Impulsivity said:
First off if you look through the last 100 years pretty much every recession has started under a Republican (Hoover, Eisenhower, Ford, Reagan, Bush, Bush) while most democratic presidencies (except carters) have had improvements in the standards of livings for all americans except the upper 1% or so (and the 1% or so did equally well under republicans and liberals).
|
Just because an event happens under a particular party does not mean that it was caused by a particular party ...
The housing bubble that is one of the major problems was caused by the loose fiscal policies of Alan Greenspan, and by the change in mortgage financing under Bill Clinton. George W. Bush (certainly) played a part in it, but he is not the only one who is responsible for it.
At the same time, the Dot-Com crisis impacted George W. Bush's presidency but was a problem that started in the Clinton adminsitration.
Impulsivity said:
With Democrats all boats tend to rise, with republicans only the ultra expensive yachts rise and even then, not any more quickly then when all boats rise. There is a mistake in thinking democrats want socialisim. In fact what democrats tend to want is more money in the hands of the poor and middle class and less money in the hands of the ultra rich.
|
As Kasz already demonstrated, under the Clinton administration disparity increased and it leveled off durring the Bush Presidency ...
Impulsivity said:
That is good for everyone in the long run, here's why. The ultra rich don't spend, and when they do spend, its A)a fraction of what they make and B) usually foreign goods. If someone has billions of dollars that is impossible to spend on anything that improves the US economy. Someone like Bill Gates bought a 130 million dollar house (complete with trampoline room), has a private jet and tons of other consumption and yet STILL couldn't spend it all. After a certain point, around 10 million, it becomes very hard to spend it all no matter how conspicuous your consumption becomes.
On the other hand give someone making 30,000 dollars or even 100,000 dollars more money in their pocket and its spent immedietly. The 30,000 dollar person might buy a car when before they could not, or spend it on going out to eat once in a while when they would never be able to afford it before. The 100,000 dollar person might buy a new car when they were holding off (freeing the current car to the used car market the 30,000 dollar person is looking at), they will go out to eat more often giving the 30,000 dollar waitress more money, they will buy that new TV at best buy instead of waiting. People just getting by spend more readily and more domesticly then the super rich. If someone who makes 100k is taking a vacation its probably to Florida or Hawaii not to China or Europe.
|
Have you ever heard of 'investments'?
Where do you think the money comes from for mortgages, car loans and credit cards? It primarily comes from the sale of complicated derivatives that are bought (primarily) by the wealthy.
Whey do you think that start-ups get the money, and companies get the investment capital to grow? It comes from venture capatalists, or from the sale of bonds, which is (primarily) from the investments of the wealthy.
|
Impulsivity said:
This economy runs on the middle class not on the super rich. Also the reason the super rich do JUST as well despite higher taxes under liberals is exactly the point I was making. The super rich became better off under Clinton despite higher taxes because more middle class people had money to buy the things the super rich CEO's companies are selling. If you're just barely making payments are you going to get new furniture, a big tv or a new car? Of course not! US companies making money depends largely on US consumers having money to spend.
All the huge tax cuts to the rich at the expense of the middle class republican supply side platform does is put more money in the wrong hands. It increases the deficit so a dollar is worth less, takes money from those who need it and gives it to those who won't spend it and throws our currency and our country into recession and depression. Republicans are short term thinkers who really seem to have no idea how to control an economy responsibly. There's a reason that most of the richest people in the country like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and George Soros are liberals (discounting the Walmart Heirs which didn't really earn any of the money they recieved).
|
The reason the super rich do well inspite of tax rate is because they're entirely in controll of how much money they make ... If you're Bill Gates and you're suddenly paying far more in taxes what you're going to do is increase the price of all Microsoft products to a level where you generate the same after-tax revenues.
The ecconomy doesn't run on the poor, middle class, wealthy or super rich. It runs on the incentive driven hard-work of individuals within the ecconomy, and from the investments made by these individuals. If you eliminate the incentive to work harder, or to invest money, the ecconomy can not function.
|
Impulsivity said:
Lastly, if you want a great example of the obscenely unfair nature of Republican rule here's one from Warren Buffet. He asked a group of high powered traders like him if any of them could prove they paid a higher marginal tax rate then their secretary. He even bet a million dollars on it. Surprise surprise, since most of them made the majority of their income from investment (taxed at only 15% capital gains) not one of them could. A secretary making 70k (since they work for a top executive) pays 40% income tax+social security/medicare tax, the rich fat cat she works for pays 15% capital gains. In fact the highest tax rate of all goes to the self employed small business man who pays around 30% in income taxes plus 15% self employment for nearly a 50% marginal tax rate. The CEO with NO investment income (just normal job income) pays well under 40% since anything over 90,000 doesn't get taxed for social security at all.
Should the secretary pay more then her boss and the small business owner pay more then the CEO? I sure as hell don't think so. It's a recipe for continued failure and the main reason I'm voting for Obama. I do hate religious zealots also, but that's a minor reason in comparison. Ever notice how liberal families never seem to have these 16 year old teen moms? I know 7 under 20 women who ended up having a baby they didn't really prepare for/want while unmarried, every single one of them in a hard core christian family. That's the republican way, lets pretend the problem doesn't exist "abstinence only education" and then watch the consequences "teen pregnancy" stack up.
|
Warren buffet may have paid a lower marginal tax rate than her secretary, but he certainly paid a lot more taxes, and his action created wealth for millions of people in the process who then paid taxes on this gained wealth ...
