The cornerstone of the GOP economic plan is cutting taxes for the rich, already at their lowest level since WWII even lower . "Rich people are 'job creators'" is their standard mantra as to why capital gains taxes and estate taxes should be eliminated. Never mind that about half of all capital gains taxes are paid by the top 10% of the 1%. These people got extremely rich because they didn't use their money to create jobs. They used other people's money to do that.if they created jobs at all.
Willard 'Mitt' Romney's tax plan would add another $6.6 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years and although he has refused to release his own tax records he alone would stand to pocket a couple of million extra a year from his own tax cut.
To say this idea is horseshit would be an insult to horseshit which at least can be used as fertilizer. Good luck selling that idea to the nation in its current mood.
Reagan started this bullshit idea, which has since been repudiated by David Stockman, his budget director. It took the U.S. 204 years to rack up a trillion dollars in debt. Reagan more than doubled that in 8 years adding $1.8 trillion to the debt. Bush senior added another $1.4 trillion in only 4 years.
Then in 1993 President Clinton raised taxes and the Republicans, including Newt Gingrich leading the charge lined up to predict the collapse of the economy and America as we know it. They were correct in the latter. Under Clinton 23 million jobs were created and for the first time since the 1950's his he left office creating budget surpluses.
Then along came Bush Jnr. the master of disaster who cut taxes in 2001 and 2003. It was the first time in history that a President had cut taxes while paying for war(s). Bush managed to add almost $6.7 trillion to the Federal debt. In all these five Presidential terms created 87% of America's total debt since 1776.
His job creation - not so hot. He created virtually no new jobs in 8 years.
Enough said.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I always find it dangerous to use random statistics to arrive at assumptions that reflect the performance of US Presidents.For example, should one compare Presidents on the basis of increased national debt within their term or should the performance of the first 3 years of their term be attributed to the previous President. In addition, what effect does Congressional control, or lack thereof, contribute to the success of each Presidential term. Of course we should not forget war-time costs that add to national debt - WWII, Korean War,Vietnam,Iraq and Afghanistan.
Agree that random statistics can give unclear assumptions. Clinton certainly benefited from the rise of the Internet Equally so, the 2008 meltdown had noting to do with tax rates.
However taxation levels do affect tax revenues and therefore the Federal deficit. Federal revenues have fallen to an unacceptably low percentage of GDP, low enough that cuts alone cannot possible balance the budget. My point is that lower tax rates, especially for the wealthy do not necessarily create jobs while higher rates don't necessarily cause job losses.
Bottom line, the GOP mantra on tax rates is nonsensical.
Post a Comment