Democracy Murdered By Protest

[piece-itpete]

Aw thanks Bob but I'm not that cute

Samm that is interesting. No wonder the unions got the heath care exemption!

Pete

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by Samm

That is entirely up to the worker and how valuable he has chosen to make himself. Supply side economics is pretty much the opposite of a soci@list economy where everyone gets the same and it doesn't take long for the producers to figure out that there is no advantage to working harder than the guy who does nothing.

American workers productivity has increased substantially, so where are the big raises?

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by bobabode

I wonder where Duhmericans For Prosperity (the tax exempt bundlers for the Chuck and Dave club) rank? Oh, that's right they don't have to name or enumerate their members contributions.

A blatant abuse of IRS law. IMHO.

An interesting article in the latest TIME abou the new gaggle of for profit political action committees that Citzens United has spawned. Frankly I wonder at the IQ level of anyone who would let some strangers come into his/her district and tell them how to vote. I'm with Tip O'Niell 'All politics is local' so piss off Chuck and Dave and you to Karl.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by merrylander

American workers productivity has increased substantially, so where are the big raises?

The 'Vulture Economics' graph, that's floating around the web, shows exactly where all the gains have gone. The top .1 %.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Samm

Supply side economics is pretty much the opposite of a soci@list economy where everyone gets the same and it doesn't take long for the producers to figure out that there is no advantage to working harder than the guy who does nothing.

No. Capitalism is the opposite of soci@lism, and supply-side economics isn't broadly equal to capitalism. It is but one economic theory of many under the rubric of capitalism. It seems to me that myths as to its efficacy (in floating all boats) has been shattered in the past several decades.

[Samm]

Keynes believed that demand would create supply, but Reaganomics started from the opposite idea, namely that supply would create demand. In this way of thinking, the supply side of the economy had to be stimulated in order to create wealth. The best way to do this was to cut the marginal tax rates on personal income.
Reagans supply side economics brought us out of the stagflation that Carter left us in. During the Carter years, the top marginal tax rate on personal income rose to the insane record level of 70%.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Samm

Keynes believed that demand would create supply, but Reaganomics started from the opposite idea, namely that supply would create demand. In this way of thinking, the supply side of the economy had to be stimulated in order to create wealth. The best way to do this was to cut the marginal tax rates on personal income.
Reagans supply side economics brought us out of the stagflation that Carter left us in. During the Carter years, the top marginal tax rate on personal income rose to the insane record level of 70%.

Stagflation was Jimmy Carter's fault? Hmmm, here I thought it was an inherited condition from the Nixonian era.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Samm

Keynes believed that demand would create supply, but Reaganomics started from the opposite idea, namely that supply would create demand. In this way of thinking, the supply side of the economy had to be stimulated in order to create wealth. The best way to do this was to cut the marginal tax rates on personal income.
Reagans supply side economics brought us out of the stagflation that Carter left us in. During the Carter years, the top marginal tax rate on personal income rose to the insane record level of 70%.

The top marginal individual income tax rate was not at record levels under Carter. The record was set in the '50's. It was over 90% from 1950-1963.
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/histor...ividual-1.html

Reagan stoked the economy by cutting taxes and increasing spending (i.e., stimulus spending, as it were). Somehow, when Obama did the same, it was somehow unconscionable to modern-day Reagan acolytes.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by Samm

Keynes believed that demand would create supply, but Reaganomics started from the opposite idea, namely that supply would create demand. In this way of thinking, the supply side of the economy had to be stimulated in order to create wealth. The best way to do this was to cut the marginal tax rates on personal income.
Reagans supply side economics brought us out of the stagflation that Carter left us in. During the Carter years, the top marginal tax rate on personal income rose to the insane record level of 70%.

Samm, could you defend the Jimmy Carter stagflation claim...please expand.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by finnbow

The top marginal individual income tax rate was not at record levels under Carter. The record was set in the '50's. It was over 90% from 1950-1963.
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/histor...ividual-1.html

Reagan stoked the economy by cutting taxes and increasing spending (i.e., stimulus spending, as it were). Somehow, when Obama did the same, it was somehow unconscionable to modern-day Reagan acolytes.

Conceded, however the main thrust of the argument that it was unreasonably
high.