LazarusLong
New member
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2005
- Messages
- 13
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Republicans want people to believe taxes are bad in any form. It is the Democrats who raise taxes and republicans who lower them. Well, that is not quite true. Consider this:
1. When Regan took office in 1980, with a lot of fanfare and publicity, he pushed through his 25% across the board tax cut. Like all republican tax cuts it was skewed to the rich. Sounds good except over the next eight years Regan then raised taxes six times, of course with no fanfare or publicity. The result: When Regan left office, the tax rate on the very rich was about one third lower than what it was when he took office. For the poor and middle class, the tax rate was right back where it was before that 25% tax cut in 1981. In other words, in the final analysis , he did lower taxes but for the rich only. And don't forget those huge deficits he gave us so that the rich would be a little richer. Don't take my word for this, go to the IRS web site. They show tax rates back at least into the sixties, check for yourself.
2. When Bush senior was president remember the pledge of NO NEW TAXES! well....not quite. In 1990 Mr Bush did increase taxes. What is interesting about that tax increase is that the democrat controlled congress wanted to raise the tax rate on the very rich and Mr Bush said not only no but HELL NO. As a result that tax increase fell completely on the backs of the poor and the middle class.
3. Yep, in 1993 Bill Clinton did raise taxes but unless you were one of the people making over $100,000 your taxes did not budge. He also increased the minimum wage. Republicans said that the tax increase and the wage increase would ruin the American economy and rampant unemployment was sure to result. As we all know that did not happen and by the time Clinton left office we had a budget surplus and unemployment was below 4%. Contrast that to the state of the economy when Bush and Regan left office. (This is where all the republicans say, but a president has little to no control over the economy and it was all the result of the dot.com bubble. ) I have noticed that when times are good under democrats that is usually the answer but they are sure quick to take political credit for good economic news when a republican is president
4. Current Bush: Yes, he has lowered taxes and true to his republican roots 80% of the benefit went to the richest 10% of the nation. Result huge deficits. Now you can blame the war on terror or the war in Iraq if you want but even if you take all of the NEW spending from these two areas out of the equation you would still have a large deficit. When the prescription drug benefit in Medicare kicks in it will be even larger. What do you think happens when a country as big as ours goes bankrupt?
For those of you who think that budget deficits don't matter consider a small story in US News and World Report. In summary:
Japan had put up trade barriers to American agricultural products giving what amounted to a lame excuse. The real reason clearly to protect Japanese farmers from competition. The president called the Japanese prime minister personally ready to talk tough about how there would be hell to pay if this was not changed and American products were allowed in the country. The PM listened very politely and the next day he went on TV and said that Japan was considering diversifying there currency holdings away from the dollar. The value of the dollar immediately dropped like a rock. And as US New put it "the white house got the message and shut up about trade barriers."
This was a direct result of huge deficits, American farmers have lost a market because we need Japan to help float our huge debt. In military terms there is not a country or combination of countries that can touch us, economically we are at the mercy of countries like Japan.
1. When Regan took office in 1980, with a lot of fanfare and publicity, he pushed through his 25% across the board tax cut. Like all republican tax cuts it was skewed to the rich. Sounds good except over the next eight years Regan then raised taxes six times, of course with no fanfare or publicity. The result: When Regan left office, the tax rate on the very rich was about one third lower than what it was when he took office. For the poor and middle class, the tax rate was right back where it was before that 25% tax cut in 1981. In other words, in the final analysis , he did lower taxes but for the rich only. And don't forget those huge deficits he gave us so that the rich would be a little richer. Don't take my word for this, go to the IRS web site. They show tax rates back at least into the sixties, check for yourself.
2. When Bush senior was president remember the pledge of NO NEW TAXES! well....not quite. In 1990 Mr Bush did increase taxes. What is interesting about that tax increase is that the democrat controlled congress wanted to raise the tax rate on the very rich and Mr Bush said not only no but HELL NO. As a result that tax increase fell completely on the backs of the poor and the middle class.
3. Yep, in 1993 Bill Clinton did raise taxes but unless you were one of the people making over $100,000 your taxes did not budge. He also increased the minimum wage. Republicans said that the tax increase and the wage increase would ruin the American economy and rampant unemployment was sure to result. As we all know that did not happen and by the time Clinton left office we had a budget surplus and unemployment was below 4%. Contrast that to the state of the economy when Bush and Regan left office. (This is where all the republicans say, but a president has little to no control over the economy and it was all the result of the dot.com bubble. ) I have noticed that when times are good under democrats that is usually the answer but they are sure quick to take political credit for good economic news when a republican is president
4. Current Bush: Yes, he has lowered taxes and true to his republican roots 80% of the benefit went to the richest 10% of the nation. Result huge deficits. Now you can blame the war on terror or the war in Iraq if you want but even if you take all of the NEW spending from these two areas out of the equation you would still have a large deficit. When the prescription drug benefit in Medicare kicks in it will be even larger. What do you think happens when a country as big as ours goes bankrupt?
For those of you who think that budget deficits don't matter consider a small story in US News and World Report. In summary:
Japan had put up trade barriers to American agricultural products giving what amounted to a lame excuse. The real reason clearly to protect Japanese farmers from competition. The president called the Japanese prime minister personally ready to talk tough about how there would be hell to pay if this was not changed and American products were allowed in the country. The PM listened very politely and the next day he went on TV and said that Japan was considering diversifying there currency holdings away from the dollar. The value of the dollar immediately dropped like a rock. And as US New put it "the white house got the message and shut up about trade barriers."
This was a direct result of huge deficits, American farmers have lost a market because we need Japan to help float our huge debt. In military terms there is not a country or combination of countries that can touch us, economically we are at the mercy of countries like Japan.