• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

Okay...you want to spin the numbers game. Let me do my own picking and spinning and see what happened during Little Jesus' reign over the US.

Got it, spin the actual numbers for us all. tell you what, you have a problem with keeping more of what you earn, send it to the Obama Administration and let them spend it for you. There is nothing preventing you or any other big govt. liberal from sending more money to the Federal Govt. they do take donations, non deductible donations
 
Your bitterness harms only you, while leaving RWR's reputation intact.

Oh my god, Jack, if I had a nickel for every time somebody said I was being bitter... :shock: I get that way when I see people disseminating nonsense.
 
Oh my god, Jack, if I had a nickel for every time somebody said I was being bitter... :shock: I get that way when I see people disseminating nonsense.

Interesting, how is Treasury data nonsense? Seems that nonsense data is any data that doesn't support the leftwing agenda and proves how foolish liberals are?
 
Sure, I agree. High deficits require painful choices to solve - spending cuts OR tax increases OR both.

What we're debating is whether to cut the deficit whether Obama should have just passed more tax CUTS, since tax cuts allegedly, per GOPers, pay for themselves.... Or not. Those of us in the reality based world choose the option that does NOT rely on magic, revenue increasing tax cuts, as a foundation of fiscal policy.

FWIW, the deficit was reduced by half by 2013, not 2012.

How much did they borrow in order to cut the budget deficit in half? It's a shell game they're playing and no amount of tax increases could pay for the spending that's going on or the debt which has been created.
 
Then perhaps you should listen more.

I think the problem is they listen too much and do too little research. They buy the leftwing rhetoric and ignore the actual results. Wonder why? What the hell do these people get out of supporting a massive central govt. and liberalism?
 
Interesting, how is Treasury data nonsense? Seems that nonsense data is any data that doesn't support the leftwing agenda and proves how foolish liberals are?

Hold your horses, big feller...

Look, it's been years since I've played "Spin the Reaganomics Numbers". So relax and when I take look...I'll get back. How's that?
 
I think the problem is they listen too much and do too little research. They buy the leftwing rhetoric and ignore the actual results. Wonder why? What the hell do these people get out of supporting a massive central govt. and liberalism?

Uh huh...and as Paul Harvey use to say..."And now, for the rest of the story". Your number aren't giving all of the facts that give the final picture of what transpired during the Reagan days.

As I said before, hold your horse. I'll get back when I have to say what I have to say. Until then...Jack will be happy to listen to every claim you make...and agree. That ought to make you feel good. Yes?
 
Uh huh...and as Paul Harvey use to say..."And now, for the rest of the story". Your number aren't giving all of the facts that give the final picture of what transpired during the Reagan days.

As I said before, hold your horse. I'll get back when I have to say what I have to say. Until then...Jack will be happy to listen to every claim you make...and agree. That ought to make you feel good. Yes?

It's just that I'm always intrigued by those who are so eager to criticize the POTUS I regard as the second greatest of the 20th century (after FDR). Together the combination of Cold War victory, the foundation for a generation of prosperity and the fundamental redirection of American politics make a potent trifecta.
 
How much did they borrow in order to cut the budget deficit in half? It's a shell game they're playing and no amount of tax increases could pay for the spending that's going on or the debt which has been created.

I'm not interested in discussing Obama - not what we're debating.

And of course we could raise taxes high enough to fund current spending. It just takes political will. Virtually all of Europe taxes at levels higher than current U.S. spending.
 
Section 3 Expenses and Revenue but I posted the data for you. How does income tax revenue increase like that with three straight years of tax cuts?

It was ONE year of tax cuts (ERTA 81), followed by the largest tax increase in history at that point (TEFRA 82), and then another tax increase in 1983. More tax increases in 84, 85, 86 and 87. We've been through this.
 
I think the problem is they listen too much and do too little research. They buy the leftwing rhetoric and ignore the actual results. Wonder why? What the hell do these people get out of supporting a massive central govt. and liberalism?

Alright, remember the premise here. Tax cuts increase revenue, so tax increases must reduce revenue. It's the way these things have to work.

I've already explained that GDP grew by roughly 33% for both Reagan and Clinton, but tax grew by only 20% under Reagan and by roughly 45% under Clinton. But that calculation uses liberal inflation adjustments that make real comparisons over time possible, but which conservatives reject because they like it simple. So let's keep it simple and ignore liberal inflation.

Receipts in nominal figures increased 53% during the Reagan years, but 83% under Clinton. How can that be true, if tax increases reduce revenues? In fact, tax increases caused tax revenues to increase faster than tax cuts, as math predicts...
 

Here's some actual data. These are the average/year effects over the first four years. http://www.treasury.gov/resource-ce...nts/OTA-Rev-Effects-1940-present-6-6-2011.pdf

ERTA 81 ____________-197.9
TEFRA 82_____________64.8
SS Amend 1983________15.1
DRA 84_______________29.4
TRA 86________________0.2
Omnibus 1987_________21.2

Those are the big ones. The tax cut is ERTA, all the rest were tax increases, with TEFRA undoing about one third of ERTA. TRA 86 was intended as neutral, but raised taxes in the first couple of years (while Reagan was POTUS) but then were predicted to reverse under H.W. so the net over 4 years was roughly zero. Total - 197B in tax cuts, about 130B in tax increases. All anyone remembers is the big one in 1981.

I wouldn't bother but "Conservative" keeps saying Reagan cut taxes three years in a row. As you can see, that is not true, at all.

BTW, I think the data are a credit to Reagan, who did sign tax increases when the tax cuts caused the deficits to balloon. He couldn't do that now. He's just claim the tax cuts had nothing to do with the deficits, it's all the fault of those dastardly democrats and their big spending....

A lot of TRA 86 was also good, most especially eliminating the preference for capital gains.
 
Last edited:
Here's some actual data. These are the average/year effects over the first four years. http://www.treasury.gov/resource-ce...nts/OTA-Rev-Effects-1940-present-6-6-2011.pdf

ERTA 81 -197.9
TEFRA 82 64.8
SS Amend 1983 15.1
DRA 84 29.4
TRA 86 0.2
Omnibus 1987 21.2

Those are the big ones. The tax cut is ERTA, all the rest were tax increases, with TEFRA undoing about one third of ERTA. TRA 86 was intended as neutral, but raised taxes in the first couple of years (while Reagan was POTUS) but then were predicted to reverse under H.W. so the net over 4 years was roughly zero.

I wouldn't bother but "Conservative" keeps saying Reagan cut taxes three years in a row. As you can see, that is not true, at all.

You are reinforcing my point.
 
The point about Reagan being great? OK, glad to do it, although we disagree about Reagan's record, which is OK too.

Well that's fine but I was actually aiming lower. My point was the more modest one in my link: to claim that RWR raised taxes requires determined myopia.
 
Ok, so back on topic....This effects voter ID how?
 
That, and inflation, and population growth, and normal economic growth. Inflation is the big one that's ignored. Second is the assumption that all economic growth is as a result of tax cuts, so if the economy grew by 3%, even though it's grown by 2-3% for decades, and grew by those rates when tax rates topped out at 92%, the "conservative" analysis assumes it's all a result of the tax cuts. It's the kind of economic analysis that wouldn't get a passing grade in Econ 201. I'm sure I'm telling you nothing you don't know, but just wanted to get it on the record.
Shhh.. don't tell anyone. Remember: Cut taxes, and that causes an increase in revenues. Pass it along.
 
Well that's fine but I was actually aiming lower. My point was the more modest one in my link: to claim that RWR raised taxes requires determined myopia.

I never said he "raised taxes" over his term. Obviously this entire discussion assumes the obvious - that he cut taxes, increased the deficit, tax cuts don't pay for themselves. I was responding to a very specific claim that has been corrected now three times. Heck, I've linked to that table on this thread (as I recall, or on another one this week). I know the history and represent it as best I can, with links and data.
 
Right. The private sector did a lot to improve revenues as well.

As did the Fed, bringing down rates from near 20% to a more modest 8 or so. That's probably the single most important factor in the ECONOMY over that first few years, and the end of the oil embargo and lower oil prices. Etc. 100 things affect economic growth, and taxes are significant but minor. The right wing narrative assumes only tax rate cuts do.
 
I never said he "raised taxes" over his term. Obviously this entire discussion assumes the obvious - that he cut taxes, increased the deficit, tax cuts don't pay for themselves. I was responding to a very specific claim that has been corrected now three times. Heck, I've linked to that table on this thread (as I recall, or on another one this week). I know the history and represent it as best I can, with links and data.

Your #488 all but says that. As you know, I'm agnostic on tax cuts/increases and revenue.
 
Back
Top Bottom