are you better off than you were two years ago ?

[Polk]

The budget moved somewhat closer to balance after 1982 because Reagan signed a tax hike (TEFRA).

 

[JakeStarkey]

And remind me where unemployment was and how high it went during the next year?

You guy's don't get that economic policy is not just tax hikes.

 

[Care4all]

Indeed. I'm not saying the deficit isn't a legitimate concern. It's just dishonest for them to blame it on "Obama's wild spending" even though spending on new policies has been very little in the scope of the entire budget.

I think it is fair to ask why Obama is putting on new programs that increase the deficit, given the serious structural issues we face. We face serious fiscal issues, and we should not be adding new programs we cannot fund. We have to be looking at cutting programs because the math simply does not work.

However, the hypocrisy of the right is staggering. When Republicans are fiscally reckless and peddle bizarre theories about tax cuts balancing the budget, they chearlead them on and swallow bromides like "deficits don't matter." Yet, when Democrats do it, its "communism." The fiscal recklessness of the United States began under Reagan and conservatives deify him.

I'm happy that conservatives have seen the light after 30 years after fiscal recklessness. It would be much better for them to acknowledge their own role in this, rather than running on All Tax Cuts All the Time, otherwise this mess will never get fixed. You can't change behavior you don't acknowledge. Drunks know this. Republicans don't.

OMG what stupidity is this that I am reading? 1982 Reagan brought this country out of the Carter caused recession with tax cuts. You get more tax revenue in smaller amounts then you do with higher taxes. I know it's hard for you younger people to understand this when you were not around to actually see it happen, I understand you are getting your wrong information from revisionist books. But damn it's starting to get old.

maybe you can explain why reagan had such HUGE deficits and doubled our national debt?

and FYI....toro is one of the most astute and intelligent posters when it comes to finance....i would think twice about your ''stupidity'' comment!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I think it is fair to ask why Obama is putting on new programs that increase the deficit, given the serious structural issues we face. We face serious fiscal issues, and we should not be adding new programs we cannot fund. We have to be looking at cutting programs because the math simply does not work.

However, the hypocrisy of the right is staggering. When Republicans are fiscally reckless and peddle bizarre theories about tax cuts balancing the budget, they chearlead them on and swallow bromides like "deficits don't matter." Yet, when Democrats do it, its "communism." The fiscal recklessness of the United States began under Reagan and conservatives deify him.

I'm happy that conservatives have seen the light after 30 years after fiscal recklessness. It would be much better for them to acknowledge their own role in this, rather than running on All Tax Cuts All the Time, otherwise this mess will never get fixed. You can't change behavior you don't acknowledge. Drunks know this. Republicans don't.

OMG what stupidity is this that I am reading? 1982 Reagan brought this country out of the Carter caused recession with tax cuts. You get more tax revenue in smaller amounts then you do with higher taxes. I know it's hard for you younger people to understand this when you were not around to actually see it happen, I understand you are getting your wrong information from revisionist books. But damn it's starting to get old.

maybe you can explain why reagan had such HUGE deficits and doubled our national debt?

and FYI....toro is one of the most asute and intelligent posters when it comes to finance....i would think twice about your ''stupidity'' comment!

How was the economy when Reagan was reelected compared to when he took over after carter?

 

[Care4all]

OMG what stupidity is this that I am reading? 1982 Reagan brought this country out of the Carter caused recession with tax cuts. You get more tax revenue in smaller amounts then you do with higher taxes. I know it's hard for you younger people to understand this when you were not around to actually see it happen, I understand you are getting your wrong information from revisionist books. But damn it's starting to get old.

maybe you can explain why reagan had such HUGE deficits and doubled our national debt?

and FYI....toro is one of the most asute and intelligent posters when it comes to finance....i would think twice about your ''stupidity'' comment!

How was the economy when Reagan was reelected compared to when he took over after carter?

answer my question first...

 

[Polk]

OMG what stupidity is this that I am reading? 1982 Reagan brought this country out of the Carter caused recession with tax cuts. You get more tax revenue in smaller amounts then you do with higher taxes. I know it's hard for you younger people to understand this when you were not around to actually see it happen, I understand you are getting your wrong information from revisionist books. But damn it's starting to get old.

maybe you can explain why reagan had such HUGE deficits and doubled our national debt?

and FYI....toro is one of the most asute and intelligent posters when it comes to finance....i would think twice about your ''stupidity'' comment!

How was the economy when Reagan was reelected compared to when he took over after carter?

Inflation was much lower (that was due to Fed policy though, not anything Reagan had done). Unemployment was about the same (7.5 in January of 1981, 7.2 in November of 1984).

 

[bigrebnc1775]

maybe you can explain why reagan had such HUGE deficits and doubled our national debt?

and FYI....toro is one of the most asute and intelligent posters when it comes to finance....i would think twice about your ''stupidity'' comment!

How was the economy when Reagan was reelected compared to when he took over after carter?

answer my question first...

No, you made a claim and when you answer my question you will also have your question answered.

 

[Dreamy]

Still working so not much has changed for me. Personally I get better every year.

 

[Immanuel]

Indeed. I'm not saying the deficit isn't a legitimate concern. It's just dishonest for them to blame it on "Obama's wild spending" even though spending on new policies has been very little in the scope of the entire budget.

I think it is fair to ask why Obama is putting on new programs that increase the deficit, given the serious structural issues we face. We face serious fiscal issues, and we should not be adding new programs we cannot fund. We have to be looking at cutting programs because the math simply does not work.

However, the hypocrisy of the right is staggering. When Republicans are fiscally reckless and peddle bizarre theories about tax cuts balancing the budget, they chearlead them on and swallow bromides like "deficits don't matter." Yet, when Democrats do it, its "communism." The fiscal recklessness of the United States began under Reagan and conservatives deify him.

I'm happy that conservatives have seen the light after 30 years after fiscal recklessness. It would be much better for them to acknowledge their own role in this, rather than running on All Tax Cuts All the Time, otherwise this mess will never get fixed. You can't change behavior you don't acknowledge. Drunks know this. Republicans don't.

OMG what stupidity is this that I am reading? 1982 Reagan brought this country out of the Carter caused recession with tax cuts. You get more tax revenue in smaller amounts then you do with higher taxes. I know it's hard for you younger people to understand this when you were not around to actually see it happen, I understand you are getting your wrong information from revisionist books. But damn it's starting to get old.

It is a sliding scale. In some cases tax cuts can work, in other cases tax increases need to be instituted. The job is to find out where things are at any given point in time.

Simply saying tax cuts work all the time. Is flat out wrong. Saying we have to keep raising tax rates until we balance the budget doesn't solve the problem either.

There is a fine line in there. "Trickle Down Economics" might work depending on some economic conditions while under other conditions it only worsens the situation. You can only cut taxes so far, just as you can only raise taxes so far. The trick is to find that point that best serves the nation's economy at any given time and if possible to anticipate changes before they happen and make appropriate changes to maximize benefits.

In today's economy, I do not believe cutting taxes for the rich in order to stimulate the economy will work. Taxes are already low enough, how much lower do you think it would need to go to convince employers to go out and hire the unemployed? If we've hit bottom on the tax rate and that hasn't solved the problem then turn things around and start raising tax rates and/or cut expenses.

No economic policy works in every situation.

edit: and for the record, Care is right, Toro seems to know his shit when it comes to economics... or he knows where to go to get the info on the net. Careful with the "stupidity" comments in that regard, it tends to make you look almost like a partisan hack who spouts conservative talking points without analyzing them.

Immie

 

[JakeStarkey]

maybe you can explain why reagan had such HUGE deficits and doubled our national debt?

and FYI....toro is one of the most asute and intelligent posters when it comes to finance....i would think twice about your ''stupidity'' comment!

How was the economy when Reagan was reelected compared to when he took over after carter?

Inflation was much lower (that was due to Fed policy though, not anything Reagan had done). Unemployment was about the same (7.5 in January of 1981, 7.2 in November of 1984).

Tell us about unemployment in Oct 1983.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

maybe you can explain why reagan had such HUGE deficits and doubled our national debt?

and FYI....toro is one of the most asute and intelligent posters when it comes to finance....i would think twice about your ''stupidity'' comment!

How was the economy when Reagan was reelected compared to when he took over after carter?

Inflation was much lower (that was due to Fed policy though, not anything Reagan had done). Unemployment was about the same (7.5 in January of 1981, 7.2 in November of 1984).

Democrats jump for joy when the unemployment numbers drop a tenth of a percentage point, but when it did it with Reagan you say it's about the same. Is that like saying 9.9 is about like 10 percent?

Anyway

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1981/02/art1full.pdf

 

[JakeStarkey]

How was the economy when Reagan was reelected compared to when he took over after carter?

Inflation was much lower (that was due to Fed policy though, not anything Reagan had done). Unemployment was about the same (7.5 in January of 1981, 7.2 in November of 1984).

Democrats jump for joy when the unemployment numbers drop a tenth of a percentage point, but when it did it with Reagan you say it's about the same. Is that like saying 9.9 is about like 10 percent?

Anyway

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1981/02/art1full.pdf

Tell us about unemployment in Oct 1983.

 

[Polk]

How was the economy when Reagan was reelected compared to when he took over after carter?

Inflation was much lower (that was due to Fed policy though, not anything Reagan had done). Unemployment was about the same (7.5 in January of 1981, 7.2 in November of 1984).

Democrats jump for joy when the unemployment numbers drop a tenth of a percentage point, but when it did it with Reagan you say it's about the same. Is that like saying 9.9 is about like 10 percent?

Anyway

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1981/02/art1full.pdf

Yes, 9.9 and 10 are basically the same thing.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I think it is fair to ask why Obama is putting on new programs that increase the deficit, given the serious structural issues we face. We face serious fiscal issues, and we should not be adding new programs we cannot fund. We have to be looking at cutting programs because the math simply does not work.

However, the hypocrisy of the right is staggering. When Republicans are fiscally reckless and peddle bizarre theories about tax cuts balancing the budget, they chearlead them on and swallow bromides like "deficits don't matter." Yet, when Democrats do it, its "communism." The fiscal recklessness of the United States began under Reagan and conservatives deify him.

I'm happy that conservatives have seen the light after 30 years after fiscal recklessness. It would be much better for them to acknowledge their own role in this, rather than running on All Tax Cuts All the Time, otherwise this mess will never get fixed. You can't change behavior you don't acknowledge. Drunks know this. Republicans don't.

OMG what stupidity is this that I am reading? 1982 Reagan brought this country out of the Carter caused recession with tax cuts. You get more tax revenue in smaller amounts then you do with higher taxes. I know it's hard for you younger people to understand this when you were not around to actually see it happen, I understand you are getting your wrong information from revisionist books. But damn it's starting to get old.

It is a sliding scale. In some cases tax cuts can work, in other cases tax increases need to be instituted. The job is to find out where things are at any given point in time.

Simply saying tax cuts work all the time. Is flat out wrong. Saying we have to keep raising tax rates until we balance the budget doesn't solve the problem either.

There is a fine line in there. "Trickle Down Economics" might work depending on some economic conditions while under other conditions it only worsens the situation. You can only cut taxes so far, just as you can only raise taxes so far. The trick is to find that point that best serves the nation's economy at any given time and if possible to anticipate changes before they happen and make appropriate changes to maximize benefits.

In today's economy, I do not believe cutting taxes for the rich in order to stimulate the economy will work. Taxes are already low enough, how much lower do you think it would need to go to convince employers to go out and hire the unemployed? If we've hit bottom on the tax rate and that hasn't solved the problem then turn things around and start raising tax rates and/or cut expenses.

No economic policy works in every situation.

edit: and for the record, Care is right, Toro seems to know his shit when it comes to economics... or he knows where to go to get the info on the net. Careful with the "stupidity" comments in that regard, it tends to make you look almost like a partisan hack who spouts conservative talking points without analyzing them.

Immie

How was the economy doing when Reagan left office compared to when carter left office?
Ireally don't give a shit how toro seems to know his shit. Bernanke is suposed to know his shit but look at what the expert got us.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Inflation was much lower (that was due to Fed policy though, not anything Reagan had done). Unemployment was about the same (7.5 in January of 1981, 7.2 in November of 1984).

Democrats jump for joy when the unemployment numbers drop a tenth of a percentage point, but when it did it with Reagan you say it's about the same. Is that like saying 9.9 is about like 10 percent?

Anyway

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1981/02/art1full.pdf

Yes, 9.9 and 10 are basically the same thing.

But 9.9 would be nothing like 5.0, would this be correct?

 

[Polk]

OMG what stupidity is this that I am reading? 1982 Reagan brought this country out of the Carter caused recession with tax cuts. You get more tax revenue in smaller amounts then you do with higher taxes. I know it's hard for you younger people to understand this when you were not around to actually see it happen, I understand you are getting your wrong information from revisionist books. But damn it's starting to get old.

It is a sliding scale. In some cases tax cuts can work, in other cases tax increases need to be instituted. The job is to find out where things are at any given point in time.

Simply saying tax cuts work all the time. Is flat out wrong. Saying we have to keep raising tax rates until we balance the budget doesn't solve the problem either.

There is a fine line in there. "Trickle Down Economics" might work depending on some economic conditions while under other conditions it only worsens the situation. You can only cut taxes so far, just as you can only raise taxes so far. The trick is to find that point that best serves the nation's economy at any given time and if possible to anticipate changes before they happen and make appropriate changes to maximize benefits.

In today's economy, I do not believe cutting taxes for the rich in order to stimulate the economy will work. Taxes are already low enough, how much lower do you think it would need to go to convince employers to go out and hire the unemployed? If we've hit bottom on the tax rate and that hasn't solved the problem then turn things around and start raising tax rates and/or cut expenses.

No economic policy works in every situation.

edit: and for the record, Care is right, Toro seems to know his shit when it comes to economics... or he knows where to go to get the info on the net. Careful with the "stupidity" comments in that regard, it tends to make you look almost like a partisan hack who spouts conservative talking points without analyzing them.

Immie

How was the economy doing when Reagan left office compared to when carter left office?

Unemployment was lower, as was average real income.

 

[Mr Natural]

How could any of us possibly be better off when we're all two years closer to the End?

 

[Immanuel]

OMG what stupidity is this that I am reading? 1982 Reagan brought this country out of the Carter caused recession with tax cuts. You get more tax revenue in smaller amounts then you do with higher taxes. I know it's hard for you younger people to understand this when you were not around to actually see it happen, I understand you are getting your wrong information from revisionist books. But damn it's starting to get old.

It is a sliding scale. In some cases tax cuts can work, in other cases tax increases need to be instituted. The job is to find out where things are at any given point in time.

Simply saying tax cuts work all the time. Is flat out wrong. Saying we have to keep raising tax rates until we balance the budget doesn't solve the problem either.

There is a fine line in there. "Trickle Down Economics" might work depending on some economic conditions while under other conditions it only worsens the situation. You can only cut taxes so far, just as you can only raise taxes so far. The trick is to find that point that best serves the nation's economy at any given time and if possible to anticipate changes before they happen and make appropriate changes to maximize benefits.

In today's economy, I do not believe cutting taxes for the rich in order to stimulate the economy will work. Taxes are already low enough, how much lower do you think it would need to go to convince employers to go out and hire the unemployed? If we've hit bottom on the tax rate and that hasn't solved the problem then turn things around and start raising tax rates and/or cut expenses.

No economic policy works in every situation.

edit: and for the record, Care is right, Toro seems to know his shit when it comes to economics... or he knows where to go to get the info on the net. Careful with the "stupidity" comments in that regard, it tends to make you look almost like a partisan hack who spouts conservative talking points without analyzing them.

Immie

How was the economy doing when Reagan left office compared to when carter left office?
Ireally don't give a shit how toro seems to know his shit. Bernanke is suposed to know his shit but look at what the expert got us.

If economic conditions were the same today as they were when Reagan took and left office, your question might have some validity.

Since economic conditions change all the time, the question is not relevant.

I thought Reagan did a very good job and I thought Bush 43 sucked. As for Obama, many of his policies scare the heck out of me.

Economically speaking Bush 43 was a disaster and things are getting worse not better under Obama. Much of that is because of the condition we are in right now. We have politicians (Congress and the President and both parties) that believe that they can spend money we don't have and spend it on buying votes from lobbyists as well.

All spending is not bad but neither are all tax increases.

I respect you Bigreb, but your, "I really don't give a shit" comment tells me that you are not willing to open your mind and accept that the talking points you have been reading may not be 100% honest.

Immie

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It is a sliding scale. In some cases tax cuts can work, in other cases tax increases need to be instituted. The job is to find out where things are at any given point in time.

Simply saying tax cuts work all the time. Is flat out wrong. Saying we have to keep raising tax rates until we balance the budget doesn't solve the problem either.

There is a fine line in there. "Trickle Down Economics" might work depending on some economic conditions while under other conditions it only worsens the situation. You can only cut taxes so far, just as you can only raise taxes so far. The trick is to find that point that best serves the nation's economy at any given time and if possible to anticipate changes before they happen and make appropriate changes to maximize benefits.

In today's economy, I do not believe cutting taxes for the rich in order to stimulate the economy will work. Taxes are already low enough, how much lower do you think it would need to go to convince employers to go out and hire the unemployed? If we've hit bottom on the tax rate and that hasn't solved the problem then turn things around and start raising tax rates and/or cut expenses.

No economic policy works in every situation.

edit: and for the record, Care is right, Toro seems to know his shit when it comes to economics... or he knows where to go to get the info on the net. Careful with the "stupidity" comments in that regard, it tends to make you look almost like a partisan hack who spouts conservative talking points without analyzing them.

Immie

How was the economy doing when Reagan left office compared to when carter left office?

Unemployment was lower, as was average real income.

Would this be anything like the real unemployment numbers of 17 percent?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It is a sliding scale. In some cases tax cuts can work, in other cases tax increases need to be instituted. The job is to find out where things are at any given point in time.

Simply saying tax cuts work all the time. Is flat out wrong. Saying we have to keep raising tax rates until we balance the budget doesn't solve the problem either.

There is a fine line in there. "Trickle Down Economics" might work depending on some economic conditions while under other conditions it only worsens the situation. You can only cut taxes so far, just as you can only raise taxes so far. The trick is to find that point that best serves the nation's economy at any given time and if possible to anticipate changes before they happen and make appropriate changes to maximize benefits.

In today's economy, I do not believe cutting taxes for the rich in order to stimulate the economy will work. Taxes are already low enough, how much lower do you think it would need to go to convince employers to go out and hire the unemployed? If we've hit bottom on the tax rate and that hasn't solved the problem then turn things around and start raising tax rates and/or cut expenses.

No economic policy works in every situation.

edit: and for the record, Care is right, Toro seems to know his shit when it comes to economics... or he knows where to go to get the info on the net. Careful with the "stupidity" comments in that regard, it tends to make you look almost like a partisan hack who spouts conservative talking points without analyzing them.

Immie

How was the economy doing when Reagan left office compared to when carter left office?
Ireally don't give a shit how toro seems to know his shit. Bernanke is suposed to know his shit but look at what the expert got us.

If economic conditions were the same today as they were when Reagan took and left office, your question might have some validity.

Since economic conditions change all the time, the question is not relevant.

I thought Reagan did a very good job and I thought Bush 43 sucked. As for Obama, many of his policies scare the heck out of me.

Economically speaking Bush 43 was a disaster and things are getting worse not better under Obama. Much of that is because of the condition we are in right now. We have politicians (Congress and the President and both parties) that believe that they can spend money we don't have and spend it on buying votes from lobbyists as well.

All spending is not bad but neither are all tax increases.

I respect you Bigreb, but your, "I really don't give a shit" comment tells me that you are not willing to open your mind and accept that the talking points you have been reading may not be 100% honest.

Immie

First thing coulod you post all of what I said instead of just saying I don't give a shit. That could mean a lot of things.

I really don't give a shit how toro seems to know his shit. Bernanke is suposed to know his shit but look at what the expert got us.
See now isn't that better.

Secondly my talking points? If you say facts from someone who was alive and of an age to understand the economical conditions are talking points then you haven't got a clue. I remember sitting in those long gas lines in 1975 to get 10 gallons of rationed gas for my 69 Gran Torino. Have you ever had to do this?


I am not defending Bush things weren't that great with him but things were better with Bush as President then they were with carter or obama.