Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You said Reagan won in a landslide with UE @ 10%, which was incorrect. Fall of 1984, it was 7.2 %.
The difference in Reagan's recession and obama's is job growth took off for Reagan, whereas obama's policies are stifling job growth.
Job growth didn't "take off" for Reagan for a LONG TIME. In fact, as I've already posted, it first got worse (a WHOLE LOT WORSE (worse than under Obama)) for a year and a half before it even BEGAN to drop. Then it took nearly THREE YEARS to get back to where it was before Reagan inacted his tax cuts. The economy DID eventually boom - but that was just as likely due to all the deficit spending that took place during the Reagan years as it was due to the tax cuts.
Unemployment began dropping for Obama a mere six months after the stimulus passed.
Taxes were cut under Reagan and unemployment got worse? Huh?
Fast forward to Bush who cuts taxes and loses millions of jobs. Huh?
Fast forward to last year: government injects money into the system and unemployment drops?
Huh.
Well, I DO think that the tax cuts DID eventually have a positive effect on the economy. However it's impossible to separate the impact of the tax cuts from the impact of the massive deficit spending he enacted (much of it due to the (necessary) increase in military spending he pushed for.
As I've said MANY times, what Obama is doing is not all that different from what Reagan did - cut taxes (though only temporarily in the case of Obama) and increase government spending. It's the 2 pronged approach Reagan used (though it was VERY VERY PAINFUL at first) and it's the same general approach Obama is using. So far - comparing month to month results starting from the time of the legislation being enacted - Obama is ahead of the curve compared to Reagan.
How well that advantage continues remains to be seen of course.
Well, I DO think that the tax cuts DID eventually have a positive effect on the economy. However it's impossible to separate the impact of the tax cuts from the impact of the massive deficit spending he enacted (much of it due to the (necessary) increase in military spending he pushed for.
As I've said MANY times, what Obama is doing is not all that different from what Reagan did - cut taxes (though only temporarily in the case of Obama) and increase government spending. It's the 2 pronged approach Reagan used (though it was VERY VERY PAINFUL at first) and it's the same general approach Obama is using. So far - comparing month to month results starting from the time of the legislation being enacted - Obama is ahead of the curve compared to Reagan.
How well that advantage continues remains to be seen of course.
Ken
The problem with that "comparison" is that Obama is increasing spending, but he is increasing taxes.
1. Increased income taxes with the lapse of Bush tax cuts
2. Increased buisness taxes
3. increased capital gains taxes
4. increased taxes for Obamacare
These are job killing policies, which seem to define the Obama administration.
The problem with that "comparison" is that Obama is increasing spending, but he is increasing taxes.
1. Increased income taxes with the lapse of Bush tax cuts
2. Increased buisness taxes
3. increased capital gains taxes
4. increased taxes for Obamacare
These are job killing policies, which seem to define the Obama administration.
Most of those increases are things yet to happen - and their impact on the economy have yet to be seen. As of this year taxes for the majority of Americans are DOWN. Next year taxes ARE likely to go up - and I'm not that pleased about that. However the REAL difference between NOW and THEN is that the deficit was already HUGE (thanks largely to "Junior") when Obama took office - whereas Reagan wasn't facing such a huge problem (in that regard Carter left Reagan a "tight ship"). This means there is INTENSE pressure to increase revenues and lower spending - and the easiest way to raise revenues quickly is to raise taxes (selectively in this case). That's the reality of the situation.
Most folks - including those constantly harping about how Obama has increased the deficit - are too clueless to realize that the lions' share of the increase in the deficit is NOT due to increased spending on things like the Stimulus, but rather due to the massive drop in tax revenues because of the recession. You can reduce the deficit by only 2 paths - increase revenues or decrease spending, and ANY decrease in spending means more American's losing their jobs because one way or another every dollar the government spends makes it's way into someone's paycheck.
Ken
PS - It should also be pointed out that the unemployment rate didn't begin to fall until after Reagan REVERSED his tax cuts and instead INCREASED TAXES in September 1983 with the TEFRA legislation. TEFRA was the largest peacetime tax increase in US history - and yet it was after THAT that the economy began to improve and unemployment drop - so it's pretty hard to equate lowering taxes with improving the economy.
Last edited by LordBalfor; 07-26-2010 at 07:28 PM..
Republicans are still Bush Republicans and they must struggle with their inferior ideology, **** poor record, and inability to improve themselves. President Obama easily here for two terms.
If the Republicans don't distance themselves from what Bush represents and convince the nation that they are not the Klanlike party, they may not have a shot at the White House until 2024.
Most of those increases are things yet to happen - and their impact on the economy have yet to be seen. As of this year taxes for the majority of Americans are DOWN. Next year taxes ARE likely to go up - and I'm not that pleased about that. However the REAL difference between NOW and THEN is that the deficit was already HUGE (thanks largely to "Junior") when Obama took office - whereas Reagan wasn't facing such a huge problem (in that regard Carter left Reagan a "tight ship"). This means there is INTENSE pressure to increase revenues and lower spending - and the easiest way to raise revenues quickly is to raise taxes (selectively in this case). That's the reality of the situation.
Most folks - including those constantly harping about how Obama has increased the deficit - are too clueless to realize that the lions' share of the increase in the deficit is NOT due to increased spending on things like the Stimulus, but rather due to the massive drop in tax revenues because of the recession. You can reduce the deficit by only 2 paths - increase revenues or decrease spending, and ANY decrease in spending means more American's losing their jobs because one way or another every dollar the government spends makes it's way into someone's paycheck.
Ken
PS - It should also be pointed out that the unemployment rate didn't begin to fall until after Reagan REVERSED his tax cuts and instead INCREASED TAXES in September 1983 with the TEFRA legislation. TEFRA was the largest peacetime tax increase in US history - and yet it was after THAT that the economy began to improve and unemployment drop - so it's pretty hard to equate lowering taxes with improving the economy.
So what you are saying is that things will get much worse when the real Obama tax increases are enacted in january?
I agree. The income tax, capital gains tax, buisness tax, and Obamacare tax will kill the economy.
Reagan's "tax increase" was still a large cut from previous corporate and personal income tax levels and was made when there was indications that the economy was improving. Tax cuts will have at least a one year delay, as will the tax increases (with the exception of the capital gains and corporate tax increases, which should have an immediate negative effect).
Let's talk at this time next year, Ken. At no point in history has increased taxes improved the economy. Never. Even the democratic strategists realize this.
So what you are saying is that things will get much worse when the real Obama tax increases are enacted in january?
No that's not what I'm saying at all.
What I'm saying is that the relationship between tax cuts, tax increases & the overall economy is not straightforward the way that GOP dogma would make it seem. Afterall, Reagan lowered taxes - including capital gains & corporate taxes - taxes which you claim have an immediate effect on the economy - and unemployment suddenly increased by nearly 50%!!!!!! Then he largely reversed those (not entirely to be sure, but still LARGELY) - and unemployment FELL.
It wasn't so much the tax cuts that improved the economy as it was all the deficit spending. Between 1980 and 1985, the defense budget more than doubled (from $142.6 billion to $286.8 billion). That had a HUGE impact on the economy - FAR MORE in my opinion, than his tax cuts (which - as I said - were largely repealed after a single year). To Republicans however, tax cuts are viewed as some kind of panacea - a religious dogma almost - and Reagan as some kind of Presidential Saint. The problem is, the Reagan years don't back up that position(regarding tax cuts) at all. Rather, Republicans have adopted some kind of "selective memory" - they easily remember the tax cuts, but FORGET that those tax cuts were largely almost immediately reversed. On the the other hand they seem to think that Reagan decreased government spending and the deficit when in fact the OPPOSITE was true - he spent MASSIVELY and drastically INCREASED the size of the deficit.
While tax cuts CAN help the economy, it was Reagan's MASSIVE SPENDING which seems to have been FAR more responsible for the boom which followed - NOT the tax cuts. There is a DIRECT correlation between the increase in government spending on Reagan's arms buildup and the improvement of the US economy. The same can NOT be said regarding his tax cuts. And THAT is a fact.
Reagan didn't TAX CUT the US into prosperity. He SPENT the US into prosperity.
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 07-27-2010 at 08:30 AM..
Job growth didn't "take off" for Reagan for a LONG TIME. In fact, as I've already posted, it first got worse (a WHOLE LOT WORSE (worse than under Obama)) for a year and a half before it even BEGAN to drop. Then it took nearly THREE YEARS to get back to where it was before Reagan inacted his tax cuts. The economy DID eventually boom - but that was just as likely due to all the deficit spending that took place during the Reagan years as it was due to the tax cuts.
Unemployment began dropping for Obama a mere six months after the stimulus passed.
Ken
Nov of 1980, UE was 7.5%, Nov of 1984, it was 7.2% (from the Carter malaise) and then it continued to drop all the way down to mid 5%. So yeah, job growth did take off under Reagan.
When obama took over, UE was 7.7% and has INCREASED to what it is today 9.5%. It wasn't supposed to rise above 8%, according to obama.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
However the REAL difference between NOW and THEN is that the deficit was already HUGE (thanks largely to "Junior") when Obama took office - whereas Reagan wasn't facing such a huge problem (in that regard Carter left Reagan a "tight ship"). This means there is INTENSE pressure to increase revenues and lower spending - and the easiest way to raise revenues quickly is to raise taxes (selectively in this case). That's the reality of the situation.
When the democrats took over congress in 2007, the deficit was $160 Billion. Since they've had the reins it has increased to $1.4 Trillion. In case you didn't know the structure of the federal government, CONGRESS appropriates money, not the executive. Btw, obama had been a part of that congress that created the mess. When the dems took over in 2007, the debt was approx $8 Trillion, and now? $13 Trillion.
Reagan wasn't facing such a huge problem? Ohhhhhh...revisionist history. Interest rates were 20+%, gas rationing across the nation, high inflation and a general malaise around the country.
Reagans tax cuts resulted in record revenue to the Treasury, which came from the massive job growth based on his policies.
He's in two unpopular wars, in the midst of a very slow, nearly jobless, very large recession, in the middle of the greatest environmental disaster of our time, has a few million TV viewers suckered into believing the crap that Fox News puts out is some form of truth, AND has managed to pass huge new laws through Congress (each of which upset different parts of the public, whittling away more support).
Even with all that going on, he has a 47-48% approval rating. That's pretty darn good, and just imagine if the economy really starts to turn around, we are largely out of Iraq, and Republicans still can't manage to come up with an idea other than cutting taxes (and generally sucking at running government).
Although it's way too far out to make a real prediction, Obama is currently looking good for re-election.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
