PDA

View Full Version : St. Ronaldus Reagan Maximus saw deficits and...



Soflasnapper
06-27-2011, 11:36 PM
St. Ronaldus Reagan Maximus, saw deficits and...

Well, what did he do, you ask?

HE RAISED TAXES. Not once. Many times, and for very large amounts.

He raised taxes greatly in California, as we were just discussing, including a 50% increase in the top rate.

And then there's this...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> In 1982, with the economy struggling badly and unemployment pushing 11%, President Reagan agreed to a tax increase. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>[The largest amount in human history, btw.]</span> Under the thinking that dominates Republican thought in the 21st century, such a policy would, of course, represent true insanity. After all, “everyone knows” tax increases “kill jobs.” If there was already a jobs crisis, why would Reagan dare do such a thing?

At the time, the right was livid, and made all kinds of drastic predictions about the consequences of this misguided policy. Bruce Bartlett, a former official in the Reagan administration, this week flagged a letter U.S. Chamber of Commerce president Richard Lesher sent to Congress in August 1982, analyzing the proposed tax increase:

“If H.R. 4961 is passed in these troublesome economic times, we have no doubt that it will curb the economic recovery everyone wants. It will mean a lower cash flow as more businesses pay more taxes, with a depressing effect on stock prices. It will reduce incentives for the increased savings and investment so badly needed to improve productivity and create more jobs. It will mean higher prices for many products and services. It will increase government costs in caring for those who, because the economy is held down, cannot find employment.”

As Bruce noted in his column, “It would be hard to find an economic forecast that was more wrong in every respect.” He added that it wasn’t [only] the Chamber that had it backwards.

Economist Arthur Laffer told his clients on July 26, 1982, that the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, which raised taxes by about one percent of GDP, “will stifle economic recovery,” “retard economic growth,” and undercut “the economy’s ability to enter into a period of expansion.” On August 20, 1982, he told his clients that TEFRA “will tend to lengthen and deepen the recession.” Writing in the New York Times on September 12, 1982, economist Norman Ture said the administration’s claim that TEFRA would promote economic growth was “bizarre.” He said it would “weaken the impetus for economic growth” and make the economic recovery “less certain and less vigorous.”

All of this, we now know, wasn’t even close to being right. Almost immediately after Reagan raised taxes by quite a bit, the economy began to soar.

This isn’t just some historical footnote. This is worth keeping in mind because the basics of modern Republican economic thought are, quite literally, always wrong. It’s not a matter of ideological or philosophical differences — these questions have been put to the test, repeatedly for decades, and the tenets of conservative economic policy have an unyielding track record of failure.

It’s awfully embarrassing, or at least would be if they were called on it more.

Perhaps the only good thing about modern Republican economic thought is how easy it is to recite its pillars: tax increases always make the economy worse, tax cuts always make the economy boom, and public investment will always make the economy worse.

But pesky facts keep getting in the way.

In 1982, Reagan raised taxes and the right assured Americans this would be a disaster. The right was wrong, and the economy boomed.

In 1993, Clinton raised taxes and the right was even more certain this would be a disaster. The right was wrong again, and we instead saw the longest and strongest sustained recovery in recent memory.</div></div>

More here. (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_06/an_unyielding_track_record_of030504.php)

LWW
06-28-2011, 05:24 AM
This is spoon fed leftist gibberish.

The Reagan tax cuts weren't even passed until late 1981, and not fully implemented until July, 1983. The economic explosion followed this.

TEFRA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Equity_and_Fiscal_Responsibility_Act_of_1982) OTOH did very little. It did eliminate some accelerated depreciation ... before it was implemented, meaning it actually changed nothing in the status quo ... as a sop to get a few leftists to vote for military modernization.

It also instituted federal withholding of tax from interest and dividends ... not a tax increase, but an early payment of said taxes similar to payroll withholding ... and bumped cigarette taxes and telephone taxes.

Hence ... these tax hikes didn't amount to a hill of beans from what was in place, and the benefits of the tax cuts dwarfed them.

Would the accelerated depreciation have bumped GDP an additional 1% had it been left in place? Probably.

Why did Reagan agree to do this then?

The answer is simple ... he was naive enough to accept the word of a moonbat crazy seditious leftist congress to live up to it's end of the bargain.

What was their end of the bargain?

To cut $3 in federal spending for every $1 of tax revenue the bill was estimated to generate.

Now, from 1983 through 1989 federal revenue was increased from $600.6B to $991.1B ... or $390.5B.

If congress had been so harsh as to only increase spending by 50% of new revenue ... as opposed to the promised 3:1 cuts ... spending would have only increased by $190.25B instead of the increase of $808.4 to $998.65B. The 1989 deficit would have been ($7.55B) instead of ($152.6B).

TRUTH VERSUS TRUTHINESS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Recovery_Tax_Act_of_1981)

Now, what was your point?

eg8r
06-28-2011, 08:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He raised taxes greatly in California, as we were just discussing, including a 50% increase in the top rate.
</div></div>Yep and we saw the max exodus of all types of industry in California. Taxes go up, jobs go overseas (or to more tax friendly states).

eg8r

LWW
06-29-2011, 05:11 AM
This thread is yet another example of how the party elite can lead the mob around by the nose, simply personally an issue and giving them some hate filled images ... it doesn't take much to get the mob to ignore the truth. They simply feel they must fit in with the rest of the mob.

This forum, again, has it's own little Orwellian "TWO MINUTES HATE" moment.

Gayle in MD
06-29-2011, 05:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">St. Ronaldus Reagan Maximus, saw deficits and...

Well, what did he do, you ask?

HE RAISED TAXES. Not once. Many times, and for very large amounts.

He raised taxes greatly in California, as we were just discussing, including a 50% increase in the top rate.

And then there's this...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> In 1982, with the economy struggling badly and unemployment pushing 11%, President Reagan agreed to a tax increase. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>[The largest amount in human history, btw.]</span> Under the thinking that dominates Republican thought in the 21st century, such a policy would, of course, represent true insanity. After all, “everyone knows” tax increases “kill jobs.” If there was already a jobs crisis, why would Reagan dare do such a thing?

At the time, the right was livid, and made all kinds of drastic predictions about the consequences of this misguided policy. Bruce Bartlett, a former official in the Reagan administration, this week flagged a letter U.S. Chamber of Commerce president Richard Lesher sent to Congress in August 1982, analyzing the proposed tax increase:

“If H.R. 4961 is passed in these troublesome economic times, we have no doubt that it will curb the economic recovery everyone wants. It will mean a lower cash flow as more businesses pay more taxes, with a depressing effect on stock prices. It will reduce incentives for the increased savings and investment so badly needed to improve productivity and create more jobs. It will mean higher prices for many products and services. It will increase government costs in caring for those who, because the economy is held down, cannot find employment.”

As Bruce noted in his column, “It would be hard to find an economic forecast that was more wrong in every respect.” He added that it wasn’t [only] the Chamber that had it backwards.

Economist Arthur Laffer told his clients on July 26, 1982, that the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, which raised taxes by about one percent of GDP, “will stifle economic recovery,” “retard economic growth,” and undercut “the economy’s ability to enter into a period of expansion.” On August 20, 1982, he told his clients that TEFRA “will tend to lengthen and deepen the recession.” Writing in the New York Times on September 12, 1982, economist Norman Ture said the administration’s claim that TEFRA would promote economic growth was “bizarre.” He said it would “weaken the impetus for economic growth” and make the economic recovery “less certain and less vigorous.”

All of this, we now know, wasn’t even close to being right. Almost immediately after Reagan raised taxes by quite a bit, the economy began to soar.

This isn’t just some historical footnote. This is worth keeping in mind because the basics of modern Republican economic thought are, quite literally, always wrong. It’s not a matter of ideological or philosophical differences — these questions have been put to the test, repeatedly for decades, and the tenets of conservative economic policy have an unyielding track record of failure.

It’s awfully embarrassing, or at least would be if they were called on it more.

Perhaps the only good thing about modern Republican economic thought is how easy it is to recite its pillars: tax increases always make the economy worse, tax cuts always make the economy boom, and public investment will always make the economy worse.

But pesky facts keep getting in the way.

In 1982, Reagan raised taxes and the right assured Americans this would be a disaster. The right was wrong, and the economy boomed.

In 1993, Clinton raised taxes and the right was even more certain this would be a disaster. The right was wrong again, and we instead saw the longest and strongest sustained recovery in recent memory.</div></div>

More here. (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_06/an_unyielding_track_record_of030504.php) </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This isn’t just some historical footnote. This is worth keeping in mind because the basics of modern Republican economic thought are, quite literally, always wrong. It’s not a matter of ideological or philosophical differences — these questions have been put to the test, repeatedly for decades, and the tenets of conservative economic policy have an unyielding track record of failure. </div></div>


Pure truth, proven over time.

I think Reagan raised taxes six time, IIRC.

Reagan was the beginning of the Shock Doctrine. Even Nixon wasn't as bad for the country, as Reagan, in that we could all easily see through Nixon's lies, but Reagan, an actor, not a very good one at that, but good enough to fool the eyeballs out of the RW idiots.


Of course, now, after Bush two, we know how easily misled Repiglicans are.



Reagan committed Treason, to boot.

Repiglicans created the disparity between the rich and the poor, and even Greenspan, has stated, the damages from that, are at the crux of all of our problems, while Repiglicans, refuse to reverse that trend.

The Bush tax cuts, did NOT create jobs, period. Corporations don't care about America, and they will not stop outsourcing our jobs, until we make them pay for doing so, by changing the tax laws, and ending their loopholes, which allow them to get away with hiding trillions of dollars, off shore.

Nothing is more absurd than listeing to the Big Spenders, tout:

"We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem."

Pure insanity! It's as if they are saying that when you're over extended, bringing more money in, to pay down debt, is of no value!

Absurd!

G.

Soflasnapper
06-29-2011, 01:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This thread is yet another example of how the party elite can lead the mob around by the nose, simply personally an issue and giving them some hate filled images ... it doesn't take much to get the mob to ignore the truth. They simply feel they must fit in with the rest of the mob.

This forum, again, has it's own little Orwellian "TWO MINUTES HATE" moment. </div></div>

Saith the man who can't pass one day without exactly that kind of hate-speech topic name and insulting characterization of those he thinks of as his enemies?

In what respect did my anodyne and wholly correct observation of the past reflect hatred, or party elite dogma for that matter?

Oh, and...

moonbat crazy seditious leftist congress

is exactly what you accuse others of. And it is factually wrong. The Senate was GOP-controlled, and the House, under constructive GOP control, with the Boll-Weevil conservative Democrats, who LOVED defense spending, and were typically the Chairmen of the Defense Committees.

Soflasnapper
06-29-2011, 04:52 PM
This is spoon fed leftist gibberish.

The truth is always gibberish to you.

The Reagan tax cuts weren't even passed until late 1981, and not fully implemented until July, 1983. The economic explosion followed this.

They were mainly phased in, however, the first tranche of reduction took place as of October '81, AND the drop of the top rate from 70% to 50% was immediate. The theory of rational expectations states that starting that process with the first installment of cuts (as well as all the top end cuts being immediate), with more in law in the pipeline, should have seen an immediate response in the marketplace and the markets. The reaction was that it all tanked.

TEFRA OTOH did very little. It did eliminate some accelerated depreciation ... before it was implemented, meaning it actually changed nothing in the status quo ... as a sop to get a few leftists to vote for military modernization.

This is way whacked history. It was 'a sop' to the markets which were tanking, and insisted upon by the Senate, which was controlled by the Republican majority. (The House version, where the Democrats had nominal majority control but the GOP effective control because of the so-called 'Boll Weevils' -- conservative leaning Democrats from the south, many of whom outright changed parties to the GOP down the road-- was MORE tax cuts. The Senate threw that out, and under Sen. Finance Committee Chairman Bob Dole, replaced those cuts with tax hikes to reinstitute some fiscal discipline. This was so unusual that it caused a lawsuit, since all revenue bills are supposed to originate in the House.

So the Dem-controlled (sorta) House had more tax cuts, and the GOP controlled Senate put in the tax hikes. (The accelerated depreciation was not delayed or put in over phased time, but had been immediate.)

It also instituted federal withholding of tax from interest and dividends ... not a tax increase, but an early payment of said taxes similar to payroll withholding ... and bumped cigarette taxes and telephone taxes.

They were tripled and doubled, respectively, iirc. Also, losing the time value of the taxes withheld is like a tax increase.

Why did Reagan agree to do this then?

The answer is simple ... he was naive enough to accept the word of a moonbat crazy seditious leftist congress to live up to it's end of the bargain.

Reagan always did whatever his advisors said, if they were unanimous. His advisors in this case all agreed that the hemorrhage of red ink in prospect would destroy the country. When David Stockman forecast $200 billion dollar deficits as far as the eye could see, James A. Baker III said, 'Holy shit, you mean it really WAS voodoo economics?'

Back then, the GOP had men who knew this was a risky plan, a 'river boat gamble,' according to Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker, 'voodoo economics,' according to Bush before he drank the Kool-aid, and when the MARKETS AGREED, turning thumbs down, they all got together and told Reagan what he had to do. And do it, he did, enacting something like 13 major tax increases over his 2nd to 7th years. Bob Dole was a fiscal conservative, and he was aghast at the reckless tax cutting throwing away federal revenue and mounting the deficit to a 4x level of its previous record. There was no 'leftist' part of government that was rejecting building up the defense budget in '81, that had any power to do that, at least.

What was their end of the bargain?

To cut $3 in federal spending for every $1 of tax revenue the bill was estimated to generate.

David Stockman said 4 years later that Congress had lived up to their part of the bargain, and the problem was that the administration failed to come up with the $45 billion in cuts that they gave the magic asterisk for (*savings to be specified later). [from your linked articles]

Now, from 1983 through 1989 federal revenue was increased from $600.6B to $991.1B ... or $390.5B.

Now, what was your point?

As of 4 years later, revenues had STILL not recovered to pre-tax levels.

LWW
06-29-2011, 05:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is spoon fed leftist gibberish.

The truth is always gibberish to you.

The Reagan tax cuts weren't even passed until late 1981, and not fully implemented until July, 1983. The economic explosion followed this.

They were mainly phased in, however, the first tranche of reduction took place as of October '81, AND the drop of the top rate from 70% to 50% was immediate. The theory of rational expectations states that starting that process with the first installment of cuts (as well as all the top end cuts being immediate), with more in law in the pipeline, should have seen an immediate response in the marketplace and the markets. The reaction was that it all tanked. </div></div>

So ... I'm wrong because I was right?

And, FWIW, revenue between 1982 and 1982 rose by $18.5B.

And your point was what?

LWW
06-29-2011, 05:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[i]TEFRA OTOH did very little. It did eliminate some accelerated depreciation ... before it was implemented, meaning it actually changed nothing in the status quo ... as a sop to get a few leftists to vote for military modernization.

This is way whacked history. It was 'a sop' to the markets which were tanking, and insisted upon by the Senate, which was controlled by the Republican majority. (The House version, where the Democrats had nominal majority control but the GOP effective control because of the so-called 'Boll Weevils' -- conservative leaning Democrats from the south, many of whom outright changed parties to the GOP down the road-- was MORE tax cuts. The Senate threw that out, and under Sen. Finance Committee Chairman Bob Dole, replaced those cuts with tax hikes to reinstitute some fiscal discipline. This was so unusual that it caused a lawsuit, since all revenue bills are supposed to originate in the House.

So the Dem-controlled (sorta) House had more tax cuts, and the GOP controlled Senate put in the tax hikes. (The accelerated depreciation was not delayed or put in over phased time, but had been immediate.) </div></div>

Actually ... it was never implemented at all.

LWW
06-29-2011, 05:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It also instituted federal withholding of tax from interest and dividends ... not a tax increase, but an early payment of said taxes similar to payroll withholding ... and bumped cigarette taxes and telephone taxes.

They were tripled and doubled, respectively, iirc. Also, losing the time value of the taxes withheld is like a tax increase.</div></div>

Acknowledged ... but as with all things in our system of gubmint, compromises are sometimes made to get the greater good achieved.

LWW
06-29-2011, 05:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why did Reagan agree to do this then?

The answer is simple ... he was naive enough to accept the word of a moonbat crazy seditious leftist congress to live up to it's end of the bargain.

Reagan always did whatever his advisors said, if they were unanimous. His advisors in this case all agreed that the hemorrhage of red ink in prospect would destroy the country. When David Stockman forecast $200 billion dollar deficits as far as the eye could see, James A. Baker III said, 'Holy shit, you mean it really WAS voodoo economics?'

Back then, the GOP had men who knew this was a risky plan, a 'river boat gamble,' according to Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker, 'voodoo economics,' according to Bush before he drank the Kool-aid, and when the MARKETS AGREED, turning thumbs down, they all got together and told Reagan what he had to do. And do it, he did, enacting something like 13 major tax increases over his 2nd to 7th years. Bob Dole was a fiscal conservative, and he was aghast at the reckless tax cutting throwing away federal revenue and mounting the deficit to a 4x level of its previous record. There was no 'leftist' part of government that was rejecting building up the defense budget in '81, that had any power to do that, at least.</div></div>

Verified by ... what's that?

Your imagination?

LWW
06-29-2011, 05:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What was their end of the bargain?

To cut $3 in federal spending for every $1 of tax revenue the bill was estimated to generate.

David Stockman said 4 years later that Congress had lived up to their part of the bargain, and the problem was that the administration failed to come up with the $45 billion in cuts that they gave the magic asterisk for (*savings to be specified later). [from your linked articles]</div></div>

Malarkey, congress must pass all budget bills, the POTUS ... much to the O-cult's chagrin ... cannot go it alone.

Reagan's fault was not vetoing more budget bills and holding the congress's feet to the fire.

LWW
06-29-2011, 05:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now, from 1983 through 1989 federal revenue was increased from $600.6B to $991.1B ... or $390.5B.

Now, what was your point?

As of 4 years later, revenues had STILL not recovered to pre-tax levels. </div></div>

Actually ... you made that up. Revenue in the Reagan years, and the 4 following ... just to remove weasel room:

1981 - $599.3B
1982 - $617.8B
1983 - $600.6B
1984 - $666.4B
1985 - $734.0B
1986 - $769.2B
1987 - $854.3B
1988 - $909.2B
1989 - $991.1B
1990 - $1,032.0B
1991 - $1,055.0B
1992 - $1,091.2B
1993 - $1,154.3B

So, what was your point?

Qtec
06-30-2011, 12:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Reagan and revenue

Ah – commenter Tom says, in response to my post on taxes and revenues:

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.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Is it really possible that all the triumphant declarations that the Reagan tax cuts led to a revenue boom — declarations that you see in highly respectable places — are based on nothing but a failure to make the most elementary corrections for inflation and population growth? Yes, it is. I know we’re supposed to pretend that we’re having a serious discussion in this country; but the truth is that we aren’t.</span>

Update: For the econowonks out there: business cycles are an issue here — revenue growth from trough to peak will look better than the reverse. Unfortunately, business cycles don’t correspond to administrations. But looking at revenue changes peak to peak is still revealing. So here’s the annual rate of growth of real revenue per capita over some cycles:

1973-1979: 2.7%
1979-1990: 1.8%
1990-2000: 3.2%
2000-2007 (probable peak): approximately zero

Do you see the revenue booms from the Reagan and Bush tax cuts? Me neither.
</div></div>

Q

LWW
06-30-2011, 04:36 AM
So did they go up or down?

Would you guys decide which myth you believe?

What's that?

You only believe whichever myth the party tells you that you believe?

But ... I already knew that.

Gayle in MD
06-30-2011, 08:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is spoon fed leftist gibberish.

The truth is always gibberish to you.

The Reagan tax cuts weren't even passed until late 1981, and not fully implemented until July, 1983. The economic explosion followed this.

They were mainly phased in, however, the first tranche of reduction took place as of October '81, AND the drop of the top rate from 70% to 50% was immediate. The theory of rational expectations states that starting that process with the first installment of cuts (as well as all the top end cuts being immediate), with more in law in the pipeline, should have seen an immediate response in the marketplace and the markets. The reaction was that it all tanked.

TEFRA OTOH did very little. It did eliminate some accelerated depreciation ... before it was implemented, meaning it actually changed nothing in the status quo ... as a sop to get a few leftists to vote for military modernization.

This is way whacked history. It was 'a sop' to the markets which were tanking, and insisted upon by the Senate, which was controlled by the Republican majority. (The House version, where the Democrats had nominal majority control but the GOP effective control because of the so-called 'Boll Weevils' -- conservative leaning Democrats from the south, many of whom outright changed parties to the GOP down the road-- was MORE tax cuts. The Senate threw that out, and under Sen. Finance Committee Chairman Bob Dole, replaced those cuts with tax hikes to reinstitute some fiscal discipline. This was so unusual that it caused a lawsuit, since all revenue bills are supposed to originate in the House.

So the Dem-controlled (sorta) House had more tax cuts, and the GOP controlled Senate put in the tax hikes. (The accelerated depreciation was not delayed or put in over phased time, but had been immediate.)

It also instituted federal withholding of tax from interest and dividends ... not a tax increase, but an early payment of said taxes similar to payroll withholding ... and bumped cigarette taxes and telephone taxes.

They were tripled and doubled, respectively, iirc. Also, losing the time value of the taxes withheld is like a tax increase.

Why did Reagan agree to do this then?

The answer is simple ... he was naive enough to accept the word of a moonbat crazy seditious leftist congress to live up to it's end of the bargain.

Reagan always did whatever his advisors said, if they were unanimous. His advisors in this case all agreed that the hemorrhage of red ink in prospect would destroy the country. When David Stockman forecast $200 billion dollar deficits as far as the eye could see, James A. Baker III said, 'Holy shit, you mean it really WAS voodoo economics?'

Back then, the GOP had men who knew this was a risky plan, a 'river boat gamble,' according to Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker, 'voodoo economics,' according to Bush before he drank the Kool-aid, and when the MARKETS AGREED, turning thumbs down, they all got together and told Reagan what he had to do. And do it, he did, enacting something like 13 major tax increases over his 2nd to 7th years. Bob Dole was a fiscal conservative, and he was aghast at the reckless tax cutting throwing away federal revenue and mounting the deficit to a 4x level of its previous record. There was no 'leftist' part of government that was rejecting building up the defense budget in '81, that had any power to do that, at least.

What was their end of the bargain?

To cut $3 in federal spending for every $1 of tax revenue the bill was estimated to generate.

David Stockman said 4 years later that Congress had lived up to their part of the bargain, and the problem was that the administration failed to come up with the $45 billion in cuts that they gave the magic asterisk for (*savings to be specified later). [from your linked articles]

Now, from 1983 through 1989 federal revenue was increased from $600.6B to $991.1B ... or $390.5B.

Now, what was your point?

As of 4 years later, revenues had STILL not recovered to pre-tax levels. </div></div>

He has no point, EVER!

These are the guys who Voted for Bush, twice, and now they pretend they were horrified by the Bush/Blank check congress unprecedented, record breaking spending, warring, while cutting taxes, and then telling the idiotic Tea Party types, "The deficits don't matter!"

Their base is so dumb, they haven't seen through the BS yet! Now, they are being brain washed to believe that Obama and the Dems, ran up all of our debts!


BWA HA HA HA...why try to match wits with unarmed opponents??? If they still think corporations are outsourcing jobs, because of taxes, or Unions, or that tax cuts for the top one and a half percent, will yield more jobs, that ends any realistic discussion right there.

They sucked up the RW JObs, Jobs, Jobs BS, AGAIN, and not one single attempt by the Repigs, to create jobs, has been on the table.

We don't have a problem with Medicare or Medicaid, we've already presented the bones of the best solution to health care costs, The AHCA, which cuts costs, far more than Ryan's mess, and cuts them as much as we could, while up against all of the Repiglican lies and fear tactics, which blocked the best parts, like single payer.

The Dems were making progress, addressing many issues which Repiglicans have swept under the carpet for decades, while spending and borrowing, then Dems, addressed THE COSTS, which is really THE PROBLEM, not the programs, but UNSUSTAINABLE COSTS, from PRIVATE Medical annd Insurance INDUSTRY, higher costs than any other country, with among the worst results!

Repigs refuse to address any of our unsustainable circumstances, with any cooperation. They have one absurd answer to everything, tax cuts!!!! Throw the Middle Class under the bus.

When you need more revenue, you don't cut taxes! When you launch two wars, you don't cut taxes! When you have to borrow to pay for unprecedented spending, like we saw throughout Repiglican/Bush's blank check spending, you don't lie to the people and tell them the deficits, don't matter, and then keep on spending and borrowing!

We have people on here who are so out of touch, so brain washed, it's a waste of time attempting to communicate any facts to them, they are beyond help!

Repiglican obstructionism surely has Reagan and Tip, rolling over in their graves, that is if Reagan can see anything up here, and if Tip is looking down! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

G.

Soflasnapper
06-30-2011, 10:52 AM
Reagan's fault was not vetoing more budget bills and holding the congress's feet to the fire.

More? How about ANY? The lack of which proves why Reagan was not very serious about reining in spending, since he refused to use the greatest presidential power available to rein it it, and preferring to tout some balanced budget amendment (which although a continuing part of the GOP platform, somehow never got brought up to be passed, nor could it have taken place in any short term time frame).

Soflasnapper
06-30-2011, 10:56 AM
Actually ... you made that up.

Actually, I quoted that from the source you cited earlier.

From your link in your first reply entitled Truth v. Truthiness:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Critics claim the tax cuts worsened the deficits in the budget of the United States government. Reagan supporters credit them with helping the 1980s economic expansion[6] that eventually lowered the deficits. After peaking in 1986 at $221 billion the deficit fell to $152 billion by 1989.[7] Supporters of the tax cuts also argue, using the Laffer curve, tax cuts increased government revenue. This is hotly disputed—critics contend, although government income tax receipts did rise, it was due to - arguably Keynesian - economic growth, not tax cuts, and would have risen more if the tax cuts had not occurred; in fact, revenue was down more than 4% the fourth year after enactment.[8] Supporters see the growth as caused by the tax cuts.[citation needed]</div></div>

Please read and comprehend your own citations, thank you!

Revenue in the Reagan years, and the 4 following ... just to remove weasel room:

This appears to be a listing of nominal or current dollars, i.e., not real dollars or constant dollars. Is it?

It also appears to be total receipts, not simply income taxes related income to the government.

So, given that Reagan jacked all kinds of taxes up, doubling and tripling some excise taxes as we've seen, including something like 13 large tax increases over the middle 6 years, the estimate I've seen is that 95% of the increased income receipts to the government were accounted by from new or increased other taxes, and the effects of inflation.

Soflasnapper
06-30-2011, 11:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why did Reagan agree to do this then?

The answer is simple ... he was naive enough to accept the word of a moonbat crazy seditious leftist congress to live up to it's end of the bargain.

Reagan always did whatever his advisors said, if they were unanimous. His advisors in this case all agreed that the hemorrhage of red ink in prospect would destroy the country. When David Stockman forecast $200 billion dollar deficits as far as the eye could see, James A. Baker III said, 'Holy shit, you mean it really WAS voodoo economics?'

Back then, the GOP had men who knew this was a risky plan, a 'river boat gamble,' according to Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker, 'voodoo economics,' according to Bush before he drank the Kool-aid, and when the MARKETS AGREED, turning thumbs down, they all got together and told Reagan what he had to do. And do it, he did, enacting something like 13 major tax increases over his 2nd to 7th years. Bob Dole was a fiscal conservative, and he was aghast at the reckless tax cutting throwing away federal revenue and mounting the deficit to a 4x level of its previous record. There was no 'leftist' part of government that was rejecting building up the defense budget in '81, that had any power to do that, at least.</div></div>

Verified by ... what's that?

Your imagination? </div></div>

Well, no. This is history. I'm always surprised you don't know basic things, such as Howard Baker's 'river boat gamble' quote.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Many recent memoirs have filled out the details of what some of us have long suspected: that Reagan is basically a cretin who, as a long-time actor, is skilled in reading his assigned lines and performing his assigned tasks. Donald Regan and others have commented on Ronald Reagan’s strange passivity, his never asking questions or offering any ideas of his own, his willingness to wait until others place matters before him. Regan has also remarked that Reagan is happiest when following the set schedule that others have placed before him. The actor, having achieved at last the stardom that had eluded him in Hollywood, reads the lines and performs the action that others – his script-writers, his directors – have told him to follow.

Sometimes, Reagan’s retentive memory – important for an actor – gave his handlers trouble. Evidently lacking the capacity for reasoned thought, Reagan’s mind is filled with anecdotes, most of them dead wrong, that he has soaked up over the years in the course of reading Reader’s Digest or at idle conversation. Once an anecdote enters Reagan’s noodle, it is set in concrete and impossible to correct or dislodge. (Consider, for example, the famous story about the "Chicago welfare queen": all wrong, but Reagan carried on regardless.)

In the early years of Reagan rule, the press busily checked out Reagan’s beloved anecdotes, and found that almost every one of them was full of holes. But Reagan never veered from his course. Why? God knows there are plenty of correct stories about welfare cheats that he could have clasped to his bosom; why stick to false ones? Evidently, the reason is that Reagan cares little about reality; he lives in his own Hollywood fantasy world, a world of myth, a world in which it is always Morning in America, a world where The Flag is always flying, but where Welfare Cheats mar the contentment of the Land of Oz. So who cares if the actual story is wrong? Let it stand, like a Hollywood story, as a surrogate for the welfare cheats whom everyone knows do exist. </div></div>

From Murray Rothbard (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard60.html)

LWW
06-30-2011, 03:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Reagan always did whatever his advisors said, if they were unanimous. His advisors in this case all agreed that the hemorrhage of red ink in prospect would destroy the country. When David Stockman forecast $200 billion dollar deficits as far as the eye could see, James A. Baker III said, 'Holy shit, you mean it really WAS voodoo economics?'

Back then, the GOP had men who knew this was a risky plan, a 'river boat gamble,' according to Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker, 'voodoo economics,' according to Bush before he drank the Kool-aid, and when the MARKETS AGREED, turning thumbs down, they all got together and told Reagan what he had to do. </div></div>

It never ceases to amaze me how adept at doublethink this cabal actually is.

Back where the air is thick and the facts are respected ... as bad as the Reagan deficits were, they peaked about 6.5% of GDP, just as the tax cuts were fully enacted. By the time he left office it was under 4% of GDP.

As bad as the Bush deficits were ... they peaked at about 5% of GDP.

If you wish to denounce this level of overspending ... I'm with you.

Where we differ is that I will look at that and see it as bad, and you will see it as apocalyptic ... and then turn around and make excuses for dear leader's regime running deficits in excess of 10% of GDP.

Next deflection please.

Soflasnapper
07-10-2011, 08:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Reagan always did whatever his advisors said, if they were unanimous. His advisors in this case all agreed that the hemorrhage of red ink in prospect would destroy the country. When David Stockman forecast $200 billion dollar deficits as far as the eye could see, James A. Baker III said, 'Holy shit, you mean it really WAS voodoo economics?'

Back then, the GOP had men who knew this was a risky plan, a 'river boat gamble,' according to Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker, 'voodoo economics,' according to Bush before he drank the Kool-aid, and when the MARKETS AGREED, turning thumbs down, they all got together and told Reagan what he had to do. </div></div>

It never ceases to amaze me how adept at doublethink this cabal actually is.

Back where the air is thick and the facts are respected ... as bad as the Reagan deficits were, they peaked about 6.5% of GDP, just as the tax cuts were fully enacted. By the time he left office it was under 4% of GDP.

As bad as the Bush deficits were ... they peaked at about 5% of GDP.

If you wish to denounce this level of overspending ... I'm with you.

Where we differ is that I will look at that and see it as bad, and you will see it as apocalyptic ... and then turn around and make excuses for dear leader's regime running deficits in excess of 10% of GDP.

Next deflection please. </div></div>

In the Second World War, our deficits ran 50% or more of the budget in given years, and the debt to gdp ratio went from 40% to about 125% in a few war years, or over 30% a year deficits compared to gdp.

This was fully justified, as the existence of the country was at stake. Far from being the deathknell of the republic, we emerged with a strong economy, and over time, worked this debt down to maybe about 30% of gdp.

We face an equally perilous time, and the existence of the country is at stake. When do you say, well if saving the country costs THAT much, maybe we cannot afford it?

What IS a reasonable, or at least affordable, level of debt to gdp? Who is to say? It's a tricky question.

We know this. Any large company that isn't leveraging debt (through bond issues) to do more than its current cash flow allows is doing less business than they could, and could afford.

What about home mortgages? I think one old rule was someone could afford a house costing 2-1/2 times their annual salary, on conventional terms, using a 30 year amortization schedule. 30 years captures the bulk of the remaining workforce life of a middle-aged person.

What if the 'person' in question is essentially immortal, with no 'workforce life' ending in 30 years, with the prospects of ever-increasing income? Do you think that would allow taking on a greater level of mortgage debt? Probably so.

So does this mean a debt to gdp ratio of 250% (2-1/2 times gdp) is affordable? Perhaps so.