Evidence: Republicans Screw Over Nearly Everyone, Democrats Boost the Incomes of Nearly Everyone

[Sunstone]

Since World War II, Republican tax policies have been bad for nearly everyone, while Democrats tax policies have been good for nearly everyone. This is strong evidence Republicans cannot run the country for anyone's benefit but the super rich. (Video at link)

 

[Sunstone]

It's amazing how it would be to your advantage to vote Democratic even if you were rich.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm shocked: There really is a difference between the parties.

 

[Sunstone]

Of course, the facts presented in the OP will remain the best kept secret in the country because no one will believe that the Republicans are such screw ups at generating wealth, nor that the Democrats are so good at it.

 

[DeitySlayer]

This is the same party that was led by Bush for eight years and now has Sarah Palin climbing up the ranks. Why am I not surprised?

 

[Reverend Rick]

The funny thing is, the Republicans are expected to sweep the November elections.

 

[Smoke]

The funny thing is, the Republicans are expected to sweep the November elections.

Just as well. America is over; might as well let the Republicans put it out of its misery.

 

[Sunstone]

Just as well. America is over; might as well let the Republicans put it out of its misery.

America more or less achieved what it's Founders intended for it, without, however, living up to its genuine promise.

 

[Revoltingest]

America more or less achieved what it's Founders intended for it, without, however, living up to its genuine promise.

Lazy whining self-indulgent parasitic slackers?
Jefferson is likely spinning in his grave.

 

[dust1n]

Lazy whining self-indulgent parasitic slackers?
Jefferson is likely spinning in his grave.

Jefferson was the first President to propose the idea of a formal Indian Removal plan.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_jefferson#cite_note-miller-83"][84][85]
[/URL]

You know, my friend, the benevolent plan we were pursuing here for the happiness of the aboriginal inhabitants in our vicinities. We spared nothing to keep them at peace with one another. To teach them agriculture and the rudiments of the most necessary arts, and to encourage industry by establishing among them separate property. In this way they would have been enabled to subsist and multiply on a moderate scale of landed possession. They would have mixed their blood with ours, and been amalgamated and identified with us within no distant period of time. On the commencement of our present war, we pressed on them the observance of peace and neutrality, but the interested and unprincipled policy of England has defeated all our labors for the salvation of these unfortunate people. They have seduced the greater part of the tribes within our neighborhood, to take up the hatchet against us, and the cruel massacres they have committed on the women and children of our frontiers taken by surprise, will oblige us now to pursue them to extermination, or drive them to new seats beyond our reach.[87]

Thomas Jefferson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dust1n]

Since World War II, Republican tax policies have been bad for nearly everyone, while Democrats tax policies have been good for nearly everyone. This is strong evidence Republicans cannot run the country for anyone's benefit but the super rich. (Video at link)

Oh god... what a surprise.

 

[Darkness]

Since World War II, Republican tax policies have been bad for nearly everyone, while Democrats tax policies have been good for nearly everyone. This is strong evidence Republicans cannot run the country for anyone's benefit but the super rich. (Video at link)

We all know that Republican policies are horrible failures. I am a little confused by the graph though. Is it income growth per year?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Take one failed Republican policy: tax cuts for the wealthy. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell keep telling the American public that tax cuts for the rich are good economic stimulus, but it is easy to see that is false. If we assume we have 100 million USD to play with in a yearly period, let's think of the two basic ways we can divide it. a) We give all the money to one person. For a liberal estimate we can assume he spends 50 per cent of his income and invests the rest. So, added demand to the economy is 50 million USD. b) We give all the money to 40,000 people who are tight for money, on the margins, so that each gets 25,000 USD. If we assume they invest liberally, we can say that they spend only 85 per cent of their new income and invest the rest. In this scenario, 850 million USD of demand is added to the economy. Considering we are in an economic malaise with weak demand, scenario b, seems like the best choice. :thud:

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Of course. Not too long after Obama became President, I started having less taxes taken out of my pay checks, and the extra money went along way. Even just 20 dollars makes a big difference when you are poor.
But those poor babies up at the top need that extra 20 million so they keep up the 5 star hotels, designer clothing, luxurious dinners, and privileges that most of us can't even dream about obtaining.

 

[Darkness]

Of course. Not too long after Obama became President, I started having less taxes taken out of my pay checks, and the extra money went along way. Even just 20 dollars makes a big difference when you are poor.
But those poor babies up at the top need that extra 20 million so they keep up the 5 star hotels, designer clothing, luxurious dinners, and privileges that most of us can't even dream about obtaining.

I was argueing about wealth distribution with my libertarian friend in class the other day. He simply doesn't take pragmatic statistics into account. That is, he sees it as a fundamental tenant that the government treat everyone equally (i.e. flat-tax), no matter the level of unequal distribution. That might make sense if we revamp the estate tax so it includes all income brackets and set it at 100 per cent. Everybody should have to make it on their own, no free hand-outs.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I was argueing about wealth distribution with my libertarian friend in class the other day. He simply doesn't take pragmatic statistics into account. That is, he sees it as a fundamental tenant that the government treat everyone equally (i.e. flat-tax), no matter the level of unequal distribution. That might make sense if we revamp the estate tax so it includes all income brackets and set it at 100 per cent. Everybody should have to make it on their own, no free hand-outs.

Now we are getting somewhere. I believe you and I could hammer out a compromise.

I believe in the carrot and the stick. The reward of the carrot works well for many.

Socialism removes the stick from the equation. Some people are insulated from consequences of their actions.

If everyone had a purpose and responsibilities and had to suffer the consequences for doing nothing, we would be a more productive society.

I want everyone to succeed and get in the game.

 

[Darkness]

Now we are getting somewhere. I believe you and I could hammer out a compromise.

I believe in the carrot and the stick. The reward of the carrot works well for many.

Socialism removes the stick for the equation. Some people are insulated from consequences of their actions.

If everyone had a purpose and responsibilities and had to suffer the consequences for doing nothing, we would be a more productive society.

I want everyone to succeed and get in the game.

Your analysis would only work if there was no such thing as involuntary unemployment. That is, there are certain aberration in the use of a market economy, that have nothing to do with the carrot and the stick. This is the break I have with social liberals. Liberals seem to believe all you must do is push the market into equilibrium. It is the state's duty to correct the aberrations of the market economy. That is modern socialism (i.e. social democracy).