cost-of-living aid) ... and/but government also supported suppliers (with a whole array of subsidies). Then Reaganomics convinced us to withdraw the support for Labor and Consumers so that we could transfer all those resources to the suppliers (in hopes that the jobs would trickle down). But Reaganomics pulled the ol' switch'aroo as the jobs slowly trickled to China, Taiwan and Vietnam so that our corporations and investors could dine on workers who made less than $5/day. De-industrialization accelerated rapidly under Reagan and Clinton, leaving a superfluous workforce in our dying American cities, punctuated on the periphery by suburban Shopping Malls filled with a middle class whose stagnant wages and monopolized heath care left them to buy cheap Chinese goods with credit cards. And so consumers spent 3 decades going into debt, i.e., trying to make-up for the money that never trickled down. Of course, we called it Morning in America (because a radical expansion of credit, like meth, can definitely jumpstart your system. But eventually... you crash, which is what happened - and now we have the most indebted middle class in world history . . . and the fake credit democracy which worked so well in the 80s and 90s has run its course. The final phase of Reaganomics is here... which is the conversion of the American middle class into a 3rd world labor market)

We had a good ride, but the country was taken over by a terribly misguided political movement 30 years ago. It made the rich richer at the expense of everyone else. It started when Reagan ignored the energy crisis on behalf of his oil donors (and set us up for the $5 gallon)... and it ended when the wealthy bubblized the housing market in order to abscond with whatever wasn't nailed down.

This nation swallowed poison in 1980 and the patient is almost dead.

 

[Brain357]

Actually it is slowing the whole economy. Haven't you noticed?
Record High Income Inequality Threatens U.S. Growth - Economic Intelligence (usnews.com)

Here's a newsflash hotshot, lack of tax revenue from working people is what's slowing this economy down. You have millions of unemployed people out there who, if employed, could generate billions in additional revenue. That isn't to say that the Fed's policy of Quantitative Easing isn't playing a role in this either.

But oh hey, you think keeping them on Welfare and Foodstamps will help this economy. .

So your saying because the government is collecting less in taxes due to the unemployed the economy is slow? Taxes take money out of the economy. Please explain how taking more money out of the economy would speed it up.

We'd have less unemployed if the 1% would stop sending jobs overseas while they give themselves raises.

Still waiting for your response. Should be a hoot.

 

[Vox]

"Middle class households generally means those making between $21,000 and $100,000 a year. It includes the three-fifths of households sandwiched between the rich and the poor.

"Experts say this trend dates back to the 1970s. Back then, 53% of the nation's income went to the middle class. In 2010, it was about 46%.

WRONG.
21K per year is POOR, not middle class.

Middle class starts where government subsidy of any kind ends - so it is about 75K per year for a family of 4.
and 100K per year is middle class as it gets, not the end of it - and goes all the way at least to a million dollars.

The nuts who are putting those figures of 21K to 100K are operating in the 1970 dollars prices and salaries, not 2013.

 

[Londoner]

Taxes take money out of the economy. Please explain how taking more money out of the economy would speed it up.

This is a great and technical question which has accumulated decades of crusty talking points, complete with selective data on both sides - and no heavy lifting, as the message board minions scurry to and fro with cut and paste.

Clinton raised taxes on the upper bracket, and it was predicted that this would dampen economic growth, but the opposite happened.
Pat Toomey's Epistemic Closure | New Republic

Also, the growth rate during the 50s and 60s was the highest in the last 1/2 century, and taxes on the upper bracket were between 70-90%.

Reagan raised taxes 11 times between 82-88. He, of all people, would have vetoed tax hikes if they destroyed economic growth. In fact, after his largest tax increase, in 1982, the economy boomed. This is not to say that higher taxes lead to economic growth because that would be a silly assumption. Keynes (an advocate of strategic tax cuts) believed that tax cuts spurred spending and investment. Clinton believed in a much lower rate of taxation than Nixon or Eisenhower.

Proponents of progressive taxation believe that taxing the surplus on top and re-deploying it to things that boost consumer spending actually leads to higher economic growth than pure supply side economics which holds that tax cuts trickle down. These arguments are so well traveled, and both sides are pretty entrenched. I'm waiting to see something interesting and new in this debate, but I've grown to expect the same tired talking points.

 

[Londoner]

At the end of the day the whole issue about taxation is kind of sad and funny. One of the greatest profit makers in world history, ExxonMobil, wants the Pentagon (taxpayer) to protect their oil fields (many of which are in petrol-terrorist states). The Drug Companies want a taxpayer funded Patent System so the Big Nanny Government can build a monopoly fence around their products. Boeing grew largely with massive help from the defense budget, which was the only thing large enough to shoulder the costs of launching commercial aviation. Profit makers in the Southwest benefit from the Hoover Dam, though precious few can explain how it has greatly increased the regions "carrying capacity", much less the agricultural benefits. Plenty of conservatives had their hands out when FDR was bringing water and energy to the rural south. Our corporations want roads to bring consumers and goods to market. They want law enforcement to protect their property and transactions? Do you know the administrative costs of running one future's market? Do you know how much of the technology developed through the Cold War Pentagon and NASA budgets went into the 1980's consumer electronics boom? Putting a man on the moon and fighting wars requires MASSIVE technological investment and sophistication. What about the way our truly massive WWII war manufacturing infrastructure was converted to peacetime domestic manufacturing? And don't get me started on military Keynesianism which greatly stimulated Southern California's economy. Indeed, if you pulled the marines and navy out of San Diego county, or the weapons contractors out of Orange county, the regions economic output would go down.

Point is: our taxes pay for stuff that profit makers have benefited wildly from, but the fucking moron Democrats have done a terrible job explaining it. Big business, the pinnacle of capitalism, wants advanced industrial infrastructure. It wants a dynamic interventionist state to subsidize its costs and protect its investments. But they don't want to pay for it, so they fund the Rightwing message system to convince idiots that taxes are evil. (Don't try telling this to people who listen to talk radio because they've been conditioned not to trust any information sources outside the bubble)

My friend was doing research for a British company in central Africa. The building he was working in burned to the ground because of poor electrical wiring. He was told that this was a common occurrence because there are zero fire codes, which means construction crews cut every corner imaginable. They also have terrible roads, and every infrastructure limitation imaginable along with minimal law enforcement - all the things that taxes commonly pay for. Without all these things that Americans take for granted, Capital has no incentive to invest in the region. Why? Because investors require the multitude of protections, infrastructure, etc., that come with a big nanny state.

The Republican Party was taken over by a very simple minded but ruthlessly effective anti-tax movement. The movement used the culture war (call it "values populism") to get a huge base of under-educated white people to vote for policies that destroyed the country. These people can't talk intelligently about what taxes pay for - and that's the point. Game over.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Taxes take money out of the economy. Please explain how taking more money out of the economy would speed it up.

This is a great and technical question which has accumulated decades of crusty talking points, complete with selective data on both sides - and no heavy lifting, as the message board minions scurry to and fro with cut and paste.

Clinton raised taxes on the upper bracket, and it was predicted that this would dampen economic growth, but the opposite happened.
Pat Toomey's Epistemic Closure | New Republic

Also, the growth rate during the 50s and 60s was the highest in the last 1/2 century, and taxes on the upper bracket were between 70-90%.

Reagan raised taxes 11 times between 82-88. He, of all people, would have vetoed tax hikes if they destroyed economic growth. In fact, after his largest tax increase, in 1982, the economy boomed. This is not to say that higher taxes lead to economic growth because that would be a silly assumption. Keynes (an advocate of strategic tax cuts) believed that tax cuts spurred spending and investment. Clinton believed in a much lower rate of taxation than Nixon or Eisenhower.

Proponents of progressive taxation believe that taxing the surplus on top and re-deploying it to things that boost consumer spending actually leads to higher economic growth than pure supply side economics which holds that tax cuts trickle down. These arguments are so well traveled, and both sides are pretty entrenched. I'm waiting to see something interesting and new in this debate, but I've grown to expect the same tired talking points.

Hmm, you seem to be trying to argue that high taxes do not drain the economy by going back in time and pointing out the fact that people were really stupid, so that proves that being stupid works.

 

[Brain357]

Taxes take money out of the economy. Please explain how taking more money out of the economy would speed it up.

This is a great and technical question which has accumulated decades of crusty talking points, complete with selective data on both sides - and no heavy lifting, as the message board minions scurry to and fro with cut and paste.

Clinton raised taxes on the upper bracket, and it was predicted that this would dampen economic growth, but the opposite happened.
Pat Toomey's Epistemic Closure | New Republic

Also, the growth rate during the 50s and 60s was the highest in the last 1/2 century, and taxes on the upper bracket were between 70-90%.

Reagan raised taxes 11 times between 82-88. He, of all people, would have vetoed tax hikes if they destroyed economic growth. In fact, after his largest tax increase, in 1982, the economy boomed. This is not to say that higher taxes lead to economic growth because that would be a silly assumption. Keynes (an advocate of strategic tax cuts) believed that tax cuts spurred spending and investment. Clinton believed in a much lower rate of taxation than Nixon or Eisenhower.

Proponents of progressive taxation believe that taxing the surplus on top and re-deploying it to things that boost consumer spending actually leads to higher economic growth than pure supply side economics which holds that tax cuts trickle down. These arguments are so well traveled, and both sides are pretty entrenched. I'm waiting to see something interesting and new in this debate, but I've grown to expect the same tired talking points.

Certainly the government is doing its part with spending. What more would the government do with more tax dollars that would boost the economy? All the stimulus spending had a pretty weak effect.

 

[Brain357]

Taxes take money out of the economy. Please explain how taking more money out of the economy would speed it up.

This is a great and technical question which has accumulated decades of crusty talking points, complete with selective data on both sides - and no heavy lifting, as the message board minions scurry to and fro with cut and paste.

Clinton raised taxes on the upper bracket, and it was predicted that this would dampen economic growth, but the opposite happened.
Pat Toomey's Epistemic Closure | New Republic

Also, the growth rate during the 50s and 60s was the highest in the last 1/2 century, and taxes on the upper bracket were between 70-90%.

Reagan raised taxes 11 times between 82-88. He, of all people, would have vetoed tax hikes if they destroyed economic growth. In fact, after his largest tax increase, in 1982, the economy boomed. This is not to say that higher taxes lead to economic growth because that would be a silly assumption. Keynes (an advocate of strategic tax cuts) believed that tax cuts spurred spending and investment. Clinton believed in a much lower rate of taxation than Nixon or Eisenhower.

Proponents of progressive taxation believe that taxing the surplus on top and re-deploying it to things that boost consumer spending actually leads to higher economic growth than pure supply side economics which holds that tax cuts trickle down. These arguments are so well traveled, and both sides are pretty entrenched. I'm waiting to see something interesting and new in this debate, but I've grown to expect the same tired talking points.

Hmm, you seem to be trying to argue that high taxes do not drain the economy by going back in time and pointing out the fact that people were really stupid, so that proves that being stupid works.

Given you started this thread you sure don't respond very intelligently. Maybe you should explain why he is wrong rather than just that's stupid? Calling Templarkormac stupid just isn't nice.

Still waiting on your explanation for QE.

It seems pretty clear so far that income inequality exists and has a lot of negative effects on the economy and country. Certainly the opposing side has not given anything close to facts or a study or even an intelligent thought against it yet.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Taxes take money out of the economy. Please explain how taking more money out of the economy would speed it up.

This is a great and technical question which has accumulated decades of crusty talking points, complete with selective data on both sides - and no heavy lifting, as the message board minions scurry to and fro with cut and paste.

Clinton raised taxes on the upper bracket, and it was predicted that this would dampen economic growth, but the opposite happened.
Pat Toomey's Epistemic Closure | New Republic

Also, the growth rate during the 50s and 60s was the highest in the last 1/2 century, and taxes on the upper bracket were between 70-90%.

Reagan raised taxes 11 times between 82-88. He, of all people, would have vetoed tax hikes if they destroyed economic growth. In fact, after his largest tax increase, in 1982, the economy boomed. This is not to say that higher taxes lead to economic growth because that would be a silly assumption. Keynes (an advocate of strategic tax cuts) believed that tax cuts spurred spending and investment. Clinton believed in a much lower rate of taxation than Nixon or Eisenhower.

Proponents of progressive taxation believe that taxing the surplus on top and re-deploying it to things that boost consumer spending actually leads to higher economic growth than pure supply side economics which holds that tax cuts trickle down. These arguments are so well traveled, and both sides are pretty entrenched. I'm waiting to see something interesting and new in this debate, but I've grown to expect the same tired talking points.

Certainly the government is doing its part with spending. What more would the government do with more tax dollars that would boost the economy? All the stimulus spending had a pretty weak effect.

Could that be because government spending doesn't stimulate the economy?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is a great and technical question which has accumulated decades of crusty talking points, complete with selective data on both sides - and no heavy lifting, as the message board minions scurry to and fro with cut and paste.

Clinton raised taxes on the upper bracket, and it was predicted that this would dampen economic growth, but the opposite happened.
Pat Toomey's Epistemic Closure | New Republic

Also, the growth rate during the 50s and 60s was the highest in the last 1/2 century, and taxes on the upper bracket were between 70-90%.

Reagan raised taxes 11 times between 82-88. He, of all people, would have vetoed tax hikes if they destroyed economic growth. In fact, after his largest tax increase, in 1982, the economy boomed. This is not to say that higher taxes lead to economic growth because that would be a silly assumption. Keynes (an advocate of strategic tax cuts) believed that tax cuts spurred spending and investment. Clinton believed in a much lower rate of taxation than Nixon or Eisenhower.

Proponents of progressive taxation believe that taxing the surplus on top and re-deploying it to things that boost consumer spending actually leads to higher economic growth than pure supply side economics which holds that tax cuts trickle down. These arguments are so well traveled, and both sides are pretty entrenched. I'm waiting to see something interesting and new in this debate, but I've grown to expect the same tired talking points.

Hmm, you seem to be trying to argue that high taxes do not drain the economy by going back in time and pointing out the fact that people were really stupid, so that proves that being stupid works.

Given you started this thread you sure don't respond very intelligently. Maybe you should explain why he is wrong rather than just that's stupid? Calling Templarkormac stupid just isn't nice.

Still waiting on your explanation for QE.

It seems pretty clear so far that income inequality exists and has a lot of negative effects on the economy and country. Certainly the opposing side has not given anything close to facts or a study or even an intelligent thought against it yet.

This thread isn't about the impact of the government on the economy, is it? If I started a thread about that, and thought that the post deserved a thoughtful response, it would get one. That means that this post actually failed on two counts, it was off topic, and it really didn't say anything intelligent. All the poster really did was blather the points each side uses, he didn't even take a position on which one he supports.

I posted two different links that explained why QE is nothing more than a stock market stimulus, I suggest you go back and read them. The theory is great, on paper, but it doesn't necessarily work in the real world because you cannot force banks to loan money simply because they have a lot of it, especially when you through in new banking regulations that punish banks for lending money to people that can't afford it.

 

[Brain357]

This is a great and technical question which has accumulated decades of crusty talking points, complete with selective data on both sides - and no heavy lifting, as the message board minions scurry to and fro with cut and paste.

Clinton raised taxes on the upper bracket, and it was predicted that this would dampen economic growth, but the opposite happened.
Pat Toomey's Epistemic Closure | New Republic

Also, the growth rate during the 50s and 60s was the highest in the last 1/2 century, and taxes on the upper bracket were between 70-90%.

Reagan raised taxes 11 times between 82-88. He, of all people, would have vetoed tax hikes if they destroyed economic growth. In fact, after his largest tax increase, in 1982, the economy boomed. This is not to say that higher taxes lead to economic growth because that would be a silly assumption. Keynes (an advocate of strategic tax cuts) believed that tax cuts spurred spending and investment. Clinton believed in a much lower rate of taxation than Nixon or Eisenhower.

Proponents of progressive taxation believe that taxing the surplus on top and re-deploying it to things that boost consumer spending actually leads to higher economic growth than pure supply side economics which holds that tax cuts trickle down. These arguments are so well traveled, and both sides are pretty entrenched. I'm waiting to see something interesting and new in this debate, but I've grown to expect the same tired talking points.

Certainly the government is doing its part with spending. What more would the government do with more tax dollars that would boost the economy? All the stimulus spending had a pretty weak effect.

Could that be because government spending doesn't stimulate the economy?

Could be. I think it doesn't stimulate the economy very effectively, though it probably does a little.