Tax Rates, Spending, Recessions and the Reagan Myth

[randel]

LOL, you really this brainwashed or is this an act? Obama was campaiging then and campaigns now. He has no idea how to lead and shows it every day. why do you have such passion for someone who only knows how to place blame, says one thing and does an other, and is never held accountable for his lies? For someone who claims generated a lot of revenue for your employer you sure have disdain for private industry but more importantly for people keeping more of their money. If you are married tell that to your wife and let her know that you are going to send more money to the govt. instead of putting it to better use for the family. See how far that gets you.

Barack Obama came into office with a hope and change message. Problem is the people didn't realize that change meant massive govt. expansion, higher taxes, higher unemployment and higher deficits. The proof of the Obama agenda is in the actions of private industry not in yours or my rhetoric. I understand the affects of more take home pay, apparently you don't. I understand the role incentive plays in growing the economy, you apparently don't. I understand human behavior and the components of GDP, you apparently don't. I reject your statements, I reject Jon Stewart, NY Times, Paul Krugman, and Barack Obama and wonder why such passion for larger govt. and keeping people dependent? Unless you work for the govt. I doubt that hope and change message today means much.

uh, what was reagan doing???.....i'll give you a hint....campaigning..

 

[Cecil James]

Actions speak louder than words and amazing that you had to go back to 2004 to get that video. Why is that? I can give you speech after speech where Reagan touted the greatness of the American people and his actions spoke louder than his words.

Don't know how old you are but I lived and worked during the Reagan years and never did better for myself and my family. too bad some still blame him for poor personal choices and now look for the govt. to bail them out.

I didn't 'have to,' but I know it's convenient for you to interpret it so. I remember the speech off the top of my head as soon as I read "Obama never talks about Americas greatness only the problems we have created throughout the world."

So do you retract that statement now?

 

[Cecil James]

But what you ignored is the question as to what affect taxes have on the business cycle? You simply cannot bring yourself to admit that tax cuts affected the economy positively and helped create the economic growth that brought us out of recession. Tax cuts were the center piece of the Reagan economic plan and the results show govt. revenue doubling, GDP doubling, and 18 million jobs created plus a peace dividend created and left to Bush and Clinton.

Not really. What I've done is refute your correlation. You're trying to argue that Reagan's tax cuts helped the economy. I'm showing superior performance after Clinton's tax hikes. It's not a question of whether they "help," but rather do they help enough to offset revenue losses that result from lowered taxes. And this largely depends on their habits.

What makes you an expert on what others spend their money on? When I look at consumer spending it doesn't separate it between rich, middle class, and lower class. It is a convenient argument for the class envy crowd but the reality is the money is the same color regardless of class and what some else does with their money shouldn't bother you. I haven't found one rich person yet that had any affect on me or my family. Why anyone would penalize someone simply because of what they earn is beyond me. For some reason being rich is a license to steal their money and give it to the govt. to redistribute. That violates the very principles upon which this country was built. Your class envy doesn't help your credibility.

It's not that I'm an expert. It's that I've well enough read on economics that I understand the different purchasing habits. Furthermore it's common sense. People in the lower brackets spend all of their income.

Your consistent personal accusations and addiction to labels (ie class envy/I like the idea of taking people's money/blah blah) shows you have an emotional bias.

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Cecil James]

uh, what was reagan doing???.....i'll give you a hint....campaigning..

No no. It's only campaigning when Obama does it. When Reagan did it, it came from the heart. Don't believe me? Ask Conservative. He has a complete Reagan foldout under his bed!

 

[Conservative]

I didn't 'have to,' but I know it's convenient for you to interpret it so. I remember the speech off the top of my head as soon as I read "Obama never talks about Americas greatness only the problems we have created throughout the world."

So do you retract that statement now?

Nope, what Obama said in the campaign has no bearing on his comments now as President. He makes Jimmy Carter look good.

 

[Conservative]

No no. It's only campaigning when Obama does it. When Reagan did it, it came from the heart. Don't believe me? Ask Conservative. He has a complete Reagan foldout under his bed!

How old were you during Reagan's Presidency? You seem to be either relatively young or not very bright, which is it? I totally and completely reject the Obama economic agenda and buy completely the Reagan economic policy. If you took a history course which one do you think our Founders would have supported?

 

[Conservative]

Not really. What I've done is refute your correlation. You're trying to argue that Reagan's tax cuts helped the economy. I'm showing superior performance after Clinton's tax hikes. It's not a question of whether they "help," but rather do they help enough to offset revenue losses that result from lowered taxes. And this largely depends on their habits.




It's not that I'm an expert. It's that I've well enough read on economics that I understand the different purchasing habits. Furthermore it's common sense. People in the lower brackets spend all of their income.

Your consistent personal accusations and addiction to labels (ie class envy/I like the idea of taking people's money/blah blah) shows you have an emotional bias.

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let me help you and no matter how many times you post the Wikipedia definition it doesn't change the facts that people keeping more of their money have more money to spend, save, invest, or pay down debt and all that helps the economy. Tax cuts meant more take home pay for the American taxpayer and as a result that boosted the number one component of GDP, Consumer spending. When consumers have money jobs are created and business profits grow. Both benefits govt. revenue. Let me know what the Obama plan is to get 16 million unemployed Americans back to work?

 

[Cecil James]

Nope, what Obama said in the campaign has no bearing on his comments now as President. He makes Jimmy Carter look good.

OK then, here is something more recent. Wasn't hard to find.

YouTube - HD-Obama State Of The Union-Full Speech

So now you retract? Or does the goal post get moved again?

 

[Cecil James]

How old were you during Reagan's Presidency? You seem to be either relatively young or not very bright, which is it? I totally and completely reject the Obama economic agenda and buy completely the Reagan economic policy. If you took a history course which one do you think our Founders would have supported?

And conversely, your writing and grammar make it difficult for me to believe you're as well-researched as you say. The fact that you bring up the Founders once again proves my point that your economic outlook stems from personal bias and not an actual set of facts.

 

[Cecil James]

Let me help you and no matter how many times you post the Wikipedia definition it doesn't change the facts that people keeping more of their money have more money to spend, save, invest, or pay down debt and all that helps the economy.

This is certainly true of people who spend most or all of their money. It is not true of people in the top quintiles, especially when demand is low. Taxing this money and investing in things like infrastructure helps keep demand afloat and eases the road to recovery. It also allows for long term investment that will ultimately grow the economy.

Tax cuts meant more take home pay for the American taxpayer and as a result that boosted the number one component of GDP, Consumer spending. When consumers have money jobs are created and business profits grow. Both benefits govt. revenue. Let me know what the Obama plan is to get 16 million unemployed Americans back to work?

Like I said, he's certainly getting there faster than Reagan;

 

[Conservative]

And conversely, your writing and grammar make it difficult for me to believe you're as well-researched as you say. The fact that you bring up the Founders once again proves my point that your economic outlook stems from personal bias and not an actual set of facts.

Maybe you ought to read a little history, read the Constitution, and then do some research at verifiable non partisan sites. Probably not of interest to an Obama supporter. You can continue to spin and be proven foolish or you can admit when wrong. the choice is yours.

 

[Conservative]

This is certainly true of people who spend most or all of their money. It is not true of people in the top quintiles, especially when demand is low. Taxing this money and investing in things like infrastructure helps keep demand afloat and eases the road to recovery. It also allows for long term investment that will ultimately grow the economy.



Like I said, he's certainly getting there faster than Reagan;

Really? And what part of the Obama economic plan provides incentives to private industry to hire people? There are 3 million more unemployed today than when Obama signed the stimulus plan and you feel that is an improvement? Reagan understood the private sector, Obama doesn't have a clue. You claim he is doing a better job than Reagan? by what standards? Reagan didn't spend 862 billion dollars to create 3 million newly unemployed

 

[Donc]

Hey Cecil, what did I just tell you in the pm? Now comes the part where he starts crowing about his long history In management. :screwy

 

[Conservative]

Hey Cecil, what did I just tell you in the pm? Now comes the part where he starts crowing about his long history In management. :screwy

I love the cult following of liberalism. Facts, logic, and common sense doesn't phase a liberal but they sure enjoy piling on even when wrong. The thanks that each of you gives to each other for posting lies and distortions is quite laughable.

Not sure what motivates you people because obviously you aren't smart enough to spend your own money so you worry about how much goes to the govt. so they can spend it for you. Don't know where you got your education but the fact appears that you all are walking advertisement for school vouchers. Never dreamed I had to convince people the value of keeping what they earn which leads me to wonder if any of you actually earn any money or are you wards of the taxpayer?

 

[Donc]

I love the cult following of liberalism. Facts, logic, and common sense doesn't phase a liberal but they sure enjoy piling on even when wrong. The thanks that each of you gives to each other for posting lies and distortions is quite laughable.

Not sure what motivates you people because obviously you aren't smart enough to spend your own money so you worry about how much goes to the govt. so they can spend it for you. Don't know where you got your education but the fact appears that you all are walking advertisement for school vouchers. Never dreamed I had to convince people the value of keeping what they earn which leads me to wonder if any of you actually earn any money or are you wards of the taxpayer?

Just cluing Cecil in that you’re the RNC imbed at DP. :2wave:

 

[Conservative]

Just cluing Cecil in that you’re the RNC imbed at DP. :2wave:

LOL, so I am a member of the RNC? Interesting, so is bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S. Treasury data part of the RNC too? Do those sites change depending on who is in the WH? Guess you don't get it, theliberal ideology is a disaster and relies on class warfare, envy, distortions, personal attacks, and diversions. You carry that out to a tee.

It is all about ideology and liberal arrogance. Only liberals care about what someone else makes and cries when someone makes more than they do. Only a liberal believes a bigger govt. can spend the taxpayer money better and wiser than the individual taxpayer. Only a liberal demonizes the individual who disagrees with them and ignores the message. Only a liberal believes that people are never responsible for their own actions, but more importantly most liberals seem to think only with their hearts and ignore their brain.

The results are quite telling but results don't actually matter to you, do they? It is all about feelings and creating victims. So much passion for bigger govt and less take home pay for taxpayers! That should tell most people a lot.

 

[Cecil James]

Really? And what part of the Obama economic plan provides incentives to private industry to hire people? There are 3 million more unemployed today than when Obama signed the stimulus plan and you feel that is an improvement? Reagan understood the private sector, Obama doesn't have a clue. You claim he is doing a better job than Reagan? by what standards? Reagan didn't spend 862 billion dollars to create 3 million newly unemployed

When Obama signed the stimulus bill, the economy was losing about half a million jobs/month. Notice how that tide starts to turn in the months that follow.

For all your reported knowledge of economics, you clearly must understand that the signed legislation wouldn't be implemented overnight, and that even after implementation, it takes awhile for the affects to kick. So again, look at how much quicker Obama was able to turn the tide.

 

[Cecil James]

Just cluing Cecil in that you’re the RNC imbed at DP. :2wave:

The RNC is in trouble if this their agent! This guy is hilarious!

 

[Cecil James]

Maybe you ought to read a little history, read the Constitution, and then do some research at verifiable non partisan sites. Probably not of interest to an Obama supporter. You can continue to spin and be proven foolish or you can admit when wrong. the choice is yours.

Why would I do that? I am winning. Just because you choose to ignore the data which shows Clinton's boom makes Reagan's recovery from a recession, refuse to acknowedge that the Clinton increases went beyond the normal business cycle and actually added to economy, and choose to meander onto ad hominems about liberal ideology, class envy, dependent on government, wanting Americans to take less money home, and erroneously claim that the BEA, BLA, etc back you up (without actually posting data) doesn't mean it's not obvious to others that you're just going in circles. I don't mind. It's kind of interesting really.

 

[Conservative]

Why would I do that? I am winning. Just because you choose to ignore the data which shows Clinton's boom makes Reagan's recovery from a recession, refuse to acknowedge that the Clinton increases went beyond the normal business cycle and actually added to economy, and choose to meander onto ad hominems about liberal ideology, class envy, dependent on government, wanting Americans to take less money home, and erroneously claim that the BEA, BLA, etc back you up (without actually posting data) doesn't mean it's not obvious to others that you're just going in circles. I don't mind. It's kind of interesting really.

You're winning what? Facts simply get in the way of your personal opinion. I am sure one of these days when you get a job, get some take home pay you will realize how much is being taken out in taxes and look forward to getting a true conservative in office that reduces those taxes so your take home pay goes up. I guess posting links doesn't do it and now when I posted charts from bea that show Reagan revenue doubling after taking over a 20+ misery index, by the way what were the economic conditions when Clinton took over, that didn't do it either. You have that typical liberal arrogance especially when joined by your "friends."

It doesn't serve any purpose to continue this, you aren't going to change my mind and apparently facts, logic, and common sense aren't going to change yours. Keep your beliefs and let's see how that works out for you in the future. Good luck, because anyone who has to be convinced as to the value of keeping more of what they earn is going to need it.

 

[Cecil James]

You're winning what? Facts simply get in the way of your personal opinion. I am sure one of these days when you get a job, get some take home pay you will realize how much is being taken out in taxes and look forward to getting a true conservative in office that reduces those taxes so your take home pay goes up. I guess posting links doesn't do it and now when I posted charts from bea that show Reagan revenue doubling after taking over a 20+ misery index, by the way what were the economic conditions when Clinton took over, that didn't do it either. You have that typical liberal arrogance especially when joined by your "friends."

It doesn't serve any purpose to continue this, you aren't going to change my mind and apparently facts, logic, and common sense aren't going to change yours. Keep your beliefs and let's see how that works out for you in the future. Good luck, because anyone who has to be convinced as to the value of keeping more of what they earn is going to need it.

So this means you do agree that the Clinton boom added productivity beyond a normal business cycle, and the Reagan increases just look like another one of these?

 

[Conservative]

When Obama signed the stimulus bill, the economy was losing about half a million jobs/month. Notice how that tide starts to turn in the months that follow.

For all your reported knowledge of economics, you clearly must understand that the signed legislation wouldn't be implemented overnight, and that even after implementation, it takes awhile for the affects to kick. So again, look at how much quicker Obama was able to turn the tide.

Yep, the U.S. Economy lost 3.8 million jobs in 2008 hardly half a million a month but that doesn't seem to matter as you spout leftwing talking points. Since passing the stimulus Obama has added 3 million to the unemployed roles and 3 trillion to the debt. Now that is a record to be proud of, isn't it.

Unemployed by month from that partisan RNC website bls.gov.

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2000 5708 5858 5733 5481 5758 5651 5747 5853 5625 5534 5639 5634
2001 6023 6089 6141 6271 6226 6484 6583 7042 7142 7694 8003 8258
2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640
2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317
2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934
2005 7784 7980 7737 7672 7651 7524 7406 7345 7553 7453 7566 7279
2006 7059 7185 7075 7122 6977 6998 7154 7097 6853 6728 6883 6784
2007 7085 6898 6725 6845 6765 6966 7113 7096 7200 7273 7284 7696
2008 7628 7435 7793 7631 8397 8560 8895 9509 9569 10172 10617 11400
2009 11919 12714 13310 13816 14518 14721 14534 14993 15159 15612 15340 15267
2010 14837 14871 15005 15260 14973 14623 14599

Then there are those pesky little employment numbers again from the RNC site, bls.gov.

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047
2002 135701 136438 136177 136126 136539 136415 136413 136705 137302 137008 136521 136426
2003 137417 137482 137434 137633 137544 137790 137474 137549 137609 137984 138424 138411
2004 138472 138542 138453 138680 138852 139174 139556 139573 139487 139732 140231 140125
2005 140245 140385 140654 141254 141609 141714 142026 142434 142401 142548 142499 142752
2006 143142 143444 143765 143794 144108 144370 144229 144631 144797 145292 145477 145914
2007 146032 146043 146368 145686 145952 146079 145926 145685 146193 145885 146483 146173
2008 146421 146165 146173 146306 146023 145768 145515 145187 145021 144677 143907 143188
2009 142221 141687 140854 140902 140438 140038 139817 139433 138768 138242 138381 137792
2010 138333 138641 138905 139455 139420 139119 138960

When do you think the employment will get back to those terrible numbers of 2008? LOL, amazing how facts get distorted by leftwing radicals and now how 138.9 million employed is good but 143.2 million employed is a disaster.

With the numbers above tell me again what you won?

 

[Conservative]

So this means you do agree that the Clinton boom added productivity beyond a normal business cycle, and the Reagan increases just look like another one of these?

Seems you have a problem understanding how taxes affect the business cycle and also noticed that you continue to run from the tough question of what happened in 1994 and whose economic plan was actually in place from then on? Suppose you going to claim a win here as well even though you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.

There was another poster on this forum called GoldenBoy who posted a lot of charts and graphs none of which provided context and none of which addressed the issues that I raised about tax rate cuts and their affect on consumer spending thus economic growth, job creation, tax revenue growth, and of course your precious business cycle.

Guess in your world business cycles just happen and there isn't any outside activites that affect them. Now apparently we are just in a down business cycle and Obama doesn't have a thing to do with that cycle and can do nothing to get us on the upswing again? He is just in the wrong place at the wrong time, right?

 

[Cecil James]

Seems you have a problem understanding how taxes affect the business cycle and also noticed that you continue to run from the tough question of what happened in 1994 and whose economic plan was actually in place from then on? Suppose you going to claim a win here as well even though you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.

Let's see 1994...

 

[Cecil James]

Yep, the U.S. Economy lost 3.8 million jobs in 2008 hardly half a million a month but that doesn't seem to matter as you spout leftwing talking points. Since passing the stimulus Obama has added 3 million to the unemployed roles and 3 trillion to the debt. Now that is a record to be proud of, isn't it.

Unemployed by month from that partisan RNC website bls.gov.

When do you think the employment will get back to those terrible numbers of 2008? LOL, amazing how facts get distorted by leftwing radicals and now how 138.9 million employed is good but 143.2 million employed is a disaster.

With the numbers above tell me again what you won?

Do you agree with the following?

-When Obama took office, we were losing about half a million jobs/month
-The number of job losses hit rock bottom in Nov 09 and have slowly gotten smaller
-Reagan inherited a recession and more job losses ensued for 2 or so more years (as opposed to Obama's 10 months)

* Here's a graph that will make it simple;