Skip to main content

After 30 years of re-engineering our nation’s economy and tax code to deliver huge benefits, free of charge, to the wealthy, the most massive transfer of wealth in the history of the world —a transfer of wealth that has led to now catastrophically failed wealth disparities between the wealthiest and the poorest—, we have not seen the wildly prolific job-creation that was promised. Indeed, we have seen our manufacturing base stripped away piece by piece and our middle class society systematically eroded.

Now, after 10 years of massive tax breaks for the wealthiest people in the history of humanity, we have seen a further concentration of wealth and a further erosion of the open market for employment and innovation. The 400 wealthiest people in the United States now control more wealth than 155 million people at the other end of the socio-economic spectrum combined. The tax cuts that were supposed to be given to the “supply side” were never given to the supply side at all, only to those that seek to own it.

To distill the complicated economics down to simple terms: Why should the rich “create jobs”, why should they put money into wages in order to build businesses to make profits, when it’s being handed to them in unprecedented amounts, for free? That’s the real problem. When the government takes money from everyone, then hands it out to the wealthiest among us, it has the direct effect of disincentivizing investment by those individuals and interests in the creation of new businesses and new jobs.

It is economic incentive that drives enterprise, not the supposed nobility of spirit of the wealthy. That idea is aristocracy: that the ruling class is there because they deserve to be, because they are uniquely noble, because they have arete —excellence and a commitment to justice and humane values, to the better interests of society at large. Our nation is founded on the self-evident truth that medieval aristocracy is a lie, and that powerful elites do not tend to give their power and privilege back to the people.

It makes no sense to be fostering a new aristocracy, to be transferring literally trillions of dollars in wealth, as a matter of national policy, to the wealthiest people in our society. There is no economic reason for doing so. There is nothing about that process which upholds or defends democracy. Much to the contrary, the massive and unprecedented transfer of wealth from ordinary, working Americans to the already wealthy —which began with Ronald Reagan and accelerated to warp speed with George W. Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts—, has crippled our economy and removed any incentive major financial interests have to invest in widespread job creation.

If you believe a vibrant middle class is essential to fostering generalized citizen participation and real elective democracy, then the collapse of that middle class, the decline in household wages, the rapid escalation in bankruptcies and home foreclosures, should worry you. Even if you are a billionaire, it should worry you, because the erosion of our middle class, the gutting of funds from our educational system, the prioritization of billionaires and multinational corporations, is eroding our democracy itself.

When Vice President Joe Biden left the Senate to join the Obama administration, he was the only member of the United States Senate who was not a millionaire. He had not used his office to enrich himself or his family, and he had not played the game of Washington insider. He was not a celebrity and he did not view politics as a battle for cold, hard cash. He made policy based on how it would affect ordinary citizens, local communities, the real human freedom of people he knows and understands.

As the Senate became the world’s most powerful millionaire’s club, it became harder and harder for ordinary people to break into politics. The power of the two-party system had made it risky for anyone not to support the one of the two parties most friendly to their views, because even the slightest erosion of support for one of the two parties is now translated, through furious and misleading reporting of public opinion poll numbers as a “gain” for the other party.

As the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few has accelerated, and the concentration of political power in the hands of the wealthy has followed along, the outright lie that tax cuts for the wealthy are the best, indeed the only, way to create jobs continues to have widespread support. Though real people living in the real world can see with their own eyes that fundamental pillars of our democracy are being eroded, or even eliminated, while parents across the country know what it would mean for the House of Representatives to strip funding for Head Start, for public education and for college financial aid, the transfer of wealth goes ahead, and the job creation boom to which innovative, hard-working, democratic Americans are entitled, continues to stall.

There should be an indefinite, blanket moratorium on wasteful wealth spending.

Since we know that spending trillions of dollars on tax cuts for the wealthy is counterproductive, does not create jobs and is undermining our democracy, every independent voter, every Democratic and every Republican voter, should demand of every elected official that they cease to prioritize the giveaway of taxpayer money to those who have no use for it and will not use it to invest in rebuilding the middle class.

Tax cuts for the wealthy do not create jobs. Tax cuts for the wealthy are not a constructive way to build democracy. Tax cuts for the wealthy are not a sound investment for the already embattled middle class. Every proposed cut to social spending, every proposed tax break for millionaires and billionaires, is part of the same process of eroding our middle class and shoring up the long-term power interest of the already powerful.

It should not be the economic policy of a middle class democratic republic to prioritize the protection of millionaires and billionaires against economic hardship, when the economic hardship of the moment was created specifically and through many years of coordinated effort, by the mismanagement and bad practice of that very “investor class” that seeks to give the real power in our society to banks, hedge funds and offshore interests.

Whether by incompetence, ignorance or malice, the financial industry was hijacked by a logic of might makes right: anything that can be done to expand wealth, any “instrument” that can be devised that will make the digital, ethereal wealth of our times appear to increase, was to be cultivated, protected and propagated, regardless of the risk to the wider society or to the health of our people and our democracy.

The financial collapse of 2007 and 2008 was not brought about by working people’s mortgages; it was brought about by major financial interests that had agreed, implicitly and explicitly, it was no longer of any importance whether major national investment strategies represented real wealth or spurious wealth claims; what mattered was that those at the top could benefit from implementing the strategies.

That is what was done with our trillions of dollars in wealth subsidies: while the American people were told that tax breaks for the wealthiest of the wealthy would lead to widespread job creation, the money was devoted to creating entirely new markets where only money would be needed to make more money. Gone were the heady old days when earning millions was supposed to represent investment in an actual enterprise doing actual business, building a better society.

There should be an indefinite, blanket moratorium on wasteful wealth spending, because the work of our age needs to be the reinvention of our economy, the reversal of this egregious and undemocratic transfer of wealth from the tens of millios to the 400, and the restoration the principle that if it’s good for America, it’s because it’s good for building a vibrant, free and educated middle class that actually has the power to govern its own future and to steer the ship of state.

SOME DATA: The top 20% of the socio-economic pyramid in our country control well more than 80% of all the wealth. Just the top 1% control 40% of all financial investment assets.

In 2001, George W. Bush inherited a 10-year budget surplus of $1.7 trillion. His 2001 and 2003 tax cuts plunged the government into deficit spending, immediately. By 2002, the surplus was already erased, after just one year of the long-term tax cut plan.

By 2009, when Bush left office, he had doubled Defense spending, pledged over $1 trillion to banks, and average household incomes had FALLEN by more than $2,000 per year.

The result of these policies was: 25% of all American children living in poverty, near 10% unemployment (officially), as high as 25% among young people and well over 30% among some minority communities.

In 2008 and 2009, the nation saw record bankruptcies, record rates of home foreclosures, and despite massive investment in recovery efforts, in 2009 and 2010 job recovery has been slow to non-existent. The reason: even as banks and wealthy investors began to see their economic engine revving up again, they saw no economic incentive at all to invest in job creation.

The wrong kind of tax policy was giving them cash for nothing, and incentivizing them to invest it in money-for-the-wealthy financial schemes that don't support small business, manufacturing, entrepreneurship or job-creation.

Originally posted to jocava on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 06:28 AM PST.

Also republished by Income Inequality Kos, Daily Kos Classics, and Community Spotlight.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Oh come on...Reagan said they do! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      caul, neroden, DontTaseMeBro

      ...and as if that wasn't enough concrete proof for you, Bush Jr. said it after him.

      There you have it...proof if ever there was any!

      Of course, nevermind that the greatest economic expansion this country has ever known, complete with balanced budgets and a strong dollar, came on the back of tax INCREASES for the wealthy.

      We're definitely NOT interested in economic facts here...just what Reagan said...


      We're at WAR politically, fellow Democrats. Consider this soldier back from hiatus - effective immediately.

      by APA Guy on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 12:41:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  ketchup is a vegetable, trees cause pollution... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        caul, DontTaseMeBro

        Whatever action a great man performs, common men follow. And whatever standards he sets by exemplary acts, all the world pursues. The Gita 3.21

        by rasbobbo on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 02:57:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Raise their taxes - a lot! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        We should tax ALL income over $2 million (or some other reasonable number) at a much higher rate - like 90%.

        Pay current rates on any income under $2 million but at least 90% on anything over that. Including money made in other countries.

        We can fix the infrastructure, balance the budget and pay down the national debt.

        This will probably help get some of the money out of politics.

        We will also have to address corporate income.

        •  not a good idea (0+ / 0-)

          at bout 50% or higher you are working for the government why invest. hide your money, they are doing it now will keep doing it. the only way to get money out of politics its to make it extremely expensive to campaign whatever you get from lobbiest(bribes) they have to give to every effected registered voter 400k times 250+ million americans makes for a very large number. tax rates in europe are around 60% and they have been flat in growth with that rate. not including VAT taxes that can push it into 80%. if you do go to 90% expect to see a return to stagflation no job growth and high inflation that happened in 1976.

          •  It's actually a wonderful idea! (0+ / 0-)

            I'm not saying that income below some amount, like $2 million or $5 million or whatever, should be taxed at a higher rate. I saying that ALL income over the selected amount should be taxed at a VERY high rate.

            You ask "Why invest?". Well, what else are they going to do with the money? There are already penalties for hiding income - we should strengthen them.

            If we want to encourage investment, we could give tax breaks for specific types of investment. Right now we just give them the tax break and pray that they invest. Mostly they don't. Or they invest in things that hurt average Americans, like moving jobs overseas.

            I expect that some of the very rich, like the Waltons or the Kochs will try to retaliate. If so, they'll lose and they'll be the ones who suffer the most.

            People might change their citizenship. Well, they're not going to like some foreign tax rates!

            I'm not trying to make rich people poor. I think that would be stupid and counterproductive. But I think it is foolish to let people get so rich and powerful that they feel they can dictate how the rest of us live!

    •  PRINT THIS OUT AND PASS IT ON! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      caul, kurt, stormicats

      The top 1% owns 43% of the wealth; the next 4% owns 29% of the wealth. THE BOTTOM 80% SHARE ONLY 7% OF THE FINANCIAL WEALTH.

      Republicans are pitting workers in that 80% against each other.  The irony is that if they win, neither private sector workers nor tax payers get a penny of that money. It will all go to corporate fat cats.

      There's a great pie chart on Flickr. Go to:

      Click on "Download" and print it out and pass it on!

      I've been leaving copies in restaurant booths, public restrooms, waiting rooms, shopping carts, etc.

      When I quote the wealth distribution figures to people, they don't believe me. When I prove it to them, they are shocked.

      We need to get this information out, and since the media isn't going to do it, we have to do it ourselves.

    •  But the way to get to... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      those snowed by the wealthy class (working class republicans), is not to say, 'oh we should look out for the poor, blah blah blah'.  They don't care.  They think people should get what they work for.

      The better presentation then is:  How much goods and/or services do these millionaires/billionaires ACTUALLY contribute?  I for one think everyone should get EXACTLY what they work for.  So this top tier is really just the most extreme form of welfare rat.  Mooching off of the government, and the people under them to an almost unimaginable degree.

      And second, they don't represent capitalism.  They are anti-capitalism.  They want hand out after hand out, without being any more productive or innovative.  They destroy the hard working, innovating core that America was built on, for their own greed.

  •  You mean... We were lied to? (9+ / 0-)



    21st Century Republicans would much rather legalize murder than marijuana.
    DK4 Cannabis Reform Group Writing Guidelines

    by xxdr zombiexx on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 06:54:56 AM PST

  •  You are incorrect, sir... (7+ / 0-)

    ( or ma'am)The top economists that money can buy on traditional media tells that the more taxes you cut will allow the beneficent wealthy in this country to open factories and start new companies and hire people at a livable wage.  If you tax them then they cannot hire new employees.  It makes sense that if you allow the richest 1% to put more money in their pockets then of course they will hire people.

    These are the top and well paid economists of their time on news stations owned by networks owned by the largest corporations around.  Why would they allow false information on their well respected shows? Hmmm.

    You cannot allow yourself to be fooled by the facts of the past that if keep the taxes high on the rich that as their income grows and they reach the 50%-90% tax bracket they can either pay the high taxes or invest their money back into the companies and hire people and pay them a livable wage.  

    Don't let the facts of the 50's and 60's confuse you.   Those were just lies by those commienazislamofascists that wrote the history books.

    I was the youngest in my family growing up therefore I WAS the remote control.

  •  Free loaders not Job Creators (9+ / 0-)

    America can no longer afford the free-loading rich.

  •  Why is it that no one ever asks for data to (12+ / 0-)

    support the specious claim that tax breaks to wealthy individuals create jobs?  I'd like to see one chart, one scintilla of evidence that this is so.  This claim is bandied about as though it's true, but I see no outward evidence (past 30 years), nor know of any hard data to support it.

    I heard Frank Luntz lie about it on C-Span to a caller--telling him that Bush had one of the "lowest unemployment rates of any presidency." The republican host--Steven what's his name-- didn't correct him, either.  

    We need to start refuting this glib comment every chance we get, and start demanding it of any "journalists" left out there.

    Walker to Koch: "Don't call him. He's not one of us."

    by livjack on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:26:05 AM PST

  •  Trickle-down is doomed in a service economy (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    caul, neroden, Dinclusin, kurt, MKinTN, Marjmar

    70% of our GDP is tied to consumer spending, not building shit.  Giving money to the rich only creates jobs for foreigners.

    If you're a billionaire with a fresh million in your pocket, you don't build a factory in Toledo, you build it in Tijuana.  Jobs for foreigners.

    All you can do here is open a store.  But who's gonna buy what you sell?  We can't afford things now!  Your store will have no customers.  The employees can only afford it because of their discount, but they can't keep the store afloat. The store must close.

    Either way, giving money to the rich creates nothing here.

    Besides, if you wanna expand, you don't need tax cuts... just ask the fuckin' bank for a loan.  They've got money.  If your idea is any good.

    •  You don't open a store here (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      caul, kurt, nominalize

      You open a chain of stores in India.  You figure out how to get your products marketed in China.

      The wealthy need a middle class in order to buy their goods. No one said that the middle class had to be in America.

      Democracy *means* Anti-Plutocracy. Democrats, be true to your Self and win!

      by Louise on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 12:02:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  so much of the ideology of the right (8+ / 0-)

    and the plutocratic has been disproven, or proven to be detrimental to the economy and people. It is amazing people are still buying that snake oil. It is killing them. It is bad medicine!

  •  AGREED, Sooo Why Do 'Democrats" in (7+ / 0-)

    congress continue to support tax cuts for the wealthy? and all of the other tax ripoffs currently enjoyed by the uber wealthy?


    "I don't feel the change yet". Velma Hart

    by Superpole on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 10:42:59 AM PST

  •  This is a good diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    but it would be better with some data supporting the argument.

    The GOP: "You can always go to the Emergency Room."

    by Upper West on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 10:44:39 AM PST

  •  That why we have Obama tax cuts for billionaires? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    caul, neroden, kurt

    or do just the Republican tax cuts for billionaires matter?

  •  Republicans label everything "job-killing" except (9+ / 0-)

    for their plan to fire people.

  •  Tax subsidies for the rich destroys jobs (11+ / 0-)

    by incentivizing excess paper profits which are accomplished through eliminating and off-shoring jobs, closing plants, wiping out whole companies through mergers and acquisitions, and manipulating vast accounting schemes to create pyramids of funny money. Bloated executive compensation rewards gratuitous cost-slashing and bookeeping trickery to fatten bottom lines. Real wealth ceases to exist in America.

    Raising taxes on corporations and the rich would de-emphasize profits, limiting the incentive for mergers and job-destroying "cost cutting," and destroyes the profitability of Wall Street bookeeping scams. More and smaller companies would have to compete on quality.

    Reforming revenue by taxing the rich is the only solution to debt, budget deficits, and the destruction of America's industrial infrastructure.

    •  Some numbers to back you up (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rasbobbo, caul, kurt

      David Cay Johnston explained something like this on the Olbermann Show a while back.

      Imagine the Repubs get their ultimate wish and tax the ultra-rich at 15%. If David Koch wants to buy a shiny new 190 foot yacht with a swimming pool, heli-pad and a bowling alley for $85 million, all he has to do is write himself a check from Georgia Pacific for $100 million. The government gets $15 million and Dave gets his boat.

      Now imagine Sen. Bernie Sanders gets his ultimate wish and the ultra rich are taxed at 50%. David Koch will now have to write himself a check for $170 million from Georgia Pacific to pay off the tax before he gets his boat. Now we're talking serious toilet paper. Makes it better to leave the money in the business.

      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly."- Arthur Carlson

      by bobinson on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 01:53:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Except for radical R's and TGOPers (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    John Kasich, R-OH-gov hates black people, women, children, and unions, I guess that covers almost everyone.

    by OHknighty on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 11:06:36 AM PST

  •  You Are Correct That the Massive Giveaway of (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kurt, MKinTN, Marjmar

    wealth to the rich started under Reagan in the early 80's. Clinton took some of the giveaways back, but Bush  restored what Clinton took back and then some. Tax loopholes/incentives for outsourcing also started under Reagan, and its caused nothing but massive factory closings, unemployment, blight for a large number of cities and towns, and a declining standard of living for middle class Americans since then.  Don't forget when a factory closes down it is not only the laid off factory workers that suffer - every nearby business that depends on those factory workers spending their money (grocery stores, clothing stores, etc.) also suffers, causing a chain reaction.
    I know firsthand, because I used to live in one of those Pennsylvania factory towns. For the past 25 years it's been nothing but misery for my former hometown - storefronts boarded up, home values have plummeted, etc.  The rich haven't bankrupted the middle class completely yet (they need to keep Americans buying their foreign made crap until the third world countries get prosperous enough to become consumers of their manufactured items), but it is just a matter of time before they won't need us as consumers anymore. Until then, the financial industry will keep plying us with credit cards (so we can buy their foreign made crap and bury ourselves in debt, instead of offering us decent paying jobs or giving out pay raises to those who are employed).

  •  Republished to Income Inequality Kos (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rasbobbo, lgmcp, DontTaseMeBro

    When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross, with tea-bags hanging from its hat.

    by Azazello on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 11:12:54 AM PST

  •  Look at what economic theory says..... (3+ / 0-)

    You give a marginal extra dollar to someone in the lower or middle economic classes, they are much more likely to spend it.  You give it to a wealthy person, it will get put in a hedge fund...etc.  So NO, tax cuts for the wealthy are a LOUSY way to spur the economy.

    This needs to be repeated over and over....

  •  You're missing the point. (5+ / 0-)

    Republicans don't propose cutting taxes for the wealthy because they think it will create jobs. They propose cutting taxes for the wealthy because all they care about is making the rich richer, and screwing the poor. Whom they view as worthless piles of dirt.

    Pencils aren't for eating. Trust me.

    by Hamtree on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 11:38:03 AM PST

  •  Reaganomics Was a Lie (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rasbobbo, Tracker, kurt, MKinTN

    designed to get programmable idiots to vote against their interests and give the rich tax cuts.

    It worked for 30+ years in destroying our infrastructure through neglect.

  •  And the thing to do now of course is to not only (0+ / 0-)

    raise taxes on the wealthy but to seriously consider confiscating some of their ill-gotten gains as a penalty, if you will, for their failure over the past thirty years to create the promised new prosperity in America.

    Fat chance of either happening though unless we finally get the cajones to force Kongress to convene an Article V Convention.

          Article V or Fight

    It will make a great Bumper Sticker

  •  Capitalism's dirty little secret (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kurt, chipmo
    the financial industry was hijacked by a logic of might makes right

    This is one of the fundamental problems: the financial industry was not "hijacked", nor was the problem one of 'bad apples' or 'corruption'. Laissez faire capitalism is fundamentally amoral (or even, arguably, immoral) -- it doesn't care where profits come from. In short, for laissez faire, might does make right.

    The members of the financial industry did exactly what capitalism says they're supposed to do -- they maximized their profits. The fact that this came at a huge cost to everyone else  is irrelevant, as far as laissez faire (a.k.a Free Market) capitalism is concerned.

    This is why it is absolutely essential for society to regulate capitalism if it wants other values to thrive.

  •  Why do we need jobs? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fiddlingnero, kurt, maryabein

    All you plebs have to do is buy a house at a low low low interest rate with a no-questions-asked mortgage and then ride the real estate escalator to prosperity! It's called the "Ownership Society", remember?

    But seriously, high tax rates create a "use or lose it" incentive for the wealthy to leave their money in the productive economy, rather than take out profit and invest it in the financial economy. The system worked just fine until Reagan "fixed" it.

    Have you noticed?
    Politicians who promise LESS government
    only deliver BAD government.

    by jjohnjj on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 01:15:36 PM PST

  •  Actually, jobs create tax cuts (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Think of it this way: if more people are working and paying taxes, the lower the rate needs to be to fund government.

    But of course, we don't live in Utopia. We live in a time where Republicans cut taxes while going to war only to pay for the wars by lowering government spending on schoolteachers.

    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly."- Arthur Carlson

    by bobinson on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 01:38:37 PM PST

  •  Hmmm (0+ / 0-)
    Even if you are a billionaire, it should worry you, because the erosion of our middle class, the gutting of funds from our educational system, the prioritization of billionaires and multinational corporations, is eroding our democracy itself.
    The very last thing a billionaire wants is a democracy.
  •  Hmm... (0+ / 0-)
    When the government takes money from everyone, then hands it out to the wealthiest among us, it has the direct effect of disincentivizing investment

    Not exactly.  They put it into stocks, thinking they're helping growth.  But frequently, all they're doing is bidding up the price of the stock, and as others have pointed out, creating jobs in other countries.  Anyhow, for true growth, the best idea is to stimulate demand, which essentially means evening out incomes.  

    Why do I never see anybody confronting Republicans with the fact that the best economy this country ever had was the late 50s and early 60s, when the top tax bracket was 91%?

    Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest... Gibbon

    by Dinclusin on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 01:56:54 PM PST

  •  If you could make that stick (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    after the 30-year cult, it would be a sea change. Because everybody knows there is NO OTHER MORAL, LEGITIMATE REASON to give tax cuts to the wealthy or anyone who can already afford anything they want, when we have homeless, hungry, uninsured/uncared-for sick and mentally ill.  I mean, "they need more money to pay off gambling debts, hookers, blow and an upgraded corporate jet" doesn't cut it and should cause pitchforks and torches, but so far, doesn't.

    If there was a law they was workin' with, maybe we could take it, but it ain't the law. They're workin' away our spirits, tryin' to make us cringe and crawl, takin' away our decency. Tom Joad

    by Uosdwis on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 01:57:14 PM PST

  •  The very last thing a rich person will do (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    to make more money is hire someone. It's too icky..they have to deal with the dirty laborer.

    -7.5 -7.28, Democratic Socialism...It's not just for Europeans.

    by Blueslide on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 01:57:56 PM PST

  •  "Trust us..." (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rasbobbo, kurt, DontTaseMeBro

    "Deregulation will create more jobs."
    "Trust us, our war in Iraq will create jobs."
    "Trust us, Bush's tax kickbacks for the rich will create jobs."
    "Trust us, tort reform will create jobs."
    "Trust us, bailing out blundering banks will create jobs."
    "Trust us, crushing unions and laying off state employees will create jobs."

    We're still waiting for the jobs, and not inclined to trust them any further.

  •  Here's the Data Disproving Supply Side Economics (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    In 2010 adjusted dollars, no Republican president in the past third of a century has gotten within $200 billion dollars of balancing the budget. In that same time Democratic presidents have produced five balanced budgets.

    The difference is that Democrats tax enough to meet fiscal obligations, while Republicans continue to snort the fairy dust of the supply side claims that massive tax cuts will pay for themselves with increased revenues.

    Again, see

  •  They sure didn't when Bush passed them (0+ / 0-)

    so I'm not sure why our Democratic president is yet again buying into right-wing framing on this.   He's giving them credit for his own successes...   It baffles the mind.

    Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. --John F. Kennedy

    by Beelzebud on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 02:47:48 PM PST

  •  the "rich create jobs" meme is a fraud. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    labor creates wealth is the way things work. republicans used to know this:

    "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." Teddy Roosevelt quoting Abraham Lincoln

    the "give the rich more money & they will hire people" is even more absurd & patent nonsense on its face. people hire when they have the need to hire & it serves their interest. ie: when hiring makes them more money. certainly not just because they have a few extra bucks in their pockets & can't think of anything better to do with them.

    Whatever action a great man performs, common men follow. And whatever standards he sets by exemplary acts, all the world pursues. The Gita 3.21

    by rasbobbo on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 02:51:08 PM PST

  •  Faith, not Works. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bobinson, DontTaseMeBro


    The economy-stimulating wonderfulness of relieving the rich of taxes is a purely religious belief, and needs none of that worldly dross known as "evidence".  

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 03:05:50 PM PST

  •  If there was a manifesto (0+ / 0-)

    that was needed, you have written it. Thank you!!

    Just as an aside, it seems to me that we cannot count on their philanthropy either. But we can count on their greed.

  •  Investment vs. Tax Cuts (0+ / 0-)

    America can no longer afford the free-loading rich.

  •  Tax cuts for non performing job creators (0+ / 0-)

    Some of  us have been arguing this for  years, yet the Democratic political strategists  do not seem to interested in taking the time to actually educate the American Voters of that obvious fact.  All anyone with curiosity has to do is look at wealth distributions, income, tax rates, and Federal Deficits since Reagan took office,  The reality of the massive failure of the GOP's economic theory and the consequences to the 98% is there for all to see.*  *    All that is needed is to give the  the voters the means to actually comprehend those facts.

    In 1969, the top 2% owned 8% of all the wealth of America
    In 2014, the top 2% owned 49% of all the wealth of America.

    Had Reagan, as well as Bush I, and Bush II not cut taxes, but allowed the tax rate to remain as it was when Reagan took office, and all other Administrations kept their tax rates, and spending at the same level, the US Federal Debt would be as low, or even lower than it was when Reagan took office.

    Obviously, under the above conditions, the wealth distribution between the classes would obviously be less unequal, as the top 2% would have not  had the funding provided by "tax cuts for job creators" to accumulate such massive wealth,

    So, why would any voter give the GOP, and its politicians a 4th opportunity to once again prove Reganomics, a/k/a Voodoo economics, does not work, unless you are a member of the top 2%?

  •  Today's average yearly income...40,000.00. Had ... (0+ / 0-)

    Today's average yearly income...40,000.00. Had we not been visited by reaganomics, that number would be 120,000.00. Google any of this.

  •  A challenge to the readers (0+ / 0-)

    I want the readers to think about something and not for a few minutes or part of a day but over a week.

    Do we really need a wealthy class?

    Part of my challenge is look at history and see what the wealthy class has really done to the "commoners". Could a country like the U.S. have prospered if the workers had controlled the businesses they worked for instead of wealthy industrialists pulling the strings?

  •  The rich (0+ / 0-)

    The rich are now in control.  Their Republican employees in Congress have lodged themselves into positions where they can't be voted out of office.  The only solution to this problem is the one that's been the only solution since time began.  Start killing them off.  You'd be amazed at how cooperative they would become if enough of them were dragged from their limousines and hung from the nearest tree.  Sounds barbaric but believe me, anything short of that is not going to work.  So either do that or do what the Republicans do and kiss their asses and eat their shit.

  •  There Are Two Types Of Pathetic Morons. (0+ / 0-)

    One is the type who would propose that lowering the taxes of the wealthy and corporations will create or increase jobs and the other is the type who would believe this horseshit.

    "It is the responsibility and duty of everyone to help the deserving underprivileged and less fortunate among us."

    by sichuan on Sun Apr 12, 2015 at 07:37:22 PM PDT

  •  The 47% includes the wealthy freeloaders. (0+ / 0-)

    "To distill the complicated economics down to simple terms: Why should the rich “create jobs”, why should they put money into wages in order to build businesses to make profits, when it’s being handed to them in unprecedented amounts, for free? "

    John Galt in reverse?

    That is my theory for the past 35 years. Also, the rich use it to deny benefits for the poor.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site