Reagan Insider on how the GOP, and Dems Destroyed the U.S. Economy

[PeteEU]

The bigger question is what do we DO about it.

As it stands now.. nothing since America is not willing to make the changes needed. Partisan politics, where getting into power or staying in power are more important than fixing the problem.. that is America's problem. The US will keep using outdated debunked economic theories all in the while the rich get richer, the middle class and poor get poorer and the country falls apart around your ears. If there is any blame, the it is in fact Reagan that is to blame since he started this idiotic idea that cutting taxes some how increases revenue and having massive deficits year after year is "not a problem". Remember the debt rose almost 300% under Reagan.. something people often forget.

 

[VanceMack]

As it stands now.. nothing since America is not willing to make the changes needed. Partisan politics, where getting into power or staying in power are more important than fixing the problem.. that is America's problem. The US will keep using outdated debunked economic theories all in the while the rich get richer, the middle class and poor get poorer and the country falls apart around your ears. If there is any blame, the it is in fact Reagan that is to blame since he started this idiotic idea that cutting taxes some how increases revenue and having massive deficits year after year is "not a problem". Remember the debt rose almost 300% under Reagan.. something people often forget.

Laughing at you for blaming a president 30 years ago on the politics and policies of both sides, including a republican controled house and senate AND a democrat controlled house and senate.

 

[Conservative]

As it stands now.. nothing since America is not willing to make the changes needed. Partisan politics, where getting into power or staying in power are more important than fixing the problem.. that is America's problem. The US will keep using outdated debunked economic theories all in the while the rich get richer, the middle class and poor get poorer and the country falls apart around your ears. If there is any blame, the it is in fact Reagan that is to blame since he started this idiotic idea that cutting taxes some how increases revenue and having massive deficits year after year is "not a problem". Remember the debt rose almost 300% under Reagan.. something people often forget.

Would you please tell us how how the rich got richer off the backs of the middle class and the poor? What is idiotic is claiming that tax cuts do not change human behavior and that behavior unleashes consumer spending which does indeed increase tax revenue. The facts are there for you to see but you ignore it. why?

 

[Crunch]

Well for example, one's that don't believe things that can't be debated. For example, crunch believes President Obama being president is illeagal.

John thinks a Dual Citizen at birth can be a Natural Born Citizen. :lamo

 

[Crunch]

The numbers are staggering, no doubt. And I am pretty sure that "this ass" is not claiming the GOP is solely responsible, but that the GOP is supposed to be the more responsible party. It used to be, and I am old enough to remember those days.

Yeah, me too..... maybe some day it will be again.

 

[PeteEU]

Point out when I have contradicted myself. This country's economic foundation was built on free enterprise and capitalism.

Which you dont have in many industries today. Airlines, telecommunications, parts of healthcare, steel and so on.. just to name a few industries.

We do not have the same problems as other countries.

No your problems are gigantic compared to other countries. Your federal, state and local debts are huge and your personal debts are huge... and that is just the start of your problems. Your problems, make Greece look like a small pimple on the global face. Only thing you have going for you, is the fact that the dollar is a reserve currency.. if that goes away... watch out for a bumpy ride!

Our problem is we have an Administration that is trying to change this country into what other countries supposedly have and an administration that doesn't have a clue how free enterprise works.

Because the US needs to change. The last 20+ years of living off credit cards and re-mortgaging has to stop. You need income to rise and to live within your means, on personal, state and federal level.

As for free enterprise... do you even know what it is?

Increasing taxes affects human behavior.

Not nearly as much as having insecure economic and political situations.. like massive debts, no job, rising militancy and so on. When people see that their debts and consumption are too big compared to their income, they cut back. They do not cut nearly as much back just because their taxes go up a few %. Taxes are not felt here and now, monthly debt repayments, no money in the bank and so on.. are a day to day thing.

Obviously you do not understand the components of our economy but over 2/3 of it is consumer spending driven.

70% is to be more exact and that causes all bunches of problems when the economy goes down the toilet. Damn hard to get people to spend more money if they are afraid of their jobs or are paying back debt instead of spending. Which is why during times like this, any tax cut will go to paying down debt, not go to spending.

Raising taxes takes money out of the consumer's hands and that doesn't increase govt. revenue thus doesn't pay down debt.

Eh? raising taxes does increase revenue. Now in an ideal world Government should pay down debt of course, but your governments (note the s) have a huge deficit they first have to deal with, and increasing revenue plus cutting back is the only way to go. You cant cut your deficit problems away, you have to increase taxes as well.

Consumer spending creates demand for goods and services thus jobs to make those goods and services thus new taxpayer.

Many expensive US consumer goods are made abroad. Note I said many, not all.

consumer spending drives corporate profits thus higher corporate taxes.

Corporate taxes? yea... sure. US corporations avoid taxes big time. You do know about Transfer pricing right? That many companies are officially running at a loss in the US while reporting billions in dollars in profit, and paying no taxes in the US?

That is how you get 16 million people or a great percentage of them employed thus paying taxes. Cut taxes and cut spending, that is how you pay down the debt.

Your taxes are already low as hell. Your spending is out of control, across the board. But the private companies are having bumper profits for the most part... Even the banks who were bailed out and General Motors are reporting profits...

To get your 16 million (more like 20+ but hey), into work, it requires that people are confident in the future. People will not spend if they are insecure and companies will not hire if they are insecure in the future. And no, it has nothing to do with taxes per say, but more about the inability of Washington to deal with the problems and the ability of both sides to trip each other up.

 

[Conservative]

Which you dont have in many industries today. Airlines, telecommunications, parts of healthcare, steel and so on.. just to name a few industries.



No your problems are gigantic compared to other countries. Your federal, state and local debts are huge and your personal debts are huge... and that is just the start of your problems. Your problems, make Greece look like a small pimple on the global face. Only thing you have going for you, is the fact that the dollar is a reserve currency.. if that goes away... watch out for a bumpy ride!



Because the US needs to change. The last 20+ years of living off credit cards and re-mortgaging has to stop. You need income to rise and to live within your means, on personal, state and federal level.

As for free enterprise... do you even know what it is?



Not nearly as much as having insecure economic and political situations.. like massive debts, no job, rising militancy and so on. When people see that their debts and consumption are too big compared to their income, they cut back. They do not cut nearly as much back just because their taxes go up a few %. Taxes are not felt here and now, monthly debt repayments, no money in the bank and so on.. are a day to day thing.



70% is to be more exact and that causes all bunches of problems when the economy goes down the toilet. Damn hard to get people to spend more money if they are afraid of their jobs or are paying back debt instead of spending. Which is why during times like this, any tax cut will go to paying down debt, not go to spending.



Eh? raising taxes does increase revenue. Now in an ideal world Government should pay down debt of course, but your governments (note the s) have a huge deficit they first have to deal with, and increasing revenue plus cutting back is the only way to go. You cant cut your deficit problems away, you have to increase taxes as well.



Many expensive US consumer goods are made abroad. Note I said many, not all.



Corporate taxes? yea... sure. US corporations avoid taxes big time. You do know about Transfer pricing right? That many companies are officially running at a loss in the US while reporting billions in dollars in profit, and paying no taxes in the US?



Your taxes are already low as hell. Your spending is out of control, across the board. But the private companies are having bumper profits for the most part... Even the banks who were bailed out and General Motors are reporting profits...

To get your 16 million (more like 20+ but hey), into work, it requires that people are confident in the future. People will not spend if they are insecure and companies will not hire if they are insecure in the future. And no, it has nothing to do with taxes per say, but more about the inability of Washington to deal with the problems and the ability of both sides to trip each other up.

I don't see anything in your post that promotes individual responsibility nor anything there that offers any solutions. People have a lot more confidence in the future when they get to keep more of what they earn thus they need less of that so called help that liberals offer. This country grew to the top and has a 14 trillion dollar economy because of the foundation upon which it was built, a foundation that Obama is doing his best to destroy. Nothing he has done promotes the private sector or job creation. Tell me how raising taxes makes people more confident in the future and will put 16 million people back to work?

 

[PeteEU]

Would you please tell us how how the rich got richer off the backs of the middle class and the poor?

Common knowledge. The rich in the US have had their average income increase considerably the last 30 years, relatively to the rest. Your own census bureau has all the statistics, not to mention many sites concerned by the income inequality in the US.

What is idiotic is claiming that tax cuts do not change human behavior and that behavior unleashes consumer spending which does indeed increase tax revenue. The facts are there for you to see but you ignore it. why?

Tax cuts do not change human behaviour if the economic situation is dire, which it is now. All it does is increase an already huge deficit. People will still not return to buying because they are sitting in houses they cant afford, and have huge debts they have to pay back and they cant get new credit because the banks are not giving out loans. So unless you are going to cut taxes considerably.. we talking by 20%+ then it wont matter a damn thing, and it still if you did cut taxes by 20%+ mean that the deficit would skyrocket at least of a brief period.

 

[PeteEU]

I don't see anything in your post that promotes individual responsibility nor anything there that offers any solutions. People have a lot more confidence in the future when they get to keep more of what they earn thus they need less of that so called help that liberals offer. This country grew to the top and has a 14 trillion dollar economy because of the foundation upon which it was built, a foundation that Obama is doing his best to destroy. Nothing he has done promotes the private sector or job creation. Tell me how raising taxes makes people more confident in the future and will put 16 million people back to work?

Promotes individual responsibility? You do know that is what got you into the problem in the first place right? It was the lazzie-faire attitude of personal responsibility that allowed predatory lending and worse, which in turn caused the deck of cards to fall down in 2007. How did Greenspan put it... we thought the industry would police it self.. yea right!

As for solutions.. I have stated many times on these boards, that the US needs its spending under control at all levels but that requires a political reform that no one is willing to do. Money needs to be taken out of politics, so that companies and individuals dont see the US government as a bottomless pit of money they can suck dry. Transparency and accountability at all levels is a must as well. We cant have former CEOs running government when their former companies get billions from the Government in contracts.. just one of many transparency issues.. or another classic.. a congressman that gets pork for a library in his district, that is employing his own daughter... talk about a stinker..

When that is done, then you can start to tackle the hard things, like cutting your military down considerably.. mothballing the Marines for example, and tackling the no bid contracts to the insane prices your military pays for things.

And then tackling the corporatism that has infected your society, by taking down big business that has been screwing the people for decades now, which has resulted in defacto monopolies and cartels. You could start with big pharma and the healthcare industry.. how about making that a competitive market for one?

And then there is your tax code.. plugging the holes that special interest groups (usually very wealthy) have been able to punch in the tax code to avoid paying any taxes, would be a start.

There is no simple solution, but as long as the right lives in the past and can only say no, and the left is scared of its own shadow, then nothing will ever change and that is playing right into the hands of the people who created the problems you are in now and might I say.. made a killing doing it.

 

[Conservative]

Common knowledge. The rich in the US have had their average income increase considerably the last 30 years, relatively to the rest. Your own census bureau has all the statistics, not to mention many sites concerned by the income inequality in the US.

That doesn't answer the question, how did the rich getting richer hurt the poor? You seem to believe that we have a zero sum economy here where someone gets rich at the detriment of someone else. Instead of focusing on what the rich make why don't you focus on why the poor remain poor after all that liberal social engineering. Why aren't you concerned about the lack of incentive the poor have for improving their own stake in life.

Tax cuts do not change human behaviour if the economic situation is dire, which it is now. All it does is increase an already huge deficit. People will still not return to buying because they are sitting in houses they cant afford, and have huge debts they have to pay back and they cant get new credit because the banks are not giving out loans. So unless you are going to cut taxes considerably.. we talking by 20%+ then it wont matter a damn thing, and it still if you did cut taxes by 20%+ mean that the deficit would skyrocket at least of a brief period.

So let's see, you keeping more of what you earn by having your take home pay go up doesn't change your behavior? How does people keeping more of their money create deficits as I don't see tax cuts as a line item on the Treasury expense list. Spending always has and always will cause debt, not tax cuts. Raising taxes isn't going to put 16 million people back to work or improve economic growth. Cut taxes 20%, I support that and if you did you would see the most massive growth in the U.S. economy in history. Reagan did it, 10-10-5% cuts, and doubled GDP as well as income tax revenue, how did that happen

 

[Conservative]

Promotes individual responsibility? You do know that is what got you into the problem in the first place right? It was the lazzie-faire attitude of personal responsibility that allowed predatory lending and worse, which in turn caused the deck of cards to fall down in 2007. How did Greenspan put it... we thought the industry would police it self.. yea right!

As for solutions.. I have stated many times on these boards, that the US needs its spending under control at all levels but that requires a political reform that no one is willing to do. Money needs to be taken out of politics, so that companies and individuals dont see the US government as a bottomless pit of money they can suck dry. Transparency and accountability at all levels is a must as well. We cant have former CEOs running government when their former companies get billions from the Government in contracts.. just one of many transparency issues.. or another classic.. a congressman that gets pork for a library in his district, that is employing his own daughter... talk about a stinker..

When that is done, then you can start to tackle the hard things, like cutting your military down considerably.. mothballing the Marines for example, and tackling the no bid contracts to the insane prices your military pays for things.

And then tackling the corporatism that has infected your society, by taking down big business that has been screwing the people for decades now, which has resulted in defacto monopolies and cartels. You could start with big pharma and the healthcare industry.. how about making that a competitive market for one?

And then there is your tax code.. plugging the holes that special interest groups (usually very wealthy) have been able to punch in the tax code to avoid paying any taxes, would be a start.

There is no simple solution, but as long as the right lives in the past and can only say no, and the left is scared of its own shadow, then nothing will ever change and that is playing right into the hands of the people who created the problems you are in now and might I say.. made a killing doing it.

Blah, blah, blah, all I hear from you and others is that the govt. needs the money more than the American taxpayer. I reject that completely and until the govt. gets their fiscal house in order don't send them another dime to do anything other than defend this country. Plugging holes in the tax code does nothing to improve the effeciency and proper use of our money. There is indeed a simple solution but painful to politicians, CUT THE SIZE OF GOVT.

 

[PeteEU]

That doesn't answer the question, how did the rich getting richer hurt the poor? You seem to believe that we have a zero sum economy here where someone gets rich at the detriment of someone else.

Because it is often like that through out history, from when we had slaves to using children in mines.

Instead of focusing on what the rich make why don't you focus on why the poor remain poor after all that liberal social engineering.

Hmm social engineering.. what do you exactly mean?

Why aren't you concerned about the lack of incentive the poor have for improving their own stake in life.

Oh I agree some what. But like it or not it is not easy for someone from south central LA or whatever ghetto to improve his or her life to the middle class, without getting some sort of help. Now this help can be education, work experience or other incentives.. but when it is easier and more profitable to be a drug runner, then why should they?

So let's see, you keeping more of what you earn by having your take home pay go up doesn't change your behavior?

Not if you daily hear talking heads claiming the US is going down the tubes, and unemployment is going up and the deficit is huge and Obama is a muslim.

How does people keeping more of their money create deficits as I don't see tax cuts as a line item on the Treasury expense list.

Hmm lets see.. Taxes pay for the stuff Government does.. you know, wages to the military, social stuff and so on. The less taxes collected, less money there is to pay for said things, so they have to borrow.. which increase the deficit.

Spending always has and always will cause debt, not tax cuts.

HOG wash. Tax cuts that are not financed via either spending cuts or alternative income, will increase the deficit. You should know that, Reagan and Bush were experts at it.

Raising taxes isn't going to put 16 million people back to work or improve economic growth.

Nope, neither is cutting taxes during the situation we have now.

Cut taxes 20%, I support that and if you did you would see the most massive growth in the U.S. economy in history. Reagan did it, 10-10-5% cuts, and doubled GDP as well as income tax revenue, how did that happen

He started a high level.. huge difference. Also he also raised taxes because the deficit grew out of control. As for him doubling the GDP... not exactly. In nominal unadjusted value yes, but in real terms... no. It did go up though.

 

[PeteEU]

Blah, blah, blah, all I hear from you and others is that the govt. needs the money more than the American taxpayer. I reject that completely and until the govt. gets their fiscal house in order don't send them another dime to do anything other than defend this country. Plugging holes in the tax code does nothing to improve the effeciency and proper use of our money. There is indeed a simple solution but painful to politicians, CUT THE SIZE OF GOVT.

And you simply dont read or want to understand.

The size of Government is the problem, but that is because your politicians from both sides of the political spectrum along with their financial backers in the corporations have grown government into the size it is today. And you wont change that if you dont change the way you do your politics and that is my point. The Republicans were in power for over a decade, and Government GREW under them for god sake, as well as the deficits... because they only have a one track mind of cutting taxes and hoping for the best.

Let me ask you this.. would you cut military spending? A simple yes and no answer is fine.

 

[Conservative]

PeteEU;1058923518]Because it is often like that through out history, from when we had slaves to using children in mines.

Still no answer, the rich aren't hurting the poor by being rich and in fact help the poor by creating employment opportunities because of their spending

Hmm social engineering.. what do you exactly mean?

Any attempt by the Federal govt. to provide social programs for the local communities, SS, Medicare, all Health and Human Services activities.

Oh I agree some what. But like it or not it is not easy for someone from south central LA or whatever ghetto to improve his or her life to the middle class, without getting some sort of help. Now this help can be education, work experience or other incentives.. but when it is easier and more profitable to be a drug runner, then why should they?

Ever been to Watts in LA or the 9th Ward in NO? I have and all the help in the world isn't going to get some off their asses to fend for themselves. All the handouts in the world aren't going to change their behavior. There are deadbeats in this country and blaming the rich doesn't address the issue. It takes tough love and liberals don't know how or don't want to do that.

Not if you daily hear talking heads claiming the US is going down the tubes, and unemployment is going up and the deficit is huge and Obama is a muslim.

You hear the negatives on both sides like spending in the name of compassion. How about getting some compassionate results by getting these people off the public dole. over 2 years of unemployment insurance doesn't create incentive to get a job now.

Hmm lets see.. Taxes pay for the stuff Government does.. you know, wages to the military, social stuff and so on. The less taxes collected, less money there is to pay for said things, so they have to borrow.. which increase the deficit.

Yep, the military is probably the only purpose of the Federal Govt. and if you did just that, paid VA Benefits, and interest on the debt the budget of the U.S. would be about a trillion dollars instead of 3.8 trillion. do that and take current revenue on taxes of about 2.6 trillion and you pay off 1.4 trillion in debt each year.

HOG wash. Tax cuts that are not financed via either spending cuts or alternative income, will increase the deficit. You should know that, Reagan and Bush were experts at it.

Tax cuts don't have to be financed, they aren't a govt. expense. It isn't the government's money.

Nope, neither is cutting taxes during the situation we have now.

Your opinion, hardly backed by anything other than how you feel

He started a high level.. huge difference. Also he also raised taxes because the deficit grew out of control. As for him doubling the GDP... not exactly. In nominal unadjusted value yes, but in real terms... no. It did go up though.

Raising taxes doesn't increase govt. revenue because it changes human behavior. You can deny what happened in the 80's but you cannot ignore the facts. BEA.gov gives you those facts.

 

[donsutherland1]

How does people keeping more of their money create deficits as I don't see tax cuts as a line item on the Treasury expense list. Spending always has and always will cause debt, not tax cuts.

In general, the government's surplus/deficit = Revenue - Expenses

Taxes are revenue. If revenue declines even as expenses are held constant, the government's surplus declines/deficit widens. Also, given that a government's surplus/deficit is determined by both revenue and expenses, changes in either of those components has an impact on its surplus/deficit.

 

[Conservative]

In general, the government's surplus/deficit = Revenue - Expenses

Taxes are revenue. If revenue declines even as expenses are held constant, the government's surplus declines/deficit widens. Also, given that a government's surplus/deficit is determined by both revenue and expenses, changes in either of those components has an impact on its surplus/deficit.

Govt. revenue didn't decline and that is the point.

http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=86&FirstYear=2009&LastYear=2010&Freq=Qtr

 

[PeteEU]

Still no answer, the rich aren't hurting the poor by being rich and in fact help the poor by creating employment opportunities because of their spending

Never said that the rich are hurting the poor by being rich. I stated that the disparity between rich and poor and the income inequality has grown and that is a problem in any society. It is that kind of problem that causes political instability and even revolutions in the worst cases. The top 5% have relatively benefited more from the last 30 years of economic growth than the rest of the 95% of the population and especially the poor and middle class. Now there are many reasons for this, and frankly it deserves its own thread.

Any attempt by the Federal govt. to provide social programs for the local communities, SS, Medicare, all Health and Human Services activities.

Or the military, police and what not.. Listen I get you are a die hard conservative, but like it or not we base our whole society on "social programs" of some sort. And like it or not, the social programs you so hate, have meant that a society like the US and European countries have been dragged out of the dark ages into some what functioning democracies. While I complain over the income inequality and the gap between rich and poor now, it was much much much worse back before we had social programs, mandatory education systems and so on and so on. Before social security, growing old was a near death sentence unless you had a large family that could take care of you.

Ever been to Watts in LA or the 9th Ward in NO? I have and all the help in the world isn't going to get some off their asses to fend for themselves. All the handouts in the world aren't going to change their behavior. There are deadbeats in this country and blaming the rich doesn't address the issue. It takes tough love and liberals don't know how or don't want to do that.

I aint blaming the rich for the slackers. The slackers are a whole other issue, and must be addressed with incentives and so on.. not cutting them off cold turkey. We can discuss this in another thread, I would wager on the basics we would be in agreement.. maybe not the methods but that is always a discussion issue

You hear the negatives on both sides like spending in the name of compassion. How about getting some compassionate results by getting these people off the public dole. over 2 years of unemployment insurance doesn't create incentive to get a job now.

Are you seriously saying that the people on the public dole is the main problem of the US? That these "slackers" are the reason the US is in mega debt and have a huge deficit? Are senior citizens slackers? How about the military, they are after all public employees too?

Yep, the military is probably the only purpose of the Federal Govt. and if you did just that, paid VA Benefits, and interest on the debt the budget of the U.S. would be about a trillion dollars instead of 3.8 trillion. do that and take current revenue on taxes of about 2.6 trillion and you pay off 1.4 trillion in debt each year.

Ahh a true conservative, living in the past. Sorry but we have evolved past the society that did not give women the vote and accepted slavery. To run a true society, Government needs to be funded fully and do certain things, like Police, military, education for all.. anything that benefits the society as a whole. Now we might not agree to what extent the US federal system should extend, but it is more than "just" the military. Your whole society would collapse if you gave up the other things cold turkey, which is what I suspect you are advocating for. Not to mention many of the federal things would needed to be taken over by states, who then had to raise taxes... and it would create a country of have and have nots..

Tax cuts don't have to be financed, they aren't a govt. expense. It isn't the government's money.

boy you live in a dream world.... of course tax cuts have to be financed. Either you find alternative funding or cut spending.. you cant just cut your income without having to deal with the deficit that is created.. It is people like you and these bonehead Reagan right wing neo con theories that put you in the hole that you are in now. You cant just stop getting an income and live off credit cards for god sake.. at some point the credit will dry up and then you would be up a creek without a paddle.

Your opinion, hardly backed by anything other than how you feel

In Denmark we have high taxes, but we are also a nation of pessimists and were badly hurt during the 1970s oil crisis. That means we save a lot, and never trust the government or even think positive of the future. In the 1990s the Government (a liberal-conservative one... liberal as in the true meaning of the word), decided to cut taxes to create more growth. We had just come out of a mini recession, and people were still very pessimistic and had memories of the 1970s. They took the tax cut, and paid off debt or saved up. The tax cut had almost no impact on growth. It took another tax cut to get anything what so ever. A conservative-liberal government found out the hard way then, that cutting taxes was not the magic solution they had been told by their American counterparts.

And that is what I see in the US now days.. a bunch of people who are not exactly positive, who have received a kick to the groin like the Danes in the 1970s and are hurting financially at all levels. A tax cut wont make them suddenly think that all their problems are going away and make them go spending nuts... no they will most likely either save up or pay down debt. And since your taxes are already some of the lowest in the industrialized world and you have one of the biggest budgets, then any economics 101 class would tell you that this would not be a good idea.

Raising taxes doesn't increase govt. revenue because it changes human behavior. You can deny what happened in the 80's but you cannot ignore the facts. BEA.gov gives you those facts.

I am not ignoring any facts, since you have not provided any. But let me then.

Reagan and revenue - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

Explains it pretty well. Plus lets not forget Reagan also raised taxes..

Reagan's Tax Increases | Capital Gains and Games

Over all he cut taxes more than he raised, but not by as much as many think.

Listen I am normally against Tax increases, however in the situation the US is in at the moment with its budget.. then I cant see any alternative. The same goes for the UK, Spain, Greece, Ireland and Portugal. Tax raising and spending cuts are needed to get the state economy under control. Now I would personally wait till there is more private sector growth, but the speculators in the markets want to make a quick buck these days so as we saw in Greece's case, they can easily press countries into drastic spending cuts and tax increases that cause a new recession.

 

[PeteEU]

Govt. revenue didn't decline and that is the point.

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

Err... is that in real terms, nominal? Kinda key distinction imo.

 

[Conservative]

PeteEU;1058923847]Never said that the rich are hurting the poor by being rich. I stated that the disparity between rich and poor and the income inequality has grown and that is a problem in any society. It is that kind of problem that causes political instability and even revolutions in the worst cases. The top 5% have relatively benefited more from the last 30 years of economic growth than the rest of the 95% of the population and especially the poor and middle class. Now there are many reasons for this, and frankly it deserves its own thread.

So what? My point was the rich aren't causing that disparity and promoting class envy isn't the answer.

Or the military, police and what not.. Listen I get you are a die hard conservative, but like it or not we base our whole society on "social programs" of some sort. And like it or not, the social programs you so hate, have meant that a society like the US and European countries have been dragged out of the dark ages into some what functioning democracies. While I complain over the income inequality and the gap between rich and poor now, it was much much much worse back before we had social programs, mandatory education systems and so on and so on. Before social security, growing old was a near death sentence unless you had a large family that could take care of you.

The military and police are not social programs, welfare is social and has no business at the Federal level. Welfare is a local and charity issue and that is where it belongs, the local level.

I aint blaming the rich for the slackers. The slackers are a whole other issue, and must be addressed with incentives and so on.. not cutting them off cold turkey. We can discuss this in another thread, I would wager on the basics we would be in agreement.. maybe not the methods but that is always a discussion issue

A hand up vs. a hand out is the key.Giving someone over 2 years unemployment insurance is a joke and a hand out.

Are you seriously saying that the people on the public dole is the main problem of the US? That these "slackers" are the reason the US is in mega debt and have a huge deficit? Are senior citizens slackers? How about the military, they are after all public employees too?

It is A problem in this country that isn't being solved by continued transfer of payments from the taxpayer to those who pay no taxes. There is no question that most of the debt in this country is due to social engineering i.e. Great Society, etc.

Ahh a true conservative, living in the past. Sorry but we have evolved past the society that did not give women the vote and accepted slavery. To run a true society, Government needs to be funded fully and do certain things, like Police, military, education for all.. anything that benefits the society as a whole. Now we might not agree to what extent the US federal system should extend, but it is more than "just" the military. Your whole society would collapse if you gave up the other things cold turkey, which is what I suspect you are advocating for. Not to mention many of the federal things would needed to be taken over by states, who then had to raise taxes... and it would create a country of have and have nots..

Projection isn't very becoming on you. As stated, police, military isn't social spending, police is a local expense as is education, why are bureaucrats in D.C. involved in local issues

boy you live in a dream world.... of course tax cuts have to be financed. Either you find alternative funding or cut spending.. you cant just cut your income without having to deal with the deficit that is created.. It is people like you and these bonehead Reagan right wing neo con theories that put you in the hole that you are in now. You cant just stop getting an income and live off credit cards for god sake.. at some point the credit will dry up and then you would be up a creek without a paddle.

Yep, lived in that dream world for 63 years, how long have you been here? Tax cuts never have to be financed unless you can show me an expense item in the budget for tax cuts. Is your paycheck an expense for you? Live within your means, cut expenses if you don't have enough money, that is what you are forced to do. Calling Reagan a bonehead doesn't advance your argument but it does make you look like a loon. I love how people like you never complain about anything other than the military when it is the military that our Founders thought was the most important responsibility for the Federal govt. Notice how Promote the General welfare has not been changed to provide for the general welfare by politicians where as Provide for the Common Defense is ignored?

In Denmark we have high taxes, but we are also a nation of pessimists and were badly hurt during the 1970s oil crisis. That means we save a lot, and never trust the government or even think positive of the future. In the 1990s the Government (a liberal-conservative one... liberal as in the true meaning of the word), decided to cut taxes to create more growth. We had just come out of a mini recession, and people were still very pessimistic and had memories of the 1970s. They took the tax cut, and paid off debt or saved up. The tax cut had almost no impact on growth. It took another tax cut to get anything what so ever. A conservative-liberal government found out the hard way then, that cutting taxes was not the magic solution they had been told by their American counterparts.

I will take the U.S. Economy and opportunities for individual wealth creation over anything you have in Denmark. I find it condescending for someone from Denmark to tell people here what is best for them. The People of Denmark don't have a clue as tot he components of our GDP and how to create economic growth. Tax increases are not going to create employment.

And that is what I see in the US now days.. a bunch of people who are not exactly positive, who have received a kick to the groin like the Danes in the 1970s and are hurting financially at all levels. A tax cut wont make them suddenly think that all their problems are going away and make them go spending nuts... no they will most likely either save up or pay down debt. And since your taxes are already some of the lowest in the industrialized world and you have one of the biggest budgets, then any economics 101 class would tell you that this would not be a good idea.

You got us all wrong, it is liberals that want to spread their misery equally to everyone else. Until this govt. stops spending there is no justification to send more money to D.C. as it will be spent.

 

[Conservative]

Err... is that in real terms, nominal? Kinda key distinction imo.

In dollars, real or nominal or not, makes no difference, Reagan cut income taxes 10-10-5 over three years and income tax revenue went up. How did that happen.

 

[donsutherland1]

Govt. revenue didn't decline and that is the point.

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

In absolute terms, government revenue continued to rise. However, as per repeated CBO analyses, the relevant issue is that tax revenue would have been higher had the tax cuts not been made. The added revenue would have allowed for smaller budget deficits than those that resulted.

In the wake of the tax relief measures, U.S. tax revenue comprised a smaller share of GDP than it did in 2000. Put another way, during the 1993-2000 period, federal tax revenue averaged 19.0% of GDP. In the 2001-2008 timeframe, tax revenue averaged 17.6% of GDP. Had tax revenue remained constant at 19.0% of GDP, the cumulative increase in debt over the 2001-08 timeframe would have been $1.376 trillion less than it was, and the 2008 budget deficit would have been $204 billion less than it was.

 

[PeteEU]

In dollars, real or nominal or not, makes no difference, Reagan cut income taxes 10-10-5 over three years and income tax revenue went up. How did that happen.

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL of course it makes a freaking difference... it makes a HUGE difference. As does population increase btw....

 

[Harshaw]

The topic is Republicans’ lack of fiscal conservativism. You said liberals will always complain that republicans/conservatives fall short of yesterday’s standards. I said I hoped we wouldn’t, but I feared that we will would. You said my fears would be so, that liberals would always have reason to think modern conservatives suck compared to yesterday’s.

Yeah? How does say in any way that I'm "proud" of anything?

Is it wrong for me to desire a conservative party that is staunchly fiscal conservative and willing to rein in liberal excess? I lament how Republicans have gone from fiscal conservative/social conservative to fiscal liberal/social conservative. Without a party diametrically opposed to the Democrats fiscal liberal/social liberal views, we’ve lost equilibrium and have drifted into massive, unsustainable debt. The entire process has accomplished very little aside from letting the special interests of both parties glut themselves on our future prosperity, and the future is incipient.

Ah. You seem to be one of a long line of liberals who think conservatives are simply there to occasionally put the brakes on liberals when they get a little too wacky -- else they should just stay out of the way. A "good" conservative knows his place. :roll:

This, too, is not exactly an original line of thinking. The Schlesinger boys made careers of writing on this topic.

 

[Conservative]

In absolute terms, government revenue continued to rise. However, as per repeated CBO analyses, the relevant issue is that tax revenue would have been higher had the tax cuts not been made. The added revenue would have allowed for smaller budget deficits than those that resulted.

In the wake of the tax relief measures, U.S. tax revenue comprised a smaller share of GDP than it did in 2000. Put another way, during the 1993-2000 period, federal tax revenue averaged 19.0% of GDP. In the 2001-2008 timeframe, tax revenue averaged 17.6% of GDP. Had tax revenue remained constant at 19.0% of GDP, the cumulative increase in debt over the 2001-08 timeframe would have been $1.376 trillion less than it was, and the 2008 budget deficit would have been $204 billion less than it was.

Yep, that is what the people who don't believe that tax cuts grow govt. revenue always say but that ignores human behavior and the very poor performance in projection by the CBO. Ever checked their track record. It isn't pretty. Obama claimed the economy would grow over 4% this year and is wrong and that affects govt. revenue.

Based upon the economy at the time there would have not been the job creation thus new taxpayers that were created if there hadn't been the tax cuts. Almost 18 million jobs were created by Reagan during that period of time and those are new taxpayers.

Now with Regard to Clinton, there is a very good analysis of the Clinton years that point to the 1997 tax cuts that led to the economic growth. It was meager at best in 93-94 then the GOP Took Congress, repealed many of the Clinton tax increases but hit a home run in 1997. Suggest you check out that tax cut and the economic growth following.

Per mathematics doesn't work because it ignores human behavior and our consumer driven economy.

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...-the-clinton-tax-hike-produced-the-1990s-boom

 

[donsutherland1]

In dollars, real or nominal or not, makes no difference, Reagan cut income taxes 10-10-5 over three years and income tax revenue went up. How did that happen.

I prefer measuring tax revenue and expenditures as a % of GDP rather than solely by absolute numbers. Doing so makes a huge difference. For example, if tax revenue growth is slower than overall economic growth while expenditures grow at the same rate as the economy, then federal budget deficits will widen, even if tax revenue is increasing in absolute terms. Even under President Reagan, tax revenue dipped from 19.6% of GDP to 17.3% before rising gradually but never regaining the figure of 19.6% of GDP. Under the Bush tax cuts, tax revenue fell from 20.6% of GDP to as low as 16.1% of GDP before recovering to 18.5% of GDP just before the financial crisis/severe recession.