Lucky...

Right, they get cuts and don't recirculate the money. Fair or not, the system works when money is mandatorily reecirculated. One caviate to paying taxes if you're really successful is to reinvest it on your own, use it as a writeoff and not be taxed. So either you reinvest it or the gov will reinvest it for you - that's the tax message.

I don't claim he fucked it ALL up but NAFTA sure as hell hasn't helped us one bit. Agreed, NAFTA was more of a Republican child than it was a Dem product, obvioulsy he signed it which sucks, but it was simply a corp tax cut/deregulation. The outflux of American jobs in North America didn't significantly change after NAFTA anyway, so it was a Republican initiated, Republican produced thru congress tax cut and deregulation. But that would be 1 small area where Clinton fucked up, very miniscule.

The 80's were good? That's new to me! They were good to some (mostly the already wealthy) and rotten to others. The 80s also led to a tripling of the national debt. IT'S EASY TO APPEAR WEALTHY IF YOU'RE LIVING OFF BORROWED MONEY. Sure, but the title question here was: do tax cuts lead to horrible economic times. Pretty clear counter example. Democrats knock Reagan for the debt; they don't try to knock him for the economy, esp right after Carter. . Except, as GHWB found, living off borrowed money comes back to haunt you in the end. There may be good times for a while, then there is payback time. We are learning that again, right now. Yes and GHWB found that, he tried to fix it and was outed by his own party for it.

The 80's were good? That's new to me! They were good to some (mostly the already wealthy) and rotten to others. The 80s also led to a tripling of the national debt. IT'S EASY TO APPEAR WEALTHY IF YOU'RE LIVING OFF BORROWED MONEY. Sure, but the title question here was: do tax cuts lead to horrible economic times. Pretty clear counter example. Democrats knock Reagan for the debt; they don't try to knock him for the economy, esp right after Carter. Fortunately Clinton managed to wipe that memory of the 'last Democratic' President. Look at the graph, lower left: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States*** Right before the GD and the 1990 recession, deep cuts.

Run like the wind..... Good, because I don't want to talk morality, it's so subjective. Let's talk economy. Bush was a trainwreck, let's fly past that as we are in agreement. Clinton: - Unemp from 7% to

Roaring 80's? Yea, his contraction of the money supply pushed unemp to 10.8% and the recession lasted years. Unemp never really got low under him. The 80's were roaring for the uber rich, shitty for many. Yes, the 90's were the shit, remember the want ads, they were their own newspaper. Jobs were everywhere, wages up, education and housing available. The rich got richer and the poor moved up during that era. We headed off the debt increase and had a huge gov surplus. Sending increased 32% over 8 years and tax receipts were up 72%. That's roaring, the market shot up to 280% of it's original 3500. Show me one ill indicator, yet you want to wash it in with the caustic Regan era that thrippled the debt when the debt was stable as he inherited it? BRILLIANCE. We'll just whitewash it all and call it a push. I would to if my party / ideology was primarily responsible for fucking it all up. Well then let me help you out, brother. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States See the chart at the bottom left? Hmmm, look at what happened right before the GD in 25-28.... 25% top tax rate. During that time the top .01% owned as much as the bottom 40%, even more out of whack than now. Then Hoover left them alone but lowered them a hair and 12 mill died and the economy died. Hoover, in his last year, to fix things raised taxes to 63% and FDR raised them more and the economy started to come out of the GD. Taxes remained high and the war years and post were petty descent. Eisenhower left them high and the debt actually lowered during this time. LBJ lowered them to 70% and tehy stayed about there until fascist Ronnie lowered them in stages: 50%, 38%, 28%. So of course when we get below 40% recessions are likely, below 30% they are imminent. Of course we enjoyed the 1990 recession that last 2+ years. GHWB raised them a bit and Clinton raised them more which started the healing of the debt/deficit; the economy was great. Then dickhead slashed them and blew spending out which hammered it all. Tax cuts, my friends, fucks everything up.

Yes, you specified 1 guy who hasn't done thing 1 to the tax code as being the devil, yet you ignore the true asswipes; Reagan and GWB. BTW, you must not be aware that GHWB was a Republican, I constantly give him credit too, as well, Eisenhower was awesome. It's just one of many indicators. See, political sciene is a bastard science in that you cannot seperate the independent variable and test it, you cannot run teh same test 1,000 times and make observations. All we can do is make observations based upon what we have. So the market is a relevant indcator and I use it. Ahhhhhhh, yes, the delayed-impact theory where we just transpose the results where we want like some kind of wordjumble. I do credit GHWB for raising taxes and cutting spending, I didn't in this thread but I constantly do. No, you wrote, "I think it is fair for them to pay a bit more." I provided data to establish your 'bit more' is a joke considering the top 20% hold virtually all of the cash but 7%, which is held by the lower. The uppers do pay most of the taxes and they should pay more. Whenever the gov makes them pay more the country does much better. Meaningless. The Dems, as of late, have been virtually flawless economically, please show me otherwise, I don't need your warm/fuzzy admission, I want info. If we must tangent frrom tax cuts and their afffect on the economy. And then Bush did what? OBL was pissed when GHWB invavde the Gulf, he did nothing to prevent terrorism, Clinton did nothing and GWB did nothing in the almost 8 months, but he did go on vacation all of Aug 2001. 911 wasn't about cuts in spending, it was about a long-standing arrogant American philosphy that they would never attack us here. We could probably chase it back several decades. You largely ignored all I wrote, I ask you this one question again: Good, because I don't want to talk morality, it's so subjective. Let's talk economy. Bush was a trainwreck, let's fly past that as we are in agreement. Clinton: - Unemp from 7% to

The top 20% hold 93% of all cash and 85% of all asset. Yea, just a tad bit, barely noticeable disparity - nice sugar coat. Good, because I don't want to talk morality, it's so subjective. Let's talk economy. Bush was a trainwreck, let's fly past that as we are in agreement. Clinton: - Unemp from 7% to

Yep, including the military, just another social program. Right, and it drives greed too. Like the guy at work who fell off a ladder at work and got a compound fracture in his arm. Surgery and a month on the job light duty, the co decided he was broken and shitcanned him. Corporations only care about people if they can profit from them, otherwise they are garbage to them. Money pools in corporations with a few people, money distributes in gov programs, gov jobs, etc. Bottom line is neither are more efficent at the task, corps are more efficient at eliminating people to employ so the profit is more centralized, creating a disparity of wealth.

Exactly, people try to compare a countries economy with a govs economy. If we operated on a personal level the way most countries operate, we would be homeless. In the short run, that's true. The long run it's a big deal, which is why I'm pro-tax increases. No it doesn't, just the interest, which is a big deal. I wouldn't say they have zero implication, they just don't have a direcct implication upon any given individual. I'm not saying that, you're being abstract. There is no direcct connection between taxation and spending other than special bond measures. When it comes to the 2 biggest drains: Military and social spending, the gov spends w/o concern for paying for it. Govs collect what they can and spend what they want. Perhaps, but if the gov opens let's say HC to all and it costs 1T over a decade, will that cost me more? No. Will it cost you more? No. Will it cost 98% of all Americans more? No. So there really is no connection between taxation and most spending.

I realize you're one of those guys that turns every thread into Obama hate, but I'm not limiting anything from or to Obama. In fact, it's ridiculous to bring Obama into this as he has yet to change the tax code. It's far more relevant to lookat history and see what taxation, high or low, has done to teh economic picture; agree? No, Obama's tax hike and the sunsetting of Bush's tax cuts are nothing compared to Hoover thru Eisenhower's tax increases or refusal to lower them. To decry Obama's potential is nuts versus looking backwards and drawing a comparison. You do understand teh taxes of yesteryear, right? So you are drawing a connecction between taxing and spending? Please, illustrate how presidents tax as they spend. IOW's, a given president increases spending, so he also increased taxation to cover it. Please illustrate. I dunno, are you rich? WHat is your bracket? I guess 'rich' is subjective. BTW, if ya don't wanna get taxed, quit making so much GD money! I guess I could thje neo-con thing and say if ya don't like it, leave. Of course virtually any civilized place you go you'll pay much higher taxes, so I guess it's not so bad. As for running a 3rd grade show, if you like fiscal responsibility you must have liked GHWB and Clinton, at least comparatively. That's really a non-issue anymore, as foreign cars are built here too.

Without a doubt. Or even if you give it to a freeloader, they will return it immediately; give it to a millionaire via tax breaks or a grant, they often pocket it. The economy works best from both ends, but in times of trouble it works best from the bottom up.

Here's my take, recessions / depression can be caused by many things, but what role do taxes play in that? Any, none, a lot, or? Are you a supply sider that basically states if you make the millionaires into multi-millionaires they will then return the favor by hiring people; if you refuse to make them multi then they will protest and not hire. IOW's, it's leveraging the government to lower taxes or else. The other side states that if you tax the rich more heavily that that revenue can be used for the 2 main social programs: Social welfare and military welfare. Do increased taxes on the rich create a more prosperous, stable economy?

Yet another pa? Two in the same post Nice You really do need a job. You will feel better about things and yourself (instead of waiting for yet another handout) and have less time to bitch about things on this site

some of which is good for getting people to invest in the housing market again as well as paying back the Chinese - just won't be able to afford that vacation abroad anymore. All we've seen since Obama is deflation, typical of a recession, so I'm not sure what people are talking about who decry inflation. When we get jobs together and things run well, prosper, then we will have the fear of inflation and we can raise the interest rate as Clinton did to ward off inflation and a runaway economy. The real mess was under Bush when we had a failing economy and massive inflation; brings me back to stagflation of the 70's. As for inflation and job loss, it seems to be ahead of schedule as in fewer job losses and no fear of immediate inflation: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091015/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_economy

He's as artful with statistics as Reagan was. Ah yes, another dissatisfied customer unable to refute my data. yet willing to jump in and post.....nothing.

We've actually just left that. Under Bush: - Gas prices trippled - House prices doubled - Food prices increasd incredibly - Etc And this is all Bushes fault? Hey wonderworld that was going on way before bush. Oh, that taking the DJ from 3500 to 9800, turning a 290B deficit in 1992 to a 236B surplus in 2000 and rounding off a 20-year cycle of debt increase of 4.5T to that of 33B his last year? Other than that, he didn't do shit. Edited to add: Unemp from 7% to < 4%. You might want to edit your post again Why don't ya show me what is wrong rather than trying to ease the pain of your lovely party by being theatric and not really saying anything?

Yet another pa? Two in the same post Nice You really do need a job. You will feel better about things and yourself (instead of waiting for yet another handout) and have less time to bitch about things on this site

Which? No, I want HC stability and availability. I'm working now, I've wanted uni-care years ago when I was doing well, so this isn't a sudden desire to have uni-care. BTW, it's off no ones back, it won't cost anyone a dime, just goes on the rubber check like your beloved overblown military. It will be funny to watch all the people who now complain about HC but receive HC under the new program. Will you be one? Sureeeee. Just like teh stimulus check whininers; whine about stimulus payments yet cashed theirs. Oh, dod ya mouth off to the wrong person? I'm not destitute, I just don't have HC and haven't for years. Then quit blaming me for stealing, when I am not, and go after your beloved theives stealing from the other massive social program; military contracts and tell them to quit stealing. Oh, you are ok with certaion types of theivery? OK. That sentence makes no sense. Considering that virtually everyone was doing better in Jan 2001 than they were in 93, then doing way worse in Jan 2009 I'm not sure who to blame for things that were not within my control. - Ergonomics Bill - Overtime Bill - Dept of Labor implementation of Nazi's and rule changes - Runniong of debt - Cutting of taxes - Mishandling of every crisis: 911, Katrina, etc Who do we blame, Rush?

We've actually just left that. Under Bush: - Gas prices trippled - House prices doubled - Food prices increasd incredibly - Etc And this is all Bushes fault? Hey wonderworld that was going on way before bush. Oh, that taking the DJ from 3500 to 9800, turning a 290B deficit in 1992 to a 236B surplus in 2000 and rounding off a 20-year cycle of debt increase of 4.5T to that of 33B his last year? Other than that, he didn't do shit. Edited to add: Unemp from 7% to < 4%.

Well you did write: I am not a Republican...got anything left to say original now? So you are not a Republican but you constantly vote for Republicans; you make a lot of sense. You need to find where I said you didn't vote for Bush, I was just inferring that there are lots of Bush voters out there, yet none seem to admit it very often, hence the election must be fixed due to the lack of available admitted Bush voters. Too complex for you to understand? I have a job and someone has to write your arguments; you can't.

317B of the 700 was it.

Bush inherited a descent economy, left a turd. Obama inherited a turd and has flipped it in 9 months; jobs have to come around and we're there. No one thought the market would be this far yet.

Conservatives want Obama to fail, the country to fail and everyone to marvel in the glory of failure so they can reinstall their version of success. Holy shit, and you didn't want President George Bush to fail? Speaking of failure, the "anything but Bush" mental condition, has persisted so long, the Nobel Prize Committee has bought into it. They think they can now influence US foreign policy. No, I was doing well in that era. During Bush I lost my job, had my house foreclose and that was the worst 8 years of my life; I needed him to succeed and teh country to succeed or at least not go down the shitter. Of course when my life went down the shitter I wished worse than failure on him and his policies, but at the start I wanted him to just not fuck anything up. So, as usual, we have another victim. Had nothing to do with the choices you made I bet. I got to admit, you got the victim shit down pat. But it makes me feel stronger you are paid to post here.

I'm starting to rethink that the 2000 and maybeteh 2004 election really were fixed....never can find any Bush voters; comne on out of the Bush closet - it's ok.