Garfunkles are the root of all evil?????

no my reference is to income tax only.

Actually history shows that jobs are best created when the middle class is stong and has good purchasing power, rich people do not help this cause, it starts from the bottom up.

Myabe not but should we not strive to it.  Or at least get as close to we can as curing it, that is the american way.  Tell us we cant do something and then we do it.

Right the poor policies of conservative republican presidents, at least part of which(and in my opinion most of which) had to do with bad tax and regulation policies that let business run wild.

So was mine.

And no where in history can you find where the poor create jobs.  Nor the middle class.  However the middle class is necessary to buy the good produced (which does lead to job creation), but the poor is not really in the equation from a standpoint of driving GDP.  They never have and trying to make them the engine (as was done in 33-41) resulted in prolonging the recession/depression.  LIke it or not, they are swept along, not the engine of the economy.

Yes, and that is why I give to charity.  But you digging into my pocket to give to give to them is not your charity.  NOr is pouring money into a program that is proven not to make a difference (after all we have been doing it for 45 years and as you state, there has been no change).

Tough love is both tough and love, and sometimes that is what it takes.  Giving a man a fish is not as good as teaching the man to fish. 

That is your opinion, that is not what is supported by the facts.  The facts tend to demonstrate that when people are given a disincentive to produce (high tax rates) they produce less.  Just as Obama said that "all should benefit" from their work, so do the rich.  They think they should benefit as well, but taxing them so they do not, means they have no incentive to produce.

Isn't this more like middle up rather than bottom up?  But SINCE the middle are still ABOVE the poor this seems to contradict the whole 'bottom' up economics.

There are a lot of contradictions there, mostly from the historical perspective.  Namely that the poor has driven any economy.  They never have. If his premise is true, then the old USSR should have been the most powerful economy the world has ever seen (and with 1.2b people, China should be skunking us).  As we see, the old USSR isdead ,and china, when it started catering to its middle class (thus creating a purchasing class) have they started to creak out of the dark ages.

If there was even a TINY bit of truth here why aren't we then bailing out the homeless and giving them 750 Billion dollars to stimulate the economy?

Of course the poor don't build up the economy. How many studies and examples do we have to go through where a homeless person is given a bunch of money only to find them, 6 months later, homeless again because they squandered it.

If you want society to be better off, the best route is to get the government out of the way and let the people, rich, poor, middle class, strive to achieve the best of their ability.

I haven't posted for a long while and I come back I am glad there is a lot of non-sense out there.

Mooseplow (I'm not sure if you're going to read this), let me get this right you feel that the government should tax the wealthy in order that that money can be used to help less fortunate people, correct?

Dr Guy, is correct about the Great Depression. FDR (though most neonates think he was the President of Presidents) prolonged the depression with the help of congress. Hover, was just riding coattails of economical success. When the stock market crashed he started doing similar programs that FDR continued in his administration. What Dr. Guy was stating is what I call in very very layman's terms 'what goes up must come down'. FDR, taxed the rich heavily and extensively during the great depression, so from 1932 to 1945 income tax was very high for the rich. IF we look at 1917 to 1921 taxes were high as well, but also a war was going on during some of that time.

FDR's programs effectively help/solve/ save the U.S in the depression. I will say this that a lot of his programs we are still feeling the affects of, but very few of them were good at that current time (and some would argue that very few of them were good if that even today due to the impact of his programs we are still seeing).

I hear people all the time claiming that GW cut taxes for the most wealthy. I can't find that to be true. Looking at www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html Before the 2001 tax cuts, the richest 1% paid about 34% of all federal income taxes and by 2006 they were paying about 40%.

SO, Moosey the man who you speak ill of actually did what you been so boastfully for. Our govenment has shown countless times of how irresponsible it is with very large sums of money. I just use one example: Suha Arafat is? She was the wife of Yasser Arafat. Now what does she have to do with anything? She is in the top 10 wealthiest women in the world. Last time I checked the Palestinian leader didn't get paid that much.  That is OUR hard earned tax money that she has. Let me say this I know this first hand because I USED to work for the government.

One more thing Moosey, the Republicians did not control Congress during the Bush time unlike now how that the Democrat do have dominance.

Being neither Republician nor Democrat, it is never good when one (1) party controls everything. This will NOT be good for the next 4 years.

Government intervention has rarely been a good thing.

Correction to the above: FDR's programs DID NOT EFFECTIVELY solve/help/save the U.S in the depression.

YEAH OBAMA ALL THE WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lets see...

before Reagan revolution:  US biggest exporter in the world. 

After Reagan Revolution:  US biggest importer supporting the worlds most gigantic inflated FAKE economy. 

We used to make things when we were a "socialist" nation.  Now that we just trade fake money around, we can see the results of nearly 30 years of "progress."   

The US is going down not because of liberals and socialists, but conservitives and people who think gay marriage is the most important issue.  Are we number one in anything anymore????   give me an example!  And who was in charge during our slump into mediocrity?  Reganomics "experts" like bush clinton and bush.  

We need a roosevelt.  Not a Reagan. 

Before Reagan - The Marshall Plan

Your point?  Are we to believe that the world is in stasis until someone comes up with a plan?

So we need another depression instead of 25 years of prosperity?  Please keep your roosevelt to yourself. and try not to mistake a Marshall plan (and its success) with a Roosevelt plan (and its failure).

your "prosperity" requires that it be real prosperity.  But it wasnt.  The stock market used to be a place that supplied capital for creating stuff.  Now its a gambling casino.  Why was that?

My guess is that community organisers convinced banks to give mortgages to people who cannot afford them because minorities should also own property.

What's yours?

Clinton and his Dot Com Bust?  WHy is that?