• 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!

The 1% will own more than the 99% by 2016, report says

JasperL said:
And the American people didn't care that the huge tax cut (3% of GDP) of ERTA 1981, was followed with tax increases (1% of GDP) with TEFRA 82.

Sheesh, is Reagan's status as modern day conservative saint so fragile that we can't speak of documented events in the public record?
Click to expand...

You don't get it at all and probably never will. Every American that earned income got a tax cut, taxes were increased on use items and loopholes were cut back to the intent of those taxes in the first place. Taxes were created to fund certain programs and services and loopholes were created. Reagan eliminated many of those loopholes. Most people benefited from the Reagan stimulus which had no spending in it and actually stimulated the private sector which created the jobs. Sorry but you apparently weren't old enough to understand the conditions Reagan inherited and the leadership shown
 
Conservative said:
You don't get it at all and probably never will. Every American that earned income got a tax cut, taxes were increased on use items and loopholes were cut back to the intent of those taxes in the first place. Taxes were created to fund certain programs and services and loopholes were created. Reagan eliminated many of those loopholes. Most people benefited from the Reagan stimulus which had no spending in it and actually stimulated the private sector which created the jobs. Sorry but you apparently weren't old enough to understand the conditions Reagan inherited and the leadership shown
Click to expand...

ERTA was a big tax cut. But TEFRA was (in equivalent terms) a $150 billion tax increase.

And Reagan tripled the debt, so of course his "stimulus" had spending in it - deficit spending is stimulus.

You're also probably right about me not getting it - I voted for Reagan in 1984, and for Bush in 1988 and 1992... I even used to listen to Rush Limbaugh!
 
JasperL said:
ERTA was a big tax cut. But TEFRA was (in equivalent terms) a $150 billion tax increase.

And Reagan tripled the debt, so of course his "stimulus" had spending in it - deficit spending is stimulus.

You're also probably right about me not getting it - I voted for Reagan in 1984, and for Bush in 1988 and 1992... I even used to listen to Rush Limbaugh!
Click to expand...

TEFRA did not affect all income earners which of course you don't seem to understand. Reagan didn't triple the debt by himself and you ought to know that. There was no spending in the stimulus and if you researched the Reagan stimulus you would know that. Compare that to Obama's

Reagan's second term wasn't a good one and was due to the onset of the disease that eventually took his life and the Hinckley shooting. It was Reagan leadership that brought us out of the double dip and please do some better research before spouting the rhetoric.
 
Conservative said:
TEFRA did not affect all income earners which of course you don't seem to understand.
Click to expand...

Didn't claim that it did - but it was a $150 billion tax increase.

Reagan didn't triple the debt by himself and you ought to know that. There was no spending in the stimulus and if you researched the Reagan stimulus you would know that. Compare that to Obama's
Click to expand...

Of course - no POTUS can do anything by himself. So it was the Tip O'Neill/Reagan Tax Cuts of 1981!

Reagan's second term wasn't a good one and was due to the onset of the disease that eventually took his life and the Hinckley shooting. It was Reagan leadership that brought us out of the double dip and please do some better research before spouting the rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Sorry to besmirch the good name of St. Ronaldo by describing historical facts....
 
JasperL said:
Didn't claim that it did - but it was a $150 billion tax increase.



Of course - no POTUS can do anything by himself. So it was the Tip O'Neill/Reagan Tax Cuts of 1981!



Sorry to besmirch the good name of St. Ronaldo by describing historical facts....
Click to expand...

Your problem is you still believe that the Reagan tax cuts caused the deficits and they didn't but liberals want to believe we would have had 17 million jobs created without them and it was those 17 million new taxpayers that helped grow Income Tax Revenue. Seems those historical facts that you claim are out of context and don't tell the entire story.
 
j-mac said:
Oh please stop....Our poor are richer than 99% of the world....Address that one.
Click to expand...
j-mac:The poor is not what is concerning me with this story as much as any group of people that has this kind of power.

It's almost like one country telling the world that they will be the only ones with most of the nuclear capabilities and everyone else just sit back and relax.

Balderdash!
 
Conservative said:
Your problem is you still believe that the Reagan tax cuts caused the deficits and they didn't
Click to expand...

Something caused those deficits. Either it was because Reagan was a big spending liberal, or his tax cuts reduced revenues, or both.

but liberals want to believe we would have had 17 million jobs created without them and it was those 17 million new taxpayers that helped grow Income Tax Revenue. Seems those historical facts that you claim are out of context and don't tell the entire story.
Click to expand...

Actually, I am fairly confident without the tax cuts, and the $trillions in deficit stimulus spending, that we would NOT have had as robust a recovery as we did. If Keynes was alive, he'd say the same thing.
 
JasperL said:
Something caused those deficits. Either it was because Reagan was a big spending liberal, or his tax cuts reduced revenues, or both.



Actually, I am fairly confident without the tax cuts, and the $trillions in deficit stimulus spending, that we would NOT have had as robust a recovery as we did. If Keynes was alive, he'd say the same thing.
Click to expand...

I suggest research on the Reagan President and find out what the Democrat House proposed and actually spent. As I have shown you tax revenue didn't decrease and as I know you have found there was no spending in the Reagan stimulus therefore all you can do is stammer and make the same accusations over and over again which just show you to being unwilling to admit you are wrong on any subject

Now there you go again, stimulus spending? Where was that in the Reagan stimulus?? Stop making a fool of yourself, there was no stimulus spending, but there was a lot more spending because of stimulus generated revenue. Most of it by Congress. I suggest you research the Reagan budgets and find out where that spending occurred? You are going to be surprised.
 
Conservative said:
I suggest research on the Reagan President and find out what the Democrat House proposed and actually spent. As I have shown you tax revenue didn't decrease and as I know you have found there was no spending in the Reagan stimulus therefore all you can do is stammer and make the same accusations over and over again which just show you to being unwilling to admit you are wrong on any subject

Now there you go again, stimulus spending? Where was that in the Reagan stimulus?? Stop making a fool of yourself, there was no stimulus spending, but there was a lot more spending because of stimulus generated revenue. Most of it by Congress. I suggest you research the Reagan budgets and find out where that spending occurred? You are going to be surprised.
Click to expand...

You've got a math problem. You're claiming the tax cuts INCREASED revenue. But we also know - it's in the record - that the debt nearly tripled over those eight years. So spending had to increase MORE than revenues. But you claim that there was no spending stimulus, even though deficit spending (and there were record deficits in the Reagan years) is by definition Keynesian stimulus.

It seems you want to give Reagan all the credit for the tax cuts, then absolve him of any responsibility for the spending he approved, then give him credit for the effects of massive deficit spending stimulus. It's a neat trick.
 
JasperL said:
You've got a math problem. You're claiming the tax cuts INCREASED revenue. But we also know - it's in the record - that the debt nearly tripled over those eight years. So spending had to increase MORE than revenues. But you claim that there was no spending stimulus, even though deficit spending (and there were record deficits in the Reagan years) is by definition Keynesian stimulus.

It seems you want to give Reagan all the credit for the tax cuts, then absolve him of any responsibility for the spending he approved, then give him credit for the effects of massive deficit spending stimulus. It's a neat trick.
Click to expand...

No you have a comprehension problem I said tax cuts increased economic activity which increased income tax revenue and you cannot seem to grasp the FACT that there was no spending in the Reagan stimulus program thus the debt was AFTER the stimulus and the result of Congress getting all that increased revenue. Reagan's defense spending was fully paid for by the tax revenue increases but the social spending wasn't
 
Conservative said:
No you have a comprehension problem I said tax cuts increased economic activity which increased income tax revenue and you cannot seem to grasp the FACT that there was no spending in the Reagan stimulus program thus the debt was AFTER the stimulus and the result of Congress getting all that increased revenue. Reagan's defense spending was fully paid for by the tax revenue increases but the social spending wasn't
Click to expand...

You have an amazing ability to separate all the stuff you like about Reagan - the tax cuts especially - and give him ALL the credit for that. Then you identify the bad stuff - social spending and deficits - and blame all that on the democrats.

Does that work in your household I wonder. "Honey, my salary covers the golf clubs, the guns and the hunting trips. It's all YOUR fault that we can't afford the car payment on your new car."
 
JasperL said:
You have an amazing ability to separate all the stuff you like about Reagan - the tax cuts especially - and give him ALL the credit for that. Then you identify the bad stuff - social spending and deficits - and blame all that on the democrats.

Does that work in your household I wonder. "Honey, my salary covers the golf clubs, the guns and the hunting trips. It's all YOUR fault that we can't afford the car payment on your new car."
Click to expand...

Probably has a lot to do with research and actually understanding the U.S. Budget a lot better than apparently you do. Not once have I stated that Reagan didn't have a 1.7 trillion dollar debt but again I understand the debt and understand what Cheney meant when he said deficits don't matter. Context is something you and other liberals don't understand or want to. Do you think it is the role of the govt. to run a surplus? Do you go into debt when you buy a home? Most Americans do and they do it for an investment. Reagan spending on defense was an investment in the future and created a peace dividend. Does the debt of 2.6 trillion dollars on a 5.2 trillion dollar economy mean as much as the 18.2 trillion dollar debt on a 17.4 trillion dollar economy? If we generated the Reagan numbers, probably not because we wouldn't have over 17 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers thus more taxpayers. Results matter and results are what generate context.
 
ludin said:
I never made any of these claims so therefore you have no idea what you are talking about.

if you spent half the time working on something rather than complaining then you could be in the top 1% as well.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.
 
Conservative said:
...I understand the debt and understand what Cheney meant when he said deficits don't matter....
Click to expand...

Apparently your understanding is that deficits don't matter when there is a Republican in the white house.
 
imagep said:
Apparently your understanding is that deficits don't matter when there is a Republican in the white house.
Click to expand...

Actuallyit's basic economic results and understanding of the line items in the budget that tell me deficits at that level don't matter. Stop trolling. I grew up a strong Democrat but that party left me. It doesn't have anything to do with the D or the R but rather the ideology and the individual. Still waiting for you to list the cherry picked data you claim that I use. Reagan saw the big picture and it was Reagan leadership that got us out of the double dip Carter recession.
 
imagep said:
All of it.
Click to expand...

LOL, yep, all of it comes from official govt. data and sites which in the liberal world you live in doesn't really matter. In your world apparently feelings trump reality.
 
For all you people who want to give Obama credit for the economy, this thread proves that after 6 years he has done almost none of what he promised and yet still has supporters here, supporters who ignore the actual economic results and still after all the lies continue to buy the rhetoric. The question remains what is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty.
 
Conservative said:
Actuallyit's basic economic results and understanding of the line items in the budget that tell me deficits at that level don't matter. Stop trolling. I grew up a strong Democrat but that party left me. It doesn't have anything to do with the D or the R but rather the ideology and the individual. Still waiting for you to list the cherry picked data you claim that I use. Reagan saw the big picture and it was Reagan leadership that got us out of the double dip Carter recession.
Click to expand...

Well, of course it did. OPEC had nothing to do with the recession at all, as we all know. It was all due to having a Democrat in the WH, the high gas prices, the inflation, all of it.

Which is why, now that we once again have a Democrat in the WH, gas prices have begun to soar and inflation is out of control. When will we ever learn. We keep attributing oil price ups and downs to supply and demand, when actually it has to do with the party in power.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Well, of course it did. OPEC had nothing to do with the recession at all, as we all know. It was all due to having a Democrat in the WH, the high gas prices, the inflation, all of it.

Which is why, now that we once again have a Democrat in the WH, gas prices have begun to soar and inflation is out of control. When will we ever learn. We keep attributing oil price ups and downs to supply and demand, when actually it has to do with the party in power.
Click to expand...

Don't remember the Carter energy plan I see. As for this being a D or R issue I am waiting for those here that make that claim to tell me what Obama has done that has led to the economic results his supporters want to give him credit for. Was it cutting the deficit in half from 1.2 trillion to 600 billion when his budget was rejected? Was it causing an average of 1 million discouraged workers a month not being counted in the official unemployment numbers? Was it the 842 billion stimulus for shovel ready jobs where the shovels never arrived and Obama admitted really don't exist? Or how about keeping your own doctor and plan with Obamacare?

Since energy is based upon supply and demand I am sure that fracking had nothing to do with supply or the expansion of drilling on public land, oh wait, that drilling hasn't happened. Hmmm
 
Conservative said:
Don't remember the Carter energy plan I see. As for this being a D or R issue I am waiting for those here that make that claim to tell me what Obama has done that has led to the economic results his supporters want to give him credit for. Was it cutting the deficit in half from 1.2 trillion to 600 billion when his budget was rejected? Was it causing an average of 1 million discouraged workers a month not being counted in the official unemployment numbers? Was it the 842 billion stimulus for shovel ready jobs where the shovels never arrived and Obama admitted really don't exist? Or how about keeping your own doctor and plan with Obamacare?

Since energy is based upon supply and demand I am sure that fracking had nothing to do with supply or the expansion of drilling on public land, oh wait, that drilling hasn't happened. Hmmm
Click to expand...

I have no idea what the first sentence means.
The second is my point exactly: It's not a D or R issue at all.
The Democrats claiming that Obama has brought us out of the recession are about as ridiculous as the detractors saying he's to blame for it. Equally absurd is blaming the recession and runaway inflation of the late '70s on Carter, and not on OPEC.

Economic ups and downs largely are out of the control of the POTUS, regardless of whether he is a terrible, horrible, socialistic Democrat or a wonderful, conservative Republican. The biggest difference is that, when there is a Republican president, Republicans like to attribute any improvement to their party. Democrats, on the other hand, like to point out economic improvements when there is a Democrat in the Whitehouse. In reality, the winner of the Superbowl had about as much influence over such things as the price of gas, unemployment, and the growth of the GDP as does the winner of the presidential election.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I have no idea what the first sentence means.
The second is my point exactly: It's not a D or R issue at all.
The Democrats claiming that Obama has brought us out of the recession are about as ridiculous as the detractors saying he's to blame for it. Equally absurd is blaming the recession and runaway inflation of the late '70s on Carter, and not on OPEC.

Economic ups and downs largely are out of the control of the POTUS, regardless of whether he is a terrible, horrible, socialistic Democrat or a wonderful, conservative Republican. The biggest difference is that, when there is a Republican president, Republicans like to attribute any improvement to their party. Democrats, on the other hand, like to point out economic improvements when there is a Democrat in the Whitehouse. In reality, the winner of the Superbowl had about as much influence over such things as the price of gas, unemployment, and the growth of the GDP as does the winner of the presidential election.
Click to expand...

It was the Carter economic and foreign policy plans that created the OPEC reaction which led to gas lines, the high inflation and it was the fear of Reagan's foreign policy and leadership that brought OPEC back in line. Leadership does matter as does a pro growth economic policy. to say that economic ups and downs largely are out of control of the POTUS is probably partially true but was we have seen in a consumer driven economy the POTUS economic policies do have an effect as does their foreign policy decisions.
 
Conservative said:
It was the Carter economic and foreign policy plans that created the OPEC reaction which led to gas lines, the high inflation and it was the fear of Reagan's foreign policy and leadership that brought OPEC back in line. Leadership does matter as does a pro growth economic policy. to say that economic ups and downs largely are out of control of the POTUS is probably partially true but was we have seen in a consumer driven economy the POTUS economic policies do have an effect as does their foreign policy decisions.
Click to expand...

49, 000 posts to your name and they all say pretty much the same thing.

Democrat Bad.

Republican Good.

That's about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom