We don't hate rich people

[simi]

Just saw on the news this morning, they said the top 1% wealth has raised 275% since 97, the people below the poverty line 16% and the middle class has raised 40%

Pretty telling...

[whell]

Originally Posted by simi

Just saw on the news this morning, they said the top 1% wealth has raised 275% since 97, the people below the poverty line 16% and the middle class has raised 40%

Pretty telling...

So, the Clinton economic plan favored the rich. Cool.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

So, the Clinton economic plan favored the rich. Cool.

If Dub had left the Clinton economic plan in place we would see considerably less economic stratification. People might even be making enough money that we would not be facing large deficits and a faux debt showdown.

Regards,

D-Ray

[simi]

huh.. Clinton comes outta right field.. man.. you gotta keep on your toes around here with all these wild pitches being thrown. I was just stating numbers I heard from a study..

[whell]

Originally Posted by simi

huh.. Clinton comes outta right field.. man.. you gotta keep on your toes around here with all these wild pitches being thrown. I was just stating numbers I heard from a study..

Let me 'splain it to you.

Since the current trend is to attribute economic performance to the president and his policies: was not Mr. Clinton president from January 1993 to January 2001?

Would not Mr. Clinton's economic policies laid the groundwork for the the meteoric rise in economic performance that enabled those obscene profits cited in the study you referred to?

Because, according to the folks on this forum, the economy absolutely fell apart after 2001. We've had the lost decade and all that. That's all Bush's fault from what I've read here.

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

If Dub had left the Clinton economic plan in place we would see considerably less economic stratification. People might even be making enough money that we would not be facing large deficits and a faux debt showdown.

Regards,

D-Ray

Really? How would Clinton have prevented economic stratification?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Really? How would Clinton have prevented economic stratification?

Continuation of his policies would not have included Dubya's ill-advised tax cuts, for one thing.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Continuation of his policies would not have included Dubya's ill-advised tax cuts, for one thing.

Nope. The Bush tax cuts actually increased the tax liability for high wage earners.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Nope. The Bush tax cuts actually increased the tax liability for high wage earners.

How ya figure? In my math 35 < 39.6.

[whell]

Did you see that little asterisk at the bottom of your chart? The reduction in the % of the tax is only part of the story. Exemption phase-outs and limits on deductions impact the tax liability of higher income earners the most.

Also, considering the reduction in rates alone only has merit if you are working from a static economic model. Tax cuts are generally stimulative. However, even if you don't buy the fact that tax cuts are stimulative, you'd have to look at the impact of the 2003 tax cuts on actual US Treasury tax receipts to see what effect the cuts actually had.

"From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...deral-revenue/

Bush's increasing deficits from 2004 - 2007 were due to a president and congress who were spending money faster than it was coming in, and growing the size of government. The growth of government under Bush is typically a fact that is not in dispute on this forum. The fact that is lead to increases in deficit and debt are also not in dispute. But increasing tax revenues don't cause an increase in size and scope of the spending - side of the Federal budget, though they may fuel an increase in the appetite of the political class.