• 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

JasperL said:
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.
Click to expand...

it is true Reagan raised taxes, however on TEFRA, Reagan raised taxes on the promise from democrats ,there would be a 1 dollar cut in spending for every 3 dollars, Reagan was lied to... the democrats never fulfilled that promise to him.
 
Removable Mind said:
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?
Click to expand...

I won't hold my breath. Look forward to seeing the leftwing spin that ignores the Treasury data for after all what does the bank of the United States know about revenue coming in from Taxes and what does the Bureau of economic analysis know about GDP?? We all know the left has better answers and fools a lot of people. Could never understand how me keeping more of what I earn was an expense to the Federal Govt. Wonder what leftwing accountant came up with that description of tax cuts??
 
JasperL said:
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.
Click to expand...

What you have shown is that you have no concept of what taxes are paid and what they are used to pay for thus you believe that tax cuts have to be paid for. Reagan's economic policy was tax cuts three years in a row all part of his economic policy passed in August 1981. Not surprising that you didn't know that. Every American that earned income during the Reagan term got a tax cut, NOT ever American paid for increases in taxes, You don't seem to understand that reality. Nor do you understand SS and Medicare at all.
 
JasperL;1063919927]Alright, remember the premise here. Tax cuts increase revenue, so tax increases must reduce revenue. It's the way these things have to work.
Click to expand...

What you don't seem to understand is economic activity and when you do have less money to spend you do create less economic activity. You don't get it and probably never will until you actually learn to think for yourself.

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.
Click to expand...

Sorry but your math is screwed up as usual. Better try again, BEA.gov, will give you the GDP numbers and they doubled. Inflation adjusted is the liberal way of convincing people that they need to pay more in taxes. Not going to happen, have a good one

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...
Click to expand...

LOL, liberals just don't get it, but liberals also never send in more than they have to thus making most liberals hypocrites
 
Jack Hays said:
You are reinforcing my point.
Click to expand...

The guy/gal just doesn't get it. He/she has no understanding of what actually happened and that every American who earned income got a tax and not all Americans got a tax increase most of which were use taxes. Told him/her that many times but it just doesn't sink in. Reagan's tax cuts were indeed three years in a row and led to the greatest economic boom in U.S. history and that simply drives liberals nuts.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Right. The private sector did a lot to improve revenues as well.
Click to expand...

Yep, and that happened because people had more spendable income and when people have more spendable income jobs were created because demand goes up. With higher demand comes more sales and thus more revenue to the Federal govt. Works all the time
 
JasperL said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is what you don't understand and tells me you weren't old enough in the 80's to understand exactly what happened thus you buy what you are told

phased-in 23% cut in individual tax rates over 3 years
Click to expand...

That is the three year tax cut!!!
 
ernst barkmann said:
it is true Reagan raised taxes, however on TEFRA, Reagan raised taxes on the promise from democrats ,there would be a 1 dollar cut in spending for every 3 dollars, Reagan was lied to... the democrats never fulfilled that promise to him.
Click to expand...

And Reagan's own budgets never called for those spending cuts....
 
Conservative said:
What you don't seem to understand is economic activity and when you do have less money to spend you do create less economic activity. You don't get it and probably never will until you actually learn to think for yourself.
Click to expand...

I respect evidence. You keep ignoring the Clinton years, as you must, because that record directly contradicts you. Sure, taxes have a minor effect. If a broad based tax cut is nominal $1, it might only cost 90 cents after the added growth. I've said it 10 times, you've ignored the point 10 times. Clinton raised taxes, and the economy created more jobs than during the Reagan era - 5 million more.

Sorry but your math is screwed up as usual. Better try again, BEA.gov, will give you the GDP numbers and they doubled. Inflation adjusted is the liberal way of convincing people that they need to pay more in taxes. Not going to happen, have a good one
Click to expand...

Adjusting for inflation is how one compares amounts denominated in dollars from one period to the next. As I said, you must believe that 3% growth in an era of 100%/year inflation is no better or worse than 3% growth when inflation is 1% per year. Of course the former is a picture of an economy in collapse, the latter of a reasonably healthy economy. In non-liberal land these eras would be treated as the same.

LOL, liberals just don't get it, but liberals also never send in more than they have to thus making most liberals hypocrites
Click to expand...

Nice dodge!
 
ernst barkmann said:
the democrats were the ones to fulfill the promise of what they wanted to cut....they had controlled the house for 28 years.
Click to expand...

OK, fine, but Presidents submit a budget that, presumably, reflects their own spending priorities. Reagan's never outlined those cuts. I'm sorry, but it's just BS to give Reagan all the credit, none of the blame, then give democrats who passed his tax cuts none of the credit, but all the blame. Let's be adults and agree the WH and Congress worked together for compromises that benefited both. That's what happened. There are no white hats and black hats in D.C.
 
Conservative said:
The guy/gal just doesn't get it. He/she has no understanding of what actually happened and that every American who earned income got a tax and not all Americans got a tax increase most of which were use taxes. Told him/her that many times but it just doesn't sink in. Reagan's tax cuts were indeed three years in a row and led to the greatest economic boom in U.S. history and that simply drives liberals nuts.
Click to expand...

Tax cuts help, as does goosing the economy with deficit spending, and the Fed bringing down interest rates, oil prices stabilizing, inflation coming down, and much more. Conservatives want to reduce something as complex as the U.S. economy with 200 million or so (at that time) moving parts to ONE variable - the top marginal rate on the wealthy. It's not that simple.

Worse, this only works in one direction. So when a GOPer brings rates down, all that happens that's good is because of tax rate reductions. But when Clinton raised rates and the economy boomed, THEN they look around to find some reason to explain why it's not top marginal rates that matter, but something else....
 
JasperL said:
OK, fine, but Presidents submit a budget that, presumably, reflects their own spending priorities. Reagan's never outlined those cuts. I'm sorry, but it's just BS to give Reagan all the credit, none of the blame, then give democrats who passed his tax cuts none of the credit, but all the blame. Let's be adults and agree the WH and Congress worked together for compromises that benefited both. That's what happened. There are no white hats and black hats in D.C.
Click to expand...

Reagan spent money we know this, however Reagan was not alone in the tax cuts and tax increases, congress was involved also.

Reagan cuts taxes, the first two years of those cuts, saw a decrease in revenue, however revenue rebounded and nearly doubled by the time Reagans presidency was over.

but its does not matter who is president or who is in congress it is the natural order of government to spend and increases its powers, because even though we saw an increase in revenue the government spent and spent as its always going to.

so anyone trying to lay blame on 1 party is ridiculous
 
Conservative said:
How do you explain the FIT revenue increases after the Reagan and Bush tax cuts? Also please let me knew when either Reagan or Bush had trillion dollar deficits?? And please don't point to 2009 unless you can post a Bush approved and signed budget?
Click to expand...

We have been through this a thousand times before... FIT revenue dropped for 4 straight years after the Bush tax cuts (they actually fell 20%, and then took three more years to get back, in aggregate, but not real dollars, to the levels pre-tax cuts). They never again returned to the level of GDP rate that existed before the cuts. Bush tax cuts cost the federal coffers $1.3T over 10 years. Interesting that the Heritage Foundation (most known as the author of what is now Obamacare), forecast that the Bush tax cuts would lead to a complete pay-off of the national debt and a $3T surplus, but instead lead to a $10T debt, making it the biggest financial miscalculation in the history of man. At least they got Obamacare right.

Reagan also had an immediate free fall in tax collection revenues. Fortunately, for Reagan, tax collections started to improve because the economy started to improve.... we can thank Carter's appointment of Paul Volcker (and Reagan's affirmation of Volcker), who's fiscal policy finally broke the back of 15 years of stagflation.... and we can thank the Computer industry for its introduction first of the mini-computer, followed by the micro computer, which fueled the technology revolution that made all of American business far more efficient (as in, could do things at much lower cost) that worked to propel the US out of a turn of the decade recession. Reagan should thank those people and events as well, as it positioned him to be in the right place at the right time.

In terms of deficits, that last Bush deficit was $1T+, and he left his successor with the bar bill of multiple $1T recession because of his wars that were financed by tax cuts. The Reagan deficits, also caused by irresponsible combination of tax cuts and spending increases, on a constant dollar basis, were of the same magnitude.

Oh yes, I am happy to post, for the umteenth time, my cites for every rep above, as I have done so many times in the past... but, similar to so many times in the past, you really don't want facts the challenge your reality, so why bother?
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
I won't hold my breath. Look forward to seeing the leftwing spin that ignores the Treasury data for after all what does the bank of the United States know about revenue coming in from Taxes and what does the Bureau of economic analysis know about GDP?? We all know the left has better answers and fools a lot of people. Could never understand how me keeping more of what I earn was an expense to the Federal Govt. Wonder what leftwing accountant came up with that description of tax cuts??
Click to expand...

Oh, Rome wasn't built in a day. Patience. I want to do me a tiny favor. You posted 3 sets of numbers from your link, which was simply leading to home page. Post the link directly to the page from which you got your 3 sets of numbers.
 
JasperL said:
I respect evidence. You keep ignoring the Clinton years, as you must, because that record directly contradicts you. Sure, taxes have a minor effect. If a broad based tax cut is nominal $1, it might only cost 90 cents after the added growth. I've said it 10 times, you've ignored the point 10 times. Clinton raised taxes, and the economy created more jobs than during the Reagan era - 5 million more.



Adjusting for inflation is how one compares amounts denominated in dollars from one period to the next. As I said, you must believe that 3% growth in an era of 100%/year inflation is no better or worse than 3% growth when inflation is 1% per year. Of course the former is a picture of an economy in collapse, the latter of a reasonably healthy economy. In non-liberal land these eras would be treated as the same.



Nice dodge!
Click to expand...

We are not comparing one period to the next but rather what happened during the Reagan term just like we are comparing what is happening now. Obviously you don't know the components of GDP and what drives our economy. Tax cuts are what drove consumer spending and led to 17 million jobs created. Reagan inherited a double dip recession, Clinton didn't. Clinton's economic policy gave us a GOP Congress that cut everyone of Clinton's budget requests and yet Clinton still added 1.4 trillion to the debt which is 300 billion less than Reagan's yet still no concern on your part. One of these days you are going to wake up and realize how liberalism has made a fool out of you. When that happens however it will be too late.
 
upsideguy;1063920605]We have been through this a thousand times before... FIT revenue dropped for 4 straight years after the Bush tax cuts (they actually fell 20%, and then took three more years to get back, in aggregate, but not real dollars, to the levels pre-tax cuts). They never again returned to the level of GDP rate that existed before the cuts. Bush tax cuts cost the federal coffers $1.3T over 10 years. Interesting that the Heritage Foundation (most known as the author of what is now Obamacare), forecast that the Bush tax cuts would lead to a complete pay-off of the national debt and a $3T surplus, but instead lead to a $10T debt, making it the biggest financial miscalculation in the history of man. At least they got Obamacare right.
Click to expand...

That is a lie, The Bush tax cuts weren't fully implemented until July 2003 and the Treasury shows you are absolutely wrong. You also ignore the Clinton recession as well as 911. The cry after 9/11 was that 'we will never forget" You have forgotten. The Bush tax cuts didn't cost the Treasury a dime and led to job creation and more govt. revenue. Like all liberals you assume economic activity would have been the same without those cuts. That is what liberals always do, ignore activity and human behavior.

Reagan also had an immediate free fall in tax collection revenues. Fortunately, for Reagan, tax collections started to improve because the economy started to improve.... we can thank Carter's appointment of Paul Volcker (and Reagan's affirmation of Volcker), who's fiscal policy finally broke the back of 15 years of stagflation.... and we can thank the Computer industry for its introduction first of the mini-computer, followed by the micro computer, which fueled the technology revolution that made all of American business far more efficient (as in, could do things at much lower cost) that worked to propel the US out of a turn of the decade recession. Reagan should thank those people and events as well, as it positioned him to be in the right place at the right time.
Click to expand...

I posted Reagan income tax revenue by year. He inherited a Recession and solved the problem. Do you even know when Reagan's tax cuts took effect? What you and others have no concept of is leadership, economic activity, and human behavior

In terms of deficits, that last Bush deficit was $1T+, and he left his successor with the bar bill of multiple $1T recession because of his wars that were financed by tax cuts. The Reagan deficits, also caused by irresponsible combination of tax cuts and spending increases, on a constant dollar basis, were of the same magnitude.
Click to expand...

Another lie, please show me the Bush SIGNED Budget for fiscal year 2009? How many times do I have to prove you wrong? I really am tired of trying to convince people like you that tax cuts or you keeping more of what you earn isn't the problem

Oh yes, I am happy to post, for the umteenth time, my cites for every rep above, as I have done so many times in the past... but, similar to so many times in the past, you really don't want facts the challenge your reality, so why bother?
Click to expand...

You seem happy posting the lies for the umteenth time and simply refuse to admit you are wrong on any subject. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty?
 
Removable Mind said:
Oh, Rome wasn't built in a day. Patience. I want to do me a tiny favor. You posted 3 sets of numbers from your link, which was simply leading to home page. Post the link directly to the page from which you got your 3 sets of numbers.
Click to expand...

You cannot do that on the BEA website, you need to learn how to use it. It is very simple to navigate and the numbers I posted can be downloaded into an Excel file. Get any student at Texas to help you
 
Conservative said:
You cannot do that on the BEA website, you need to learn how to use it. It is very simple to navigate and the numbers I posted can be downloaded into an Excel file. Get any student at Texas to help you
Click to expand...

Afraid to provide the page you got your info from? Passive aggressive nonsense...huh? I could have predicted your response. It's a typical right tactic. It's up to you.
 
Removable Mind said:
Afraid to provide the page you got your info from? Passive aggressive nonsense...huh? I could have predicted your response. It's a typical right tactic. It's up to you.
Click to expand...

Afraid? LOL, you seem to have a problem learning how to research data, click on the link, go to number 3, click on it, click on modify and put in 1980 which will give you the tax revenue when Reagan took office and 1989 when his policies ended. You will find the numbers I posted. Is this the way you operate in real life, getting someone else to do all the work for you? You made claims that the numbers I posted were spun, now prove it
 
Conservative said:
Yep, and that happened because people had more spendable income and when people have more spendable income jobs were created because demand goes up. With higher demand comes more sales and thus more revenue to the Federal govt. Works all the time
Click to expand...

Yes it does.

I believe it is called Keynesian economics.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yes it does.

I believe it is called Keynesian economics.
Click to expand...

Except for the fact that liberals believe it should be the govt. doing that spending and not the taxpayers. In a consumer driven economy govt. spending is a small percentage, in the liberal world it is a greater percentage
 
Conservative said:
Afraid? LOL, you seem to have a problem learning how to research data, click on the link, go to number 3, click on it, click on modify and put in 1980 which will give you the tax revenue when Reagan took office and 1989 when his policies ended. You will find the numbers I posted. Is this the way you operate in real life, getting someone else to do all the work for you? You made claims that the numbers I posted were spun, now prove it
Click to expand...

Last chance...put up or...??? And by the way, those numbers aren't proving causation or outcomes. That's just one set of elements among many which are used to look at the overall outcomes in the economy by the end of Reagan's presidency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom