Weren't all the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy supposed to prevent a recession?

[NNN0LHI]

Wasn't that the selling point for giving the wealthy more wealth? Shouldn't the Dems be dwelling on this aspect of Bush and Republicans as stewards of our economy?

I realize that Obama is busy with some other stuff right now but Hillary should be out kicking the Rethugs ass over this huge screwup 24/7.

Don

[FreakinDJ]

1. Like every thing else from Bush it does the exact opposite

Take a look at Al Quiada in Iraq.

There were none until we invaded

[madokie]

2. Of course it was but in bushworld up is down

we must'nt ever forget that

[notadmblnd]

3. That was my understanding. It was all going to trickle down to us by way of the corporations

and now so many of them are applying for government assistance (welfare). Well I for one think these new welfare queens, should be required to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

[formercia]

12. Trickle down

I can feel the warm piss on the back of my neck as we speak.

[Ilsa]

4. That's exactly the argument we need to use to justify

letting Bush's tax cuts expire, and only offering up tax cuts for the middle and lower income classes, if any. Throw it up into the faces of anyone using the "Dems will raise taxes" argument. PEople who don't want to pay their share of taxes are abdicating their responsibility to the nation.

We have got to start paying down this debt, and it won't happen until we significantly stop spending so much on Iraq.

[maui9002]

5. It did exactly what it was intended to do

It prevented a recession--for the wealthy.

[Brigid]

6. Yeah, that was the idea.

At least, that's what the gullible American public was told. And the war was supposed to be over in a few months, it was supposed to pay for itself with oil revenues, the Iraqi people would be throwing flowers at our troops and greet them as liberators --you get the idea. We all know better around here, judging by the other responses -- when are the rest going to wake up and stop buying the Bush regimes lies? This is why terms limits are the best provision in the Constitution -- next to the Bill of Rights.

[El Pinko]

7. Taxes on the rich must periodically get lower and lower until they reach zero...

...for the economy to continue to function.

Didn't you know that?

JFK lowered them, then Carter lowered them, then Reagan lowered them a LOT, then Bush 1 hiked them ever so slightly, then Clinton kept them basically the same, then Bush 2 slashed them again.

The top bracket is taxed at what? 38% It was 90% under FDR, 70% under JFK. The rich have gotten tax break after tax break after tax break and yet STILL they bitch, and yet are completely indifferent to the fact that the lower half of US income earners haven't had a raise in about 27 damn years.

[Brigid]

8. "Let them eat cake."

It worked for Marie Antionette.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

9. Yes, but tax cuts are to the Republicans what "free" trade is to The Economist magazine

The Republicans: The economy needs tax cuts to be healthy, and if it's not, that's because the tax cuts weren't deep enough.

The Economist: National economies need "free" trade to be healthy, and if massive inequalities between the rich and poor have worsened under "free" trade, that's because there are still too many regulations.

[jbfaus1964]

10. earmarks

Speaking of taxes, did anyone notice that both sides voted against limiting earmarks??? I'll be honest. I am tired of being told I need to pay higher taxes when the government keeps wasting our money.

[Froward69]

11. with the dollar worth half

as much the greed rule says you need twice as much.

[OneBlueSky]

13. fo anyone who believed that, I got this bridge in Brooklyn for sale cheap . . . n/t

.

[unblock]

14. hey, the rich people did their part! it's the poor people who didn't CONSUME enough!!

it's hard work outsourcing jobs! have some sympathy for the rich people who have to fire entire townloads of people! there's some serious stress involved in that and eight figures only BEGINS to compensate for that!

poor people should talk their parents into mortgaging THEIR home so they can spend more and do their patriotic duty to SPEND, SPEND, SPEND!!!!!!111111!1111

i'm series!!!111!!!!

[Bandit]

15. When those tax cuts were initiated we were not in recession nor headed for one

In fact we were running a surplus and Bush* used that as his excuse to give the people back their excess money.

[PA Democrat]

16. Didn't you hear the boy idiot's latest excuse? The economy is sliding because people are afraid

that the evil Democrats won't extend Bush's tax cuts. Seriously, that guy would insult the intelligence of a rock.

[annabanana]

17. The wealthy didn't WANT to trickle anything down on us....

It was given to THEM, they want it and they intend to keep every goddam drop!... and Georgie can't stop them (even if he wanted to)

[KharmaTrain]

18. We've Been Trickled Down To Nothing...

The economy is a time bomb that won't be going away...and, if anything, it's Gramps who needs to step forward and say something and to flush him out on how in bed with his buddies at the banks he is and how he thinks things should be turned around...and then hammer the snot out of him.

The longtime argument I've used about the tax "cut" for the rich is how its hurt people's bottom lines in other ways. When taxes to the federal government were lowered, so were the baseline of other taxes...especially state. They took the first hit as not only did they get less in revenues from lower reported income figures, but also had to make up for "budget cuts" boooshie pushed through and mandates like "no child left" behind...all sorts of drains on state and local budgets that have led to defecits in virtually every state that now threatens to shut down basic services. People want both smaller government, yet when they need "their share", they demand a full share and thensome. Our pandering politicians have tried to play both sides of that fence.

The ugly truth is when times get tight, the first people heading for the hills are the rich...using their money to protect their money. They can convert dollars to Euros to gold...they take this hit, but have the ability to "hedge". The middle and lower classes don't have that luxuary...they pay the freight for shortfalls and fiscal irresponsibility.

Two other factors play in. One is the billions squandered in Iraq that are being paid for "off the books" with all sorts of funny money and borrowing. Combine the defecits we know of (thanks to the tax "cuts) along with the Iraq mess and then this regime's irresponsible fiscal "policies" have only made things worse...a lot worse.

As someone else pointed out, isn't it something that when times get tight, it's the "free market" types who are the first to beg for a corporate government bailout. They are too selfish to realize such a bailout only cheapens the value of their assets further.

While this sounds cruel and it is sure to cause pain to many who don't deserve it, this economy needs to hit a bottom and soon. Just like in 1929...attempting to Repugnican the recession means further suffering ahead.

Democrats need not fear the economy any longer. Polls show a large majority see this party as the more fiscally responsible. The "tax and spend" shit has been debunked by repugnicans borrow and squander. Yes...the economy will be a big factor this year...especially on the local races where Democrats can zero in on specific repugnican abuses. The problem isn't what issues to hammer Gramps on...it's there are too many. At this point, put the pressure on him to dig his grave deeper.