Republicans ignore research because it's too much like science. They instead pretend that Jesus said somewhere that the rich are better than the rest of us and that cutting their taxes would be economically stimulative. This is the gospel of the right.
Its obvious we need to cut spending. If we cut military and entitlement spending in half do you think we would have enough money? Yes or no? How can you possibly justify giving a group of men who have notoriously wasted money even more? Get the spending under control, cut out waste and then if we need more revenue according to a responsible budget plan then we can talk.
Actually it is the left that trots out bogus studies featuring bad assumptions and poor methodology in a vain attempt to prove that reality is something other than it is. Based on past history however the first two posters in this thread undersatand neither what methodolgy is nor understand why the ssumptions in the CBO report are bad. Of that there are literally dozens of other studies refuting that one with both better assumptions and better methodology. It is obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that we cannot go spending 50% of GDP on governance not including the costs to private businesses of the mountains of new rules and regulations generated yearly at the state federal and local levels, and expect to be economically successful.
Yeah, I'm going to listen to someone ramble on about methodology who hasn't even mastered the English language.
Fair enough, for every dollar you cut out of entitlements you are allowed to raise taxes on the rich by one dollar. I can live with that. Lets send it to the President for his signature.
Oh Gee dave sorry for the typos but I bet my 170 odd hours of college and minors in more different subject areas than you even know exist trumps your minor in English when it comes to statistical analysis.
empirical evidence shows ZERO correlation betwene tax relief on the wealthy and economic growth... there have been several analysis, research reports done (recently by CBO) that shows no correlation at all... but there is strong correlation between these tax reliefs and income inequality, THIS THERE IS. This whole notion that the RICH create most of the growth and jobs is CRAP... THE MIDDLE CLASS CREATES JOBS.. they are the ones creating small business and CONSUMING... if middle class wasn't buying stuff... the rich would have no businesses... Also, rich are very flexible on spedning so if you tax them a little...they still spend! the middle class though, different story. So tax these plutocrats, give tax relief to middle class... get middle class creating more small business and CONSUMING and BOOMs on the way.. and let;s get this income inequality down to where it used to be many years ago.. it has exploded in recent decades..
Nonsense mikey boy Hertitage alone has at least six all of which are better than the fiction created by the CBO.
yeah, CBO biased liberals huh? lol you can actually do the analysis yourself, check unemployment/GDP growth and marginal tax rates in the past 100 years and you will find something which will make you question all your conservative, small government beliefs... go do it and find out the truth! and what if we did a little experiment: We select two populations of about 10k people and put them in two Islands. 1. Group A. All middle class with average salaries of 150k 2. Group B. Out of the 10k, 500 are filthy rich (millionaires and billionaires) and the rest are all poor (making less than 30k a year). Both groups share the same wealth overall but very differntly distributed, obviously. Both Islands have a couple of banks to provide lending. So who would fare better? I would pick group A and it wouldn't be close. In group A, all 10k would be comfortable spending, would get loans rather easily from the banks to start up businesses and would have a lot of customers, consumers. This group would all have a sense of 'we are all enjoying good times' and no class warfare. Group B would be left behind by group A cause the poor wouldn't get loans from banks and wouldn't spend much so you would have 9,500 of them not churning the economy. The 500 millionaires would start up businesses but get few customers or clients so they would have to cater to each other and pretty much would just move $$ amongst each other and keep themselves rich. Over time, maybe the rich would provide opportunity for the poor to better themselves but this would take time. Wonder why third world countries stay there for so long? they have plenty of rich, just no middle class - the ones who drive the economy! it's a no brainer, a strong middle class is much better than income inequality - a few rich and a weak middle class. Group A would destroy group B as you would have 10k of them producing, consuming.. whilst the other would have 500 moving money amongst themselves and the other 9,500 would be producing little, if anything; they would slowly break through but it would take decades and decades for them to do so... Tax the rich and give tax relief for middle class - THE BEST TICKET FOR A BOOMING AND PROSPEROUS ECONOMY!
Bill Krystol, as far right as it gets, now agrees. http://news.yahoo.com/kristol-open-raising-rates-wealthiest-americans-074821783--politics.html
