In case anyone wants to be able to defend their position of beign against tax cuts for the rich.... These common sense arguements are winners.
in 1940 corporations paid 80 % of the taxes in the states . now 15% . what went wrong ?
In the U.S. politicians are too easily bought.
When a "culture of greed" infects a society, in virtually every case it has meant the decline and usually eventually the end of that country's empire or influence.
We've been slowly inching towards more handouts for the rich and it's done little to help the common man in terms of much aside contribute to the rise in more monopolies and centralized power. In the documentary "Saving Capitalism" Robert Reich points out the biggest problem with that... It strips away power from the 99%. Compound that with poor spending, partially instigated by the wealthy like military overspending and cutting in places where profits can't be made like education and that's roughly how we got to this point. I've always seen a more balanced tax system as a way to keep the wealthy in check from harnessing too much power. Warren Buffett agrees too making mention that higher taxes have never impeded him from advancing his business but incentivising to generate more wealth instead.
"Trickle-down" economics has never worked. It didn't work when Saint Reagan and the GOP tried it in the 80s, and it won't work now. Actually, Reaganomics (between tax reform and deregulation) directly led to the financial crisis in 2007-08. The rich and corporations generally do not use "tax cuts" to re-invest and create jobs. They use them to make themselves richer. One usually has nothing to do with the other. I'm not an economist, but I lived through all of that, and those are my personal observations as an ordinary citizen.
no 2008 was caused by clinton when he abolished the glass segal act put in place after the depression to prevent rampant greed. grand larceny is what happened afterwards. now the american people have a govt that CANNOT provide the basics like great education [so important]
Clinton did not lobby for ending Galss-Steigal or suggest it. I twas attached to legistlation which he could not veto by republicans.
Still I think he shoudl have spoke up about it at the time. I think both the Clintons were way too corporate friendly in my opinion. I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primaries in 2016.
Both side cater to coporations in order to get the money to pay for campaigns, although the republicans have completely sold out, and the democrats have only half sold out, leaving us with the choice of corporate rule, or light corporate rule... to put things in very overly simplistic terms.
I think everyone knows what will happen but deny deny deny