Skip to main content

View Diary: Boehner just shot himself in the foot (170 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Isn't that the diarist's whole point? (23+ / 0-)

    All that line says is that raising the top rates to Clinton's level does not ipso facto mean the economy slows.

    Certainly at no point does the diarist say or even imply that tax increases are meant to take private wealth to spread to "elites."

    The opposite actually, taxes on the elites must be raised (ever so slightly) so that the poor and old do not suffer cuts in social programs.

    Not trying to be an ass, your comment seems to misread the diarist's whole point.  Peace.

    Blessed are the peacemakers, the poor, the meek and the sick. Message to Repug Fundies: "DO you really wonder "what would Jesus do?" I didn't think so.

    by 4CasandChlo on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 09:59:22 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly (51+ / 0-)

      There is ZERO evidence the Clinton/Democrats tax bill that raised rates in 1993 (and got NO republican votes), had any negative impact on the economy.

      1. Tax rates raised in 1993
      2.  Economy growing by 1994
      3.  Largest economic boom in history 1994-2000 (much larger than the 1998-2000 dot-com bubble)
      4.  Balanced budget by 1999

      Or:

      1.  Bush tax cuts
      2.  Surpluses immediately turn into deficits
      3.  Deficits grow exponentially
      4.  Economy crashes seven years later

      Basic logic.  Personal income tax rates have no impact on the broader economy.  Still impossible for wingnuts to see.

      •  The entire pissing contest (12+ / 0-)

        is based around the fossilized economic philosophy of “trickle down economics”.  It's BS and the economic history of the US backs that up.  When the marginal rate is high all elements of society prosper, conversely, when the rate is low the economy suffers stagnation, recession or depression – that's, take it to the bank, history.  
        In 1922, a series of rate cuts on the marginal tax began. During and after WWI the highest marginal tax rate was 73 percent; by 1925 it was reduced to 24 percent.
        In 1924, Secretary of Treasury, Andrew Mellon (who was the richest man in America at the time)  wrote,

        It seems difficult for some to understand that high rates of taxation do not necessarily mean large revenue to the Government, and that more revenue may often be obtained by lower rates." ..
        ...he pushed for the reduction of the marginal tax from 73% to an eventual 24%.
        Four years later came the crash of 1929 and the economy did not recover until after the onset of WWII – 12+ years later.
         Even Herbert Hoover realized the disastrous effect  the reduction had on the economy and late in his administration raised the rate to 64%.

        "If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them. Isaac Asimov (8.25 / -5.64}

        by carver on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 01:28:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The way I see it, there is no causal effect (6+ / 0-)

          regarding tax rates. Both the crashes of 1929 and 2008 were caused by market manipulation, caused by lack of regulation. Presently we need more revenue because that money can be used to stimulate the economy, and pay for social programs so that the poor don't drown. The diarist's point that Clinton's tax hike didn't hurt the economy merely negates the stupid Repuke argument that it will. It's a great comeback. We, as a society have to determine what we want for our country, and collect sufficient taxes to allow for that. That's the only reason we should be concerned about rates.

        •  I don't think so (0+ / 0-)

          the entire pissing contest is based on the fact that the true power/money brokers don't give a shit about anyone who even has to debate this issue.

          At the end of the day, what comes down will be to the benefit of those who truly pull the strings (because if it isn't they will simply relocate their money / selves / corporations / hidden money during the inevitable phase-in period or whatever it will be called.

          There's a stubborn refusal by most people to accept that it simply is not going to make a real difference to those who already have more money than 10 generations could fritter way. All of this pretend horse-trading is about which non high-tens-of-millionaires exactly shoulder how much.

          The road to repair (if it even exists) will be littered with sacrificial lambs of the unfortunates - who will include "entitlements", those wealthy but not enough to affect the way the tax code is actually written.

          The only thing that can make the repair work is the burden ending up (remaining) on the shoulders of those without the power/influence/money to escape shouldering however much falls on them. Norquist, Koch, Romney, Dimon, Blankfein and their ilk will not pay one cent more. They'll see to it, and y'all may as well accept it.

          Increased tax rates will, to these people, merely be inconveniences they'll instruct "Dewey, Cheatham and Howe LLC" lawyers to avoid.

          The regular person in the street should prepare for the massive tax-truck that's a coming down the road.

      •  Isn't McConnell, right now, trying to squelch a (6+ / 0-)

        report that states that cutting taxes on the very rich has no impact on job creation?

        Freedom has two enemies: Those who want to control everyone around them...and those who feel no need to control themselves.

        by Sirenus on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 02:08:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The GOP hasn't had an original (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        opinionated, WinSmith

        thought on taxes/spending/deficits in AT LEAST 20 years, going back to the 1993 Clinton Tax bill. That bill passed with NO GOP votes in the House and resulted in a 50-50 tie in the Senate that was broken by VP Gore.
             We all know what happened: economy boomed, tax revenues rose, 22 million net new jobs created AND in 1999 we began running surpluses in the budget and paying down the national debt. (Indeed I recall learned articles estimating the ENTIRE NATIONAL DEBT would be paid off by about 2013 and that the Treasury needed to begin drawing up plans for financing America w/o bonds.)
              And THIS link will give you all sorts of quotes from 1993 from the GOP: Gingrich, Kasich, Armey, Bunning, Pryce, Dornan predicting "job killing" policies, deficits, recession, more gay rights, fluoridated water, and dogs and cats living together in sin (OK, I made up a couple of those). SAME warnings/threats, often in the same words!

        (Bonus quotes when you scroll down: Republicans warning against the takeover of medicine and creeping socialism from 1965 with the enactment of Medicare;
        AND the end of America with the passage of Social Security in 1935. Ah....to be SO WRONG for SO LONG!!!)

        Shalom.

        "God has given wine to gladden the hearts of people." Psalm 104:15

        by WineRev on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 06:01:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Raising taxes on the rich (36+ / 0-)

      will not slow the economy, it will stimulate it. That is what they don't seem to get.

      When you raise taxes on the rich to gather more revenue, you are gathering it from sources that do little or nothing to promote economic activity.

      If you then spend that money by increasing spending at the lower end of the income scale, every dollar stimulates the economy many times over.

      The converse is true .... cutting welfare programs in a recession is quite likely to worsen the economy.

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      by twigg on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 10:43:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  "That is what they don't seem to get" (27+ / 0-)

        is, unfortunately, false. They get it, they get it, they get it.

        A failing economy raises unemployment - increasing pressure on employees not employers. You get the "they should be happy for a minimum wage job".

        You get pressure to reduce public services, pressure to "privatize" the military - in gneral, you force the lowest overhead provider of services (governments) out of the markt, opening the market to profit seeking firms.

        Never, ever say they don't get it - they do. They just can't say they do.

        There is no environmental, social, economic or resource problem that wouldn't be helped by 3 billion fwer people on the planet.

        by tjlord on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 11:39:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  An additional benefit that is not discussed (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        trueblueliberal, elwior

        much here at DKOS is the supply of dollars will grow rapidly  because the government demand to fund deficits will decrease and competition for new borrowers will intensify . Supply and demand will allow banks and lenders to have beaucoup bucks to lend to home buyers, small business and consumers and they'll respond by loosening qualifying and allow commercial borrowing to foresee-ably explode . The demand for loans is great right now, the supply is limited because of government deficits and debt; reduce deficits and debt and whoosh the real estate market, entrepreneurs, credit lines and cash flow will expand dramatically as it did in 1995 under the same scenario.

        After all is said and done, a lot more is said than done.

        by Brahman Colorado on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 12:25:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  raising income taxes on rich helps economy (0+ / 0-)

        because those rich who actually have some business enterprise then can save on tax bill by investing in their enterprises thus lowering their taxable income.

        this investment in their enterprises helps them also in that it makes their enterprise more valuable (presuming they actually have a viable business operation).

        conversely, lowering their personal tax rate reduces the incentive for investing in productive business.

        perhaps eliminating all income taxes for,say, first $25,000 salaried income would help those who are frugal and enterprising to accumulate some capital to use in business.

        a transaction tax on stock trades could generate considerable income with very little pain or problem.  in this fashion, the increased productivity of computerization, etc., could be shared with more and further increase growth of the economy.  by the way, i do small stock trades and this would not make any appreciable difference in my income.

        there seems to be many easy and useful options to maintain and strengthen the entire society.  at  present, seems anything that does not enhance wealth of the wealthy is filtered out of most people's thought.

        regards,

    •  If low taxes created jobs we wouldn't have LOST (14+ / 0-)

      millions of jobs under GW Bush. That is the classic refutation of their argument.

      P.us, anyone who extracts over $250,000 from a business isn't owner of a small business.  Most of these are self-employed drpoctors and lawyers who make millions, not Mom-and-Pop grocery stores or a little catering business.

      The scientific uncertainty doesn't mean that climate change isn't actually happening.

      by Mimikatz on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 11:56:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  "small business", "job creators" (5+ / 0-)

        these are emotional taglines, they are not descriptors in the classic sense of...making sense.
        That is not what they are being used for.
        Small business, in the classic sense, is also not the "largest segment of job creation in the economy".
         My local general store is exactly that type of business. They have five employees, including the two owners. We would need hundreds of these types of businesses in my small town to employ the population, and that wouldn't happen because there is no demand for hundresds of these small businesses in a small town.

        The whole thing is ludicrous on its face. The expansive (read: fictional) definition of 'small business' that makes it barely possible to make the above claims nullifies the image of them as small, locally controlled enterprises. It's a brazen lie, but a very effective and destructive one.

        Stand for something, or you'll fall for anything - Malcolm X via Skindred

        by kamarvt on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 12:47:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site