• 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!

Financial Reform Talks Near Collapse, Some GOPers Threaten To Defect

Conservative said:
So tell me how the tax revenue doubled when Reagan cut taxes 25% across the board? That is contrary to everything a liberal spouts which isn't surprising.
Click to expand...
I did tell you but you seem unable to grasp the concepts.

The numbers posted show 79-80-81 prior to the tax cuts. Have you even looked at govt. revenue prior to the tax cuts which went into effect in 1982?
Click to expand...
Yes I have looked at them, I posted them. There was increases which your Reagan tax cuts can't possibly account for, but you have no comment on that fact, or any of the facts presented to you. All you can say is to look at the raw data. I provided you with context in which to assess that data and you ignore it. I think we know why.

Can you explain why Reagan won a landslide in 84, one of the biggest on record?
Click to expand...
Yes I can, it's irrelevant to the conversation and a sophomoric attempt at distraction. FAIL

Stop spinning and get the facts.
Click to expand...
Ah yes, the repugnican ploy, deny your opponents facts without explanation and accuse them of not having any facts. :doh

I think I've made you look foolish enough on this topic now. I'm out...
 
Goldenboy219 said:
We had this argument before, and you were intellectually outgunned, clinging motionless to your "tax revenue" statement without taking into consideration the context. Being as you do not fully understand how supply side economics functions, along with its limitations regarding policy, i am not the least bit shocked.

The 1980's began with serious bouts of inflation and stagnating growth. Cutting taxes (supply determinant) helped alleviate pricing pressures, combined with a military Keynesian spending approach helped foster growth.

But we are not in the 1980's, and the issue is deflation not inflation.

So do answer me one question: What are the pricing ramifications for heavy tax reductions? Being that you lack any serious insight into supply side economics, i expect your response to lack an answer to this question. You may now rant on.
Click to expand...


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. 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.

Heavy tax reductions would create more economic activity and demand for goods and services thus creating the jobs that actually produce taxpayers. The price ramifications depends on productivity, where low productivity drives inflation and high productivity will create the goods that will keep inflation in check.

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.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
I did tell you but you seem unable to grasp the concepts.


Yes I have looked at them, I posted them. There was increases which your Reagan tax cuts can't possibly account for, but you have no comment on that fact, or any of the facts presented to you. All you can say is to look at the raw data. I provided you with context in which to assess that data and you ignore it. I think we know why.


Yes I can, it's irrelevant to the conversation and a sophomoric attempt at distraction. FAIL


Ah yes, the repugnican ploy, deny your opponents facts without explanation and accuse them of not having any facts. :doh

I think I've made you look foolish enough on this topic now. I'm out...
Click to expand...


Aw, yes, the class warfare and govt. needs the money more than the individual taxpayer argument. What a tool you are?

Here are the revenue numbers

1979 754.5
1980 896.3
1981 929.8

So in three years the tax revenue increased 175 billion dollars hardly strong revenue growth and only 33 billion in the first year of Reagan under the Carter economic policy.

Now you can spin those numbers until hell freezes over but the American people prefer to have their tax dollars. Still waiting for an explanation as to how cutting taxes led to an increase in govt. revenue for after all liberals always claim tax cuts have to be paid for when the reality is most liberals aren't smart enough to understand that those tax cuts continued to grow revenue.

The only facts that matter are BEA.gov, BLS.gov, and the U.S. Treasury. You prefer Media Matters and Moveon data which keeps people like you looking foolish.
 
Gipper said:
I just find it funny that Democrats are automatically deemed to be the "good guys" and Republicans are deemed the "bad guys" in this charade in great deal because of numbers. Just like if the roles were reversed and Republicans were in favor of legislature that is questionable at best in similar numbers and voting turnouts as now, Democrats would be the "party of no" and automatically assumed to be wrong and in the way of progress.

Well, unless you're illogical hyper-ideologues like disneydude or his right-wing counterpart. I don't quantify them.
Click to expand...
Where was the rock that you've been under for the last... 40 years? When democrats are in the minority they do not block legislation the way republicans do... we have a historical record. Try using it some time.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
Where was the rock that you've been under for the last... 40 years? When democrats are in the minority they do not block legislation the way republicans do... we have a historical record. Try using it some time.
Click to expand...

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?
 
digsbe said:
Obama ran basically saying he wasn't Bush. People hated Bush for his poor war policy and his government spending. Obama is just like Bush when it comes to deficit spending, only worse. People may have elected Obama for what he ran on, but we don't like how he plans on reforming things. The healthcare bill is disliked by the majority of Americans, yet Obama pushed it through and gave democracy a smack to the face. Americans do want reform in all those areas, just not Democrat reform.
Click to expand...

I just love it when the minority party speaks as if they are speaking for "Americans." Sure, they are speaking for some Americans. But not enough of them to stay elected.

Nobody speaks for ALL American's. So, in our weird way of settling things, we typically give the push to the majority for representing "Americans." But, issues of the day do go one direction or another, however, when 70% of Americans criticize Bush on Iraq, they aren't "real" American's sayeth the 30%. Then, to these people polls are irrevellant. That is UNTIL a poll reflects something they believe, then *POOF,* suddenly the polls are "credible."

So, if we are to let the majority of the people or the highest poll number decide what is and what is not "American" then we can say that "American's approve of Obama." Right?

The Governor's Gusher: The Bush Profiteers
 
Conservative said:
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?
Click to expand...

Surely, you don't contest which party wears the crown of filibuster and do nothing, do you?
 
Captain America said:
Surely, you don't contest which party wears the crown of filibuster and do nothing, do you?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

I would have to say that, throughout the history of our government, taking in all ages, I wouldn't know who wears the overall crown but in the here and now, is there any doubt or do I have to go Googlin'?
 
Captain America said:
I would have to say that, throughout the history of our government, taking in all ages, I wouldn't know who wears the overall crown but in the here and now, is there any doubt or do I have to go Googlin'?
Click to expand...

You asked the question as if you knew the answer. Since Democrats controlled the Congress since 2007 but Bush was in the WH 2007-2008 I doubt that the Republicans filibustered anything then. Then in 2009 the Democrats had a filibuster proof Senate so please tell us all how holds the crown.
 
Conservative said:
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?
Click to expand...
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. :confused:
 
digsbe said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
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. :confused:
Click to expand...

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?
 
Moderator's Warning:
Stop the personal attacks.
 
Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
GOP on pace to threaten its own record on filibuster use | Jay Bookman

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/filibusters-1102.gif

These numbers don't even require comment.
 
Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Goldenboy219;1058725613]The question was straight forward, needing no mention of Carter or interest rates. What is the pricing effect on tax cuts?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Conservative said:
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?
Click to expand...

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. :prof:

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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Already addressed. You support Keynesian economic policy. Nuff said:2wave:

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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. :prof:

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

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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).
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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:2wave:
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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).
Click to expand...

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).
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

The only one in this thread that has typed those words is you.
Why does that statistic matter?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Such black and white thinking renders you both subjective and boring. Although it is fun to intellectually outpoint the partisan right:2wave: You do not even understand supply side theory :lamo

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
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?"





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.



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.





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?



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.



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?



The only one in this thread that has typed those words is you.


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.


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.



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.



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).



Opinion and nothing else. The Soviet system was poised for collapse due to various destabilizing economic factors that stem from a command economy.



Glad to use this piece to illustrate your partisan blinders:



Reagan and revenue - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com



Already acknowledged the positive effects in regards to the stagflationary environment.



Such black and white thinking renders you both subjective and boring. Although it is fun to intellectually outpoint the partisan right:2wave: You do not even understand supply side theory :lamo



We have already addressed how you mis-analyzed the data. Perhaps something a bit more suited to your abilities: here.



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?



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.
Click to expand...


Love how you post comments from people like Krugman. That gives you little credibility as you sound like a "book smart, street stupid" individual who is out of touch with reality. The one thing that liberals never understand is human behavior and the affects behavior has on the economy.

Inflation is driven by basic supply and demand. If supply doesn't increase with the money supply inflation occurs. You can spin it any way you want but that is the reality.

Your so called superior understanding is nothing more than quoting economists that you agree with or want to believe. Quoting economists may make you feel good and make you think you are smart but that doesn't make you an expert on the subject like you prefer to believe. I can quote you comments from other economists that refute yours but what good would it do.

I prefer instead to quote actual facts from bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S. Treasury. Further I will put my economic record up against yours any day. When the American people keep more of what they earn they need less of so called govt. help. I prefer that any day. Tax cuts will never deepen a recession no matter what your economist friends say. Get out in the real world for a change.
 
digsbe said:
Congress should financially handle themselves before they even think about trying to regulate Wall Street. Thank you Republicans for preventing the Dems from trying to ram through more garbage.
Click to expand...
what garbage, specifically?
 
liblady said:
what garbage, specifically?
Click to expand...

The garbage that ignores Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as the real fraud in this country which is a 3.8 trillion dollar govt. and growing. We have a govt. today that will add 3 trillion dollars to the debt in two years yet is more worried about attacking private industry. That is what this Administration does, attack private business and expands the role of govt.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
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?"





Source
Click to expand...

What you and economists ignore are actual results created by consumer behavior. Could it be that arrogant liberal economists don't believe they should get actual data before spouting their rhetoric and theory?

Here are the facts. Notice there is a difference between a tax cut and a tax rate cut. The tax cuts that Obama gave us was NOT a rate cut thus was actually paid back as withholding tables weren't changed and people paid less tax than they owed in many cases. The Bush tax RATE cut went into effect in July 2003. Notice GDP and Unemployment rates AFTER those tax cuts. GDP grew from 10.6 trillion to over 14 trillion dollars during the Bush term and prior to the recession that was caused by poor Congressional oversight Unemployment dropped from 6.0 percent to 4.4% so don't give me liberal economist theory, deal in facts.

GDP

2001 10286
2002 10642
2003 11142
2004 11867
2005 12638
2006 13398
2007 14077
2008 14441

http://bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=5&FirstYear=2009&LastYear=2010&Freq=Qtr


Unemployment Rate

2001 4.2
2002 6.0
2003 5.7
2004 5.4
2005 4.9
2006 4.4
2007 5.0

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost

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.
Click to expand...

What is embarrassing is a so called expert that ignores the power of the American consumer and entreprenuers. What you and economists ignore is behavior and always will because all aren't the elitist that these economists think they are.



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.
Click to expand...

Here are the tax revenue during that period of time as well so your so called facts are lies. Any tax rate cut that grows revenue has nothing to do with deficits. Only those that fear the American people spending their own money and becoming less dependent on the govt. should be concerned and usually are. What is Krugman's vision of America and the role of Govt?

2003 2163.7
2004 2002.1
2005 2047.9
2006 2213.2
2007 2546.8
2008 2807.4

http://bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=86&FirstYear=2009&LastYear=2010&Freq=Qtr


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?
Click to expand...


BEA.gov disagrees with you and captures actual data that destroys economic theory.


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.
Click to expand...

That is a lie, the only thing created was a crisis and we all know Obama's feelings about crisis, never let one go to waste. The economic conditions when Reagan took office was much worse than when Obama took office and Obama made it worse. The GDP growth during Obama's first two years was mostly due to growing the size of govt. not growing the private sector and real GDP.



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?
Click to expand...

Do you know the difference between a tax cut and a tax rate cut? Apparently not. Did you pay your taxes this year or do you earn income? Obama gave the American people a tax cut but didn't cut rates therefore withholding wasn't changed thus millions under paid their taxes and had to make up for it on April 15. Thanks Obama for nothing. By the way, tax revenue thanks to obama has been down every quarter since he took office.


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.
Click to expand...

What the hell does govt. revenue as a percentage of GDP have to do with anything. Percentages are affected by the size of the pot. Real dollars is all that matters. Govt. revenue doubled in the 80's as did GDP. Explain how that happened?

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.
Click to expand...

You are right, I can see that BEA.gov, BLS.gov, and the U.S. Treasury sites have no impact on your so called analysis. How dare me use actual numbers which I did above.



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.
Click to expand...

You have missed your calling, you need to go to work for the NON PARTISAN BEA and tell them they are wrong in reporting economic numbers and revenue. Another correlation does not equal causation defense. Think that is a winner? Think the American people give a damn about your theory? They care about real dollars and giving people more of their money back in EACH paycheck beats a rebate and more govt. spending.


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).
Click to expand...

"Your" generation is very poorly schooled on behavior, human activity, and how our economy works. yours is based upon theory that ignores actual facts. My Generation did quite well but did create part of the problem, we gave people like you way too much that you failed to earn thus do not respect. Tax rate cuts did not cause the deficits, irresponsible spending did, the idea that everyone deserves to own a house did, that it is the governments role to provide cradle to grave coverage, and that there are no consequences for personal failure.


Opinion and nothing else. The Soviet system was poised for collapse due to various destabilizing economic factors that stem from a command economy.
Click to expand...

Tell that to Gorby who disagrees with you in his own book. Of course your economists know better.



Glad to use this piece to illustrate your partisan blinders:



Reagan and revenue - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com
Click to expand...

Again debunked above and an example where theory ignores actual results.

Such black and white thinking renders you both subjective and boring. Although it is fun to intellectually outpoint the partisan right:2wave: You do not even understand supply side theory :lamo
Click to expand...

You are indeed a legend in your OWN mind.


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?
Click to expand...

I will always admit when wrong but theory doesn't do it. Actual results from bea.gov, bls.gov, and the checkbook of the United States refutes your theory. All elite economists are doing is making you look foolish as facts always trump theory.


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.
Click to expand...

What you have proven is that economist theory and ignorance of actual data makes you look foolish. When you address actual data I will be happy to continue the re-education of someone like you.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You're dealing with a statist Keynesian hack here, conservative. There is no possibility for a rational debate with an elitist leftist posing as a libertarian...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom