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.
Did I EVER say Reagan wasn't facing such a huge problem?
You seem to have serious problems with your reading comprehension.
Why of course you didn't, just look below in this post of yours that I was responding to.
The serious problems have to do with memory and writing I think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
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.
After an oil induced slip last week, Obama's approval rating has risen back to it's normal 50%. It seems that the lines have been drawn. Those who approve, will always approve and those who don't, will never approve.
I don't know how his approval rating could possibly be 50% (but the graph says "45%"). I am a fervent Obama supporter, but cannot stand how he interceded for the illegals in ariz and does close to nothing to ensure the rights of gay Americans. I suppose that they are banking that the eventual Repug candidate will be even more hostile towards gay interests. It becomes the worse of 2 evils. In that case, Obama probably wins.
The record revenue to the treasury was NOT due to the tax cuts (which had been largely REPEALED ) but rather due to the MASSIVE SPENDING of the arms buildup (which grew and grew and grew during his 2 terms).
Ken
The Reagan Tax cuts were not repealed, we would have had the top marginal rate back up at70%, which is what it was during Carter.
Here is the post that I was responding to (not yours).
Quote:
Originally Posted by carterstamp View Post
Unemployment was about 11% then.
Why of course you didn't, just look below in this post of yours that I was responding to.
The serious problems have to do with memory and writing I think.
Let's see you spin your own words.
I was referring to the DEFICIT - NOT to the overall situation - TO THE DEFICIT (DUH!). Why do you think I SPECIFICALLY wrote: "(in that regard Carter left Reagan a "tight ship)"?
Again, clearly your comprehension skills are LACKING.
Here is what I wrote:
"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."
It shouldn't be THAT hard to understand - unless you are DELIBERATELY being DENSE.
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 07-31-2010 at 06:29 PM..
The Reagan Tax cuts were not repealed, we would have had the top marginal rate back up at70%, which is what it was during Carter.
The tax rate changes were not repealed, but there was MORE to Reagan's tax cuts than just the rate change. As I've ALREADY POSTED (several times) OTHER aspects of the tax cuts WERE REPEALED - AND ADDITIONAL taxes were INACTED AS WELL - ALL of which served to offset much of the overall reduction in taxes. As I HAVE POSTED - that's not just MY OPINION - that's the opinion of many Republicans and Libertarians OF THE TIME. THEY were not happy AT ALL.
And yet EVEN WITH the overall tax cuts being largely gutted, the SPENDING INCREASES by the Federal Government did a REMARKABLE job of boosting the economy.
As I said - Reagan didn't TAX CUT the US into economic success, he SPENT the US into economic success.
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 07-31-2010 at 06:44 PM..
I don't know how his approval rating could possibly be 50% (but the graph says "45%"). I am a fervent Obama supporter, but cannot stand how he interceded for the illegals in ariz and does close to nothing to ensure the rights of gay Americans. I suppose that they are banking that the eventual Repug candidate will be even more hostile towards gay interests. It becomes the worse of 2 evils. In that case, Obama probably wins.
The tax rate changes were not repealed, but there was MORE to Reagan's tax cuts than just the rate change. As I've ALREADY POSTED (several times) OTHER aspects of the tax cuts WERE REPEALED - AND ADDITIONAL taxes were INACTED AS WELL - ALL of which served to offset much of the overall reduction in taxes. As I HAVE POSTED - that's not just MY OPINION - that's the opinion of many Republicans and Libertarians OF THE TIME. THEY were not happy AT ALL.
And yet EVEN WITH the overall tax cuts being largely gutted, the SPENDING INCREASES by the Federal Government did a REMARKABLE job of boosting the economy.
As I said - Reagan didn't TAX CUT the US into economic success, he SPENT the US into economic success.
Ken
Absolute nonsense.
The tax cuts resulted in a massive expansion of tax revenue to the treasury and that tax revenue came from taxpayers, which was a result of the increased job growth.
And yet EVEN WITH the overall tax cuts being largely gutted, the SPENDING INCREASES by the Federal Government did a REMARKABLE job of boosting the economy.
As I said - Reagan didn't TAX CUT the US into economic success, he SPENT the US into economic success.
You are so full of it, if Reagan's tax cuts were repealed like you claim the deficit would have gone down, yet it continued to rise until 1986.
However, since you refuse to accept facts, lets once again review the top and bottom marginal rates from 1980-1984;
Where was this gutting you speak of? The original tax cut was valued at $750 billion, yet you sit here and try to claim that a tiny bill in 1982 valued at $35 billion - raised primarily through closing tax loopholes - canceled out that cut? You must be stoned out of your mind if you believe that.
The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform (http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm - broken link)
Most of Reagan's defense bills were passed in his first two years in office, when Republicans had a stronger majority in the Senate. And yet, those two years were the worst in his entire presidency in terms of the economy. Defense spending fell drastically during the 90s, yet the economy boomed. There is no relationship there, our economy is huge, the defense budget at the time was a mere fraction relative to our economy at large. As of this posting, military spending amounted to nearly $800 billion for FY 2010, so why isn't the economy booming?
You are so full of it, if Reagan's tax cuts were repealed like you claim the deficit would have gone down, yet it continued to rise until 1986.:
If I'm "full of it" then clearly CONSERVATIVES of the time are "full of it" as well - since THOSE are the sources I'm quoting.
The deficit went UP because Reagan SPENT, SPENT, SPENT - and the increase in spending MORE THAN OFFSET the increase in tax revenue garnered from the recovering economy. That's why the deficit increased so dramatically during his terms
DUH!!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie117
However, since you refuse to accept facts, lets once again review the top and bottom marginal rates from 1980-1984;
Where was this gutting you speak of? The original tax cut was valued at $750 billion, yet you sit here and try to claim that a tiny bill in 1982 valued at $35 billion - raised primarily through closing tax loopholes - canceled out that cut? You must be stoned out of your mind if you believe that.
The TAX RATES went down, but OTHER taxes made up much of the difference.
Here's the SAME thing I posted before in ANOTHER thread.
Add up the numbers. It WASN'T just the 35 billion. It was TEFRA PLUS all the other taxes mentioned BELOW. When you add those numbers up it takes a SIGNIFICANT chunk out of the tax cuts. And again (how many times do I have to reference this to you guys) Itn was LIBERTARIANS and CONSERVATIVES of the time who were complaining about Reagan's INCREASED TAXES!
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
Here is a very interesting article detailing the taxation and spending record of the Reagan years.
Note that this is a LIBERTARIAN source.
Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%—compared with Reagan's 3%—in the government's take of "national income." And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan's requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.
...
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.
As I said - Reagan spent and spent and spent - and the result was a BOOMING economy.
But somehow the GOP just glosses over all that spending and pretends it never happened.
Ken
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie117
The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform (http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm - broken link)
Most of Reagan's defense bills were passed in his first two years in office, when Republicans had a stronger majority in the Senate. And yet, those two years were the worst in his entire presidency in terms of the economy. Defense spending fell drastically during the 90s, yet the economy boomed. There is no relationship there, our economy is huge, the defense budget at the time was a mere fraction relative to our economy at large. As of this posting, military spending amounted to nearly $800 billion for FY 2010, so why isn't the economy booming?
The defense bills were PASSED in those first 2 years of Reagans' Presidency, but the defense PROGRAMS ran for YEARS. Clearly you have NO CLUE how long it takes to develop those weapons systems (I DO - I worked in the field for 25 YEARS!) The result was defense spending DOUBLED in the first 5 years! There was also a LOT of spin-off from the defense programs that had impacts on the economy. Finally, it wasn't JUST defense spending that increased under Reagan, the Federal Budget overall increased (with increased spending in almost all areas)
Here's what the Conservative Cato Institute had to say in 1984 (3 years into the Reagan Presidency):
....
The net result of these efforts has been that tax rates are lower now than in 1980, but not lower than rates in 1979. The reductions in aggregate federal expenditures relative to GNP, however, have not materialized. Indeed, during the first three years of the Reagan administration, federal spending as a percentage of GNP increased to historically high peacetime levels. Because the decline in the rate of growth of tax revenues has not been matched by a decline in the growth of expenditures, the government's budget deficit in real terms has also reached unprecedented peacetime levels. The 1983 deficit was almost 6 percent of GNP. Projected deficits for 1985 and 1986 exceed 4 percent of GNP. These levels are of the same order of magnitude as those reached during the Great Depression of the 1930s. Without a reversal of the tax reductions or significant real spending cuts, the projected deficits will not fall below 3 percent of GNP until 1989.
Again - this was written by CONSERVATIVES OF THE TIME (the Cato Institute for crying out loud!!!!). How many writings by Conservatives and Libertarians of the time do I have to post before so-called Conservatives and Libertarians of TODAY lift their head out of the sand regards to Reagan's MASSIVE SPENDING? These folks I'm referencing (several TIMES now) are NOT Liberals, they are CONSERVATIVES - and THEY back up my position that Reagan's Presidency drastically increased spending.
The fact is, one need only look at what the National Debt did under Reagan (grew DRAMATICALLY) to understand that spending DRASTICALLY INCREASED during his 2 terms.
"In 1981 the gross national debt, as a percent of the nation's annual income, reached its lowest point since 1931, 32.5%. It could have been paid off then more easily than at any time in the previous 50 years. Despite his professed abhorrence for debt, Reagan instituted unprecedented peacetime deficit spending. "
So, again - if I'm "full of it" then apparently CONSERVATIVE sources like the NATIONAL REVIEW and the CATO INSTITUTE were "full of it" as well.
Are you REALLY going to argue that those CONSERVATIVE ICONS were "full of it"?
It's just amazing the snow job the modern GOP has pulled on it's current members - who SOMEHOW have been convinced that Reagan SHRANK government spending when in fact he DRASTICALLY INCREASED IT.
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 07-31-2010 at 11:52 PM..
If I'm "full of it" then clearly CONSERVATIVES of the time are "full of it" as well - since THOSE are the sources I'm quoting.
The deficit went UP because Reagan SPENT, SPENT, SPENT - and the increase in spending MORE THAN OFFSET the increase in tax revenue garnered from the recovering economy. That's why the deficit increased so dramatically during his terms
DUH!!!!!
Oh really? Did you seriously think I would not check the numbers?
This is the percent increase in budget outlays (spending) for the fiscal years 1975 - 1990;
The TAX RATES went down, but OTHER taxes made up much of the difference.
Here's the SAME thing I posted before in ANOTHER thread.
Add up the numbers. It WASN'T just the 35 billion. It was TEFRA PLUS all the other taxes mentioned BELOW. When you add those numbers up it takes a SIGNIFICANT chunk out of the tax cuts. And again (how many times do I have to reference this to you guys) Itn was LIBERTARIANS and CONSERVATIVES of the time who were complaining about Reagan's INCREASED TAXES!
Obviously they were wrong as well. Government spending grew at a much slower pace under Reagan; if as you claim, tax revenue remained the same through "other taxes", the deficit would not have continued to climb.
Face it dude, income taxes are the biggest source of income for the federal government. Excise and corporate taxes are mere fractions of the whole. And to claim that any number of excise tax increases could possibly compensate for a $750 billion tax cut is absolutely ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
The defense bills were PASSED in those first 2 years of Reagans' Presidency, but the defense PROGRAMS ran for YEARS. Clearly you have NO CLUE how long it takes to develop those weapons systems (I DO - I worked in the field for 25 YEARS!) The result was defense spending DOUBLED in the first 5 years! There was also a LOT of spin-off from the defense programs that had impacts on the economy. Finally, it wasn't JUST defense spending that increased under Reagan, the Federal Budget overall increased (with increased spending in almost all areas)
Then prove it, dammit! Show me your sources that show defense spending propped up the economy, particularly the nationwide housing boom that powered the recovery from recession - I would love to hear your explanation. As I already showed you, government spending decelerated under Reagan, government spending grew at half the rate it was in the 70s. You should always expect some growth to compensate for a growing population, but you can clearly see the difference in the 80s compared to the 70s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
It's just amazing the snow job the modern GOP has pulled on it's current members - who SOMEHOW have been convinced that Reagan SHRANK government spending when in fact he DRASTICALLY INCREASED IT.
Ken
The annual increase in spending under Reagan was in the single digits for every year except 1985. In the 7 fiscal years before Reagan took office, most were double digit gains in spending, and all years were at least 9%. All of Reagan's budgets were far below that, except for two.
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.
) but rather due to the MASSIVE SPENDING of the arms buildup (which grew and grew and grew during his 2 terms).
