PDA

View Full Version : It's Time To Learn Why High Taxes Kill Us



willum14pb
10-18-2008, 06:00 PM
And here's a great place to start the lesson that I've been explaining now since forever:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/..._revenues.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/tax_rates_vs_tax_revenues.html)



October 16, 2008
Tax Rates vs. Tax Revenues
Erroll Ivery
When a politician says they're going to raise your taxes, what they really mean is they're going to raise tax rates. Lost on the minds of Democrats and Barack Obama is the fact that an increase in federal tax rates does not necessarily mean an increase in federal tax revenues. As a matter of fact, history reveals just the opposite is true.

In 1961 when John F. Kennedy became President, the top marginal tax rate was 91%. Kennedy lowered the top rate to 70%, and more revenue came into the federal treasury from the top wage earners than under the 91% rate. Why? For the same reason that more revenue is often raised at department stores sales than when merchandise is at the regular price. More people execute transactions more often, which increase revenue, even though items are being sold for less. When tax rates are lowered, more people execute transactions that generate tax revenue more often than execute them at higher tax rates. Why? At the lower tax rate, the transaction represents a better value to the taxpayer. They get to keep more income per tax generating transaction, but the increase in the number of transactions generates more revenue for the government. The goal of tax policy should be to generate more tax transactions and the way to do that is to have the equivalent of a tax sale!

When Ronald Reagan became President in 1981, the top marginal tax rate was still 70%. Reagan lowered the top rate to 50%, and then to 28%, and at every reduction of the top marginal rate, revenues to the federal government from top wage earners increased!

Seven years after the Bush tax cuts of 2001, we still hear the phrase "Bush tax cuts for the rich" despite a 2005 joint IRS / Congressional Budget Office report revealing the top 5% of income earners saw their share of taxes paid rise at a faster rate than their share of income under the Bush tax rates than the Clinton tax rates. Yes, their share of income rose, but their share of taxes paid rose faster because of the attractiveness of executing tax-generating transactions at Bush's lower rates more often.

The Democrats desire to punish financial success as if it is always undeserved. Punishing success is more important than allowing more revenue to come to the federal government because of financial success. Democrats need scapegoats to make the enemy of the middle class through class warfare rhetoric. To admit that lower tax rates are a win-win situation for tax payers at every income level and for the government would eliminate the need for scapegoats to use to rally the middle class against the rich, and thus largely eliminate the need to vote for Democrat socialists.

The Democrats need to raise tax rates on the rich for political reasons, because economically it makes no sense if the goal is to increase revenues.


TRUTH. http://my350z.com/forum/images/smilies/mad.gif

Alan®
10-18-2008, 06:18 PM
LOL you should go look at my thread and see what proverbial cat was let out of the bag tonight.

willum14pb
10-18-2008, 07:12 PM
LOL you should go look at my thread and see what proverbial cat was let out of the bag tonight.

i saw :rolleyes:

i dont understand how people support this guy..

ironchef
10-18-2008, 07:14 PM
Because they're followers, and braindead leaches of the mainstream media. Don't get me wrong because McCain isn't terribly much better, but say no to Obama!

willum14pb
10-18-2008, 07:27 PM
Im just waiting for the liberals to arrive and say my cited source isn't reputable and tell me i don't do research. They think i just post these things without finding the factual evidence behind it first. lololol.

Vteckidd
10-18-2008, 07:36 PM
what we need to really do is go to the FAIR TAX. That would eliminate all this arguing.

A recent survey done by Forbes, they asked 100 top CEOs of Japanese companies:

If the USA Went to the fair tax what would you do?

20% said they would move SOME of their operation to the US
80% said they would move their ENTIRE OPERATION TO THE US

why arent we really looking at doing it?

-S Double C-
10-18-2008, 07:49 PM
Cause we got a bunch of idiots running this country^^^END OF THREAD!

willum14pb
10-18-2008, 08:01 PM
what we need to really do is go to the FAIR TAX. That would eliminate all this arguing.

A recent survey done by Forbes, they asked 100 top CEOs of Japanese companies:

If the USA Went to the fair tax what would you do?

20% said they would move SOME of their operation to the US
80% said they would move their ENTIRE OPERATION TO THE US

why arent we really looking at doing it?



:crazy: :dunno: :(

Alan®
10-18-2008, 08:26 PM
i saw :rolleyes:

i dont understand how people support this guy..
I don't either. What Obama runs is merely propaganda and the mindless mainstream American voter is buying into it.

I had an epiphany this week and I think ultimately it comes down to this. The average American right now like McCain has been saying "is hurting and their mad and their frustrated". And so like the most of the rest of us do we look for someone to blame. Obama has essentially given them that person to blame: Anyone who runs a business, or makes any kind of good money is essentially to blame.They are the ones to blame for them struggling because they are evil, greedy people with absolutely no regard for those that they are employing.

And of course Tony, and Paul and whoever are going to come in here and say that I am full of complete and utter bullshit but you know what its the truth. I sat in my U.S. history class and was the ONLY person who thought that what Obama was proposing was complete bull shit. My history professor said 2 things to me.

1. That the sole purpose of taxes was to "Redistribute Wealth"
2. Why should I care about anyone who makes over $250K? That since I don't I should unite with him and the rest of my class mates and vote democrat until I make that kind of money :thinking: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: .

He put up some stupid graph quite similar to this one
http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i311/midnightracer05/GR2008061200193.gif
That is completely contradictory to everything that Obama has been saying. The one that my history professor put up said that according to OBAMA'S ADVISORS that anyone making between $237-$613K would see a 7K DECREASE in taxes. I called the bullshit flag and told me that I was wrong because what I was reading was acurate because it came from his advisors. IT was literally like talking to a brick wall. Even though he saw the debate the night before and heard for months about how Obama would be raising taxes on anyone over $250k. I asked him to prove Obama's claim that 98% of businesses don't make at least $250K and guess what? He couldn't prove it. Much like Obama hasn't proven it yet.

The simple fact of the matter is that people are struggling right now and they are looking for someone to blame and Obama has given it to them and they are taking the bait hook, line, and sinker without any concrete proof of facts or evidence to support his claim. And that is the only reason why Obama is going to win this election.

willum14pb
10-18-2008, 08:30 PM
The simple fact of the matter is that people are struggling right now and they are looking for someone to blame and Obama has given it to them and they are taking the bait hook, line, and sinker without any concrete proof of facts or evidence to support his claim. And that is the only reason why Obama is going to win this election.


:cheers:

ironchef
10-18-2008, 09:00 PM
I think theres 2 big issues with this election.

A) There is a proliferation of these "Joe Six Packs"; uneducated, retarded people going out and voting.
B) Honestly, out of so many potentially qualified people, how in the fuck did we end up with these two retards as our only choices?

Alan®
10-18-2008, 09:12 PM
B) Honestly, out of so many potentially qualified people, how in the fuck did we end up with these two retards are our only choices?
LOL. Werd

TIGERJC
10-18-2008, 10:11 PM
circle jerk going on in here. I am not even going to agrue about it anymore, b/c I already voted 2-3 weeks ago

stephen
10-18-2008, 10:47 PM
And here's a great place to start the lesson that I've been explaining now since forever:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/..._revenues.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/tax_rates_vs_tax_revenues.html)



TRUTH. http://my350z.com/forum/images/smilies/mad.gif


i know you're expecting people to dis-credit your source or whatever...so i'll just dis-credit you with facts.

1. a lot of your right-wingers like to talk about "reaganomics" without even having a full understanding as to what REALLY happened. yes...reagan cut EVERYONE'S TAXES....but HE ALSO RAISED TAXES 6 TIMES. not to mention, the last time he raised taxes, he raised PAYROLL TAXES FOR CORPORATIONS...YES HE TAXED THE HARDWORKING BUSINESSES!

2. true, obama wants to tax the "wealthy," but the increase will be the same PERCENTAGE as it was under reagan and clinton...

3. let me explain, YET AGAIN, how the bush tax cuts effect the middle class more than the wealthy. the problem within the past 8yrs is wages haven't changed, government spending has increased, and lastly...INFLATION. people don't seem to understand that the cost of living is an INCREASING NUMBER. $1 won't get you what it used to get 8yrs ago...and we all know that. when someone makes $30k for 8yrs, how do you think that affects their savings? as the cost of living goes up (roughly 3% every year), that's less money they have to save...right? now take someone who makes $300k a year. they're able to maintain money for their savings, and they can also invest into hedge funds. hedge fund aren't affected by inflation. these same folks have more tax avoidance possiblities. this is why people say tax cuts benefit the "rich." it's not the fact that it "intentionally" leaves one group out...they just have MORE TO GAIN, while the lower income ppl still suffer THE SAME PROBLEM.

4. if decreasing taxes has BEEN SOOO GREAT, then how come under reagan we the country was in such severe debt, and the same under bush? not to mention, when reagan increased taxes on the wealthy (his final year in office), the government gained MORE REVENUE than under his INITIAL TAX CUT.

anyhow...you folks need to just go out and vote...get it all out of your system.

blackshine007
10-18-2008, 11:16 PM
Ron Paul FTW!!!





























Wait, this isn't about Ron Paul. My bad (walks away shaking head)

flak_monkey
10-18-2008, 11:17 PM
This thread contains too much semen.

willum14pb
10-19-2008, 10:33 AM
i know you're expecting people to dis-credit your source or whatever...so i'll just dis-credit you with facts.

1. a lot of your right-wingers like to talk about "reaganomics" without even having a full understanding as to what REALLY happened. yes...reagan cut EVERYONE'S TAXES....but HE ALSO RAISED TAXES 6 TIMES. not to mention, the last time he raised taxes, he raised PAYROLL TAXES FOR CORPORATIONS...YES HE TAXED THE HARDWORKING BUSINESSES!

2. true, obama wants to tax the "wealthy," but the increase will be the same PERCENTAGE as it was under reagan and clinton...

3. let me explain, YET AGAIN, how the bush tax cuts effect the middle class more than the wealthy. the problem within the past 8yrs is wages haven't changed, government spending has increased, and lastly...INFLATION. people don't seem to understand that the cost of living is an INCREASING NUMBER. $1 won't get you what it used to get 8yrs ago...and we all know that. when someone makes $30k for 8yrs, how do you think that affects their savings? as the cost of living goes up (roughly 3% every year), that's less money they have to save...right? now take someone who makes $300k a year. they're able to maintain money for their savings, and they can also invest into hedge funds. hedge fund aren't affected by inflation. these same folks have more tax avoidance possiblities. this is why people say tax cuts benefit the "rich." it's not the fact that it "intentionally" leaves one group out...they just have MORE TO GAIN, while the lower income ppl still suffer THE SAME PROBLEM.

4. if decreasing taxes has BEEN SOOO GREAT, then how come under reagan we the country was in such severe debt, and the same under bush? not to mention, when reagan increased taxes on the wealthy (his final year in office), the government gained MORE REVENUE than under his INITIAL TAX CUT.

anyhow...you folks need to just go out and vote...get it all out of your system.




I don't think I'm done with your flawed logic and incorrect statistics yet. Here's a snippet from a great article dissecting the criticism of supply side economics:

Federal tax revenue did in fact increase during the Reagan years, as no less a liberal authority than Media Matters acknowledged:

According to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), when adjusted for inflation to constant fiscal year 2000 dollars, receipts (revenues) grew only (http://my350z.com/forum/images/smilies/icon08.gif) from $1.077 trillion to $1.236 trillion during Reagan's term in office.

http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2...326130059.aspx (http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2008/20080326130059.aspx)

http://www.heritage.org/Research/GovernmentReform/images/bg1414tab1.gif

Hear that stephen? Someone's numbers are wrong. These numbers explain that even when adjusted for inflation, a tax cut in the top marginal rate from 70%, to 50%...to 28%..."only" resulted in an increase from 1.077 trillion to 1.236 trillion dollars! Only! How did an increase in tax revenues take place by cutting taxes 66%? Hm? http://my350z.com/forum/images/smilies/icon08.gif I've explained that clearly already.

Your "facts" attempt to claim that tax revenues shrunk in constant dollars during Reagan's term. I just showed you evidence that your numbers are incorrect. Where is your link citing the source of your numbers/facts?

Mine are from the Office of Management and Budget (http://www.heritage.org/Research/taxes/BG1414.cfm) through the Heritage Foundation.

Some facts, and perhaps the reason your source was able to fool you (was it taking these numbers as a whole of GDP?):



HOW DID THE REAGAN TAX CUTS AFFECT THE U.S. TREASURY?

Many critics of reducing taxes claim that the Reagan tax cuts drained the U.S. Treasury. The reality is that federal revenues increased significantly between 1980 and 1990:

Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.3

As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), federal revenues declined only slightly from 18.9 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 1990.4

Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990.5 In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase.


HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT FEDERAL SPENDING?

Although critics continue to focus on President Reagan's budget "cuts," federal spending rose significantly during the 1980s:

Federal spending more than doubled, growing from almost $591 billion in 1980 to $1.25 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was an increase of 35.8 percent.6 <---bad, and a consequence of Democrats attempting to laden Reagan's tax cut bill with enough Pork to get Reagan to veto his own bill. That was during the argument over Line Item Veto, an argument broached over this very issue. Reagan understood - as I do, and you don't - that lowering taxes creates enough economic vitality to pay for nearly anything.

As a percentage of GDP, federal expenditures grew slightly from 21.6 percent in 1980 to 21.8 percent in 1990.7

Contrary to popular myth, while inflation-adjusted defense spending increased by 50 percent between 1980 and 1989, it was curtailed when the Cold War ended and fell by 15 percent between 1989 and 1993. However, means-tested entitlements, which do not include Social Security or Medicare, rose by over 102 percent between 1980 and 1993, and they have continued climbing ever since.8 <---again bad, and Democrats are to blame. Imagine our growth had spending not been so insane!


Total spending on all national security programs never equaled domestic spending, even when Social Security, Medicare, and net interest are excluded from domestic totals. In addition, national security spending fell during the Administration of the senior President Bush, while domestic spending increased in both mandatory and discretionary accounts.9 (See Chart 1.)



That should put this issue to rest for you. You have fallen victim to a liberal economist fucking with the numbers to attempt to besmirch the sound concepts within supply side economics.

tony
10-19-2008, 10:44 AM
All I point to is this:

We've had tax cuts since Bush's term and look where we are now. If tax cuts work so well I think things wouldn't be as bad as they are.

wow, an argument in which I don't mention the candidate I support or oppose.. an anomaly as far as the Election Section goes.

ironchef
10-19-2008, 11:05 AM
All I point to is this:

We've had tax cuts since Bush's term and look where we are now. If tax cuts work so well I think things wouldn't be as bad as they are.

wow, an argument in which I don't mention the candidate I support or oppose.. an anomaly as far as the Election Section goes.Where we are now is because of the housing and credit crises. Bush's tax cuts have absolutely nothing to do with the situation right now.

tony
10-19-2008, 11:38 AM
Where we are now is because of the housing and credit crises. Bush's tax cuts have absolutely nothing to do with the situation right now.

The housing market began to crash in 05/06, the Deficit increased under Bush's first term. (Before 2006) Actually there was a Economic BOOM up until that point, which should have easily led to a fiscal balance and/or surplus.

Show me a point in time where there was a drastic tax CUT but a decrease in federal debt. The two notable tax cuts I remember are during the Reagan administration and under Bush.. both resulted in record deficits.

BanginJimmy
10-19-2008, 11:51 AM
B) Honestly, out of so many potentially qualified people, how in the fuck did we end up with these two retards as our only choices?

Because no one that really is qualified and has the level of professionalism, honor, and integrity to run the country the correct way will ever put up with the constant slander from their opponent, the probing of their friends and family by the media, and all of the other BS that goes along with the job. Not to mention the paycut.


Do a realistic study of the increase in mudslinging campaigns and you will see a corresponding decrease in the quality of the canidates.

willum14pb
10-19-2008, 12:22 PM
Where we are now is because of the housing and credit crises. Bush's tax cuts have absolutely nothing to do with the situation right now.


hahahaha, i was going to say it, but you beat me to it.

ironchef
10-19-2008, 12:26 PM
The housing market began to crash in 05/06, the Deficit increased under Bush's first term. (Before 2006) Actually there was a Economic BOOM up until that point, which should have easily led to a fiscal balance and/or surplus.

Show me a point in time where there was a drastic tax CUT but a decrease in federal debt. The two notable tax cuts I remember are during the Reagan administration and under Bush.. both resulted in record deficits.The deficit increased under Bush not cause of tax cuts, but because of the retarded wasteful spending by Bush, particularly in Iraq/Afghanistan.

willum14pb
10-19-2008, 12:27 PM
The housing market began to crash in 05/06, the Deficit increased under Bush's first term. (Before 2006) Actually there was a Economic BOOM up until that point, which should have easily led to a fiscal balance and/or surplus.

Show me a point in time where there was a drastic tax CUT but a decrease in federal debt. The two notable tax cuts I remember are during the Reagan administration and under Bush.. both resulted in record deficits.

that "boom" was due to the housing bubble, but after all the sub prime mortgages weren't getting paid and people's rates started adjusting everything went under, because banks/stock markets/government funded institutions all had their hand in things they shouldn't. Again, the tax cut had nothing to do with the decline of our economy. housing prices should go up with inflation, however, the exact opposite happened and everyone got too greedy. Failure to regulate these companies and it's obvious cause for the subsequent meltdown led to our shitty economy. That's been PROVEN. CNN/CNBC/FOX you name it, they all agree. It's irrefutable.

willum14pb
10-19-2008, 12:29 PM
The deficit increased under Bush not cause of tax cuts, but because of the retarded wasteful spending by Bush, particularly in Iraq/Afghanistan.

it's funny, he fails to see the realism that during both terms of these presidents, there was war going on. IT's like he just throws out facts and replaces them with bias. The economy sucks cuz we lowered taxes!!! it has nothing to do with pork barrel spending and wasteful money on war efforts! YOu're right tony, we're 9 trillion+ in debt because we lowered taxes. LOL. Has NOTHING at ALL to do with spending trillions on the war. :rolleyes:

ironchef
10-19-2008, 12:29 PM
that "boom" was due to the housing bubble, but after all the sub prime mortgages weren't getting paid and people's rates started adjusting everything went under, because banks/stock markets/government funded institutions all had their hand in things they shouldn't. Again, the tax cut had nothing to do with the decline of our economy. housing prices should go up with inflation, however, the exact opposite happened and everyone got too greedy. Failure to regulate these companies and it's obvious cause for the subsequent meltdown led to our shitty economy. That's been PROVEN. CNN/CNBC/FOX you name it, they all agree. It's irrefutable.To add to that, theres no single party responsible for this mess. Everyone has an equal share of the blame, republicans, democrats, wall street, main street, you name it.

tony
10-19-2008, 01:11 PM
it's funny, he fails to see the realism that during both terms of these presidents, there was war going on. IT's like he just throws out facts and replaces them with bias. The economy sucks cuz we lowered taxes!!! it has nothing to do with pork barrel spending and wasteful money on war efforts! YOu're right tony, we're 9 trillion+ in debt because we lowered taxes. LOL. Has NOTHING at ALL to do with spending trillions on the war. :rolleyes:

Let me explain simple economics to you. You have something called Expenses and there is something called Revenue.

Taxes = Revenue

Programs funded by government = Expenditures

We have not seen a balanced budget since Clinton. You can come with all the excuses you want but when Expenditures exceed Revenue you DO NOT cut Revenue.

A lot of you express the importance of Iraq, your excuse for a growing deficit so that means you do not want to cut the Expenditures. So to balance the budget you want to CUT Revenues? All of the pork barrel spending equals 2 months in Iraq.. that is not a solution.

I don't see how people can be for a bailout, for War but don't want higher taxes. Maybe if some of you realized that the two are synonymous you wouldn't be so quick to get involved in international matters that do not involve us.

willum14pb
10-19-2008, 01:12 PM
To add to that, theres no single party responsible for this mess. Everyone has an equal share of the blame, republicans, democrats, wall street, main street, you name it.

agreed, however, mccain (and believe it or not) the bush administration presented 2 different bills to start regulation. Nothing was done, but at least they saw it coming :rolleyes:. Unlike obama who was taking loans.

willum14pb
10-19-2008, 01:13 PM
Let me explain simple economics to you. You have something called Expenses and there is something called Revenue.

Taxes = Revenue

Programs funded by government = Expenditures

We have not seen a balanced budget since Clinton. You can come with all the excuses you want but when Expenditures exceed Revenue you DO NOT cut Revenue.

A lot of you express the importance of Iraq, your excuse for a growing deficit so that means you do not want to cut the Expenditures. So to balance the budget you want to CUT Revenues? All of the pork barrel spending equals 2 months in Iraq.. that is not a solution.

I don't see how people can be for a bailout, for War but don't want higher taxes. Maybe if some of you realized that the two are synonymous you wouldn't be so quick to get involved in international matters that do not involve us.

thanks, but i dont need your text book definition of "simple economics" Refer to my previous post for numbers that disprove your flawed logic. thanks, and have a good day.

tony
10-19-2008, 01:14 PM
agreed, however, mccain (and believe it or not) the bush administration presented 2 different bills to start regulation. Nothing was done, but at least they saw it coming :rolleyes:. Unlike obama who was taking loans.

So you've never heard McCain use the term Laissez Faire?

willum14pb
10-19-2008, 01:17 PM
So you've never heard McCain use the term Laissez Faire?


the governments involvement in those companies is what led to them going out of control int he first place. Why dont you read the community reinvestment act. At the point it was at, it was obvious there was a subsequent meltdown upon us, so then and there it was realized something needed to be done. Had it not been for clintons changes to the CRA we wouldn't be where we are now.

tony
10-19-2008, 01:22 PM
the governments involvement in those companies is what led to them going out of control int he first place. Why dont you read the community reinvestment act. At the point it was at, it was obvious there was a subsequent meltdown upon us, so then and there it was realized something needed to be done. Had it not been for clintons changes to the CRA we wouldn't be where we are now.

Now you're confusing me, is it Regulation or isn't it?


agreed, however, mccain (and believe it or not) the bush administration presented 2 different bills to start regulation. Nothing was done, but at least they saw it coming :rolleyes:. Unlike obama who was taking loans.

willum14pb
10-19-2008, 01:24 PM
Now you're confusing me, is it Regulation or isn't it?


you DO realize that there is different types of involvement. Please don't act ignorant. Now you're just playing ring around teh rosie because you have nothing else to go off of. Im done.

tony
10-19-2008, 01:24 PM
thanks, but i dont need your text book definition of "simple economics" Refer to my previous post for numbers that disprove your flawed logic. thanks, and have a good day.


LOL Forget text book Economics and use YOUR definition? Wow, if that is how you gain knowledge then everything you post is starting to make sense.

tony
10-19-2008, 01:27 PM
you DO realize that there is different types of involvement. Please don't act ignorant. Now you're just playing ring around teh rosie because you have nothing else to go off of. Im done.

Regulation IS involvement. McCain supposedly called for Regulation but believed in a Laissez Faire approach which he said it himself. He was FOR deregulation, and Republicans naturally are. Theres no ring around the rosie, you just do not know what you are talking about. Everything is partisan to you and that is where your logic is flawed, McCain can do no wrong in your eyes.

willum14pb
10-19-2008, 01:29 PM
LOL Forget text book Economics and use YOUR definition? Wow, if that is how you gain knowledge then everything you post is starting to make sense.

It's the same definition, you just refuse to see facts, so im acting as if i were you. Refer to post #17 to disprove all your flawed logic and ridiculous claims. If you still dont see the truth after that then i feel sorry for you.

stephen
10-19-2008, 04:01 PM
I don't think I'm done with your flawed logic and incorrect statistics yet. Here's a snippet from a great article dissecting the criticism of supply side economics:

Federal tax revenue did in fact increase during the Reagan years, as no less a liberal authority than Media Matters acknowledged:

According to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), when adjusted for inflation to constant fiscal year 2000 dollars, receipts (revenues) grew only (http://my350z.com/forum/images/smilies/icon08.gif) from $1.077 trillion to $1.236 trillion during Reagan's term in office.

http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2...326130059.aspx (http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2008/20080326130059.aspx)

http://www.heritage.org/Research/GovernmentReform/images/bg1414tab1.gif

Hear that stephen? Someone's numbers are wrong. These numbers explain that even when adjusted for inflation, a tax cut in the top marginal rate from 70%, to 50%...to 28%..."only" resulted in an increase from 1.077 trillion to 1.236 trillion dollars! Only! How did an increase in tax revenues take place by cutting taxes 66%? Hm? http://my350z.com/forum/images/smilies/icon08.gif I've explained that clearly already.

Your "facts" attempt to claim that tax revenues shrunk in constant dollars during Reagan's term. I just showed you evidence that your numbers are incorrect. Where is your link citing the source of your numbers/facts?

Mine are from the Office of Management and Budget (http://www.heritage.org/Research/taxes/BG1414.cfm) through the Heritage Foundation.

Some facts, and perhaps the reason your source was able to fool you (was it taking these numbers as a whole of GDP?):



That should put this issue to rest for you. You have fallen victim to a liberal economist fucking with the numbers to attempt to besmirch the sound concepts within supply side economics.

you and your blog sites are still only telling HALF THE STORY. here, maybe i'll put it a little more clear for you:

REAGAN INCREASED TAXES SIX TIMES, INCLUDING TAXING PAYROLL FOR CORPORATIONS

want another blog site to prove it????
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp

a few EXPLANATIONS of his tax increases:

TEFRA - tax equity and fiscal responsibility act of 1982 - United States federal legislation designed to increase tax revenues through a variety of means such as restrictions on the tax deductibility of certain investments, including some life insurance and pension products, and the elimination of distinctions in tax law applicable to partnerships and sole proprietorships.

THAT'S RIGHT...RESTRICT TAX DEDUCTIBILITY OF CERTAIN INVESTMENTS...INCLUDING INCREASING TAXES ON SSSMMMAAALLLL BUSINESSES! ALSO THE LARGEST TAX INCREASE (DURING PEACE-TIME) IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

highway revenue act of 1982 - temporarily increased the United States gasoline excise tax from 4 cents to 9 cents through September 30, 1988.

I DON'T THINK I NEED TO EXPLAIN THIS ONE TO YOU...

1983 - raised social security tax rate - This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.

OH MY, THAT ALMOST SOUNDS LIKE AN A$$-BACKWARDS WAY OF DOING WHAT OBAMA WANTS TO DO...AND ACCORDING TO YOUR "CHARTS" IT RAISED QUITE A BIT OF REVENUE

tax increase on DEFRA - the deficit reduction act of 1984 (also reformed again in 1986) - basically was an attempt to reduce "tax loopholes" and put caps on tax exempt private activity bonds.

Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 - COBRA - yeah, you may have heard of COBRA...it's that ridiculously priced healthcare plan that you can get after you leave a job. while it's supposed to be beneficial...you pay your premiums and your employers premiums...not to mention, it's not tax deductible. IT GENERATES REVENUE FOR FOR THE GOVERNMENT.

omnibus buget reconciliation act of 1987 - also raised taxes YET AGAIN and is related to the COBRA plan.

so there you have it...REAGAN CUT TAXES TRUE...BUT HE GENERATED REVENUE BY INCREASING TAXES! if you an your fellow "bloggers" want some other sites to follow...let me know.

willum14pb
10-19-2008, 08:49 PM
you and your blog sites are still only telling HALF THE STORY. here, maybe i'll put it a little more clear for you:

REAGAN INCREASED TAXES SIX TIMES, INCLUDING TAXING PAYROLL FOR CORPORATIONS

want another blog site to prove it????
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp

a few EXPLANATIONS of his tax increases:

TEFRA - tax equity and fiscal responsibility act of 1982 - United States federal legislation designed to increase tax revenues through a variety of means such as restrictions on the tax deductibility of certain investments, including some life insurance and pension products, and the elimination of distinctions in tax law applicable to partnerships and sole proprietorships.

THAT'S RIGHT...RESTRICT TAX DEDUCTIBILITY OF CERTAIN INVESTMENTS...INCLUDING INCREASING TAXES ON SSSMMMAAALLLL BUSINESSES! ALSO THE LARGEST TAX INCREASE (DURING PEACE-TIME) IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

highway revenue act of 1982 - temporarily increased the United States gasoline excise tax from 4 cents to 9 cents through September 30, 1988.

I DON'T THINK I NEED TO EXPLAIN THIS ONE TO YOU...

1983 - raised social security tax rate - This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.

OH MY, THAT ALMOST SOUNDS LIKE AN A$$-BACKWARDS WAY OF DOING WHAT OBAMA WANTS TO DO...AND ACCORDING TO YOUR "CHARTS" IT RAISED QUITE A BIT OF REVENUE

tax increase on DEFRA - the deficit reduction act of 1984 (also reformed again in 1986) - basically was an attempt to reduce "tax loopholes" and put caps on tax exempt private activity bonds.

Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 - COBRA - yeah, you may have heard of COBRA...it's that ridiculously priced healthcare plan that you can get after you leave a job. while it's supposed to be beneficial...you pay your premiums and your employers premiums...not to mention, it's not tax deductible. IT GENERATES REVENUE FOR FOR THE GOVERNMENT.

omnibus buget reconciliation act of 1987 - also raised taxes YET AGAIN and is related to the COBRA plan.

so there you have it...REAGAN CUT TAXES TRUE...BUT HE GENERATED REVENUE BY INCREASING TAXES! if you an your fellow "bloggers" want some other sites to follow...let me know.


Your link no workie:

1) None of those tax increases were instigated by Reagan. Not one. All were carry-ons by Democrats. Reagan wasn't working with a Republican Congress...remember? http://my350z.com/forum/images/smilies/icon08.gif Reagan, in his negotiations with Congress, was promised spending cuts in return for the passage of these increases.

2) Cutting income tax rates 66% dwarfs those taxes.

3) My numbers are not from a blog. They are from Heritage.org, and the OMB.

In 1982, Ronald Reagan proudly announced that he was getting $3 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increase. He later lamented that all he ever got were the taxes. "Congress never cut spending by even one penny, " Reagan complained in 1993.

In short, the Dems in Congress promised the moon, and delivered what they always did.

Reagan's chief of staff, James A. Baker III, wrote a sort of mea culpa in the Wall Street Journal, saying that he had underestimated the positive economic effects of tax-rate reductions. But he didn't repudiate his efforts to get Reagan to raise taxes.

James Baker now realizes that you needn't raise taxes if you promote a healthy economy. Healthy economies generate plenty of revenue, even if the rates drop.

1SICKLEX
10-19-2008, 09:45 PM
The problem is not tax revenue. The government collects TRILLIONS in Revenue.

The problem is SPENDING. The government has the fiscal policy of a 12 year old with an unlimited credit card.

We need to control spending.

Alan®
10-19-2008, 09:50 PM
The problem is not tax revenue. The government collects TRILLIONS in Revenue.

The problem is SPENDING. The government has the fiscal policy of a 12 year old with an unlimited credit card.

We need to control spending.
Yea and obama will really control that :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:

1SICKLEX
10-19-2008, 10:21 PM
Yea and obama will really control that :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:
Did Obama rape you or something? I am not claiming he will. I do believe he will do a better job than McCain and our current administrations blatant disregard to the Constitution and Fiscal Policy.

ANYONE can do better than the budget now. Bush's polices have America with the worst budget year for year and the highest deficit in history. McCain agrees with this freelance spending.

For instance the war in Iraq isn't even included in the budget.

You do realize the last time we had a balanced budget and surplus was under Bill Clinton. Do both parties credit, they WORKED TOGETHER to make it happen!!!

BUsh took a surplus and turned it into a fock America party.

1SICKLEX
10-19-2008, 10:25 PM
There should be a CONSTITUTIONAL LAW to have at least have a balanced budget if not a surplus.

Knowing both parties worked together in the 1990s and made it happen, I know we can do it.

The bums in office now have NO FISCAL POLICY!!

I'm not sure how anyone can argue with this graph. Its ridiculous.

http://www.headybrew.net/images/content/budget_deficit_or_surplus.gif

IndianStig
10-19-2008, 11:03 PM
good shit i see in this thread+reps to some of you

Vteckidd
10-19-2008, 11:32 PM
There should be a CONSTITUTIONAL LAW to have at least have a balanced budget if not a surplus.

Knowing both parties worked together in the 1990s and made it happen, I know we can do it.

The bums in office now have NO FISCAL POLICY!!

I'm not sure how anyone can argue with this graph. Its ridiculous.

http://www.headybrew.net/images/content/budget_deficit_or_surplus.gif

In fairness to Bush, he had to deal with 9-11 and a War in IRaq.

The GUlf war under Bush SR wasnt so taxing as this war is because under Bush Sr. we kicked them out of Kuwait can came home.

Also, we spend 700 Billion overseas for foreign oil, things Carter, Reagan, Bush SR never had to deal with on the scale CLinton and Bush have had to.

I like that chart, shows some good info.

but what you really need to see, is a chart of ECONOMIC growth and overlay it.

Im willing to bet inflation, unemployment far out trumps Carters Administration with BUSHs.

And as i have posted NUMEROUS times before, Bushs numbers are identical if not better than Clintons in terms of Economic performance, this last 6 months not included (which isnt bushs fault IMO)

Reagan HAD TO SPEND MONEY because of the complete lack of jobs/economy Carters Administration didnt create.

You are only looking at 1 sign of the coin

1SICKLEX
10-19-2008, 11:52 PM
In fairness to Bush, he had to deal with 9-11 and a War in IRaq.

The GUlf war under Bush SR wasnt so taxing as this war is because under Bush Sr. we kicked them out of Kuwait can came home.

Also, we spend 700 Billion overseas for foreign oil, things Carter, Reagan, Bush SR never had to deal with on the scale CLinton and Bush have had to.

I like that chart, shows some good info.

but what you really need to see, is a chart of ECONOMIC growth and overlay it.

Im willing to bet inflation, unemployment far out trumps Carters Administration with BUSHs.

And as i have posted NUMEROUS times before, Bushs numbers are identical if not better than Clintons in terms of Economic performance, this last 6 months not included (which isnt bushs fault IMO)

Reagan HAD TO SPEND MONEY because of the complete lack of jobs/economy Carters Administration didnt create.

You are only looking at 1 sign of the coin

No I'm looking at it all. :) I am bi-partisan. You see Carter didn't create any mess. Like Obama he inherited it. From who? Lets see Nixon and his VP Spiro, the only President and VIce-President to resign. Then Ford became president and didn't fix a damn thing. Then Carter became president but America was too deep in doo doo for him to fix anything in 4 years. The FEd should NOT have raised interest rates under Carter, that was a huge mistake.

Its clear who spends money when they get in office there and its not all war. Reagan didn't have any major war. Oh, "Star Wars" :D

Vteckidd
10-19-2008, 11:53 PM
HAHA if you think Carter was a great president, you got alot of convincing to do

1SICKLEX
10-19-2008, 11:56 PM
HAHA if you think Carter was a great president, you got alot of convincing to do
I didn't say he was a great president. I said he inherited a mess, a complete and utter mess. The 1970s had the oil crisis, stagflation, NY almost went bankrupt and American confidence in the government was at an all time low following the Vietnam War, Watergate and Ford pardoning Nixon.

I agree he was not a strong president and maybe was too "good" to be president.

Vteckidd
10-20-2008, 12:00 AM
I didn't say he was a great president. I said he inherited a mess, a complete and utter mess. The 1970s had the oil crisis, stagflation, NY almost went bankrupt and American confidence in the government was at an all time low following the Vietnam War, Watergate and Ford pardoning Nixon.

I agree he was not a strong president and maybe was too "good" to be president.
So what about Bush inheriting a Recession from CLinton? CLinton got to ride the DOT COM BOOM which was a false boom, and the bubble burst at the end of his term, and Bush inherited it and got us out of it.

What say you about that?

and

On assuming office in 1977, President Carter inherited an economy that was slowly emerging from a recession. He had severely criticized former President Ford for his failures to control inflation and relieve unemployment, but after four years of the Carter presidency, both inflation and unemployment were considerably worse than at the time of his inauguration. The annual inflation rate rose from 4.8% in 1976 to 6.8% in 1977, 9% in 1978, 11% in 1979, and hovered around 12% at the time of the 1980 election campaign. Although Carter had pledged to eliminate federal deficits, the deficit for the fiscal year 1979 totaled $27.7 billion, and that for 1980 was nearly $59 billion. With approximately 8 million people out of work, the unemployment rate had leveled off to a nationwide average of about 7.7% by the time of the election campaign, but it was considerably higher in some industrial states.

Carter also faced a drastic erosion of the value of the U.S. dollar in the international money markets, and many analysts blamed the decline on a large and persistent trade deficit, much of it a result of U.S. dependence on foreign oil. The president warned that Americans were wasting too much energy, that domestic supplies of oil and natural gas were running out, and that foreign supplies of petroleum were subject to embargoes by the producing nations, principally by members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). In mid-1979, in the wake of widespread shortages of gasoline, Carter advanced a long-term program designed to solve the energy problem. He proposed a limit on imported oil, gradual price decontrol on domestically produced oil, a stringent program of conservation, and development of alternative sources of energy such as solar, nuclear, and geothermal power, oil and gas from shale and coal, and synthetic fuels. In what was probably his most noted domestic legislative accomplishment, he pushed a significant portion of his energy program through Congress.

Other domestic accomplishments included approval of the Carter plan to overhaul the civil-service system, making it easier to fire incompetents; creation of new departments of education and energy; deregulation of the airlines to stimulate competition and lower fares; and environmental efforts that included passage of a law preserving vast wilderness areas of Alaska.

Carter was not successful in gaining support for his national health-insurance bill or his proposals for welfare reform and controls on hospital costs. He was unsuccessful also in gaining congressional approval to consolidate natural-resource agencies within the Department of the Interior and expanded economic development units in the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Also, his tax-reform proposals were not favorably received by Congress.

I guess when your a dem its always someone elses fault

Vteckidd
10-20-2008, 12:04 AM
Let’s not forget that the Peanut Farmer, whatever his virtues as a good human being may be, was kicked out of the White House on the basis of the economy. Under Carter, unemployment went over 10 percent and there were double digit inflation rates, double digit interest rates and double digit unemployment. Let’s also not forget who passed the community reinvestment act, the legislation responsible for this disaster.

Carter calling out Bush is like a me telling a guy who placed third in a marathon that he is not a fast enough runner.

BIG WORM
10-20-2008, 12:06 AM
I'm not reading all this..

Vteckidd
10-20-2008, 12:07 AM
Wonder who coined the term Misery Index LOL

1SICKLEX
10-20-2008, 12:14 AM
So what about Bush inheriting a Recession from CLinton? CLinton got to ride the DOT COM BOOM which was a false boom, and the bubble burst at the end of his term, and Bush inherited it and got us out of it.

What say you about that?

and


I guess when your a dem its always someone elses fault

Bush didn't get a recession. TODAY is a recession. Bush got a blip on the radar and still got a surplus his first year in office.

Clinton did sign the Gramm leach Bliley act, which let investment companies and banks make love to one another instead of keeping it seperate, thus some of the mess we have today.

1SICKLEX
10-20-2008, 12:16 AM
Let’s not forget that the Peanut Farmer, whatever his virtues as a good human being may be, was kicked out of the White House on the basis of the economy. Under Carter, unemployment went over 10 percent and there were double digit inflation rates, double digit interest rates and double digit unemployment. Let’s also not forget who passed the community reinvestment act, the legislation responsible for this disaster.

Carter calling out Bush is like a me telling a guy who placed third in a marathon that he is not a fast enough runner.

Actually Reagan won also based on his "popularity" and "feel good" charisma, something Obama has today.

Again the FED didn't do anything to help Carter.

Vteckidd
10-20-2008, 12:26 AM
Bush didn't get a recession. TODAY is a recession. Bush got a blip on the radar and still got a surplus his first year in office.


??????????????

The U.S. economy shrank in three non-consecutive quarters in the early 2000s (the third quarter of 2000, the first quarter of 2001, and the third quarter of 2001). According to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), which is the private, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization charged with determining economic recessions, the U.S. economy was in recession from March 2001 to November 2001, a period of eight months. However, economic conditions did not satisfy the common shorthand definition of recession, which is "a fall of a country's real gross domestic product in two or more successive quarters," and has led to some confusion about the procedure for determining the starting and ending dates of a recession.

Using the stock market as an unofficial benchmark, a recession would have begun in March 2000 when the NASDAQ crashed following the collapse of the Dot-com bubble. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was relatively unscathed by the NASDAQ's crash until the September 11, 2001 attacks, after which the DJIA suffered its worst one-day point loss and biggest one-week losses in history up to that point. The market rebounded, only to crash once more in the final two quarters of 2002. In the final three quarters of 2003, the market finally rebounded permanently, agreeing with the unemployment statistics that a recession defined in this way would have lasted from 2001 through 2003.



E-mail Author
Author Archive
Send to a Friend
Print Version

May 05, 2004, 8:50 a.m.
Truth Matters
The last recession began under Clinton, despite rewrites on the Left.

Media Matters for America is a new website (mediamatters.org) "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation." It's been developed with the zillions of tax-deductible dollars that George Soros and others contributed to the leftist Center for American Progress. It's run by a confessed liar, former conservative author David Brock, who has admitted that he knowingly lied in his book about Anita Hill, and has apologized for his reporting on Bill Clinton's sexual misadventures.

So far the work from Media Matters isn't very impressive. But what should we expect when the Left is put in charge of a quest for truth?

The first major article posted on the Media Matters website is an attempted exposé of the often-heard conservative claim that the last economic recession began during the Clinton administration — or, in other words, that it was already underway when George W. Bush took office in 2001. The article painstakingly traces the history of this claim through numerous statements by Bush administration officials and conservative commentators, presenting all this as a "successful three-and-a-half year media campaign" that has led to polling results showing "62% of Americans think the recession began under Clinton."

The claim that the last recession started under Clinton is absolutely true. To deny this is not only to blame Bush for a problem he didn't cause, but to deprive him of the credit for fixing it with effective policies — which is exactly why the Left is so eager in this case. Here, however, are the facts:

The unemployment rate bottomed at 3.8 percent in April 2000, and started deteriorating steadily from there (during the Clinton administration).

The fed funds rate — the overnight interest rate administered by Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve — peaked at 6.5 percent in 2000, and had to be lowered in an emergency move on January 3, 2001, "in light of further weakening of sales and production" (during the Clinton administration).

As the chart below shows, GDP growth fell off a cliff in the third quarter of 2000 (during the Clinton administration). Despite the shock of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, growth started to revive in the fourth quarter of 2001 (during the Bush administration).

http://www.nationalreview.com/images/chart_luskin_5-5-04.gif


ECONOMIC DATA CONFIRMS SLOWDOWN BEGAN UNDER CLINTON

Economic Statistics Confirm U.S. Economy Was Shrinking While Clinton Was In Office. “America went into recession long before the terrorist attacks of September 11th. … The new figures suggest … that the economy grew more slowly in … 2000 than was previously thought: GDP rose by 3.8% (compared with last year’s estimate of 4.1% and an initial figure of 5%).” (“Unwelcome Numbers,” The Economist, 8/3/02)

Market Indicators Confirm Recession Started On Clinton’s Watch. According to the Council of Economic Advisors, “it was widely recognized that the economy was weak coming into 2001.”

* The NASDAQ peaked on March 10, 2000;

* The S&P 500 peaked on March 24, 2000;

* The Dow Jones peaked on January 14, 2000;

* Manufacturing employment started falling in August 2000;

* Industrial production started falling in July 2000; and

* Manufacturing trade and sales started falling in April 2000.

(Council Of Economic Advisors, Talking Points, 9/20/02)

Congress’ Joint Economic Committee Says Signs Of Economic Slowdown Were Apparent In Mid 2000. “By mid-year 2000 … signs of an economic slowdown began to proliferate; it became apparent that an economic slowdown was underway. A number of key economic and financial indicators provided evidence of such slower growth and suggested that future growth could weaken. A brief summary of important elements of this evidence, for example, would include the following:

* Real GDP slowed from a robust 5.6 percent annualized growth rate in the second quarter of 2000 to 2.2 percent and 1.0 percent in the third and fourth quarters, respectively, before rebounding modestly to 1.2% in the first quarter of 2001.

* Key components of GDP such as real consumption expenditures slowed after mid-year as real income growth moderated, stock market values fell, employment gains lessened, and consumer confidence stalled and then deteriorated. Movements in retail sales generally corroborated these developments.

* Gross private investment also contributed significantly to this general slowdown with most key investment categories registering actual declines by the fourth quarter and advances of non-defense capital goods (ex-aircraft and parts) orders falling sharply after mid-year (on a year-over-year basis).

* The index of leading indicators trended down after January 2000.

* Employment advances slowed dramatically after mid-year. Gains in total non-farm payrolls, for example, averaged about 256,000 per month for the 2 1/2 years prior to mid-year 2000 and 44,000 per month after mid-year 2000. The average workweek also decreased after mid-year.

* The manufacturing sector also has weakened significantly since mid-year 2000. Industrial production, capacity utilization, the Natural Association of Purchasing Managers index, as well as manufacturing employment and workweek have all registered significant declines since mid-year 2000.

* Financial equity markets began to deteriorate about mid-year 2000 as well.

In short, there can be little doubt that a significant economic slowdown or retrenchment began about mid-year 2000 in the last quarters of the Clinton Administration.” (“Assessment Of The Current Economic Environment,” United States Congress Joint Economic Committee, 7/01)

Clinton’s Chairman Of Council Of Economic Advisors, Joseph Stiglitz, Said Recession Started During Clinton’s Tenure. “It would be nice for us veterans of the Clinton Administration if we could simply blame mismanagement by President George W. Bush’s economic team for this seemingly sudden turnaround in the economy, which coincided so closely with its taking charge. But … the economy was slipping into recession even before Bush took office, and the corporate scandals that are rocking America began much earlier.” (Joseph Stiglitz, “The Roaring Nineties,” The Atlantic Monthly, 10/02)

Stiglitz noted that during the Clinton Administration “the groundwork for some of the problems we are now experiencing was being laid. Accounting standards slipped; deregulation was taken further than it should have been; and corporate greed was pandered to ….” (Joseph Stiglitz, “The Roaring Nineties,” The Atlantic Monthly, 10/02)

Clinton Administration Grossly Overestimated Strength Of The Economy. “Hidden in the morass of statistics, there is proof that the Clinton administration grossly overestimated the strength of the economy leading up to the 2000 election. Did the federal government join Enron and WorldCom in cooking the books? … Most startling, the Commerce Department in 2000 showed the economy on an upswing through most of the election year, while in fact it was declining.” (Robert Novak, Op-Ed, “Sunny Clinton Forecast Leaves Cloud Over Bush,” Chicago Sun-Times, 8/8/02)

Drop In Investments In First Half Of 2000 Contributed To Recession. “A plunge in investment that began in the last half of 2000, along with the declines in equity markets, was an important force in the recession.” (Council Of Economic Advisers, “Strengthening America’s Economy: The President’s Jobs And Growth Proposals,” 1/7/03)


Step into the light my son :D

stephen
10-20-2008, 03:12 AM
In fairness to Bush, he had to deal with 9-11 and a War in IRaq.

The GUlf war under Bush SR wasnt so taxing as this war is because under Bush Sr. we kicked them out of Kuwait can came home.

Also, we spend 700 Billion overseas for foreign oil, things Carter, Reagan, Bush SR never had to deal with on the scale CLinton and Bush have had to.

I like that chart, shows some good info.

but what you really need to see, is a chart of ECONOMIC growth and overlay it.

Im willing to bet inflation, unemployment far out trumps Carters Administration with BUSHs.

And as i have posted NUMEROUS times before, Bushs numbers are identical if not better than Clintons in terms of Economic performance, this last 6 months not included (which isnt bushs fault IMO)

Reagan HAD TO SPEND MONEY because of the complete lack of jobs/economy Carters Administration didnt create.

You are only looking at 1 sign of the coin

saying that it's "fairness" because bush had to deal with 9-11 and iraq is stretching it a bit. 9-11...ok i understand, that's what caused our first recession, not clinton. iraq, well we've argued this for days, but it's pretty much a given that we don't need to stay there, and PERHAPS shouldn't have gone in the first place...should've done the job in afghanistan. clinton didn't cause our current situation either...it's our current piss poor government, WHICH INCLUDES BUSH. i mean he IS the president...it's his job to LEAD AND PROTECT us. to say that something that happened under his watch was not his fault either proves his complete lack of competence, or un-willingness to do his job right.

as far as economic growth is concerned (i hope you'll understand this a little better than the OP) under reagan, well...i've said it time and time again...yes he cut taxes, but he also increased taxes in all other areas by significant amounts to make-up for it.

reagan didn't spend money due to lack of jobs...come on man...majority of his spending came from his "cold war" fight. that's what gave us the surplus of jobs. you said it in another thread, that war increases jobs...right? that's also where he got crazy on spending.

stephen
10-20-2008, 03:21 AM
Your link no workie:

1) None of those tax increases were instigated by Reagan. Not one. All were carry-ons by Democrats. Reagan wasn't working with a Republican Congress...remember? http://my350z.com/forum/images/smilies/icon08.gif Reagan, in his negotiations with Congress, was promised spending cuts in return for the passage of these increases.

2) Cutting income tax rates 66% dwarfs those taxes.

3) My numbers are not from a blog. They are from Heritage.org, and the OMB.

In 1982, Ronald Reagan proudly announced that he was getting $3 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increase. He later lamented that all he ever got were the taxes. "Congress never cut spending by even one penny, " Reagan complained in 1993.

In short, the Dems in Congress promised the moon, and delivered what they always did.

Reagan's chief of staff, James A. Baker III, wrote a sort of mea culpa in the Wall Street Journal, saying that he had underestimated the positive economic effects of tax-rate reductions. But he didn't repudiate his efforts to get Reagan to raise taxes.

James Baker now realizes that you needn't raise taxes if you promote a healthy economy. Healthy economies generate plenty of revenue, even if the rates drop.

lol, STOP READING BLOG SITES, THEY'RE TELLING YOU WRONG!!!! RESEARCH THE 97TH 98TH 99TH AND 100TH CONGRESS.

pulled from this link:

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

97th Congress (1981-1983)

Majority Party: Republican (53 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (46 seats)

Other Parties: 1 Independent

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

98th Congress (1983-1985)

Majority Party: Republican (54 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (46 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

99th Congress (1985-1987)

Majority Party: Republican (53 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (47 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

100th Congress (1987-1989)

Majority Party: Democrat (55 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (45 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

since you want to point partisan fingers...note the year when reagan's congress was majority democrat...that's the 100th (87 - 89). now look at the chart that 1sicklex put up...do you see the last two red bars under reagan? notice how drastically the budget deficit dropped??? yeeeaaah...that'd be the years he picked up a democratic congress...

tony
10-20-2008, 07:44 AM
since you want to point partisan fingers...note the year when reagan's congress was majority democrat...that's the 100th (87 - 89). now look at the chart that 1sicklex put up...do you see the last two red bars under reagan? notice how drastically the budget deficit dropped??? yeeeaaah...that'd be the years he picked up a democratic congress...

wow :eek: Now THAT was an informative post.

1SICKLEX
10-20-2008, 08:05 AM
lol, STOP READING BLOG SITES, THEY'RE TELLING YOU WRONG!!!! RESEARCH THE 97TH 98TH 99TH AND 100TH CONGRESS.



since you want to point partisan fingers...note the year when reagan's congress was majority democrat...that's the 100th (87 - 89). now look at the chart that 1sicklex put up...do you see the last two red bars under reagan? notice how drastically the budget deficit dropped??? yeeeaaah...that'd be the years he picked up a democratic congress...

Exactly. Its amazing people call those 3 quarters a Recessions and the bastards today refuse to call over a year a Recession. They refuse to acknowledge it.

willum14pb
10-20-2008, 08:39 PM
lol, STOP READING BLOG SITES, THEY'RE TELLING YOU WRONG!!!! RESEARCH THE 97TH 98TH 99TH AND 100TH CONGRESS.

pulled from this link:

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

97th Congress (1981-1983)

Majority Party: Republican (53 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (46 seats)

Other Parties: 1 Independent

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

98th Congress (1983-1985)

Majority Party: Republican (54 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (46 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

99th Congress (1985-1987)

Majority Party: Republican (53 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (47 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

100th Congress (1987-1989)

Majority Party: Democrat (55 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (45 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

since you want to point partisan fingers...note the year when reagan's congress was majority democrat...that's the 100th (87 - 89). now look at the chart that 1sicklex put up...do you see the last two red bars under reagan? notice how drastically the budget deficit dropped??? yeeeaaah...that'd be the years he picked up a democratic congress...


You clearly do not know how Congress works. http://my350z.com/forum/images/smilies/redface.gif

It isn't "Congress" as a whole which provides tax bills. It's the House of Representatives. The House is the only political body which can bring a tax bill to vote in the Senate, and then on to the POTUS's desk. You posted Senate seats.

If the House is Democrat, what we get vis a vis tax policy will be the result of Democrat policy. It was a tremendous coup for Reagan to get his massive income tax cuts through the US House in the 1980's.

It was only because of what are called "boll weevil" Democrats that Reagan even had discourse with Dems in the House, but that didn't stop Reagan from being fooled with their promises of spending cuts. These "boll weevils" were socially conservative and economically liberal, and those promised spending cuts didn't happen. They did, however, support Reagan initiatives regarding social policy, as they were likewise conservative.

Cleverly, and as a result of House Dem promises to that end, Reagan supported bills with bool weevil tax plans with Senate Republicans.

Nonetheless, the majority of Reagan's overall tax plans made it through, and as such, the largest sustained economic expansion in our nation's history.

Vteckidd
10-20-2008, 09:03 PM
I like that chart, shows some good info.

but what you really need to see, is a chart of ECONOMIC growth and overlay it.

Reagan HAD TO SPEND MONEY because of the complete lack of jobs/economy Carters Administration didnt create.

You are only looking at 1 sign of the coin

AHEM

BTEC
10-20-2008, 09:30 PM
it's funny, he fails to see the realism that during both terms of these presidents, there was war going on. IT's like he just throws out facts and replaces them with bias. The economy sucks cuz we lowered taxes!!! it has nothing to do with pork barrel spending and wasteful money on war efforts! YOu're right tony, we're 9 trillion+ in debt because we lowered taxes. LOL. Has NOTHING at ALL to do with spending trillions on the war. :rolleyes:
That is one of my points. obama is such a bad guy but mccain says cut funding everywhere across the board ACCEPT for the war and VA medical. If the more thats being dumped on the war has so much to do with why the economy's present shape, why should we vote for mccain? I dnt get it.

stephen
10-20-2008, 10:29 PM
You clearly do not know how Congress works. http://my350z.com/forum/images/smilies/redface.gif

It isn't "Congress" as a whole which provides tax bills. It's the House of Representatives. The House is the only political body which can bring a tax bill to vote in the Senate, and then on to the POTUS's desk. You posted Senate seats.

If the House is Democrat, what we get vis a vis tax policy will be the result of Democrat policy. It was a tremendous coup for Reagan to get his massive income tax cuts through the US House in the 1980's.

It was only because of what are called "boll weevil" Democrats that Reagan even had discourse with Dems in the House, but that didn't stop Reagan from being fooled with their promises of spending cuts. These "boll weevils" were socially conservative and economically liberal, and those promised spending cuts didn't happen. They did, however, support Reagan initiatives regarding social policy, as they were likewise conservative.

Cleverly, and as a result of House Dem promises to that end, Reagan supported bills with bool weevil tax plans with Senate Republicans.

Nonetheless, the majority of Reagan's overall tax plans made it through, and as such, the largest sustained economic expansion in our nation's history.

i'm not the one who doesn't understand congress...it's you. the house is not the only ones who can propose a tax bill...the senate can do the same. the primary purpose of the senate is to keep the house in check. soooo....if the house was primarily democratic...the republican senate's job was to keep them in check, along with their republican president...REAGAN.

either way, you're still missing the point...reagan's tax cuts aren't what fueled the thriving economy. it was the large tax hikes and creation of jobs through the "cold war" era. you're still only looking at half of the equation ANYWAY. reagan and bush both had plans to cut taxes to generate revenue...yet they still couldn't control their spending habits...driving us further and further into debt. there's a reason why boll-weavil democrats don't exist today, they support tax reductions, military spending increases, and deregulation....3 things that will never work TOGETHER in today's world.

think about it like this...let's say you find some great niche, and are able to make $3M a year. what good is that $3M if you owe $20M in debt???

willum14pb
10-21-2008, 05:09 AM
Originally Posted by stephen http://my350z.com/forum/images/kirsch/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://my350z.com/forum/politics-war/392545-its-time-learn-why-high-taxes-kill-us-6.html#post6450977)


i'm not the one who doesn't understand congress...it's you. the house is not the only ones who can propose a tax bill...the senate can do the same.


That's not true. A Senator can look to partner with a Rep, but what you're asserting is not what took place. You're right that the Senate is a check on the House, but Revenue Bills originate - traditionally - in the House. Were it not for Bob Dole, we likely would not have run the deficits that we did during the 80's. That guy has always been a major cackwad.

TEFRA was a counter to ERTA, which had passed one year earlier. ERTA was an incredibly large tax cut, and TERFA looked to blunt the effects. Nonetheless, compared to ERTA, what TEFRA did to the increase side was not as marked as what ERTA did to the downside. TEFRA merely looked to reduced accelerated depreciation - tax deductibililty. It didn't change the rates. In short, it didn't have nearly the psychological effect to the negative that ERTA did to the positive - and the only reason Reagan and the Senate agreed was because of promises to cut spending that were never never kept.

TEFRA was largely the blame of panicking GOP moderates (RINOS), worried about the deficits caused by the '81-'82 recession. We can blame Bob Dole for that, to the glee of House and Senate Dems at the time. Bob Dole kept going to the well for more tax increases over time, facing the fact that the taxes were not keeping up with the deficits (as I've said: taxes do not increase revenue significantly, as they cause a cooling of the economy).

In a nutshell: it boils down to this: The combined totals of the 6 tax increases did not blunt the massive cuts Reagan instituted during his time in office. Bob Dole was a constant thorn in Reagan's side, and never believed in supply-side economics. Dole is a quintessential tax and spend GOP moderate. It is clear that Dole himself even admits that spending was the reason the deficits continued to increase (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n6_v48/ai_18177762/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1), as the economy grew massively under Reagan. Dole looked to counter the attempts that Reagan and Kemp were making at the time to cut government spending, and cut taxes, and this trend continued with Newt Gingrinch, who finally accomplished his goal under Clinton and a Republican Congress.

Clinton got the credit for balancing the budget, but it was Newt who was to be credited. Clinton just got out of the way.



the primary purpose of the senate is to keep the house in check. soooo....if the house was primarily democratic...the republican senate's job was to keep them in check, along with their republican president...REAGAN.

Except that Dole had a different ideology - one that aligned with House and Senate Democrats. And he had a cadre.



either way, you're still missing the point...reagan's tax cuts aren't what fueled the thriving economy. it was the large tax hikes and creation of jobs through the "cold war" era.

You keep making the same error. If you view tax collections as a percentage of GDP, and see tax cuts (ERTA's) numbers as negative (shrinking) in that light, you'll miss a critical point: the economy is growing at a rate faster than the tax collection rate is increasing. That does not mean that the tax collections aren't increasing as well. Doesn't that sound exactly like what we should be pursuing? A massively growing economy while government gets what it needs to pace inflation, and fulfills its services, while paying down debt?

That isn't exactly what took place under Reagan - though he got close to that goal. Dole blunted much of the effect, and Dole in addition was a fuckwad when it came to blunting spending. The guy simply wasn't a conservative.



you're still only looking at half of the equation ANYWAY. reagan and bush both had plans to cut taxes to generate revenue...

Wait: you're admitting here that plans existed to cut taxes to generate revenue? That's what I've been saying. That's exactly what happens.



yet they still couldn't control their spending habits...driving us further and further into debt.

Oh, there's no "they" about it. Reagan spent on the military; that's certain: but Dole and Congress smashed spending forward on a whole lot more than that. Regardless: the argument that the National Debt is a killer is a canard: what matters is maintaining a vibrant economy enough to stay ahead of the debtload - just like you knowing you have a huge debt (house?), but you do what it takes to ensure that your income continues to increase, ensuring you make your payments and live comfortably. Reagan sought out $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases which Dole, the RINOs and the DEMS wanted (and btw: a large segment of Dems -boll weevils - voted against TEFRA: it was a weird time of contrarian positions from different party members)



there's a reason why boll-weavil democrats don't exist today, they support tax reductions, military spending increases, and deregulation....3 things that will never work TOGETHER in today's world.

Of course they can work together. Dole's increases in taxes and spending obfuscated that fact. The overriding point of my posts on this, however, are that tax decreases boost an economy incredibly, making it possible to screw up quite a bit and still remain prosperous. Dole was a huge screwup.



think about it like this...let's say you find some great niche, and are able to make $3M a year. what good is that $3M if you owe $20M in debt???

First, let's be clear: within the practical window of this conversation, the only thing which can cause debt is spending - not taxes. Naturally, even the most streamlined Government requires money to operate. The question is: just how small can Government get, and how little can it operate with?

I know this: the Government described in the Constitution would require only about a 20th of the money it presently consumes.

My point has been this: tax decreases fuel an economy. That makes it expand. And expanded economy (dynamic) in concert with a Government with roughly fixed needs (static) will always pay off debt. Always. Naturally, an economy exploding in GDP is going to make the amount of taxes collected as a percentage of GDP go down - and it's supposed to. Government is not supposed to grow at the same rate as our GDP.

stephen
10-21-2008, 07:11 PM
i started a long post responding to each of your points but i had to leave. anyhow, the point i was attempting to make is that a flat out tax decrease ALONE cannot fuel the economy. when the government reduces taxes, they have to be able to "pay for it." obama's tax plan reduces taxes on the MAJORITY, while increasing taxes on the top 5%. his increases are no higher than they were during the reagan and clinton eras. reagan increased taxes on items that affect EVERYONE (fuel taxes, healthcare taxes, payroll taxes, etc.) which didn't "kill us," it generated government revenue. this may have been "ok" during reagan's era, but as of now the average individual already can't afford the current cost of living. reagan's tax cuts were somewhat successful...but his 6 tax increases were needed to support it and his spending habits. what will make mccain's policy any different?


Reagan sought out $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases...

i'm assuming you never watched the debates...this is exactly what obama has said over and over again (cutting earmarks in particular, and withdrawing from iraq). mccain called for a large spending freeze, while still maintaining our biggest spending problem...the iraq war. anyhow...just go vote