The Tea Party is merely an example of addlepated right-wing cognitive dissonance. They complain about taxes and spending being too high at a time when taxes and spending are falling. The simple facts meanwhile are that nearly everything that the Tea Party proclaims would be good for the economy would actually be bad for the economy. The debate with them is not whether chicken or fish would be the better basis for a healthy diet, but rather whether chicken or radioactive waste would.
How would these people explain the failure of the Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich? Are they not aware that transfering large amounts of wealth to the already wealthy acts as a brake on the economy by marginally reducing the velocity of money? Do they fail also to understand that even the small adjustment of m\oving back to the tax rates of the late 1990's for the top two brackets would have a significant impact in reversing that error?
LOL! Socialism had nothing to do with it. The Cold War may have taught us that command economies tend not to be very effective or efficient, but how many people had you seen running around calling for one those anyway? Socialism meanwhile continues to be a hallmark of EVERY economy you can name. The only modern difference is one of degree.
By helping to turn their societies into some of the nicest and happiest in the world?
Is that the only bit of data we should look at? What if we have a particular problem, and they have already found the perfect solution for it? Should we ignore it because adopting it would make us more like Europe and we have a higher standard of living than they do? That wouldn't make any sense to me.
Keep in mind that my wealth, like my background, training, experience, and intelligence in these matters, exceeds yours.
If we bring the tax rates back to where they were in the 90s, they'll be LESS progressive, not more progressive.
Repealing Obamacare would be a huge step toward balancing the budget.
The real solution is to increase revenues sufficiently to come within hailing distance of outlays. Outlays are a given. There is no waste, fraud, and abuse. There is no bloat, no fat, no pork that you can cut that will amount to a hill of beans. The outlays curve is practically constant over time. It is the revenue curve that shifts around, either causing or solving problems. If we can't get revenues repaired, we simply continue to run huge deficits.
Yes, these are the fruits of a 30-year right-wing investment in creating an alternative information media of their own. First, one that could influence other media, then one that could dominate them. These days, they push out the most ridiculous malarkey, and still there are still those who will slop it all up. Doesn't say much for democracy, at least not American style.
LOL! When I get five figures up front while the average guy gets maybe enough for a decent dinner out, and then my part grows each year while his part shrinks, that was a tax cut for the rich. About 50% of the annual benefits of provisions still in effect accrue to the top 1%. I guess that's cool by you because not 100% goes to the top 1%.
Yes, they are. When Bush arrived, the top 1% were paying 25 cents out of every dollar of AGI in federal income taxes. He cut that to less than 21 cents. That's four cents and change out of every dollar in direct wealth to the already wealthy. Then there was the huge increase in income share that went to the top 1% on top of all that.
The proposal affects only the top two brackets. The 35% marginal rate on taxable income above $379,150 would become 39.6%. The 33% marginal rate on AGI between $212,300 and $379,150 would become 35%. For many, their actual tax bill would not change because even with the increase in their 1040 tax calculations, their AMT calculations would still produce a higher number.