Republicans: why raising taxes on the wealthy is good for the economy

[The Rabbi]

This is Obamas recovery. You can't say Obama sucks and these guys are good. You'd have to prove that with examples of jobs they created.

It is Obama's recovery. Thanks for agreeing.
What does Obama's recovery look like:
Lowest work force participation rate since the 1970s
Stagnant household income
Stagnant GDP growth
Stagnant household wealth
High unemployment among 21-30 year old
Highest level of government dependence in history
Highest government deficits during a recovery.

In short it is the worst recovery on record. Because Obama's policies suck and have failed.

For you loser not us.

Are you a citizen of some other country? That would explain a lot.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

In short it is the worst recovery on record. Because Obama's policies suck and have failed.

yes socialism always fails. Unemployment is 11.2% (u6) and income is

down!! But still to blind dumb liberals this is success!

 

[sealybobo]

This is Obamas recovery. You can't say Obama sucks and these guys are good. You'd have to prove that with examples of jobs they created.

It is Obama's recovery. Thanks for agreeing.
What does Obama's recovery look like:
Lowest work force participation rate since the 1970s
Stagnant household income
Stagnant GDP growth
Stagnant household wealth
High unemployment among 21-30 year old
Highest level of government dependence in history
Highest government deficits during a recovery.

In short it is the worst recovery on record. Because Obama's policies suck and have failed.

For you loser not us.

Are you a citizen of some other country? That would explain a lot.

The economy is great for me. Its also great for every cocky right winger on usmb. You must be a poor right winger. Go back to school or start a business whiner

 

[The Rabbi]

This is Obamas recovery. You can't say Obama sucks and these guys are good. You'd have to prove that with examples of jobs they created.

It is Obama's recovery. Thanks for agreeing.
What does Obama's recovery look like:
Lowest work force participation rate since the 1970s
Stagnant household income
Stagnant GDP growth
Stagnant household wealth
High unemployment among 21-30 year old
Highest level of government dependence in history
Highest government deficits during a recovery.

In short it is the worst recovery on record. Because Obama's policies suck and have failed.

For you loser not us.

Are you a citizen of some other country? That would explain a lot.

The economy is great for me. Its also great for every cocky right winger on usmb. You must be a poor right winger. Go back to school or start a business whiner

You are truly a special kind of stupid. I quote stats and facts and you respond with how things are for you. You are worthless.

 

[sealybobo]

Its exactly what you guys did when yo

This is Obamas recovery. You can't say Obama sucks and these guys are good. You'd have to prove that with examples of jobs they created.

It is Obama's recovery. Thanks for agreeing.
What does Obama's recovery look like:
Lowest work force participation rate since the 1970s
Stagnant household income
Stagnant GDP growth
Stagnant household wealth
High unemployment among 21-30 year old
Highest level of government dependence in history
Highest government deficits during a recovery.

In short it is the worst recovery on record. Because Obama's policies suck and have failed.

For you loser not us.

Are you a citizen of some other country? That would explain a lot.

The economy is great for me. Its also great for every cocky right winger on usmb. You must be a poor right winger. Go back to school or start a business whiner

You are truly a special kind of stupid. I quote stats and facts and you respond with how things are for you. You are worthless.

This is exactly what you guys said in 2007 when you were defending bush and making a case for McCain. I was mocking right wingers!

What do you want to do to help the poor and middle class?

 

[Wyatt earp]

This is Obamas recovery. You can't say Obama sucks and these guys are good. You'd have to prove that with examples of jobs they created.

It is Obama's recovery. Thanks for agreeing.
What does Obama's recovery look like:
Lowest work force participation rate since the 1970s
Stagnant household income
Stagnant GDP growth
Stagnant household wealth
High unemployment among 21-30 year old
Highest level of government dependence in history
Highest government deficits during a recovery.

In short it is the worst recovery on record. Because Obama's policies suck and have failed.

For you loser not us.

Are you a citizen of some other country? That would explain a lot.

The economy is great for me. Its also great for every cocky right winger on usmb. You must be a poor right winger. Go back to school or start a business whiner

You are truly a special kind of stupid. I quote stats and facts and you respond with how things are for you. You are worthless.

Lmao

What would you expect from a 13 year old?

 

[sealybobo]

It is Obama's recovery. Thanks for agreeing.
What does Obama's recovery look like:
Lowest work force participation rate since the 1970s
Stagnant household income
Stagnant GDP growth
Stagnant household wealth
High unemployment among 21-30 year old
Highest level of government dependence in history
Highest government deficits during a recovery.

In short it is the worst recovery on record. Because Obama's policies suck and have failed.

For you loser not us.

Are you a citizen of some other country? That would explain a lot.

The economy is great for me. Its also great for every cocky right winger on usmb. You must be a poor right winger. Go back to school or start a business whiner

You are truly a special kind of stupid. I quote stats and facts and you respond with how things are for you. You are worthless.

Lmao

What would you expect from a 13 year old?

If you're a republican about $5 hr. A day if they are Chinese. And oral if you are a priest. Minimum.

 

[JoeNormal]

They lost their homes and the banks made a fortune. Fuck you douche bag

And why did they lose their homes?

Could it be because they bought homes they could barely afford on an ARM ?

Could it be they remortgaged their homes multiple times as the values were artificially inflated so as to buy more crap they couldn't afford??

We argued this in 2008. Stop defending the criminal mortgage and bankers and GOP. Next you'll bring up Freddy and fanny.

What was criminal about what they did? Who went to jail? Where are the charges?
More tlaking points debunked last Ice Age.

They should be charged with gross negligence and criminal incompetence for constructing such a fragile house of cards. They should be charged with fraud for claiming that it was sound and robust. And they should be charged with collusion for gaming the system and then covering each others backs.

None of those things is going to happen, cupcake.
Maybe you should be charged with stealing people's time with your stupd posts.

It probably won't happen thanks to our politicians being bought off by the corporatocracy. That doesn't mean it shouldn't happen or that some form of street justice won't eventually be meted out.

 

[JoeNormal]

Great article. All should read.

Taxing the rich is good for the economy Marketplace.org

"One of the most pernicious economic falsehoods you'll hear during the next seven months of political campaigning is there's a necessary tradeoff between fairness and growth. By this view, if we raise taxes on the wealthy the economy can't grow as fast.

Wrong. Taxes were far higher on top incomes in the three decades after World War II than they've been since. And the distribution of income was far more equal. Yet the American economy grew faster in those years than it's grown since tax rates were slashed in 1981.

This wasn't a post-war aberration. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in the 1990s, and the economy produced faster job growth and higher wages than it did after George W. Bush slashed taxes on the rich in his first term.

If you need more evidence, consider modern Germany, where taxes on the wealthy are much higher than they are here and the distribution of income is far more equal. But Germany's average annual growth has been faster than that in the United States.

You see, higher taxes on the wealthy can finance more investments in infrastructure and education, which are vital for growth and the economic prospects of the middle class.

Higher taxes on the wealthy also allow for lower taxes on the middle -- potentially restoring enough middle class purchasing power to keep the economy going."

not taxing the rich but giving them subsidies would be good for the country since the wealthy are wealthy because they ( think Steve Jobs) have invented things that we all want to buy to increase our standard of living.

Steve Jobs was an anomaly. Most rich people are more like that worthless sack of shit Lloyd Blankfein.

 

[bripat9643]

[


If anyone should have gone to jail because of Countrywide, it should have been Chris Dodd and Barney Frank.

Not because of Countrywide but other things Barney Queerboy should have spent some time in jail for what he did to cause the failure.

Of course with him prison would have been heaven, especially when he took a shower. He would have been dropping that soap all the time.

Chris Dodd received a mortgage from Countrywide at a special low rate that was only available to "policy makers" and not to regular customers. In other words, he received a bribe, and they would have prosecuted him for it if he hadn't decided to retire.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Great article. All should read.

Taxing the rich is good for the economy Marketplace.org

"One of the most pernicious economic falsehoods you'll hear during the next seven months of political campaigning is there's a necessary tradeoff between fairness and growth. By this view, if we raise taxes on the wealthy the economy can't grow as fast.

Wrong. Taxes were far higher on top incomes in the three decades after World War II than they've been since. And the distribution of income was far more equal. Yet the American economy grew faster in those years than it's grown since tax rates were slashed in 1981.

This wasn't a post-war aberration. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in the 1990s, and the economy produced faster job growth and higher wages than it did after George W. Bush slashed taxes on the rich in his first term.

If you need more evidence, consider modern Germany, where taxes on the wealthy are much higher than they are here and the distribution of income is far more equal. But Germany's average annual growth has been faster than that in the United States.

You see, higher taxes on the wealthy can finance more investments in infrastructure and education, which are vital for growth and the economic prospects of the middle class.

Higher taxes on the wealthy also allow for lower taxes on the middle -- potentially restoring enough middle class purchasing power to keep the economy going."

not taxing the rich but giving them subsidies would be good for the country since the wealthy are wealthy because they ( think Steve Jobs) have invented things that we all want to buy to increase our standard of living.

Steve Jobs was an anomaly. Most rich people are more like that worthless sack of shit Lloyd Blankfein.

too stupid of course all the goods and service we use were invented and sold by someone. THe objective of govt should be to encourage the process that got us from the stone age to here, not to tax it and slow it down.

 

[bripat9643]

A Republican on USMB just told me he made all his money back from the Bush recession and then some. Sounds like Obama's did a great job cleaning up Bush's mess. This is why your party is so focused on how Obama's doing with ISIS. You can't say a think about his economics. The only thing you can say is that the middle class and poor aren't doing well and we all know you guys don't give a shit about them. When Bush was in office and the poor and middle class weren't doing well you said they were just whiners who either needed to go back to school or start their own business'. So take your own fucking advice. If the economy sucks then you suck. No one elses fault but yours, right?

Remarkable case of cherry picking and arguing by anecdote.
The facts are that workforce participation is back to the late 70s levels, GDP growth is paltry, household incomes are stagnant, household wealth is stagnant, government dependence continues to grow from already high levels, business formation is at the lowest point in a long time
Those are facts. Not what some guy on a messageboard told you once.

So start sharing the profits with the workers. Walmart just gave their employees a raise. That's a start.

Why should WM share profits with workers? What did they do to deserve that? And nice job dodging and deflceting.

You really got to wonder why these numskulls think they're entitled to a share of the profits when they didn't put up a thing to earn a share. Profits are the share that goes to the owners. The workers are already getting their share. We call it wages and salaries.

Really pinhead?

Ford workers to get 6 900 profit-sharing checks

Yeah, really. You just said you are entitled to part of it. Why do you think you are?

 

[JoeNormal]

Great article. All should read.

Taxing the rich is good for the economy Marketplace.org

"One of the most pernicious economic falsehoods you'll hear during the next seven months of political campaigning is there's a necessary tradeoff between fairness and growth. By this view, if we raise taxes on the wealthy the economy can't grow as fast.

Wrong. Taxes were far higher on top incomes in the three decades after World War II than they've been since. And the distribution of income was far more equal. Yet the American economy grew faster in those years than it's grown since tax rates were slashed in 1981.

This wasn't a post-war aberration. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in the 1990s, and the economy produced faster job growth and higher wages than it did after George W. Bush slashed taxes on the rich in his first term.

If you need more evidence, consider modern Germany, where taxes on the wealthy are much higher than they are here and the distribution of income is far more equal. But Germany's average annual growth has been faster than that in the United States.

You see, higher taxes on the wealthy can finance more investments in infrastructure and education, which are vital for growth and the economic prospects of the middle class.

Higher taxes on the wealthy also allow for lower taxes on the middle -- potentially restoring enough middle class purchasing power to keep the economy going."

not taxing the rich but giving them subsidies would be good for the country since the wealthy are wealthy because they ( think Steve Jobs) have invented things that we all want to buy to increase our standard of living.

Steve Jobs was an anomaly. Most rich people are more like that worthless sack of shit Lloyd Blankfein.

too stupid of course all the goods and service we use were invented and sold by someone. THe objective of govt should be to encourage the process that got us from the stone age to here, not to tax it and slow it down.

Most of the technological wonders that you admire were created by people in the upper end of the working class - not by the rich. A few marketing successes were created by the rich but that's not what makes our modern world great.

 

[bripat9643]

And why did they lose their homes?

Could it be because they bought homes they could barely afford on an ARM ?

Could it be they remortgaged their homes multiple times as the values were artificially inflated so as to buy more crap they couldn't afford??

We argued this in 2008. Stop defending the criminal mortgage and bankers and GOP. Next you'll bring up Freddy and fanny.

What was criminal about what they did? Who went to jail? Where are the charges?
More tlaking points debunked last Ice Age.

They should be charged with gross negligence and criminal incompetence for constructing such a fragile house of cards. They should be charged with fraud for claiming that it was sound and robust. And they should be charged with collusion for gaming the system and then covering each others backs.

In short, they didn't break any laws.

Thanks for playing!

There are laws against everything I listed.

There's a crime called "gaming the system?" Strange, I've never heard of it. Can you quote the statute?

 

[danielpalos]

Great article. All should read.

Taxing the rich is good for the economy Marketplace.org

"One of the most pernicious economic falsehoods you'll hear during the next seven months of political campaigning is there's a necessary tradeoff between fairness and growth. By this view, if we raise taxes on the wealthy the economy can't grow as fast.

Wrong. Taxes were far higher on top incomes in the three decades after World War II than they've been since. And the distribution of income was far more equal. Yet the American economy grew faster in those years than it's grown since tax rates were slashed in 1981.

This wasn't a post-war aberration. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in the 1990s, and the economy produced faster job growth and higher wages than it did after George W. Bush slashed taxes on the rich in his first term.

If you need more evidence, consider modern Germany, where taxes on the wealthy are much higher than they are here and the distribution of income is far more equal. But Germany's average annual growth has been faster than that in the United States.

You see, higher taxes on the wealthy can finance more investments in infrastructure and education, which are vital for growth and the economic prospects of the middle class.

Higher taxes on the wealthy also allow for lower taxes on the middle -- potentially restoring enough middle class purchasing power to keep the economy going."

not taxing the rich but giving them subsidies would be good for the country since the wealthy are wealthy because they ( think Steve Jobs) have invented things that we all want to buy to increase our standard of living.

Steve Jobs was an anomaly. Most rich people are more like that worthless sack of shit Lloyd Blankfein.

too stupid of course all the goods and service we use were invented and sold by someone. THe objective of govt should be to encourage the process that got us from the stone age to here, not to tax it and slow it down.

public sector means of production could compete with the private sector and generate revenue at the same to defray the cost of government. Hoover Dam and the Fed are two examples.

 

[sealybobo]

Great article. All should read.

Taxing the rich is good for the economy Marketplace.org

"One of the most pernicious economic falsehoods you'll hear during the next seven months of political campaigning is there's a necessary tradeoff between fairness and growth. By this view, if we raise taxes on the wealthy the economy can't grow as fast.

Wrong. Taxes were far higher on top incomes in the three decades after World War II than they've been since. And the distribution of income was far more equal. Yet the American economy grew faster in those years than it's grown since tax rates were slashed in 1981.

This wasn't a post-war aberration. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in the 1990s, and the economy produced faster job growth and higher wages than it did after George W. Bush slashed taxes on the rich in his first term.

If you need more evidence, consider modern Germany, where taxes on the wealthy are much higher than they are here and the distribution of income is far more equal. But Germany's average annual growth has been faster than that in the United States.

You see, higher taxes on the wealthy can finance more investments in infrastructure and education, which are vital for growth and the economic prospects of the middle class.

Higher taxes on the wealthy also allow for lower taxes on the middle -- potentially restoring enough middle class purchasing power to keep the economy going."

not taxing the rich but giving them subsidies would be good for the country since the wealthy are wealthy because they ( think Steve Jobs) have invented things that we all want to buy to increase our standard of living.

Steve Jobs was an anomaly. Most rich people are more like that worthless sack of shit Lloyd Blankfein.

too stupid of course all the goods and service we use were invented and sold by someone. THe objective of govt should be to encourage the process that got us from the stone age to here, not to tax it and slow it down.

Most of the technological wonders that you admire were created by people in the upper end of the working class - not by the rich. A few marketing successes were created by the rich but that's not what makes our modern world great.

I wish Edison would have charged 1 billion for electricity and said "fuck you all free market capitalism bitches". Or he should have demanded yellowstone.

 

[bripat9643]

This is Obamas recovery. You can't say Obama sucks and these guys are good. You'd have to prove that with examples of jobs they created.

It is Obama's recovery. Thanks for agreeing.
What does Obama's recovery look like:
Lowest work force participation rate since the 1970s
Stagnant household income
Stagnant GDP growth
Stagnant household wealth
High unemployment among 21-30 year old
Highest level of government dependence in history
Highest government deficits during a recovery.

In short it is the worst recovery on record. Because Obama's policies suck and have failed.

For you loser not us.

Are you a citizen of some other country? That would explain a lot.

The economy is great for me. Its also great for every cocky right winger on usmb. You must be a poor right winger. Go back to school or start a business whiner

It's great for all parasites sucking on the government teat. It sucks for people who actually have to produce something people want to buy.

 

[bripat9643]

Great article. All should read.

Taxing the rich is good for the economy Marketplace.org

"One of the most pernicious economic falsehoods you'll hear during the next seven months of political campaigning is there's a necessary tradeoff between fairness and growth. By this view, if we raise taxes on the wealthy the economy can't grow as fast.

Wrong. Taxes were far higher on top incomes in the three decades after World War II than they've been since. And the distribution of income was far more equal. Yet the American economy grew faster in those years than it's grown since tax rates were slashed in 1981.

This wasn't a post-war aberration. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in the 1990s, and the economy produced faster job growth and higher wages than it did after George W. Bush slashed taxes on the rich in his first term.

If you need more evidence, consider modern Germany, where taxes on the wealthy are much higher than they are here and the distribution of income is far more equal. But Germany's average annual growth has been faster than that in the United States.

You see, higher taxes on the wealthy can finance more investments in infrastructure and education, which are vital for growth and the economic prospects of the middle class.

Higher taxes on the wealthy also allow for lower taxes on the middle -- potentially restoring enough middle class purchasing power to keep the economy going."

not taxing the rich but giving them subsidies would be good for the country since the wealthy are wealthy because they ( think Steve Jobs) have invented things that we all want to buy to increase our standard of living.

Steve Jobs was an anomaly. Most rich people are more like that worthless sack of shit Lloyd Blankfein.

too stupid of course all the goods and service we use were invented and sold by someone. THe objective of govt should be to encourage the process that got us from the stone age to here, not to tax it and slow it down.

public sector means of production could compete with the private sector and generate revenue at the same to defray the cost of government. Hoover Dam and the Fed are two examples.

The public sector doesn't produce anything anyone would pay for voluntarily. It never has, and it never will.

 

[bripat9643]

Great article. All should read.

Taxing the rich is good for the economy Marketplace.org

"One of the most pernicious economic falsehoods you'll hear during the next seven months of political campaigning is there's a necessary tradeoff between fairness and growth. By this view, if we raise taxes on the wealthy the economy can't grow as fast.

Wrong. Taxes were far higher on top incomes in the three decades after World War II than they've been since. And the distribution of income was far more equal. Yet the American economy grew faster in those years than it's grown since tax rates were slashed in 1981.

This wasn't a post-war aberration. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in the 1990s, and the economy produced faster job growth and higher wages than it did after George W. Bush slashed taxes on the rich in his first term.

If you need more evidence, consider modern Germany, where taxes on the wealthy are much higher than they are here and the distribution of income is far more equal. But Germany's average annual growth has been faster than that in the United States.

You see, higher taxes on the wealthy can finance more investments in infrastructure and education, which are vital for growth and the economic prospects of the middle class.

Higher taxes on the wealthy also allow for lower taxes on the middle -- potentially restoring enough middle class purchasing power to keep the economy going."

not taxing the rich but giving them subsidies would be good for the country since the wealthy are wealthy because they ( think Steve Jobs) have invented things that we all want to buy to increase our standard of living.

Steve Jobs was an anomaly. Most rich people are more like that worthless sack of shit Lloyd Blankfein.

too stupid of course all the goods and service we use were invented and sold by someone. THe objective of govt should be to encourage the process that got us from the stone age to here, not to tax it and slow it down.

Most of the technological wonders that you admire were created by people in the upper end of the working class - not by the rich. A few marketing successes were created by the rich but that's not what makes our modern world great.

I wish Edison would have charged 1 billion for electricity and said "fuck you all free market capitalism bitches". Or he should have demanded yellowstone.

And why would you want him to do that, because you hate electric lighting?

 

[bripat9643]

Great article. All should read.

Taxing the rich is good for the economy Marketplace.org

"One of the most pernicious economic falsehoods you'll hear during the next seven months of political campaigning is there's a necessary tradeoff between fairness and growth. By this view, if we raise taxes on the wealthy the economy can't grow as fast.

Wrong. Taxes were far higher on top incomes in the three decades after World War II than they've been since. And the distribution of income was far more equal. Yet the American economy grew faster in those years than it's grown since tax rates were slashed in 1981.

This wasn't a post-war aberration. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in the 1990s, and the economy produced faster job growth and higher wages than it did after George W. Bush slashed taxes on the rich in his first term.

If you need more evidence, consider modern Germany, where taxes on the wealthy are much higher than they are here and the distribution of income is far more equal. But Germany's average annual growth has been faster than that in the United States.

You see, higher taxes on the wealthy can finance more investments in infrastructure and education, which are vital for growth and the economic prospects of the middle class.

Higher taxes on the wealthy also allow for lower taxes on the middle -- potentially restoring enough middle class purchasing power to keep the economy going."

not taxing the rich but giving them subsidies would be good for the country since the wealthy are wealthy because they ( think Steve Jobs) have invented things that we all want to buy to increase our standard of living.

Steve Jobs was an anomaly. Most rich people are more like that worthless sack of shit Lloyd Blankfein.

too stupid of course all the goods and service we use were invented and sold by someone. THe objective of govt should be to encourage the process that got us from the stone age to here, not to tax it and slow it down.

Most of the technological wonders that you admire were created by people in the upper end of the working class - not by the rich. A few marketing successes were created by the rich but that's not what makes our modern world great.

The people who created them became rich. Do the names Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt and Andrew Carnegie mean anything to you?