Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

And how is Obamacomics going? Oh wait I forgot we are trying to change the subject by discussing something completely irrelevant. I'm sure the 8 million newly unemployed are concerned about a president from more than 20 years ago. Aren't we suppose to be randomly calling people racists though or suggesting Bush was worse than Hitler? Seriously if we are going after the base we have to dumb it down.
It's funny that HolierNthou would cite the Ludwig von Mises Institute. From a recent paper:

quote:
In sum, it would be very difficult to argue against the proposition that the US economy today is even more heavily controlled, regulated, and regimented by the state than Germany was at the time Hayek wrote The Road to Serfdom. Americans have travelled many miles down the road to serfdom by deluding themselves that the god of democracy will somehow save them from statist slavery. But as Hayek warned 56 years ago, "There is no justification for the belief that, so long as power is conferred by democratic procedure, it cannot be arbitrary…"

The exercise of arbitrary or dictatorial power is, of course, the whole purpose and function of all those agencies, commissions, and czars.
http://mises.org/daily/4585
The left will continue to demonize Reagan for being the best President ever. Probably a bad case of jealously. They don’t have anyone that comes close.

Meanwhile, back to current events, our sitting president keeps hurting the job market, pushes thru financial reform that actually damages the consumer, destroys our healthcare system, and doesn’t have a clue on what to do about our war situation. This country will never get back on track as long as the left has control and we have this clueless president in office.
quote:
The left will continue to demonize Reagan for being the best President ever. Probably a bad case of jealously. They don’t have anyone that comes close.


I'm not a Democrat, nor did I vote for Obama, and that statement is ridiculous. Reagan was not even close to being the best ever. Clinton was better than Reagan. Reagan wasn't even very good in fact.
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
The left will continue to demonize Reagan for being the best President ever. Probably a bad case of jealously. They don’t have anyone that comes close.


I'm not a Democrat, nor did I vote for Obama, and that statement is ridiculous. Reagan was not even close to being the best ever. Clinton was better than Reagan. Reagan wasn't even very good in fact.


You made the ridiculous statement. Clinton was a school boy buffoon. The Republicans made Clinton look good when they forced him to have a balanced budget. The dot com industry boom didn’t hurt Clinton either. There’re never be another great President like Reagan. I would take Clinton (either one) over this clueless joker we now have though.
quote:
Originally posted by Jobe:
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
The left will continue to demonize Reagan for being the best President ever. Probably a bad case of jealously. They don’t have anyone that comes close.


I'm not a Democrat, nor did I vote for Obama, and that statement is ridiculous. Reagan was not even close to being the best ever. Clinton was better than Reagan. Reagan wasn't even very good in fact.


You made the ridiculous statement. Clinton was a school boy buffoon. The Republicans made Clinton look good when they forced him to have a balanced budget. The dot com industry boom didn’t hurt Clinton either. There’re never be another great President like Reagan. I would take Clinton (either one) over this clueless joker we now have though.


I'm sorry, but Reagan was an awful president. May I bring to the table: lowering taxes to create a terrible deficit and economic decline, Iran contra, reading stage directions aloud, "I don't remember", No record keeping for the NSC, how convenient. Not to mention ketchup being a vegetable and the statement that trees cause pollution? Stating that vietnam veterans did not deserve GI bill benefits? Stating that Volcanoes produce more pollution than people do. All of that on top of him being colossally stupid?
I think that everyone here is falling for the cult of the executive branch while ignoring the legislative branch. Reagan could not have had his Military Keynesian policies approved without bargaining with Tip O'Neil to support his free-money-for-freeloaders policies. Clinton had a more adversarial relationship with Newt Gingrich so neither could blow as much money as previous administrations. Also the Reagan-O'Neil collaboration helped Clinton produce his "surplus" by increasing payroll taxes to somewhat offset the baby-boomers impact to future Social Security budgets. Clinton was able to use the borrowed money from the Social Security Trust Fund to essentially pay the guv'ment VISA bill with the Mastercard. The previous collaboration also hastened the fall of the Soviet Union when they could not keep up with the US spending on military technology. It was the Soviet Union's collapse that brought about the "Peace Dividend" and it was much of the former military technology research that fathered the Tech boom that fueled the 90's economy.
Flatus,

I don't disagree with you, but that's kind of the way it is. The president should receive either the credit or blame for what happens during their administration. With left-right politics, everyone is eager to discredit the other party's president by crediting their party's congress.

I generally agree with all of your supporting points. I have also come to believe that a Democrat in the White House, and Republicans in Congress is the most desirable situation. That leads to gridlock, and when Washington can't get anything done, they also can't screw anything up. It is demonstrated that when either party has control of the executive and leislative branches, government is out of control. And as you pointed out, I feel that Republican president bargain too much, thereby letting government get out of control. If Republicans take Congress in 2010 (and I suspect they will) things could turn around by 2012 and make the Obama administration look okay. His supporters will claim it's because of all the garbage he did these two years, and Republicans will claim it was their two years controlling Congress. It could be '96 all over again, and that wouldn't be the worst thing that could happen.
Reaganomics , aka voodoo economics, is the false idea of supply side economics, not his success or failure in spending or whatever,
Reagan believed that if you give enough money in tax breaks , grants, or whatever to rich people and corporations, they would just produce more jobs and all would be well in the world.
So, take for example , Budweiser.

Reaganomics says that if you give enough tax breaks to Budweiser, they will make more beer, and build more breweries and hire more people to make more beer. Trickle down economics.

On the other hand, there is "trickle UP economics". Give the tax breaks to the middle class working man. He will have more spendable cash and will go out and buy more beer. The increase in demand will cause Budweiser to build more plants to make more beer, and hire more people.

Regardless of your political entrenchment, just which theory sounds to YOU like it would be more likely to work ? Just think for one minute !
quote:
Regardless of your political entrenchment, just which theory sounds to YOU like it would be more likely to work ? Just think for one minute !


Neither are likely to work if the tax breaks to one group are done at the expense of the other.

Businesses exist to make money. While it might sounds nice to say their priorities should be to their customers, employees, communities, etc; none of that is possible if no money is coming in. When government makes creating a profit difficult, businesses don't stop trying to make a profit. They continue making a profit at the expense of customers, employees, etc. Meanwhile, when middle class consumers (the vast majority of America) can't afford anything because of taxation, business suffers. That business still does everything it can to make a profit, even at the expense of customers, employees, etc. The simple solution is for the government to stop taking people's money.
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
Reaganomics , aka voodoo economics, is the false idea of supply side economics, not his success or failure in spending or whatever,
Reagan believed that if you give enough money in tax breaks , grants, or whatever to rich people and corporations, they would just produce more jobs and all would be well in the world.
So, take for example , Budweiser.

Reaganomics says that if you give enough tax breaks to Budweiser, they will make more beer, and build more breweries and hire more people to make more beer. Trickle down economics.

On the other hand, there is "trickle UP economics". Give the tax breaks to the middle class working man. He will have more spendable cash and will go out and buy more beer. The increase in demand will cause Budweiser to build more plants to make more beer, and hire more people.

Regardless of your political entrenchment, just which theory sounds to YOU like it would be more likely to work ? Just think for one minute !


So... we should put the tax burden completely on those who are the consumers? It's fairly obvious that "trickle down" doesn't work, considering so much was added to the deficit by the Reagan tax cuts that he then proceed to raise taxes for oh say the next 7 years. And don't get me started on Mr. "read my lips"
Trickle down economics was finally proven to be a failure by Bush2 who embraced the notion, and so, here we are now, trying to climb out of almost another Great Depression.
Why don't we try what works ? The tax structure we had in the Clinton admin was shown to work, as once it was instituted with Al Gore having to break the tie in the Senate, our economy soared to be the greatest economic expansion in my lifetime and possibly in the history of this country.
Bush came in and decided to fix something that wasn't broken and like I said above, here we are.
quote:
Trickle down economics was finally proven to be a failure by Bush2 who embraced the notion, and so, here we are now, trying to climb out of almost another Great Depression.
Why don't we try what works ? The tax structure we had in the Clinton admin was shown to work, as once it was instituted with Al Gore having to break the tie in the Senate, our economy soared to be the greatest economic expansion in my lifetime and possibly in the history of this country.


You are incorrectly assuming a causal relationship between tax brackets and the overall economy. I'm not defending GWB, who was a terrible president. I'm also not going to claim Clinton's tax rates, or even his actions, were the driving force behind the economic expansion that occured when he was president. There are far too many variables to pretend we have a correct blueprint for economic growth.

Well, we actually do have that blueprint, but the Congress isn't likely to fire themselves, so I don't hold any hope that we will ever get there.
quote:
President Reagan signed tax cuts into law that stimulated a doubling in total tax revenues (from five hundred billion to one trillion dollars)during the period from 1980 to 1990.


You, also, are incorrectly assuming a causal relationship between tax brackets and the overall economy. Not to mention, you've ignored all of Reagan tax increases - the one's that are so often over-looked.

quote:
Don Lambro of the Washington Times credits the Reagan tax cuts with the surpluses of the 1990s.


Whoever Don Lambro is, he's wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
Trickle down economics was finally proven to be a failure by Bush2 who embraced the notion, and so, here we are now, trying to climb out of almost another Great Depression.
Why don't we try what works ? The tax structure we had in the Clinton admin was shown to work, as once it was instituted with Al Gore having to break the tie in the Senate, our economy soared to be the greatest economic expansion in my lifetime and possibly in the history of this country.
Bush came in and decided to fix something that wasn't broken and like I said above, here we are.


Much of the economic boom in the Clinton years is traceable to the dotcom boom, then bomb. Bush was left to clean parts of that up. In 1997, prompted by a Republican-led Congress, a tax-relief bill, resisted by the Democrats, but finally signed by Clinton, lowered the top capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent; created a new $500 child tax credit; and established Hope and Lifetime Learning tax credits to reduce the after-tax costs of higher education. Those cuts did effect the economy in a positive manner.

Taxes on energy and tobacco are advocated by the left to cut energy and tobacco use. However, it never occurs to the left that income taxes are a tax on labor, which cuts labor -- jobs.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×