I would say that correlation does not necessary prove causation, but it certainly does indicate it. What I can demonstrate fairly easily is that since 1920 raising the top tax rate nearly always increases income tax receipts more than cutting it. Also, there has nearly always been more economic growth under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents. Since the end of the Second World War there have nearly always been more jobs created per year under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents.

I have documented all of these assertions using credible sources.

There is too much of a pattern here to dismiss it as coincidence. My explanation for the pattern is that Democratic economic policies have the certain effect of benefiting those who are not rich. As these buy more employers hire more to produce and sell what is bought.

Republican economic policies have the certain effect of benefiting those who are rich. If people are not buying they will either save the money, or spend it on personal luxuries. Now sure, people can get jobs producing those luxuries, but it takes more people to produce a Ford than a Lincoln.

 

Is that the best you can do?

I will give you one more chance to indicate that you are not the ignorant ideologue that post indicates that you are.

I had an easy time refuting ace's n 8's unattributed copy and paste job which he plagiarized from the Heritage Foundation. I did not do so by copying and pasting something from a liberal think tank, and saying, "My copy and paste job is better than your copy and paste job." I composed my own arguments using the internet only to document factual assertions. That is the way I nearly always do it, clarise.

So, try to demonstrate that the respect I had for you a very long time ago was justified by refuting the Congressional Research Service study I mentioned in my opening comment. Do so by composing your own argument, using your own words.

 

You are proving my point, are you forgetting that at that time there was a huge global event going on. A 'money is no object', war effort, of course there was economic growth then. My point is that there are more factors to consider than just rate of tax.

 

Of course I agree. Nevertheless, if you use the websites I posted you will see that income tax receipts nearly always increase more when the top tax rate increases, than when it remains the same, and still more than when it decreases.

For example, during 1991 and 1992 the top tax rate was 31.0 percent. Income tax receipts increased from $467,827 million to $475,964 million. This is a 1.74 percent increase.

From 1992 to 1993 the top tax rate increased to 39.6 percent. Income tax receipts increased to $509,680 million. This was an increase of 7.08 percent.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=203

The truth that when taxes of up so does tax revenue should be fairly simple to understand. Unfortunately, most Republicans have difficulty understanding it, just as they have difficulty understanding the truth that when the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is restored to an epoch when the earth's climate was warmer it will contribute to global warming.

Unfortunately, liberals have difficulty understanding the equally simple truth that when the prison population goes up, the crime rate goes down.

 

Nope. Nothing concrete.
Nothing shows that increasing taxes results in job growth either. Although, DL tried to make that point by cherry picking his facts........again.

The bottom line is, increasing taxes for the rich only increases revenue for the government.

You don't get any of it.
I don't get any of it.

So, the fuck should we care if the richest 1% are only paying 40% (or whatever it is) of income taxes?

That is, unless you subscribe to some kind of redistribution thingy.

 

My facts were cherry picked by The Wall Street Journal,

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

the Urban Institute, and the Brookings Institution.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

 

Naw. Not today.
"we must never forget that the deficit problem was caused by the Republican dogma that tax cuts generate more tax revenue than tax increases."

"The deficit problem" as you call it is caused by government spending more than it takes in. Has nothing to do with who pays how much and when and for what. Has everything to do with what Government spends. It spends more than it takes in, the deficit grows. It spends less than it takes in, the deficit shrinks.

I don't need to remind you that under Obama, the deficit has grown exponentially; $16,000,000,000,000 and counting.

And do tell; what "popular middle class entitlements" are those rascals looking to cut?

 

A better question would be: do most of the voters want to raise taxes for the rich, or cut popular middle class entitlements?

You will find your answer here:

http://www.google.com/webhp?source=..._pw.r_qf.&fp=bb82a953dd526d3a&biw=663&bih=521

 

Lets see if that increased taxes by 1/2 billion how much you figure we need to raise them to cover the 150 billion Obama is borrowing and spending each month?

In fact at the present time the federal revenues are not enough to cover the interest on the 16 billion we now owe...

Now that Bill has taken over the campaign maybe he can teach Obama basic math..

 

Well again, tell me please what "middle class entitlements" those rascals want to cut?

 

is it me, or does anyone else get the impression that every other Republican candidate is running as fast as they can away from Mitt?
what was the line about rats and sinking ships?

 

yeah, but wasn't it also under Obama that the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars stopped being paid for as separate items not counted as part of the federal budget?
gee, I wonder how much that added to the increase in the deficit?

 

how would we know as we have not had a budget from the time Obama took office....

no one will vote for it including democrats....

 

actually, Republicans have been no better at getting a budget together, but why don't you ignore that, it'll tax your brain less.
BTW, here's something from the Wall Street Journal you might want to read:
http://articles.marketwatch.com/201...02270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailo
funny, isn't it, how a conservative newspaper like the WSJ can say Obama hasn't caused federal spending to go up hugely?

 

It is the President's Job to get a budget passed....

you guys are always pointing fingers.....well 3 are pointing back at you...

 

you might want to be careful, I think your ignorance is starting to show.
presidents submit budgets to Congress. presidents don't pass budgets, Congress does.

 

Obviously you missed the point. The Commission IS nonpartisan, which makes the date the report was commissioned completely irrelevant. But since you think it is not, the fact that the House is controlled by Republicans suggests that a report released now would be biased against Democrats, not Republicans.

 

Because of Republican intransigence. They've made "compromise" a dirty word.

But it doesn't ultimately matter whether or not Congress passes a budget per se. What matters are authorization bills and appropriations. That's how money gets spent.

http://prospect.org/article/does-congress-even-need-pass-budget

 

Oh. Only Republicans refuse to compromise. Democrats are always running around trying to find a solution everyone can live with.

Those Rascal Republicans ought be ashamed

 

Depends on what you mean by redistribution. After world war II the high tax rates on the rich helped pay down the war debt and fueled infrastructure growth. Well the infrastructure is starting to crumble due to age. It's time for the rich to pony up again. They extensively use that infrastructure to make obscene profits they should pay obscene taxes to prop it up. Those Walmart trucks don't float on thin air to get to those big boxy buildings they call stores. Of course I know about the higher road taxes that are required for trucking but it's literally a drop in the bucket. Serious rebuilding takes serious amounts of cash.

Now who benefits from infrastructure rebuilding. Smaller companies who employ thousands if not millions of workers. The money gets recirculated or if you will redistributed. It can fuel the economy. If all the money gets stratified to the top few percent it presents a drag on the economy rather than a plus.