Hilary campaigning on a far left platform

middle class really got screwed by the Reagan tax cuts:

 

I can't win on what points? yes not everyone deserves to own a house. Owning a house isn't about survival. It's a luxury item. Just like everyone doesn't deserve a smart phone and a flat screen tv and daily *******s. you do realize that in your liberal meccas 50% of people own houses compared to 2/3rds here? hell most of my friends don't own homes and none of them are in poverty.

 

That's not what minimum wage is for.

 

I don't know why you can't separate our wanton gov't spending from economic policy. Maybe you've forgotten that Reagan was shackled with Tip O in trying to curb any spending. You think current Rs are obstructionist? Good grief.

The obama crap is silliness. The idiot backloaded the taxes so we get creamed later. Did the same with one of the largest gov't spend increases in history. Fiscal policy isn't about making terrible decisions today that are unaffordable tomorrow. If you want a lesson in paying the piper later for bad decisions today, look no further than Detroit.

 

you are just a selfish bastard that wants to tell the poor to go **** themselves. Until the poor can eat filet minion every day we are failing as a country.

 

get the hell out of here. Finances killed Rome.

Theocratic idiocy? Lack of religious freedom in our country? Funny.

Show me less oppression anywhere.

 

He also increased spending, so how can you be absolutely sure that the GDP increase was solely because of tax cuts?

Regardless, the point remains that the debt increased under the conservative demigod Reagan and the Reaganomics that are touted by the Right now.

Like I said, if you truly believe that there is a linear relationship between tax cuts and GDP, why not cut the tax rate 99% and enjoy that sweet 297% growth?

Answer: because that's retarded and isn't what would happen.

 

you're acting like Reagan was the congress. He wasn't. He had latitude in dealing with the Fed, but little in fiscal spend. I fault him in failing to curb spending growth, instead of compromising with the Speaker and doubling spending in the midst.

 

That sounds great. I'm just wondering how it works in theory. Does trying to pay everyone a livable wage result in everybody getting a livable wage, or does it result in a bunch of people getting no wages because their employers can't afford it.

 

I have no idea how anyone with any common sense and a job can see what she says as do able.

 

It increases the cost of your product, which you may or may not be able to sell anymore.

 

I think there has been an acknowledgement of diminishing returns.

What you haven't acknowledged is that the least efficient organization on earth is the US Govt. Wonder how that might play into the tax picture?

 

because the increased spending didn't come till after tax revenues had gone up dramatically. the tax cuts were done in 1982. the massive spending increases happened AFTER the economy recovered.

I guess you feel like the 1980s cold war is repeatable?

Well it's pretty simple. if you cut rates to zero. zero percent of that 300% growth doesn't do much for you on the tax revenue side does it?

Why wouldn't it happen? based on what evidence? what study?

 

everyone doesn't warrant a living wage, period. In a world of global labor, it simply doesn't make sense.

 

this is the first I've ever heard someone argue a living wage means owning a house.

 

there would be diminishing returns short term because at some point you are getting to the max of what consumer spending would be. but the rest would be put in investment and that has a far higher long term growth rate than consumers spending. the reason why we wouldn't do it is because you need SOME tax rate to pay for shit.

 

It is, actually. It sets a minimum standard of living for all workers: http://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdol/history/flsa1938.htm

 

I guarantee you FDR wasn't talking about owning a house and a car when he was talking about minimum standard of living.

 

When the minimum wage was first being instituted, companies and businesses all swore it would destroy them all and the economy. It didn't.

 

and I quote: In his annual message to Congress on January 3, 1938, he said he was seeking "legislation to end starvation wages and intolerable hours."

the poor are currently the fattest people in this country. you really think this is apples to apples?