Nonsensical comments, abuse, baiting, ranting and leftist stupidity will not be tolerated.
Not according to this loon, sorry, professor, interviewed last night on &.30 Report.
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/conte...07/
s2251929.htm
ROBERT REICH: Well, again it's important - and I make this point in the book - to distinguish between what is economically rational and what is socially necessary. There are certain things that are very good for consumers and investors that turn out to be terrible for society. Global warming is one of them, widening inequality is another. Now, with regard to top executive salaries, I say let's not tell individual companies what they can or cannot do. Let's rather look at the tax system and have a higher marginal income tax on people at the very top. George Bush went in the exact opposite direction. George Bush cut taxes - marginal tax rates for people at the very top, thereby exacerbating the widening income gap in the United States.
George Bush cutting taxes causes Global Warmening. Of course.
G'day,
Has anyone done similar research on Australia?
ta
Ralph
John, what's your point?
ar, the quote you posted says that tax cuts increased inequality. Nothing about "Global Warmening" (and what does that mean, anyway?).
Something i read in National Review recently, been meaning to post it but not having quiet days. It's a different twist on this, by KEVIN A. HASSETT -
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton spend a lot of time railing against the Bush tax cuts. Listen to their stump speeches on the topic and you come away with the sense that President Bush, with his irresponsible cuts, has nearly bankrupted the nation. [snip] But interestingly enough, it
’s possible to determine with some precision whether a policy has been formulated by nut jobs.
To see how, consider the following statement: “U.S. fiscal policy in recent years has deviated wildly from fiscal policy in other developed nations.” If that’s true, one can presumably make the case that U.S. policymakers have ignored policy norms. (This is of course just what one would expect nut jobs to do.) If the claim is false, however, then it’s rather harder to claim that American fiscal policy is in the hands of kooks.
Let
’s apply that method to the question of income-tax cuts. [The article then showed a graph that shows GDP that governments collect through income taxes, one line for the US and the other line the average for large developed nations in the OECD. Under the Clinton years it was around 13%, far above the OECD average. Under Bush it's around 10%.]
And the story is clear: For most of recent history, the U.S. share was about equal to that of the OECD generally. It did deviate wildly at one point — in the second term of President Clinton, when the U.S. was collecting a markedly higher percentage of its GDP in income-tax revenue than were its fellow OECD members. But the Bush tax cuts returned us to normalcy.
On the matter of tax policy, then, who was more reasonable, Bush or Clinton? The data tell a clear story: that Clinton deviated much farther from the norm than his successor has.
Clinton was clearly the nut job, but you see, that sort of nuttiness is alright with the left because his nuttiness was higher taxation, something leftists really like. The nuttiness they really don't like is letting people keep more of their own money, instead of putting it into their socialist schemes.
I think you need to see:
http://www.portfolio.com/views/b...rts-wsj-
edition
Commenting by HaloScan
