Glenn Beck accepts the president’s challenge to find evidence of his socialist tendencies
In fact, the reagan tax cuts led to big gains for the rich, in terms of income, but the middle classes income stayed pretty flat.
@clevebrowns3 The Reagan tax cuts as well as the Bush tax cuts, and the Kennedy tax cuts increased the money coming into the govt.
The people below the poverty level would pay no taxes under the flat tax.
The reason for taxes is to fund the govt. not to punish the successful. The tax code has turned into a social engineering tool instead of a revenue raising tool.
@intrepidorator The increased revenue during the Reagan and Bush administration, was a result of the Fed lowering interest rates. If you don’t believe me, then check it out for yourself. Fed chairmen Volcker, lowered interest rates during the 80′s, after they had been at very high rates, and as a result of this, we saw a booming economy during a lot of the 80′s. Furthermore, Greenspan also lowered interest rates during the early 2000′s and this resulted in a boom also.
Furthermore, higher tax rates for the rich has never been proven to be disastrous. For example, look at this statistic.
Growth in per capita real GDP from 1950 to 1980: 2.2 percent per year
Growth in per capita real GDP from 1980 to 2007: 2.0 percent per year
Wow, could it be true that trickle down economics doesn’t work???
@clevebrowns3 The evidence is clear, lower taxes on the job producers frees up capital to create jobs. By expanding the job base at the same time that job producers are earning more money equals more tax revenue. How would lowering interest rates cause tax revenues to rise?
@intrepidorator Well, I guess you don’t understand how the Fed lowering interest rates effects the economy, which is fine. I’m not putting you down. Here is how it works, when the Fed lowers interest rates that means that borrowing money from the Fed becomes cheaper for the commercial banks. This cheaper money then leads to the expanding of credit, which then makes it easier for businesses to get capital. The increasing availability of capital will sometimes lead to booms in economies.
@clevebrowns3 So you are saying that expanding credit, helps business expand and increase the tax base, that was my argument, thank you for agreeing with me.
@intrepidorator No, I was not agreeing with you. If you understood economics you would know what I am saying. If you think that tax cuts would expand credit then you are delusional. Tax cuts would not have any effect in expanding credit.
@clevebrowns3 If you don’t understand that more jobs means a larger tax base, then you don’t understand economics 101. If you cut taxes on the people providing jobs, then the job provider will have more money to expand his business, and hire more people. This equals less unemployment and more people paying taxes. It really is simple, I am sure that even you can understand it.
@intrepidorator My last reply had nothing to do with what you just said. The point I was making, which you obviously did not understand, was that tax cuts do not have any effect on expanding CREDIT. Explain to me how tax cuts would expand credit? I mean, do you even know where credit comes from? If you knew anything about economics you wouldn’t make such ridiculous statements.
@intrepidorator Furthermore, to answer your comment about tax cuts for the rich having a significant impact on creating a prosperous economy, the only thing I have to say is that the statistics really do not prove that trickle down economics works. The boom that we had in the 80′s, had more to do with the Fed than fiscal policy, which I explained to you earlier, but you apparently didn’t care.
@intrepidorator Oh yeah, I almost forgot, can you please explain to me how we had more prosperity under the Clinton administration than the Reagan administration, after taxes were raised? Please, explain to me how that works?
@clevebrowns3 I care. I just think you’re wrong, or intentionally lying, It doesn’t matter which.
@clevebrowns3 Clinton was lucky enough to ride the wave of the Reagan economy early on and to have a republican congress for the last 2 years, to keep spending under control.
@intrepidorator “Clinton was lucky enough to ride the wave of the Reagan economy early on and to have a republican congress for the last 2 years,ï»¿ to keep spending under control.”
That was the best answer you could come up with? Man, you are one horrible trickle down economics apologist.
@intrepidorator “Clinton was lucky enough to ride the wave of the Reagan economy early on and to have a republican congress for the last 2 years, to keep spending under control.”
Wow, is that the best that you can come up with? You are one horrible trickle down economics apologist. Let me get this straight, so if Reagan was responsible for the economic prosperity that we had during the 90′s, under Clinton, than is Reagan also responsible for the bad economic times under George H.W. Bush?
@clevebrowns3 The economy only went bad for the last 2 or 3 years of Bush jr Bush holds the record for the most consecutive months of job growth, 42 months, Clinton did several good things during his administration, but only because the conservatives pressured him to do so.
@intrepidorator I was not talking about George W. Bush, I was talking about George H.W. Bush, but whatever. Please, read more carefully next time. Anyway, you do know that the reason why we had that many consecutive months of job growth was because we had a bubble economy? There was no real growth happening during the Bush years. Also, you do realize that the Bush administration did nothing to stop harmful practices, such as derivatives?
The Bush administration allowed the financial sector to take too much risk and that was one of the main reasons why we had a housing crisis. I can’t believe how in love you are with the republican party.
@clevebrowns3 The Bush administration did allow the democrats to cause this ecomonic downturn. You should investigate the fact that Harry Ried, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, etc. stopped John McCain and G.W. Bush from increasing regulations on fannie mae and freddie mac. It is well documented and easy to find, even here on youtube. Here let me find it for you. watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
@intrepidorator I am very well aware of the regulations they wanted to put on fannie mae and freddie mac. However, if you think that fannie mae and freddie mac should be the only one’s blamed for the housing crisis then you are delusional. Ever heard of derivatives and other bad practices that the republicans were against regulating? If you want to blame anyone for the housing crises blame republican congressman Phil Gramm and Alan Greenspan.
@intrepidorator The only reason why the republicans put all the blame on fannie mae and freddie mac is because their both government sponsored enterprises. The republicans just want to take the blame off of wall street, so that they can make the major corporations happy.
@intrepidorator Furthermore, our government has to regulate some sectors of the economy, especially the financial sector, because if our government doesn’t, it could end up taking a bigger role in the economy later, which is exactly what is happening now. We used to have a relatively stable financial sector, until the republicans and democrats, but mostly the republicans, started peeling away the regulations. In conclusion, if you want a stable financial sector you have to regulate it.
First off Glenn Beck has no idea what socialism is.
Oh and i can scribble all over a freaking chalkboard as well….
glenn beck is an assclown.
but (entirely unrelated to this video) i don’t see how you could say obama isn’t a socialist? or any democrat? i mean if that’s what you say you believe in why not just accept the term for it? it’s nothing to be that ashamed of.
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.