It's Time To Learn Why High Taxes Kill Us

[1SICKLEX]

Yea and obama will really control that

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]

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.

[IndianStig]

good shit i see in this thread+reps to some of you

[Vteckidd]

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.

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]

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"

[Vteckidd]

HAHA if you think Carter was a great president, you got alot of convincing to do

[1SICKLEX]

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]

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]

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]

I'm not reading all this..

[Vteckidd]

Wonder who coined the term Misery Index LOL

[1SICKLEX]

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]

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]

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).




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

[stephen]

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]

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? 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/his...s/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]

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 Now THAT was an informative post.

[1SICKLEX]

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]

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/his...s/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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

You clearly do not know how Congress works.

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]

Originally Posted by stephen


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, 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]

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