Since the 2000 campaign, Republicans have defended their party's policies by saying that by giving more to business and the wealth, by cutting taxes, the economy would be stimulated and that was the best if not the only way to grow the economy which would then benefit the poor, middle and top.
Democrats argued that the Bush policies would result effectively in an upward transfer of wealth - the concentration of wealth would increase, the top would get a bigger share, and the shift of wealth out of everyone else's hands into the wealthy's hands would do more to simply put their name on the title of more resources rather than to offer a good return for everyone else.
Who was right?
Tax cuts are long debunked as a magic wand, with studies showing about a 20 cents on the dollar return. The Financial sector's collapse is well known.
But this report has some facts about how Americans' incomes and the numbers in poverty changed under Bush, putting the Republican claims to the test.
The facts say the Democrats were right and the Republicans were wrong.
On those claims, anyway. If the Republicans had other goals, and those claims were merely a phony sales pitch, that's another story.
Democrats accuse Republicans of serving the interests of the wealthy to an extreme - and by that measure, Republicans did just what they'd want.
Just as was the case in the last great test, when the Clinton 1993 tax increase on the top 2% was predicted by every right-wing commentator to ruin the economy.
Link to article on report
This thread is offered because I think sometimes the facts can have a good effect on people who are not necessarily being too rational on politics.
At some point, they might realize they are mouthing things that are less than true, that they have been fed by the interests' propagandists.
I understand most Republicans will now just spin why the facts are not a problem - but I think it's worth noting how they contradict the earlier claims.
The contradict the basic decency among many Republicans, painting them into a tighter and tighter corner until the truth is clearer.
As long as they can run around claiming that policies for the rich are really policies for the poor, who can complain? Such propaganda needs debunking.
Because this is a democracy and the middle class gets a vote, thanks to the founding fathers, both sides will claim to be good for the milddle class.
But only one side can actually be better for the middle class. Which one is that?
There's plenty of blams for the Democrats, especially under Clinton when they passed some of the things that are hurting the economy globally today.
Some might suspect that the 'dot com bubble' helped Clinton and the big crash hurt Bush in these numbers, but I think the numbers still have the correct message even when those are factored in. They show things that are there outside those things, and across decades of previous presidents too.
Democrats argued that the Bush policies would result effectively in an upward transfer of wealth - the concentration of wealth would increase, the top would get a bigger share, and the shift of wealth out of everyone else's hands into the wealthy's hands would do more to simply put their name on the title of more resources rather than to offer a good return for everyone else.
Who was right?
Tax cuts are long debunked as a magic wand, with studies showing about a 20 cents on the dollar return. The Financial sector's collapse is well known.
But this report has some facts about how Americans' incomes and the numbers in poverty changed under Bush, putting the Republican claims to the test.
The facts say the Democrats were right and the Republicans were wrong.
On those claims, anyway. If the Republicans had other goals, and those claims were merely a phony sales pitch, that's another story.
Democrats accuse Republicans of serving the interests of the wealthy to an extreme - and by that measure, Republicans did just what they'd want.
Just as was the case in the last great test, when the Clinton 1993 tax increase on the top 2% was predicted by every right-wing commentator to ruin the economy.
Link to article on report
This thread is offered because I think sometimes the facts can have a good effect on people who are not necessarily being too rational on politics.
At some point, they might realize they are mouthing things that are less than true, that they have been fed by the interests' propagandists.
I understand most Republicans will now just spin why the facts are not a problem - but I think it's worth noting how they contradict the earlier claims.
The contradict the basic decency among many Republicans, painting them into a tighter and tighter corner until the truth is clearer.
As long as they can run around claiming that policies for the rich are really policies for the poor, who can complain? Such propaganda needs debunking.
Because this is a democracy and the middle class gets a vote, thanks to the founding fathers, both sides will claim to be good for the milddle class.
But only one side can actually be better for the middle class. Which one is that?
There's plenty of blams for the Democrats, especially under Clinton when they passed some of the things that are hurting the economy globally today.
Some might suspect that the 'dot com bubble' helped Clinton and the big crash hurt Bush in these numbers, but I think the numbers still have the correct message even when those are factored in. They show things that are there outside those things, and across decades of previous presidents too.
Facebook
Twitter