U
What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?
- Thread starter Ulaven_Demorte
- Start date
- Status
RightField
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
- Posts
- 9,364
I hope that we start seeing some economic recovery before the election, these are difficult times for all the unemployed. I wish the dems would back off some of these crazy policies that they have and get us back to a growth path.
Someone asked me why people weren't investing and creating new jobs and I said "Would you invest your money in a new and risky ventures with the democrats swarming around like a group of starved vultures?"
Maybe we should make a new logo for the dems, a giant Vulture flying overhead and blocking out the sun.
Someone asked me why people weren't investing and creating new jobs and I said "Would you invest your money in a new and risky ventures with the democrats swarming around like a group of starved vultures?"
Maybe we should make a new logo for the dems, a giant Vulture flying overhead and blocking out the sun.
Last edited:
Frisco_Slug_Esq
On Strike!
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Posts
- 45,618
Did somebody break your rice bowl?
It was an interesting display of economic theory inaction...
Frisco_Slug_Esq
On Strike!
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Posts
- 45,618
That's the same as saying "I hope Obama gets..."
"FORE! More years!"
__________________
Barry Says: I'm puttin' some lipstick on that pig!
”’Shovel-ready’ was not as shovel-ready as we expected.” (Laughter)
Gitmo was not as ready to close as we expected.
”Affordable Health Care” was not as affordable as we expected.
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/files/2011/04/obama-wide-grin80.jpg
RightField
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
- Posts
- 9,364
No, it's not, it's a hope that the country can disregard him, overcome his bad policies and get back on a path of growth even before the elections.
U
unregistered
Guest
MeeMie
No Spam Here
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2005
- Posts
- 7,328
Get ready for a bumpy road.
According to the latest from the DC Insider:
"The president actually considered quitting. He really did. But now he’s going on the attack. He wants to give a big F-You to White America-that’s actually one of his primary motivations. You think the race card has been played up before? Just wait. 2012 is gonna be the most brutal political cycle we have ever witnessed. Ever."
http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=38332126&postcount=157
According to the latest from the DC Insider:
"The president actually considered quitting. He really did. But now he’s going on the attack. He wants to give a big F-You to White America-that’s actually one of his primary motivations. You think the race card has been played up before? Just wait. 2012 is gonna be the most brutal political cycle we have ever witnessed. Ever."
http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=38332126&postcount=157
Frisco_Slug_Esq
On Strike!
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Posts
- 45,618
I'm sorry, but no matter how it looks now, the mob and its press corp are still fully in his corner and any slight improvement at all will be steroids to the people who think like this thread starter, SEE WE TOLD YOU IT WOULD WORK, you just had no patience because you hate black people.
So, no, I hope for more misery for the people who voted for him, I want them to get a full measure of that which they voted for in the hopes that it may cure some of them of the desire to plunder each other.
__________________
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else. ... there is only one remedy: time. People have to learn, through hard experience, the enormous disadvantage there is in plundering one another."
Frédéric Bastiat
"We know that the moment of greatest danger to a society is when it comes near realizing its most cherished dreams."
Eric Hoffer
U
unregistered
Guest
MeeMie
No Spam Here
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2005
- Posts
- 7,328
Frisco_Slug_Esq
On Strike!
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Posts
- 45,618
Let's not forget the mentoring of the Marxist pedophile Frank Marshall Davis...
RightField
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
- Posts
- 9,364
The Reagan stimulus vs. the Obama one
By Paul G. KengorUpdated
How ironic that as America debated its debt ceiling all summer and faced a stunning credit downgrade, the nation approached a most timely anniversary: It was Aug. 13, 1981, that President Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Act. Understanding Reagan's thinking 30 years ago is critical to discerning where we are now.
Reagan's initiative was the antithesis of President Obama's $800 billion "stimulus" that didn't stimulate. The 2009 version was the single greatest contributor to our record $1.5 trillion deficit. It was, plain and simple, what Reagan didn't do.
When Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Act at his ranch near Santa Barbara, it was the largest tax cut in American history. He also revealed leadership that Democrats and Republicans alike agree we are not seeing currently from the White House. Even TheWashington Post called Reagan's action "one of the most remarkable demonstrations of presidential leadership in modern history."
Confiscatory tax policy
The enemy that day was America's progressive federal income tax system, birthed in 1913 by Congress and President Woodrow Wilson. It was revolutionary, requiring a constitutional amendment. That tax, which began as a 1% levy on the wealthy, would rocket up to a top rate of 94% by the 1940s.
Ronald Reagan personally felt the toll. In the 1940s, the so-called "B"-movie actor was one of the top box-office draws at Warner Bros. Then a Democrat, Reagan saw no incentive in continuing to work — that is, make more movies — once his income hit the top rate. He also realized who suffered from that choice. It wasn't Reagan; he was wealthy. It was the custodians, cafeteria ladies, camera crew and working folks on the studio lot. They lost work.
Reagan viewed such rates as punitive, confiscatory — "creeping socialism," as he put it. In speeches in the 1950s and 1960s, he blasted the tax as right out of Marx's Communist Manifesto.
By the late 1970s, Reagan concluded that out-of-control taxes, spending and regulation had sapped the economy of its vitality and ability to rebound. And so, on that August day in 1981, Reagan, with a Democratic House and Republican Senate, secured a 25% across-the-board reduction in income tax rates over a three-year period beginning in October 1981. Eventually, the upper rate would drop to 28%.
As biographer Steve Hayward notes, even when Reagan compromised with Democrats on tax increases in exchange for promised spending cuts in 1982, he "never budged an inch on marginal income tax rates." Reagan understood that not all taxes, or tax increases, are equal.
After a slow start through 1982-83, the stimulus effect of the cuts was extraordinary, sparking the longest peacetime expansion in U.S. history. The "Reagan Boom" not only produced widespread prosperity but — along with the attendant Soviet collapse — also helped generate budget surpluses in the 1990s. Carter-Ford era terms such as "malaise" and "misery index" vanished. Only now has America re-approached similar misery-index levels, reaching a 28-year high.
Reaganomics myths
Unfortunately, liberals have so maligned Reaganomics that they are unable to separate facts from myths — to the detriment of their party and president. Among the worst myths is that Reagan's tax cuts created the deficit, even as the deficit increased under Reagan.
In fact, Reagan inherited chronic deficits. Since Franklin Roosevelt, the budget had been balanced a handful of times, mainly under President Eisenhower. From 1981-89, the deficit under Reagan increased from $79 billion to $153 billion. It peaked in 1983-86, hitting $221 billion. Yet, once the economy started booming, the deficit steadily dropped.
Tax cuts were not the problem. Tax revenues under Reagan rose from $599 billion in 1981 to nearly $1 trillion in 1989. The problem was that outlays all along outpaced revenue, soaring from $678 billion in 1981 to $1.14 trillion in 1989.
The cause of the Reagan deficits was the 1982-83 recession and spending — as is always the case. And, yes, the culprit was not just social spending by congressional Democrats but Reagan defense spending designed to take down the Soviet Union. What a bargain that turned out to be: It helped kill an "evil empire" and win the Cold War, paving the way for a peacetime dividend in the 1990s.
Yet it is clear today that we have refused the proper lessons of history. For one, our problem remains excessive spending. Obama must bear this in mind if he's considering tax increases (which hamper growth) as part of his "balanced" approach to deficit reduction. More than that, the best "stimulus" relies on the tried-and-true American way: Let free individuals stimulate the economy through their earnings and activity.
Ignoring such realities explains the mess we face in August 2011 — a millennium removed from the wisdom of August 1981.
By Paul G. KengorUpdated
How ironic that as America debated its debt ceiling all summer and faced a stunning credit downgrade, the nation approached a most timely anniversary: It was Aug. 13, 1981, that President Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Act. Understanding Reagan's thinking 30 years ago is critical to discerning where we are now.
Reagan's initiative was the antithesis of President Obama's $800 billion "stimulus" that didn't stimulate. The 2009 version was the single greatest contributor to our record $1.5 trillion deficit. It was, plain and simple, what Reagan didn't do.
When Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Act at his ranch near Santa Barbara, it was the largest tax cut in American history. He also revealed leadership that Democrats and Republicans alike agree we are not seeing currently from the White House. Even TheWashington Post called Reagan's action "one of the most remarkable demonstrations of presidential leadership in modern history."
Confiscatory tax policy
The enemy that day was America's progressive federal income tax system, birthed in 1913 by Congress and President Woodrow Wilson. It was revolutionary, requiring a constitutional amendment. That tax, which began as a 1% levy on the wealthy, would rocket up to a top rate of 94% by the 1940s.
Ronald Reagan personally felt the toll. In the 1940s, the so-called "B"-movie actor was one of the top box-office draws at Warner Bros. Then a Democrat, Reagan saw no incentive in continuing to work — that is, make more movies — once his income hit the top rate. He also realized who suffered from that choice. It wasn't Reagan; he was wealthy. It was the custodians, cafeteria ladies, camera crew and working folks on the studio lot. They lost work.
Reagan viewed such rates as punitive, confiscatory — "creeping socialism," as he put it. In speeches in the 1950s and 1960s, he blasted the tax as right out of Marx's Communist Manifesto.
By the late 1970s, Reagan concluded that out-of-control taxes, spending and regulation had sapped the economy of its vitality and ability to rebound. And so, on that August day in 1981, Reagan, with a Democratic House and Republican Senate, secured a 25% across-the-board reduction in income tax rates over a three-year period beginning in October 1981. Eventually, the upper rate would drop to 28%.
As biographer Steve Hayward notes, even when Reagan compromised with Democrats on tax increases in exchange for promised spending cuts in 1982, he "never budged an inch on marginal income tax rates." Reagan understood that not all taxes, or tax increases, are equal.
After a slow start through 1982-83, the stimulus effect of the cuts was extraordinary, sparking the longest peacetime expansion in U.S. history. The "Reagan Boom" not only produced widespread prosperity but — along with the attendant Soviet collapse — also helped generate budget surpluses in the 1990s. Carter-Ford era terms such as "malaise" and "misery index" vanished. Only now has America re-approached similar misery-index levels, reaching a 28-year high.
Reaganomics myths
Unfortunately, liberals have so maligned Reaganomics that they are unable to separate facts from myths — to the detriment of their party and president. Among the worst myths is that Reagan's tax cuts created the deficit, even as the deficit increased under Reagan.
In fact, Reagan inherited chronic deficits. Since Franklin Roosevelt, the budget had been balanced a handful of times, mainly under President Eisenhower. From 1981-89, the deficit under Reagan increased from $79 billion to $153 billion. It peaked in 1983-86, hitting $221 billion. Yet, once the economy started booming, the deficit steadily dropped.
Tax cuts were not the problem. Tax revenues under Reagan rose from $599 billion in 1981 to nearly $1 trillion in 1989. The problem was that outlays all along outpaced revenue, soaring from $678 billion in 1981 to $1.14 trillion in 1989.
The cause of the Reagan deficits was the 1982-83 recession and spending — as is always the case. And, yes, the culprit was not just social spending by congressional Democrats but Reagan defense spending designed to take down the Soviet Union. What a bargain that turned out to be: It helped kill an "evil empire" and win the Cold War, paving the way for a peacetime dividend in the 1990s.
Yet it is clear today that we have refused the proper lessons of history. For one, our problem remains excessive spending. Obama must bear this in mind if he's considering tax increases (which hamper growth) as part of his "balanced" approach to deficit reduction. More than that, the best "stimulus" relies on the tried-and-true American way: Let free individuals stimulate the economy through their earnings and activity.
Ignoring such realities explains the mess we face in August 2011 — a millennium removed from the wisdom of August 1981.
U
unregistered
Guest
RightField
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
- Posts
- 9,364
I'm sorry, but no matter how it looks now, the mob and its press corp are still fully in his corner and any slight improvement at all will be steroids to the people who think like this thread starter, SEE WE TOLD YOU IT WOULD WORK, you just had no patience because you hate black people.
So, no, I hope for more misery for the people who voted for him, I want them to get a full measure of that which they voted for in the hopes that it may cure some of them of the desire to plunder each other.
__________________
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else. ... there is only one remedy: time. People have to learn, through hard experience, the enormous disadvantage there is in plundering one another."
Frédéric Bastiat
"We know that the moment of greatest danger to a society is when it comes near realizing its most cherished dreams."
Eric Hoffer
How about this......
We put a tax on anyone who votes for the program. If you want a new healthcare program and you vote for it, you get taxed for it regardless of your income level (on the premise that if a government program is so great, the people advocating for it should be willing to pay for it). If you don't want the new healthcare program and vote against it, you don't have to pay.
Last edited:
RightField
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
- Posts
- 9,364
How to Fix the Budget
By Robert Samuelson
WASHINGTON -- It's true: Deficit reduction isn't an economic panacea. It won't instantly boost the economy or the stock market. It won't automatically end financial turmoil. But none of this means that we should ignore deficits. Allowing the government's debt to spiral upward tempts a full-blown future financial crisis.
The recent White House-congressional debt deal created a 12-member congressional super-committee charged with finding $1.5 trillion of savings over a decade. This compares with some projections of cumulative deficits of $10 trillion or more through 2021. Let's engage in a fantasy. Suppose the committee doesn't deadlock and decides to find a bigger solution. What to do? Here's a 10-step program to fix America's budget problem.
1. Decide to balance the budget over a decade. "Deficit reduction" isn't good enough. The case for balance (albeit at "full employment") is simple: discipline. If people want public services, they should be willing to pay for them.
2. Favor spending cuts over tax increases. Tax increases over the next 15 to 20 years could easily reach 25 percent to 50 percent to cover the costs of (a) the doubling of the 65-and-over population from 2000 to 2030; (b) spiraling health costs and (c) the continuation of other programs at recent levels of national income. These staggering tax increases are too burdensome. They might hobble the economy and would be unfair to younger workers.
3. Cut Social Security, Medicare and other retiree programs. They represent half of non-interest federal spending. Exempting them would require gutting other programs or enacting huge tax increases. We live longer; eligibility ages should be higher. Wealthier retirees can afford steeper Medicare fees and lower Social Security checks. The Census Bureau classifies about 30 percent of the 65-plus population as "high income" (incomes at least four times the poverty line). In 2008, the median net worth of married elderly couples was $385,000.
4. Don't spare current retirees or baby boomers. People don't lose the capacity -- or moral obligation -- to change just by turning 65. They should bear some of the burden.
5. Evaluate defense needs independently -- and pay for them. National security is the government's first job. When America's military is put in harm's way, it should not become a victim of a rich nation's cheapness.
6. Eliminate outdated, ineffective and wasteful programs. Across-the-board domestic spending cuts perpetuate bad programs and penalize the good. This ensures lousy government. Subsidies for farmers, public broadcasting and Amtrak, among others, should end.
7. Lower income tax rates by reducing tax breaks -- and make the system more progressive. The idea: spur economic growth. There should be three rates -- 10 percent, 20 percent and 30 percent. Capital gains (profits on sales of stocks and other assets) should be taxed at ordinary income rates, not at today's top rate of 15 percent. This low rate is the biggest tax break for the rich; two-thirds of capital gains go to the wealthiest 1 percent. The overhaul should be revenue neutral; all money from ending tax breaks should go to lower rates.
8. Enact an energy or gasoline tax. Even with spending cuts, higher taxes will be needed to balance the budget. A 25-cent-a-gallon fuel tax would raise $291 billion over a decade, says the Congressional Budget Office. The actual tax might have to be $1 or more. But it would have an added benefit: curbing oil imports by spurring drivers to buy more fuel-efficient cars.
9. Control health costs. This is crucial, because health spending already represents 25 percent of federal outlays. Unfortunately, there's no consensus on how to do this. The committee should create a group of experts to prepare two plans: one favoring liberals' approach of tougher regulations; the other reflecting conservatives' preference for vouchers and tax credits. The report should be ready by late 2012 for the next president and Congress to debate and decide.
10. Make changes gradually. It's important to limit adverse effects on the economy and to win public acceptance. Increasing Social Security's eligibility age to, say, 70 could occur over 25 years. A $1-a-gallon gas tax could be introduced over six years. Axed programs could be phased out over three years.
Deficits reflect a gap between the benefits Americans expect and the taxes they're willing to pay. There's no way to close it painlessly. But we can distribute the pain in ways that seem "fair" and serve a common good. Once done, this could bolster confidence. Households and businesses would know what to expect. Now, it's unclear whose spending will be cut and whose taxes raised. The longer we wait, the more disruptive changes will be. Despite this, we've repeatedly delayed. We now have another opportunity to break that pattern; sadly, the odds are that we won't.
By Robert Samuelson
WASHINGTON -- It's true: Deficit reduction isn't an economic panacea. It won't instantly boost the economy or the stock market. It won't automatically end financial turmoil. But none of this means that we should ignore deficits. Allowing the government's debt to spiral upward tempts a full-blown future financial crisis.
The recent White House-congressional debt deal created a 12-member congressional super-committee charged with finding $1.5 trillion of savings over a decade. This compares with some projections of cumulative deficits of $10 trillion or more through 2021. Let's engage in a fantasy. Suppose the committee doesn't deadlock and decides to find a bigger solution. What to do? Here's a 10-step program to fix America's budget problem.
1. Decide to balance the budget over a decade. "Deficit reduction" isn't good enough. The case for balance (albeit at "full employment") is simple: discipline. If people want public services, they should be willing to pay for them.
2. Favor spending cuts over tax increases. Tax increases over the next 15 to 20 years could easily reach 25 percent to 50 percent to cover the costs of (a) the doubling of the 65-and-over population from 2000 to 2030; (b) spiraling health costs and (c) the continuation of other programs at recent levels of national income. These staggering tax increases are too burdensome. They might hobble the economy and would be unfair to younger workers.
3. Cut Social Security, Medicare and other retiree programs. They represent half of non-interest federal spending. Exempting them would require gutting other programs or enacting huge tax increases. We live longer; eligibility ages should be higher. Wealthier retirees can afford steeper Medicare fees and lower Social Security checks. The Census Bureau classifies about 30 percent of the 65-plus population as "high income" (incomes at least four times the poverty line). In 2008, the median net worth of married elderly couples was $385,000.
4. Don't spare current retirees or baby boomers. People don't lose the capacity -- or moral obligation -- to change just by turning 65. They should bear some of the burden.
5. Evaluate defense needs independently -- and pay for them. National security is the government's first job. When America's military is put in harm's way, it should not become a victim of a rich nation's cheapness.
6. Eliminate outdated, ineffective and wasteful programs. Across-the-board domestic spending cuts perpetuate bad programs and penalize the good. This ensures lousy government. Subsidies for farmers, public broadcasting and Amtrak, among others, should end.
7. Lower income tax rates by reducing tax breaks -- and make the system more progressive. The idea: spur economic growth. There should be three rates -- 10 percent, 20 percent and 30 percent. Capital gains (profits on sales of stocks and other assets) should be taxed at ordinary income rates, not at today's top rate of 15 percent. This low rate is the biggest tax break for the rich; two-thirds of capital gains go to the wealthiest 1 percent. The overhaul should be revenue neutral; all money from ending tax breaks should go to lower rates.
8. Enact an energy or gasoline tax. Even with spending cuts, higher taxes will be needed to balance the budget. A 25-cent-a-gallon fuel tax would raise $291 billion over a decade, says the Congressional Budget Office. The actual tax might have to be $1 or more. But it would have an added benefit: curbing oil imports by spurring drivers to buy more fuel-efficient cars.
9. Control health costs. This is crucial, because health spending already represents 25 percent of federal outlays. Unfortunately, there's no consensus on how to do this. The committee should create a group of experts to prepare two plans: one favoring liberals' approach of tougher regulations; the other reflecting conservatives' preference for vouchers and tax credits. The report should be ready by late 2012 for the next president and Congress to debate and decide.
10. Make changes gradually. It's important to limit adverse effects on the economy and to win public acceptance. Increasing Social Security's eligibility age to, say, 70 could occur over 25 years. A $1-a-gallon gas tax could be introduced over six years. Axed programs could be phased out over three years.
Deficits reflect a gap between the benefits Americans expect and the taxes they're willing to pay. There's no way to close it painlessly. But we can distribute the pain in ways that seem "fair" and serve a common good. Once done, this could bolster confidence. Households and businesses would know what to expect. Now, it's unclear whose spending will be cut and whose taxes raised. The longer we wait, the more disruptive changes will be. Despite this, we've repeatedly delayed. We now have another opportunity to break that pattern; sadly, the odds are that we won't.
MeeMie
No Spam Here
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2005
- Posts
- 7,328
“Everyone must sacrifice for the greater good… Everyone must have some skin in the game.”
... that is, everyone EXCEPT Barack and Michelle Obama or their lackeys.
A week after the Obama economy was downgraded for the first time in a century we hear this… Barack and Michelle Obama’s vineyard vacation will cost taxpayers millions.
At a time when many more cash-strapped Americans are stuck at home instead of vacationing at the beach, President Obama next week will lead an entourage of several dozens to exclusive Martha’s Vineyard island at a cost of millions to taxpayers.
While technically he is paying for his estimated $50,000 a week rental of the 28-acre beachfront Blue Heron Farm in woodsy Chilmark, the dozens of U.S. Secret Service agents, communications officials, top aides, drivers, and U.S. Coast Guard personnel with him will be covered by taxpayers.
His 11-day stay will require the Coast Guard to keep ships floating near Obama’s farm, a presidential helicopter and jet at the ready and security agents on 24-hour duty. Armored SUVs dubbed “war wagons” have been flown in to carry the presidential family around the island.
This year might have been a good year to forego an expensive vacation. People can’t afford to buy groceries, put gas in their cars or pay their bills, and the ruling class are off on yet another vacation, shameful!
Eating her peas – Michele Obama spent 1 out of every 9 days on vacation over the past year
(and that is being kind to her - giving credit for some pretense of official business)
Cutting back, tightening our belts, eating our peas. That’s only for us commoners. Things like that don’t apply to the First Family.
. .
... that is, everyone EXCEPT Barack and Michelle Obama or their lackeys.
A week after the Obama economy was downgraded for the first time in a century we hear this… Barack and Michelle Obama’s vineyard vacation will cost taxpayers millions.
At a time when many more cash-strapped Americans are stuck at home instead of vacationing at the beach, President Obama next week will lead an entourage of several dozens to exclusive Martha’s Vineyard island at a cost of millions to taxpayers.
While technically he is paying for his estimated $50,000 a week rental of the 28-acre beachfront Blue Heron Farm in woodsy Chilmark, the dozens of U.S. Secret Service agents, communications officials, top aides, drivers, and U.S. Coast Guard personnel with him will be covered by taxpayers.
His 11-day stay will require the Coast Guard to keep ships floating near Obama’s farm, a presidential helicopter and jet at the ready and security agents on 24-hour duty. Armored SUVs dubbed “war wagons” have been flown in to carry the presidential family around the island.
This year might have been a good year to forego an expensive vacation. People can’t afford to buy groceries, put gas in their cars or pay their bills, and the ruling class are off on yet another vacation, shameful!
Eating her peas – Michele Obama spent 1 out of every 9 days on vacation over the past year
(and that is being kind to her - giving credit for some pretense of official business)
Cutting back, tightening our belts, eating our peas. That’s only for us commoners. Things like that don’t apply to the First Family.
. .
Last edited:
Frisco_Slug_Esq
On Strike!
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Posts
- 45,618
That's not "FAIR," you're evil, and you probably worship SATAN!
__________________
They become apt to take because they wish to spend and cannot do this easily; for their possessions soon run short. Thus they are forced to provide means from some other source. At the same time, because they care nothing for honor, they take recklessly and from any source.
Aristotle
Frisco_Slug_Esq
On Strike!
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Posts
- 45,618
When under the pretext of fraternity, the legal code imposes mutual sacrifices on the citizens, human nature is not thereby abrogated. Everyone will then direct his efforts toward contributing little to, and taking much from, the common fund of sacrifices. Now, is it the most unfortunate who gains from this struggle? Certainly not, but rather the most influential and calculating.
Frédéric Bastiat
RightField
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
- Posts
- 9,364
Realistically, if he didn't go to Martha's Vineyard, he's just be out playing golf every day anyway.
Ulaven_Demorte
Non-Prophet Organization
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2006
- Posts
- 30,016
Funny, the author of the article neglected to mention that following that initial tax cut, Reagan actually ended up raising taxes - eleven times.
Someone should brush up on history re: Reagan and the massive tax increases that he passed in order to counteract the deficits he incurred. Put away the rose colored glasses.
Everyone remembers Reagan's 1981 tax cuts. His admirers are less likely to tout the tax hikes he accepted as the 1981 recession and his own tax cuts began to unravel his long-term fiscal picture--a large tax increase on business in 1982, higher payroll taxes enacted in 1983 and higher energy taxes in 1984.
But don't take my word for it. Take the word of a source even Cap'n Disingenuous can't dismiss.
The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan Mises Institute, October 1988
<excerpt>
If we look at government revenues as a percentage of "national income," we find little change from the Carter days, despite heralded "tax cuts." In 1980, revenues were 25.1% of "national income." In the first quarter of 1988 they were 24.7%.
Reagan came into office proposing to cut personal income and business taxes. The Economic Recovery Act was supposed to reduce revenues by $749 billion over five years. But this was quickly reversed with the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. TEFRA—the largest tax increase in American history—was designed to raise $214.1 billion over five years, and took back many of the business tax savings enacted the year before. It also imposed withholding on interest and dividends, a provision later repealed over the president's objection.
But this was just the beginning. In 1982 Reagan supported a five-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax and higher taxes on the trucking industry. Total increase: $5.5 billion a year. In 1983, on the recommendation of his Spcial Security Commission— chaired by the man he later made Fed chairman, Alan Green-span—Reagan called for, and received, Social Security tax increases of $165 billion over seven years. A year later came Reagan's Deficit Reduction Act to raise $50 billion.
Even the heralded Tax Reform Act of 1986 is more deception than substance. It shifted $120 billion over five years from visible personal income taxes to hidden business taxes. It lowered the rates, but it also repealed or reduced many deductions.
According to the Treasury Department, the 1981 tax cut will have reduced revenues by $1.48 trillion by the end of fiscal 1989. But tax increases since 1982 will equal $1.5 trillion by 1989. The increases include not only the formal legislation mentioned above but also bracket creep (which ended in 1985 when tax indexing took effect—a provision of the 1981 act despite Reagan's objection), $30 billion in various tax changes, and other increases. Taxes by the end of the Reagan era will be as large a chunk of GNP as when he took office, if not larger: 19.4%, by ultra-conservative estimate of the Reagan Office of Management and Budget. The so-called historic average is 18.3%.
"Conservative" Ronald Reagan revisionist myth, demolished.
Last edited:
Frisco_Slug_Esq
On Strike!
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Posts
- 45,618
"The Obama record is a litany of despair, of broken promises, of sacred trusts abandoned and forgotten. His answer to all this misery? He tries to tell us that we're only in a recession, not a depression -- as if definitions -- words -- relieve our suffering. Let it show on the record that when the American people cried out for economic help, Barack Hussein Obama took refuge behind a dictionary. Well, if it's a definition he wants, I'll give him one: A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Barack Hussein Obama loses his!"
Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan
Frisco_Slug_Esq
On Strike!
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Posts
- 45,618
U_D, I hope you remember that the next time you go about pointing out how "conservatism" has failed every time it has been tried...
... because it has not been tried, obviously since the time of FDR.
... because it has not been tried, obviously since the time of FDR.
U
unregistered
Guest
Ulaven_Demorte
Non-Prophet Organization
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2006
- Posts
- 30,016
U_D, I hope you remember that the next time you go about pointing out how "conservatism" has failed every time it has been tried...
... because it has not been tried, obviously since the time of FDR.
*Laugh*
So now Reagan wasn't really a conservative after all..
Someone should break the news to the author of RightField's C&P snow job.
Frisco_Slug_Esq
On Strike!
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Posts
- 45,618
Same goes for merc or Le-Trouve, but what I note is this meme, everything conservative must be destroyed by rhetoric and cherry-picking in order to bring it down to the level of the economies of the SOcialists in order to merely claim, "See, we aren't all that bad after-all..."
Reagan must be destroyed.
Texas must be destroyed.
Romney and Perry must be destroyed.
California must be given a pass though, for whatever reason of excuse there is to be found in the orchard.
__________________
A_J's corollary #9a, “When a Republican does it, an explanation is making an excuse, when a Democrat does it, then an excuse is the rightful explanation.”
- Status
Similar threads
