Are republicans hopelessly stuck in the 80's because of their undying love of Reagan?

[Dad2three]

Let's use the road in front of your house to represent all government obligations. Even if you pare government spending down to the bare bones, there will still be a government budget which must be paid for by the taxpayers.

So let's say the total bill for the budget in front of your house is $500.

If you and your next door neighbor earn identical incomes, you should both have a $500 tax bill.

But you get some of that money back because you demanded a deduction for paying mortgage interest. Your neighbor rents or has paid off his house, so he does not get a deduction.

You also demanded money back for having kids. Your neighbor has none.

So now your bill has dropped to $200. You whoop and holler like a welfare queen about "getting to keep my money".

But who has to pick up that $300 you are no longer paying?

Your neighbor, that's who, leech.

But he is going to balk if his taxes are increased by 60% to cover your $300. So his tax bill may go up 20% since Congress wants to be re-elected and won't have a chance if they increase tax rates by 60%.

That means the balance has to be borrowed.

We are living in an insane system in which people earning identical incomes are paying radically different taxes!!! Because of leeches who want their government gifts.

And that is why this bullshit about "keeping more of my own money" argument utterly fails. You have failed to see both sides of the equation. That money you get back (which you see as "getting to keep") is coming from other people and from deficit spending.

You are stealing money from other people's pockets, and causing deficit spending.

AS WE SHOULD HAVE A PROGRESSIVE TAX SYSTEM, AS MOST OF OUR LEADING FOUNDERS WANTED!

Today it's NOT

 

[Dad2three]

If your business model can't succeed unless you get money from the government for "capital depreciation", then your business model sucks. You should not be in business. Your business should die and make room for those who are better at doing things.

Obama proposed getting rid of many loopholes and dropping the Corp rate from 35% to 28% of course the GOPers said no...Using the extra income to rebuild infrastructure is a no-no in conservatives world today!

 

[Dad2three]

ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on?

Just one? That's easy!

Reagan broadened the tax base by closing off a lot of tax expenditures. This increased revenues. This allows room for tax cuts.

You may have noticed I have frequently advocated on this forum the elimination of all tax expenditures.

Just an old Reagan Republican, I am.

Reagan was especially pleased that “millions of the working poor will be dropped from the tax rolls altogether” and that rich people and big corporations would “pay their fair share.” The law was indeed a major accomplishment, one that Reagan had every right to be proud of.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/the-tax-reform-act-of-1986-should-we-do-it-again/

 

[g5000]

So HOW DID THAT BROADEN THE BASE AS YOU FIRST PREMISED? LOL

When you eliminate deductions, credits, and exemptions, the tax base is broadened. I am sorry you do not understand this simple economic reality.

If I get so many deductions and credits and exemptions that I fall into the 47 percent of those who pay no federal income tax, what would happen if I lost all those government gifts?

That's right. I become a taxpayer. And that is how the tax base is broadened. All that money I was not paying in taxes is now flowing to the government. That means increased revenues.

If more people are paying taxes, and you want to make the reform "revenue neutral", what else do you have to do?

That's right, you have to lower tax rates.

So those who were carrying my ass and paying for my tax deductions, credits, and exemptions are now paying lower taxes. We are now all on an equal footing.

See how that works?

This reform actually worked exactly as advertised. Loopholes were closed, tax rates were lowered.

Thus proving tax expenditures are another form of leeching off other people.

 

[g5000]

Obama proposed getting rid of many loopholes and dropping the Corp rate from 35% to 28% of course the GOPers said no...Using the extra income to rebuild infrastructure is a no-no in conservatives world today!

That is why I said in my first post in this topic that Reagan would not recognize the modern Republican Party.

The hitch in Obama's plan is the "using the extra income" and spending it, instead of giving it back to the people in even lower tax rates or using it to pay down the debt.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Let's use the road in front of your house to represent all government obligations. Even if you pare government spending down to the bare bones, there will still be a government budget which must be paid for by the taxpayers.

So let's say the total bill for the budget in front of your house is $500.

If you and your next door neighbor earn identical incomes, you should both have a $500 tax bill.

But you get some of that money back because you demanded a deduction for paying mortgage interest. Your neighbor rents or has paid off his house, so he does not get a deduction.

You also demanded money back for having kids. Your neighbor has none.

So now your bill has dropped to $200. You whoop and holler like a welfare queen about "getting to keep my money".

But who has to pick up that $300 you are no longer paying?

Your neighbor, that's who, leech.

But he is going to balk if his taxes are increased by 60% to cover your $300. So his tax bill may go up 20% since Congress wants to be re-elected and won't have a chance if they increase tax rates by 60%.

That means the balance has to be borrowed.

We are living in an insane system in which people earning identical incomes are paying radically different taxes!!! Because of leeches who want their government gifts.

And that is why this bullshit about "keeping more of my own money" argument utterly fails. You have failed to see both sides of the equation. That money you get back (which you see as "getting to keep") is coming from other people and from borrowing.

You are stealing money from other people's pockets, and causing deficit spending and higher tax rates.

I dont have any kids and I paid cash for my house.
But keep up your little fantasy rant...I find it amusing.

 

[g5000]

Let's use the road in front of your house to represent all government obligations. Even if you pare government spending down to the bare bones, there will still be a government budget which must be paid for by the taxpayers.

So let's say the total bill for the budget in front of your house is $500.

If you and your next door neighbor earn identical incomes, you should both have a $500 tax bill.

But you get some of that money back because you demanded a deduction for paying mortgage interest. Your neighbor rents or has paid off his house, so he does not get a deduction.

You also demanded money back for having kids. Your neighbor has none.

So now your bill has dropped to $200. You whoop and holler like a welfare queen about "getting to keep my money".

But who has to pick up that $300 you are no longer paying?

Your neighbor, that's who, leech.

But he is going to balk if his taxes are increased by 60% to cover your $300. So his tax bill may go up 20% since Congress wants to be re-elected and won't have a chance if they increase tax rates by 60%.

That means the balance has to be borrowed.

We are living in an insane system in which people earning identical incomes are paying radically different taxes!!! Because of leeches who want their government gifts.

And that is why this bullshit about "keeping more of my own money" argument utterly fails. You have failed to see both sides of the equation. That money you get back (which you see as "getting to keep") is coming from other people and from borrowing.

You are stealing money from other people's pockets, and causing deficit spending and higher tax rates.

I dont have any kids and I paid cash for my house.
But keep up your little fantasy rant...I find it amusing.

I find your utter ignorance most amusing.

And I was using an analogy to illustrate, dipshit. So your "I don't have kids, therefore you are wrong" is even more amusing.

 

[g5000]

You and an associate go out to lunch and you both order identical steak dinners.

The tab comes to $100. You two owe $50 each.

But the restaurant has a policy that if you are wearing a red tie with the restaurant logo on it, you get to deduct $20 from your share of the check.

You bought such a tie yesterday and are wearing it.

The tab is still $100, so while you are hootin and hollerin about "getting to keep more of my money", your associate is having to shell out $70 instead of $50.

And he thinks the deduction scheme is a ripoff, and that you are an idiot.

 

[Toro]

Bullshit, the current right wingers like Hannity and Rushblo have wet dreams about Ronnie!

This is true. Right up to the last election, every GOP candidate has tried to compare themselves favorably to Reagan. They even had one of the primary debates in the Reagan Library!

In one of the debates, it took Newt exactly one second into his opening statement to mention Reagan. I timed it. We had a friendly wager at work on how long that would happen. The over under was 3 seconds!

 

[Dad2three]

So HOW DID THAT BROADEN THE BASE AS YOU FIRST PREMISED? LOL

When you eliminate deductions, credits, and exemptions, the tax base is broadened. I am sorry you do not understand this simple economic reality.

If I get so many deductions and credits and exemptions that I fall into the 47 percent of those who pay no federal income tax, what would happen if I lost all those government gifts?

That's right. I become a taxpayer. And that is how the tax base is broadened. All that money I was not paying in taxes is now flowing to the government. That means increased revenues.

If more people are paying taxes, and you want to make the reform "revenue neutral", what else do you have to do?

That's right, you have to lower tax rates.

So those who were carrying my ass and paying for my tax deductions, credits, and exemptions are now paying lower taxes. We are now all on an equal footing.

See how that works?

This reform actually worked exactly as advertised. Loopholes were closed, tax rates were lowered.

Thus proving tax expenditures are another form of leeching off other people.

Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul. He is the author of the forthcoming book “The Benefit and the Burden.”

This Saturday is the 25th anniversary of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, signed into law by Ronald Reagan on Oct. 22, 1986. He called it a “revolution” and “the most sweeping overhaul of our tax code in our nation’s history.”

Reagan was especially pleased that “millions of the working poor will be dropped from the tax rolls altogether” and that rich people and big corporations would “pay their fair share.”

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/the-tax-reform-act-of-1986-should-we-do-it-again/

THAT'S CONSIDERED BROADENING? LOL

AFTER 1986 tax reform (Jan 1987) revenues fell though? lol. WHY do you think HW Bush created a new top bracket at 31% (1990) and then Clinton had to create 3 new brackets and take the top rate to 39.6%?

Yes, loopholes were closed for some, but revenues were also lost and we've created 15,000+ changes since.

You call losing revenues and dropping millions from the tax roles as you triple the debt, a success? Wow...

 

[Dad2three]

Obama proposed getting rid of many loopholes and dropping the Corp rate from 35% to 28% of course the GOPers said no...Using the extra income to rebuild infrastructure is a no-no in conservatives world today!

That is why I said in my first post in this topic that Reagan would not recognize the modern Republican Party.

The hitch in Obama's plan is the "using the extra income" and spending it, instead of giving it back to the people in even lower tax rates or using it to pay down the debt.

Yes, because the US infrastructure getting a D grade from engineers doesn't mean ANYTHING. Who needs safe roads, bridges and drinking water


We took US tax burden to Korean war levels under Dubya, you want to go back there?

 

[g5000]

Just like the scheme to get you to buy a tie from the restaurant, tax expenditures are a massive social behavioral experiment being performed on the American people by our government.

If you don't buy a mortgage, you are punished with higher taxes.

If you don't buy the right kind of refrigerator, you are punished with higher taxes.

If you don't buy the right kind of car, you are punished with higher taxes.

This scheme is what alleged "fiscal conservatives" defend.

But because of this scheme, it was no big leap to punish you with higher taxes for not buying the right kind of health insurance, you morons.

 

[g5000]

Yes, loopholes were closed for some, but revenues were also lost and we've created 15,000+ changes since.

And there is where the reform has been compromised. Our elected officials have been averaging about one new tax expenditure a day for over a decade now.

We are now spending at least $1.2 trillion on them, every year. That's some serious leeching! And it is bigger than the deficit. "Do the math".

They have completely undone Reagan's reform. Why? Because special interests pay them lots and lots of campaign cash for putting those carve-outs into the law for them.

Ban all tax expenditures, and you remove one of the biggest incentives for giving a politician campaign cash.

Presto. Instant campaign finance reform that would actually work.

 

[Dad2three]

Just like the scheme to get you to buy a tie from the restaurant, tax expenditures are a massive social behavioral experiment being performed on the American people by our government.

If you don't buy a mortgage, you are punished with higher taxes.

If you don't buy the right kind of refrigerator, you are punished with higher taxes.

If you don't buy the right kind of car, you are punished with higher taxes.

This scheme is what alleged "fiscal conservatives" defend.

But because of this scheme, it was no big leap to punish you with higher taxes for not buying the right kind of health insurance, you morons.

It's called a society, don't like it move

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."



“The Democrats are the party of government activism, the party that says government can make you richer, smarter, taller, and get the chickweed out of your lawn. Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then get elected and prove it." - P.J. O’rourke

 

[Dad2three]

Yes, loopholes were closed for some, but revenues were also lost and we've created 15,000+ changes since.

And there is where the reform has been compromised. Our elected officials have been averaging about one new tax expenditure a day for over a decade now.

They have completely undone Reagan's reform. Why? Because special interests pay them lots and lots of campaign cash for putting those carve-outs into the law for them.

Ban all tax expenditures, and you remove one of the biggest incentives for giving a politician campaign cash.

Presto. Instant campaign finance reform that would actually work.

Or just get rid of Corps as people and money out of politics. Gov't SHOULD social engineer, but to do it sparingly and smartly, unlike what conservatives want

 

[g5000]

Just like the scheme to get you to buy a tie from the restaurant, tax expenditures are a massive social behavioral experiment being performed on the American people by our government.

If you don't buy a mortgage, you are punished with higher taxes.

If you don't buy the right kind of refrigerator, you are punished with higher taxes.

If you don't buy the right kind of car, you are punished with higher taxes.

This scheme is what alleged "fiscal conservatives" defend.

But because of this scheme, it was no big leap to punish you with higher taxes for not buying the right kind of health insurance, you morons.

It's called a society, don't like it move

What an idiotic response.

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

You don't even realize you are making an argument in direct opposition to Ben Franklin.

You are supporting a system which extorts property from one group of people and transfers it to another group of people.

"I got a mortgage, pay me! I had kids, pay me! I bought an electric car, pay me! I bought an energy saver washing machine, pay me! I bought solar panels, pay me! I bought the right kind of health insurance, pay me!"

Little piglets, sucking on the government tit.

 

[Dad2three]

Just like the scheme to get you to buy a tie from the restaurant, tax expenditures are a massive social behavioral experiment being performed on the American people by our government.

If you don't buy a mortgage, you are punished with higher taxes.

If you don't buy the right kind of refrigerator, you are punished with higher taxes.

If you don't buy the right kind of car, you are punished with higher taxes.

This scheme is what alleged "fiscal conservatives" defend.

But because of this scheme, it was no big leap to punish you with higher taxes for not buying the right kind of health insurance, you morons.

It's called a society, don't like it move

What an idiotic response.

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

You don't even realize you are making an argument in direct opposition to Ben Franklin.

You are supporting a system which extorts property from one group of people and transfers it to another group of people.

"I got a mortgage, pay me! I had kids, pay me! I bought an electric car, pay me! I bought an energy saver washing machine, pay me! I bought solar panels, pay me! I bought the right kind of health insurance, pay me!"

Little piglets, sucking on the government tit.

More bullshit. I'm shocked

Tax Reform Act of 1986



The Act also increased incentives favoring investment in owner-occupied housing relative to rental housing by increasing the Home Mortgage Interest Deduction. The imputed income an owner receives from an investment in owner-occupied housing has always escaped taxation, much like the imputed (estimated) income someone receives from doing his own cooking instead of hiring a chef, but the Act changed the treatment of imputed rent, local property taxes, and mortgage interest payments to favor homeownership, while phasing out many investment incentives for rental housing.

The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit was added to the Act to provide some balance and encourage investment in multifamily housing for the poor.

Tax Reform Act of 1986 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Listening]

What some people who consider themselves "conservatives" don't understand, which Reagan did understand, is that when you give someone a tax deduction, exemption, or credit, the cost of that deduction/exemption/credit comes out of someone else's pocket or has to be borrowed.

This results in deficit spending and higher tax rates.

Reagan closed a lot of these "loopholes", which allowed him to lower tax rates.

For some reason, modern day "conservatives" are intellectually incapable of grasping this simple concept.

Starting with GWB....not that he's a conservative by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[chikenwing]

What IS Obama's plan to grow the economy, Dad? It's six years into his Presidency...don't you think that would be an ample amount of time for him to have formulated an economic strategy?

So what IS the plan?

The rest of the world went with the conservative 'austerity', how's the US compare? lol

What's sad, Dad...is that you don't seem to grasp that being the same as someone else who DIDN'T spend a trillion dollars on stimulus when you HAVE spent a trillion on stimulus...isn't much of an accomplishment!

You mean over $5 trillion on tax cuts and UNFUNDED wars is better?

Stimulus was 40% tax cuts, it was $788 billion According to most credible economists it created nearly 3 million jobs and kept US out of GOP great depression 2.0.

Remember Dubya's stimulus and TARP?

His $300 per person REBATE' (stimulus) cost nearly $200 billion, did it work? lol

Just as well as cash for clunkers,keep trying.

Just wondering,are there not Dems in DC also?? your just like all the other simple minded hacks that can't see past their own little hates.

 

[chikenwing]

Barack Obama has turned out to be an incompetent disaster as President and it's become SO bad at this point that the only thing you liberals can think of is to attack every Republican President for the past fifty years to try and make them look as bad as Barry!

Conservatives choose to ignore facts and reality and live in a right wing world of delusion and disconnect created by the right wing echo chamber of spin, lies and misinformation.





If Obama implements a growth policy on Tuesday and the nation is not back in the black on Thursday, this is a "failed policy."

If Bush in eight years brings us from surplus to crushing deficit, rampant unemployment, an economic black hole, a) his policies just "needed more time to work," and b) it was all Barney Franks' fault. If Obama in 6 years, with no economic engine left to work with and a 100% obstructionist congress opposing him at every turn recovers the stock market, reverses the unemployment trend, restores growth and puts the nation back on sound economic footing, but we're not as well off as at the end of the Clinton presidency, these are "failed policies."

You can't make this stuff up.

Who's living in a "world of delusion", Dad...those who recognize all of the good things that a Ronald Reagan did for the United States...or those who pretend that Barack Obama is competent after six years of "leading from behind"?

The truth is...Barack Obama has overseen the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression. His POLICIES are what have held back that recovery. Job growth is strongest in States primarily led by Republican Governors espousing policies that contradict the President's. The stock market bubble has been fueled by non-stop quantitative easing by the Fed in an attempt to keep the economy from going back into recession due to a total lack of an economic plan from this President to create jobs and grow the economy. There are still millions of Americans on long term unemployment six YEARS after Barack Obama took office and he has no plan to put them back to work. We were "well off" in the Clinton Presidency because of the Dot Com Boom. That was coming to an end before Clinton left office. This liberal "fantasy" that Slick Willie created the prosperity back then by raising taxes is one of the more naive beliefs on this board.

MORE right wing garbage. I'm shocked

You mean the recession Dubya/GOP policy took US too? The one where he gutted regulators and cheered on the Banksters?

You mean states dependent on ENERGY are booming and states that depended on Dubya's housing bubble are slow to come out of Dubya's recession AFTER he allowed household debt to double the first 7 years?


Dubya LOST 1,000,00+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years with his 'job creator' policies

NOT counting the 4+ million lost in 2009

OBAMA HAS A NET OF NEARLY 7 MILLION IN LESS THAN 6 YEARS

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Dubya SAVAGED the treasury with 2 UNFUNDED tax cuts (you cut spending!!!), 2 UNFUNDED wars (you get new revenues) AND UNFUNDED Medicare expansion, taking US from 20%+ to less than 15% of GDP, Obama has done a fukking miracle considering the hole Dubya left US in and the unwillingness of the GOP to help US for 6 years!!!

No, BJ Bill just was the best FISCALLY conservative Prez since Ike, looks like Obama comes in second place

AFTER BILL's first surplus what did the GOP do? Of course they passed a $700+ billion tax cut he had to veto to get 3 more!!!

"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits." — Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994


"Clinton’s 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity." — Business Week, May 19, 1997

No, BJ Bill just was the best FISCALLY conservative Prez since Ike, looks like Obama comes in second place

He found that working with the republican congress worked out fairly well.

Question who has the purse strings,the pres or the house.

Its a hoot when hacks like this one,quote wishful numbers as truths,last week it was 10 million jobs that have been created by Obama,this week it 8 mill .

There was no real surplus,another talking point repeated

The US enjoyed the second longest economic expansion in our history under Bush,saying other wise is just false.

The same question that all lefties seem to want to pass.Which tax bracket enjoyed the largest tax relief from the bush cuts??

Sure, it was 'working with them' that got US 20%+ of GDP in revenues and 4 surpluses, must've been why Gov't was shut down twice and BJ Bill impeached!

Which policy is more important, Prez or Congress? We saw that AFTER Clinton's first surplus the GOP passed a $700+ billion tax cut Bill had to veto to get 3 more SURPLUSES (more money coming in than going out)


Obama has 10+ million PRIVATE sector jobs under him since Obamacares passed Feb 2010, for a net of nearly 7 million (it will be in a few days) since he came into office


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton


Weird, you saying Dubya had growth? Oh you mean that ponzi scheme where he gutted regulators and cheered on the Banksters? How did that turn out? lol


Dec 2007 (pre Dubya's recession)

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush Vanity Fair


Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades

"The expansion was a continuation of the way the U.S. has grown for too long, which was a consumer-led expansion that was heavily concentrated in housing," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a onetime Bush White House staffer and one of Sen. John McCain's top economic advisers for his presidential campaign. "There was very little of the kind of saving and export-led growth that would be more sustainable."

"For a group that claims it wants to be judged by history, there is no evidence on the economic policy front that that was the view," Holtz-Eakin said. "It was all Band-Aids."

Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades



July 30, 2012

Bush Tax Cuts Have Provided Extremely Large Benefits to Wealthiest Americans Over Last Nine Years

• The average tax cut that people making over $1 million received exceeded $110,000 in each of the last nine years — for a total of more than $1 million over this period.
• The tax cuts made the tax system less progressive.
  
  Bush Tax Cuts Have Provided Extremely Large Benefits to Wealthiest Americans Over Last Nine Years mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
  
  

Here’s the legacy of the Bush tax cuts

1. Drove the deficit :

2. Fueled income inequality:

3. Benefited the wealthy: By any measure, the Bush tax cuts have benefited the wealthy more than the middle class

The legacy of the Bush tax cuts in four charts - The Washington Post

So nice smoke screen,with a real nice graph.

Spending is what drives the deficit.

Its also plan to see ya are lost,once again which tax bracket made out the best which one?