It's the income inequality
I'm late in posting this, and you already know most of this stuff, but I need the graphic for a post at DetNews and the graphs are really very good.
[More posts daily at the Detroit News.]
A huge share of the nation's economic growth over the past 30 years has gone to the top one-hundredth of one percent, who now make an average of $27 million per household. The average income for the bottom 90 percent of us? $31,244.But asking them to pay taxes is "theft" and it's the other 90% who are greedy for wanting a decent living wage. Feh.
[More posts daily at the Detroit News.]
Labels: Corporatocracy, Taxes
posted by Libby Spencer at 3:47 PM
3 Comments:
A standard robotic reply would suggest that restoring the Reagan levels wouldn't matter too much, since the debt is so high. ( and don't ask how it got that way) Another example of examining small parts of an argument out of context and then cementing those pieces to give a misleading or confusing picture. I can't get past the obvious fact that tax cuts don't pay for themselves by increased revenue. I can't get past the fact that what may be the most expensive war in our history was supposed to show a profit according to the same smug geniuses who are still arguing that although debt didn't matter yesterday, it matters under Obama.
Then there's the "if we raise it 3%, then the next step is 10%, 20%, 50%. . . which is another fallacy.
You can't win, or at least the facts don't help you win over the capricious casuistry, logic chopping and crepuscular logic. Most times you can't spare the time to wade through the swamp of numbers and web site references while providing endless support for the obvious. You and Franz Kafka know what I mean, I'm sure.
But note how WWII was paid off - and it was paid off - without the catastrophe we would have had if we had depended on that mythical benefit from tax cuts. Those who made so much money from the war effort had to pay a little extra, but hey, we didn't have the depression some on the right insisted we would have. Look at how spending on the space program payed us back 100,000 times over, how government spending ended the Depression (yes it did) and made us the industrial powerhouse we were until we pissed it away on more wars.
Look at how we have fared over the last 60 years and do explain how those poor little rich guys did so well when they had to pay a little more. Note how everyone else, including most of the complainers have done so poorly.
But of course, they didn't and it never happened and when it went up it went down and I can't confirm your numbers and please refute the attached 972 pages of data or your just a liberal. . . . (snicker, snicker)
Interesting that once again a post of mine "disappeared", yet somehow a "rebuttal" (to use the term loosely) survived.
What was the rationale this time?
Your sense of entitlement is interesting as is the assumption that you have an audience that is moved by your performance.
There's little to rebut but your technique, really -- to use the term loosely. Never quite as loosely as you address the sad facts however.
Global warming? well sir, here's 962 volumes of hourly temperature changes in Festus, Missouri in December, 1947 and now how do you explain that?
Post a Comment
<< Home