14 Responses to “BOYCOTTING MYSTIC LAKE CASINO”

1. Alec Says:
   August 2nd, 2010 at 7:58 PM

   There is zero evidence that tax cuts for the wealthy grow the economy, increase hiring, or capital investment. We know that they increase executive bonuses, but that is about the only guarantee. We know for a fact that increased consumer demand grows the economy and jobs. The income gap is as large at is has ever been since the great depression. I think we have proved with Reaganomics that transferring money to the wealthy does not trickle down, and in fact has crippled our economy.

2. J.L. Says:
   August 2nd, 2010 at 8:52 PM

   Poor Alec, so many things wrong. First of all, they weren’t “tax cuts for the wealthy”, they were “tax cuts for all” because all brackets saw a decrease. The number of low income people exempt from paying taxes at all increased, to about 40% of the workforce. But “cuts for the wealthy” sounds so much better to the economically challenged. “Zero evidence that cuts for the wealthy grow the economy…” Well, Alec, back here on earth here’s what happened: After the second round of Bush’s cuts, the deficit went from 412 billion dollars in 2004 to 162 billion dollars in 2007- all this during two wars and the 9-11 aftermath. Average un-employment during Bush- 5.2% In 2003 it was 6.3%, in 2007 it was 4.4%. And before you mention the Clinton “surplus”, that was because of the Republican-pushed Tax payer Relief Act of 1997, which lowered capital-gain taxes. Poor Alec.

3. J.L. Says:
   August 2nd, 2010 at 9:04 PM

   And Alec, I’m sure you saw my earlier post on taxes for the wealthy. But for the economically-challenged (you) here again: In 1980, top income tax rate was 70%. The richest 1% paid about 19% of total income taxes. Top rate today is 35%, and the top 1% pay 40% of all income taxes. So as i asked another Liberal genius: What’s so bad about tax cuts?

4. LadyK Says:
   August 2nd, 2010 at 11:09 PM

   How many millions of jobs were created as a result of the Bush Tax Cuts from 2001 to 2009??

   During the Clinton years, when Tax rates were higher all around, 23 million jobs were created. Clinton left Bush with over a $2 billion dollar a Budget surplus and whittled down the National Debt at the same time.

   Where were the Deficit hawks when Bush was in office? Why didn’t they say, “Mr. President! We have borrowed several Trillion dollars already to give Tax Cuts, give subsidies to Big Oil, Big Pharma, the Health Insurance Companies, and wage a war in Afghanistan. Why do we need to start a war in Iraq, when Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? How do we pay for that?”

5. Hector Says:
   August 3rd, 2010 at 5:59 AM

   “First of all, they weren’t “tax cuts for the wealthy”, they were “tax cuts for all” because all brackets saw a decrease.”

   Didn’t wealthy people get tax cuts?

6. Alec Says:
   August 3rd, 2010 at 6:59 AM

   J.L.,

   Only the cuts for those over 250,000 are going to expire. According to the Wall Street Journal, 98% of Americans will pay LESS tax. You will get a tax cut idiot.

   Now, as for Reagan, after slashing taxes in half for the wealthy, unemployment peaked at over 10% in 1982! Reagan averaged 7.5% unemployment for his 8 year term.

   Cliton had 22 million jobs created with his tax increases during is 8 years. GW created 5 million jobs during his 8 years and his tax cuts.

   You want to fix the deficit, or protect the wealthy who have seen their incomes go up 218% while ours have gone up 16%?

7. Alec Says:
   August 3rd, 2010 at 7:03 AM

   The two wars were off the books JL. They were all payed with supplementals. In 1997 there was an initial bump in revenue as people sold off their assets to take advantage of the new tax relief, but that bump was short lived and long term it crushed revenue.

8. LadyK Says:
   August 3rd, 2010 at 4:25 PM

   The Bush Tax cuts created NO Private Sector jobs in 8 years. 3 Million Public sector jobs were created. That’s it.

9. J.L. Says:
   August 3rd, 2010 at 6:33 PM

   First, Hector- “Didn’t wealthy people get tax cuts?” Uh, yah. That would be found under the words “tax cuts for all”, and “all brackets saw a decrease.” Can’t be any more clear than that. The Liberal chant “tax cuts for the wealthy” is what’s decriving, because it implies only the wealthy recieved tax cuts. Hence my words- “all brackets saw a decrease.” Ok?

10. J.L. Says:
    August 3rd, 2010 at 7:14 PM

    Next, Alec. “Only the cuts for those over 250,000 are going to expire. You will get a tax cut, idiot.” Oh boy. And you know how much i make…how? And if i make under 250,000, and congress let’s just the cuts over the 250 to expire (as you say), then mine would stay the same. Idiot. And remember, Obama wants to let the capital gains taxes to go where they were before for everybody. So anyone who holds stocks would see an increase. “Reagan averaged 7.5% unemployment during his eight years. Peaked at 10% in 1982. Right-you prove my point. The cuts didn’t happen till 1981. Unemployment peaked in 1982, then went down (you know, to get to the 7.5% average. That’s a good thing). “Reagan, after slashing taxes in half for the wealthy…” Uh, no. The tax cut act of 1981 took the top rate from 70% to 50%. Even in Liberal math, that’s not half.

11. J.L. Says:
    August 3rd, 2010 at 7:39 PM

    Alec- “Clinton had 22 million jobs created with his tax increases in 8 years.” Please tell us how taking money from the private sector (you know,the one who creates jobs), can increase employment? And your statement isn’t true. As said above, Clinton also had major tax cuts during his administration- in 1997, when the Republican congress pushed thru cuts in the capital gains tax. Most of the increase in the GDP during his term occured after 1997. So, how many of those 22 million you talk about were from the 1997 tax cuts? In 1964, Kennedy cut the top rate from 91% to 70%. I thought Dems were against tax cuts? What never is mentioned in discussing Reagan’s cuts is that he also did away with most of the tax loopholes and shelters that the “rich” enjoyed. Also created individual IRAs. I think that’s a good thing, don’t you? All this, and Bush’s cuts, had the effect of causing the “rich’ to pay more in taxes. Lower rates= people have more money. People have more money= probobly makes more people rich. More rich people= they pay more in percentage of the total tax bill than before. (19% in 1981 to 40% now). The rich pay more= A thing math challenged Dems should love.

12. J.L. Says:
    August 3rd, 2010 at 7:59 PM

    LadyK- First, conservatives always have complained about Bush’s spending. He spent way too much. No argument there. The point is- where are those complainers now, as Obama spends even more? “During Clinton years, when tax rates were higher all around… 23 million jobs….” See above. Clinton (pushed by Republcans)also enacted a major tax decrease in 1997. Most of the deficit decrease happened after 1997, and most of the GDP increase happened after 1997. “The Bush tax cuts created no private sector jobs in 8 years.” From Think Progress. org (that’s a lib site, right?). “4.8 million jobs created during Bush years.” Again Ms.K, the point is the hypocricy. Obama is spending billions and losing jobs.

13. Focused on 2010 Says:
    August 3rd, 2010 at 8:39 PM

    J.L., Thanks for taking the time to post all these facts. Educated and open minded people already understand all of this but Alec and LadyK don’t take the time to educate themselves.

    If they did they would be conservatives.

14. LadyK Says:
    August 4th, 2010 at 4:45 AM

    There has been job growth every month this year. The Auto Industry has added 55,000 jobs.

    I take time to read, educate myself. Thank you for your concern, JL.

Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.