Dispelling the Myth That George W. Bush Only Benefited The Rich

We've heard it all before.  According to Obama and the Democrats, the George W. Bush tax cuts only benefited  the rich.  Thus, apparently, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer during the Bush years.

However, thanks to a post by Jim Lindgren, in a Washington Post blog, we get this very enlightening chart:

As the chart shows, of the last four out-of-office Presidents, the incomes of the lowest 20% of our population under George W. Bush increased the highest at 18.4%.  At the same time, the top 20%, saw declines of  6% in their incomes.  Under Clinton, the poor only saw income increases of 13.3%; but, the richest 1% saw their income rise by a whopping 84.1%.  Reagan was the biggest benefactor of the rich with a 90.9% increase in their incomes in his 8 years.

That, then, brings us to Obama.  Under his stewardship we have a record number of people in poverty: 46.5 million and a 49-year high; as a percent of population. Further, Obama has had to admit that, since being in office, 95% of all the income gains have gone to the top 1%.

If this was a fairy tale, and Obama had a magic mirror, his "fairest of all" question would definitely result in George W's face reflecting back at him.   


References:

Jim Lindgren:  If we want more income equality, should we return to the economy of George W. Bush?: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/01/28/if-we-want-more-income-equality-should-we-return-to-the-economy-of-george-w-bush/

That’s rich: Poverty level under Obama breaks 50-year record: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/7/obamas-rhetoric-on-fighting-poverty-doesnt-match-h/?page=all


Obama admits 95% of income gains gone to top 1%: http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/15/news/economy/income-inequality-obama/

Obama's Hypocrisy On Trickle Down Economics

If you try to talk to any Democrat about "trickle down economics", their immediate reaction is that you're talking about tax cuts for the rich.  That is how they have demonized it over the years, and Obama is no different. In fact, when he was running against Romney, he made this statement:

"In this country, broad based prosperity has never trickled down from the success of a wealthy few. It has always come from the success of a strong and growing middle class."

The stupidity of that statement is that trickle down economics occurs everyday in our economy; and, at all levels of this nation's income ladder.   As a whole, Americans only save about 6% of what they earn.  So, conversely, if any American, rich or poor, gets their hands on any extra cash, they're likely to spend 94% of it.  That increased spending results in increased economic activity; which, in turn, results in new jobs.  This is why the economic recoveries under Bush, following 9/11, and under Reagan, following the disastrous Carter years, were so successful. They both put money in American's pockets by cutting taxes on all taxpayers. On the other hand, Obama's tactic of big government spending has only resulted in one of the worst economic recoveries in the history of the United States.

However, what is really interesting to me is that, recently, in arguing for two separate spending programs, the President has either unknowingly or unwittingly endorsed trickle down economics. 

In the first case, he argued that extending unemployment benefits helps the economy by actually creating jobs.  Then he went on to use an example of "Kathy" that certainly sounds a lot like trickle down economics to me (click at 7 minutes and 17 seconds to hear that specific part of his speech):

The other instance came as he announced his "Promise Zones Initiative"; whereby, corporations and businesses, who hire employees from certain economically depressed parts of the country, would receive federal tax breaks.  Wow! How Republican of him in admitting that tax breaks for (rich, greedy, and fat-cat) corporations might actually create jobs!

References:

CNN: Obama Trashes Trickle Down Economics: http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/03/news/economy/obama-ryan-trickle-down/

Give Obama And The Democrats Their Wish On Raising Taxes On The Rich

Last Friday, I caught the first 40 minutes or so of the Rush Limbaugh radio talk show.  Early in the show he seemed to agree with a conservative writer who had written the following:  "...just get out of the way, Boehner and McConnell. Give Barry & Co everything they want; and let a corrupt media chronicle it. Harry 'Dingy' Reid wants to change the filibuster rule so tell them "No Need!" we are just going to vote 'present'.  Rush followed up by saying "He has a point...'

Well, I'm not sure that we should give a blank check to Democrats to do anything they want; but, I do think we've lost a lot of ground on the issue of tax cuts for the rich.  It appears that the general electorate believes Barack Obama when he tells them that the rich should pay their "fair share" by paying higher taxes, and, that "they won't miss it [meaning the money]", and further, that the economy flourished under Clinton when taxes were higher for the wealthy.  This Obama win was clearly borne out by the fact that, in the exit polling, 60 percent said they favored higher taxes on the rich.  In California, 54% of the voters approved Prop 30 which primarily target the higher taxes on the rich.

Of course, anyone with a modest understanding of how our economy works knows that raising taxes on small businesses and the job creators in our country will only result in an even weaker economy than we have now.   Maybe another recession.

As far as the higher taxes under Clinton is concerned, their impact was dwarfed by the fact that we were in a complete tech revolution in this country and in the industrialized world.  Many falsely believe it was just because of the dot-com explosion but, in fact, it was in everything tech; including PC's, home software apps, video gaming, cellphones, medical equipment, and so on.  More importantly, a lot of people who had never bought a stock before were making big money buying almost anything tech.  Of course, all this created an economy that wasn't "apparently" being hurt by Clinton's higher taxes.  I say "apparently" because as soon as anything dot-com came to a screeching halt -- this following the burst of the dot-com bubble in the stock market -- the economy headed south; with Clinton eventually handing a recession over to "W" Bush.  A not-so-small point that Democrats and the media seemed to have forgotten about those supposedly golden Clinton years.

Personally, I say: Republicans step aside and quit trying to hold the line on keeping the Bush tax cuts for the high income earners.  Only, then, will American voters learn the lesson that tax increases on anyone have consequences.  Even if those consequences have to be another recession and higher unemployment.  Once and for all, let's take the "tax cuts for the rich" issue out of theoretical argumentation and prove which political party is actually right. Maybe, then, in the 2014 mid-term elections, the Republicans can retake the Senate and reverse the mess that will have been created with Obama's higher taxes and ObamaCare.  It could also pave the way for a Republican president being elected in 2016.

On last thing.  If higher taxes were so great for the economy under Clinton, why shouldn't we be calling for all the tax rates that existed under his presidency?  In other words, let "all" the Bush tax cuts expire.  Surely, this economy would take off like a rocket!


--- United State Senate Democrats: On Taxes, The Voters Have Spoken:  http://democrats.senate.gov/2012/11/08/on-taxes-the-voters-have-spoken/

A Mexican Standoff On The Tax Cuts For The Rich Could Cause All The Bush Cuts To Expire

In the old West, when you had three bandidos confronting each other in anticipation of a gunfight, it typically resulted in nothing happening because each of those men knew that, if they drew first to kill one of the gunslingers, the other would kill them.  That failure to fight is commonly referred to as a Mexican Standoff.

In a strange way, a similar thing might just happen with regard to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts on January 1st.  Our three bandidos, in this case, are the House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, and President Obama.  But, instead of thinking about who will draw first, in this scenario, we're talking about who will "cave first" on their particular stand on extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

The House of Representatives is majority controlled by Republicans and is in favor of either extending all the Bush tax cuts -- including those for the rich -- or, even making them permanent.  Over in the Senate, the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, is all for Obama's push to extend the them for everyone but the rich.  In fact, following the reelection of Obama, Harry believes he now has a mandate from the people to raise taxes on the rich.  Further, Patty Murray, also part of the Democratic leadership in the Senate, has gone on record and threatened that, if the Republicans continue to push for keeping the tax cuts for the rich, her party is prepared to let them all expire; increasing heavy tax burdens on all Americans.  Then, too, the President -- a clear advocate for increasing the taxes on the rich -- says he will veto any bill that comes to his desk and doesn't include raising taxes on individuals making in excess of $200,000 and families with incomes above $250,000.

So, there's our standoff.

Unless the Republicans cave, it just might be possible that the Democrats of the Senate will allow all the Bush tax cuts to expire by not voting on any extension of any of the cuts; leaving Obama out of the "apparent" loop on this because there will be no bill for him to either veto or sign into law.  In fact, Obama might just secretly favor this inaction; thinking he could use it as a mid-term, 2014 election issue by blaming the Republicans for the increases.  At the same time, increasing all the tax rates would help him out of the deficit hole he's created.  Of course, raising taxes at this time would also send this country spiraling into recession.

I personally think that there are enough Democrats in the Senate who probably believe that raising taxes on the rich, during this weak economy, is a bad idea and they will force Obama, Murray, and Reid to accept a year's extension of the Bush tax cuts in their entirety.  But, we'll just have to see.

--- New York Times: Senator Murray Says Democrats Will Let Tax Cuts Expire: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/senator-murray-says-democrats-will-let-tax-cuts-expire/

Obama's Straw Man Argument For Not Extending Tax Cuts For The Rich

Barack Obama knows that increasing any taxes, even for the rich, will further damage this weak economy.  That's why, in 2010, when the economy was stronger than it is today, and, when he had complete control of  Congress, he chose to extend "all" the Bush tax cuts for two more years.   He could have easily done what he is now suggesting; which is to extend them for everyone "except" those making more than $200,000, individually, and any families making more than $250,000.  But, this is an election year; and, Obama is trying to set up a straw man argument in order to bait the Republicans into defending an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

Politically, I'm sure that he thinks he can achieve an electoral advantage by aligning the Republicans with the one percent who are rich and by having himself emerge as the protectorate of the 99% who are not. Simply, it's a continuation of his class warfare politics.  It also takes the focus off his miserable stewardship of the economy and our high unemployment.  Also, think about this.  Would raising taxes on the rich grow the economy or reduce unemployment?  Of course not.  In fact, it would do the opposite. That's why Obama's whole argument is more about him getting reelected and not about helping this country.

Mr. President, It's Tax Increases. Not, Tax Cuts For The Rich

Whenever Obama talks about taxes on the rich, he always talks in terms of "tax cuts for the rich."  That's intentional because using the words "tax cuts" makes it seem as if the rich are getting away with something.  But, in reality, Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich by extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone but the rich.   And, as far as the rich getting away with something, the top forty percent of all wage earners -- the people that Obama wants to target with his tax increase -- already pay 84.3% of all the taxes.  Then, too, Obama says these people aren't paying their fair share.   But, what is a "fair share"?  "Fair share" is a relative term.  What might seem fair to one person, could also seem highly unfair to another.   I could say that the 52% of this country who are not paying any taxes aren't paying their fair share.  In fact, I could easily say that they aren't paying any share.

Obama's targeting of the rich is an old socialist theme.  It also shows that Obama has a deep-seated envy and hatred of the rich.   Yet, without the "rich," those 52%, who don't pay taxes, wouldn't be able to enjoy their free ride.

Source of statistics: http://constitutionalconservative.wordpress.com/myth-the-rich-dont-pay-their-fair-share/

More Socialist Tripe: This Time From Hillary Clinton

At a recent conference at the left-leaning Brookings Institution, Hillary Clinton made this comment: "The rich are not paying their fair share in any nation that is facing the kind of employment issues — whether it's individual, corporate or whatever taxation forms..."

I am really getting a little tired of this rubbish that the poor and working class of America aren't getting a fair shake when it comes to our tax system. From the IRS' own 2007 statistics, the bottom 50% of wage earners in this country contributed less than 3% of all the taxes being paid into the IRS. In fact, the bottom 40% pay no taxes at all. Additionally, some Americans, by virtue of the EITC or Earned Income Tax Credit, not only don't pay taxes but, instead, collect money each year from the IRS. In effect, EITC is just another welfare program.

Conversely, the top 50% of all wage earners in America pay 97% of Federal taxes. The top 25% pay 86% of all federal income taxes. The top 5% pay 60%; and, the top 1% pay almost 41% of all the taxes being collected by the IRS.

No one in the bottom 50% of this country is out there really creating jobs. They have enough to do just to keep their own jobs since most don't have the educational skills (like a simple high school diploma) to progress upwards in our economy. But, the people on the top end of America's pay scale not only pay heavy taxes but, at the same time, they use their disposable income to create more and more jobs; even if it is simply hiring someone to maintain there landscaping or paint their house. I would only ask Hillary: If everybody in America was like the bottom 50%, where would we be today? Given the amount of spending for all the socialist crap that the Democrats keep coming up with,we would be dead broke as a country; with zero jobs. Even if we took every ounce of money away from the so-called "rich" in this country who make more than $200,000 a year, we would still be up to our eyeballs in debt because it is really the lower 50% who aren't pulling their weight; and, it all starts with them not putting the effort in to graduate from high school and acquiring reading skills above a 6th grade level. But, sadly, the educational systems of the major cities of the U.S. are hard pressed to graduate 50% of their high school students. There are only so many ditches that can be dug by non-graduates and that is the reality that Hillary and the Democrats can't seem to comprehend. It isn't "Dave the drop out" with his zero paid taxes that's going to run the Apple Computer's of the world and drive the creations of thousands of jobs, now is it?

Another Obama-Nomics Lie is Exposed

In his typical campaign-promises-are-always-to-be-hedged-on fashion, Barack Obama is now saying that he may "keep" those nasty "GW" Bush tax cuts for the rich "if" the economy is tanking (See Full Story).

He now feels that taking away those tax cuts could hurt the economy even further. Golly...gee...let me see! Is this an admission that the tax cuts for the rich are actually beneficial to the economy? Is he now admitting that the 2000 Clinton recession and the disastrous economic effects of 9/11 were reversed by those tax cuts for the rich? Are we going to have four more years of the Bush; even if McCain isn't elected? Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings (Psalms 8:2)!

Apparently, the elimination of those tax cuts can only be done during a good economy. That way, hopefully, our economy could survive the consequences of doing so. Hopefully! Now batting, rookie "far left" hander, Barack Obama!