Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, September 04, 2024

Thom Hartmann: When we handed America over to Ronald Reagan in 1981 it was a brand, gleaming new country with a prosperous and thriving middle class ...

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Today begins the official political season of 2024, the fall countdown to election day and inauguration day, and the start of billions of dollars raised by morbidly rich rightwingers that will be pouring into our media, email, and phones.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"Most consequentially, the 1970s were when Trump's modern-day Republican Party was birthed.

Prior to that, the nation had hummed along for 40 years on a top income tax bracket of 91% and a corporate income tax that topped out around 50%.

Business leaders ran their companies, which were growing faster than at any time in the history of America, and largely avoided participating in politics.

Democrat Franklin Roosevelt and Republican Dwight Eisenhower had renewed America with modern, state-of-the-art public labs, schools, and public hospitals across the nation;

nearly free college, trade school, and research support;
healthy small and family businesses;
unions protecting a third of America's workers, setting the wage floor so two-thirds of us had a living wage and benefits;
and an interstate highway system, rail system, and network of new airports that transformed the nation's commerce."

.

"But the seeds of today's American crisis were planted just ten years earlier, in 1971, when Lewis Powell, then a lawyer for the tobacco industry, wrote his infamous "Powell Memo."

It became a blueprint for the morbidly rich and big corporations to take over the weakened remnants of Nixon's Republican Party and then America itself.

They then moved on to infiltrate our universities, seize our media, pack our courts, integrate themselves into a large religious movement to add millions of votes, and turn upside down our tax, labor, and gun laws."

much more at the thread link

Here's the video version:

www.youtube.com

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2024-09-03 05:43 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

Supposedly Reagan said in 1976 that the new deal was based on fascism even though that's a mad lie that condemned even his own father (which may have been a bonus for Reagan).

#2 | Posted by Tor at 2024-09-03 05:46 PM | Reply

FDR 1935 State of the Union speech,

"The Federal Government must and shall quit this business of relief. . . . Continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."

He recognized a need for the government to respond to a specific crisis but it was not intended to create multi-generational perpetual wards of the state.

What he predicted is exactly what has happened. It has created people with low self-esteen and now they are angry they get little respect from others and frankly don't even respect themselves.

It has done to the "national fiber" exactly what he predicted.

#3 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2024-09-03 07:06 PM | Reply

Obama tried to create a jobs program for veterans and got accused of trying to enslave veterans so the Republican Party can shove it

#4 | Posted by Tor at 2024-09-03 07:23 PM | Reply

Liberal Redneck - Which Party Should Working Class People Support?

www.youtube.com

#5 | Posted by Corky at 2024-09-03 07:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

-When we handed America over to Ronald Reagan in 1981 it was a brand, gleaming new country with a prosperous and thriving middle class ...

If that were tie then Carter wouldn't have gotten spanked.

Anybody can make a list of domestic economic challenges that indicate that statement was never true.

Nobody believes it now

#6 | Posted by eberly at 2024-09-03 07:51 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

If that were true ... ..

#7 | Posted by eberly at 2024-09-03 07:52 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

BTW. I'm not taking issue with the rest of it ... ... yet

#8 | Posted by eberly at 2024-09-03 07:53 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#3

To put the quote in context:

"By Roosevelt's inauguration, unemployment had grown to over twenty-five percent of the nation's workforce, with more than twelve million Americans out of work."
-William Leuchtenburg, Esteemed FDR historian

Roosevelt displayed effective leadership by steadfastly pushing to replace short-term monetary relief, like government handouts, with long-term solutions, like creating jobs.

His empathetic vision for America included mending both the economy and the spirit of the people."

Roosevelt displayed effective leadership by steadfastly pushing to replace short-term monetary relief, like government handouts, with long-term solutions, like creating jobs.

His empathetic vision for America included mending both the economy and the spirit of the people."

fdranewdealerinhope.weebly.com

"In his State of the Union Address before Congress on January 4, 1935, President Roosevelt declared, "the time has come for action by the national government" to provide "security against the major hazards and vicissitudes [uncertainties] of life."

He went on to propose the creation of federal unemployment and old-age insurance programs. He also called for guaranteed benefits for poor single mothers and their children along with other dependent persons."

'

"A few months later, on August 18, 1935, Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act.

It set up a federal retirement program for persons over 65, which was financed by a payroll tax paid jointly by employers and their workers.

FDR believed that federal old-age pensions together with employer-paid unemployment insurance (also a part of the Social Security Act) would provide the economic security people needed during both good and bad times.
"
In addition to old-age pensions and unemployment insurance, the Social Security Act established a national welfare system."

teachdemocracy.org

much more at the link

and...

Context is your friend.

Cherry picking quotes isn't context.

#9 | Posted by Corky at 2024-09-03 07:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Corky,

I am well aware of his job programs.

That's not what we have though, is it?

Try telling people today they'll be expected to do manual labor like building roads.

#10 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2024-09-03 08:31 PM | Reply

Corky,

Unemployment and social security assume people work for these benefits to kick in.

If the government created work programs like FDR did, the ACLU or someone would scream bloody murder.

#11 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2024-09-03 08:38 PM | Reply

The quote you posted was an effort to justify in people's minds doing something brand new in the Gov creating jobs; public works projects.

It had nothing do to with also creating programs for the People, as those programs themselves demonstrate.

Try getting a Trumpublican to sign onto a New Conservation Corp, lmao.

They won't even admit what 99 percent of scientists say about climate change.

Old time Republicans like Ike knew the dangers of corporate personhood; new Trumpublicans have been conned into believing Trump is for the working person, which couldn't be further from the truth.

I suggest you ck out the Powell Memo and it's history, and see if you still agree with Reagan's attempt to destroy the middle class for the corporate interests.

#12 | Posted by Corky at 2024-09-03 08:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Wow! Corky really does love some revisionist history.

#13 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-09-03 09:00 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

offer the common people emergency employment and 40% will accuse you of slavery.

Offer them money and 40% will accuse you of socialism.

Give the money to corporations and 20% will object while the 80% are indifferent.

#14 | Posted by Tor at 2024-09-03 09:00 PM | Reply

Corky,

I'm not crazy about Reagan. He turned me away from Republicans.

I voted for him and voted Democrat up until Trump.

Neither party represents my views.

However, Democrats today are downright embarrassing.

They are obsessed with Trump and generally fooling themselves Kamala isn't an empty suit.

#15 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2024-09-03 09:11 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

#13

Wow, Trump's BallWasher really never has an actual argument!

- Democrats today are downright embarrassing.

They have the advantage of not being led by a criminal and a traitor to his country... as testified to under Oath and Penalty of Perjury by literally dozens of his own Trumper Aides.

Also a billionaire who give the majority dollar amounts of tax breaks to himself and his other global corporatist Oligarch friends, but who's counting.

#16 | Posted by Corky at 2024-09-03 10:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

" If the government created work programs like FDR did ... "

They'd call it infrastructure week. Biden's bill was the largest since Eisenhower.
harris.uchicago.edu

#17 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-09-04 01:34 AM | Reply

Democrats fix what Republicants ---- up.
Since Hoover, EVERY SINGLE TIME.

#18 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2024-09-04 01:35 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Wow! Corky really does love some revisionist history."

Corky likes hearing what Corky wants to hear.

#19 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-09-04 09:11 AM | Reply

fooling themselves Kamala isn't an empty suit.

#15 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

No emptier than you are, one suspects.

#20 | Posted by Zed at 2024-09-04 09:28 AM | Reply

MB is in history denial... sans any paddle.

#21 | Posted by Corky at 2024-09-04 11:19 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

However, Democrats today are downright embarrassing.

Democratic candidates are not convicted felons or indicted for federal and state crimes. And if are supporting one for president that speaks volumes about your patriotism and integrity.

...

They are obsessed with Trump and generally fooling themselves Kamala isn't an empty suit.

#15 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

Anyone supporting Trumpy and his hateful policies and criminal insanity should be embarrassed.

And I'd much rather vote for a boring "empty suit" than one full of insane and extremely weird crap.

#22 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-09-04 11:37 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"They are obsessed with Trump and generally fooling themselves Kamala isn't an empty suit."

That would be ABSOLUTELY CORRECT with proper spacing:

"They are obsessed with Trump and generally fooling themselves"

Trump voters certainly are!

"Kamala isn't an empty suit."

Right again!

#23 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-09-04 11:59 AM | Reply

Henry Morgenthau, Jr. was FDR's Secretary of the Treasury from 1934-1945. In the following important quote, he admits that the big New Deal stimulus spending programs had failed.

(p. 2) "We have tried spending money. We are spending more money than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just none interest, and if I am wrong . . . somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job, I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. . . . I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started . . . . And an enormous debt to boot!"
Source:
Folsom, Burton W., Jr. In New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America. 4th ed. New York: Threshold Editions, 2008.

#24 | Posted by homerj at 2024-09-04 12:36 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

"MB is in history denial... sans any paddle."

Thom Hartmann isn't interested in history. If he were, he would have mentioned that when tax rates were at their highest, so were the things you could deduct. In fact it was the wealthy USans who were most against Reagan's TRA86, because even though it lowered marginal rates, it eliminated many of the deductions wealthy households were able to take advantage of. Marginal rates are immaterial. a 91% marginal rate means nothing if you can claim enough deductions to get the effective rate down to zero.

Hartmann also ignores the impacts of the post-war economy, where the US was the only economy on the planet capable of widespread heavy industry.

...but it is me who is in denial...

#25 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-09-04 01:00 PM | Reply

#24

It's pretty well understood by economists that FDR's economic policies exacerbated the Great Depression. I'm not knocking the guy-he was the first US president to have to deal with something like this, and he created the conditions where, during WWII, the US was able to produce 2/3rds of all military equipment used by the allies during the war. Despite the fact that the US military ranked 39th in the world in 1939.

#26 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-09-04 01:07 PM | Reply

#24

"It is an ancient debate spurred anew by the rise of the "tea party" movement, which treats the Constitution as both cudgel and sacred text; by TV commentators such as Glenn Beck, who wrap their ideology in selective scholarship; and by a current vogue among conservatives eager not just to revisit the past but to rewrite it."

Folsom has not won fame or riches with his FDR indictment.

But it raised Folsom's profile on TV and the lecture circuit, affording the luxury of teaching half a year at Michigan's Hillsdale College, a conservative citadel, and spending winters outside Atlanta, near his adult son. He is writing a second Roosevelt book with his wife, Anita, criticizing his role during World War II.

Folsom knows that many dismiss his work as little more than conservative polemic."

www.latimes.com

#27 | Posted by Corky at 2024-09-04 01:10 PM | Reply

- he would have mentioned that when tax rates were at their highest, so were the things you could deduct.

Most everyone here, libs at least, already know that... and have forever.

#28 | Posted by Corky at 2024-09-04 01:13 PM | Reply

"Most everyone here, libs at least, already know that... and have forever."

You should shoot your boy Thom an email. He apparently is less educated on the matter than you are.

#29 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-09-04 01:17 PM | Reply

MB, I see... so, someone you disagree with doesn't mention a detail that he knows most of his audience already knows, which we do because he's spoken on it in detail previously, and it's also common knowledge to anyone interested in economics... so he's less educated on the matter?

That's just silly. Sounds like it may have been a revelation for you.

#30 | Posted by Corky at 2024-09-04 01:28 PM | Reply

"Most everyone here, libs at least, already know that... and have forever."

We also know that FDR is rated as one of the greatest presidents in American history and is usually up in the top three.

We also know that Trumpy is rated as one of the worst presidents in American history and is rated in the bottom four and sometimes The Worst. The only president to try and prevent a peaceful transfer of power in America.

Which just makes it incredibly hard to understand why half of us don't seem to know and understand the significance of this.

#31 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-09-04 01:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#1 earned a spot on comedy central.

You got Regan because of Carter and the stupid policies. Carter carried 6 states and 49 electoral votes in 1980. Yeah the entire nation handed back the ------ show they bought into. The only thing Carter handed Regan was a broke down country with inflation higher than it is now - if you actually believe today's numbers under fellow Democrat, Biden.

But as usual you'll make excuses for them and play the victim card in their favor, that someone else always did it to them.

#32 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2024-09-04 02:31 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

You got Regan because of Carter and the stupid policies. Carter carried 6 states and 49 electoral votes in 1980. Yeah the entire nation handed back the ------ show they bought into. The only thing Carter handed Regan was a broke down country with inflation higher than it is now - if you actually believe today's numbers under fellow Democrat, Biden.

But as usual you'll make excuses for them and play the victim card in their favor, that someone else always did it to them.

#32 | Posted by lfthndthrds

You got reagan because he was criminally cutting deals with our enemies to give him electoral advantages. Like Iran not releasing hostages until after the election.

Same ---- trump does.

#33 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-09-04 02:41 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

#32

Ah, good, the elementary school analysis.

We can all feel better now, lmao.

#34 | Posted by Corky at 2024-09-04 02:47 PM | Reply

You got reagan because he was criminally cutting deals with our enemies to give him electoral advantages. Like Iran not releasing hostages until after the election.

Same ---- trump does.

#33 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-09-04 02:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

Remind me one more time who was president when those hostages were detained in Iran.. And while you're at it take a wild guess at how long that president had to deal with the situation and got nothing done...

For 444 days Jimmy Carter mashed his nuts and wrung his hands and did nothing. And I like Jimmy Carter, he just sucked as a president.

#35 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2024-09-04 02:51 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Ah, good, the elementary school analysis.

We can all feel better now, lmao.

#34 | Posted by Corky at 2024-09-04 02:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Spoken like someone who has nothing. You're a childish old man who visits history in his own imaginations.

#36 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2024-09-04 02:53 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

For 444 days Jimmy Carter mashed his nuts and wrung his hands and did nothing. And I like Jimmy Carter, he just sucked as a president.

#35 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Then why did reagan need to do an illegal deal with our enemies to beat him?

www.esquire.com
"The Thing We All Knew Finally Proved True: Reagan-Iran Edition
A recent report has confirmed the long-whispered rumor that Reagan did a deal with Iran to sink Carter's re-election. "

#37 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-09-04 02:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#35

He was a terrible helicopter pilot, crashing like that!

Reagan's Men made sure the hostages were held until after the election.

www.pbs.org

#38 | Posted by Corky at 2024-09-04 02:54 PM | Reply

#37 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-09-04 02:53 PM | Reply

If you actually believe that "Esquire" article you should have praised Regan for getting them out alive, because Carter sure as hell wasn't cutting it.

#39 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2024-09-04 02:56 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

And then Reagan went on to raise taxes 11 times to pay for the cut promises that got him elected, lol.

www.rollingstone.com

#40 | Posted by Corky at 2024-09-04 02:58 PM | Reply

I always love it when a right winger rags on FDR. In one fell swoop it tells me everything I need to know about that person and can henceforth disregard any political views that they may express.

#41 | Posted by moder8 at 2024-09-04 03:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

And then Reagan went on to raise taxes 11 times to pay for the cut promises that got him elected, lol.

www.rollingstone.com

#40 | Posted by Corky at 2024-09-04 02:58 PM | Reply | Flag

He also served two terms and steered the country out of the crazy inflation and interest rates Carter left us with. He made our military more robust than any other president and put Russia in it's place. It takes money to do that and apparently the people trusted what he was doing, because they sure as hell didn't trust Carter.

#42 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2024-09-04 03:52 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

You know how to get people to fight against their own best self interest?

Make them feel like they're being robbed and that minorities were benefiting from all their hard work.

Hate blinds people to common sense.

#43 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-09-04 03:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

you should have praised Regan for getting them out alive,

He got them out of the situation he created?

Wow!

#44 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-09-04 03:55 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Reagan spent his entire presidency getting ------------ by hezbollah.

#45 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2024-09-04 03:55 PM | Reply

Reagan oversaw the War on the Middle Class...

"In the late 1970s, high inflation drove up wages and pushed the middle class into higher tax brackets. Harnessing widespread anger, Ronald Reagan put it to work on behalf of the rich, selling the country on an "across-the-board" tax cut that brought the top rate down to 50 percent.

It was the birth of what is now known as "Starve the Beast" " a conscious strategy by conservatives to force cuts in federal spending by bankrupting the country."

.

"1992-2000: Bill Clinton Turns Deficit into Surplus, Economy Booms

After taking office, Bill Clinton immediately seized the mantle of fiscal discipline from Republicans.

He set out to balance the budget and begin paying down the national debt. To do so, he hiked the top tax bracket and boosted the corporate tax rate.

"It cost him both houses of Congress in the 1994 midterm elections," says Lincoln Chafee, a former GOP senator.

"But taming the deficit led to the best economy America's ever had." By the spring of 1997, the federal budget was headed into the black."

from the link in #40

#46 | Posted by Corky at 2024-09-04 04:08 PM | Reply

If you actually believe that "Esquire" article you should have praised Regan for getting them out alive, because Carter sure as hell wasn't cutting it.

#39 | Posted by lfthndthrds

This is the part of the trump cult game where evidence that they are wrong is dismissed as fake news, while they continue to consume news from people who said the 2020 election was stolen.

Carter had a deal that reagan delayed til after the election. Doing your own foreign policy that supercedes governmental policy is a crime.

#47 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-09-04 04:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

He made our military more robust than any other president and put Russia in it's place.

#42 | Posted by lfthndthrds

And now 40 years later, republicans are helping russia topple democracies around the world.

What would reagan say?

#48 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-09-04 04:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Then why did reagan need to do an illegal deal with our enemies to beat him?"

I think I heard about this.

He sent GHWB to Iran in the back seat of an SR-71 to negotiate with the Ayatollah, correct?

#49 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-09-04 04:30 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Nope.

#50 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-09-04 04:32 PM | Reply

#46

Bruh, you'll get no disagreement from me that Clinton was the last fiscal conservative president this country had.

That said...not sure how you can stomach a fiscal conservative. Does the (D) next to the name carry that much weight?

#51 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-09-04 04:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

-Then why did reagan need to do an illegal deal with our enemies to beat him?

because he could.

But we'll never know if it made the difference.

#52 | Posted by eberly at 2024-09-04 04:51 PM | Reply

#51

Your limited imagination is your problem... not being able to imagine a Dem having fiscally sound policies isn't surprising, however.

What is almost unimaginable is you applauding Bubba when because he, "hiked the top tax bracket and boosted the corporate tax rate.".

Are you feeling well?

#53 | Posted by Corky at 2024-09-04 04:56 PM | Reply

Don't release the hostages before the election. Mr. Reagan will win and give you a better deal.

What a Sexy Genius!
- Trumpers

#54 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-09-04 05:03 PM | Reply

"Your limited imagination is your problem.."

next sentence....

"What is almost unimaginable..."

#55 | Posted by eberly at 2024-09-04 05:07 PM | Reply

"not sure how you can stomach a fiscal conservative"

nobody is a fiscal conservative until they are out of office 20 years or so.

#56 | Posted by eberly at 2024-09-04 05:11 PM | Reply

Everything began going south in the 80's. Yes, inflation was high under Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, but most people earned a living wage and could afford to buy a home. Then, a massive transfer of wealth to the top began, wages began to slip or barely keep up with inflation, corporate greed spread like a virus driven by Wall Street, and little by little we find ourselves here.

#57 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2024-09-04 06:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

American,

I see the 80s as the great sell out.

So many facets of America sold out all at once.

#58 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2024-09-04 08:12 PM | Reply

America,

The 80s everyone decided they should have wealth and the ends justified the means.

I mean everyone.

Everyone.

Wealth became the national obsession.

It was nuts.

#59 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2024-09-04 08:16 PM | Reply

for once we agree, bill.

#60 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2024-09-04 08:19 PM | Reply

America,

And even the government collided with corporations and crooked finance schemes.

#61 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2024-09-04 08:21 PM | Reply

Don't forget, retired LtGen Smedley Butler thwarted a big business(men) (Nazi sympathisers?) coupe against Roosevelt in 1933. Many important family names today got a pass when Roosevelt and the the congress decided it was better to "let it slide" than to prosecute. Kinda like Nixon and Regan, and convicted felon djt?

#62 | Posted by lduvall at 2024-09-04 09:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

you should have praised Regan for getting them out alive,

Unlike the 6 hostages in Gaza that Dotard told Nuttyahoo to not accept a deal with Hamas until after the election.

#63 | Posted by Nixon at 2024-09-05 07:24 AM | Reply

Carter had a deal that reagan delayed til after the election. Doing your own foreign policy that supercedes governmental policy is a crime.

Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-09-04 04:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Just like sh*tler did when he told Bibi to not make a deal with Hamas before the election. Six hostages are now dead because of it.

www.pbs.org

In 1980, a prominent Republican sought to sabotage then-President Jimmy Carter's re-election by asking Middle Eastern leaders to get a message to the Iranians; keep the American hostages until after the election and Reagan will give you a better deal.

#64 | Posted by Nixon at 2024-09-05 07:37 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Colluded....I mean

#65 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2024-09-05 11:06 AM | Reply

#57

That's a fun narrative that people like Thom on Rob Reich have devoted their lives to keeping alive, but it's mostly a myth in the "Make America Great Again." way. Median household income in inflation-adjusted dollars is higher today than it was when Carter was in office. The average cost of a home in 1979 was $62.9k ($272.5k in 2024). Average house size was 1600 square feet. This comes out to $170 sq/ft in 2024$. Today the average cost of a house is $412k at an average of 2286 sq/ft. This comes out to $180 sq/ft. That's a 5.8% increase.

As for the nefarious "upward transfer of wealth," it never happened. What did happen was an economic shift towards high skilled employees over those with minimal skills. Knowledge workers versus labor workers. What your argument seems to be is that the government didn't take the money being earned by those high-income earners and give it to lower earners who, well, didn't earn it. Why would you expect a construction worker to benefit financially from Apple or IBM releasing a new computer?

The other really big thing is that consumer prices have declined substantially. TVs, blenders, furniture, even the cost of a loaf of bread are a fraction of what they were in 1979.

#66 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-09-05 12:09 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"As for the nefarious "upward transfer of wealth, it never happened."

Total nonsense.

When rates are cut, yet the 1% owes a LARGER percentage of the income tax pie, that's PROOF money funnels upward.

And when you add carried interest and GRATs, it's clear your claim is horse manure.

Let me guess: you've never learned about GRATs, despite me bringing them up at least half a dozen times.

#67 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-09-05 01:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

American,

I see the 80s as the great sell out.

So many facets of America sold out all at once.

#58 | Posted by BillJohnson

Yet you refuse to stop voting for the party that sold you out.

What a sucker.

#68 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-09-05 01:13 PM | Reply

better to "let it slide" than to prosecute. Kinda like Nixon and Regan, and convicted felon djt?

That is always the way until the melon felon. Nixon was pre-emptively pardoned by Ford in the name of "healing" bulls**t.

Lots on the right called for that too with the melon felon but the sheer amount of his criminal activity could not be ignored with the tipping point of him sending his feral base to kill members of congress and the VP.

The whole canard of "healing" is wrong. Criminals need to be held accountable. Failure to do so only emboldens future criminals to commit crimes.

#69 | Posted by Nixon at 2024-09-05 01:15 PM | Reply

"When rates are cut, yet the 1% owes a LARGER percentage of the income tax pie, that's PROOF money funnels upward."

Can you explain to me a point in time when the highest quintile didn't pay more in both percentages of the total tax burden. Or when marginal (or effective) rates were higher for lower income earners than higher?

The fact is that the top 50% of income earners pay 98% of the total federal income tax burden. The bottom 50% pays 2%

Is 2% too much?

#70 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-09-05 01:28 PM | Reply

GRATS funnel money from the poor up to the less poor?

Walk me through how that works.

#71 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-09-05 01:30 PM | Reply

"Since 1984 the JEC has provided factual information about the impact of the tax cuts of the 1980s. For example, for many years the JEC has published IRS data on federal tax payments of the top 1 percent, top 5 percent, top 10 percent, and other taxpayers. These data show that after the high marginal tax rates of 1981 were cut, tax payments and the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent climbed sharply. For example, in 1981 the top 1 percent paid 17.6 percent of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5 percent, a 10 percentage point increase."

"The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988. A middle class of taxpayers can be defined as those between the 50th percentile and the 95th percentile (those earning between $18,367 and $72,735 in 1988). Between 1981 and 1988, the income tax burden of the middle class declined from 57.5 percent in 1981 to 48.7 percent in 1988. This 8.8 percentage point decline in middle class tax burden is entirely accounted for by the increase borne by the top one percent."

www.jec.senate.gov

#72 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-09-05 01:34 PM | Reply

Were the Kennedy Tax Cuts wrong as well?

Oh, and what about when GWB cut tax rates in the lowest bracket from 15% to 10%? That was a far greater giveaway that he gave to those in the highest bracket.

#73 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-09-05 01:43 PM | Reply

Oh, and what about when GWB cut tax rates in the lowest bracket from 15% to 10%? That was a far greater giveaway that he gave to those in the highest bracket.

#73 | Posted by madbomber

CBPP cites data from the Tax Policy Center, stating that 24.2% of tax savings went to households in the top one percent of income compared to the share of 8.9% that went to the middle 20 percent.

In each of the nine years from 2004 through 2012, the GWB tax cuts increased the after-tax income of the highest-income taxpayers by a far larger percentage than they did for middle- and low-income taxpayers. For example, in 2010, the year in which all of the Bush income and estate tax cuts were fully phased in, they increased the after-tax income of people making over $1 million by more than 7.3 percent, but increased the after-tax income of the middle 20 percent of households by just 2.8 percent

Try again.

#74 | Posted by Sycophant at 2024-09-05 01:59 PM | Reply

"CBPP cites data from the Tax Policy Center, stating that 24.2% of tax savings."

Which makes sense, given that bottom income earners pay so little in taxes to start with. That's a logical outcome. That's why you would cut taxes.

#75 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-09-05 02:05 PM | Reply

"Since 1984 the JEC has provided factual information about the impact of the tax cuts of the 1980s. For example, for many years the JEC has published IRS data on federal tax payments of the top 1 percent, top 5 percent, top 10 percent, and other taxpayers. These data show that after the high marginal tax rates of 1981 were cut, tax payments and the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent climbed sharply. For example, in 1981 the top 1 percent paid 17.6 percent of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5 percent, a 10 percentage point increase."
"The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988. A middle class of taxpayers can be defined as those between the 50th percentile and the 95th percentile (those earning between $18,367 and $72,735 in 1988). Between 1981 and 1988, the income tax burden of the middle class declined from 57.5 percent in 1981 to 48.7 percent in 1988. This 8.8 percentage point decline in middle class tax burden is entirely accounted for by the increase borne by the top one percent."
www.jec.senate.gov

#72 | Posted by madbomber

Cute way to measure it.

If I make $1 million in 1981 with an 25% effective tax rate, I paid $250,000 in taxes.

But then I make $10 million in 1987 with an 10% effective tax rate, I paid $1 million in taxes.

Mad says my taxes went up and is pissed about it!

I say it's a problem I would love to have.

Dude, do you understand what happened to incomes since 1981? The highest earners are earning way more year after year while middle class wages adjusted for inflation stagnated.

THAT'S WHY THE HIGHEST EARNERS ARE PAYING A LARGER PERCENTAGE OF THE INCOME TAX BASE AS A WHOLE BUT PAYING LOWER TAXES THAN EVER BEFORE.

#76 | Posted by Sycophant at 2024-09-05 02:07 PM | Reply

I am intrigued by your middle 20% figure. That's not normally a demographic I've seen emphasized.

Now do the 1st and 2nd quintiles.

#77 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-09-05 02:07 PM | Reply

"The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988."

Meaning more income and wealth became concentrated at the top in 1988. That's proof money funnels upward.

That goes along perfectly with Snoofy's claim the profits since the 80s (and up until recently) have gone almost exclusively to the top 20%.

FTW: 88 was the Reagan code. 2001 was Dubya I and II; and 2018, the Trump Code. Each successively gave more to the 1%, and carried interest and GRATs still exist.

#78 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-09-05 02:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"CBPP cites data from the Tax Policy Center, stating that 24.2% of tax savings."
Which makes sense, given that bottom income earners pay so little in taxes to start with. That's a logical outcome. That's why you would cut taxes.

#75 | Posted by madbomber

We weren't talking about the bottom. We were talking about the middle 20%.

The TOP 1% GOT ALMOST 3 TIMES AS MUCH TAX SAVINGS AS THE ENTIRE MIDDLE 20% COMBINED.

(Hence why you didn't copy the entire sentence)

#79 | Posted by Sycophant at 2024-09-05 02:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

" what about when GWB cut tax rates in the lowest bracket from 15% to 10%?."

What a riot. That was $9852, at 5%. Not even $500.

And they weren't to the folks "in the lower bracket". EVERYONE got the same $493, even Buffet and Musk.

"That was a far greater giveaway than he gave to those in the highest bracket."

Are you using Republican Math?

The rich folks got their tax cuts AND the $493. Not even greater, much less "far greater".

#80 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-09-05 02:18 PM | Reply

The fact is that the top 50% of income earners pay 98% of the total federal income tax burden. The bottom 50% pays 2%

Is 2% too much?

#70 | Posted by madbomber

When you look at the economy and the debt and the wealth disparity, it's obvious the rich aren't paying enough and the poor need more relief.

#81 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-09-05 02:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Is it wrong for me to smile when MB's economics get B-slapped around the threads?

8^)

#82 | Posted by Corky at 2024-09-05 02:21 PM | Reply

Is it wrong for me to smile when MB's economics get B-slapped around the threads?

Only when he gets to USan homeless people being in the global top 10%.

#83 | Posted by REDIAL at 2024-09-05 02:30 PM | Reply

"Meaning more income and wealth became concentrated at the top in 1988. That's proof money funnels upward."

No, it means more income earners will willing to trade their talents and resources for more income. Had the tax cuts not been implemented, the economic position of the lower income earners would have been unchanged. No, I take that back. It would have been worse for the lower income earners, as they would have continued to carry that larger percentage of the overall tax burden.

Oh, and wealth will always concentrate at the top. In a free society, those who provide the most to society will make the most money. This can only be interrupted by government stepping in and prohibiting that free exchange.

"88 was the Reagan code."

Maybe he did something in 88, but TRA86 is the act that pissed of the wealthy in the 1980s, and progressives today.

#84 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-09-05 02:33 PM | Reply

"The rich folks got their tax cuts AND the $493. Not even greater, much less "far greater"."

So you think it was a bad move for GWB to have done that?

#85 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-09-05 02:34 PM | Reply

Oh, and wealth will always concentrate at the top. In a free society, those who provide the most to society will make the most money.
#84 | Posted by madbomber

Yup and that's why government needs the power to rebalance the wealth distribution so that capitalism doesn't collapse on itself.

As for "providing the most to society" is donald trump rich because he provided so much to society? Is Jarrod Kushner?

#86 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-09-05 02:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The TOP 1% GOT ALMOST 3 TIMES AS MUCH TAX SAVINGS AS THE ENTIRE MIDDLE 20% COMBINED."

How does that not make sense to you. In order to get a tax cut, you have to be paying taxes. 10% of that middle 20% falls into the bottom 50% of income earners, who pay 2.3% of the total federal income tax burden. Do you propose they pay zero taxes?

#87 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-09-05 02:36 PM | Reply

"When you look at the economy and the debt and the wealth disparity, it's obvious the rich aren't paying enough, and the poor need more relief."

By relief, I'm assuming more money funneled downwards?

No. You can make the claim that the rich should be paying more, but the poor should DEFINITLEY be paying more. A Swedish worker earning $35k a year would be sitting in a 33% tax bracket. The poor in the US pay almost nothing compared to their continental cousins.

I'm not sure if it's some sort of post-Marxian obsession with mediocrity or the belief that the poor should have a sense of entitlement that can be harnessed by progressives as an effective means of governing the economy. But it's not real. It's all emotion based.

#88 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-09-05 02:41 PM | Reply

"Yup and that's why government needs the power to rebalance the wealth distribution so that capitalism doesn't collapse on itself."

Government could always pass legislation that make the rich poorer. They can do little or nothing to make the poor less poor. Reference Venezuela, or any other number of countries that has attempted to do so. Why, because it would require the wealth-generating class to keep engaging in the activities that generate wealth, even though they were not going to get to keep it.

"As for "providing the most to society" is donald trump rich because he provided so much to society?"

Are you familiar with a TV show called "The Apprentice?

#89 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-09-05 02:43 PM | Reply

"The TOP 1% GOT ALMOST 3 TIMES AS MUCH TAX SAVINGS AS THE ENTIRE MIDDLE 20% COMBINED."
How does that not make sense to you. In order to get a tax cut, you have to be paying taxes. 10% of that middle 20% falls into the bottom 50% of income earners, who pay 2.3% of the total federal income tax burden. Do you propose they pay zero taxes?

#87 | Posted by madbomber

You said bottom, not bottom half. Way to move those goalposts and then complete ignore the huge issue.

How does skyrocketing top 1% incomes and stagnating middle class incomes not making sense to you?

This isn't rocket science. It's basic fourth grade math that you can't seem to wrap your head around.

#90 | Posted by Sycophant at 2024-09-05 02:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I like the part where 'Muricans should just be grateful they have more than Somalians.

#91 | Posted by Corky at 2024-09-05 02:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Meaning more income and wealth became concentrated at the top in 1988. That's proof money funnels upward."

1. No, it means more income earners will willing to trade their talents and resources for more income.

2 Had the tax cuts not been implemented, the economic position of the lower income earners would have been unchanged. No, I take that back. It would have been worse for the lower income earners, as they would have continued to carry that larger percentage of the overall tax burden.

#84 | Posted by madbomber

1. This might be the dumbest argument ever made on the Drudge. As if the top 1% aren't already seeking to maximize their incomes.

2. When did the middle class grow? When the top was paying a fair share of their huge incomes.
When did it stop growing? When idiots changed that.

#92 | Posted by Sycophant at 2024-09-05 02:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'm not sure if it's some sort of post-Marxian obsession with mediocrity or the belief that the poor should have a sense of entitlement that can be harnessed by progressives as an effective means of governing the economy. But it's not real. It's all emotion based.

#88 | Posted by madbomber at

It's data based. If you look at the wealth gap over time, it's obvious who has been reaping all the economic benefits and therefore who needs to contribute more.

#93 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-09-05 02:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Speak,

Everyone sold out.

Not just Republicans.

#94 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2024-09-05 03:05 PM | Reply

Speak,
Everyone sold out.
Not just Republicans.

#94 | Posted by BillJohnson

Republicans: Wealth people sitting on their yachts need tax cuts.
Democrats: Working people who can't afford to even pay rent need tax cuts.
BillJohnson: These parties are the same!

#95 | Posted by Sycophant at 2024-09-05 03:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Speak,

Everyone sold out.

Not just Republicans.

#94 | Posted by BillJohnson

Which party does nothing except give tax cuts to the rich and put oil lobbyists in charge of the EPA, and which party taxed the rich to give healthcare to the poor, created the consumer financial protection bureau, had has a federal trade commission that actually goes after monopolies?

#96 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-09-05 03:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"How does skyrocketing top 1% incomes and stagnating middle class incomes not making sense to you?"

It makes perfect sense. You don't seem to grasp what dudes like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos have done in transforming global marketplaces into systems that can provide low costs on almost anything you want to purchase. You can't tell me you see this as a surprise. It's like being surprised at all the models at the met gala, and lack of models at your own party. Or are the met gala partygoers holding you back by not sharing themselves with you?

"It's data based. If you look at the wealth gap over time, it's obvious who has been reaping all the economic benefits and therefore who needs to contribute more."

The ones who are reaping the benefits are the ones who enabling the creation of those benefits in the first place. Why should someone who doesn't work for Elon Musk benefit financially from something musk has created, even if they had no part in it's creation?

#97 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-09-05 03:22 PM | Reply

"1. This might be the dumbest argument ever made on the Drudge. As if the top 1% aren't already seeking to maximize their incomes."

As are all other income earners. What you need to realize is that, in order to you accomplish your progressive goals. You need them to keep doing exactly what they are doing, but give the money away. That's not likely to happen, and there isn't any real policy that could compel them to.

#98 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-09-05 03:24 PM | Reply

"2. When did the middle class grow? When the top was paying a fair share of their huge incomes."

No, the middle class grew in the post-war years because the US was the last remaining industrial power on earth, and it needed strong backs to drill oil, build ships and other heavy equipment. Equipment that would be sent to those countries devastated by war. So for about three decades, you had that paradigm. Then the globe began to get more competitive. Then technology and automation came along. And the middle class had much higher taxes back then too. But taxes on any of them didn't translate to the purchasing powers held by the workers at the time. In fact for a while, the government imposed income ceilings on workers. So employers started providing them with other benefits, like healthcare.

"When did it stop growing? When idiots changed that."

No. It was really a change towards skilled labor who could do more with less, and a globally integrated economy where a country could produce goods at far lower costs than the US could. Which is why a 19" TV cost $2,500 in 1979 (2024$), and now you would have a tough time finding a TV that costs that much. I bought a 70" for my daughter's dorm a few weeks ago. $498.

#99 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-09-05 03:33 PM | Reply

"1. This might be the dumbest argument ever made on the Drudge. As if the top 1% aren't already seeking to maximize their incomes."
As are all other income earners. What you need to realize is that, in order to you accomplish your progressive goals. You need them to keep doing exactly what they are doing, but give the money away. That's not likely to happen, and there isn't any real policy that could compel them to.

#98 | Posted by madbomber

I'm convinced you aren't following any of the argument.

You argue that tax cuts meant top wages earners would try to maximize their income.
I say they were already doing that.
You then say, well everyone is already doing that.

Are you not even able to keep up with the things you are saying?

#100 | Posted by Sycophant at 2024-09-05 03:38 PM | Reply

But taxes on any of them didn't translate to the purchasing powers held by the workers at the time. In fact for a while, the government imposed income ceilings on workers. So employers started providing them with other benefits, like healthcare.

#99 | Posted by madbomber

Did you skip all of US History and Economics classes? Just curious.

#101 | Posted by Sycophant at 2024-09-05 03:40 PM | Reply

No. It was really a change towards skilled labor who could do more with less, and a globally integrated economy where a country could produce goods at far lower costs than the US could. Which is why a 19" TV cost $2,500 in 1979 (2024$), and now you would have a tough time finding a TV that costs that much. I bought a 70" for my daughter's dorm a few weeks ago. $498.

#99 | Posted by madbomber

Holy ----.

You really don't understand even basic economics... Like...this is breathtakingly bad...

Buddy, even most skilled labor is paid less now than unskilled labor did in the 1970's!

And the cost of your TV has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. It's the outcome of automation, scale of size, and technology updates boosting productivity.

#102 | Posted by Sycophant at 2024-09-05 03:48 PM | Reply

"Are you not even able to keep up with the things you are saying?"

I think you are attempting to have a discussion on economics without having ever set foot in an econ class.

On the other hand, my econ classes were my favorite. It's why I chose Economic Strategy as the focus for my MBA.

What did you study again, Syco? I don't think it was econ.

#103 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-09-05 03:49 PM | Reply

Lets do this. I'm in contract purgatory for the next few days, so I'll be working from home. Maybe I can give you a crash course in economic theory. I think I even have a textbook or two somewhere.

You can even drink in class.

#104 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-09-05 03:50 PM | Reply

You really don't understand even basic economics...

The idiot failed out of high school and enlisted in the military.

He's been a latrine digger his entire life.

He hates socialism even though it's helped him and supported him his entire life.

He's an idiot.

Nothing more than a troll and a pathetic defender of income inequality.

#105 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-09-05 03:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Buddy, even most skilled labor is paid less now than unskilled labor did in the 1970's!"

Nope. Not even close. In inflation Adjusted Dollars a manufacturing worker would earn just under $70k per year. Dentists start at ~$150k per year. Airline pilot make around $219k, but top out at greater than $500k.

And today, an unskilled laborer would make ~$35k per year. There just isn't the demand for it anymore.

#106 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-09-05 04:00 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

And today, an unskilled laborer would make ~$35k per year. There just isn't the demand for it anymore.

#106 | Posted by madbomber

So what are all those illegal immigrants climbing the fence for?

#107 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-09-05 04:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Do you actually believe the random, stupid nonsense you post?

No one else does.

#108 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-09-05 04:43 PM | Reply

an unskilled laborer would make ~$35k per year. There just isn't the demand for it anymore.

You mean the essential workers?

There's no need for them?

Without unskilled labor doing all the menial tasks, society would collapse.

#109 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-09-05 04:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Just for clarification, 108 was for 106.

#110 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-09-05 04:46 PM | Reply

Minimum wage employees could afford houses back in the 50s and 60s.

Somehow, dumbbomber thinks Minimum wage has been keeping up with inflation.

There's a reason the only thing he could do was be another expendable body.

#111 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-09-05 04:54 PM | Reply


So what are all those illegal immigrants climbing the fence for?
#107 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Making more than they did back home, even much less than min wage.
Living together or living in government funded hotels, sending money back home.
www.cnbc.com

Do you think their food stands are "legitimate" businesses?
Pay business taxes? Licenses? Min wage to workers? IRS? State taxes? Local Taxes? Care about OSHA?
Come on man.

They live in a bubble of using pop up vendors (street), buying "stolen" retail goods (flea markets), and low cost food (street vendors), and cash.

#112 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-09-05 05:04 PM | Reply

Minimum wage employees could afford houses back in the 50s and 60s.

This is false. MinWage today could afford Home prices of the 50's

Basically people used to live together. Today everyone wants to live alone.

Unless you are a newcomer, where living 10-15 in a home isn't as bad as back home.

#113 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-09-05 05:05 PM | Reply

Without unskilled labor doing all the menial tasks, society would collapse.

Relatively true, the problem is there would need to be ann incredibly large number of unskilled laborers that would need to "disappear" before it started to crumble.

#114 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-09-05 05:07 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

He hates socialism even though it's helped him and supported him his entire life.

I sense ClownHut is drawing from his stupid the "military is socialist" BS bag again.

#115 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-09-05 05:08 PM | Reply

1LumpyDump, did you major in American history while attending school in China?

Stop wasting everyone's time, we all know you're full of shht.

#116 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-09-05 06:05 PM | Reply

"So what are all those illegal immigrants climbing the fence for?"

Asylum. And the benefits that come with it.

#117 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-09-06 02:37 AM | Reply

"Do you actually believe the random, stupid nonsense you post?"

That's because believing would conflict with the narrative you subscribe to. Kinda like a fundamentalist Christian not believing science because science suggests the earth is more than 4,000 years old.

#118 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-09-06 06:06 AM | Reply

"Somehow, dumbbomber thinks Minimum wage has been keeping up with inflation."

Think?

I know.

But don't trust me. Look it up yourself. I can do it if you really need me to.

Wages have gone up. What's gone up more is expectation. In the 1960s, one car, one TV, and a 1200 square foot house for a family of four was a reasonable expectation. Now it's multiple TVs, two cars, and a 2500 square foot house. Not to mention a degree in whatever...

#119 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-09-06 06:09 AM | Reply

"Relatively true, the problem is there would need to be ann incredibly large number of unskilled laborers that would need to "disappear" before it started to crumble."

Relatively true? How?

Most low-income workers simply enable higher income workers to trade money for time. They clean, do landscaping, work in restaurants. they basically do tasks we are all fully qualified to do. We just choose not to because the time we gain back buy paying someone to do the task for us is more valuable that the money we spend doing it.

#120 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-09-06 06:12 AM | Reply

"I sense ClownHut is drawing from his stupid the "military is socialist" BS bag again."

He wouldn't know socialism if it bit him in the ass. Hell, he may be more of a capitalist than I am. More of a fascist, really.

#121 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-09-06 06:13 AM | Reply

"The fact is that the top 50% of income earners pay 98% of the total federal income tax burden. The bottom 50% pays 2%"

The fact is a --------- of child-rearing tax credits have found their way to the 1040.

Child Tax Credit
Additional CTC
American Opportunity Credit
Earned Income Credit
Child Care Credit

ALL could've been administered OUTSIDE the income tax system. Every one kicks more and more people off the "income tax rolls", which is actually bull, in that they PAY income taxes, they just get credits FOR RAISING KIDS.

All Republican-written. All move the current barometer of "who pays income taxes", and all designed for the talking points folks regurgitate.

#122 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-09-06 04:16 PM | Reply

"Maybe he did something in 88, but TRA86 "

Sorry, I should've been clearer. TRA86 got me my start in the tax biz.

#123 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-09-06 04:18 PM | Reply

"No, it means more income earners will willing to trade their talents and resources for more income."

Not in the equation. The equation says the rich got richer.

#124 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-09-06 04:27 PM | Reply

"GRATS funnel money from the poor up to the less poor? Walk me through how that works."

I've brought up GRATs over a half-dozen times, and you STILL don't know what they are?!?

FTW:

GRATs, or Grantor Annuity Trusts, are a way for the ultra-ultra-wealthy to pass assets without incurring inheritance taxes. Money is put in a GRAT, and then the owner just...disowns it.

Sheldon Adelson used GRATs to pass $8 Billion down to his kids, avoiding ~$3 billion in gift/inheritance taxes.

Because of the couple's inheritance exemption, GRATs are useful for anyone with a net worth over $30 million.

Other famous names with GRATs include Oprah Winfrey, Mark Zuckerberg, and Ralph Lauren.

Here's a further explanation: info.wealthcounsel.com

#125 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-09-06 05:18 PM | Reply

"Not in the equation. The equation says the rich got richer."

Y'mean the equation says high income earners get to keep more of their earnings than you would like them to.

#126 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-09-07 04:58 AM | Reply

#125

Yeah...I don't really care. Provided that it is legal. I find it more immoral to tax inheritance than not, but It's not going to move the needle much. Statistically, the kids of the people you mentioned will not be rich past the third generation.

#127 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-09-07 05:01 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2024 World Readable

Drudge Retort