Pre-existing conditions coverage

[kaz]

A right winger who is pro-choice, drugs should be legalized, against the death penalty or military incursions. So you are right wing fanatic economically and left wing socially. So what? Sounds to me like you are a mixed up cookie, but at least you are individualized as opposed to sticking with either right wing or left wing propaganda. Personally I am for the death penalty, legalizing drugs, using our military in an attempt to protect the oppressed anywhere and since I am a man abortion is a non-issue to me.

Kaz is more Libertarian.
Which scares the ever loving shit out of libs.

It should scare the ever loving shit out of EVERYONE...

The closest twin we have in America today to the communists and Marxists in Russia are the 'Marketists'; conservatives, libertarians and 'free marketeers' who have turned government nonintervention and 'laissez faire' into a religion. It has created 'malaise faire'

Blind Faith

For a country that has prided itself on its resourcefulness, the inability to address our problems suggests something deeper at work. There is something, powerful but insidious, that blinds us to the causes of these problems and undermines our ability to respond. That something is a set of beliefs, comparable to religious beliefs in earlier ages, about the nature of economies and societies. These beliefs imply the impropriety of government intervention either in social contexts (libertarianism) or in economic affairs (laissez faire).

The faithful unquestioningly embrace the credo that the doctrine of nonintervention has generated our most venerated institutions: our democracy, the best possible political system; and our free market economy, the best possible economic system. But despite our devotion to the dogmas that libertarianism and free market economics are the foundation of all that we cherish most deeply, they have failed us and are responsible for our present malaise.

The pieties of libertarianism and free markets sound pretty, but they cannot withstand even a cursory inspection. Libertarianism does not support democracy; taken to an extreme, it entails the law of the jungle. If government never interferes, we could all get away with murder. Alternatively, if the libertarian position is not to be taken to an extreme, where should it stop? What is the difference between no government and minimal government? Attempts to justify libertarianism, even a less than extreme position, have failed. Laissez faire, or free market economics, characterized by minimal or no government intervention, has a history that is long but undistinguished. Just as the negative effects of a high fever do not certify the health benefits of the opposite extreme, hypothermia, the dismal failure of communism, seeking complete government control of the economy, does not certify the economic benefits of the opposite extreme, total economic non-intervention.
Myths Of The Free Market


Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
Edmund Burke

LOL, people making their own choices is "blind faith." You're a tool of power hungry liberal lawyers, my friend. You trust lawyers. And "I" am the one with "blind faith."

 

[dnsmith35]

It is AMAZING how little right wingers like dnsmith and you, who keeps clinging to his leg know about economics...

NO ONE EVER hired a single worker because of PERSONAL tax cuts. The ONLY reason anyone would ever hire someone is DEMAND...period.

Now take your shoes off and do the math...I gave you the brackets....

Oh yeah, you gave us the brackets and you proved you think like a little man, making little money, and lives from pay check to paycheck. So no, if you get a tax break you will probably sit up all night trying to figure out how to spend it, creating demand. Do you think a guy who makes $400,000 thinks like that? If you do you are more of a fool than I thought you were. Even me, making much less than that, when I get a raise in pay not related to the increase in the cost of living I invested it. Rich people invest a huge % of their money. That is why cutting taxes on the rich is Supply Side, BECAUSE THEY INVEST IT INSTEAD OF SPENDING ALL OF IT. Then you have those whose income is mostly long term capital gain, and they consistently invest more. Your argument that, " NO ONE EVER hired a single worker because of PERSONAL tax cuts. The ONLY reason anyone would ever hire someone is DEMAND...period," is a pile of unmitigated bullshit. The point is, you are just too stupid to understand the principle that the less wealthy spend their tax break creating demand, and the rich invest a LOT of their tax break creating Supply Side Economics.

Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomics that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services as well as invest in capital. According to supply-side economics, consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices; furthermore, the investment and expansion of businesses will increase the demand for employees. Typical policy recommendations of supply-side economists are lower marginal tax rates and less regulation.[1]

The Laffer curve embodies a tenet of supply side economics: that government tax revenues from a specific tax are the same (nil) at 100% tax rates as at 0% tax rates respectively. The tax rate that achieves optimum, or highest government revenues is somewhere in between these two values.[2]

The term "supply-side economics" was thought, for some time, to have been coined by journalist Jude Wanniski in 1975, but according to Robert D. Atkinson's Supply-Side Follies,[3] the term "supply side" ("supply-side fiscalists") was first used by Herbert Stein, a former economic adviser to President Nixon, in 1976, and only later that year was this term repeated by Jude Wanniski. Its use connotes the ideas of economists Robert Mundell and Arthur Laffer. Supply-side economics is likened by critics to "trickle-down economics."
Supply-side economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

supply-side economicsDefinition

An economic theory which holds that reducing tax rates, especially for businesses and wealthy individuals, stimulates savings and investment for the benefit of everyone. also called trickle-down economics.
What is Supply-side Economics? definition and meaning​

Like you said earlier in other words, I can lead you to the data and the definitions, but I can't make you read it, understand it, or digest the information such that you understand its application. IOW you don't know crap about economics, you just parrot your left wing propagandists words.

Again, you show your ignorance.

I show my ignorance by cutting, pasting, and citing economics articles and definition? ROTFLMAO!

dnsmith says: An economic theory holding that bolstering an economy's ability to supply more goods is the most effective way to stimulate economic growth.

I didn't say that. That was an expression of one of the definitions to which I linked earlier. Trying to put words in my mouth is a sign of dementia on your part.

Oats for the horses...

Yes, trickle down economics. It has been used the most by JFK when he cut the top marginal bracket by 26% and the less wealthy tax payer brackets much less; and he lowered Corporate taxes and Capital Gains as well; making his tax cuts much more supply side than demand side.

Now THAT is a pile of unmitigated bullshit. It is the LEAST effective way. As a matter of FACT, only a moron who doesn't understand economics, human nature or the market place would blurt out that kind of UTTER bullshit.

The only one uttering bullshit is you, because you do not understand economics.

You can supply all the goods you want, without a DEMAND for those goods, those goods are worthless.

That is a true statement, unfortunately JFK did not do DEMAND SIDE TAX CUTS, because he dropped the top bracket marginal rates by 26%, clearly SUPPLY SIDE, TRICKLE DOWN TAX CUTS.

forJust like your lick the ass of the opulent 'trickle down' theory.

You have missed the point completely. I am not in favor of "trickle down" theory. All I have done is make sure you understand that JFK's tax cuts were more "trickle down" than demand tax cuts.

Your problem is after you feed the horse's oats, you have the cart before the horse. That explains the brown stuff on your shoes and smell.

Actually the problem is yours because I do not subscribe to "trickle down", that is your wild imagination.

Trickle down is the biggest failure in American history. It has not created anything except DEBT and inequality.

I agree that it did not produce the results JFK wanted, but it did help our economy to a small degree. Even SUPPLY SIDE works sometimes; it depends on the business cycle.

What have 30 years of conservative policies brought? A larger gap between the richest and poorest Americans than has existed at almost any other time in our nation’s history. Stagnating wages for all but the wealthiest Americans. Increased hours, decreased benefits and enormous public debt caused by a financial crisis that was the direct product of the radical deregulation of our financial markets.

Which has nothing to do with JFKS use of trickle down economics.

BTW, until the mild tech regression in 2000, and the housing crash caused great recession, most of the economic markers shows our economic prosperity has gone up in the last 30, even with some bad fiscal and monetary policies. That shows that sometimes the economy will grow even in the face of those bad policies.

I really feel sorry for you because you consistently post what economic policies you don't like and are so ignorant of what they mean you associate your those policies to the wrong people. JFK had the most egregious supply side policies of the last 50 years, yet as SUPPLY SIDE as they were they could not defeat a growing prosperity. What that tells us is, SUPPLY SIDE POLICY WORKS UNDER SOME CONDITIONS and fails under others, requiring more DEMAND SIDE POLICIES.

Lets recap the situation: I have posted definitions of Supply Side Economics and given you links proving what it is, and extrapolating those definitions to prove conclusively that JFK (a president I admired along with his policies) proposed fiscal/monetary policy; much of which did not get through congress until after he was assassinated, and you turn around and accuse me believing things different from all my assertions of which I believe.

You are not only an economics challenged dufus, you like to lie about what I have asserted.

 

[dnsmith35]

Kaz is more Libertarian.
Which scares the ever loving shit out of libs.

It should scare the ever loving shit out of EVERYONE...

The closest twin we have in America today to the communists and Marxists in Russia are the 'Marketists'; conservatives, libertarians and 'free marketeers' who have turned government nonintervention and 'laissez faire' into a religion. It has created 'malaise faire'

Blind Faith

For a country that has prided itself on its resourcefulness, the inability to address our problems suggests something deeper at work. There is something, powerful but insidious, that blinds us to the causes of these problems and undermines our ability to respond. That something is a set of beliefs, comparable to religious beliefs in earlier ages, about the nature of economies and societies. These beliefs imply the impropriety of government intervention either in social contexts (libertarianism) or in economic affairs (laissez faire).

The faithful unquestioningly embrace the credo that the doctrine of nonintervention has generated our most venerated institutions: our democracy, the best possible political system; and our free market economy, the best possible economic system. But despite our devotion to the dogmas that libertarianism and free market economics are the foundation of all that we cherish most deeply, they have failed us and are responsible for our present malaise.

The pieties of libertarianism and free markets sound pretty, but they cannot withstand even a cursory inspection. Libertarianism does not support democracy; taken to an extreme, it entails the law of the jungle. If government never interferes, we could all get away with murder. Alternatively, if the libertarian position is not to be taken to an extreme, where should it stop? What is the difference between no government and minimal government? Attempts to justify libertarianism, even a less than extreme position, have failed. Laissez faire, or free market economics, characterized by minimal or no government intervention, has a history that is long but undistinguished. Just as the negative effects of a high fever do not certify the health benefits of the opposite extreme, hypothermia, the dismal failure of communism, seeking complete government control of the economy, does not certify the economic benefits of the opposite extreme, total economic non-intervention.
Myths Of The Free Market


Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
Edmund Burke

LOL, people making their own choices is "blind faith." You're a tool of power hungry liberal lawyers, my friend. You trust lawyers. And "I" am the one with "blind faith."

Let's go a little further, you, like I, distrust politicians. BFGullible swallows left wing extremism propaganda hook line and sinker.

 

[Bfgrn]

You are now faced with a choice. You are either obtuse or you are a liar...

You said Ronald Reagan left the Democratic Party, because it moved to the left. He became a Republican who is know for 'supply side' economics.

BUT...

JFK had the most egregious supply side policies of the last 50 years

If "JFK had the most egregious supply side policies of the last 50 years' WHY would Reagan switch parties? And HOW could that 'egregious supply side' legislation happen with LBJ and a Democratic party of left wing fanaticism that controlled both houses of Congress and the White House?

So which one is it...obtuse or a liar?

 

[dnsmith35]

You are now faced with a choice. You are either obtuse or you are a liar...

I don't have any choices such as you suggest. I am neither a liar nor obtuse.

You said Ronald Reagan left the Democratic Party, because it moved to the left. He became a Republican who is know for 'supply side.'

Though you left wing extremists accuse Republicans of that, "supply side economics" is an equal party issue which has been practices by both sides.
BUT...

JFK had the most egregious supply side policies of the last 50 years

If "JFK had the most egregious supply side policies of the last 50 years' WHY would Reagan switch parties? And HOW could that 'egregious supply side' legislation happen with LBJ and a Democratic party of left wing fanaticism that controlled both houses of Congress and the White House?

So which one is it...obtuse or a liar?

Again, neither. Since you do not understand what "supply side economics" are, there is no way you will ever understand the important issues. In addition, as I have said several times, it was not JFK Reagan was concerned about, it was the left wing extremism his supporters and advisors (puppeteers). When one compares Reagan's tax policies to JFK's tax policies one could almost believe they are reading from the same book. Using the principle of 100$ of nothing is still nothing, when Reagan cut the top brackets 22% and Kennedy cut the top rate 26% all one has to do is perform a simple mathematical procedure. Assume an entity has earned $1,000,000. at 91% of the top bracket before JFK cut taxes, equals $728,000 and 65% the top bracket equals $520,000 making the net tax cut for JFK in the top brackets on $1Million = $208,00. Whereas Reagans tax cut was from 50% or $400,000 with the tax cut at 28% was $280,000 for a total difference of $120,000.

So to make things easier for you to understand, JFK's top bracket tax cut was $208,000 and Reagan's tax cut was $120,000 such that the difference between the two was $88,000.

Therefore it is easy to see that in fact JFK's top bracket tax cut was much bigger than Reagan's and that makes JFK's tax policy more "supply side" than even Reagan which you extremists have cried and moaned was an outlandish "supply side" tax cut and CLAIMING that JFK's was not a "supply side cut."

Another thing you left wing extremists overlook is, Reagan took over in one of the worst economics conditions of any president, worse even than Obama taking over in his first term. Stagflation was prevalent. Interest rates were out the roof. Prime rate interest was 21.5% in Dec 1980 where as it ranged between 6% to 6.75% in 1977, during the Carter administration. Carter was a great guy, but he did not understand macro-economics and pushed the economy into stagflation (high interest slow economy) What Reagan did was lower interest rates by 10% +. When he took over A major factor in determining the tax burden on lower-income families is the income tax threshold, which is the level at which income becomes subject to tax. The level depends on the personal exemption amount, the number of exemptions, the standard deduction (or zero tax bracket), and certain personal tax credits.

The 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act required personal exemptions and taxable income brackets to be indexed to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) beginning in 1984. The act did not require the earned income tax credit to be indexed.

The 1986 Tax Reform Act raised the zero bracket amount, which was converted back into a standard deduction, and increased the personal exemption and the earned income tax credit. It also required the earned income tax credit to be indexed to the CPI.


1972-78 14% 0 to $1,000....70% on all over $200,000

1979-80 14% 0 to $2,000....70% on all over $212,000

1981..0 to $2,100 13.825%..69% on all over $212,000

1988 0 to 29,750 15%.. 28%on all over $200,000

1989 0 to$15,475 0%.. 33% on $37,425 TO $117,895
I could not find the % for over $117,895 after spending 5 minutes on google.


The difference between you and I is, I understand the tax policy data, and you are completely clueless.

 

[Bfgrn]

You are now faced with a choice. You are either obtuse or you are a liar...

I don't have any choices such as you suggest. I am neither a liar nor obtuse.

You said Ronald Reagan left the Democratic Party, because it moved to the left. He became a Republican who is know for 'supply side.'

Though you left wing extremists accuse Republicans of that, "supply side economics" is an equal party issue which has been practices by both sides.
BUT...



If "JFK had the most egregious supply side policies of the last 50 years' WHY would Reagan switch parties? And HOW could that 'egregious supply side' legislation happen with LBJ and a Democratic party of left wing fanaticism that controlled both houses of Congress and the White House?

So which one is it...obtuse or a liar?

Again, neither. Since you do not understand what "supply side economics" are, there is no way you will ever understand the important issues. In addition, as I have said several times, it was not JFK Reagan was concerned about, it was the left wing extremism his supporters and advisors (puppeteers). When one compares Reagan's tax policies to JFK's tax policies one could almost believe they are reading from the same book. Using the principle of 100$ of nothing is still nothing, when Reagan cut the top brackets 22% and Kennedy cut the top rate 26% all one has to do is perform a simple mathematical procedure. Assume an entity has earned $1,000,000. at 91% of the top bracket before JFK cut taxes, equals $728,000 and 65% the top bracket equals $520,000 making the net tax cut for JFK in the top brackets on $1Million = $208,00. Whereas Reagans tax cut was from 50% or $400,000 with the tax cut at 28% was $280,000 for a total difference of $120,000.

So to make things easier for you to understand, JFK's top bracket tax cut was $208,000 and Reagan's tax cut was $120,000 such that the difference between the two was $88,000.

Therefore it is easy to see that in fact JFK's top bracket tax cut was much bigger than Reagan's and that makes JFK's tax policy more "supply side" than even Reagan which you extremists have cried and moaned was an outlandish "supply side" tax cut and CLAIMING that JFK's was not a "supply side cut."

Another thing you left wing extremists overlook is, Reagan took over in one of the worst economics conditions of any president, worse even than Obama taking over in his first term. Stagflation was prevalent. Interest rates were out the roof. Prime rate interest was 21.5% in Dec 1980 where as it ranged between 6% to 6.75% in 1977, during the Carter administration. Carter was a great guy, but he did not understand macro-economics and pushed the economy into stagflation (high interest slow economy) What Reagan did was lower interest rates by 10% +. When he took over A major factor in determining the tax burden on lower-income families is the income tax threshold, which is the level at which income becomes subject to tax. The level depends on the personal exemption amount, the number of exemptions, the standard deduction (or zero tax bracket), and certain personal tax credits.

The 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act required personal exemptions and taxable income brackets to be indexed to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) beginning in 1984. The act did not require the earned income tax credit to be indexed.

The 1986 Tax Reform Act raised the zero bracket amount, which was converted back into a standard deduction, and increased the personal exemption and the earned income tax credit. It also required the earned income tax credit to be indexed to the CPI.


1972-78 14% 0 to $1,000....70% on all over $200,000

1979-80 14% 0 to $2,000....70% on all over $212,000

1981..0 to $2,100 13.825%..69% on all over $212,000

1988 0 to 29,750 15%.. 28%on all over $200,000

1989 0 to$15,475 0%.. 33% on $37,425 TO $117,895
I could not find the % for over $117,895 after spending 5 minutes on google.


The difference between you and I is, I understand the tax policy data, and you are completely clueless.

Well this post proves you are BOTH obtuse AND a liar.

1) dnsmith35: "it was not JFK Reagan was concerned about, it was the left wing extremism his supporters and advisors (puppeteers)"

JFK never ran on tax cuts. As a matter of fact, Kennedy proposed a balanced budget in his first State of the Union address.

It was his left wing extreme supporters and advisors (puppeteers) who convinced Kennedy to propose the tax cuts.

Obtuse or a lair? BOTH

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) dnsmith35: "Reagan cut the top brackets 22% and Kennedy cut the top rate 26% all one has to do is perform a simple mathematical procedure"

JFK never did cut taxes, the left wing extreme Democratic Party that controlled the White House (LBJ) and both houses of Congress passed your imaginary 'supply side' tax cuts.

The Revenue Act of 1964 reduced top marginal rate from 91% to 70% = 21%

When Ronald Reagan entered office, the top marginal tax rate was 70 percent. When he left office it was just 28 percent = 42%

dnsmith35: Therefore it is easy to see that in fact JFK's top bracket tax cut was much bigger than Reagan's and that makes JFK's tax policy more "supply side" than even Reagan which you extremists have cried and moaned was an outlandish "supply side" tax cut and CLAIMING that JFK's was not a "supply side cut."

FALSE... Reagan's tax cut WERE EXACTLY TWICE AS BIG. 42-21=21..."all one has to do is perform a simple mathematical procedure"

Obtuse or a lair? BOTH

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) dnsmith35: Carter was a great guy, but he did not understand macro-economics and pushed the economy into stagflation (high interest slow economy)

Again, you show that you have ZERO understanding of reality. ALL you are spewing is right wing partisan propaganda. Carter did not push the economy into stagflation. Stagflation began under Nixon and the 1973 oil embargo.

What would have prevented us from enduring the misery of the seventies? Less economic dependence on oil, both in terms of energy and throughout the wider economy. Jimmy Carter made a pitch for it, though the country declined to take him up on it at the time.

Obtuse or a lair? BOTH

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) dnsmith35: What Reagan did was lower interest rates by 10% +.

Presidents do not lower interest rates, the Federal Reserve does.

Obtuse or a lair? BOTH

 

[dnsmith35]

You are now faced with a choice. You are either obtuse or you are a liar...

I don't have any choices such as you suggest. I am neither a liar nor obtuse.

You said Ronald Reagan left the Democratic Party, because it moved to the left. He became a Republican who is know for 'supply side.' Again, neither. Since you do not understand what "supply side economics" are, there is no way you will ever understand the important issues. In addition, as I have said several times, it was not JFK Reagan was concerned about, it was the left wing extremism his supporters and advisors (puppeteers). When one compares Reagan's tax policies to JFK's tax policies one could almost believe they are reading from the same book. Using the principle of 100$ of nothing is still nothing, when Reagan cut the top brackets 22% and Kennedy cut the top rate 26% all one has to do is perform a simple mathematical procedure. Assume an entity has earned $1,000,000. at 91% of the top bracket before JFK cut taxes, equals $728,000 and 65% the top bracket equals $520,000 making the net tax cut for JFK in the top brackets on $1Million = $208,00. Whereas Reagans tax cut was from 50% or $400,000 with the tax cut at 28% was $280,000 for a total difference of $120,000.

So to make things easier for you to understand, JFK's top bracket tax cut was $208,000 and Reagan's tax cut was $120,000 such that the difference between the two was $88,000.

Therefore it is easy to see that in fact JFK's top bracket tax cut was much bigger than Reagan's and that makes JFK's tax policy more "supply side" than even Reagan which you extremists have cried and moaned was an outlandish "supply side" tax cut and CLAIMING that JFK's was not a "supply side cut."

Another thing you left wing extremists overlook is, Reagan took over in one of the worst economics conditions of any president, worse even than Obama taking over in his first term. Stagflation was prevalent. Interest rates were out the roof. Prime rate interest was 21.5% in Dec 1980 where as it ranged between 6% to 6.75% in 1977, during the Carter administration. Carter was a great guy, but he did not understand macro-economics and pushed the economy into stagflation (high interest slow economy) What Reagan did was lower interest rates by 10% +. When he took over A major factor in determining the tax burden on lower-income families is the income tax threshold, which is the level at which income becomes subject to tax. The level depends on the personal exemption amount, the number of exemptions, the standard deduction (or zero tax bracket), and certain personal tax credits.

The 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act required personal exemptions and taxable income brackets to be indexed to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) beginning in 1984. The act did not require the earned income tax credit to be indexed.

The 1986 Tax Reform Act raised the zero bracket amount, which was converted back into a standard deduction, and increased the personal exemption and the earned income tax credit. It also required the earned income tax credit to be indexed to the CPI.


1972-78 14% 0 to $1,000....70% on all over $200,000

1979-80 14% 0 to $2,000....70% on all over $212,000

1981..0 to $2,100 13.825%..69% on all over $212,000

1988 0 to 29,750 15%.. 28%on all over $200,000

1989 0 to$15,475 0%.. 33% on $37,425 TO $117,895
I could not find the % for over $117,895 after spending 5 minutes on google.


The difference between you and I is, I understand the tax policy data, and you are completely clueless.

Well this post proves you are BOTH obtuse AND a liar.

1) dnsmith35: "it was not JFK Reagan was concerned about, it was the left wing extremism his supporters and advisors (puppeteers)"

JFK never ran on tax cuts. As a matter of fact, Kennedy proposed a balanced budget in his first State of the Union address.

It was his left wing extreme supporters and advisors (puppeteers) who convinced Kennedy to propose the tax cuts.

Obtuse or a lair? BOTH

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) dnsmith35: "Reagan cut the top brackets 22% and Kennedy cut the top rate 26% all one has to do is perform a simple mathematical procedure"

JFK never did cut taxes, the left wing extreme Democratic Party that controlled the White House (LBJ) and both houses of Congress passed your imaginary 'supply side' tax cuts.

The Revenue Act of 1964 reduced top marginal rate from 91% to 70% = 21%

When Ronald Reagan entered office, the top marginal tax rate was 70 percent. When he left office it was just 28 percent = 42%

dnsmith35: Therefore it is easy to see that in fact JFK's top bracket tax cut was much bigger than Reagan's and that makes JFK's tax policy more "supply side" than even Reagan which you extremists have cried and moaned was an outlandish "supply side" tax cut and CLAIMING that JFK's was not a "supply side cut."

FALSE... Reagan's tax cut WERE EXACTLY TWICE AS BIG. 42-21=21..."all one has to do is perform a simple mathematical procedure"

Obtuse or a lair? BOTH

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) dnsmith35: Carter was a great guy, but he did not understand macro-economics and pushed the economy into stagflation (high interest slow economy)

Again, you show that you have ZERO understanding of reality. ALL you are spewing is right wing partisan propaganda. Carter did not push the economy into stagflation. Stagflation began under Nixon and the 1973 oil embargo.

What would have prevented us from enduring the misery of the seventies? Less economic dependence on oil, both in terms of energy and throughout the wider economy. Jimmy Carter made a pitch for it, though the country declined to take him up on it at the time.

Obtuse or a lair? BOTH

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) dnsmith35: What Reagan did was lower interest rates by 10% +.

Presidents do not lower interest rates, the Federal Reserve does.

Obtuse or a lair? BOTH

Now who is being obtuse or lying, YOU! You ignorant SOH, when the administration wants to do something, it gets done. How did he get the interest rates down? BY MAKING GOOD ECONOMICS POLICY DECISIONS. Knowing you are economics challenged, I don't expect you to understand anything, and you are so politically challenged I am surprised you are willing to publicize your ignorance by posting it for the world to see. How did Reagan lower taxes for the rich? Not just by cutting the top bracket, but by all the other policy changes he pushed which effectively increased some taxes on the rich based on what was being taxed. Now you are trying to say it was not JFK who reduced the taxes by 21%? After all you touted how LBJ continued JFK's policies by passing the 1964 Tax laws.

History and effects

President John F. Kennedy brought up the issue of tax reduction in his 1963 State of the Union address. His initial plan called for a $13.5 billion tax cut through a reduction of the top income tax rate from 91% to 65%, reduction of the bottom rate from 20% to 14%, and a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 52% to 47%. The first attempt at passing the tax cuts was rejected by Congress in 1963.

Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, and was succeeded by Lyndon Johnson. Johnson was able to achieve Kennedy's goal of a tax cut in exchange for promising a budget not to exceed $100 billion in 1965. The Revenue Act of 1964 emerged from Congress and was signed by Johnson on February 26, 1964.

THE STATED GOAL of the tax cuts were to raise personal incomes, increase consumption, and increase capital investments. Evidence shows that these goals were met to some degree by the tax cut. Unemployment fell from 5.2% in 1964 to 4.5% in 1965, and fell to 3.8% in 1966. Initial estimates predicted a loss of revenue as a result of the tax cuts, however, tax revenue increased in 1964 and 1965.​

Couple that with his corporate tax cuts and changes in the Capital Gains tax, and his tax cuts on the richest Americans was greater, not only in % but by a huge margin in actual taxes from individuals at the top.

BTW, I NEVER SPEW RW PROPAGANDA, and your ignorance about tax cuts/income tax policy is paramount. You are an absolute dunce.

 

[dnsmith35]

After ignoring this thread for the better part of the week, it is obvious that BF gullible has not found any left wing propaganda to refute my assertions.

 

[hazlnut]

This is one of the most popular provisions in an otherwise despised law, Obamacare. It polls consistently well. And it sounds good: Insirance companies cannot deny coverage for pre existing conditions. Right?
But why would they deny coverage to begin with?
When they are forced to issue policies to people with pre existing conditions, who pays for the higher risk the company incurs by insuring them?
I realize these are beyond Stage One questions so the leftists here wont have a clue what I mean. But maybe some of the more informed posters can chime in.

This was originally a CONSERVATIVE idea (Heritage Foundation) -- that if you increased the size of the pool by making everyone buy coverage, then the insurance companies could take on pre-existing conditions.

Before the ACA, the cost to us all of NOT covering preexisting conditions was extremely high -- as evidenced by the crowds at public hospital emergency rooms.

Insurance companies used to manufacture and redefine "Pre-existing" to get out of paying a claim.

 

[g5000]

Keep in mind that this is the first time the govt has ever forced it's citizens to buy a product.

This is actually untrue. The federal government once mandated that all men over the age of 18 must buy a gun.

No, really! The Second Militia Act of 1792. Check it out.

There should be no mandate. Period.

The mandate was a right wing invention. And it was supported and even proposed as law by Republicans in Congress more than once. The Right was all in favor of the mandate...until the Democrats said, "Okay! Let's do that!"

Then the Right suddenly starts mumbling some shit about the Constitution and stuff.

Even so, they chose a guy who forced a mandate on the citizens of his state as their presidential nominee!

We wus fer it afore we wuz agin it.

Positively schizophrenic...

 

[g5000]

The health insurance mandate was invented by the right wing Heritage Foundation. And Senate Republicans not once but twice tried to get it enacted into law. And of course Mitt Romney.

 

[dblack]

Keep in mind that this is the first time the govt has ever forced it's citizens to buy a product.

This is actually untrue. The federal government once mandated that all men over the age of 18 must buy a gun.

No, really!

Does that seem right to you? It's it something we should replicate?

There should be no mandate. Period.

The mandate was a right wing invention. And it was supported and even proposed as law by Republicans in Congress more than once. The Right was all in favor of the mandate...until the Democrats said, "Okay! Let's do that!"

Ok. So what? I mean, is there really any doubt, at this point, that Republicans come up with really stupid fucking ideas? Why would Democrats implement Republican policies?? What's the point of a two-party system if they're both going to shovel the same bullshit?

 

[dblack]

As a topic for conversation, the pre-existing conditions coverage mandate is useful in the same way that minimum wage is: as a litmus test for rational capacity.

 

[Bfgrn]

After ignoring this thread for the better part of the week, it is obvious that BF gullible has not found any left wing propaganda to refute my assertions.

Your assertions? Let's recap those assertions...

Ronald Reagan was a JFK Democrat, even though he voted for Nixon in '60, Eisenhower in '52 and '56 and had changed parties almost a decade before Kennedy ran for President. Ronald Reagan, the very same JFK Democrat who was a paid advocate for the elite AMA who used fear-mongering and red scare propaganda to try to defeat Kennedy's most significant liberal Democrat proposal...Medicare.

Ronald Reagan liked JFK, but as you "said several times, it was not JFK Reagan was concerned about, it was the left wing extremism his supporters and advisors (puppeteers)"

Yet the JFK proposed tax cuts you claim are supply side were never Kennedy's idea. The tax cuts were the idea of the very same "left wing extremism (of) his supporters and advisors (puppeteers)". They were based on demand-side Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity.

You claim Kennedy listened to Arthur Laffer, even though Laffer was still in college at the time and his 'Laffer curve' was not invented until a decade later.

You claim Kennedy's tax cuts were supply-side based on the fact the top marginal tax rate was lowered by 21%. But you show ZERO common sense or that you have any grasp of reality. The top marginal rate was originally highly inflated to pay for WWII. Once that purpose was completed it made sense to lower the top rate.

I will try to make it simple for even YOU to comprehend.

Your home thermostat is set at 91 degrees and it is extremely uncomfortable in your house. Your neighbor Jack stops over and recommends lowering the thermostat to 70 degrees.

Now, your neighbor Ronny the ideologue stops over. You tell him that you solved the problem. But Ronny claims if lowering the temperature from 91 degrees to 70 degrees is good, then lowering it from 70 degrees to 28 degrees has to be even better. And you are stupid enough to believe him.

If the Kennedy tax cuts were supply side, why don't supply siders recommend we go back to the Kennedy tax rates?

Your supply side claim is based solely on comparing the very top rate against the very bottom rate using Jethro Bodine ciphering. I gave you the brackets and recommended you do some math...crickets.

For someone who claims to have a degree in economics, you FAIL at basic math. You are a simple minded ideologue.

Here is a 7th grade primer Jethro...

Proportions explained for Jethro Bodine

The Kennedy tax cuts:

The top marginal rate dropped from 91 percent to 70 percent, which represented a 23 percent cut. The bottom rate dropped from 20 percent to 14 percent, which represented a 30 percent cut. If made $10,000 your taxes were cut by 44%. If you made $15,000 your taxes were cut by 45.5%. If you made $20,000 your taxes were cut by 45.2%. If you made $30,000 your taxes were cut by 38.8%. If you made $40,000 your taxes were cut by 34%. If you made $50,000 your taxes were cut by 28.7%. If you made $60,000 your taxes were cut by 27.3%.

 

[dnsmith35]

dnsmith35 said, "After ignoring this thread for the better part of the week, it is obvious that BF gullible has not found any left wing propaganda to refute my assertions

Your assertions? Let's recap those assertions...

Ronald Reagan was a JFK Democrat, even though he voted for Nixon in '60, Eisenhower in '52 and '56 and had changed parties almost a decade before Kennedy ran for President. Ronald Reagan, the very same JFK Democrat who was a paid advocate for the elite AMA who used fear-mongering and red scare propaganda to try to defeat Kennedy's most significant liberal Democrat proposal...Medicare.

Ronald Reagan liked JFK, but as you "said several times, it was not JFK Reagan was concerned about, it was the left wing extremism his supporters and advisors (puppeteers)"

Absolutely correct, and your left wing extremism recognized, you are incapable of understanding the facts.

Yet the JFK proposed tax cuts you claim are supply side were never Kennedy's idea. The tax cuts were the idea of the very same "left wing extremism (of) his supporters and advisors (puppeteers)". They were based on demand-side Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity.

No matter how much you believed the rhetoric of the JFK administration (for whom I voted and would have a second time) when the top brackets marginal tax rates are cut a higher % than the lower brackets and when corporate income tax is cut, IT IS DEFINITELY SUPPLY SIDE NO MATTER WHAT THEY SAY IT IS. THEMS THE FACTS, and it tells us you are economics challenged to the nnth degree.

You claim Kennedy listened to Arthur Laffer, even though Laffer was still in college at the time and his 'Laffer curve' was not invented until a decade later.

He listened to the concept, whether he got it from Laffer while he was in college or not, from one of the other economists from which Laffer got his concept that there is a point in high bracket taxation beyond which reduces federal revenue. This being such a minor point on which you choose to dwell further shows your ignorance.

You claim Kennedy's tax cuts were supply-side based on the fact the top marginal tax rate was lowered by 21%. But you show ZERO common sense or that you have any grasp of reality. The top marginal rate was originally highly inflated to pay for WWII. Once that purpose was completed it made sense to lower the top rate.

If Kennedy was president during Eisenhower's administration I would consider that point.

I will try to make it simple for even YOU to comprehend.

Nothing you have ever said is difficult to comprehend, most of it is just stupid.

Your home thermostat is set at 91 degrees and it is extremely uncomfortable in your house. Your neighbor Jack stops over and recommends lowering the thermostat to 70 degrees.

Irrelevant bullshit.

Now, your neighbor Ronny the ideologue stops over. You tell him that you solved the problem. But Ronny claims if lowering the temperature from 91 degrees to 70 degrees is good, then lowering it from 70 degrees to 28 degrees has to be even better. And you are stupid enough to believe him.

No, but you are stupid enough to tell us that bullshit.

If the Kennedy tax cuts were supply side, why don't supply siders recommend we go back to the Kennedy tax rates?

Kennedy tax cuts WERE DEFINITELY SUPPLY SIDE AND TRUE SUPPLY SIDERS WANT TO GO FURTHER. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THEM.

Your supply side claim is based solely on comparing the very top rate against the very bottom rate using Jethro Bodine ciphering. I gave you the brackets and recommended you do some math...crickets.

Having studied income tax brackets and marginal rates I will let your insulting comment go SWOOSH, and ignore it.

For someone who claims to have a degree in economics, you FAIL at basic math. You are a simple minded ideologue.

The fact is really you are so economics challenged you cannot present a reasonable explanation of your own opinions, much less mine.

The Kennedy tax cuts:

The top marginal rate dropped from 91 percent to 70 percent, which represented a 23 percent cut. The bottom rate dropped from 20 percent to 14 percent, which represented a 30 percent cut. If made $10,000 your taxes were cut by 44%. If you made $15,000 your taxes were cut by 45.5%. If you made $20,000 your taxes were cut by 45.2%. If you made $30,000 your taxes were cut by 38.8%. If you made $40,000 your taxes were cut by 34%. If you made $50,000 your taxes were cut by 28.7%. If you made $60,000 your taxes were cut by 27.3%.

Your inability to understand marginal rates and tax brackets are noted. The 21% RATE cut of all over the top bracket and the corporate tax rate cuts were traditional SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMIC TAX CUTS. They were larger rate cuts were greater in % than the 20% to 14%. We can stop right there with no further discussion because if you don't recognize that the top rate % was a greater % cut than the bottom rate % cut you are too ignorant to understand.

Cutting the top marginal rate by a greater rate than the lower bracket % cut is in and of itself Supply side in according to every reasonable definition of the term. By cutting corporate income tax it further proves it is supply side. If your love for JFK keeps you from understanding that, you are ineluctable, and stubbornly stupid.

sup·ply-side ec·o·nom·ics
1.economics of production: economic policies that promote conditions favoring the producers of goods and services supply side economics definition - Bing


supply-side economics
Definition

An economic theory which holds that reducing tax rates, especially for businesses and wealthy individuals, stimulates savings and investment for the benefit of everyone. also called trickle-down economics.
What is Supply-side Economics? definition and meaning

What Is Supply-side Economics?:

Supply-side economics, also known as trickle-down economics, is an economic theory that states that a reduction in taxes will stimulate the economy through increased consumer spending.

A lot depends on which segment of society gets the tax cuts. Studies show that tax cuts to lower income families are more likely to be directly translated into increased spending. This boosts demand and economic growth. The same tax cuts to higher income families can instead be used to pay off debt, invested or saved. This could help the stock market or banks, but isn't as powerful an economic stimulus because it doesn't drive increased sales at the cash register. Read more at:

Supply-side Economics Definition and Studies that Support Supply-side Economics then maybe, just maybe you might start to understand what Supply Side Economics really is.

If you still believe that cutting the top income bracket rates more than the lower bracket rates and cutting corporate income tax rates is not supply side economics you are simply too stupid to discuss the demand vs supply sides of economics. Your left wing extremism just won't let you believe that your darling JFK could ever be Supply Side, and you believe his political rhetoric without fail.

 

[Bfgrn]

dnsmith35 said, "After ignoring this thread for the better part of the week, it is obvious that BF gullible has not found any left wing propaganda to refute my assertions

Your assertions? Let's recap those assertions...

Ronald Reagan was a JFK Democrat, even though he voted for Nixon in '60, Eisenhower in '52 and '56 and had changed parties almost a decade before Kennedy ran for President. Ronald Reagan, the very same JFK Democrat who was a paid advocate for the elite AMA who used fear-mongering and red scare propaganda to try to defeat Kennedy's most significant liberal Democrat proposal...Medicare.

Ronald Reagan liked JFK, but as you "said several times, it was not JFK Reagan was concerned about, it was the left wing extremism his supporters and advisors (puppeteers)"

Absolutely correct, and your left wing extremism recognized, you are incapable of understanding the facts.

Yet the JFK proposed tax cuts you claim are supply side were never Kennedy's idea. The tax cuts were the idea of the very same "left wing extremism (of) his supporters and advisors (puppeteers)". They were based on demand-side Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity.

No matter how much you believed the rhetoric of the JFK administration (for whom I voted and would have a second time) when the top brackets marginal tax rates are cut a higher % than the lower brackets and when corporate income tax is cut, IT IS DEFINITELY SUPPLY SIDE NO MATTER WHAT THEY SAY IT IS. THEMS THE FACTS, and it tells us you are economics challenged to the nnth degree. He listened to the concept, whether he got it from Laffer while he was in college or not, from one of the other economists from which Laffer got his concept that there is a point in high bracket taxation beyond which reduces federal revenue. This being such a minor point on which you choose to dwell further shows your ignorance. If Kennedy was president during Eisenhower's administration I would consider that point. Nothing you have ever said is difficult to comprehend, most of it is just stupid. Irrelevant bullshit. No, but you are stupid enough to tell us that bullshit. Kennedy tax cuts WERE DEFINITELY SUPPLY SIDE AND TRUE SUPPLY SIDERS WANT TO GO FURTHER. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THEM. Having studied income tax brackets and marginal rates I will let your insulting comment go SWOOSH, and ignore it.

For someone who claims to have a degree in economics, you FAIL at basic math. You are a simple minded ideologue.

The fact is really you are so economics challenged you cannot present a reasonable explanation of your own opinions, much less mine.

The Kennedy tax cuts:

The top marginal rate dropped from 91 percent to 70 percent, which represented a 23 percent cut. The bottom rate dropped from 20 percent to 14 percent, which represented a 30 percent cut. If made $10,000 your taxes were cut by 44%. If you made $15,000 your taxes were cut by 45.5%. If you made $20,000 your taxes were cut by 45.2%. If you made $30,000 your taxes were cut by 38.8%. If you made $40,000 your taxes were cut by 34%. If you made $50,000 your taxes were cut by 28.7%. If you made $60,000 your taxes were cut by 27.3%.

Your inability to understand marginal rates and tax brackets are noted. The 21% RATE cut of all over the top bracket and the corporate tax rate cuts were traditional SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMIC TAX CUTS. They were larger rate cuts were greater in % than the 20% to 14%. We can stop right there with no further discussion because if you don't recognize that the top rate % was a greater % cut than the bottom rate % cut you are too ignorant to understand.

Cutting the top marginal rate by a greater rate than the lower bracket % cut is in and of itself Supply side in according to every reasonable definition of the term. By cutting corporate income tax it further proves it is supply side. If your love for JFK keeps you from understanding that, you are ineluctable, and stubbornly stupid.

sup·ply-side ec·o·nom·ics
1.economics of production: economic policies that promote conditions favoring the producers of goods and services supply side economics definition - Bing


supply-side economics
Definition

An economic theory which holds that reducing tax rates, especially for businesses and wealthy individuals, stimulates savings and investment for the benefit of everyone. also called trickle-down economics.
What is Supply-side Economics? definition and meaning

What Is Supply-side Economics?:

Supply-side economics, also known as trickle-down economics, is an economic theory that states that a reduction in taxes will stimulate the economy through increased consumer spending.

A lot depends on which segment of society gets the tax cuts. Studies show that tax cuts to lower income families are more likely to be directly translated into increased spending. This boosts demand and economic growth. The same tax cuts to higher income families can instead be used to pay off debt, invested or saved. This could help the stock market or banks, but isn't as powerful an economic stimulus because it doesn't drive increased sales at the cash register. Read more at:

Supply-side Economics Definition and Studies that Support Supply-side Economics then maybe, just maybe you might start to understand what Supply Side Economics really is.

If you still believe that cutting the top income bracket rates more than the lower bracket rates and cutting corporate income tax rates is not supply side economics you are simply too stupid to discuss the demand vs supply sides of economics. Your left wing extremism just won't let you believe that your darling JFK could ever be Supply Side, and you believe his political rhetoric without fail.

That's it...double down Jethro. The top income bracket rates were NOT cut more than the lower bracket rates.

It is not Jethro Bodine ciphering. It is REAL math...

...Income..........1953.......1964.......% of 1953 tax.....% of tax cut
$002,000.00......20.0%.....14.0% .....70.0%................30.0%
$010,000.00......42.0%.....23.5% .....56.0%................44.0%
$015,000.00......56.0%.....30.5% .....54.5%................45.5%
$020,000.00......62.0%.....34.0% .....54.8%................45.2%
$030,000.00......67.0%.....41.0% .....61.2%................38.8%
$040,000.00......72.0%.....47.5% .....66.0%................34.0%
$050,000.00......75.0%.....53.5% .....71.3%................28.7%
$060,000.00......77.0%.....56.0% .....72.7%................27.3%
$200,000.00......91.0%.....70.0% .....76.9%................23.1%

 

[KissMy]

That's it...double down Jethro. The top income bracket rates were NOT cut more than the lower bracket rates.

It is not Jethro Bodine ciphering. It is REAL math...

...Income..........1953.......1964.......% of 1953 tax.....% of tax cut
$002,000.00......20.0%.....14.0% .....70.0%................30.0%
$010,000.00......42.0%.....23.5% .....56.0%................44.0%
$015,000.00......56.0%.....30.5% .....54.5%................45.5%
$020,000.00......62.0%.....34.0% .....54.8%................45.2%
$030,000.00......67.0%.....41.0% .....61.2%................38.8%
$040,000.00......72.0%.....47.5% .....66.0%................34.0%
$050,000.00......75.0%.....53.5% .....71.3%................28.7%
$060,000.00......77.0%.....56.0% .....72.7%................27.3%
$200,000.00......91.0%.....70.0% .....76.9%................23.1%

Payroll taxes paid by the poor & middle class that fund the government were raised by Reagan to fund tax cuts for the rich.

 

[dnsmith35]

That's it...double down Jethro. The top income bracket rates were NOT cut more than the lower bracket rates.

It is not Jethro Bodine ciphering. It is REAL math...

...Income..........1953.......1964.......% of 1953 tax.....% of tax cut
$002,000.00......20.0%.....14.0% .....70.0%................30.0%
$010,000.00......42.0%.....23.5% .....56.0%................44.0%
$015,000.00......56.0%.....30.5% .....54.5%................45.5%
$020,000.00......62.0%.....34.0% .....54.8%................45.2%
$030,000.00......67.0%.....41.0% .....61.2%................38.8%
$040,000.00......72.0%.....47.5% .....66.0%................34.0%
$050,000.00......75.0%.....53.5% .....71.3%................28.7%
$060,000.00......77.0%.....56.0% .....72.7%................27.3%
$200,000.00......91.0%.....70.0% .....76.9%................23.1%

Payroll taxes paid by the poor & middle class that fund the government were raised by Reagan to fund tax cuts for the rich.

Oh? Are you saying you want to change the Social Security System started by our Democrat president FDR? It was created as an INSURANCE PROGRAM for DISABILITY AND OLD AGE PENSIION. Though it is commonly referred to as PAYROLL TAX, the FICA stands for Federal Insurance Contributions Act, so in actuality they are insurance PREMIUMS. In addition, raising the premiums to correspond to reasonable actuarial premiums they had to be raised and should be raised again. The Earned Income Tax Credit was created to off set those premiums to qualified workers (various issues/mostly poverty). So effectively, those who are low income end up getting all or most of their PAYROLL TAXES BACK.

Now, what we need to do is ELIMINATE THE CAPS ON THE INCOME from which FICA is collected. That will keep it solvent into perpetutity.

 

[dnsmith35]

dnsmith35 said, "After ignoring this thread for the better part of the week, it is obvious that BF gullible has not found any left wing propaganda to refute my assertions

Your assertions? Let's recap those assertions...

Ronald Reagan was a JFK Democrat, even though he voted for Nixon in '60, Eisenhower in '52 and '56 and had changed parties almost a decade before Kennedy ran for President. Ronald Reagan, the very same JFK Democrat who was a paid advocate for the elite AMA who used fear-mongering and red scare propaganda to try to defeat Kennedy's most significant liberal Democrat proposal...Medicare.

Ronald Reagan liked JFK, but as you "said several times, it was not JFK Reagan was concerned about, it was the left wing extremism his supporters and advisors (puppeteers)"

Absolutely correct, and your left wing extremism recognized, you are incapable of understanding the facts. No matter how much you believed the rhetoric of the JFK administration (for whom I voted and would have a second time) when the top brackets marginal tax rates are cut a higher % than the lower brackets and when corporate income tax is cut, IT IS DEFINITELY SUPPLY SIDE NO MATTER WHAT THEY SAY IT IS. THEMS THE FACTS, and it tells us you are economics challenged to the nnth degree. He listened to the concept, whether he got it from Laffer while he was in college or not, from one of the other economists from which Laffer got his concept that there is a point in high bracket taxation beyond which reduces federal revenue. This being such a minor point on which you choose to dwell further shows your ignorance. If Kennedy was president during Eisenhower's administration I would consider that point. Nothing you have ever said is difficult to comprehend, most of it is just stupid. Irrelevant bullshit. No, but you are stupid enough to tell us that bullshit. Kennedy tax cuts WERE DEFINITELY SUPPLY SIDE AND TRUE SUPPLY SIDERS WANT TO GO FURTHER. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THEM. Having studied income tax brackets and marginal rates I will let your insulting comment go SWOOSH, and ignore it. The fact is really you are so economics challenged you cannot present a reasonable explanation of your own opinions, much less mine.

The Kennedy tax cuts:

The top marginal rate dropped from 91 percent to 70 percent, which represented a 23 percent cut. The bottom rate dropped from 20 percent to 14 percent, which represented a 30 percent cut. If made $10,000 your taxes were cut by 44%. If you made $15,000 your taxes were cut by 45.5%. If you made $20,000 your taxes were cut by 45.2%. If you made $30,000 your taxes were cut by 38.8%. If you made $40,000 your taxes were cut by 34%. If you made $50,000 your taxes were cut by 28.7%. If you made $60,000 your taxes were cut by 27.3%.

Your inability to understand marginal rates and tax brackets are noted. The 21% RATE cut of all over the top bracket and the corporate tax rate cuts were traditional SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMIC TAX CUTS. They were larger rate cuts were greater in % than the 20% to 14%. We can stop right there with no further discussion because if you don't recognize that the top rate % was a greater % cut than the bottom rate % cut you are too ignorant to understand.

Cutting the top marginal rate by a greater rate than the lower bracket % cut is in and of itself Supply side in according to every reasonable definition of the term. By cutting corporate income tax it further proves it is supply side. If your love for JFK keeps you from understanding that, you are ineluctable, and stubbornly stupid.

sup·ply-side ec·o·nom·ics
1.economics of production: economic policies that promote conditions favoring the producers of goods and services supply side economics definition - Bing


supply-side economics
Definition

An economic theory which holds that reducing tax rates, especially for businesses and wealthy individuals, stimulates savings and investment for the benefit of everyone. also called trickle-down economics.
What is Supply-side Economics? definition and meaning

What Is Supply-side Economics?:

Supply-side economics, also known as trickle-down economics, is an economic theory that states that a reduction in taxes will stimulate the economy through increased consumer spending.

A lot depends on which segment of society gets the tax cuts. Studies show that tax cuts to lower income families are more likely to be directly translated into increased spending. This boosts demand and economic growth. The same tax cuts to higher income families can instead be used to pay off debt, invested or saved. This could help the stock market or banks, but isn't as powerful an economic stimulus because it doesn't drive increased sales at the cash register. Read more at:

Supply-side Economics Definition and Studies that Support Supply-side Economics then maybe, just maybe you might start to understand what Supply Side Economics really is.

If you still believe that cutting the top income bracket rates more than the lower bracket rates and cutting corporate income tax rates is not supply side economics you are simply too stupid to discuss the demand vs supply sides of economics. Your left wing extremism just won't let you believe that your darling JFK could ever be Supply Side, and you believe his political rhetoric without fail.

That's it...double down Jethro. The top income bracket rates were NOT cut more than the lower bracket rates.

It is not Jethro Bodine ciphering. It is REAL math...

...Income..........1953.......1964.......% of 1953 tax.....% of tax cut
$002,000.00......20.0%.....14.0% .....70.0%................30.0%
$010,000.00......42.0%.....23.5% .....56.0%................44.0%
$015,000.00......56.0%.....30.5% .....54.5%................45.5%
$020,000.00......62.0%.....34.0% .....54.8%................45.2%
$030,000.00......67.0%.....41.0% .....61.2%................38.8%
$040,000.00......72.0%.....47.5% .....66.0%................34.0%
$050,000.00......75.0%.....53.5% .....71.3%................28.7%
$060,000.00......77.0%.....56.0% .....72.7%................27.3%
$200,000.00......91.0%.....70.0% .....76.9%................23.1%

I agree, it has NEVER BEEN JETHRO BODINE CIPHERING. It has always been reality.

Cutting the lowest rates by 6% and the top rates by 21% IS SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS, especially when CORPORATE RATES ARE CUT ALSO. As clearly stipulated by the following definitions/explanations. Some people are just so ate up with their own propaganda they are incapable of intellectually absorbing reality. Some left wing extremist told you they were demand side cuts and you will believe what was said to the death. In addition, we have yet to discuss any of this in the context of them being good or bad, but rather only in the context of your left wing extremist elitist propaganda. NOW, TRIPPLE DOWN ON REALITY.
supply-side economics
Definition

An economic theory which holds that reducing tax rates, especially for businesses and wealthy individuals, stimulates savings and investment for the benefit of everyone. also called trickle-down economics.
What is Supply-side Economics? definition and meaning

What Is Supply-side Economics?:

Supply-side economics, also known as trickle-down economics, is an economic theory that states that a reduction in taxes will stimulate the economy through increased consumer spending.

A lot depends on which segment of society gets the tax cuts. Studies show that tax cuts to lower income families are more likely to be directly translated into increased spending. This boosts demand and economic growth. The same tax cuts to higher income families can instead be used to pay off debt, invested or saved. This could help the stock market or banks, but isn't as powerful an economic stimulus because it doesn't drive increased sales at the cash register. Read more at:

Supply-side Economics Definition and Studies that Support Supply-side Economics then maybe, just maybe you might start to understand what Supply Side Economics really is.

If you still believe that cutting the top income bracket rates more than the lower bracket rates and cutting corporate income tax rates is not supply side economics you are simply too stupid to discuss the demand vs supply sides of economics. Your left wing extremism just won't let you believe that your darling JFK could ever be Supply Side, and you believe his political rhetoric without fail.

BTW, one of your issues of misunderstanding tax cuts can be summed up by the old adage, "100% of nothing is still nothing," IE, 30% of 20% is a whole lot less in magnitude than 21% of a much larger amount of money is multitudes more than 30% of 20%. 30% of 20% is 6%. 21% of 91% is 19%. As you stated, you can't even cypher as well as Jethro.

 

[Bfgrn]

Absolutely correct, and your left wing extremism recognized, you are incapable of understanding the facts. No matter how much you believed the rhetoric of the JFK administration (for whom I voted and would have a second time) when the top brackets marginal tax rates are cut a higher % than the lower brackets and when corporate income tax is cut, IT IS DEFINITELY SUPPLY SIDE NO MATTER WHAT THEY SAY IT IS. THEMS THE FACTS, and it tells us you are economics challenged to the nnth degree. He listened to the concept, whether he got it from Laffer while he was in college or not, from one of the other economists from which Laffer got his concept that there is a point in high bracket taxation beyond which reduces federal revenue. This being such a minor point on which you choose to dwell further shows your ignorance. If Kennedy was president during Eisenhower's administration I would consider that point. Nothing you have ever said is difficult to comprehend, most of it is just stupid. Irrelevant bullshit. No, but you are stupid enough to tell us that bullshit. Kennedy tax cuts WERE DEFINITELY SUPPLY SIDE AND TRUE SUPPLY SIDERS WANT TO GO FURTHER. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THEM. Having studied income tax brackets and marginal rates I will let your insulting comment go SWOOSH, and ignore it. The fact is really you are so economics challenged you cannot present a reasonable explanation of your own opinions, much less mine. Your inability to understand marginal rates and tax brackets are noted. The 21% RATE cut of all over the top bracket and the corporate tax rate cuts were traditional SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMIC TAX CUTS. They were larger rate cuts were greater in % than the 20% to 14%. We can stop right there with no further discussion because if you don't recognize that the top rate % was a greater % cut than the bottom rate % cut you are too ignorant to understand.

Cutting the top marginal rate by a greater rate than the lower bracket % cut is in and of itself Supply side in according to every reasonable definition of the term. By cutting corporate income tax it further proves it is supply side. If your love for JFK keeps you from understanding that, you are ineluctable, and stubbornly stupid.

sup·ply-side ec·o·nom·ics
1.economics of production: economic policies that promote conditions favoring the producers of goods and services supply side economics definition - Bing


supply-side economics
Definition

An economic theory which holds that reducing tax rates, especially for businesses and wealthy individuals, stimulates savings and investment for the benefit of everyone. also called trickle-down economics.
What is Supply-side Economics? definition and meaning

What Is Supply-side Economics?:

Supply-side economics, also known as trickle-down economics, is an economic theory that states that a reduction in taxes will stimulate the economy through increased consumer spending.

A lot depends on which segment of society gets the tax cuts. Studies show that tax cuts to lower income families are more likely to be directly translated into increased spending. This boosts demand and economic growth. The same tax cuts to higher income families can instead be used to pay off debt, invested or saved. This could help the stock market or banks, but isn't as powerful an economic stimulus because it doesn't drive increased sales at the cash register. Read more at:

Supply-side Economics Definition and Studies that Support Supply-side Economics then maybe, just maybe you might start to understand what Supply Side Economics really is.

If you still believe that cutting the top income bracket rates more than the lower bracket rates and cutting corporate income tax rates is not supply side economics you are simply too stupid to discuss the demand vs supply sides of economics. Your left wing extremism just won't let you believe that your darling JFK could ever be Supply Side, and you believe his political rhetoric without fail.

That's it...double down Jethro. The top income bracket rates were NOT cut more than the lower bracket rates.

It is not Jethro Bodine ciphering. It is REAL math...

...Income..........1953.......1964.......% of 1953 tax.....% of tax cut
$002,000.00......20.0%.....14.0% .....70.0%................30.0%
$010,000.00......42.0%.....23.5% .....56.0%................44.0%
$015,000.00......56.0%.....30.5% .....54.5%................45.5%
$020,000.00......62.0%.....34.0% .....54.8%................45.2%
$030,000.00......67.0%.....41.0% .....61.2%................38.8%
$040,000.00......72.0%.....47.5% .....66.0%................34.0%
$050,000.00......75.0%.....53.5% .....71.3%................28.7%
$060,000.00......77.0%.....56.0% .....72.7%................27.3%
$200,000.00......91.0%.....70.0% .....76.9%................23.1%

I agree, it has NEVER BEEN JETHRO BODINE CIPHERING. It has always been reality.

Cutting the lowest rates by 6% and the top rates by 21% IS SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS, especially when CORPORATE RATES ARE CUT ALSO. As clearly stipulated by the following definitions/explanations. Some people are just so ate up with their own propaganda they are incapable of intellectually absorbing reality. Some left wing extremist told you they were demand side cuts and you will believe what was said to the death. In addition, we have yet to discuss any of this in the context of them being good or bad, but rather only in the context of your left wing extremist elitist propaganda. NOW, TRIPPLE DOWN ON REALITY.
supply-side economics
Definition

An economic theory which holds that reducing tax rates, especially for businesses and wealthy individuals, stimulates savings and investment for the benefit of everyone. also called trickle-down economics.
What is Supply-side Economics? definition and meaning

What Is Supply-side Economics?:

Supply-side economics, also known as trickle-down economics, is an economic theory that states that a reduction in taxes will stimulate the economy through increased consumer spending.

A lot depends on which segment of society gets the tax cuts. Studies show that tax cuts to lower income families are more likely to be directly translated into increased spending. This boosts demand and economic growth. The same tax cuts to higher income families can instead be used to pay off debt, invested or saved. This could help the stock market or banks, but isn't as powerful an economic stimulus because it doesn't drive increased sales at the cash register. Read more at:

Supply-side Economics Definition and Studies that Support Supply-side Economics then maybe, just maybe you might start to understand what Supply Side Economics really is.

If you still believe that cutting the top income bracket rates more than the lower bracket rates and cutting corporate income tax rates is not supply side economics you are simply too stupid to discuss the demand vs supply sides of economics. Your left wing extremism just won't let you believe that your darling JFK could ever be Supply Side, and you believe his political rhetoric without fail.

BTW, one of your issues of misunderstanding tax cuts can be summed up by the old adage, "100% of nothing is still nothing," IE, 30% of 20% is a whole lot less in magnitude than 21% of a much larger amount of money is multitudes more than 30% of 20%. 30% of 20% is 6%. 21% of 91% is 19%. As you stated, you can't even cypher as well as Jethro.

A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.
Oscar Wilde

The old adage, "100% of nothing is still nothing" does not apply. Your cavalier attitude toward the working man has reared it's ugly head in this post and others.

We are not talking about "nothing" you ass. We are talking about hard earned wages. We are talking about families and HUMAN BEINGS you elitist moron.

That "30% of 20% is a whole lot MORE in magnitude to people who are trying to make ends meet.

You are NO liberal. No one with your ignorance and elitist attitude is a liberal.

YOU are the elitist.