Who Voted for Cap and Tax? By Dan McGrath on June 29, 2009 in Cap and Trade, Misguided Leaders House Vote On Passage: H.R. 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (aka the single largest tax increase in American history) The complete roll call vote with contact info is provided at GlennBeck.com.
Anybody getting buyers remorse? I’m not, becase the people I voted for lost. I live in the 4th district in Minnesota and Betty McCollum voted yea for this nonsense.
The guy I voted for did not win, Ed Mathews.
Before the election I talked to him on the phone and I asked him, point blank, how he would vote on cap and trade. He said he would vote no.
This next election I am going to get more involved in his campaign, and I am going to do whatever I can to oust Betty McCollum. She’s my representative but she is not representing me.
Ed Mathews 2010!!!!!!!!
Right on anonymous mouse. I’m a St. Paulite and voted for Mathews too.
He’s a good man.
Sorry that the average voter does not even know the people thet vote for, you two do.
That’s right Paul. And it’s wrong. People really don’t know because they don’t care. They will, eventually, when it hit’s them in their pocketbook. But I’m afraid that will be too late.
I am afraid that the politicians have only improved their methods of pulling the wool over peoples eyes.
Neil, It all comes down to what it costs. You, I and the majority cannot afford it. Unfortunatey the alarmists can afford it. All their income comes from histeria on “Global Warming” A/K/A “Climate change.” Gore must be smiling as he watches the minions suffer in the years going forward if the Senate passes cap n trade. I think I will move to my cabin and vote locally here. At least up north they have common sense and READ!
I watch C-Span and I hear these people calling themselves the Distinguished Gentleman or lady or Colleague and the only thing that Distinguishes them from an ordinary crook is they are using their power in D.C. which makes it legal to steal. If I took money from someone who did not want me to have it, thats Stealing plain and simple.
Novelist Larry Beinhart looked over the history of tax cuts and economic bubbles, and found a clear relationship between the two. High top marginal tax rates (generally well above 60%) on rich people actually stabilize the economy, prevent economic bubbles from forming, prevent economic crashes, and lead to steady and sustained economic growth (and steady and sustained wage growth for working people).
On the other hand, when top marginal rates drop below 50 percent, the opposite happens. As Beinhart noted in a November 17, 2008 post on the Huffington Post, the massive Republican tax cuts of the 1920s (from 73% to 25%) led directly to the Roaring ’20s stock market bubble, temporary boom, and then the crash and Republican Great Depression of 1929.
Rates on the very rich went back up into the 70-90% range from the 1930s to the 1980s. As a result, the economy grew steadily; for the first time in the history of our nation we went 50 years without a crash or major bank failure; and working people’s wages increased enough to produce the strongest middle class this nation has ever seen.
Then came Reaganomics.
Reagan cut top marginal rates on millionaires and billionaires from 74% down to 38% and there was an immediate surge in the markets – followed by the worst crash since the Great Depression and the failure of virtually the entire nation’s savings and loan banking system.
Bush I cut taxes, and the nation fell into a severe recession while debt soared and wages for working people fell.
Things stabilized somewhat when Clinton slightly raised taxes on the very rich, but W. Bush dropped them again – including taking taxes on unearned income (interest and dividends – the “income” that people like W. born with a trust fund “earn” as they sit around the pool waiting for the dividend check to arrive in the mail) down to a top rate of 15%. (That’s right – trust fund babies like Bush and Scaife pay a MAXIMUM 15% federal income tax on their dividend and interest income, thanks to the second Bush tax cut.) The result of this surge in easy money for the wealthy, combined with deregulation in the financial markets, was the “froth” Greenspan worried about and led us straight into the Second Republican Great Depression, ongoing today.
The math is really pretty simple. When the uber-rich are heavily taxed, economies prosper and wages for working people steadily rise. When taxes are cut for the rich, working people suffer and economies turn into casinos.
Thus today the uber-rich are spending hundreds of millions to make sure words like “burden” are always associated with the word “tax,” and to convince average working people that they should throw out of office any politicians who are willing to raise taxes on the rich.
…and as long as the Right Wing Propaganda Machine of the uber-rich continues to “lose” (e.g. “invest”) millions of dollars a year in their ongoing disinformation campaign, it’s going to require all of us reciting the mantra, “Roll back the Reagan tax cuts!”
It is apparent that you have a job making a minimum wage where you receive everything back that you pay in each year. In other words Rob, you DON’T PAY TAXES!!! If you did you would understand that the harder you work, the more they take called a “Progressive tax.”. Is that productive?? NO. Everything that spews from your mouth is “The rightwing did it!!” Do you think?? I note the Huffington Post comment and their quotes, Talk about ” Leftwing”!!! What are you? a schill for the left, or an unbiased person that is looking for truth? You showed your colors today. Enough said about this dribble from the left. Back to the Global warming scam!! Get back on subject, or quit lecturing on something that you have no knowledge about. Enough said!
Rob, You never answered me. Am I correct?????
Again nothing to do with AGW.
Larry Beinhart wrote Wag the Dog, and Fog Facts: Searching for Truth in the Land of Spin.
Obviously an expert at spin. But, an expert on taxes and the economy?
I think not.
Neil, He get’s my dander up! Enough said about that.