entertainment.msn.com/new...ews=130604 (http://entertainment.msn.com/news/article.aspx?news=130604)


Ok Arnold running for gov well that is understandable he is after all married to a kenedy. But GARY COLEMAN and maybe Gallagher running for office! If Gallagher wins does that mean that the sledgomatic (tm) is going to be a reality? Man I am glad I live in Texas with the cows goats sheep mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
sheep they are so soft and well if you shave...... I mean damn atleast here we know we have suck politicians but come on .

you are fucken gay, eat me

Tierfin, you're a fucking retard. Let me make that perfectly clear.

Arnold Schwarznegger has no place in government of this country, he's doing it for publicity. Actors shouldn't try to run the country, their opinions get my ''airplay'' when they're a celebrity than when they become politicians.

What makes him think a middle-aged actor, who's played with a chimp, could have a future in politics?
...Ronald Reagan (about Clint Eastwood running for mayor of Carmel)

What makes him think that a middle-aged actor, who starred in ''Kindergarten Cop'', could have a future in politics
...me

First off, Arnold has moved in political circles for awhile, even if he hasn't ever run for office.

Secondly:


Actors shouldn't try to run the country


Ronald Reagan was one of the best presidents we've ever had, and he was an actor...he was also the governor of California...

Maybe what you meant to say is clueless fuckhead actors shouldn't try to run the country, or any states, nor should aging prop comics.

I'd agree with that.

Hasn't Arnie been like politically involved for nigh on ten years?

//Kiv

Yep, he's been active in the republican party for some time.

He also has a dgeree in International FInance as well I believe... Maybe he could actually help Cali's economy.

I'd vote for Arny, if I lived in Cali.

People have already coined the term. The Governator.

I read an article in a muscle mag I read, and it showed some details about his early life, and him with other big names in body building. Was a very interesting read.

Ronald Reagan was one of the best presidents we've ever had, and he was an actor...he was also the governor of California...

Really.... were you even ALIVE then? If you were, did you have your EYES OPEN? Towards the end of his term, he could barely string two words together. He was a puppet. A friendly puppet who knew how to stay in clip.

Oh... and my opinion is that we haven't had a 'good' president since the early half of the last century. Everyone from Kennedy onward has been middle of the road, at best.

hmm

Why not judge for yourself

Reagans Farewell Speech.

www.historychannel.com/sp...ch_241.ram (http://www.historychannel.com/speeches/ra_archive/speech_241.ram)

Surely an Oscar winning performance, and it does cast part of my (admittedly exaggerated) opinion above in dobut. Still, all it proves is that he was functional enough to read from a printed page or teleprompt- it says nothing about the state if his cognative functioning or memory.


It also doesn't make him a good President.

Arnold needs publicity?

Reagan put on a fantastic front. It's hard not to find him likable, which is, in part, why I think a lot of people hate him.

Ronald Reagan was one of the best presidents we've ever had

ahahahahah man...that statement made me giggle.

Reagan was weak on foreign relations and his economic policy directly contributed to the real estate and stock market plunges in the 80's.


Arnold has been active in politics, this is true, and he's been a vocal member of the Republican party since Reagan's second term, but that doesn't make him a worthy candidate. Voting for Arnold is like taking a vote away from a real politician - all he is doing is hurting someone elses chances at winning office.

"Voting for Arnold is like taking a vote away from a real politician - all he is doing is hurting someone elses chances at winning office. "

no voting for arnold because he was the terminator is a wasted vote, if he puts up good ideas and shows he can do what it is that needs to be done, then i will vote for him, for one he has money, he doesn't need to be bought out, he doesn't need to scandal to make more money - so im not worried about him being "bought" out, i'm just worried on the type of politician he would be, but reading some of the recent articles on him has shown that he does know what hes doing

the whole jay leno show thing was probably a bit too corny though

Reagan was weak on foreign relations and his economic policy directly contributed to the real estate and stock market plunges in the 80's.

Please try to back that statement up.

Justin Timberlake for president soon coming to you in 2020!


Thanks for making my day guys ! The governator(tm) LOL

Reagan was weak on foreign relations and his economic policy directly contributed to the real estate and stock market plunges in the 80's.


Hi, were you alive in the 70s(I was, for the guy who asked earlier)?

Do you remember what state the country was in before he came into office?

Do you know what it was like by the start of his second term?

What president told the head of the USSR to take down the Berlin wall..and had it happen?

KKTHX.

Your foot is shoved so far into your mouth it is peeking out your ass.

Reagan was weak on foreign relations

You have got to be fucking kidding me. The fall of comunism and he is weak on foriegn policy? Dipshit.


I'd vote for Arnie.. Seriously.

"Justin Timberlake for president soon coming to you in 2020!


Thanks for making my day guys ! The governator(tm) LOL "

ok your comparing someone who is educated and currently involved with the political system to a no-talent, non educated person who probably doesn't even vote?

Hey! Arnold isnt a no talent non voter!

shut up you NAZI

The fall of comunism and he is weak on foriegn policy

Just because he was in office at the time doesn't mean he did it. The system was failing anyway, very little that Reagan or his administration did personally contributed to the 'fall of comunism'.


Please try to back that statement up

his 'Trickle Down Economics' policy did more harm to this country than it did good. Or did you forget about that?

Some charts, graphics and text...whee read it! (http://www.ufenet.org/research/TrickleDown.html)

Just because he was in office at the time doesn't mean he did it.


I'll repeat it since you obviously weren't old enough at the time to remember what happened. Reagan told Gorbachev to take down the Berlin wall. And Gorbachev did it. That's a little more than just being in office.

As for your economic statement..if you want to remain clueless about how an economy works, you can keep thinking that way.

The economy under Reagan was a vast improvement over the Carter years.

I'm thinking you were too young to actually remember what happened during his presidency first hand.

Ya I m sure its reagan that came to gorbachev house and was like : "hey dude take the damn wall down its getting annoying!". You are somewhat naive if you think the puppet you guys call president had his say in those matters. The president represent the country and thats it, thats the case for most countries in the world be it europe, usa, japan etc etc. The president has squat powers, its people behind him and in the shadow that actually lead it. Thought you would know it considering you have one big puppet right now leading your country.


Edit: Cutting taxes for the rich! badass idea there haha. Thx for the link talid.

Ya I m sure its reagan that came to gorbachev house and was like : "hey dude take the damn wall down its getting annoying!".

Well he might have said it to Gorbachev in person. i really do not know. He did however make a speach at the Branderberg gate where he said " Mr Gorbachev tear down that wall".

The president represent the country and thats it, thats the case for most countries in the world be it europe, usa, japan etc etc. The president has squat powers, its people behind him and in the shadow that actually lead it.

I forgive your ignorance on this topic as you did not live here during his administration and probably were not old enough to be politically aware.

I assure you that Mr Reagen lead this country during that period. He was an extremely well spoken and motivating persona. I was here trust me he was not a puppet. He had a vision of the future and made it happen.

Yes he lowered taxes on the "rich". He also lowered EVERY american's tax bill.

BTW you are more of a puppet than any American president in my memory. You spout dogmatic crap all day long without a shred of original thought.

You really need to stop worshipping the posterboy of the republican party. JUST BECAUSE HE SAID 'take down the wall' does not mean that Gorbachev did it for that reason.

By the start of the 1980s, Communism was bankrupt. In East Germany, wages were low. Homes that had been bombed during World War II were still unrepaired. Citizens lived in poverty; Communist leaders lived in luxury.

"The Berlin Wall will still exist in 50 and in 100 years, unless the reasons for its existence are eliminated. -- East German leader Erich Honecker

By '88 The Soviet Union no longer could afford the Cold War - decades of military, political, and economic rivalry with the United States. Two U.S. presidents who visited the wall made strong statements in support of West Berlin and democracy. In 1963, John F. Kennedy visited. (So OBVIOUSLY he was why it was torn down, in 1963...right?)

Early in the 1980s, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev had introduced the policies of Glasnost (openness) and Perestroika (democratic reform) (read 85-86 when he took office). -- In 1987, Ronald Reagan visited Berlin and demanded: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

By '88 The Soviet Union no longer could afford the Cold War - decades of military, political, and economic rivalry with the United States.

Thanks for proving my point. R.R. worked his ass off to bring this about. I was here watching him lead the cold war.

Well...

The fall of Russia might also be due to the chance concurrent rise of three world leaders.

The American public's response to Vietnam, coupled with the election of apologist and appeaser-in-chief Jimmy Carter emboldened the Soviets. They felt they were winning the war for the hearts and minds of the world. The Soviet 'sphere of influence' was growing. Key American supporters like Iran moved away from America. Russia invaded Afghanistan, they stepped up arms shipments to Cuba and Central and South America, they were interfering all through Africa and the Middle East, etc.

Then along comes Reagan. He starts a vast military buildup, and a program of aggressively opposing the Soviets throughout the world, both militarily and with rhetoric. He's willing to put the cards on the table and call them an "evil empire". In the meantime, Afghanistan turns into the Soviets' Vietnam. The tide starts to turn. The Soviets install a series of hard-liners (Chernyenko, Andropov), only to see them die in office in rapid succession. The people start to grow dissatisfied. The politburo makes a momentous decision to attempt to turn the tide of opinion by selecting a young reformer in Mikhail Gorbachev, rather than instituting a brutal crackdown on dissent.

I believe that the rise of Gorbachev was the Soviet Union's attempt to look more moderate and legitimate to counter the growing anti Soviet rhetoric championed primarily by Reagan and Thatcher. And that's exactly what might have happened if the world wouldn't have had those two people at that time in history. If Carter had been President, he would have responded to Glasnost and Perestroika by easing up on the Soviets and giving them breathing room. Which is exactly what the Politburo needed.
Reagan was burned in effigy in Europe for calling the USSR an Evil Empire, along with Thatcher. The popular culture was dead set against them. Sounds familar eh? But ya know something... they were fucking right.

Reagan and Thatcher seemed to see Gorbachev's rise as a crack in the Empire, and turned up the heat, both rhetorically and militarily. SDI moved the cold war into the realm of high technology instead of brute force and raw numbers, which was a game the Soviets were simply unprepared to play. Reagan went to the Berlin wall and yelled, "Mr. Gorbachev - Tear Down This Wall!". And by now, thanks to Glasnost and Perestroika, the Soviet people were able to see and hear exactly what was going on. It was about this time that the point of no return was passed, and the collapse of the empire happened startlingly fast.

So the defense buildup was part of it, and SDI was part of it, and Reagan was part of it, and so was Thatcher. History has proven that Reagan and Thatcher were right, and possibly saved the world from a lot of grief (along with Gorbachev, who must be given a big chunk of the credit).

Those three people acting together were the real catalyst. All three were necessary. Without Reagan and Thatcher, Gorbachev would almost certainly not have been allowed (or had the desire) to institute the reforms that ultimately brought down the empire. Without Gorbachev, Reagan and Thatcher's rhetoric would have fallen on deaf ears.

The world might be a better place because for a short period when the world needed it most, those three people rose to power together.

Edit: Cutting taxes for the rich! badass idea there haha.

I guess your not aware the the top 1% of all American earners also pay like 34% of the income tax burden. Guess you did not know that huh? Cut taxes for the rich and it will create income for the nations other classes. they have more money they spend it. To buy something they need people to have jobs to make there toys or business thus creating jobs and a healthy economy.

I over stated the % of tax burden. it's only 20.81% Still high enough.

My source. the only source all right thinking people need be concerened with.


El' Rushbo (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of_income_taxes .guest.html)

"I believe that the rise of Gorbachev was the Soviet Union's attempt to look more moderate and legitimate to counter the growing anti Soviet rhetoric championed primarily by Reagan and Thatcher."

Gorbachev's rise to power was something that almost didn't happen, and was the result of a power vacuum folloing the death of Yuri Andropov. Gorbachev has been quoted as saying: 'If someone else had wanted the job, I would never have taken it.' He was (is) also an idealist, which gave him the blind courage to stand in front of the Duma in 1985 and say, literally: 'This cannot go on' - referring to the state of economic and political bankruptcy that the USSR had fallen into. Enacting Glasnost and Perestroika were things that could only have happened at that time, under those circumstances, and with a very *atypical* Soviet leader at the helm.

While the 'Thatcher/Reagan/Gorbachev' picture that you paint has a lot of popular support, I can't help but wonder if the true miracle was that that the Soviets were willing to *chance* change in the face of American and British militarism, not that they were motivated to change because of it. And despite the bad rap that Carter took regarding the Iran hostage crisis, he was no slouch on defense; the first postwar deficits related to increases in defense spending in the US occurred under Carter's watch (64 billion in 1979, which seems like a drop in the bucket now, doesn't it? ;) ), not Reagan's.

Just some ramblings on a Saturday afternoon, stuck in Alabama with no particular place to go...

Regards,
Nydia Ywalmoriel
Autonomous Collective

Hmmm, it appears that the highest 1% earns 21% of the taxable income and yet pay 37.4% of the taxes.

Why do you suppose Carter waited till 79?

Well. thats the point Nydia..

Reagan completly turned the arms race on its side.. while Carter played the same old game and let the pentagon buy more tanks and missles..

Reagan changed the rules at a time perfectly calculated to put maximum pressure on the Soviet Union...
The idea that all their missles.. all their tanks... could be neutralized by SDI, threw them into a widespread panic (not bad for a system that doesnt even exist)
That coupled with Reagans positioning of the Soviets as "the Evil Empire" caused Fissures the size of fault lines in the cool of the Kremlin.

Hidden footage! (http://www.xs4all.nl/~locuta/t3.mpeg)

Contains no nudity!

good one ytrok, first time isaw it on tv i was dieing...

gorbachov was a sell out, if any of you did any research you'd know

back to the point

www.councilofelrond.com/m...&pageid=38 (http://www.councilofelrond.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Subjects&file=index&req=viewpage&pageid=38)

Wow, they really have all you Republicans trained on how to spout rhetoric like brainwashed waterfountains.

Thanks for proving my point. R.R. worked his ass off to bring this about. I was here watching him lead the cold war.Regan did nothing to bring about the economic troubles of Russia other than spending trillions of non-existant tax dollars on a bloated military. Russia had less than 10% of the nuclear weapons they claimed, which means Reagan spent an exorbitant amount of money competing with a mostly fictional military.

Communism was going to fall eventually, no matter what the circumstances, it's simply not a sustainable form of government. China is still facing enormous troubles because its leaders are unwilling to abandon communism.

Yes he lowered taxes on the "rich". He also lowered EVERY american's tax bill.Yet he spent an unprecidented amount on the military. This is classic Republican "Cut Tax and Spend," Bush Jr and Sr did (are doing) the same thing, cutting taxes while continuing to _increase_ spending. And people wonder why we have a deficit again, the answer is simple...Republicans do not understand basic math. (Cue the token "Clinton caused the economic downturn" rhetoric).

SDI moved the cold war into the realm of high technology instead of brute force and raw numbersIt's important to point out that Ronald's Ray-gun (SDI) was never truly feasable during his presidency, and still isn't today.

Cut taxes for the rich and it will create income for the nations other classes.Not sure how long this will take to set in, but Trickle Down Economics doesn't work.

The idea that all their missles.. all their tanks... could be neutralized by SDI, threw them into a widespread panicNot sure if you are familiar with the SDI project, but it was never intended to do anything other than stop ballistic nuclear missiles.

Republicans do not understand basic math.


Actually people like you are just too stupid to understand that cutting taxes actually increases revenue. Don't believe me? JFK(aka democrat patron saint) did the exact same thing..cut taxes to increase revenue.


Russia had less than 10% of the nuclear weapons they claimed


Really? Prove it.


Trickle Down Economics doesn't work.


Yes, it does.

I realize you've had it pounded into your head for as long as you can remember that we need to tax the rich and that anyone who is successful is responsible for taking care of all the people who don't want to be..but just look at the problems right now in socialists countries because of that mindset.

Russia had less than 10% of the nuclear weapons they claimed,

Never heard that before, and I don't think I'd believe it.

I know it has always been pretty fashionable to smack Reagon for SDI. If you'll recall the SDI program wasn't completely about lasers - it also sponsored research into ballistic weapons similary to the ones that test somewhat successfully today.

Not sure how long this will take to set in, but Trickle Down Economics doesn't work.

Actually, it works just as well as any other economic theory. Take an economics theory class at a major college and you'll study supply side economics right along side keynesian theory, etc.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trickle Down Economics doesn't work.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yes, it does.
>>>>>>>>>
<Table>
<td width="26" align="left" valign="top" height="2683">*</td>

<td align="left" valign="top" colspan="2" height="2683">

Please post sources and not just articles. Your links in the past have tended to be from propaganda sites.

Unfortunately, there's no actual attempt to understand economics here.

You could take that article and substitute "keynesian" or "monkey poo" for "trickle down." It won't matter, because you're trying to tie an entire economic theory into a discrete measurement - in your case gross domestic product. A couple of people here have specifically mentioned job creation, but that's not covered here.

You also mistakenly believe that tax cuts for the upper class are the ONLY economic action at work here. You are ignoring the hands on policies of people like Greenspan and Volcker. The Internet bubble. The M&A boom of the 80's.
The massive layoffs of the late 80's. The huge real estate bubble in the 70's, and the inflation of the late 70's early 80's.

unfortunately, economic theory is pretty esoteric. The only easy way to tell when a certain economic theory doesn't work is when an ecnomy based strictly on that theory collapses. If it were this simply to disprove an economic theory, a lot of economists and college professors would be out of work.

And yes, the article is from a political action site:

www.ufenet.org/ (http://www.ufenet.org/)

And yes, the article is from a political action site:
Listen twat .... even whitehouse.gov is a political action site.
So it really doesn't matter does it.

The fact that something is from a political action site doesn't make it untrue..
Read and gather the knowledge, dispose of it if u don't find it usefull, but don't come crying here about some info I posted to help some people who might not know what Trickled Down meant.

Not everything is about you, or liberals or the US or Europe .. some things are just info.

Oh and Mirdorr come to think of it .. any reason why you didn't first read the entire post, clicked Talid's link, saw the exact website+info and commented on that or do you just enjoy humping mah behind?

It's irrelevant what site hosts specific information.
Information will simply be used by favored parties.

The credentials of the writer however, is critically relevant, and you have to assess whether the article is biased or factual.

Sorry you don't like being wrong, dude. I've never appreciated intentional posts of misinformation, and I enjoy proving them wrong. I missed Talidd's post in the middle of the Reagan disussion.

Here's something a bit less biased. It's a critique of an article originally written by the Congressional budget office. The entire critique (partially quoted here) talks to both sides of the story:

www.cato.org/dailys/04-12-03.html (http://www.cato.org/dailys/04-12-03.html)

In fact, the CBO says supply-side incentives are the only effective means to increase economic growth: "Lower marginal federal tax rates on labor and capital income... would tend to increase labor supply, investment in productive capital (such as factories and machines) and the economy's output.... Over the long term, the effects of budgetary policies depend on the degree to which they alter incentives to acquire skills, work, save, innovate and undertake investments."

The CBO worries that only "a subset of the president's proposals are [sic] intended to increase those incentives.... The remainder of the revenue proposals and those that would increase [federal] spending ... would likely reduce growth in the long run by increasing government and private consumption at the expense of saving and investment."

It is true that only about 60 percent of the 2003 Bush tax plan and 45 percent of the 2001 tax law would have any supply-side impact. But anyone who worries about too much private consumption (higher living standards) should consider how little after-tax income consumers will have left if Congress does little or nothing about taxes.

Under the CBO baseline, the 2001 tax law would expire in 2010, pushing the four highest tax rates up by 12 to 13 percent, pushing the lowest tax rate up by 50 percent, and reviving the 55 percent estate tax. The CBO therefore expects taxes to rise from 17.6 percent of GDP this year to 20.6 percent by 2013. Senators and journalists pretending to oppose tax cuts are really proposing huge tax increases. Under the president's tax plan, by contrast, taxes rise to "only" 18.8 percent of GDP (partly because many more taxpayers become snared by the demonic minimum tax).

The combined Bush "tax cuts" of 2001 and 2003 would not even suffice to hold the line on taxes, but they would be far more tolerable than the soaring baseline against which these modest cuts are now being scored.

If Congress does nothing, the individual income tax is projected to rise by 35 percent over the next 10 years -- from 8.1 percent to 10.9 percent of GDP. For every $1,000 you now pay in taxes, the baseline expects you to eventually cough up $1,350. It is doubtful voters would let that happen, and even more doubtful that the economy would look very dynamic if they did.



And no, propaganda is not information.

2 wrongs here ....

Sorry you don't like being wrong, dude.
I did not write that so I am not wrong ...

And no, propaganda is not information.

Then what would it be? Misinformation and propoganda are still Information.
It is all to inform you the viewer be it correct or incorrect.

Now I am putting you back on ignore cause ur attacks on me are starting to get ridiculous.

info I posted to help some people who might not know what Trickled Down meant.

This is specifically why I referred to you posting this link without understanding economic theory, and the same applies to Talidd.

The article implies that trickle down economics (also called supply side economics) is the idea that cutting PERSONAL INCOME TAX RATES for the top earners in the country is good for the economy.

That is NOT what trickle down economics is, so you and Talidd actually posted MISinformation, not information.

While lowering personal income tax rates to increase consumer spending can be piece of trickle down economics, a much much larger part is cutting CORPORATE tax rates, therefore freeing up money for corporations to use on capital expenditures, expand, create jobs, etc.

mis·in·form
(msn-fôrm)
tr.v. mis·in·formed, mis·in·form·ing, mis·in·forms
To provide with incorrect information.

Go debate with the dictionary ..

Those graphs are hard information that can be refuted.

It seems somewhat reasonable that there will be correlation between governments that cut the income tax rate on the rich, and those who cut corp taxes (which historically has mainly impacted the rich's income).

And yes, other factors impact the growth of the economy. If those other factors are so large that you cannot detect the impact of lowering the income taxes of the rich, then you should be changing the other factors, not the income taxes of the rich.

The main contention against trickle down economics and lowering taxes for the rich is that given two societies that produce exactly the same amount of goods and have the same amount of wealth and have the same growth rates / long term prospects (ie, everything else being equal), the one where the goods and wealth are more evenly distributed is a better society.

1. Then say "Ah, I see, the information I posted about trickle down economics was incorrect."

2. I'm not sure where these posts are coming from. You are constantly posting about having me on "ignore" so I assume you're not reading what I post.

The main contention against trickle down economics and lowering taxes for the rich is that given two societies that produce exactly the same amount of goods and have the same amount of wealth and have the same growth rates / long term prospects (ie, everything else being equal), the one where the goods and wealth are more evenly distributed is a better society.

Well, sure but that contention comes from people who have a political agenda, you know?

Or whatever. Heh. We're getting way off topic.

Then what would it be? Misinformation and propoganda are still Information.

HAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahaha!!!!!


This explains so much about you Ytrok.

I dont believe Trickle Down works either..
But I believe in tax cuts..

The Tax cuts SHOULD go to people who will immediately spend the money directly into the economy..
The middle class..
And the effect would be more dramatic for less money..

The basic cornerstone of the Arguement to lessen the tax burden on the wealthy is that they pay an inordinate share while receiving almost NONE of the benefits.
Understandable... and right when you see much of the governmental waste.

This however is shortsited IMO... while a lowering of the tax burden on these peope WOULD put more money in their pockets in the short term, what good would it do? Most people who are wealthy are not going to go out and directly reinvest it.. The more you have.. the less you need..
A middleclass person who is given more money will spend it directly.. buying products and services... which in turn.. generate more profit for who? The Wealthy

Consumption... thats whats its all about.. need people consuming more.. Great a rich guy can build a new plant with a lessened tax burden, but there is not more buying power in the middle class in order to consume the new products...
Money flows upward, it needs to be re-introduced at the lowest practicle level.. and since the lower class for the most doesnt pay taxes.. the cash should be injected into the middleclass.

The top 1% pay over 1/3 of the taxes and only generate 1/5 of the income. The idea of giving tax cuts to the rich is that they deserve the excess money as they are putting the most money in to the system.

They aren't putting the most money into the system. Perhaps they are putting the most in -per person- but the middle class in this country is so large that they inarguably pay more taxes as a group. I'll break it down into fictional, though somewhat believable and simple numbers.


Like...one kid with a box of cookies (100 cookies) gives you 15 cookies. You have 15% of his cookies, but that's still a lot of cookies.

A kid with a bag of cookies (20 cookies) gives you 2 cookies. You have 10% of his cookies, but it's not as many of them.

The problem with trickle-down economics is that it makes it so kid A pays only 10 cookies, which becomes 10% of 100, which is a lot less noticable than 10% of 20 in terms of what each little kid has.

The hope is that Kid A's cookies will make their way down to Kid B's level, but unfortunately in a largescale...that doesn't happen.

Again, that is NOT the hope. You are referring to individual taxes. Politician's focus on individual tax rates because that's what you want to hear - but that's not what the economic theory is about.

In addition, the facts do not bear this:

They aren't putting the most money into the system. Perhaps they are putting the most in -per person- but the middle class in this country is so large that they inarguably pay more taxes as a group.

out. Play with the statistics at www.taxfoundation.org/prt...table.html (http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincometable.html)
to see what I mean.

In 2000, the top 1% of wage-earners pull in 20.8% of individual incomes and paid 37.4% of individual taxes.

In 2000, the the 50th-89th percentile of wage-earners (middle class) brought in 41% of all income and paid 28.8% of individual income taxes.

cough nerds cough.

Mirdorr In 2000, the the 50th-89th percentile of wage-earners (middle class) brought in 41% of all income and paid 28.8% of individual income taxes.

That's what I just said. The top percentaged paid more PER PERSON, but the group, middle class, pays more. In TOTAL.

Laeyakk those graphs are completely irrelevant to the argument and puts the entire article in a false light. If Ytrok is wrong for something it is spreading misinformation by posting that article again.

The author compares cuts in tax rates to the effect on the economy. Tax rates have nothing to do with trickle down economics. What the author should have compared is tax burden. The problem with the graphs is that in many of those instances even though the tax rate was cut the actual tax burden was raised because of closed loopholes and other tax adjustments.

The proper graph would detail the total tax burden for the upper income earners (all taxes -- sales, property, income, payroll taxes, capital gains, fuel, etc.) and determine whether lowering the tax burden on that group has any tangible effect. Cutting a tax rate will have absolutely no trickle down effect if the tax burden is raised because of higher taxes in other areas.

That's what I just said.

DAMMIT READ THE TEXT.

Top 1%: 37.4% of taxes
50th-89th perentile: 28.8% of taxes

http://www.think-evolution.com/uploads/timeline.gif

Now I'm confused. It's 1985, and a Kobe Bryant that's around 10 years old is getting more than me.

Marty, he's in a '46 Ford, we're in a DeLorean. He'd rip through us like we were tin foil.

What's wrong McFly??!?! He aint got no Powa!!!!!!