We know what the T.E.A. Party wants, why not the Wall Street group? None of them seem to have a clue nor do they have an alternative, do you? What exactly would you like to see happen?iliveonramen;1059854323]It's like week 1. Why don't you wait a bit and see what the goals end up being. The Tea Party is almost in year 4. It takes time before movements either dissapate (which is possible) or form a true movement. I'm saying reserve judgement. You don't have to agree with them off the bat or be a supporter but why not wait to see what their goals are before assuming they are long haired hippies wanting a hand out.
How does a policy that increased Tax revenue and generated 17 million new taxpayers increase the debt? spending causes debt not Reaganomics. What exactly is your problem with trickle down economics? Think trickle up is better or redistribution of wealth?I think for the most part it's increased our deficits. I think for a large part it's led to a concentration of wealth to the few. Why exactly are you personalizing this, I actually work in a very good job and do very well but my problems with trickle down are the results of trickle down economics.
You are missing the point, there isn't only Federal Taxes but there are state and local taxes as well so what is the fair share that the rich should pay? Please give me an amount then tell me how much additional revenue that will generate for the govt? Why is that even an issue?Innovation doesn't stop with higher tax rates. This idea that Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerman only exist because of lower marginal tax rates and low capital gains tax is false. It's a good sales pitch but it isn't proven with reality. You would have to show an absence of innovation during times of high marginal tax rates for the wealthy which is not the case. I also find it interesting that you have pointed out very progressive innovators who I doubt would quit working if their tax rate went up 5% or so.
Reagan spent money on the military and with that spending left Clinton a "peace dividend" Why do you have a problem keeping more of your money? Do you have a problem with choosing how to spend it and need the govt. to help you? I assume that you know where your money goes when you spend it. Do you know where your money goes when it goes to the govt?Reagan was also a very big deficit spending (Keynesian), Volcker started decreasing interests rates after finally beating inflation in 83', and oil prices dropped globally. To point to tax breaks as the reason is pretty disenginous because taxes are lower now than they were under Reagan. Clinton increased tax rates right before the boom in the 90's. You can't really claim taxes have such an effect on innovation and growth without explaining away the contradictions and other possible causes...which no one can.
We are paying for FDR's New Deal today. His SS program was designed never to be paid out and now is a ponzi scheme.And FDR is a very popular President still 60 years after he was President. His economic policies were the polar opposite of Reagans in a lot of ways. Just because he's a popular President does not mean everything he did was perfect.
I back my statements up with verifiable data.I am. You're the one with an idealized picture that doesn't meet reality. I've posted why i think the way I do.
No President is perfect but I will support any policy that allows the American people, even you, to keep more of what you earn and thus spend your money on the programs you deem worthy.Like I mentioned, it doesn't mean all his policies were perfect. He was the great communicator not the great economists. Liberals are anti-Reagan because he's the antithesis in economic policies to Liberalism. It's like asking why Libertarians are so anti-Roosevelt.