• 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!

Census finds record gap between rich and poor

Conservative said:
Amazing, where you even around during the 80's. Ever pay 17% for a mortgage? Ever hear of something called the misery index? Reagan economic policy didn't go into effect until after his tax cuts passed in August 1981 so 1982. GDP doubled during the Reagan term which you can find at bea.gov. The Reagan economy created 18 million jobs, doubled govt. revenue, and doubled GDP

Not sure how you can call a 4 million increase in unemployment 3 trillion added to the debt, 1.6% GDP growth, massive expansion of govt. an improvement but to some I guess that is what ideologues think.

By the way it is Reagan NOT Regan.
Click to expand...

My apologies to the former President Reagan.

I was around in the '80s and I did experience the misery of stagflation. The Reagan tax cuts you talk about were actually not that significant for normal people. They were great for Reagan's rich buddies. The top marginal rate was lowered to 50% from 69% but the top marginal rate was 69% for incomes over $215.400. The new maximum rate of 50% was for incomes over $85,600. Folks making over $85,600 (a very big income in '81) got a huge tax decrease to support "trickle down." Normal folks saw hardly any change to their taxes.

I'm not trying to argue that things are great right now. I would, however, point out that you are willing to give Reagan the benefit of looking at his entire administration but you seemingly are trying to judge Obama based on the fact that he was not able to work an economic miracle in the first 18 months of his presidency. What Reagan inherited was not nearly so bad as what Obama inherited. By the end of his term, things were much better. I think Obama deserves the same opportunity.
 
soccerboy22 said:
As well as pretty bad polling numbers. We have a bet in one of my classes to see if President Obama can turn it around like President Reagan did.
Click to expand...


Clinton had terrible numbers too and lost Congress.
 
soccerboy22 said:
As well as pretty bad polling numbers. We have a bet in one of my classes to see if President Obama can turn it around like President Reagan did.
Click to expand...

I think he can turn it around, if he doesn't get to pass any more of his agenda items...
 
zip98053 said:
What Reagan inherited was not nearly so bad as what Obama inherited. By the end of his term, things were much better. I think Obama deserves the same opportunity.
Click to expand...

with all due respect, the vast majority of americans disagreed with you then

and even more, it appears, differ with you now

If the 2012 election was held today, Obama would lose 48-42 against an unnamed Republican candidate.
Click to expand...

Poll: Independents siding with GOP - James Hohmann and Jim VandeHei - POLITICO.com
 
donc said:
He did that in less than two years? :shock:
Click to expand...

Obama is headed in the wrong direction especiallly since the recession ended last year. There is quite a difference between the economic policy of Reagan vs. Obama's. Reagan was pro growth and Obama's is pro govt. thus the results quite different.
 
zip98053 said:
My apologies to the former President Reagan.

I was around in the '80s and I did experience the misery of stagflation. The Reagan tax cuts you talk about were actually not that significant for normal people. They were great for Reagan's rich buddies. The top marginal rate was lowered to 50% from 69% but the top marginal rate was 69% for incomes over $215.400. The new maximum rate of 50% was for incomes over $85,600. Folks making over $85,600 (a very big income in '81) got a huge tax decrease to support "trickle down." Normal folks saw hardly any change to their taxes.

I'm not trying to argue that things are great right now. I would, however, point out that you are willing to give Reagan the benefit of looking at his entire administration but you seemingly are trying to judge Obama based on the fact that he was not able to work an economic miracle in the first 18 months of his presidency. What Reagan inherited was not nearly so bad as what Obama inherited. By the end of his term, things were much better. I think Obama deserves the same opportunity.
Click to expand...

Is that why Reagan won the biggest landslide victory in U.S. history in 1984? If Obama had a pro growth, pro capitalistic economic policy I would give him the benefit of doubt but he doesn't. He doesn't have a clue what free enterprise and capitalism is all about as he has never managed anything or ever made a payrol. He is a community agitator who believes in bigger govt. and massive social spending. That is a recipe for disaster.

I don't believe you were around during the 80s when you claim that things were worse when Obama took office. The misery index was well over 20. Interest rates were well into the double digits and there was high inflation. Compare that to when Obama took over with almost zero interest rates and very low inflation.

Please name for me one economic prediction that Obama has made that has been accurate? Based upon what he is doing this country cannot afford to give him more of a chance. My question is why do you continue to buy the rhetoric.
 
Conservative said:
Amazing, where you even around during the 80's. Ever pay 17% for a mortgage? Ever hear of something called the misery index? Reagan economic policy didn't go into effect until after his tax cuts passed in August 1981 so 1982. GDP doubled during the Reagan term which you can find at bea.gov. The Reagan economy created 18 million jobs, doubled govt. revenue, and doubled GDP

Not sure how you can call a 4 million increase in unemployment 3 trillion added to the debt, 1.6% GDP growth, massive expansion of govt. an improvement but to some I guess that is what ideologues think.

By the way it is Reagan NOT Regan.
Click to expand...

I was and can tell you that the last year of the President Regan term was terrible. People could not find jobs, the markets were terrible and we suffered for the GROWTH of the early 80's. I lived it, I saw it. Its the same after 8 years under the latest Republican. No jobs, terrible economy and we are suffering from the GROWTH. You seem to be able to gleen prosperity in the GDP when Republicans are in office but fail to see the repercutions.
 
Conservative said:
Amazing, where you even around during the 80's. Ever pay 17% for a mortgage? Ever hear of something called the misery index? Reagan economic policy didn't go into effect until after his tax cuts passed in August 1981 so 1982. GDP doubled during the Reagan term which you can find at bea.gov. The Reagan economy created 18 million jobs, doubled govt. revenue, and doubled GDP

Not sure how you can call a 4 million increase in unemployment 3 trillion added to the debt, 1.6% GDP growth, massive expansion of govt. an improvement but to some I guess that is what ideologues think.

By the way it is Reagan NOT Regan.
Click to expand...

ok.....what did the debt rise to under reagan? the deficit? why did bush 1 have to raise taxes?
 
ender1 said:
I was and can tell you that the last year of the President Regan term was terrible. People could not find jobs, the markets were terrible and we suffered for the GROWTH of the early 80's. I lived it, I saw it. Its the same after 8 years under the latest Republican. No jobs, terrible economy and we are suffering from the GROWTH. You seem to be able to gleen prosperity in the GDP when Republicans are in office but fail to see the repercutions.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree, the last year of the Bush Administration was terrible, but as stated, do you understand that we have three equal branches of govt? How did Bush do this alone without Congressional support? Congress was under Democrat Control and Democrats seemed more concerned about regaining the WH than putting people back to work.

I see nothing but good repercutions when people get to keep more of what they earn. I am still waiting for you to explain the successes of the Obama Administration. We know that the last year of Bush was bad but wasn't depression bad nor was it early 80's bad yet you and others bought the Obama rhetoric, why? There is no question why, you wanted to buy it and just didn't think you would be challenged.

Fact remains the numbers tell the true story and that is what Obama supporters want to ignore. There is a reason that Obama's poll numbers are now in the upper 30's or low 40's and it has nothing to do with what went on in 2008 or your perceived damage by GW Bush. Obama has been a complete and utter failure. He blew it. His job was to stimulate and grow the economy, not bail out unions and waste 862 billion dollars and adding 3 trillion to the debt. Jobs was his major focus so what did he do, passed Obamacare. He blew it! Seems like you are among the few that still don't get it.
 
liblady said:
ok.....what did the debt rise to under reagan? the deficit? why did bush 1 have to raise taxes?
Click to expand...

The debt under Reagan was 1.7 trillion in 8 years. I don't know why Bush 1 raised taxes because Bush 1 had 1.4 trillion in debt in 4 years. Clinton had 1.4 trillion in 8 years. Higher taxes does not mean more revenue to the govt and less debt/
 
Conservative said:
The debt under Reagan was 1.7 trillion in 8 years. I don't know why Bush 1 raised taxes because Bush 1 had 1.4 trillion in debt in 4 years. Clinton had 1.4 trillion in 8 years. Higher taxes does not mean more revenue to the govt and less debt/
Click to expand...

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.
 
phattonez said:
Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.
Click to expand...

Ok, show me any time in the last 3 decades where the debt decreased? Everytime more money goes to the govt. it is spent and raising taxes now isn't going to put 16 million unemployed Americans back to work and thus paying taxes.
 
Conservative said:
Ok, show me any time in the last 3 decades where the debt decreased? Everytime more money goes to the govt. it is spent and raising taxes now isn't going to put 16 million unemployed Americans back to work and thus paying taxes.
Click to expand...

Oh I know, I'm not talking about the debt necessarily in this case and I don't support giving the government more money, I'm merely pointing out that sometimes a tax increase gets the government more money than otherwise.
 
Conservative said:
Obama is headed in the wrong direction especiallly since the recession ended last year. There is quite a difference between the economic policy of Reagan vs. Obama's. Reagan was pro growth and Obama's is pro govt. thus the results quite different.
Click to expand...


We’ll see…..after his two terms are over who had the best Presidency. :thumbs:
 
donc said:
We’ll see…..after his two terms are over who had the best Presidency. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

The people of this country cannot afford 6 more years of Obama. He will get two more but in two years the debt will far exceed annual GDP and that is dangerous and fiscally irresponsible. Even those looking for Obama "stash" are going to be out of luck.
 
Conservative said:
The people of this country cannot afford 6 more years of Obama. He will get two more but in two years the debt will far exceed annual GDP and that is dangerous and fiscally irresponsible. Even those looking for Obama "stash" are going to be out of luck.
Click to expand...

wizard-with-crystal-ball.jpg


Swami conservative has the ole crystal ball out again.:mrgreen:
 
Conservative said:
Ok, show me any time in the last 3 decades where the debt decreased? Everytime more money goes to the govt. it is spent and raising taxes now isn't going to put 16 million unemployed Americans back to work and thus paying taxes.
Click to expand...

The tax rate went up during the Clinton administration.

How Much Americans Actually Pay in Taxes - NYTimes.com

The budget deficit turned into a surplus.

President Clinton announces another record budget surplus - September 27, 2000
 
zip98053 said:
The tax rate went up during the Clinton administration.

How Much Americans Actually Pay in Taxes - NYTimes.com

The budget deficit turned into a surplus.

President Clinton announces another record budget surplus - September 27, 2000
Click to expand...

Come on, you are smarter than this, if there was a budget surplus there would be a reduction in the debt and that didn't happen. There are two parts of the debt, public and intergovt. holdings. Both added together make up the total debt. Clinton took money from the Intergovt. holdings which is SS fund and put it into the budget thus creating a public debt surplus but the intergovt. holdings had a deficit thus the total was still in the red. Stop buying the rhetoric, you cannot steal from SS and claim a surplus.

As for taxes, again why are you so concerned about revenue to the Federal govt? There is absolutely nothing preventing you from sending more to the govt. than is being withheld. Why do you think the govt. needs the money more than you do?

oh, by the way, it may come as a surprise to you but even Bush had some monthly surpluses and monthly surpluses do not really matter. The only number that matters is the year end number for the fiscal year which ends September 30.

Here is the actual debt numbers by year.

Fiscal End Claimed Public Intra-gov Total National
Year Date Surplus Debt Holdings Debt
FY1997 9/30/1997 $3.789667T $1.623478T $5.413146T
FY1998 9/30/1998 $69.2B $3.733864T $55.8B $1.792328T $168.9B $5.526193T $113B
FY1999 9/30/1999 $122.7B $3.636104T $97.8B $2.020166T $227.8B $5.656270T $130.1B
FY2000 9/29/2000 $230.0B $3.405303T $230.8B $2.268874T $248.7B $5.674178T $17.9B
FY2001 9/28/2001 $3.339310T $66.0B $2.468153T $199.3B $5.807463T $133.3B

Sorry, cannot get the spreadsheet to load properly

Clinton claimed a surpluse in FY 1998 of 69 billion, 1999 of 123 billion, and 2000 of 230 billion. What this chart is supposed to show is public debt going down those numbers but intra govt. holding debt going up by almost exactly the same amount. The key being the total debt which rose each yr of clinton
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom