Reagan's True Legacy: Terminating the American Dream

[Big Fitz]

Pre-Reagan, America had a steel industry.
Post-Reagan, little steel industry left to speak of.

Intellectually dishonest. Reagan did nothing to PROTECT the steel industry and unions from their own bad choices. These consequences were going to happen regardless of who was president, and had started back in the 70's under Ford.

Pre-Reagan, America had a viable U.S. auto industry.
Post Reagan, mostly Japanese autos being bought.

Again, nothing to do with Reagan, unless you demand that he protect an industry from itself again. The oil embargos, CAFE standards and 55mph speed limits (from the Carter admin) and Union sclerosis (protecting incompetence and waste) combined with the budding Japanese car manufacturers producing better quality, gas efficient and cheap cars that the American consumer could afford at that time while their gas hog land yachts went obsolete with expensive gas. Again, not Reagan's fault.

Pre-Reagan, small retailers still existed in large numbers.
Post-Reagan, corporate chain retailers mushroomed.

You mean small retailers charging premium prices because there was no serious competition to them in most areas? Before big market chains realized that store brands with special deals could be MORE profitable even when priced lower than premium brands? This is not Reagan's fault either.

You are bitching about American society changing based on the values of it's pocketbook and ability for manufacturing overseas to compete. Honestly, most of this did not happen till the HW Bush and Clinton Administrations, pushed through free trade agreements, NAFTA, CAFTA and FTAA plus the Chinese most favored trade status. Then companies big enough could get even more good cheaply and compete by volume, driving the high priced small businesses under.

Of course, you want to believe that this caused a loss of jobs because of all the businesses that failed. Unfortunately, it was about a wash for all the 'remorae' like retailers and services that often sprung up in the periphery of a big box store or Walmart in little mini-malls. The employee wages didn't drop either, but often remained the same: low paying for low skill jobs for the young and elderly or stupid.

Quit crying over something that never happened; meaning it wasn't Reagan's fault but the economy... stupid.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Jane White: Reagan's True Legacy: Terminating the American Dream


Wonder why we've got record federal deficits? Much of the cause stems from Reagan's corporate tax breaks; by 1983 the portion of tax receipts derived from corporate income taxes dropped to an all-time low of 6.2%, down from 12.5% in 1980 and 32.1% in 1952.

Why don't you move to Russia if you want Government stealing wealth from those that actually make something of themselves?

Why don't you go fuck yourself and the pony you rode in on twit. Our representatives are chosen by the people to do our work. They are fully authorized to spend tax money by law. If you don't like that maybe you should go find a more suitable country to infest.

So you are saying that it is the socialist idiots on the left who voted for these idiot socialists in gov't.? figures. Reagan the best, obama the worst.

 

[sangha]

Jane White: Reagan's True Legacy: Terminating the American Dream


Wonder why we've got record federal deficits? Much of the cause stems from Reagan's corporate tax breaks; by 1983 the portion of tax receipts derived from corporate income taxes dropped to an all-time low of 6.2%, down from 12.5% in 1980 and 32.1% in 1952.

Socialist bullshit. Go and kiss puitns but if you do not like it here idiot.

Numbers don't lie. Under Reagan, tax receipts, spending, and budget deficits all INCREASED RAPIDLY

 

[Big Fitz]

Yeah...it's the corporate tax rate

And don't forget, every consumer pays for the corporate tax rate, as it is factored into the price of every service and good purchased by a manufacturer doing business in this nation.

Just think. Eliminate that, and you receive in essence about a 39% pay increase.

fascinating, isn't it?

 

[AmericanFirst]

Reagan rode into town with a feel good message for a populace being confronted by Jimmy Carter's gloom and doom lamentations.

One thing that can't be taken away from Ronnie was , he knew how to work a crowd, and essentially served corporatism preaching trickle down mamonism

Corporatism being the insidious animal that even Benny Mousolini commented on , isn't instituted overnight, much more the effects come to awarness over a generations time

And so, the next grandious leap toward it was via Clinton's recinding of Glass Stegal, along with the ever omnimous economic casandra Rob Riech , nobody paid attention to that debacle either

The final nail in the democratic coffin would be Citizens United vs. the FEC, insuring the likes of Koch, Soro's and similar ilk the best Congress they can buy, and the rest of us the illusion of free choice

~S~

Reagan was an actor by trade, something that served him well in the White House. He not only increased taxes he took spending to record levels. On top of that he presided over one of the most corrupt administrations in history.

But all in all I think he was a decent person who was controlled by those around him.

You are talking about obama.

 

[Big Fitz]

Jane White: Reagan's True Legacy: Terminating the American Dream


Wonder why we've got record federal deficits? Much of the cause stems from Reagan's corporate tax breaks; by 1983 the portion of tax receipts derived from corporate income taxes dropped to an all-time low of 6.2%, down from 12.5% in 1980 and 32.1% in 1952.

Socialist bullshit. Go and kiss puitns but if you do not like it here idiot.

Numbers don't lie. Under Reagan, tax receipts, spending, and budget deficits all INCREASED RAPIDLY

Numbers don't lie? Sure they do. All the time.

67% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

24% more people believe them if the claim is made that it was based on a university study.

This was discovered by Dr. Uve Daphule at the University of Madeupolis in Spain.

 

[sangha]

Yeah...it's the corporate tax rate

And don't forget, every consumer pays for the corporate tax rate, as it is factored into the price of every service and good purchased by a manufacturer doing business in this nation.

Just think. Eliminate that, and you receive in essence about a 39% pay increase.

fascinating, isn't it?

You really are an idiot, aren't you?

This may be a surprise for you, but income taxes are based on INCOME!!! IOW, they are not a cost of production and can not be "factored into the price"

Eco 101 states that prices are based on supply and demand. Only wingnuts think prices are based on tax rates, but they can't explain how.

Here's an example. A business makes widgets. It costs them $0.50 to produce each widget. They can sell the widgets for up to $1.00/each (that's what the competition sells the exact same widget for). If they can get no more than $1.00/widget, why would they charge more if taxes were raised? Why would they charge less if taxes were reduced?

No wingnut will be able to provide a reasonable explanation for this

 

[RadiomanATL]

Yeah...it's the corporate tax rate

And don't forget, every consumer pays for the corporate tax rate, as it is factored into the price of every service and good purchased by a manufacturer doing business in this nation.

Just think. Eliminate that, and you receive in essence about a 39% pay increase.

fascinating, isn't it?

You really are an idiot, aren't you?

This may be a surprise for you, but income taxes are based on INCOME!!! IOW, they are not a cost of production and can not be "factored into the price"

Except that the discussion was about corporate taxes. And they are and are.

 

[sangha]

Socialist bullshit. Go and kiss puitns but if you do not like it here idiot.

Numbers don't lie. Under Reagan, tax receipts, spending, and budget deficits all INCREASED RAPIDLY

Numbers don't lie? Sure they do. All the time.

67% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

24% more people believe them if the claim is made that it was based on a university study.

This was discovered by Dr. Uve Daphule at the University of Madeupolis in Spain.

Numbers don't lie. That's why you can't post any examples of numbers lying

All you have are examples of you lying

Under Reagan, tax receipts, govt spending, and budget deficits all INCREASED RAPIDLY.

 

[impalero]

Reagan rode into town with a feel good message for a populace being confronted by Jimmy Carter's gloom and doom lamentations.

One thing that can't be taken away from Ronnie was , he knew how to work a crowd, and essentially served corporatism preaching trickle down mamonism

Corporatism being the insidious animal that even Benny Mousolini commented on , isn't instituted overnight, much more the effects come to awarness over a generations time

And so, the next grandious leap toward it was via Clinton's recinding of Glass Stegal, along with the ever omnimous economic casandra Rob Riech , nobody paid attention to that debacle either

The final nail in the democratic coffin would be Citizens United vs. the FEC, insuring the likes of Koch, Soro's and similar ilk the best Congress they can buy, and the rest of us the illusion of free choice

~S~

Excellent Post Sparky

Does not matter who is in power either, they serve other masters and those would not be the American people and what is good for the country.

 

[sangha]

And don't forget, every consumer pays for the corporate tax rate, as it is factored into the price of every service and good purchased by a manufacturer doing business in this nation.

Just think. Eliminate that, and you receive in essence about a 39% pay increase.

fascinating, isn't it?

You really are an idiot, aren't you?

This may be a surprise for you, but income taxes are based on INCOME!!! IOW, they are not a cost of production and can not be "factored into the price"

Except that the discussion was about corporate taxes. And they are and are.

Umm, I'm surprised by the stupidity of that response. You're usually above nonsense like that

Those "corporate taxes" are corporate INCOME taxes. Look at the heading of the chart

And INCOME taxes are not figured into prices.

 

[RadiomanATL]

You really are an idiot, aren't you?

This may be a surprise for you, but income taxes are based on INCOME!!! IOW, they are not a cost of production and can not be "factored into the price"

Except that the discussion was about corporate taxes. And they are and are.

Umm, I'm surprised by the stupidity of that response. You're usually above nonsense like that

Those "corporate taxes" are corporate INCOME taxes. Look at the heading of the chart

And INCOME taxes are not figured into prices.

Yes, they are.

If I know that I'm going to have to pay 35% of whatever I make to someone else. And I must have $10,000 a week in order to maintain the business, I am going to raise the prices in order to make that $10,000.

Take you widget example. I sell a widget for $1.00 profit each. Someone is going to take 35% of that. Leaving me $0.65 per widget. But I need $1.00 per in order to survive. Therefore I am going to raise my price to a $1.54 per widget in order to ensure that I still have that $1.00 after taxes. This leaves me at $1.00 per widget gain, and satisfies my tax liability of 35% per dollar.

The other option is to cut production costs and overhead (people) to ensure that I have a GMROI of 1.54. This amounts to essentially the same thing as increasing costs as far as the math is concerned. But you can only cut production and people so far before you start losing capacity and actually start negatively impacting your GMROI. It's a balancing act.

But if we have one of the highest in the world, that is a strong indication that we are out of balance by quite a bit.

Feel free to run the numbers above. They all work out.

People get too wrapped up in percentages. They forget to factor in actual bottom line dollars that are needed after the percentage of taxes taken out. It's not dollars, it's not percentages. It's dollars and percentages together.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Hey Flaylo.... For you the American dream may be to sit on the sofa, watching taxpayer subsidized cable, eating taxpayer subsidized food, living in a taxpayer subsidized home, spending days taking basket weaving at a taxpayer subsidized college, having taxpayer subsidized abortions, going to taxpayer subsidized clincs... but it isn't to the rest of us. You childish little prick.

 

[Gunny]

Jane White: Reagan's True Legacy: Terminating the American Dream


Wonder why we've got record federal deficits? Much of the cause stems from Reagan's corporate tax breaks; by 1983 the portion of tax receipts derived from corporate income taxes dropped to an all-time low of 6.2%, down from 12.5% in 1980 and 32.1% in 1952.

Fuck you, pissant,.

Bet you think Jimmy was better. I LOVED sitting in gas lines, you f-ing piece of shit.

 

[sangha]

Except that the discussion was about corporate taxes. And they are and are.

Umm, I'm surprised by the stupidity of that response. You're usually above nonsense like that

Those "corporate taxes" are corporate INCOME taxes. Look at the heading of the chart

And INCOME taxes are not figured into prices.

Yes, they are.

If I know that I'm going to have to pay 35% of whatever I make to someone else. And I must have $10,000 a week in order to maintain the business, I am going to raise the prices in order to make that $10,000.

No, you idiot. For one thing, businesses can't just raise prices in order to boost their profits to whatever level they desire. Businesses charge as much as they can get, regardless of the tax rate. Only a wingnut would be dumb enough to think a business is charging less that it could get because wingnuts don't understand business.

Secondly, if you raise prices, you go out of business.

Take you widget example. I sell a widget for $1.00 profit each. Someone is going to take 35% of that. Leaving me $0.65 per widget. But I need $1.00 per in order to survive. Therefore I am going to raise my price to a $1.54 per widget in order to ensure that I still have that $1.00 after taxes. This leaves me at $1.00 per widget gain, and satisfies my tax liability of 35% per dollar.

If you raise your price to $1.54/widget, you will go out of business. No one will buy from you when they can get widgets from your competitor for $1/widget. The customers don't care what you need to survive. If you can't make enough money when your competitors can, you deserve to go out of business.

The other option is to cut production costs and overhead (people) to ensure that I have a GMROI of 1.54. This amounts to essentially the same thing as increasing costs as far as the math is concerned. But you can only cut production and people so far before you start losing capacity and actually start negatively impacting your GMROI. It's a balancing act.

Only a wingnut would think that businesses don't try to cut costs when taxes are low. Any intelligent business person knows they can increase profits by cutting costs, no matter what the tax rate is.

But if we have one of the highest in the world, that is a strong indication that we are out of balance by quite a bit.

We have the one of the highest tax rates and one of the highest standard of living in the world. Reality proves that things are in balance

 

[RadiomanATL]

Umm, I'm surprised by the stupidity of that response. You're usually above nonsense like that

Those "corporate taxes" are corporate INCOME taxes. Look at the heading of the chart

And INCOME taxes are not figured into prices.

Yes, they are.

If I know that I'm going to have to pay 35% of whatever I make to someone else. And I must have $10,000 a week in order to maintain the business, I am going to raise the prices in order to make that $10,000.

No, you idiot. For one thing, businesses can't just raise prices in order to boost their profits to whatever level they desire. Businesses charge as much as they can get, regardless of the tax rate. Only a wingnut would be dumb enough to think a business is charging less that it could get because wingnuts don't understand business.

Secondly, if you raise prices, you go out of business.

If you raise your price to $1.54/widget, you will go out of business. No one will buy from you when they can get widgets from your competitor for $1/widget. The customers don't care what you need to survive. If you can't make enough money when your competitors can, you deserve to go out of business.

It's not about boosting profits. It's about maintaining them at a level in order to stay in business. And they don't charge as much as they can, they charge as much as the market will bear in order to maintain profitability.

As far as raising prices to compensate for the increased tax rate, they wouldn't necessarily go out of business. Why? The taxes effect the entire market. If the entire sector goes up, then it's still a level playing field. The only people that get screwed are the consumers. Do you really not understand this? There is no competitor who can sell for a $1.00, the tax rate effects all the businesses. Not just yours. You just have to hope you are striking a better balance between pricing and cost cutting than y4our competitor. But as far as you raising your prices to $1.54 while the competitor stays at $1.00? That doesn't happen. The tax rate effects all. All businesses must factor it in to their bottom line P&L statement or go out of business.

The other option is to cut production costs and overhead (people) to ensure that I have a GMROI of 1.54. This amounts to essentially the same thing as increasing costs as far as the math is concerned. But you can only cut production and people so far before you start losing capacity and actually start negatively impacting your GMROI. It's a balancing act.

Only a wingnut would think that businesses don't try to cut costs when taxes are low. Any intelligent business person knows they can increase profits by cutting costs, no matter what the tax rate is.

They don't try to cut costs when taxes are low. They try to cut costs no matter the tax rate. If taxes are low, if costs are cut the profitability increases and the business makes more money. If taxes are high costs have to be cut or prices raised in order to maintain the business. Do you really not understand this?

But if we have one of the highest in the world, that is a strong indication that we are out of balance by quite a bit.

We have the one of the highest tax rates and one of the highest standard of living in the world. Reality proves that things are in balance

We're talking about corporate tax rates. And we have nearly the highest in the world. Other industrialized nations that actually have a better standard of living have a lower corporate tax rate. This proves that things are not in balance.

 

[sangha]

Yes, they are.

If I know that I'm going to have to pay 35% of whatever I make to someone else. And I must have $10,000 a week in order to maintain the business, I am going to raise the prices in order to make that $10,000.

No, you idiot. For one thing, businesses can't just raise prices in order to boost their profits to whatever level they desire. Businesses charge as much as they can get, regardless of the tax rate. Only a wingnut would be dumb enough to think a business is charging less that it could get because wingnuts don't understand business.

Secondly, if you raise prices, you go out of business.

If you raise your price to $1.54/widget, you will go out of business. No one will buy from you when they can get widgets from your competitor for $1/widget. The customers don't care what you need to survive. If you can't make enough money when your competitors can, you deserve to go out of business.

It's not about boosting profits. It's about maintaining them at a level in order to stay in business. And they don't charge as much as they can, they charge as much as the market will bear in order to maintain profitability.

Umm, "charge as much as they can" and "charge as much as the market will bear" are the same things. Rewording my arguments does nothing to refute them.

And it is about boosting profits. Only a wingnut would run a business without trying to maximize profits.

As far as raising prices to compensate for the increased tax rate, they wouldn't necessarily go out of business. Why? The taxes effect the entire market.

Classic case of "begging the question". In a discussion about whether increased taxes result in increased prices you try to "prove" your point by assuming that increased taxes DO result in increased prices.

If the entire sector goes up, then it's still a level playing field. The only people that get screwed are the consumers. Do you really not understand this?

Do you really not understand that simply repeating "prices will go up" does not prove it true?

The entire sector will not go up. For one thing, the increased taxes do not increase the price. Secondly, even if it did, the market wont pay whatever you need to survive. And arguing "Yes, prices WILL go up for everybody" is pretty weak when you can't explain why even one company would raise their price

There is no competitor who can sell for a $1.00, the tax rate effects all the businesses. Not just yours. You just have to hope you are striking a better balance between pricing and cost cutting than y4our competitor. But as far as you raising your prices to $1.54 while the competitor stays at $1.00? That doesn't happen. The tax rate effects all. All businesses must factor it in to their bottom line P&L statement or go out of business.

But there are competitors who are selling at $1.00

The only way you can pretend to have an argument is by pretending that EVERY widget making corporation is owned by someone who can't afford to take a cut in profits. Fortunately, not every business owner is an incompetent wingnut. Many know how to make enough money to support themselves, even if the wingnut who owns that widget business does not

They don't try to cut costs when taxes are low. They try to cut costs no matter the tax rate. If taxes are low, if costs are cut the profitability increases and the business makes more money. If taxes are high costs have to be cut or prices raised in order to maintain the business. Do you really not understand this?

Do you really not understand that a business that has already cut it costs cannot cut those same costs again when tax rates increase?

But if we have one of the highest in the world, that is a strong indication that we are out of balance by quite a bit.

We have the one of the highest tax rates and one of the highest standard of living in the world. Reality proves that things are in balance

We're talking about corporate tax rates. And we have nearly the highest in the world. Other industrialized nations that actually have a better standard of living have a lower corporate tax rate. This proves that things are not in balance.[/QUOTE]

And we have nearly the highest corporate income in the world. Sounds like our tax rates are properly balanced.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Specific to topic, I can think of 3 items changing in the American Dream:

Pre-Reagan, America had a steel industry.
Post-Reagan, little steel industry left to speak of. COST OF MAINTAINING STEEL WORKERS UNION

Pre-Reagan, America had a viable U.S. auto industry.
Post Reagan, mostly Japanese autos being bought. COST OF MAINTAINING UAW Do you have a problem with Americans deciding to buy other than American?

Pre-Reagan, small retailers still existed in large numbers.
Post-Reagan, corporate chain retailers mushroomed.

Free Enterprise

 

[bodecea]

Actually, when he granted amnesty to the illegals, the borders were to be protected against more illegals entering....well we all know that Congress didn't follow through on that. I don't think you can blame Reagan on that.....although it was a good idea if everything would have fell into place. We wouldn't be having the problems today if it had been done right.

In wingnut world, Reagan was a great president because he got snookered on amnesty.

In wingnut world, you can't blame Reagan for trusting politicians who can't be trusted.

okey dokey, did that make ANY sense?

I believe that was Sangha's point, Stephanie.

 

[RadiomanATL]

No, you idiot. For one thing, businesses can't just raise prices in order to boost their profits to whatever level they desire. Businesses charge as much as they can get, regardless of the tax rate. Only a wingnut would be dumb enough to think a business is charging less that it could get because wingnuts don't understand business.

Secondly, if you raise prices, you go out of business.

If you raise your price to $1.54/widget, you will go out of business. No one will buy from you when they can get widgets from your competitor for $1/widget. The customers don't care what you need to survive. If you can't make enough money when your competitors can, you deserve to go out of business.

It's not about boosting profits. It's about maintaining them at a level in order to stay in business. And they don't charge as much as they can, they charge as much as the market will bear in order to maintain profitability.

Umm, "charge as much as they can" and "charge as much as the market will bear" are the same things. Rewording my arguments does nothing to refute them.

And it is about boosting profits. Only a wingnut would run a business without trying to maximize profits.

No, they're not the same. I can charge $1,000 a widget. However the market will not bear it.

In context of this specific discussion it is not about boosting profits. It's about offsetting the corporate tax rate. Moving goalposts won't get you far with me

Classic case of "begging the question". In a discussion about whether increased taxes result in increased prices you try to "prove" your point by assuming that increased taxes DO result in increased prices.

No, it's not. I mathematically proved it. You dodged it. Only wingnuts think math doesn't apply to them

Do you really not understand that simply repeating "prices will go up" does not prove it true?

Once again, only wingnuts think math doesn't apply to them

The entire sector will not go up. For one thing, the increased taxes do not increase the price. Secondly, even if it did, the market wont pay whatever you need to survive. And arguing "Yes, prices WILL go up for everybody" is pretty weak when you can't explain why even one company would raise their price.

Only wingnuts think that increased cost of doing business means that cost of goods won't go up

But there are competitors who are selling at $1.00

The only way you can pretend to have an argument is by pretending that EVERY widget making corporation is owned by someone who can't afford to take a cut in profits. Fortunately, not every business owner is an incompetent wingnut. Many know how to make enough money to support themselves, even if the wingnut who owns that widget business does not

Only a wingnut thinks that an increase in taxes isn't an increase to cost to the business

Do you really not understand that a business that has already cut it costs cannot cut those same costs again when tax rates increase?

Only a wingnut would think that if a business can't cut costs anymore to maintain profitability that they won't increase prices in order to maintain it

But if we have one of the highest in the world, that is a strong indication that we are out of balance by quite a bit.

We have the one of the highest tax rates and one of the highest standard of living in the world. Reality proves that things are in balance

We're talking about corporate tax rates. And we have nearly the highest in the world. Other industrialized nations that actually have a better standard of living have a lower corporate tax rate. This proves that things are not in balance.

And we have nearly the highest corporate income in the world. Sounds like our tax rates are properly balanced.[/QUOTE]

Duck, dodge and weave and avoid the point at all costs sangha. Countries with a demonstrably higher standard of living have a significantly lower tax rate.