Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 170

Thread: Financial Reform Talks Near Collapse, Some GOPers Threaten To Defect

  1. #111
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    06-23-10 @ 11:33 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,320

    Re: Financial Reform Talks Near Collapse, Some GOPers Threaten To Defect

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    You are just like this Administration, no one can trust a word you post. You obviously don't know how the Senate works so I suggest you do some research and find out how many votes it takes to pass legislation in the Senate. Then learn the definition of filibuster and what it takes to break a filibuster.

    How many votes did the Democrats have last year in the Senate?
    Do you have any idea what you are responding to? You seem to be in a conversation with an imaginary friend but your responses are posted here.

  2. #112
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Whitewater, CO
    Last Seen
    04-05-16 @ 06:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,260
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Financial Reform Talks Near Collapse, Some GOPers Threaten To Defect

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Less government spending. They should reduce taxes to increase investment and allow struggling businesses to keep some extra money to get through. If anything government spending ultimately hurts the nation.
    The problem with that theory is that the spending cuts will occur in areas like welfare and social programs. Spending on corporate welfare will remain the same or increase. That is NOT acceptable. Corporate welfare is unacceptable.

    Republicans (and some Democrats) sold thier souls to business and are basically paid to pass whatever laws business desires. That is unacceptable and needs to be stopped. Those politicians need to spend 25 years in prison without parole, repreive, or pardonability. The business owners who are paying off those politicians with bribes need to spend the same sentence in a supermax facility.

    So when you talk about less spending and the republican approach what you're really saying is spend less on services that help the working class so more can be spent on corporate welfare.

  3. #113
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

    Re: Financial Reform Talks Near Collapse, Some GOPers Threaten To Defect

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    Do you have any idea what you are responding to? You seem to be in a conversation with an imaginary friend but your responses are posted here.
    I know exactly who I am posting to, someone who doesn't like to be challenged, someone that is totally partisan, and someone who reports posts to moderators in hopes of getting infractions and someone kicked out of the forum. How many have you succeeded in getting kicked out of here and what do you have on the moderators that support your caustic comments?

  4. #114
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,626

    Re: Financial Reform Talks Near Collapse, Some GOPers Threaten To Defect

    Moderator's Warning:
    Financial Reform Talks Near Collapse, Some GOPers Threaten To DefectStop the personal attacks.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  5. #115
    Guru
    ADK_Forever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    05-07-11 @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,706

    Re: Financial Reform Talks Near Collapse, Some GOPers Threaten To Defect

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Tell me who you think wears the crown of filibuster and do nothing? Then back that up with actual facts not media or personal spin. Better find out the make up of Congress before you make your response.
    In the 110th Congress of 2007-2008, with Republicans in the minority, there were a record 112 cloture votes.
    In the current session of Congress — the 111th — for all of 2009 and the first two months of 2010 the number already exceeds 40.

    The most the filibuster has been used when Democrats were in the minority was 58 times in the 106th Congress of 1999-2000.
    GOP on pace to threaten its own record on filibuster use | Jay Bookman

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...sters-1102.gif

    These numbers don't even require comment.
    Thank You Barack Obama for Restoring Honor To The Presidency.
    President Obama will rank as one of our greatest presidents!

  6. #116
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,253

    Re: Financial Reform Talks Near Collapse, Some GOPers Threaten To Defect

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    First of all I don't see an answer to the question as the inflation occurred the latter part of the Carter years thus the 20+ percent interest rates.
    The question was straight forward, needing no mention of Carter or interest rates. What is the pricing effect on tax cuts?

    Cutting taxes put more money into the hands of the people who spent it, saved it, invested it, or paid down debt all of which stimulated and grew the economy. Almost 20 million jobs were created as a result and the facts are there for all to see.
    Not denying tax cuts put "money into the hands of people". I am however denying the notion that tax cuts, in our current environment, will not have the same effect as in the 1980's. So pay attention: We are not seeing inflation risks in the foreseable future. We have record deficits and debt.

    It would do you best to consider the Ricardian equivalence and how it applies to our current situation. Failure to do so weakens your already embarrassing economic analysis.

    Heavy tax reductions would create more economic activity and demand for goods and services thus creating the jobs that actually produce taxpayers.
    You repeat the same sentence without considering the current economic environment. I am beginning to detect senile dementia: we are not in the 1980's, and the economic climate is entirely different. Given the enormous debt burden of American consumers, tax cuts will most likely be saved rather than spent. In doing so, we will only be increasing national debt while lowering private debt, thereby negating any short term potential spending increases which create jobs. The increase in national debt will necessarily reduce the rate of savings in which to pay for its increase.

    The real key is to increase aggregate demand so that labor market demand follows suit.

    The price ramifications depends on productivity, where low productivity drives inflation and high productivity will create the goods that will keep inflation in check.
    Irrelevant: US worker productivity is at the top (for nations with 100 million populations). You would be hard pressed to offer a compelling argument for low rates of US productivity.

    as for being outgunned, that is a joke, right? BEA.gov will give you the non partisan numbers showing economic growth and tax revenue. Before using your condescending tone I suggest you get the facts because they make you look like a fool.
    This is not the 1980's. The economic environment is entirely different, and therefore applying supply side solutions to a demand side problem is incorrect. You need to put in more effort and less partisan emotion. It is your argument, your words, that strengthen your position: not the level of emotion in regards to your position.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  7. #117
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

    Re: Financial Reform Talks Near Collapse, Some GOPers Threaten To Defect

    Goldenboy219;1058725613]The question was straight forward, needing no mention of Carter or interest rates. What is the pricing effect on tax cuts?
    If you are going to talk about pricing affects of the tax cut then you have to understand the role of the Federal Reserve in controlling money. They do that by raising and lowering interest rates. What was the interest rates during the Carter years and then after the Reagan tax cuts?


    Not denying tax cuts put "money into the hands of people". I am however denying the notion that tax cuts, in our current environment, will not have the same effect as in the 1980's. So pay attention: We are not seeing inflation risks in the foreseable future. We have record deficits and debt.
    Tax cuts do not cause deficits as evidenced by bea.gov revenue numbers during both the Reagan and Bush Administrations. Tell me how tax revenue grew AFTER both Presidents cut tax rates? Obama lied to the American people about the need for his 800 billion emergency stimulus plan of which 2/3rds hasn't been spent. Some kind of emergency, wasn't it. Give the money to the tax payers and watch what they do with it

    It would do you best to consider the Ricardian equivalence and how it applies to our current situation. Failure to do so weakens your already embarrassing economic analysis.
    The true embarrassment comes from the people who ignore actual numbers and instead listen to economists who obviously haven't looked at the numbers. Still waiting for anyone against tax cuts to explain how Reagan doubled revenue with a 25% across the board tax cut? Instead of ignoring it and giving me the same old elitist line answer the question.



    You repeat the same sentence without considering the current economic environment. I am beginning to detect senile dementia: we are not in the 1980's, and the economic climate is entirely different. Given the enormous debt burden of American consumers, tax cuts will most likely be saved rather than spent. In doing so, we will only be increasing national debt while lowering private debt, thereby negating any short term potential spending increases which create jobs. The increase in national debt will necessarily reduce the rate of savings in which to pay for its increase.

    The real key is to increase aggregate demand so that labor market demand follows suit.
    You are absolutely correct, it is senile dementia to confuse people here with actual facts from bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S. Treasury sites. Why don't you send in more money to the govt. since you obviously believe they need it more than you and your family.


    Irrelevant: US worker productivity is at the top (for nations with 100 million populations). You would be hard pressed to offer a compelling argument for low rates of US productivity.
    Then you shouldn't have any problem with tax cuts that stimulated economic growth and greater productivity. My bet is you will continue to divert and dodge.



    This is not the 1980's. The economic environment is entirely different, and therefore applying supply side solutions to a demand side problem is incorrect. You need to put in more effort and less partisan emotion. It is your argument, your words, that strengthen your position: not the level of emotion in regards to your position.
    I lived and worked during the 80's and never did better. My income grew and I was able to pay off debt making me less dependent on the govt. and that scares the hell out of liberals.

    It does seem to it is you that continues with the partisan rhetoric as you ignore actual results and instead divert from the reality.

  8. #118
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,253

    Re: Financial Reform Talks Near Collapse, Some GOPers Threaten To Defect

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    If you are going to talk about pricing affects of the tax cut then you have to understand the role of the Federal Reserve in controlling money. They do that by raising and lowering interest rates. What was the interest rates during the Carter years and then after the Reagan tax cuts?
    I already "understand" the role of the Federal Reserve; please do not feel the need to "educate" me. FWIW, the Fed sets interest rates (short term) via repo's and reverse repo's. :

    And still you did not answer my question. Instead, you dodged it by asking a pointless question.

    Tax cuts do not cause deficits as evidenced by bea.gov revenue numbers during both the Reagan and Bush Administrations.
    Tax cuts do cause deficits if spending is not offset. Under certain situations, tax cuts can help spur economic growth; i was never denying that. However, this is not one of those environments. This is not the 1980's. Federal debt is at its highest levels since the 1950's. At least attempt to maintain the proper perspective of reality.

    Tell me how tax revenue grew AFTER both Presidents cut tax rates? Obama lied to the American people about the need for his 800 billion emergency stimulus plan of which 2/3rds hasn't been spent. Some kind of emergency, wasn't it. Give the money to the tax payers and watch what they do with it
    Due to the fact that spending cuts did not coincide with tax cuts, GDP growth was a natural result of the borrowing and spending from the federal government. For example, when the stimulus package was started, GDP increased as each dollar has been spent. Assuming 1/3 has already been spent, the GDP increased (at least) by that 1/3 or $266 billion (although there are other factors that grow GDP). This in turn allows for a greater tax base.

    None the less, we can use hindsight to point out the US was emerging from a hefty recession. With this in mind, we can easily factor a major cause of increased revenues as the US emerging from a recession.

    Yet something interesting occurred from 1981-1984. In that period, federal revenue (from taxes) as a % of GDP decreased in dramatic fashion from 19.2% in 1981 to 16.9% in 1984. Even in the height of the Reagan era economic environment, it failed to reach 18% (compared to 19.6% in 1998).

    The Reagan tax cuts had one very positive impact: It helped alleviate inflation. It is very disengenous to claim tax cuts were responsible for economic growth as government spending increased 90% during the Reagan years.

    If i had to give my opinion, i would credit the expansion of government spending as more of a underlying growth factor than taxes.


    The true embarrassment comes from the people who ignore actual numbers and instead listen to economists who obviously haven't looked at the numbers. Still waiting for anyone against tax cuts to explain how Reagan doubled revenue with a 25% across the board tax cut? Instead of ignoring it and giving me the same old elitist line answer the question.
    Already addressed. You support Keynesian economic policy. Nuff said

    You are absolutely correct, it is senile dementia to confuse people here with actual facts from bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S. Treasury sites. Why don't you send in more money to the govt. since you obviously believe they need it more than you and your family.
    You have failed to provide credible analysis of the data.

    Then you shouldn't have any problem with tax cuts that stimulated economic growth and greater productivity. My bet is you will continue to divert and dodge.
    Productivity is not the issue, and has not been one for some time. During recessions, productivity naturally increases (i bet you cannot explain with any easiness as to why).

    I lived and worked during the 80's and never did better. My income grew and I was able to pay off debt making me less dependent on the govt. and that scares the hell out of liberals.
    Good for you, what does it have to do with the discussion at hand? Anecdotal evidence at this stage confirms you are out of ammunition (regarding credibility).

    It does seem to it is you that continues with the partisan rhetoric as you ignore actual results and instead divert from the reality.
    I am about as non partisan as it comes. I am not aligned with or have any allegiance to political parties. That type of behavior is common with partisan suckers.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  9. #119
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

    Re: Financial Reform Talks Near Collapse, Some GOPers Threaten To Defect

    Goldenboy219;1058728028]I already "understand" the role of the Federal Reserve; please do not feel the need to "educate" me. FWIW, the Fed sets interest rates (short term) via repo's and reverse repo's. :

    And still you did not answer my question. Instead, you dodged it by asking a pointless question.
    Wrong, I answered the question, you just didn't like the answer. the affects on pricing only matter if productivity drops. As long as companies keep up with the supply prices will remain stable. What is going to happen now due to major expansion of govt. is inflationary pressure that will force the Fed. to react upwards. The point was that during the Carter years inflation was worse thus the high interest rates to control money supply. Reagan tax cuts gave people more money to spend which they pumped into the economy. That is what grew the economy, created jobs, and doubled govt. tax revenue.


    Tax cuts do cause deficits if spending is not offset. Under certain situations, tax cuts can help spur economic growth; i was never denying that. However, this is not one of those environments. This is not the 1980's. Federal debt is at its highest levels since the 1950's. At least attempt to maintain the proper perspective of reality.
    Wrong, tax rate cuts grew govt. revenue as intended. When you blame tax cuts where people keep more of their money for deficits then you smack the American people right in the face when you should be smacking politicians in the face for spending that increase in revenue just to keep their jobs.

    I posted govt revenue since Obama took office and that has added to the deficit and debt. It isn't a pretty picture and if you increase taxes all you are going to do is styfle economic growth and that destroys govt. revenue.


    Due to the fact that spending cuts did not coincide with tax cuts, GDP growth was a natural result of the borrowing and spending from the federal government. For example, when the stimulus package was started, GDP increased as each dollar has been spent. Assuming 1/3 has already been spent, the GDP increased (at least) by that 1/3 or $266 billion (although there are other factors that grow GDP). This in turn allows for a greater tax base.
    If the GDP truly grew then govt revenue would grow but that hasn't happened. That is what you truly miss preferring instead to blame tax cuts that grew govt. revenue. The only thing growing is the size of govt. and that isn't enough to make a difference in real GDP. There are four components of GDP with the consumer being the biggest one, 2/3rds of GDP. Nothing Obama has done stimulates consumer activity and thus prevents job creation.

    None the less, we can use hindsight to point out the US was emerging from a hefty recession. With this in mind, we can easily factor a major cause of increased revenues as the US emerging from a recession.
    Better tell the U.S. Treasury that they are getting more money now because the U.S. Treasury doesn't show it nor does the labor market.

    Yet something interesting occurred from 1981-1984. In that period, federal revenue (from taxes) as a % of GDP decreased in dramatic fashion from 19.2% in 1981 to 16.9% in 1984. Even in the height of the Reagan era economic environment, it failed to reach 18% (compared to 19.6% in 1998).
    Why does that statistic matter? You seem focused on the govt. getting more money instead of people becoming less dependent on the govt. by keeping more of theirs. Tax revenue doubled after the Reagan tax cuts which didn't go into full affect until 1982. Noticed you used 1981 as the baseline, why? we were in recession with a declining GDP thus higher tax revenue as a percentage. It is real dollars that matter, not percentage change.

    The Reagan tax cuts had one very positive impact: It helped alleviate inflation. It is very disengenous to claim tax cuts were responsible for economic growth as government spending increased 90% during the Reagan years.
    There you go again just like others who seem to hate keeping more of their money. Since others won't answer the question explain to me how GDP doubled as did Govt. revenue AFTER the Reagan Tax cuts?

    That spending of Reagan led to the fall of the Soviet Union and thus a peace dividend for Clinton. In addition that Reagan tax cut increased govt. revenue enough to pay for Reagan spending but not enough for those kids in the candy store, Congress. Reagan signed the bills yet led President's in vetoes but Congress attached spending bills to the tax cuts. Reagan knew it was going to take tax cuts to grow the economy and govt. revenue. That is exactly what happened.

    If i had to give my opinion, i would credit the expansion of government spending as more of a underlying growth factor than taxes.
    Govt. spending helped but pales in compassion to what the consumer got from the Reagan tax cuts. With a GDP based mostly on the consumer govt. spending was a small part of that growth. Govt. contributes about 20@ to GDP


    Already addressed. You support Keynesian economic policy. Nuff said
    I support a smaller govt. and people keeping more of their own money. I am a supply sider and that is the only economic policy that makes any sense.

    You have failed to provide credible analysis of the data.
    Says you. I offer bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S Treasury site to back up my claims, suggest you get your nose out of the textbook and get actual data. Then apply human behavior to that data and it really is pretty simple.

    Productivity is not the issue, and has not been one for some time. During recessions, productivity naturally increases (i bet you cannot explain with any easiness as to why).
    Wrong, it is basic supply and demand, during a recession productivity is going to look great because people don't have the money to buy the goods. Products remain on the shelf, consumer spending goes into the tank and GDP falls.


    Good for you, what does it have to do with the discussion at hand? Anecdotal evidence at this stage confirms you are out of ammunition (regarding credibility).
    If only you knew. What I see here are a lot of book smart, street stupid individuals who point to charts and graphs yet have no idea where the information came from or how to interpret that information. These people need to get out more and find out what is going on in the real world.



    I am about as non partisan as it comes. I am not aligned with or have any allegiance to political parties. That type of behavior is common with partisan suckers.
    Good, neither am I, I have as much disdain for the Republcain establishment today as I have for the Democrats. Unfortunately those are the two choices we have. I prefer voting for the one closest to my point of view which today is the Republican Party. I grew up a Democrat but the party left me as I always have been a conservative.

  10. #120
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,253

    Re: Financial Reform Talks Near Collapse, Some GOPers Threaten To Defect

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Wrong, I answered the question, you just didn't like the answer. the affects on pricing only matter if productivity drops. As long as companies keep up with the supply prices will remain stable. What is going to happen now due to major expansion of govt. is inflationary pressure that will force the Fed. to react upwards. The point was that during the Carter years inflation was worse thus the high interest rates to control money supply. Reagan tax cuts gave people more money to spend which they pumped into the economy. That is what grew the economy, created jobs, and doubled govt. tax revenue.
    Your answer was both incorrect, and a very lame attempt to dodge.

    New York Federal Reserve economist Gauti Eggertsson stated in his paper, "Can tax cuts deepen a recession?"

    The general conclusion I want to stress is that the principal goal of policy at zero interest rates should not be to increase aggregate
    supply.
    Instead, the goal should be to increase aggregate demand — the overall level of spending in the economy. This is because at zero interest rates output is demand determined, at least according to the model presented here. At zero interest rate aggregate supply is mostly relevant in the model because it pins down expectations about future inflation. Policies that aim at increasing aggregate supply can create deflationary expectations and thus be counterproductive. Turning to aggregate demand, I show that it can be increased by either temporarily increases in government spending, or a commitment to inflate the currency
    I compute multipliers of tax cuts and government spending analytically in the model. These multipliers answer the question: By how many dollars does output increase for every dollar in tax cuts or government spending increases. While the multiplier on tax cuts is positive under normal circumstances, it becomes negative at a zero interest rate. In a numerical example shown in Table 1 it goes from 0.15 at a positive interest rate to -1.89 once the interest rate hits zero.
    The multiplier of government spending, however, gets several times larger at a zero interest rate. In the numerical example shown in Table 1 it goes from 0.5 to 1.95. The analytical results and the numerical examples illustrate that empirical studies on taxes and spending that use post war data can be misleading in guiding policy today. The entire post-war period was characterized by positive short-term nominal interest rate while they have collapsed to zero today.
    Source

    Not only do you fumble in your response, but then make another error in neglecting to factor the difference between our current environment (zero bound interest rate environment) and the early 1980's (double digit interest rates). So pay extra attention to pages 7 and 10 in the sourced PDF. It helps to illustrate your error.

    The reasons tax cuts were helpful in the 1980s does not apply in the current; therefore you should be a good champ, and refrain from mentioning the 80's when discussing the current economic environment. Such an error is actually quite embarrassing.

    Wrong, tax rate cuts grew govt. revenue as intended.
    While i do agree that tax cuts can have an impact on increasing future revenue; the fact of the matter is the market does possess a lag in how consumers internalize the tax incentive. The initial result (without cutting spending; negative GDP determinant) is increased deficits as has been shown in any post war data you care to examine.

    Yet there is research that shows the Bush tax cuts were not only inefective, they substantially increased the deficit by nearly $920 billion.

    A review of economic performance over the last four-and-a-half years indicates that the series of major tax cuts enacted in that time have not strengthened the economy. Almost every broad measure of economic
    activity—GDP, jobs, personal income, and business investment, among others—has fared worse over the last four-and-a-half years than in past cycles (Figure N) Proponents of the series of major tax cuts since 2001 had projected that gauges such as these would reflect improvement after enactment.
    Although the tax cuts have failed to boost economic performance, they have not failed to reduce revenues substantially. In the recently completed fiscal year 2005, the combined effect of the tax cuts
    passed since 2001 was $225 billion without interest. When the interest costs from greater debt is included, the tax cuts raised the deficit by $260 billion, a sum that would wipe out most of last year’sunsustainable $317 billion deficit. If the tax cuts are extended and reasonable assumptions about future spending are accepted, the deficit will remain near 3% of GDP (or higher) indefinitely.

    Source


    Pay extra attention to page 10 figure K. Do you have any partisan bull**** which can explain the under-performance of the post 2003 recovery?

    I posted govt revenue since Obama took office and that has added to the deficit and debt. It isn't a pretty picture and if you increase taxes all you are going to do is styfle economic growth and that destroys govt. revenue.
    Irrelevant. This recession is the most severe economic downturn since the great depression. You still cannot explain how the economy grew despite the massively progressive tax rates from 1945-1970.

    If the GDP truly grew then govt revenue would grow but that hasn't happened. That is what you truly miss preferring instead to blame tax cuts that grew govt. revenue. The only thing growing is the size of govt. and that isn't enough to make a difference in real GDP. There are four components of GDP with the consumer being the biggest one, 2/3rds of GDP. Nothing Obama has done stimulates consumer activity and thus prevents job creation.
    Incorrect once again. How many is this in a row? You are aware that over $280 billion of the stimulus was in the form of tax cuts/breaks?

    Better tell the U.S. Treasury that they are getting more money now because the U.S. Treasury doesn't show it nor does the labor market.
    The only one in this thread that has typed those words is you.
    Why does that statistic matter?
    Are you obtuse? The statistic (government revenues as a percentage of GDP) allows us to analyze the real revenue effects of the Reagan tax cuts. If the tax cuts boosted government revenue in the fashion you claim, we would witness an increase in government revenue as a percentage of GDP. In reality, we watched massive government spending (Keynesian!) combined with deficits even during growth years. The tax cuts a minimal effect on inducing increased tax revenue.

    You seem focused on the govt. getting more money instead of people becoming less dependent on the govt. by keeping more of theirs.
    Nope! I am simply analyzing the situation on the basis of reality and objectivity. Quite a shame you lack both the desire and ability to do the same.

    Tax revenue doubled after the Reagan tax cuts which didn't go into full affect until 1982. Noticed you used 1981 as the baseline, why? we were in recession with a declining GDP thus higher tax revenue as a percentage. It is real dollars that matter, not percentage change.
    Incorrect once again. Actually, the revenues/GDP % had been declining since 1978, signifying the makings of a recession. The fact that they continued to fall (even in the stages of recovery) negates the fantasy world you live in. Correlation does not equal causation. You cannot look up tax revenues and state that because they happened in the same time frame as tax cuts, state with any accuracy it's those very tax cuts that is the cause. Poor economic analysis, and a juvenile argument style. Time to pick it up a notch.

    There you go again just like others who seem to hate keeping more of their money. Since others won't answer the question explain to me how GDP doubled as did Govt. revenue AFTER the Reagan Tax cuts?
    I reserve judgment based on the facts and circumstances surrounding them. Now, my generation will be forced to foot the bill for your generations inability to accept any sort of fiscal responsibility (except for the Clinton era).

    That spending of Reagan led to the fall of the Soviet Union and thus a peace dividend for Clinton.
    Opinion and nothing else. The Soviet system was poised for collapse due to various destabilizing economic factors that stem from a command economy.

    In addition that Reagan tax cut increased govt. revenue enough to pay for Reagan spending but not enough for those kids in the candy store, Congress. Reagan signed the bills yet led President's in vetoes but Congress attached spending bills to the tax cuts. Reagan knew it was going to take tax cuts to grow the economy and govt. revenue. That is exactly what happened.
    Glad to use this piece to illustrate your partisan blinders:

    Taxes were cut at the beginning of the Reagan administration.

    Federal tax receipts increased by 50% by the end of the Reagan Administration.

    Although correlation does not prove causation the tax cut must have accounted for some portion of this increase in federal tax receipts.

    I couldn’t have asked for a better example of why it’s important to correct for inflation and population growth, both of which tend to make revenues grow regardless of tax policy.

    Actually, federal revenues rose 80 percent in dollar terms from 1980 to 1988. And numbers like that (sometimes they play with the dates) are thrown around by Reagan hagiographers all the time.

    But real revenues per capita grew only 19 percent over the same period — better than the likely Bush performance, but still nothing exciting. In fact, it’s less than revenue growth in the period 1972-1980 (24 percent) and much less than the amazing 41 percent gain from 1992 to 2000.
    Reagan and revenue - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

    Govt. spending helped but pales in compassion to what the consumer got from the Reagan tax cuts. With a GDP based mostly on the consumer govt. spending was a small part of that growth. Govt. contributes about 20@ to GDP
    Already acknowledged the positive effects in regards to the stagflationary environment.

    I support a smaller govt. and people keeping more of their own money. I am a supply sider and that is the only economic policy that makes any sense.
    Such black and white thinking renders you both subjective and boring. Although it is fun to intellectually outpoint the partisan right You do not even understand supply side theory

    Says you. I offer bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S Treasury site to back up my claims, suggest you get your nose out of the textbook and get actual data. Then apply human behavior to that data and it really is pretty simple.
    We have already addressed how you mis-analyzed the data. Perhaps something a bit more suited to your abilities: here.

    Wrong, it is basic supply and demand, during a recession productivity is going to look great because people don't have the money to buy the goods. Products remain on the shelf, consumer spending goes into the tank and GDP falls.
    Sad truly sad.... I don't know why i should have to explain such a simple notion. Productivity increases during recessions because firms are forced to do with less. Due to price rigidities and "labor hoarding" (might want to look it up), productivity spikes during recessions (you can only squeeze so much blood from a stone) then diminishes, giving a positive effect to labor demand. The question i have is: will you even admit your error?

    If only you knew. What I see here are a lot of book smart, street stupid individuals who point to charts and graphs yet have no idea where the information came from or how to interpret that information. These people need to get out more and find out what is going on in the real world.
    You are in no position to make such a judgment about me. I have displayed superior understanding and familiarity regarding the subject matter, where as you have struggled on a consistent basis to develop any real cause in your statement.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •