Consumers create jobs.

[Oldstyle]

"Sure" and "Wow"...that's the sum total of your response when challenged to back up your assertions, Rshermr?

You, my progressive friend are an intellectual "lightweight". Get back to me when you want to have a REAL discussion about economics. I'd love to hear you explain to me how Barry's call for higher taxes on the wealthy in the midst of an economic downturn is something that John Maynard Keynes EVER would have advocated. The rather ironic truth is that Ronald Reagan understood Keynesian economic principles better than Barack Obama does...because HE raised taxes after the economy started to rapidly expand. Keynes would have applauded that...he'd have asked Barack Obama what the heck he was thinking.

the top tax bracket was 50% under reagan, false comparison.

obama is beset with two crises, not just one. if the only problem was the economy, your're right -raising taxes would be bad. but he has to balance that against the 2nd problem - the deficit. since raising taxes on the middle class and poor is clearly a worse idea than raising them on the wealthy, the latter is the better choice

Reagan was facing stagflation...which is a combination of rampant inflation, a slow economy and high unemployment. Stagflation is especially difficult because the remedy for inflation will usually cause an even slower economy and higher unemployment. In many ways the economic puzzle that Reagan DID solve was harder than the one that Obama has utterly failed at.

What even a liberal economist like Christina Romer understood is that raising taxes on ANYONE in the midst of an economic slowdown isn't good economic policy because it will further slow down the economy.

I can only laugh at your contention that Barry is doing something about the deficit, Ooh. He just added another huge entitlement to a system that couldn't support the existing ones. He's running trillion dollar deficits each year that he's been in office and there's no end in sight. The truth is...Barack Obama isn't dealing with the deficit. It's the primary reason that our credit got downgraded. Even if he were successful in raising taxes on the wealthy doing so would only pay the exploding cost of our government for a few weeks. Of course he knows only too well that tax will never get through a GOP controlled House so it's quite obvious that it's just election year posturing. We need REAL solutions to our economic problems...not Kabuki theater from the man who's supposed to be leading us.

 

[Rshermr]

If lower income taxes doesn't stimulate the economy then would you care to explain why both JFK and Reagan used them quite effectively to do just that? If getting rid of bad regulations doesn't stimulate the economy then perhaps you'd like to explain how Reagan's getting rid of the price controls on oil imposed by Jimmy Carter DIDN'T stimulate growth? You haven't given me a single example yet but you accuse "me" of slinging "vacuous con dogma"? The truth is...the person slinging it on here at the moment, is you. I'm not asking you to just "believe me"...I'm asking you to actually learn economic theory and apply it.

Reagan inherited an economy that was in full stagflation mode. He had to deal with both nasty unemployment AND rampant inflation. The REASON the unemployment level went to over 10% is that Reagan chose to first tackle inflation...tightening up the money supply. Doing so caused unemployment to rise (making Reagan's approval numbers plummet a year into his first term) but it was very effective in solving the inflation problem, cutting the rate of inflation in half within a two year period. You see, unlike Barry...Ronald Reagan did the nasty work that makes you unpopular but fixes the problems you have. Unlike Barry, Ronald Reagan had an economic plan and he stuck to it despite having to take a political hit.

By the way...the REASON that Reagan had a working relationship with the Democratically controlled Congress was that he treated his opposition with respect and worked WITH them. He and Tip O'Neal couldn't have been further apart ideologically but they were friends. Now contrast that with how Barry treated the people across the aisle during HIS first term. Or have you forgotten his "Elections have consequences...I won." speech to Eric Cantor? Republicans HAVE tried to block major parts of the Obama agenda but even a blinders wearing partisan like yourself has to admit that during his first year in office the Republicans COULDN'T block that agenda because Barry had super majorities in both the House and the Senate. The people that blocked Obama during THAT period of time were moderate Democrats.

You really want to argue economic policy with me? I'm still waiting to hear you explain to me what Barack Obama's economic policy "is". Care to take a stab at that?

Wow. An attempt to rewrite reagans economic policies.

Having all sorts of connection problems. Live on a farm a long ways from the nearest cel tower. Either the tower is having issues, or my air card is dying Tried a quick short response that I could edit. Could not connect again. So you got the short response. And a couple others for the same reason.
I rewrote Reagan's economic policies? How so? I simply stated what his policies WERE. Would you care to dispute what I put forward? Did Reagan NOT first attack inflation by tightening up the money supply? Did he NOT get rid of Jimmy Carter's price controls on oil? Did he NOT then restructure the tax code and cut taxes?

I don't think you really CAN argue economics with me, Rshermr because A) you don't seem to have a basic understanding of the subject and B) you've let your politics blind you to reality.Know what, old style, I know economics quite well. What you post is simply supply side economics. I have asked you to tell me when decreasing taxes and gov spending has ever worked in a bad economy. And you simply go back to sayig it worked for Reagan. Which id did not if you believe what he himself said it would accomplish. His tax decrease resulted in greatly increased unemployment and a greatly increased deficit. And he did follow it up with deficit speding paid for by tax increases and massive borrowing. Would you like to say that is not true??

I've asked this several times now and you and the rest of the Progressives on the board have avoided it like Superman avoids Kryptonite. What "is" Barry's economic plan to move the country forward? Since you claim to know so much about economics and are such a strong supporter of Obama then you obviously can list what the President is proposing to make the economy take off? Right? So let's hear it! You know full well, as I said in my past post. I answered your question fully. Now, tell me how and why and when tax decreases and decreases in gov spending have ever helped a bad economy. I have been asking you that question longer than the question you asked about obomas policy. Still nothing.

Here is the deal. There are several reasons that I say reducing taxes and gov spending in a bad economy will not work. First, there is no history of it ever having worked, only of it making things worse. For reasons that should be obvious to anyone as economically savvy as you claim to be. Second, decreasing gov spending does nothing to help employment. It hurts because gov workers get fired since there is less revenue to pay their cost. Then, they do not pay taxes, making for more of the same. Then, private employment suffers because demand decreases. And the beat goes on. Then, the tax decreases make for more money in the hands of corporations and other companies. They do not increase production with that money, because they have less demand for the products they sell. They are in the stage of looking at reducing employment because they are selling less. Simple stuff. But in a good economy, reducing taxes can have a good effect. Suppliers of goods ad services can use the savings to increase production as the economy is good. Not a great stimulus, even then, but still a stimulus in a good economy.
So why would one suggest lowering taxes to the lower income folks?? Because as compared to the rich, they SPEND their income on goods and services every pay day. Rich folks do not, do not need to. Corporations do not, as stated above, but are more likely to spend on mergers and acquisitions, buy back their stock, or save. Not bad things, just not stimulative.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

"Sure" and "Wow"...that's the sum total of your response when challenged to back up your assertions, Rshermr?

You, my progressive friend are an intellectual "lightweight". Get back to me when you want to have a REAL discussion about economics. I'd love to hear you explain to me how Barry's call for higher taxes on the wealthy in the midst of an economic downturn is something that John Maynard Keynes EVER would have advocated. The rather ironic truth is that Ronald Reagan understood Keynesian economic principles better than Barack Obama does...because HE raised taxes after the economy started to rapidly expand. Keynes would have applauded that...he'd have asked Barack Obama what the heck he was thinking.

the top tax bracket was 50% under reagan, false comparison.

obama is beset with two crises, not just one. if the only problem was the economy, your're right -raising taxes would be bad. but he has to balance that against the 2nd problem - the deficit. since raising taxes on the middle class and poor is clearly a worse idea than raising them on the wealthy, the latter is the better choice

Reagan was facing stagflation...which is a combination of rampant inflation, a slow economy and high unemployment. Stagflation is especially difficult because the remedy for inflation will usually cause an even slower economy and higher unemployment. In many ways the economic puzzle that Reagan DID solve was harder than the one that Obama has utterly failed at.

What even a liberal economist like Christina Romer understood is that raising taxes on ANYONE in the midst of an economic slowdown isn't good economic policy because it will further slow down the economy.

I agree with you - however, as I've pointed out, current debt levels leave us with little choice. That's the puzzle Obama gets to deal with - how to not put a damper on the economy while addressing our massive debt.

I can only laugh at your contention that Barry is doing something about the deficit, Ooh.

That's the point of getting rid of the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy. Eventually we will need to get rid of them entirely for everyone. Bush should have never passed those idiotic tax cuts in the first place, he started office with the budget basically balanced but decide to fuck it all up.

He just added another huge entitlement to a system that couldn't support the existing ones. He's running trillion dollar deficits each year that he's been in office and there's no end in sight. The truth is...Barack Obama isn't dealing with the deficit. It's the primary reason that our credit got downgraded. Even if he were successful in raising taxes on the wealthy doing so would only pay the exploding cost of our government for a few weeks. Of course he knows only too well that tax will never get through a GOP controlled House so it's quite obvious that it's just election year posturing. We need REAL solutions to our economic problems...not Kabuki theater from the man who's supposed to be leading us.

The Bush tax cuts are worth 3.3 trillion over the next 10 years. That's a huge chunk of the problem.

Someone had to tackle health care at some point. It should have been done right after WW II but we didn't do it. Would have been better to get it done during an economic boom but history suggests this may have been the only chance for another generation.
In the early part of the aught's the Republicans refused to compromise on tax cuts for their beloved wealthy - don't expect much compromise from the Dems on health care.

Besides the ACA is partially paid for with its tax provisions.

 

[Oldstyle]

Wow. An attempt to rewrite reagans economic policies.

Having all sorts of connection problems. Live on a farm a long ways from the nearest cel tower. Either the tower is having issues, or my air card is dying Tried a quick short response that I could edit. Could not connect again. So you got the short response. And a couple others for the same reason.
I rewrote Reagan's economic policies? How so? I simply stated what his policies WERE. Would you care to dispute what I put forward? Did Reagan NOT first attack inflation by tightening up the money supply? Did he NOT get rid of Jimmy Carter's price controls on oil? Did he NOT then restructure the tax code and cut taxes?

I don't think you really CAN argue economics with me, Rshermr because A) you don't seem to have a basic understanding of the subject and B) you've let your politics blind you to reality.Know what, old style, I know economics quite well. What you post is simply supply side economics. I have asked you to tell me when decreasing taxes and gov spending has ever worked in a bad economy. And you simply go back to sayig it worked for Reagan. Which id did not if you believe what he himself said it would accomplish. His tax decrease resulted in greatly increased unemployment and a greatly increased deficit. And he did follow it up with deficit speding paid for by tax increases and massive borrowing. Would you like to say that is not true??

I've asked this several times now and you and the rest of the Progressives on the board have avoided it like Superman avoids Kryptonite. What "is" Barry's economic plan to move the country forward? Since you claim to know so much about economics and are such a strong supporter of Obama then you obviously can list what the President is proposing to make the economy take off? Right? So let's hear it! You know full well, as I said in my past post. I answered your question fully. Now, tell me how and why and when tax decreases and decreases in gov spending have ever helped a bad economy. I have been asking you that question longer than the question you asked about obomas policy. Still nothing.

Here is the deal. There are several reasons that I say reducing taxes and gov spending in a bad economy will not work. First, there is no history of it ever having worked, only of it making things worse. For reasons that should be obvious to anyone as economically savvy as you claim to be. Second, decreasing gov spending does nothing to help employment. It hurts because gov workers get fired since there is less revenue to pay their cost. Then, they do not pay taxes, making for more of the same. Then, private employment suffers because demand decreases. And the beat goes on. Then, the tax decreases make for more money in the hands of corporations and other companies. They do not increase production with that money, because they have less demand for the products they sell. They are in the stage of looking at reducing employment because they are selling less. Simple stuff. But in a good economy, reducing taxes can have a good effect. Suppliers of goods ad services can use the savings to increase production as the economy is good. Not a great stimulus, even then, but still a stimulus in a good economy.
So why would one suggest lowering taxes to the lower income folks?? Because as compared to the rich, they SPEND their income on goods and services every pay day. Rich folks do not, do not need to. Corporations do not, as stated above, but are more likely to spend on mergers and acquisitions, buy back their stock, or save. Not bad things, just not stimulative.

I'm amused by the progressive refrain that reducing taxes and government spending doesn't "work" to stimulate an economy. The truth is it ALWAYS works. You say it doesn't work for "obvious reasons" and then conveniently fail to disclose what those reasons ARE.

You make the flawed argument that government not having money to spend means that money is not being spent. What actually happens is that money is spent by the Private Sector INSTEAD of the Public Sector.

Did you really just make the assertion that in a good economy reducing taxes can have a good effect? You have no clue about Keynesian economic theory...do you? Keynes advocated the raising of taxes in economic boom times. He advocated doing so to both cool off an overheated economy but more importantly to repay the money that government would spend during an economic slowdown. Reducing taxes in a boom economy would lead to a bubble and burst economic cycle. If you're going to espouse Keynesian economic theory...don't you think you should familiarize yourself with it's basic principles? Duh?

 

[Oldstyle]

the top tax bracket was 50% under reagan, false comparison.

obama is beset with two crises, not just one. if the only problem was the economy, your're right -raising taxes would be bad. but he has to balance that against the 2nd problem - the deficit. since raising taxes on the middle class and poor is clearly a worse idea than raising them on the wealthy, the latter is the better choice

Reagan was facing stagflation...which is a combination of rampant inflation, a slow economy and high unemployment. Stagflation is especially difficult because the remedy for inflation will usually cause an even slower economy and higher unemployment. In many ways the economic puzzle that Reagan DID solve was harder than the one that Obama has utterly failed at.

What even a liberal economist like Christina Romer understood is that raising taxes on ANYONE in the midst of an economic slowdown isn't good economic policy because it will further slow down the economy.

I agree with you - however, as I've pointed out, current debt levels leave us with little choice. That's the puzzle Obama gets to deal with - how to not put a damper on the economy while addressing our massive debt.

I can only laugh at your contention that Barry is doing something about the deficit, Ooh.

That's the point of getting rid of the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy. Eventually we will need to get rid of them entirely for everyone. Bush should have never passed those idiotic tax cuts in the first place, he started office with the budget basically balanced but decide to fuck it all up.

He just added another huge entitlement to a system that couldn't support the existing ones. He's running trillion dollar deficits each year that he's been in office and there's no end in sight. The truth is...Barack Obama isn't dealing with the deficit. It's the primary reason that our credit got downgraded. Even if he were successful in raising taxes on the wealthy doing so would only pay the exploding cost of our government for a few weeks. Of course he knows only too well that tax will never get through a GOP controlled House so it's quite obvious that it's just election year posturing. We need REAL solutions to our economic problems...not Kabuki theater from the man who's supposed to be leading us.

The Bush tax cuts are worth 3.3 trillion over the next 10 years. That's a huge chunk of the problem.

Someone had to tackle health care at some point. It should have been done right after WW II but we didn't do it. Would have been better to get it done during an economic boom but history suggests this may have been the only chance for another generation.
In the early part of the aught's the Republicans refused to compromise on tax cuts for their beloved wealthy - don't expect much compromise from the Dems on health care.

Besides the ACA is partially paid for with its tax provisions.

So let me see if I've got this straight...because of our current debt levels...you claim that we have "no choice" but to incur even larger debt to fix the problem?

How about if we cut spending and lower the deficit? Look, I know austerity isn't "fun" but it's the only REAL solution. It works for your household budget and it works for a nation's budget as well. Just as you can't spend your way out of a fiscal crisis, your government can't spend it's way out of a fiscal crisis either. Those that would have you believe you can have their heads buried in the sand.

 

[Douger]

CONSUMERS CREATE JOBS.[/B

And bubbles !

 

[Rshermr]

Having all sorts of connection problems. Live on a farm a long ways from the nearest cel tower. Either the tower is having issues, or my air card is dying Tried a quick short response that I could edit. Could not connect again. So you got the short response. And a couple others for the same reason.
I rewrote Reagan's economic policies? How so? I simply stated what his policies WERE. Would you care to dispute what I put forward? Did Reagan NOT first attack inflation by tightening up the money supply? Did he NOT get rid of Jimmy Carter's price controls on oil? Did he NOT then restructure the tax code and cut taxes?

I don't think you really CAN argue economics with me, Rshermr because A) you don't seem to have a basic understanding of the subject and B) you've let your politics blind you to reality.Know what, old style, I know economics quite well. What you post is simply supply side economics. I have asked you to tell me when decreasing taxes and gov spending has ever worked in a bad economy. And you simply go back to sayig it worked for Reagan. Which id did not if you believe what he himself said it would accomplish. His tax decrease resulted in greatly increased unemployment and a greatly increased deficit. And he did follow it up with deficit speding paid for by tax increases and massive borrowing. Would you like to say that is not true??

I've asked this several times now and you and the rest of the Progressives on the board have avoided it like Superman avoids Kryptonite. What "is" Barry's economic plan to move the country forward? Since you claim to know so much about economics and are such a strong supporter of Obama then you obviously can list what the President is proposing to make the economy take off? Right? So let's hear it! You know full well, as I said in my past post. I answered your question fully. Now, tell me how and why and when tax decreases and decreases in gov spending have ever helped a bad economy. I have been asking you that question longer than the question you asked about obomas policy. Still nothing.

Here is the deal. There are several reasons that I say reducing taxes and gov spending in a bad economy will not work. First, there is no history of it ever having worked, only of it making things worse. For reasons that should be obvious to anyone as economically savvy as you claim to be. Second, decreasing gov spending does nothing to help employment. It hurts because gov workers get fired since there is less revenue to pay their cost. Then, they do not pay taxes, making for more of the same. Then, private employment suffers because demand decreases. And the beat goes on. Then, the tax decreases make for more money in the hands of corporations and other companies. They do not increase production with that money, because they have less demand for the products they sell. They are in the stage of looking at reducing employment because they are selling less. Simple stuff. But in a good economy, reducing taxes can have a good effect. Suppliers of goods ad services can use the savings to increase production as the economy is good. Not a great stimulus, even then, but still a stimulus in a good economy.
So why would one suggest lowering taxes to the lower income folks?? Because as compared to the rich, they SPEND their income on goods and services every pay day. Rich folks do not, do not need to. Corporations do not, as stated above, but are more likely to spend on mergers and acquisitions, buy back their stock, or save. Not bad things, just not stimulative.

I'm amused by the progressive refrain that reducing taxes and government spending doesn't "work" to stimulate an economy. The truth is it ALWAYS works. You say it doesn't work for "obvious reasons" and then conveniently fail to disclose what those reasons ARE. I did explain it. Lets see if you remember. It does not stimulate because most tax decreases go to the wealthy and to corporations, who do not spend much of it, expecially if the economy is bad. Just as they did not spend when reagan tried it. So, show me when it did work. I am really getting tired of asking you a simple question that you seem unable to answer.

You make the flawed argument that government not having money to spend means that money is not being spent. What actually happens is that money is spent by the Private Sector INSTEAD of the Public Sector. Not enough, as you should know. If there was enough spent during bad unemployment times, we would see good results. But we NEVER do. If you think I am wrong, show me when a bad economy, with bad unemployment, has been jumpstarted by private spending. By the way, I mean really bad economy, like the great repub recession of 08. Or the great depression. We waited several years while hoover watched unemployment go from 5 to 20% with no gov intervention Great analysis. So do you see why I say you spew con dogma. Always stating that gov help does not work. History is clear, if you care to look at it with an open mind.

Did you really just make the assertion that in a good economy reducing taxes can have a good effect? You have no clue about Keynesian economic theory...do you? Keynes advocated the raising of taxes in economic boom times. He advocated doing so to both cool off an overheated economy but more importantly to repay the money that government would spend during an economic slowdown. Reducing taxes in a boom economy would lead to a bubble and burst economic cycle. If you're going to espouse Keynesian economic theory...don't you think you should familiarize yourself with it's basic principles? Duh?

First, you ignorant shit, I did not say I believe Keynsian theory in all cases. Nor do I believe that the gov should always decrease taxes in a good economy. But, most importanly, you are completely wrong about Keynsian economics. What you just said is that keynsian economics suggests raising taxes in all economies, which is really stupid. You are way too dishonest, and trying way too hard, to make your points even if you need to tell untruths. Get a clue, shithead. I have at this point lost all respect for you. Trying to make yourself into a keynsian expert just does not pass the giggle test.. You are a total waste of space without integrity.

 

[Rshermr]

Reagan was facing stagflation...which is a combination of rampant inflation, a slow economy and high unemployment. Stagflation is especially difficult because the remedy for inflation will usually cause an even slower economy and higher unemployment. In many ways the economic puzzle that Reagan DID solve was harder than the one that Obama has utterly failed at.

What even a liberal economist like Christina Romer understood is that raising taxes on ANYONE in the midst of an economic slowdown isn't good economic policy because it will further slow down the economy.

I agree with you - however, as I've pointed out, current debt levels leave us with little choice. That's the puzzle Obama gets to deal with - how to not put a damper on the economy while addressing our massive debt.


That's the point of getting rid of the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy. Eventually we will need to get rid of them entirely for everyone. Bush should have never passed those idiotic tax cuts in the first place, he started office with the budget basically balanced but decide to fuck it all up.

He just added another huge entitlement to a system that couldn't support the existing ones. He's running trillion dollar deficits each year that he's been in office and there's no end in sight. The truth is...Barack Obama isn't dealing with the deficit. It's the primary reason that our credit got downgraded. Even if he were successful in raising taxes on the wealthy doing so would only pay the exploding cost of our government for a few weeks. Of course he knows only too well that tax will never get through a GOP controlled House so it's quite obvious that it's just election year posturing. We need REAL solutions to our economic problems...not Kabuki theater from the man who's supposed to be leading us.

The Bush tax cuts are worth 3.3 trillion over the next 10 years. That's a huge chunk of the problem.

Someone had to tackle health care at some point. It should have been done right after WW II but we didn't do it. Would have been better to get it done during an economic boom but history suggests this may have been the only chance for another generation.
In the early part of the aught's the Republicans refused to compromise on tax cuts for their beloved wealthy - don't expect much compromise from the Dems on health care.

Besides the ACA is partially paid for with its tax provisions.

So let me see if I've got this straight...because of our current debt levels...you claim that we have "no choice" but to incur even larger debt to fix the problem?

How about if we cut spending and lower the deficit? Look, I know austerity isn't "fun" but it's the only REAL solution. It works for your household budget and it works for a nation's budget as well. Just as you can't spend your way out of a fiscal crisis, your government can't spend it's way out of a fiscal crisis either. Those that would have you believe you can have their heads buried in the sand.

But you can't show a time where cutting taxes in bad economic times has ever worked. You are a typical con pushing supply side econ, which has never worked, which is why you can not show when it ever has. And you ignore all cases where stimulus spending has worked. Get a clue.

 

[signelect]

CONSUMERS CREATE JOBS.

When President Bush took office in 2001, he inherited a $236 billion budget surplus, with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. Unemployment was at 4.0% in January 2001. Unemployment was at 7.85 when Obama took office in January 2009. Bush’s Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 cut taxes by $1.35 trillion over 10 years by making many changes. Did not create one job but cause Government $1.35 trillion in lost revenue, resulting in Government jobs lost. Especially in government that create jobs. If big and small businesses did not pay any taxes at all they still would not create any jobs. 11 years after Bush’s tax cuts unemployment is at 8.2% down because of Obama’s stimulus and because tax cuts do not create jobs. Like it or not, Radical Right Wing Extremists, government spending and government created jobs got us out of the great depression and will get us out of this recession. Stimulus money lowered unemployment down to 8.2%. If not for the stimulus ti would be well over 8.2%. But RRWE have cut government spending and cut Government jobs.

Government spending and government jobs will put people to work, create revenue and the employed will spend money on products and services and business will sell more products and services and will need to hire more people. Result. A growing economy out of the recession. A 5th grader figured this out.

Government can create jobs because Government do not have to make an immediate profit. Profit will come later in the form of taxes that will pay for the jobs Government create.
Consumers create jobs and not big or small businesses. Bush tax cut create this recession by cutting tax revenue by $1.35 trillion. It took money out of the hands of government and Government had to cut spending and cut government jobs, cutting more revenue and taking money out of the hands of consumers. Consumers having no money to buy big and small business’s products and services caused businesses to lay of employees and some went bankrupt. Results in no money in anyone’s hands. Resulting in a great recession.
Private sector cannot create jobs without consumers.

If RRWE know how to create jobs and healthcare for all, they had 10 years of Bush to do it and they didn’t.

Do you really mean that more government jobs are the answer. Have you been to the POst Office lately. No wonder they are hemoraging money. Gov't employees at their best?

 

[Oldstyle]

Here is the deal. There are several reasons that I say reducing taxes and gov spending in a bad economy will not work. First, there is no history of it ever having worked, only of it making things worse. For reasons that should be obvious to anyone as economically savvy as you claim to be. Second, decreasing gov spending does nothing to help employment. It hurts because gov workers get fired since there is less revenue to pay their cost. Then, they do not pay taxes, making for more of the same. Then, private employment suffers because demand decreases. And the beat goes on. Then, the tax decreases make for more money in the hands of corporations and other companies. They do not increase production with that money, because they have less demand for the products they sell. They are in the stage of looking at reducing employment because they are selling less. Simple stuff. But in a good economy, reducing taxes can have a good effect. Suppliers of goods ad services can use the savings to increase production as the economy is good. Not a great stimulus, even then, but still a stimulus in a good economy.
So why would one suggest lowering taxes to the lower income folks?? Because as compared to the rich, they SPEND their income on goods and services every pay day. Rich folks do not, do not need to. Corporations do not, as stated above, but are more likely to spend on mergers and acquisitions, buy back their stock, or save. Not bad things, just not stimulative.

I'm amused by the progressive refrain that reducing taxes and government spending doesn't "work" to stimulate an economy. The truth is it ALWAYS works. You say it doesn't work for "obvious reasons" and then conveniently fail to disclose what those reasons ARE. I did explain it. Lets see if you remember. It does not stimulate because most tax decreases go to the wealthy and to corporations, who do not spend much of it, expecially if the economy is bad. Just as they did not spend when reagan tried it. So, show me when it did work. I am really getting tired of asking you a simple question that you seem unable to answer.

You make the flawed argument that government not having money to spend means that money is not being spent. What actually happens is that money is spent by the Private Sector INSTEAD of the Public Sector. Not enough, as you should know. If there was enough spent during bad unemployment times, we would see good results. But we NEVER do. If you think I am wrong, show me when a bad economy, with bad unemployment, has been jumpstarted by private spending. By the way, I mean really bad economy, like the great repub recession of 08. Or the great depression. We waited several years while hoover watched unemployment go from 5 to 20% with no gov intervention Great analysis. So do you see why I say you spew con dogma. Always stating that gov help does not work. History is clear, if you care to look at it with an open mind.

Did you really just make the assertion that in a good economy reducing taxes can have a good effect? You have no clue about Keynesian economic theory...do you? Keynes advocated the raising of taxes in economic boom times. He advocated doing so to both cool off an overheated economy but more importantly to repay the money that government would spend during an economic slowdown. Reducing taxes in a boom economy would lead to a bubble and burst economic cycle. If you're going to espouse Keynesian economic theory...don't you think you should familiarize yourself with it's basic principles? Duh?

First, you ignorant shit, I did not say I believe Keynsian theory in all cases. Nor do I believe that the gov should always decrease taxes in a good economy. But, most importanly, you are completely wrong about Keynsian economics. What you just said is that keynsian economics suggests raising taxes in all economies, which is really stupid. You are way too dishonest, and trying way too hard, to make your points even if you need to tell untruths. Get a clue, shithead. I have at this point lost all respect for you. Trying to make yourself into a keynsian expert just does not pass the giggle test.. You are a total waste of space without integrity.

So you "sometimes" believe in Keynesian economic theory and sometimes don't? That's what amuses me about progressives these days. You want us all to embrace the "wonders" of Keynesian economics...except when it goes counter to your agenda...then not so much.

Where was it that I ever said Keynesian economics suggests raising taxes in all economies? I simply pointed out that Keynes advocated raising taxes when the economy was in a boom cycle. It's totally counter to Keynesian theory to raise taxes in a depressed economy, which is what Barack Obama has been asking for.

Admit it, Rshermr...you don't REALLY know anything about Keynesian economics! If you did you wouldn't be making such ridiculous assertions. And I can always tell when one of you "intelligent" progressives starts losing his ass in a debate...you start insulting people without making a valid retort. You've reached that point. My advice to you is to stop embarrassing yourself trying to discuss something which you know little to nothing about.

 

[Oldstyle]

I agree with you - however, as I've pointed out, current debt levels leave us with little choice. That's the puzzle Obama gets to deal with - how to not put a damper on the economy while addressing our massive debt.


That's the point of getting rid of the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy. Eventually we will need to get rid of them entirely for everyone. Bush should have never passed those idiotic tax cuts in the first place, he started office with the budget basically balanced but decide to fuck it all up.



The Bush tax cuts are worth 3.3 trillion over the next 10 years. That's a huge chunk of the problem.

Someone had to tackle health care at some point. It should have been done right after WW II but we didn't do it. Would have been better to get it done during an economic boom but history suggests this may have been the only chance for another generation.
In the early part of the aught's the Republicans refused to compromise on tax cuts for their beloved wealthy - don't expect much compromise from the Dems on health care.

Besides the ACA is partially paid for with its tax provisions.

So let me see if I've got this straight...because of our current debt levels...you claim that we have "no choice" but to incur even larger debt to fix the problem?

How about if we cut spending and lower the deficit? Look, I know austerity isn't "fun" but it's the only REAL solution. It works for your household budget and it works for a nation's budget as well. Just as you can't spend your way out of a fiscal crisis, your government can't spend it's way out of a fiscal crisis either. Those that would have you believe you can have their heads buried in the sand.

But you can't show a time where cutting taxes in bad economic times has ever worked. You are a typical con pushing supply side econ, which has never worked, which is why you can not show when it ever has. And you ignore all cases where stimulus spending has worked. Get a clue.

I already pointed out that BOTH Kennedy and Reagan cut taxes in slow economic periods to stimulate the US economy...both times with success. You choose to ignore the fact that both sides of the political spectrum have used tax cuts to stimulate the economy calling it instead a "con" thing.

As for supply side economics never working? Reagan's supply side economics touched off an unprecedented period of economic growth. He took an economic situation that many felt was hopeless and turned it into the longest period of sustained growth without a recession in our nation's history.

 

[Rshermr]

I'm amused by the progressive refrain that reducing taxes and government spending doesn't "work" to stimulate an economy. The truth is it ALWAYS works. You say it doesn't work for "obvious reasons" and then conveniently fail to disclose what those reasons ARE. I did explain it. Lets see if you remember. It does not stimulate because most tax decreases go to the wealthy and to corporations, who do not spend much of it, expecially if the economy is bad. Just as they did not spend when reagan tried it. So, show me when it did work. I am really getting tired of asking you a simple question that you seem unable to answer.

You make the flawed argument that government not having money to spend means that money is not being spent. What actually happens is that money is spent by the Private Sector INSTEAD of the Public Sector. Not enough, as you should know. If there was enough spent during bad unemployment times, we would see good results. But we NEVER do. If you think I am wrong, show me when a bad economy, with bad unemployment, has been jumpstarted by private spending. By the way, I mean really bad economy, like the great repub recession of 08. Or the great depression. We waited several years while hoover watched unemployment go from 5 to 20% with no gov intervention Great analysis. So do you see why I say you spew con dogma. Always stating that gov help does not work. History is clear, if you care to look at it with an open mind.

Did you really just make the assertion that in a good economy reducing taxes can have a good effect? You have no clue about Keynesian economic theory...do you? Keynes advocated the raising of taxes in economic boom times. He advocated doing so to both cool off an overheated economy but more importantly to repay the money that government would spend during an economic slowdown. Reducing taxes in a boom economy would lead to a bubble and burst economic cycle. If you're going to espouse Keynesian economic theory...don't you think you should familiarize yourself with it's basic principles? Duh?

First, you ignorant shit, I did not say I believe Keynsian theory in all cases. Nor do I believe that the gov should always decrease taxes in a good economy. But, most importanly, you are completely wrong about Keynsian economics. What you just said is that keynsian economics suggests raising taxes in all economies, which is really stupid. You are way too dishonest, and trying way too hard, to make your points even if you need to tell untruths. Get a clue, shithead. I have at this point lost all respect for you. Trying to make yourself into a keynsian expert just does not pass the giggle test.. You are a total waste of space without integrity.

So you "sometimes" believe in Keynesian economic theory and sometimes don't? That's what amuses me about progressives these days. You want us all to embrace the "wonders" of Keynesian economics...except when it goes counter to your agenda...then not so much. Well, clown, you seem a bit confused, as usual. Now you believe in one economic theory, supply side economics. Even though you can not show that it has e. ver worked to improve unemployment in a bad economy. And, oddly, you believe it in full.
So, here is the thing, clown. There l are many well constructed and supported economic theories. You may well know this, but prefer not to do all that hard work of studying them. Easier to simply take the conservative canned a rguments, available at any tea party web site, or any of hundreds of con web sites. Arguments and all are right there. For others, myself included, it is more rational and has more integrity to look at those other authhors, and see what makes sense. And what has worked. I, for instance, would never push a theory that has never worked. But clowns like you, tools of the wealthy doaners, do not mind saying anything, because they are agenda driven. I have no agenda, clown. Hope that helps, but I am relatively sure it did not.

Where was it that I ever said Keynesian economics suggests raising taxes in all economies? I simply pointed out that Keynes advocated raising taxes when the economy was in a boom cycle. It's totally counter to Keynesian theory to raise taxes in a depressed economy, which is what Barack Obama has been asking for.Sorry, clown. But it is not at all counter. It is exactly what is called for by Keynes. But, clown, not simply raising taxes, but raising taxes in order to pay for stimulus spending. Nice try, clown, but no cigar.

Admit it, Rshermr...you don't REALLY know anything about Keynesian economics! If you did you wouldn't be making such ridiculous assertions. And I can always tell when one of you "intelligent" progressives starts losing his ass in a debate...you start insulting people without making a valid retort. You've reached that point. My advice to you is to stop ut embarrassing yourself trying to discuss something which you know little to nothing about.
Well, clown, I am certainly concerned that you think so poorly of me. I have such high respect for you. The assertions made about Keynsian econ that are ridiculous are, of course, yours. Prove them, clown, if you can. But then you never can, because you are simply quoting dogma.And, of course, there is no debate. You are apparently totally unaware of what a debate is. You can not win one, clown, if you can not prove any pointsyou are trying to make. And, since all you make are assertions, you have made no points at all. . And by the way, clown, could not be less interested in your advice.

Any other profound opinions, clown. Are you ever going to answer my question, relative to when reducing income taxes have ever helped an economy with bad unemployment??? You wanted me to answer your question, which I did. But you do not have the integrity or ability to answer mine.

 

[Rshermr]

So let me see if I've got this straight...because of our current debt levels...you claim that we have "no choice" but to incur even larger debt to fix the problem?

How about if we cut spending and lower the deficit? Look, I know austerity isn't "fun" but it's the only REAL solution. It works for your household budget and it works for a nation's budget as well. Just as you can't spend your way out of a fiscal crisis, your government can't spend it's way out of a fiscal crisis either. Those that would have you believe you can have their heads buried in the sand.

But you can't show a time where cutting taxes in bad economic times has ever worked. You are a typical con pushing supply side econ, which has never worked, which is why you can not show when it ever has. And you ignore all cases where stimulus spending has worked. Get a clue.

I already pointed out that BOTH Kennedy and Reagan cut taxes in slow economic periods to stimulate the US economy...both times with success. You choose to ignore the fact that both sides of the political spectrum have used tax cuts to stimulate the economy calling it instead a "con" thing.

As for supply side economics never working? Reagan's supply side economics touched off an unprecedented period of economic growth. He took an economic situation that many felt was hopeless and turned it into the longest period of sustained growth without a recession in our nation's history.

I already pointed out that BOTH Kennedy and Reagan cut taxes in slow economic periods to stimulate the US economy...both times with success.Of course, you are lying again. You did indeed mention Kennedy, but as I told you Kennedy lowered taxes in GOOD economic times. So your answer is irrelivent.
Now reagan did have a bad economic situation. Not terrible, but over 7% unemployment. So, again your response is irreverent. I asked you for an example wherein a tax cut during a bad unemployment economy HELPED the economy. And, as you know, it did not. Instead it drove up unemployment to over 10.8% over the next 14 months. And greatly increased the deficit. And caused reagan to increase taxes, borrow like mad, and deficit spend to overcome the mess he had created with the great tax cut. So, nice try but no cigar. You simply documented the failure of tax decreases to help unemployment in a bad economy. You choose to ignore the fact that both sides of the political spectrum have used tax cuts to stimulate the economy calling it instead a "con" thing. Again, you taare lying. I did not call lowering taxes in bad economic times a con thing. So, you said both sides have used tax cuts to stimulate the economy. I only asked for cases of lowering taxes in bad economic times with high unemployment. So, which of these cases worked to stimulate the economy in bad unemployment times ???

As for supply side economics never working? Reagan's supply side economics touched off an unprecedented period of economic growth. He took an economic situation that many felt was hopeless and turned it into the longest period of sustained growth without a recession in our nation's history. I am only interested in whether it worked in a bad economic times, with high unemployment. Again, in reagans case, it caused unemployment to rise to the highest rate ever outside of the great depression. And it caused the deficit to rise greatly. So, what actually caused the rest of the items you mention is totally in question. Perhaps it was his deficit spending. Only the shadow knows, and you are not the shadow.

 

[Oldstyle]

First, you ignorant shit, I did not say I believe Keynsian theory in all cases. Nor do I believe that the gov should always decrease taxes in a good economy. But, most importanly, you are completely wrong about Keynsian economics. What you just said is that keynsian economics suggests raising taxes in all economies, which is really stupid. You are way too dishonest, and trying way too hard, to make your points even if you need to tell untruths. Get a clue, shithead. I have at this point lost all respect for you. Trying to make yourself into a keynsian expert just does not pass the giggle test.. You are a total waste of space without integrity.

So you "sometimes" believe in Keynesian economic theory and sometimes don't? That's what amuses me about progressives these days. You want us all to embrace the "wonders" of Keynesian economics...except when it goes counter to your agenda...then not so much. Well, clown, you seem a bit confused, as usual. Now you believe in one economic theory, supply side economics. Even though you can not show that it has e. ver worked to improve unemployment in a bad economy. And, oddly, you believe it in full.
So, here is the thing, clown. There l are many well constructed and supported economic theories. You may well know this, but prefer not to do all that hard work of studying them. Easier to simply take the conservative canned a rguments, available at any tea party web site, or any of hundreds of con web sites. Arguments and all are right there. For others, myself included, it is more rational and has more integrity to look at those other authhors, and see what makes sense. And what has worked. I, for instance, would never push a theory that has never worked. But clowns like you, tools of the wealthy doaners, do not mind saying anything, because they are agenda driven. I have no agenda, clown. Hope that helps, but I am relatively sure it did not.

Where was it that I ever said Keynesian economics suggests raising taxes in all economies? I simply pointed out that Keynes advocated raising taxes when the economy was in a boom cycle. It's totally counter to Keynesian theory to raise taxes in a depressed economy, which is what Barack Obama has been asking for.Sorry, clown. But it is not at all counter. It is exactly what is called for by Keynes. But, clown, not simply raising taxes, but raising taxes in order to pay for stimulus spending. Nice try, clown, but no cigar.

Admit it, Rshermr...you don't REALLY know anything about Keynesian economics! If you did you wouldn't be making such ridiculous assertions. And I can always tell when one of you "intelligent" progressives starts losing his ass in a debate...you start insulting people without making a valid retort. You've reached that point. My advice to you is to stop ut embarrassing yourself trying to discuss something which you know little to nothing about.
Well, clown, I am certainly concerned that you think so poorly of me. I have such high respect for you. The assertions made about Keynsian econ that are ridiculous are, of course, yours. Prove them, clown, if you can. But then you never can, because you are simply quoting dogma.And, of course, there is no debate. You are apparently totally unaware of what a debate is. You can not win one, clown, if you can not prove any pointsyou are trying to make. And, since all you make are assertions, you have made no points at all. . And by the way, clown, could not be less interested in your advice.

Any other profound opinions, clown. Are you ever going to answer my question, relative to when reducing income taxes have ever helped an economy with bad unemployment??? You wanted me to answer your question, which I did. But you do not have the integrity or ability to answer mine.

My assertions about Keynesian economics are "ridiculous"? Really? Which assertions would those be? That Keynes didn't believe in raising taxes in a slow economy? That he did believe in raising them in a booming economy? Funny how even Christina Romer agreed with those "assertions"...remind me again, who was she? Oh that's right she was the former head of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisors and a dyed in the wool Keynesian economist from that liberal bastion of thought, Berkeley. Is Romer a "clown" as well for backing up my assertions about Keynesian economics? How much "proof" do you require? Did you want me to show you the exact quotes from Keynes on the subject? Do you really want to be shown to be THAT much of an idiot when it comes to economics?

 

[Oldstyle]

But you can't show a time where cutting taxes in bad economic times has ever worked. You are a typical con pushing supply side econ, which has never worked, which is why you can not show when it ever has. And you ignore all cases where stimulus spending has worked. Get a clue.

I already pointed out that BOTH Kennedy and Reagan cut taxes in slow economic periods to stimulate the US economy...both times with success. You choose to ignore the fact that both sides of the political spectrum have used tax cuts to stimulate the economy calling it instead a "con" thing.

As for supply side economics never working? Reagan's supply side economics touched off an unprecedented period of economic growth. He took an economic situation that many felt was hopeless and turned it into the longest period of sustained growth without a recession in our nation's history.

I already pointed out that BOTH Kennedy and Reagan cut taxes in slow economic periods to stimulate the US economy...both times with success.Of course, you are lying again. You did indeed mention Kennedy, but as I told you Kennedy lowered taxes in GOOD economic times. So your answer is irrelivent.
Now reagan did have a bad economic situation. Not terrible, but over 7% unemployment. So, again your response is irreverent. I asked you for an example wherein a tax cut during a bad unemployment economy HELPED the economy. And, as you know, it did not. Instead it drove up unemployment to over 10.8% over the next 14 months. And greatly increased the deficit. And caused reagan to increase taxes, borrow like mad, and deficit spend to overcome the mess he had created with the great tax cut. So, nice try but no cigar. You simply documented the failure of tax decreases to help unemployment in a bad economy. You choose to ignore the fact that both sides of the political spectrum have used tax cuts to stimulate the economy calling it instead a "con" thing. Again, you taare lying. I did not call lowering taxes in bad economic times a con thing. So, you said both sides have used tax cuts to stimulate the economy. I only asked for cases of lowering taxes in bad economic times with high unemployment. So, which of these cases worked to stimulate the economy in bad unemployment times ???

As for supply side economics never working? Reagan's supply side economics touched off an unprecedented period of economic growth. He took an economic situation that many felt was hopeless and turned it into the longest period of sustained growth without a recession in our nation's history. I am only interested in whether it worked in a bad economic times, with high unemployment. Again, in reagans case, it caused unemployment to rise to the highest rate ever outside of the great depression. And it caused the deficit to rise greatly. So, what actually caused the rest of the items you mention is totally in question. Perhaps it was his deficit spending. Only the shadow knows, and you are not the shadow.

Your ignorance of economic history is quite staggering. JFK did not seek tax cuts because the economy was "GOOD"...he raised them because it was anything but good. The following is from Kennedy's State of the Union Address in Jan. of 1961...

"The present state of our economy is disturbing. We take office in the wake of seven months of recession, three and one-half years of slack, seven years of diminished economic growth, and nine years of falling farm income.
Business bankruptcies have reached their highest level since the Great Depression. Since 1951 farm income has been squeezed down by 25 percent. Save for a brief period in 1958, insured unemployment is at the highest peak in our history. Of some five and one-half million Americans who are without jobs, more than one million have been searching for work for more than four months. And during each month, some 150,000 workers are exhausting their already meager jobless benefit rights...."

Gee, does that sound "GOOD" to you? Why do you continue to embarrass yourself in this manner? It's quite obvious that you know next to nothing about the history of the US...especially in regards to economics.

As for Reagan? The reason that unemployment went to 10% wasn't because of supply side economics...it was because Reagan had the Fed tighten up the money supply in order to get inflation under control.

 

[Rshermr]

I already pointed out that BOTH Kennedy and Reagan cut taxes in slow economic periods to stimulate the US economy...both times with success. You choose to ignore the fact that both sides of the political spectrum have used tax cuts to stimulate the economy calling it instead a "con" thing.

As for supply side economics never working? Reagan's supply side economics touched off an unprecedented period of economic growth. He took an economic situation that many felt was hopeless and turned it into the longest period of sustained growth without a recession in our nation's history.

I already pointed out that BOTH Kennedy and Reagan cut taxes in slow economic periods to stimulate the US economy...both times with success.Of course, you are lying again. You did indeed mention Kennedy, but as I told you Kennedy lowered taxes in GOOD economic times. So your answer is irrelivent.
Now reagan did have a bad economic situation. Not terrible, but over 7% unemployment. So, again your response is irreverent. I asked you for an example wherein a tax cut during a bad unemployment economy HELPED the economy. And, as you know, it did not. Instead it drove up unemployment to over 10.8% over the next 14 months. And greatly increased the deficit. And caused reagan to increase taxes, borrow like mad, and deficit spend to overcome the mess he had created with the great tax cut. So, nice try but no cigar. You simply documented the failure of tax decreases to help unemployment in a bad economy. You choose to ignore the fact that both sides of the political spectrum have used tax cuts to stimulate the economy calling it instead a "con" thing. Again, you taare lying. I did not call lowering taxes in bad economic times a con thing. So, you said both sides have used tax cuts to stimulate the economy. I only asked for cases of lowering taxes in bad economic times with high unemployment. So, which of these cases worked to stimulate the economy in bad unemployment times ???

As for supply side economics never working? Reagan's supply side economics touched off an unprecedented period of economic growth. He took an economic situation that many felt was hopeless and turned it into the longest period of sustained growth without a recession in our nation's history. I am only interested in whether it worked in a bad economic times, with high unemployment. Again, in reagans case, it caused unemployment to rise to the highest rate ever outside of the great depression. And it caused the deficit to rise greatly. So, what actually caused the rest of the items you mention is totally in question. Perhaps it was his deficit spending. Only the shadow knows, and you are not the shadow.

Your ignorance of economic history is quite staggering. JFK did not seek tax cuts because the economy was "GOOD"...he raised them because it was anything but good. The following is from Kennedy's State of the Union Address in Jan. of 1961...

"The present state of our economy is disturbing. We take office in the wake of seven months of recession, three and one-half years of slack, seven years of diminished economic growth, and nine years of falling farm income.
Business bankruptcies have reached their highest level since the Great Depression. Since 1951 farm income has been squeezed down by 25 percent. Save for a brief period in 1958, insured unemployment is at the highest peak in our history. Of some five and one-half million Americans who are without jobs, more than one million have been searching for work for more than four months. And during each month, some 150,000 workers are exhausting their already meager jobless benefit rights...."

Gee, does that sound "GOOD" to you? Why do you continue to embarrass yourself in this manner? It's quite obvious that you know next to nothing about the history of the US...especially in regards to economics.

As for Reagan? The reason that unemployment went to 10% wasn't because of supply side economics...it was because Reagan had the Fed tighten up the money supply in order to get inflation under control.

If you are saying that Kennedy had a tax decrease in 61, perhaps you had better determine who is ignorant. There was no tax decrease in 61. The Kennedy Admin. had a tax decrease only once, and it was in 64 well after his death. I know you believe you are an economic genius but you should really check your google results better.
I would expect a person with integrity to apologize for the insults you sent my way based on your flawed information, but obviously I will not expect it from you. By the way, the economy WAS good in 64.
You should really stop all this chest thumping stuff. You claim to be an economics expert. I do not. I have some background, but there are many out there with much more than I.

So, you said: As for Reagan? The reason that unemployment went to 10% wasn't because of supply side economics...it was because Reagan had the Fed tighten up the money supply in order to get inflation under control. If that were true, you would have to explain why the increase happened when it did, beginning right after the big tax decrease. And why, afterward, Reagan borrowed enough to triple the national debt and initiated 11 tax increases. Why all this and the deficit spending if the tax cuts were such a success?? Does not make any sense, obviously. You need to quit with the tortured responses to simple questions. They are obviously wrong, and show that you will do anything to get people to believe your statements, which are wrong.
So, no, I do not feel embarrassed. Do you???

 

[Oldstyle]

I already pointed out that BOTH Kennedy and Reagan cut taxes in slow economic periods to stimulate the US economy...both times with success.Of course, you are lying again. You did indeed mention Kennedy, but as I told you Kennedy lowered taxes in GOOD economic times. So your answer is irrelivent.
Now reagan did have a bad economic situation. Not terrible, but over 7% unemployment. So, again your response is irreverent. I asked you for an example wherein a tax cut during a bad unemployment economy HELPED the economy. And, as you know, it did not. Instead it drove up unemployment to over 10.8% over the next 14 months. And greatly increased the deficit. And caused reagan to increase taxes, borrow like mad, and deficit spend to overcome the mess he had created with the great tax cut. So, nice try but no cigar. You simply documented the failure of tax decreases to help unemployment in a bad economy. You choose to ignore the fact that both sides of the political spectrum have used tax cuts to stimulate the economy calling it instead a "con" thing. Again, you taare lying. I did not call lowering taxes in bad economic times a con thing. So, you said both sides have used tax cuts to stimulate the economy. I only asked for cases of lowering taxes in bad economic times with high unemployment. So, which of these cases worked to stimulate the economy in bad unemployment times ???

As for supply side economics never working? Reagan's supply side economics touched off an unprecedented period of economic growth. He took an economic situation that many felt was hopeless and turned it into the longest period of sustained growth without a recession in our nation's history. I am only interested in whether it worked in a bad economic times, with high unemployment. Again, in reagans case, it caused unemployment to rise to the highest rate ever outside of the great depression. And it caused the deficit to rise greatly. So, what actually caused the rest of the items you mention is totally in question. Perhaps it was his deficit spending. Only the shadow knows, and you are not the shadow.

Your ignorance of economic history is quite staggering. JFK did not seek tax cuts because the economy was "GOOD"...he raised them because it was anything but good. The following is from Kennedy's State of the Union Address in Jan. of 1961...

"The present state of our economy is disturbing. We take office in the wake of seven months of recession, three and one-half years of slack, seven years of diminished economic growth, and nine years of falling farm income.
Business bankruptcies have reached their highest level since the Great Depression. Since 1951 farm income has been squeezed down by 25 percent. Save for a brief period in 1958, insured unemployment is at the highest peak in our history. Of some five and one-half million Americans who are without jobs, more than one million have been searching for work for more than four months. And during each month, some 150,000 workers are exhausting their already meager jobless benefit rights...."

Gee, does that sound "GOOD" to you? Why do you continue to embarrass yourself in this manner? It's quite obvious that you know next to nothing about the history of the US...especially in regards to economics.

As for Reagan? The reason that unemployment went to 10% wasn't because of supply side economics...it was because Reagan had the Fed tighten up the money supply in order to get inflation under control.

If you are saying that Kennedy had a tax decrease in 61, perhaps you had better determine who is ignorant. There was no tax decrease in 61. The Kennedy Admin. had a tax decrease only once, and it was in 64 well after his death. I know you believe you are an economic genius but you should really check your google results better.
I would expect a person with integrity to apologize for the insults you sent my way based on your flawed information, but obviously I will not expect it from you. By the way, the economy WAS good in 64.
You should really stop all this chest thumping stuff. You claim to be an economics expert. I do not. I have some background, but there are many out there with much more than I.

So, you said: As for Reagan? The reason that unemployment went to 10% wasn't because of supply side economics...it was because Reagan had the Fed tighten up the money supply in order to get inflation under control. If that were true, you would have to explain why the increase happened when it did, beginning right after the big tax decrease. And why, afterward, Reagan borrowed enough to triple the national debt and initiated 11 tax increases. Why all this and the deficit spending if the tax cuts were such a success?? Does not make any sense, obviously. You need to quit with the tortured responses to simple questions. They are obviously wrong, and show that you will do anything to get people to believe your statements, which are wrong.
So, no, I do not feel embarrassed. Do you???

You just finished telling me that Kennedy lowered taxes in a "GOOD" economy and I just showed you that the economy was far from "GOOD" using Kennedy's own words from his first State of the Union address. But you can't admit that...can you? Kennedy's tax cuts didn't go through until after his assassination. That in no way changes the reasons why he sought them, nor does it change the fact that a Democratic administration successfully used tax cuts to stimulate a weak economy.

Now let's talk about Reagan...

Reagan's "big tax decrease" did not happen at the same time as he tightened up the money supply. As I told you before, Reagan chose to attack the stagflation that Jimmy Carter left him by first addressing inflation...which he did by tightening up the money supply and THEN he cut taxes. The increase in unemployment was brought on by the increased costs to borrow money that tightening up the money supply created. That's basic economics but you don't understand basic economics...do you?

As for why Reagan initiated 11 tax increases during his eight year period in office? If you'll look at when those tax increases occurred you'll find that they were in the latter part of his administration, when the economy had recovered and was growing rapidly. As I said before, Ronald Reagan understood Keynesian economics better as a supply-sider than Barack Obama does as (supposedly) a Keynesian.

What both Reagan and Kennedy prove is that the proper time to cut taxes is in an economic downturn and the proper time to raise them is when the economy is booming. But you still can't admit that...can you? By the way, I never claimed to be an economics "expert" but I do claim to understand the subject because I took it in college and actually learned something in the process. You on the other hand don't even seem to grasp the basics of Keynesian economics even though you like to use Keynesian principles as the basis for demanding additional spending by the Federal Government.

 

[Oldstyle]

And now that I've shown you two examples of where tax cuts were used successfully by both a Democratic and a Republican administration perhaps you'll be kind enough to show us an example of where tax increases during an economic slow down were successful in stimulating the economy?

 

[ccravens]

Rshermr, your ignorance of economic history is embarrasing.

Oldstyle owns you.

To wit, your claim about Kennedy's tax cuts: that they came "only once......in 64." Look up the Revenue Acts of 1962 and 1964. The Act of 1962 cut business taxes (expenditures and depreciation schedules). BTW, JFK was alive then, and pushed for the cuts himself, going against his Keynesian advisors.

The Act of 1964 cut personal tax rates, and WAS "after his death," but it was proposed by his administration BEFORE his death, and LBJ used his memory to get it pushed through Congress.

As for your assertion that the economy was "good" when he took office, Oldstyle already used JFK's own words against you to own you on that one (which you tellingly didn't bother to respond to). But any amateur historian knows it was one of the things (the bad economy) that got JFK elected in the first place. Duh. And WHY he was looking for ideas to stimulate the economy once in office. And what he found were tax cuts.

Where do your talking points come from?

Not from an accurate reading of history.

 

[Oldstyle]

Can't come up with a single instance where tax increases in a bad economy improved things...can you?

So why then do you support Barack Obama's calling for a tax increase in THIS economy? Is it because you're totally ignorant when it comes to economics and history...or is it because you're an ideologue who would rather see us commit "economic hari-kari" than pursue an economic strategy that makes sense?

You SAID you wanted to argue economics. Does your calling everyone who disputes your unproven assertions a "clown" constitute your idea of an argument? There's nothing more pathetic than someone who fools themselves. In this case you've fooled yourself into thinking you know something about the economic history of the US when in fact you've demonstrated that you know very little about that subject.