good economic news...

waas said:

His economics are fatally flawed. :?

The whole premise is that, if you give tax cuts to those above a certain income, they'll be able to higher more workers. With more people working, you collect more tax revenue and grow a healthy economy.

This is wrong on a number of levels, the first being that: If a person is given a tax cut, this won't necessarily lead to them hiring workers.
And unlike SSE, Trickle down gives tax cuts to everyone above a certain income, not merely job creaters and the producers of capital.

Click to expand...

The initial flaw is your understanding of his plan:

Mitt will pursue comprehensive tax reform that lowers tax rates for all Americans... (emphasis mine)
Mitt's Plan to Create 12 Million New Jobs | Mitt Romney for President

Click to expand...

AdamT said:

No, he really wasn't. If Obama had done a quarter of the shady **** that went on under Reagan he'd be in Leavenworth. Reagan is the most overrated president in history, as history will confirm.

Click to expand...

well to the punish the rich, grow the government even faster, big brother knows best fans, I can see why they hate Reagan. Same with those who loved the Iron Curtain

TurtleDude said:

well to the punish the rich, grow the government even faster, big brother knows best fans, I can see why they hate Reagan. Same with those who loved the Iron Curtain

Click to expand...

The fog of memory seems to have dimmed your understanding of Reagan:

"We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that have allowed some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. They sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10% of his salary – and that's crazy. Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver.

--Ronald Reagan

Click to expand...

waas said:

His economics are fatally flawed. :?

The whole premise is that, if you give tax cuts to those above a certain income, they'll be able to higher more workers. With more people working, you collect more tax revenue and grow a healthy economy.

This is wrong on a number of levels, the first being that: If a person is given a tax cut, this won't necessarily lead to them hiring workers.
And unlike SSE, Trickle down gives tax cuts to everyone above a certain income, not merely job creaters and the producers of capital.

Click to expand...

You must have missed the recent debates. Romney's proposal is to give 20% tax cuts across the board (i.e. all income levels). This is to grow the economy at 4%, which is entirely plausible in an environment where there is leadership on the economy. Our current rate of growth of 1.3% is pitifull. Business people are insecure with the Obama Administration. That is why they have a trillion dollars sitting on the sidelines waiting for more predictable tax policies. Imagine if a trillion dollars of private funds was suddenly injected into the economy rather than borrowing another trillion from ourselves as was done with the TARP money!

AdamT said:

Here's a fun fact for you: unemployment hasn't dropped this quickly in an election year since 1984 ... leading up to Ronnie Raygun's landslide reelection.

Click to expand...

Speaking of which ... I've been looking around and haven't seen. Do we have an update on the unemployment taking into account that the mystery state forgot to send in their numbers?

AdamT said:

The fog of memory seems to have dimmed your understanding of Reagan:

Click to expand...

Yawn-My tax bill under Reagan went way down. Why do the taxers and parasites and Obama supporters pretend to talk about the uber wealthy when you are really seeking to loot the wealth of those making over 250K

In what sort of world is 250K uber wealthy or "Truly wealthy"?

Keridan said:

Speaking of which ... I've been looking around and haven't seen. Do we have an update on the unemployment taking into account that the mystery state forgot to send in their numbers?

Click to expand...

The weekly jobless claims numbers aren't reflected in the last monthly unemployment rate.

AdamT said:

No, he really wasn't. If Obama had done a quarter of the shady **** that went on under Reagan he'd be in Leavenworth. Reagan is the most overrated president in history, as history will confirm.

Click to expand...

Shady stuff? What did Reagan do that was worse than covering up a major terrorist attack, lying to the families of the slain about the circumstances of their deaths, at the same time using their remains in a photo-op designed to show how much you "care"... about your reelection perhaps, but for the security of the guys in Libya? Not so much.

AdamT said:

The weekly jobless claims numbers aren't reflected in the last monthly unemployment rate.

Click to expand...

Oops. My bad. Still looking for revisions, though. Always have those.

No matter what, I'll take any good economic news, since my business depends a lot on the perceptions held by the middle/upper class.

TurtleDude said:

Yawn-My tax bill under Reagan went way down. Why do the taxers and parasites and Obama supporters pretend to talk about the uber wealthy when you are really seeking to loot the wealth of those making over 250K

In what sort of world is 250K uber wealthy or "Truly wealthy"?

Click to expand...

Puh, you were in your 20s under Reagan?

In any case, I don't think many Democrats would argue that tax rates weren't too high before Reagan. He was right to lower them, but he went too far. That part of the reason he had to raise taxes almost a dozen times.

AdamT said:

Puh, you were in your 20s under Reagan?

In any case, I don't think many Democrats would argue that tax rates weren't too high before Reagan. He was right to lower them, but he went too far. That part of the reason he had to raise taxes almost a dozen times.

Click to expand...

Yeah so what, I was still making over 400K a year in my 20's. Reagan's biggest sin was allowing dems to hold his defense initiatives hostage to their welfare addict creation spending

Keridan said:

Oops. My bad. Still looking for revisions, though. Always have those.

No matter what, I'll take any good economic news, since my business depends a lot on the perceptions held by the middle/upper class.

Click to expand...

The news is okay, but surprisingly good in view of how bad the rest of the world is doing. As the author of the article pointed out, it's not really something that could be fudged by the government. The news is reflected in auto sales, housing starts, retail numbers, etc., etc.

TurtleDude said:

well you are wrong for several reasons

1) the first is based on the idiotic assumption that everyone targeted for tax hikes is able to bear more taxes. You assume that those people all live frugally.

2) if someone is mainly living on dividend income their taxes could be tripled.

most people-rich or poor (save the uber wealthy for example but most of those targeted for soaking are not uber rich) tend to live close to the limits of their means. I know dozens of cases of people who were members of the same expensive country club I belong to who had to resign when there was an economic downturn.

I remember one clown who reveled at the thought that tax hikes could cause someone making say 500K year who has three kids in Ivy League schools (my father had that for 8 years since my two siblings and I all had at least two years of graduate study and two of us had four years) to be unable to afford tuition if Obama jacks the tax on dividends from 15% to 43% as something good --he whined that since his parents couldn't send him to an Ivy league school it wasn't fair that others could

giving an irresponsible government more money is idiotic.

Click to expand...

I fundamentally disagree. If someone's going to country clubs and sending a few kids to Ivies, they're pretty far above the standard of most people(Though your whole tuition argument is sort of shaky, as a good portion of folks receive some form of financial aid.) And you're acting like the members of the upper income bracket are scraping by, but that's just not the case. If my biggest worries were leaving my "expensive country club" and not being able to afford sending three kids to graduate school, I'd be quite pleased(and so would a majority of folks). There are so many holes in your rhetoric, it's almost comical.

A government is only irresponsible when people make it that way; with right wing policies and the like.

waas said:

I fundamentally disagree. If someone's going to country clubs and sending a few kids to Ivies, they're pretty far above the standard of most people(Though your whole tuition argument is sort of shaky, as a good portion of folks receive some form of financial aid.) And you're acting like the members of the upper income bracket are scraping by, but that's just not the case. If my biggest worries were leaving my "expensive country club" and not being able to afford sending three kids to graduate school, I'd be quite pleased(and so would a majority of folks). There are so many holes in your rhetoric, it's almost comical.

A government is only irresponsible when people make it that way; with right wing policies and the like.

Click to expand...

another complete miss on your part The issue isn't whether they are well above other people, the issue is your claim that the Obama tax hikes won't affect their lifestyles which is a specious argument. many of the parasiters, taxers and other fans of taxing the wealthy project their own situation on those more industrious or prosperous than they are and think


"well I have a net income of 50K a year and have expenses of 48K a year and if I had 200K in income I could afford even 50% taxes because that means I would have 100K to pay my 48K in expenses. That is common thinking from the lefties but its idiotic because many people making 200K a year often have expenses (including high FIT, something someone making 50K a year does not have) near 190K or so a year. many people targeted for Obama tax hikes aren't socking away thousands and thousands of dollars

AdamT said:

The fog of memory seems to have dimmed your understanding of Reagan:

Click to expand...

If you think this is the entire story to Reagan's tax proposals, it's you who's lost in the fog.

In furtherance of this, Regan pushed for a simplified tax code and proposed two, lower tax brackets, with the max at 28 percent, while closing the loopholes.

Sound familiar? It should.

Harshaw said:

If you think this is the entire story to Reagan's tax proposals, it's you who's lost in the fog.

In furtherance of this, Regan pushed for a simplified tax code and proposed two, lower tax brackets, with the max at 28 percent, while closing the loopholes.

Sound familiar? It should.

Click to expand...

tax rates less useful for class struggle and appealing to envious failures are anathema to the Obama left

TurtleDude said:

tax rates less useful for class struggle and appealing to envious failures are anathema to the Obama left

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's why they only quote Reagan selectively. Of course, it may not be 100% accurate to call it "selective" if you're not aware there's more to the story in the first place. :roll:

Harshaw said:

Yeah, that's why they only quote Reagan selectively. Of course, it may not be 100% accurate to call it "selective" if you're not aware there's more to the story in the first place. :roll:

Click to expand...

Yes sort of like quoting Adam Smith selectively. The fact is the left hates Reagan for bringing down their dream utopia in the USSR and for making the tax code less useful for class struggle

Harshaw said:

If you think this is the entire story to Reagan's tax proposals, it's you who's lost in the fog.

In furtherance of this, Regan pushed for a simplified tax code and proposed two, lower tax brackets, with the max at 28 percent, while closing the loopholes.

Sound familiar? It should.

Click to expand...

I'll tell you what, Brother, if the wealthy paid a flat 28% tax that would be fine by me. Reagan wanted the wealthy to pay their fair share (his words).

TurtleDude said:

Yes sort of like quoting Adam Smith selectively. The fact is the left hates Reagan for bringing down their dream utopia in the USSR and for making the tax code less useful for class struggle

Click to expand...

You want to post the rest of the Adam Smith quote that, in your opinion, puts it in context? I'll wait.

AdamT said:

I'll tell you what, Brother, if the wealthy paid a flat 28% tax that would be fine by me. Reagan wanted the wealthy to pay their fair share (his words).

Click to expand...

even some REpublicans pander to the hoi polloi

AdamT said:

You want to post the rest of the Adam Smith quote that, in your opinion, puts it in context? I'll wait.

Click to expand...

The rest of Adam smith contains stuff the far left welfare socialists might not find too comforting

RenoCon said:

You must have missed the recent debates.

Click to expand...

Look at actual policies. Debates are full of lies, longstanding policies aren't.

Romney's proposal is to give 20% tax cuts across the board (i.e. all income levels). This is to grow the economy at 4%, which is entirely plausible in an environment where there is leadership on the economy.

Click to expand...

And he'll balance the budget by cutting loopholes(minus benefits for the middle class), somehow... I've also specified (and discredited the premise behind) how he expects this to grow the economy. Good leadership + bad policies = flourishing economy? No...

Our current rate of growth of 1.3% is pitifull.

Click to expand...

I agree. But slow growth(Obama) is far better than no growth, or decline(Romney).

Business people are insecure with the Obama Administration.

Click to expand...

Prove it.

That is why they have a trillion dollars sitting on the sidelines waiting for more predictable tax policies.

Click to expand...

That's in tax heavens because of taxes, not unpredictable taxes, or the OA.

Imagine if a trillion dollars of private funds was suddenly injected into the economy rather than borrowing another trillion from ourselves as was done with the TARP money!

Click to expand...

That'd be nice, but this is the fault of private corporations, not the OA.

AdamT said:

Here's a fun fact for you: unemployment hasn't dropped this quickly in an election year since 1984 ... leading up to Ronnie Raygun's landslide reelection.

Click to expand...

You once again beclown yourself

Obama drives down the unemployment by not counting people who are dumpster diving and struggling to survive. He spends massive amounts of taxpayer money over 2 months to flood the Federal Workforce with temporary jobs, while at the same time we see an economy that is adding part time jobs, not full time jobs. These Federal Workers are a direct Opportunity Cost to the private Labor Market because capital that otherwise could have been allocated to hire workers has been confiscated by Government to hire bureaucrats. An economy that more and more see low skilled workers who are trying to enter the labor force become crowded out because the part time entry lvl jobs are being taken up by students who are underemployed trying to pay off their student loans

Reagan decreased the unemployment rate with real economic growth. Not statistical gimmicks and a reckless Fed pumping worthless paper into the economy, or from a corrupt administration that will lie about Benghazi. Reagan saw 9.3% GDP in the third year of his presidency with a million jobs created in 1 month. In the same month of Obama's presidency, he say zero. Obama is at 1.3% GDP Growth with pathetic projection forecast with skyrocketing debt. Go ahead and spike the football tho and scream CT at anyone who would question your messiah if you want, nobody cares. We know the truth. The American People know the truth and we will be removing the Chicago Thugs from the Oval Office on election day

TurtleDude said:

The rest of Adam smith contains stuff the far left welfare socialists might not find too comforting

Click to expand...

You'd be surprised.