The Cult of Lunacy

Look back over the last hundred years and you’ll see the pattern.


During periods when the very rich took home a much smaller proportion of total income — as in the Great Prosperity between 1947 and 1977 — the nation as a whole grew faster and median wages surged.


We created a virtuous cycle in which an ever growing middle class had the ability to consume more goods and services, which created more and better jobs, thereby stoking demand. The rising tide did in fact lift all boats.


During periods when the very rich took home a larger proportion — as between 1918 and 1933, and in the Great Regression from 1981 to the present day — growth slowed, median wages stagnated and we suffered giant downturns.


It’s no mere coincidence that over the last century the top earners’ share of the nation’s total income peaked in 1928 and 2007 — the two years just preceding the biggest downturns.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/opinion/sunday/jobs-will-follow-a-strengthening-of-the-middle-class.html
 
Rana said:
Mike Lofgren has nailed it.

We have sold our souls to the company store!


http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all-reflections-gop-operative-who-left-cult/1314907779
Click to expand...

(Excerpt) Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress's generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner. (End)

That's exactly what's happening. After all, why would a political party that is against government want the government to succeed in anything it does?
 
More failure from the party that promised jobs if taxes were cut.


Taxes were cut, again and again.


Now they say we need more tax cuts - but they won't extend the payroll tax deduction that benefits the Americans who still have jobs.
 
apple0154 said:
(Excerpt) Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job,
Click to expand...
like the democrats did on Feb 12, 1999????

apple0154 said:
it would further lower Congress's generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner. (End)
Click to expand...
the more government is despised and hated, the more freedom we can retain.
 
tax.chart.gif





As the New York Times detailed in 2006, the 2003 Bush dividend and capital gains tax cuts offered almost nothing to taxpayers earning below $100,000 a year. ​


Instead, those windfalls reduced taxes "on incomes of more than $10 million by an average of about $500,000."


As the Times revealed in this jaw-dropping chart, "the top 2 percent of taxpayers, those making more than $200,000, received more than 70% of the increased tax savings from those cuts in investment income."

So it should come as no surprise that the income share of the 400 richest Americans doubled over the past decade.
​

Which is just one more reason why the wealthiest Americans, those who did so well under President Clinton and even better under George W. Bush, can and should return to their Clinton-era tax rates.





http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/001411.htm
​




spacer.gif
spacer.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top