|
|
| Posted: 20 Nov 2007 16:54 |
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4167
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Ok correction maybe more like 81 was the height before it started going down again.
I posted your graph in.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 20 Nov 2007 18:49 |
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Yeah, we discussed this graph at length, I even got some more month-by-month numbers. I will address those numbers, just waiting on Danny to play out my hypothetical situation.
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 21 Nov 2007 01:33 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
I don't see a chart for the inflation rate during the 80's, or the price of gas, or how about the overall economic picture.
First of all, I have posted things just like this over the past month or so. It may or may not be in this very thread. Dig around, they're in there.
Second, why don't you go looking for some of this stuff? Why is it my job? Trust me, I've got plenty of other things to be doing.
It is insanely frustrating for me to post facts after refuting these baseless opinions, only to have you ignore them- then act like we don't have that info sitting right there.
And of course, you attempt to squeak by the facts on the chart you DO acknowledge.
For instance:
Quote:
On your first unemployment rate graph it shows it going pretty low by 1990 from it's all time high in 1980 (Jimmy Carter) and starts to go back up again in what looks to be what 93 94. I suppose you could blame that on Bush Sr.
If Carter is reponsible for the 81, 82, and 83 (as the chart shows, unemployment didn't get back to Carter levels until '84), then how is Reagan NOT responsible for the early 90's? You can't pick and choose. Somewhere in there, the Gipper's policies weren't working. Oddly enough, in repeating those Reagan policies, unemployment is on the rise.
I'm not sure if Reagan is responsible for today or not (sarcasm). But if you decide to tell me, please back up what you say.
I posted that chart to demonstrate how Supply Side Economics fails to create jobs, especially when compared to the policies of Democrat presidents.
In fact, the reverse has been true. Later, I posted two charts regarding GDP. Apparently, Supply Side Economics doesn't even boost GDP as was claimed.
Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, or point me to another graph you'd like me to look at. Come on Tim. Would you admit if you were wrong? I'm not taking the time to post any more charts. The one's I put there for you are pretty straight forward. If you reinterpret those, you can reinterpret anything.
-----------------------------------------------------
Regarding how a president could destroy the economy? More than anything else, the economy is the creativity and the hope of the people. So they'd prob attack that.
They'd cut education or let it stagnate, they'd lie to the people, they'd encourage poor investments both personally and publically (wars of choice and favoring tax cuts over required infrastructure ought to do it). They'd encourage the people to forget about personal responsibility and responsibility for each other. Nobody would be anybody else's keeper.
This Red Skull of a President would claim that selfishness is a virtue. He'd begin with his own campaigns, selling out the public interest to whoever funded him. As the law began to reflect the needs of business instead of people, the gap between rich and poor would grow- damaging the real economy- the human beings who live in it.
Eventually, such as in the 1920's or after the fall of Rome, this gap and recklessness might grow large enough to pop, bringing on a total collapse.
That's off the top of my head. There would probably be a million ways to do it. That's just the tried and true method you might say.
|
| Posted: 21 Nov 2007 16:39 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
This Red Skull of a President You're always so good witht your choice of language, Danny.
Quote:
They'd cut education or let it stagnate, they'd lie to the people, they'd encourage poor investments both personally and publically (wars of choice and favoring tax cuts over required infrastructure ought to do it). They'd encourage the people to forget about personal responsibility and responsibility for each other. Nobody would be anybody else's keeper.
More than anything else, those things you cited are all examples of being a bad example. How much do you think the President's example actually affects the economy? I was looking more for things the President could do that are within his executive power to purposefully destroy the economy. I have my own ideas about how you (by you I mean evil Red Skull clone President Danny) could do it, but I am much more interested in what you think. After all, I already know what I think.
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 21 Nov 2007 19:31 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
How much do you think the President's example actually affects the economy?
Quite a bit actually. As such a visible figure with the largest concentration of power in any one human being on the planet- they have a lot to do with tone. Tone matters quite a bit in the market, and the market significantly affects the actual economy.
The Chief Executive of the US has so many powers and they so often increase, it is hard to know when they end and when they begin with the results. Who gets the credit or blame for Iraq? Bush or his advisors? Congress for signing that blank check? I think most people simply feel like if the buck stops anywhere- it is with the President.
And the President does have broad powers, like putting troops into situations which become wars- like the Vietnam "conflict". I don't think this is what the Founders intended, but here we are. Many of those powers are significant enough to sink an economy if they fail.
Also, I'm not really sure what the intent of the question is... you sorta know what I think harms the economy- or at least doesn't help it. Just doing the reverse of the stuff that I've tried to show works, would at least not help the economy.
Perhaps I'm not really getting down to specifics because I've been busy at work, but I know it is also because I'm less and less sure about posting sometimes. For all the time and effort I've put in, I could probably be running my own website. I'm looking into it. Even better, I might be committing my time to action out here in the real world that might bring about some positive change. I'm looking into that too.
I enjoy writing, but I feel we've all reached a bit of an impasse here. I'd at least consider a different perspective if different numbers are found and explained, but so far I'm sort of out of things to say.
|
| Posted: 21 Nov 2007 19:38 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4167
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Look Danny would you have us to believe the economy and the country were in excellent shape during the Carter administration? If that were the case then when Reagan asked the question are you better now than you were 4 years ago, the answer would have gotten him fired instead of elected the first time and re-elected by landslide proportions.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 21 Nov 2007 19:44 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
You don't have to believe me Tim, look at the data.
That is why I posted it- I don't want you to take my word for it.
How about this wild concept- voters can make unwise decisions. Isn't that what you believe about Carter? Clinton? The majority of Americans who voted for Gore?
Geez, its almost like a significant number of people out there became so brainwashed over Reagan that they lost interest in what the facts were...
|
| Posted: 21 Nov 2007 21:19 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
I enjoy writing, but I feel we've all reached a bit of an impasse here. I'd at least consider a different perspective if different numbers are found and explained, but so far I'm sort of out of things to say. I can cewrtainly understand that, Danny, and I'm sorry if I've drug this out further than it needed to be. Using the numbers you cited, unemploymnet was cut in half (roughly) from the beginning of Reagans term to the end. Yet you don't see that as proof of an economic boost provided by supply side policies. That's one of our more significant disagreements.
I think we also view the purpose of wealth differently, but that may be a discussion for another time.
We can end this thread here if you want.
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 22 Nov 2007 21:50 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
Using the numbers you cited, unemployment was cut in half (roughly) from the beginning of Reagan's term to the end. Yet you don't see that as proof of an economic boost provided by supply side policies.
Right, but putting it that way doesn't take into account how it was boosted to the highest level in 50 years, starting the year supply side economics policies were put into place. Nor did Reagan's lowest unemployment level go as low as it did under 4 out of five Democratic presidents in the 50 year period measured.
Additionally, in Reagan's second term, where most of this "gain" was made, he continually raised taxes. He wasn't practicing supply side economics.
Stating it so simply as "cut in half" glosses over the reality for people at the time. it purposely leaves out crucial elements of what really happened.
As Adam Smith predicted would happen, business is out there every day convincing people to buy into supply side economics and other scams that are not beneficial to most Americans. Business has to do do this to maximize profits. But we don't have to buy into it.
But I've said all this. I've shown all this. If it is just ignored on this site, well... I can't just go on typing the same thing over and over, ya know?
|
| Posted: 23 Nov 2007 00:57 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4167
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
Additionally, in Reagan's second term, where most of this "gain" was made, he continually raised taxes Whoa what did Reagan raise taxes on? And how does that compare to the level of taxes he decreased?
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 23 Nov 2007 21:58 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
I haven't ignored you, Danny. I just disagree with you. Quote:
Right, but putting it that way doesn't take into account how it was boosted to the highest level in 50 years, starting the year supply side economics policies were put into place. So you think that Reagan managed to drive the unemployment to 10 percent in the first year in office and then, using the same policies, drop it down to 5ish?
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 24 Nov 2007 21:32 Last Edited By: Danny |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
So you think that Reagan managed to drive the unemployment to 10 percent in the first year in office and then, using the same policies, drop it down to 5ish?
Not exactly. Reagan didn't continue the same policies. Like I told Tim, he started raising taxes after the initial '81 tax cut.
Now one might say, "so he did what you would advocate Danny?" No. Liberals, or progressives or moderates or whatever I am aren't looking for tax increases. We're looking for economic justice. And that is the last thing the Reagan years delivered. All the government spending went out of the programs and education and into buying weapons, many of them for proxy wars that led to our current difficulties.
The big three tax increases occurred in '82, '84 and '86. But don't take my word for it. Here's a column on it, albeit from a rather biased source.
Here's another source on tax and spend Reagan, this one comparing his record against Bill Clinton's. Again, my apologies for the biased source, I believe this was the web address erroneously cited by Vice President Cheney in the 2004 debate against John Edwards.
The Democrats of the time were complicit in a lot of this stuff. I don't see any angels here. I support the economic actions of politicians when they:
1.) Reduce spending
2.) Increase efficiency
3.) Progressively tax
4.) Attempt to bring up the poor
5.) Attempt to increase the size of the middle class
It was sell out Democrats whom I have never fully forgiven who sparked the idea of the "Tax Reform Act of 1986", which, in its final incarnation, just moved taxes from the wealthy to the middle class instead of cutting them. The Gipper was totally on board for this tax increase on most of America, just as Walter Mondale said he would be two years earlier.
I suggest following the link, where there is a picture of Reagan signing this increase. But here's the gist of it, from wikipedia...
"The top tax rate was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15% - the only time in the history of the U.S. income tax (which dates back to the passage of the Revenue Act of 1862) that the top rate was reduced and the bottom rate increased concomitantly. In addition, capital gains faced the same tax rate as ordinary income. Moreover, interest on consumer loans such as credit card debt, and state and local sales or income taxes was no longer deductible. An existing provision in the tax code, called Income Averaging, which reduced taxes for those only recently making a much higher salary than before, was eliminated (although later partially reinstated, for farmers in 1997 and for fishermen in 2004). The Act, however, increased the personal exemption and standard deduction."
One might also count the 165 Billion dollar social security bailout of 1983 that flew in the face of conservative ideology, but I don't really disagree with that move. It does stand as further evidence that Reagan wasn't practicing as he preached.
So where did all the unemployment go? Well, given that interest rates were raised in the 80's to combat inflation, and the rise of foreign direct investment (outsourcing) and the reversal of supply side policies, it doesn't appear it went into job creation. (Of course, the numerous closing of factories from that time would also tell that story.)
I'm not sure where people worked at that point, but my guess would be that the economy picked up with all that military spending (government spending).
For all that pain and trouble, as was shown in earlier charts- the economy didn't do as well as it did under many different economic formulas, like the one employed through most of the 90's by a more moderate Bush 41 and Bill Clinton.
Some people think that all this brought down the USSR, although I dispute that too, both in terms of fact and if factual, then necessity.
So essentially, I think Reagan cleaned out any government program that helped people in 81 based on raw ideology. He then panicked when it didn't work and his advisers convinced him to negotiate with a rather corrupt congress full of Democrats. They found a way to compromise, and the result was that taxes were raised on the middle class for things we didn't need, to fight a war that was more or less won anyway.
Who really reaped the benefits of all this? Mostly it was uncontrollable nut cases around the globe who still use American made guns, among them the Taliban, Saddam and Iran.
Come to think of it- if a hypothetical evil president wanted to cause serious problems for the American people, there is a playbook...
|
| Posted: 25 Nov 2007 20:43 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4167
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Ok let's take the 1986 tax act. One would have to applaud lowering a 50 percent tax rate to 28 percent. I can't see anybody being rich enough for that to not hurt. The lower income was only raised by 4 percent. The top half was lowered by a good 22 percent. That equals a tax decrease by a whole heck of a lot. It couldn't have been that hard on the poor if the Democrats were behind it, right?
And how much did you have to earn back then before you even reached the lower rate?
Also consider this the the massive lowering of the top income tax percentage fit right into Reaganomics by giving the entrepenuers the money to spend on investment in their businesses which of course creates jobs which helps the poor man no longer be as poor since he has a job.
The first source as you say is biased so in order to really balance it out we need an alternate view on these supposed tax hikes. I bet it doesn't give us the whole picture. Were there other tax decreases those years for instance in other areas?
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 26 Nov 2007 16:17 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
Ok let's take the 1986 tax act. One would have to applaud lowering a 50 percent tax rate to 28 percent. I can't see anybody being rich enough for that to not hurt. The lower income was only raised by 4 percent. The top half was lowered by a good 22 percent. That equals a tax decrease by a whole heck of a lot. It couldn't have been that hard on the poor if the Democrats were behind it, right?
You're going to have to phrase that better and throw in some quotes from the source you're looking at. But ya know Tim, what it all boils down to is that unless you're a rich guy, Reagan raised your taxes. Of course he had the help of some democrats whom I haven't been a fan of since (Gephart, specifically).
As far as benevolant job creation for the likes of us by cutting the wealthy's taxes, I have shown in prvious posts that this is highly suspect. Furthermore- if that IS what helped, then it never helped as much as when the D's took the exact opposite approach. The benefit to you under their plan is that your taxes are actually lower while you have better economic opportunities.
But hey, if you want to surrender your freedoms, you might want to surrender your money too. Personally, I prefer a formula where the government does more with less. As my data has shown and economists such as Alan Greenspan have agreed- that was the case about ten years after Reagan, with dramatically different policies in place.
Quote:
The first source as you say is biased so in order to really balance it out we need an alternate view on these supposed tax hikes. I bet it doesn't give us the whole picture. Were there other tax decreases those years for instance in other areas?
Did you read the source? It was from the National Review Tim. Bartlett worked for Reagan. Do you want the liberal view on Reagan raising taxes? I bet you wouldn't like it...
|
| Posted: 26 Nov 2007 16:36 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Keep in mind through all this, good and bad, that Congress makes tax law and the President signs it. Now why would a President sign soemthign he disagreed with in principle? That's a good question to ask the current adminstration while we're at it.
Quote:
No. Liberals, or progressives or moderates or whatever I am aren't looking for tax increases. We're looking for economic justice. I suspect you and I might disagree vehemently about what constitutes economic justice and that diagreement lies at the heart of where we've differed in this posting.
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 26 Nov 2007 16:45 Last Edited By: Tim |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4167
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
unless you're a rich guy, Reagan raised your taxes. What we are missing here before you say that is what was the actual pay level where the higher percentage started. Say that in 1985 you were paying taxes at 11 percent after your income reached 8 thousand dollars. I wouldn't doubt if that salary had increased till you weren't paying taxes till you hit, say 10 or 12 thousand dollars at the higher 15 percent. Could be I'm just saying we don't know from the facts presented, and that would change everything. It's easy to leave out a little fact here or there to make a story go your way. And I still ask what about other areas of tax decreases. The article doesn't say there weren't any or not. If Reagan raised gas taxes one year did he lower 5 other taxes?
All in all it's still a huge tax decrease. That encourage people to work harder. The harder you work the more money you made and got to keep. With a high 50 percent tax rate who would want to work hard enough to reach that goal just to have your money taken away from you. Not me brother. I'd rather be lazy and keep a greater percantage of my money. Uncle Sam can work harder if he wants, I'd go play some ball and maybe do some fishing.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 26 Nov 2007 17:00 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
And as I often repeat about Democrats that signed off on Iraq when they knew better- the buck has got to stop somewhere.
If Reagan didn't want the middle class paying higher taxes- a veto would have been no problem. But he had to fund all that government spending somehow. Of course, he borrowed a lot of it too, a trick later perfected by our current President. Unfortunatley, this has reprocussions as well.
Reagan was right on one thing- "there are simple answers" (even though so many people purposely muddle the formula). He'd never agree with me, but here's what I think those answers are:
1.) Treat people right, reward them if they're trying, offer them opportunites to improve themselves.
2.) Keep government small.
3.) But keep it as a check against big business.
|
| Posted: 26 Nov 2007 18:53 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
It's easy to leave out a little fact here or there to make a story go your way.
Really? Then find those facts from non-biased websites! Do some research here Tim. All you do is criticise what I DO go out and find. I could easily rake Reagan over the coals with my own opinions or those of the NYTimes, but I don't.
Instead, I present you with evidence and you hit me with this:
Quote:
The article doesn't say there weren't any or not. If Reagan raised gas taxes one year did he lower 5 other taxes?
That's you being suprised by the facts I've presented, but remining in denial. Instead you ought to investigate your little hunches.
In fact, Reagan also raised interest rates and cut deductions for people in debt- those would be poor or middle class people. There's a little unresearched tidbit for ya. How do I know? It nailed my family in the 80's.
Quote:
All in all it's still a huge tax decrease. That encourage people to work harder. The harder you work the more money you made and got to keep. With a high 50 percent tax rate who would want to work hard enough to reach that goal just to have your money taken away from you. Not me brother. I'd rather be lazy and keep a greater percantage of my money. Uncle Sam can work harder if he wants, I'd go play some ball and maybe do some fishing.
Well Tim, that is your thinking on the matter- but you're home now aren't you? For many other people between the 1940's and the 1980's (and again in the 90's), they found the economy quite lucrative. In fact, the chart that started this argument shows that people tend to collect or apply for unemployment a lot less when the Democrats are in office, for whatever reason (probably the one's I've been offering throughout this thread).
If you're going to try to get around that obvious fact, come back with your own research. I'm on deadline, so I don't have the time to do it for you on this go around.
|
| Posted: 26 Nov 2007 22:11 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4167
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
All you do is criticise what I DO go out and find Sorry I didn't mean it to sound like a criticism of the facts you found. Just trying to say there are some unanswered questions left. Maybe I should put a picture of me smiling while I say these things. If you could hear my real life tone you'd know I'm happy as a squirrel with a tree full of nuts.
Quote:
Reagan also raised interest rates Weren't interest rates lowered and raised by Alan Greenspan back then?
Quote:
come back with your own research I will. I usually post things as I find it. Easier to multi task that way.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
|
