Debate Now Economics Debate: Boss vs Billy000

[Boss]

RULES FOR DEBATE:

1. No copy/pasting of articles or links. You may reference a source and you can even give the URL but it cannot be in link form. You may link images, graphs, etc. from other sources to help support your arguments but no flooding the debate with spam and propaganda.

2. No ad hom personal insulting and attacking. Inadvertent or indirect insults are permissible only in the context of dialogue related to the topic.

3. Winner of the debate will be determined by combined "Winner" awards given by readers.

TOPIC: Economics

Participants:
Boss
Billy000

 

[Billy000]

Okay, Boss, you go first. Let's debate the effectiveness between democratic economic policy, vs republican.

 

[Billy000]

Since it's 2AM I will give you my response later on today.

 

[Boss]

Okay, Boss, you go first. Let's debate the effectiveness between democratic economic policy, vs republican.

Not really fair because most US economic policy is bipartisan.

 

[Billy000]

Okay, Boss, you go first. Let's debate the effectiveness between democratic economic policy, vs republican.

Not really fair because most US economic policy is bipartisan.

Okay, that is far from correct, but okay sure, we can debate that on its own.

 

[Boss]

Okay, Boss, you go first. Let's debate the effectiveness between democratic economic policy, vs republican.

Not really fair because most US economic policy is bipartisan.

Okay, that is far from correct, but okay sure, we can debate that on its own.

Well, it's not incorrect. We have had all kinds of economic policies and countless opinions on how effective they've been but the truth of the matter is, almost all economic policy as law must also be bipartisan. Obamacare is probably the only example in the last 100 years of something economic being passed without bipartisan support.

I'm not a republican or democrat when it comes to economics, so I really am not sure how to argue on that basis, since that's not how I view economics. I understand economic policies of different politicians at various times in political history is important but it doesn't really shape my economic viewpoints.

I thought we'd debate the arguments for the Free Enterprise Capitalist System as opposed to Keynesian or Democratic Socialist systems. I'm a big supporter of Free Market economics. I support it because it works better than any system we've ever tried. Not only are free market economies better in every respect, they are unquestionably better.

Now I wish I could say that Republicans genuinely care about the Free Enterprise Capitalist System. What I continue to see is the same elite establishment cronies conspiring with their corporatist friends who's money influences both sides of the aisle. We have a power problem in Washington. But that's another debate.

 

[Billy000]

Okay, Boss, you go first. Let's debate the effectiveness between democratic economic policy, vs republican.

Not really fair because most US economic policy is bipartisan.

Okay, that is far from correct, but okay sure, we can debate that on its own.

Well, it's not incorrect. We have had all kinds of economic policies and countless opinions on how effective they've been but the truth of the matter is, almost all economic policy as law must also be bipartisan. Obamacare is probably the only example in the last 100 years of something economic being passed without bipartisan support.

I'm not a republican or democrat when it comes to economics, so I really am not sure how to argue on that basis, since that's not how I view economics. I understand economic policies of different politicians at various times in political history is important but it doesn't really shape my economic viewpoints.

I thought we'd debate the arguments for the Free Enterprise Capitalist System as opposed to Keynesian or Democratic Socialist systems. I'm a big supporter of Free Market economics. I support it because it works better than any system we've ever tried. Not only are free market economies better in every respect, they are unquestionably better.

Now I wish I could say that Republicans genuinely care about the Free Enterprise Capitalist System. What I continue to see is the same elite establishment cronies conspiring with their corporatist friends who's money influences both sides of the aisle. We have a power problem in Washington. But that's another debate.

It's pretty clear across party lines how republicans differ on economic policy vs democrats. As you put it, democrats advocate for Keynesian economics. Republicans advocate for supply side economics.

Keynesian economics is not the antithesis of free enterprise capitalism. It involves stimulating demand side economics through government legislation. There are proven examples of its success. For example, when the unprecedented Great Recession hit in late 2008, the best solution for this was immediate government intervention to save the 500,000 jobs being lost per month. As part of Obama's stimulus package, he cut taxes for top earners and for the middle class. The middle class tax cut was the biggest since Reagan's.
Another large chunk of the stimulus went to extending unemployment benefits for those millions who lost their jobs. This stimulus boosted consumer demand as a result. Assisting the unemployed at this time made the most sense in stimulating the overall economy. This is because when a person loses his or hers job, they spend any money they get immediately on essentials like food, clothing, toiletries and shelter costs.
As a result, private businesses made more money. If businesses do well enough, they hire more people. That is, in part, what reversed the recession. The CBO found that Obama's stimulus created 3 million private jobs.

Republican in contrast, believe deregulation and cutting taxes for corporations and top earners creates jobs. The problem with this is that corporations typically just keep much of the money they save rather than investing it in new jobs.

 

[Boss]

Okay, Boss, you go first. Let's debate the effectiveness between democratic economic policy, vs republican.

Not really fair because most US economic policy is bipartisan.

Okay, that is far from correct, but okay sure, we can debate that on its own.

Well, it's not incorrect. We have had all kinds of economic policies and countless opinions on how effective they've been but the truth of the matter is, almost all economic policy as law must also be bipartisan. Obamacare is probably the only example in the last 100 years of something economic being passed without bipartisan support.

I'm not a republican or democrat when it comes to economics, so I really am not sure how to argue on that basis, since that's not how I view economics. I understand economic policies of different politicians at various times in political history is important but it doesn't really shape my economic viewpoints.

I thought we'd debate the arguments for the Free Enterprise Capitalist System as opposed to Keynesian or Democratic Socialist systems. I'm a big supporter of Free Market economics. I support it because it works better than any system we've ever tried. Not only are free market economies better in every respect, they are unquestionably better.

Now I wish I could say that Republicans genuinely care about the Free Enterprise Capitalist System. What I continue to see is the same elite establishment cronies conspiring with their corporatist friends who's money influences both sides of the aisle. We have a power problem in Washington. But that's another debate.

It's pretty clear across party lines how republicans differ on economic policy vs democrats. As you put it, democrats advocate for Keynesian economics. Republicans advocate for supply side economics.

Keynesian economics is not the antithesis of free enterprise capitalism. It involves stimulating demand side economics through government legislation. There are proven examples of its success. For example, when the unprecedented Great Recession hit in late 2008, the best solution for this was immediate government intervention to save the 500,000 jobs being lost per month. As part of Obama's stimulus package, he cut taxes for top earners and for the middle class. The middle class tax cut was the biggest since Reagan's.
Another large chunk of the stimulus went to extending unemployment benefits for those millions who lost their jobs. This stimulus boosted consumer demand as a result. Assisting the unemployed at this time made the most sense in stimulating the overall economy. This is because when a person loses his or hers job, they spend any money they get immediately on essentials like food, clothing, toiletries and shelter costs.
As a result, private businesses made more money. If businesses do well enough, they hire more people. That is, in part, what reversed the recession. The CBO found that Obama's stimulus created 3 million private jobs.

Republican in contrast, believe deregulation and cutting taxes for corporations and top earners creates jobs. The problem with this is that corporations typically just keep much of the money they save rather than investing it in new jobs.

Pointing to the weakest economic recovery in American history is not exactly making the case for Keynesian policy. During Obama's tenure we blew through about $10 trillion trying to keep the economy stoked. To a large extent, our money went to line the pockets of crony corporatists and cons like Solyndra. With the stimulus it was promised unemployment wouldn't rise above 5% and it was actually never lower than 5%.

The CBO tells you Obama created 3 million jobs with the stimulus but did they explain what happens when there is no more stimulus money to buy essentials like food, clothing, toiletries and shelter? Of course they didn't because the CBO only makes largely inaccurate prognostication based on input data. When there is no more stimulus money to stimulate, the temporary stimulation goes away.

We contrast this with the Reagan plan to cut top marginal tax rates while expanding the tax base and massive federal deregulation. Over the course of his presidency, this actually increased tax revenues by 75% from $500 billion to over $900 billion, adjusted for inflation. It also created, at that time, the longest period of peacetime economic prosperity. A record 97 straight months of economic growth which spanned three presidencies. Over 14 million jobs were created in the process.

The biggest complaint people have on Reagan is that he exploded the debt. Actually, Reagan didn't like the debt and spent most of his political career lobbying for a balanced budget amendment to the constitution and a line item veto for the president. He had to work with a democrat congress who refused to cut spending, and that was the reason for high deficits under Reagan.... still, in his total 8 years, his cumulative debt was less than any two years of Obama's.

 

[Billy000]

Okay, Boss, you go first. Let's debate the effectiveness between democratic economic policy, vs republican.

Not really fair because most US economic policy is bipartisan.

Okay, that is far from correct, but okay sure, we can debate that on its own.

Well, it's not incorrect. We have had all kinds of economic policies and countless opinions on how effective they've been but the truth of the matter is, almost all economic policy as law must also be bipartisan. Obamacare is probably the only example in the last 100 years of something economic being passed without bipartisan support.

I'm not a republican or democrat when it comes to economics, so I really am not sure how to argue on that basis, since that's not how I view economics. I understand economic policies of different politicians at various times in political history is important but it doesn't really shape my economic viewpoints.

I thought we'd debate the arguments for the Free Enterprise Capitalist System as opposed to Keynesian or Democratic Socialist systems. I'm a big supporter of Free Market economics. I support it because it works better than any system we've ever tried. Not only are free market economies better in every respect, they are unquestionably better.

Now I wish I could say that Republicans genuinely care about the Free Enterprise Capitalist System. What I continue to see is the same elite establishment cronies conspiring with their corporatist friends who's money influences both sides of the aisle. We have a power problem in Washington. But that's another debate.

It's pretty clear across party lines how republicans differ on economic policy vs democrats. As you put it, democrats advocate for Keynesian economics. Republicans advocate for supply side economics.

Keynesian economics is not the antithesis of free enterprise capitalism. It involves stimulating demand side economics through government legislation. There are proven examples of its success. For example, when the unprecedented Great Recession hit in late 2008, the best solution for this was immediate government intervention to save the 500,000 jobs being lost per month. As part of Obama's stimulus package, he cut taxes for top earners and for the middle class. The middle class tax cut was the biggest since Reagan's.
Another large chunk of the stimulus went to extending unemployment benefits for those millions who lost their jobs. This stimulus boosted consumer demand as a result. Assisting the unemployed at this time made the most sense in stimulating the overall economy. This is because when a person loses his or hers job, they spend any money they get immediately on essentials like food, clothing, toiletries and shelter costs.
As a result, private businesses made more money. If businesses do well enough, they hire more people. That is, in part, what reversed the recession. The CBO found that Obama's stimulus created 3 million private jobs.

Republican in contrast, believe deregulation and cutting taxes for corporations and top earners creates jobs. The problem with this is that corporations typically just keep much of the money they save rather than investing it in new jobs.

Pointing to the weakest economic recovery in American history is not exactly making the case for Keynesian policy. During Obama's tenure we blew through about $10 trillion trying to keep the economy stoked. To a large extent, our money went to line the pockets of crony corporatists and cons like Solyndra. With the stimulus it was promised unemployment wouldn't rise above 5% and it was actually never lower than 5%.

The CBO tells you Obama created 3 million jobs with the stimulus but did they explain what happens when there is no more stimulus money to buy essentials like food, clothing, toiletries and shelter? Of course they didn't because the CBO only makes largely inaccurate prognostication based on input data. When there is no more stimulus money to stimulate, the temporary stimulation goes away.

We contrast this with the Reagan plan to cut top marginal tax rates while expanding the tax base and massive federal deregulation. Over the course of his presidency, this actually increased tax revenues by 75% from $500 billion to over $900 billion, adjusted for inflation. It also created, at that time, the longest period of peacetime economic prosperity. A record 97 straight months of economic growth which spanned three presidencies. Over 14 million jobs were created in the process.

The biggest complaint people have on Reagan is that he exploded the debt. Actually, Reagan didn't like the debt and spent most of his political career lobbying for a balanced budget amendment to the constitution and a line item veto for the president. He had to work with a democrat congress who refused to cut spending, and that was the reason for high deficits under Reagan.... still, in his total 8 years, his cumulative debt was less than any two years of Obama's.

GDP growth was slow, but there was nothing slow about the jobs recovery specifically. The job loss was massive and the biggest since the Great Depression. The economy lost 8 million jobs in 9 months. Obviously, it would take some time to regain all those jobs lost. Not only did the recession end 6 months into Obama's presidency, but we have had job growth EVER SINCE.

The CBO analysis wasn't perfect, but it measured the growth in consumer spending and how that stimulus creates jobs. Either way, there was no denying the timing of the stimulus's effect was in sync with the recovery itself.

Putting aside the CBO's analysis, don't you see the logic in government benefits creating a boost in consumer spending and thus job creation? Without that boost to consumer spending, those millions of people would not have spent much money at all in the economy. 70% of the economy is consumer spending. That's how capitalism works. Sure, you could make the argument those gov benefits cost revenue, but so do republican TAX CUTS!

Okay so you point to job growth under Reagan being because of cutting taxes, but that there really isn't any evidence the job growth under him had anything to do with his tax cuts especially since Reagan raised taxes 11 times in total.

Consider the shitty economy under Bush. Job growth under Bush was pathetic despite him making bigger tax cuts than Reagan did. You do know his cuts were enormous right? We had two recessions under Bush despite this. Hell, you should compare the job growth under Bush and Reagan to the job growth under Obama.

 

[Boss]

GDP growth was slow, but there was nothing slow about the jobs recovery specifically. The job loss was massive and the biggest since the Great Depression. The economy lost 8 million jobs in 9 months. Obviously, it would take some time to regain all those jobs lost. Not only did the recession end 6 months into Obama's presidency, but we have had job growth EVER SINCE.

There wasn't anything slow about the jobs recovery of some sectors because those jobs never came back. We were lectured about how those jobs are gone for good and we may as well accept that. Sure, Obama replaced 3 million good-paying manufacturing jobs with service sector jobs no one can live on, many of them cutting back from full to part time employment due to the health care mandates.

Blaming how bad things were is not an argument for your policies. It's a convenient excuse for your policies not working as gloriously as promised. The recession ended and we've had the weakest economic recovery in American history. It only cost us $10 trillion.

The CBO analysis wasn't perfect, but it measured the growth in consumer spending and how that stimulus creates jobs. Either way, there was no denying the timing of the stimulus's effect was in sync with the recovery itself.

Putting aside the CBO's analysis, don't you see the logic in government benefits creating a boost in consumer spending and thus job creation? Without that boost to consumer spending, those millions of people would not have spent much money at all in the economy. 70% of the economy is consumer spending. That's how capitalism works. Sure, you could make the argument those gov benefits cost revenue, but so do republican TAX CUTS!

STIMULUS is an artificial stimulation... that's what it IS. Whatever benefits it brings are temporary and dependent upon the stimulus itself. Obviously, no economy can withstand perpetual unlimited stimulus.

Tax cuts, particularly to the top marginal income rates, does not produce LESS revenue. Historically, we can look at the Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton and Bush tax cuts on top marginals and cap gains, and we find an INCREASE in the tax revenues for subsequent years. US Treasury Dept. tables are posted at taxpolicycenter.org or you can Google "historic tax revenue tables" and research this for yourself. It's public record.

Okay so you point to job growth under Reagan being because of cutting taxes, but that there really isn't any evidence the job growth under him had anything to do with his tax cuts especially since Reagan raised taxes 11 times in total.

Consider the shitty economy under Bush. Job growth under Bush was pathetic despite him making bigger tax cuts than Reagan did. You do know his cuts were enormous right? We had two recessions under Bush despite this. Hell, you should compare the job growth under Bush and Reagan to the job growth under Obama.

Reagan didn't actually raise taxes. What he did was always part of his overall tax plan. First, he cut the top marginal rates from 71% to 28% and reduced cap gains (I think 32% to 15%?) This huge tax savings prompted these top marginal earners to reinvest in their businesses, expand and upgrade, increase production, or to just make their money available to banks who were now able to lend it to aspiring entrepreneurs, creating more and more jobs. Where this left-wing "Reagan Tax Increase" meme comes in is what Reagan had planned next... Expanding of the tax base. People who previously paid no tax, now had to pay some... and to the left, this is a "tax increase."

What it was, was brilliant. The first two years of the Reagan recovery, he created more jobs than Obama in nearly his entire presidency. And I might add, from much further down. The prime interest rate at that time was 21% with consistent years of over 10% inflation. (aka: Carter Malaise)

He did this by making a huge cut to top marginal wage earners, freeing up investment capital and enabling the free market to flourish, then expanded the tax base to include all these great new jobs created. The result was a 75% increase in tax revenues over his 8 year presidency. A 97-month period of economic growth was something that set a record at the time.

don't you see the logic in government benefits creating a boost in consumer spending and thus job creation?

I fail to see the logic that government has unlimited benefits to hand out in order to perpetuate consumer spending, thus, job creation. I fail to see the logic in this system unless the government has unlimited resources.

Generally speaking, I don't like the government being involved in the free market unless it is for the protection or encouragement of the free market system. I would rather our economy take it's lumps through the free market and let the market correct itself. I don't believe in bailouts because that's not letting the market correct itself. Businesses have to fail for others to rise up and fill their void in the market.

 

[Billy000]

GDP growth was slow, but there was nothing slow about the jobs recovery specifically. The job loss was massive and the biggest since the Great Depression. The economy lost 8 million jobs in 9 months. Obviously, it would take some time to regain all those jobs lost. Not only did the recession end 6 months into Obama's presidency, but we have had job growth EVER SINCE.

There wasn't anything slow about the jobs recovery of some sectors because those jobs never came back. We were lectured about how those jobs are gone for good and we may as well accept that. Sure, Obama replaced 3 million good-paying manufacturing jobs with service sector jobs no one can live on, many of them cutting back from full to part time employment due to the health care mandates.

Blaming how bad things were is not an argument for your policies. It's a convenient excuse for your policies not working as gloriously as promised. The recession ended and we've had the weakest economic recovery in American history. It only cost us $10 trillion.

The CBO analysis wasn't perfect, but it measured the growth in consumer spending and how that stimulus creates jobs. Either way, there was no denying the timing of the stimulus's effect was in sync with the recovery itself.

Putting aside the CBO's analysis, don't you see the logic in government benefits creating a boost in consumer spending and thus job creation? Without that boost to consumer spending, those millions of people would not have spent much money at all in the economy. 70% of the economy is consumer spending. That's how capitalism works. Sure, you could make the argument those gov benefits cost revenue, but so do republican TAX CUTS!

STIMULUS is an artificial stimulation... that's what it IS. Whatever benefits it brings are temporary and dependent upon the stimulus itself. Obviously, no economy can withstand perpetual unlimited stimulus.

Tax cuts, particularly to the top marginal income rates, does not produce LESS revenue. Historically, we can look at the Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton and Bush tax cuts on top marginals and cap gains, and we find an INCREASE in the tax revenues for subsequent years. US Treasury Dept. tables are posted at taxpolicycenter.org or you can Google "historic tax revenue tables" and research this for yourself. It's public record.

Okay so you point to job growth under Reagan being because of cutting taxes, but that there really isn't any evidence the job growth under him had anything to do with his tax cuts especially since Reagan raised taxes 11 times in total.

Consider the shitty economy under Bush. Job growth under Bush was pathetic despite him making bigger tax cuts than Reagan did. You do know his cuts were enormous right? We had two recessions under Bush despite this. Hell, you should compare the job growth under Bush and Reagan to the job growth under Obama.

Reagan didn't actually raise taxes. What he did was always part of his overall tax plan. First, he cut the top marginal rates from 71% to 28% and reduced cap gains (I think 32% to 15%?) This huge tax savings prompted these top marginal earners to reinvest in their businesses, expand and upgrade, increase production, or to just make their money available to banks who were now able to lend it to aspiring entrepreneurs, creating more and more jobs. Where this left-wing "Reagan Tax Increase" meme comes in is what Reagan had planned next... Expanding of the tax base. People who previously paid no tax, now had to pay some... and to the left, this is a "tax increase."

What it was, was brilliant. The first two years of the Reagan recovery, he created more jobs than Obama in nearly his entire presidency. And I might add, from much further down. The prime interest rate at that time was 21% with consistent years of over 10% inflation. (aka: Carter Malaise)

He did this by making a huge cut to top marginal wage earners, freeing up investment capital and enabling the free market to flourish, then expanded the tax base to include all these great new jobs created. The result was a 75% increase in tax revenues over his 8 year presidency. A 97-month period of economic growth was something that set a record at the time.

don't you see the logic in government benefits creating a boost in consumer spending and thus job creation?

I fail to see the logic that government has unlimited benefits to hand out in order to perpetuate consumer spending, thus, job creation. I fail to see the logic in this system unless the government has unlimited resources.

Generally speaking, I don't like the government being involved in the free market unless it is for the protection or encouragement of the free market system. I would rather our economy take it's lumps through the free market and let the market correct itself. I don't believe in bailouts because that's not letting the market correct itself. Businesses have to fail for others to rise up and fill their void in the market.

1) What you haven't explained is why job growth under Bush was so weak and why the Great Recession began if dramatic tax cuts are so effective in stimulating growth. Also, the debt and deficit exploded under Bush. The deficit under Obama was dramatically reduced.

2) Why do you blame Obama on loss of manufacturing jobs?

3) Artificial stimulus? So, if you give an unemployed person a few hundred dollars a month, you don't think their consumer spending wouldn't help the economy?

 

[Boss]

GDP growth was slow, but there was nothing slow about the jobs recovery specifically. The job loss was massive and the biggest since the Great Depression. The economy lost 8 million jobs in 9 months. Obviously, it would take some time to regain all those jobs lost. Not only did the recession end 6 months into Obama's presidency, but we have had job growth EVER SINCE.

There wasn't anything slow about the jobs recovery of some sectors because those jobs never came back. We were lectured about how those jobs are gone for good and we may as well accept that. Sure, Obama replaced 3 million good-paying manufacturing jobs with service sector jobs no one can live on, many of them cutting back from full to part time employment due to the health care mandates.

Blaming how bad things were is not an argument for your policies. It's a convenient excuse for your policies not working as gloriously as promised. The recession ended and we've had the weakest economic recovery in American history. It only cost us $10 trillion.

The CBO analysis wasn't perfect, but it measured the growth in consumer spending and how that stimulus creates jobs. Either way, there was no denying the timing of the stimulus's effect was in sync with the recovery itself.

Putting aside the CBO's analysis, don't you see the logic in government benefits creating a boost in consumer spending and thus job creation? Without that boost to consumer spending, those millions of people would not have spent much money at all in the economy. 70% of the economy is consumer spending. That's how capitalism works. Sure, you could make the argument those gov benefits cost revenue, but so do republican TAX CUTS!

STIMULUS is an artificial stimulation... that's what it IS. Whatever benefits it brings are temporary and dependent upon the stimulus itself. Obviously, no economy can withstand perpetual unlimited stimulus.

Tax cuts, particularly to the top marginal income rates, does not produce LESS revenue. Historically, we can look at the Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton and Bush tax cuts on top marginals and cap gains, and we find an INCREASE in the tax revenues for subsequent years. US Treasury Dept. tables are posted at taxpolicycenter.org or you can Google "historic tax revenue tables" and research this for yourself. It's public record.

Okay so you point to job growth under Reagan being because of cutting taxes, but that there really isn't any evidence the job growth under him had anything to do with his tax cuts especially since Reagan raised taxes 11 times in total.

Consider the shitty economy under Bush. Job growth under Bush was pathetic despite him making bigger tax cuts than Reagan did. You do know his cuts were enormous right? We had two recessions under Bush despite this. Hell, you should compare the job growth under Bush and Reagan to the job growth under Obama.

Reagan didn't actually raise taxes. What he did was always part of his overall tax plan. First, he cut the top marginal rates from 71% to 28% and reduced cap gains (I think 32% to 15%?) This huge tax savings prompted these top marginal earners to reinvest in their businesses, expand and upgrade, increase production, or to just make their money available to banks who were now able to lend it to aspiring entrepreneurs, creating more and more jobs. Where this left-wing "Reagan Tax Increase" meme comes in is what Reagan had planned next... Expanding of the tax base. People who previously paid no tax, now had to pay some... and to the left, this is a "tax increase."

What it was, was brilliant. The first two years of the Reagan recovery, he created more jobs than Obama in nearly his entire presidency. And I might add, from much further down. The prime interest rate at that time was 21% with consistent years of over 10% inflation. (aka: Carter Malaise)

He did this by making a huge cut to top marginal wage earners, freeing up investment capital and enabling the free market to flourish, then expanded the tax base to include all these great new jobs created. The result was a 75% increase in tax revenues over his 8 year presidency. A 97-month period of economic growth was something that set a record at the time.

don't you see the logic in government benefits creating a boost in consumer spending and thus job creation?

I fail to see the logic that government has unlimited benefits to hand out in order to perpetuate consumer spending, thus, job creation. I fail to see the logic in this system unless the government has unlimited resources.

Generally speaking, I don't like the government being involved in the free market unless it is for the protection or encouragement of the free market system. I would rather our economy take it's lumps through the free market and let the market correct itself. I don't believe in bailouts because that's not letting the market correct itself. Businesses have to fail for others to rise up and fill their void in the market.

1) What you haven't explained is why job growth under Bush was so weak and why the Great Recession began if dramatic tax cuts are so effective in stimulating growth. Also, the debt and deficit exploded under Bush. The deficit under Obama was dramatically reduced.

2) Why do you blame Obama on loss of manufacturing jobs?

3) Artificial stimulus? So, if you give an unemployed person a few hundred dollars a month, you don't think their consumer spending wouldn't help the economy?

1) Well I explained how Reagan reduced top marginal tax rates and expanded the base. Bush's tax cuts didn't follow the same plan. With Bush, everyone got a tax cut and the base was not expanded but actually retracted, meaning fewer taxpayers. Still, his tax cuts eventually produced more tax revenue.

1b) Debts and deficits aren't related to the tax rates or tax collections. This is a bait and switch opponents like to pull. Budget deficit and debt is caused by spending more than you take in. Deficit and debt increased under Reagan as well. It had nothing to do with his tax cuts.

2) I didn't solely blame Obama. Manufacturing jobs have been leaving for years. Mostly, this is due to excessive regulation which Obama increased dramatically. Tax increases and regulations cause manufacturing businesses to close or find more profitable options.

3) Whatever help the consumer spending provided was dependent on stimulus dollars. You can't perpetually support your economy on never-ending stimulus. You keep mentioning this and I keep raising this point but you're not addressing it.

 

[Boss]

No offense, but what I am seeing develop as a debate on economics is sort of disappointing me. You want to argue for government stimulus programs to grow the economy and I want to take the side of capitalism and free enterprise. It's not a fair fight, I feel like I'm taking advantage of you.

There are all kinds of people on both sides of this stimulus idea. Trump wants a stimulus TWICE the size Hillary proposed! This is why economics can't be a Republican vs. Democrat argument for me. I look at stimulus plans like heroin for the economy. Nothing wrong with heroin but it'll eventually kill you.

Stimulus happens because people tend to view economics with their emotions rather than data, history, mathematics and results. You need to remember, if we are $20 trillion in debt... there is no "Stimulus Money" available. Where is it coming from? Printing presses at the Federal Reserve? Selling off another chunk of our ass to China?

Promotion of Free Enterprise and Free Market Capitalism is FREE! Opening up opportunities for entrepreneurs and investors is a healthy thing for the economy. It's more like a B-12 shot than heroin.

 

[Billy000]

GDP growth was slow, but there was nothing slow about the jobs recovery specifically. The job loss was massive and the biggest since the Great Depression. The economy lost 8 million jobs in 9 months. Obviously, it would take some time to regain all those jobs lost. Not only did the recession end 6 months into Obama's presidency, but we have had job growth EVER SINCE.

There wasn't anything slow about the jobs recovery of some sectors because those jobs never came back. We were lectured about how those jobs are gone for good and we may as well accept that. Sure, Obama replaced 3 million good-paying manufacturing jobs with service sector jobs no one can live on, many of them cutting back from full to part time employment due to the health care mandates.

Blaming how bad things were is not an argument for your policies. It's a convenient excuse for your policies not working as gloriously as promised. The recession ended and we've had the weakest economic recovery in American history. It only cost us $10 trillion.

The CBO analysis wasn't perfect, but it measured the growth in consumer spending and how that stimulus creates jobs. Either way, there was no denying the timing of the stimulus's effect was in sync with the recovery itself.

Putting aside the CBO's analysis, don't you see the logic in government benefits creating a boost in consumer spending and thus job creation? Without that boost to consumer spending, those millions of people would not have spent much money at all in the economy. 70% of the economy is consumer spending. That's how capitalism works. Sure, you could make the argument those gov benefits cost revenue, but so do republican TAX CUTS!

STIMULUS is an artificial stimulation... that's what it IS. Whatever benefits it brings are temporary and dependent upon the stimulus itself. Obviously, no economy can withstand perpetual unlimited stimulus.

Tax cuts, particularly to the top marginal income rates, does not produce LESS revenue. Historically, we can look at the Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton and Bush tax cuts on top marginals and cap gains, and we find an INCREASE in the tax revenues for subsequent years. US Treasury Dept. tables are posted at taxpolicycenter.org or you can Google "historic tax revenue tables" and research this for yourself. It's public record.

Okay so you point to job growth under Reagan being because of cutting taxes, but that there really isn't any evidence the job growth under him had anything to do with his tax cuts especially since Reagan raised taxes 11 times in total.

Consider the shitty economy under Bush. Job growth under Bush was pathetic despite him making bigger tax cuts than Reagan did. You do know his cuts were enormous right? We had two recessions under Bush despite this. Hell, you should compare the job growth under Bush and Reagan to the job growth under Obama.

Reagan didn't actually raise taxes. What he did was always part of his overall tax plan. First, he cut the top marginal rates from 71% to 28% and reduced cap gains (I think 32% to 15%?) This huge tax savings prompted these top marginal earners to reinvest in their businesses, expand and upgrade, increase production, or to just make their money available to banks who were now able to lend it to aspiring entrepreneurs, creating more and more jobs. Where this left-wing "Reagan Tax Increase" meme comes in is what Reagan had planned next... Expanding of the tax base. People who previously paid no tax, now had to pay some... and to the left, this is a "tax increase."

What it was, was brilliant. The first two years of the Reagan recovery, he created more jobs than Obama in nearly his entire presidency. And I might add, from much further down. The prime interest rate at that time was 21% with consistent years of over 10% inflation. (aka: Carter Malaise)

He did this by making a huge cut to top marginal wage earners, freeing up investment capital and enabling the free market to flourish, then expanded the tax base to include all these great new jobs created. The result was a 75% increase in tax revenues over his 8 year presidency. A 97-month period of economic growth was something that set a record at the time.

don't you see the logic in government benefits creating a boost in consumer spending and thus job creation?

I fail to see the logic that government has unlimited benefits to hand out in order to perpetuate consumer spending, thus, job creation. I fail to see the logic in this system unless the government has unlimited resources.

Generally speaking, I don't like the government being involved in the free market unless it is for the protection or encouragement of the free market system. I would rather our economy take it's lumps through the free market and let the market correct itself. I don't believe in bailouts because that's not letting the market correct itself. Businesses have to fail for others to rise up and fill their void in the market.

1) What you haven't explained is why job growth under Bush was so weak and why the Great Recession began if dramatic tax cuts are so effective in stimulating growth. Also, the debt and deficit exploded under Bush. The deficit under Obama was dramatically reduced.

2) Why do you blame Obama on loss of manufacturing jobs?

3) Artificial stimulus? So, if you give an unemployed person a few hundred dollars a month, you don't think their consumer spending wouldn't help the economy?

1) Well I explained how Reagan reduced top marginal tax rates and expanded the base. Bush's tax cuts didn't follow the same plan. With Bush, everyone got a tax cut and the base was not expanded but actually retracted, meaning fewer taxpayers. Still, his tax cuts eventually produced more tax revenue.

1b) Debts and deficits aren't related to the tax rates or tax collections. This is a bait and switch opponents like to pull. Budget deficit and debt is caused by spending more than you take in. Deficit and debt increased under Reagan as well. It had nothing to do with his tax cuts.

2) I didn't solely blame Obama. Manufacturing jobs have been leaving for years. Mostly, this is due to excessive regulation which Obama increased dramatically. Tax increases and regulations cause manufacturing businesses to close or find more profitable options.

3) Whatever help the consumer spending provided was dependent on stimulus dollars. You can't perpetually support your economy on never-ending stimulus. You keep mentioning this and I keep raising this point but you're not addressing it.

1) lol that is such a load of bullshit. You're just making that crap up on the spot about a shrinking tax base. Hell even if it did, Bush's broader tax cuts would have still applied to enough top earners. More importantly, if this economic theory had any merit to it, we still wouldn't have seen the Great Recession and pathetic job growth based on how big Bush's tax cuts were.

Okay, and no shit debt accumulates if the government spends more than it takes in revenue but the obvious effect cutting taxes would only exasperate the problem lol. Cutting taxes means less revenue and more borrowing.

2) Obama did away with many other regulations while creating more. Either way, regulations isn't the number one job killer - it's a lack of consumer demand. The BLS statistics prove that.

3) No one said anything about "never ending stimulus". Keynesian economics is based on temporary measures to mitigate an economic crisis.

 

[Billy000]

No offense, but what I am seeing develop as a debate on economics is sort of disappointing me. You want to argue for government stimulus programs to grow the economy and I want to take the side of capitalism and free enterprise. It's not a fair fight, I feel like I'm taking advantage of you.

There are all kinds of people on both sides of this stimulus idea. Trump wants a stimulus TWICE the size Hillary proposed! This is why economics can't be a Republican vs. Democrat argument for me. I look at stimulus plans like heroin for the economy. Nothing wrong with heroin but it'll eventually kill you.

Stimulus happens because people tend to view economics with their emotions rather than data, history, mathematics and results. You need to remember, if we are $20 trillion in debt... there is no "Stimulus Money" available. Where is it coming from? Printing presses at the Federal Reserve? Selling off another chunk of our ass to China?

Promotion of Free Enterprise and Free Market Capitalism is FREE! Opening up opportunities for entrepreneurs and investors is a healthy thing for the economy. It's more like a B-12 shot than heroin.

Now you're pivoting randomly but I'll say this in response: unregulated capitalism ONLY benefits corporations. It does not benefit workers. Hell we know this because wages in this country are decades behind on inflated cost of living in this country.

 

[Boss]

GDP growth was slow, but there was nothing slow about the jobs recovery specifically. The job loss was massive and the biggest since the Great Depression. The economy lost 8 million jobs in 9 months. Obviously, it would take some time to regain all those jobs lost. Not only did the recession end 6 months into Obama's presidency, but we have had job growth EVER SINCE.

There wasn't anything slow about the jobs recovery of some sectors because those jobs never came back. We were lectured about how those jobs are gone for good and we may as well accept that. Sure, Obama replaced 3 million good-paying manufacturing jobs with service sector jobs no one can live on, many of them cutting back from full to part time employment due to the health care mandates.

Blaming how bad things were is not an argument for your policies. It's a convenient excuse for your policies not working as gloriously as promised. The recession ended and we've had the weakest economic recovery in American history. It only cost us $10 trillion.

The CBO analysis wasn't perfect, but it measured the growth in consumer spending and how that stimulus creates jobs. Either way, there was no denying the timing of the stimulus's effect was in sync with the recovery itself.

Putting aside the CBO's analysis, don't you see the logic in government benefits creating a boost in consumer spending and thus job creation? Without that boost to consumer spending, those millions of people would not have spent much money at all in the economy. 70% of the economy is consumer spending. That's how capitalism works. Sure, you could make the argument those gov benefits cost revenue, but so do republican TAX CUTS!

STIMULUS is an artificial stimulation... that's what it IS. Whatever benefits it brings are temporary and dependent upon the stimulus itself. Obviously, no economy can withstand perpetual unlimited stimulus.

Tax cuts, particularly to the top marginal income rates, does not produce LESS revenue. Historically, we can look at the Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton and Bush tax cuts on top marginals and cap gains, and we find an INCREASE in the tax revenues for subsequent years. US Treasury Dept. tables are posted at taxpolicycenter.org or you can Google "historic tax revenue tables" and research this for yourself. It's public record.

Okay so you point to job growth under Reagan being because of cutting taxes, but that there really isn't any evidence the job growth under him had anything to do with his tax cuts especially since Reagan raised taxes 11 times in total.

Consider the shitty economy under Bush. Job growth under Bush was pathetic despite him making bigger tax cuts than Reagan did. You do know his cuts were enormous right? We had two recessions under Bush despite this. Hell, you should compare the job growth under Bush and Reagan to the job growth under Obama.

Reagan didn't actually raise taxes. What he did was always part of his overall tax plan. First, he cut the top marginal rates from 71% to 28% and reduced cap gains (I think 32% to 15%?) This huge tax savings prompted these top marginal earners to reinvest in their businesses, expand and upgrade, increase production, or to just make their money available to banks who were now able to lend it to aspiring entrepreneurs, creating more and more jobs. Where this left-wing "Reagan Tax Increase" meme comes in is what Reagan had planned next... Expanding of the tax base. People who previously paid no tax, now had to pay some... and to the left, this is a "tax increase."

What it was, was brilliant. The first two years of the Reagan recovery, he created more jobs than Obama in nearly his entire presidency. And I might add, from much further down. The prime interest rate at that time was 21% with consistent years of over 10% inflation. (aka: Carter Malaise)

He did this by making a huge cut to top marginal wage earners, freeing up investment capital and enabling the free market to flourish, then expanded the tax base to include all these great new jobs created. The result was a 75% increase in tax revenues over his 8 year presidency. A 97-month period of economic growth was something that set a record at the time.

don't you see the logic in government benefits creating a boost in consumer spending and thus job creation?

I fail to see the logic that government has unlimited benefits to hand out in order to perpetuate consumer spending, thus, job creation. I fail to see the logic in this system unless the government has unlimited resources.

Generally speaking, I don't like the government being involved in the free market unless it is for the protection or encouragement of the free market system. I would rather our economy take it's lumps through the free market and let the market correct itself. I don't believe in bailouts because that's not letting the market correct itself. Businesses have to fail for others to rise up and fill their void in the market.

1) What you haven't explained is why job growth under Bush was so weak and why the Great Recession began if dramatic tax cuts are so effective in stimulating growth. Also, the debt and deficit exploded under Bush. The deficit under Obama was dramatically reduced.

2) Why do you blame Obama on loss of manufacturing jobs?

3) Artificial stimulus? So, if you give an unemployed person a few hundred dollars a month, you don't think their consumer spending wouldn't help the economy?

1) Well I explained how Reagan reduced top marginal tax rates and expanded the base. Bush's tax cuts didn't follow the same plan. With Bush, everyone got a tax cut and the base was not expanded but actually retracted, meaning fewer taxpayers. Still, his tax cuts eventually produced more tax revenue.

1b) Debts and deficits aren't related to the tax rates or tax collections. This is a bait and switch opponents like to pull. Budget deficit and debt is caused by spending more than you take in. Deficit and debt increased under Reagan as well. It had nothing to do with his tax cuts.

2) I didn't solely blame Obama. Manufacturing jobs have been leaving for years. Mostly, this is due to excessive regulation which Obama increased dramatically. Tax increases and regulations cause manufacturing businesses to close or find more profitable options.

3) Whatever help the consumer spending provided was dependent on stimulus dollars. You can't perpetually support your economy on never-ending stimulus. You keep mentioning this and I keep raising this point but you're not addressing it.

1) lol that is such a load of bullshit. You're just making that crap up on the spot about a shrinking tax base. Hell even if it did, Bush's broader tax cuts would have still applied to enough top earners. More importantly, if this economic theory had any merit to it, we still wouldn't have seen the Great Recession and pathetic job growth based on how big Bush's tax cuts were.

Okay, and no shit debt accumulates if the government spends more than it takes in revenue but the obvious effect cutting taxes would only exasperate the problem lol. Cutting taxes means less revenue and more borrowing.

2) Obama did away with many other regulations while creating more. Either way, regulations isn't the number one job killer - it's a lack of consumer demand. The BLS statistics prove that.

3) No one said anything about "never ending stimulus". Keynesian economics is based on temporary measures to mitigate an economic crisis.

1) lol that is such a load of bullshit. You're just making that crap up on the spot about a shrinking tax base. Hell even if it did, Bush's broader tax cuts would have still applied to enough top earners. More importantly, if this economic theory had any merit to it, we still wouldn't have seen the Great Recession and pathetic job growth based on how big Bush's tax cuts were.

I didn't say "shrinking tax base" ...read it again. Bush's plan didn't expand the tax base. Reagan's and Kennedy's did. Bush also didn't dramatically decrease the top marginals the way Reagan did. His cuts were across the board to all taxpayers. When you cut taxes like that, it provides instant money in everyone's pocket and this stimulates the economy for a couple of quarters. Once that money is spent, that's all the economic bang you get from that tax cut. Whereas, with a top marginal wage earner, you're probably dealing with a small businessman who is creating jobs and opportunities with his tax savings.

Cutting top marginal tax rates to generate more tax revenue is not a THEORY!

Cutting taxes means less revenue and more borrowing

WRONG!

This is a proven fact that you can confirm for yourself by looking at any year we've lowered top marginal tax rates and what we took in for tax revenue as a consequence. This is not questionable, it's actual public record. Cutting top marginal tax rates produces greater tax revenues.

Either way, regulations isn't the number one job killer - it's a lack of consumer demand.

It's actually a combination of many things that kill jobs. In a free market system, jobs are killed all the time just as jobs are created. It is indeed driven by consumer demand. Some regulations are good regulations whether they kill jobs or not, they make the free market more fair and/or competitive. They may protect the consumer, they may protect natural resources. There are beneficial aspects to regulation we can all agree upon with regard to how free markets operate.

However, excessive regulation being continuously churned out by the Federal government with regards to political initiatives and objectives rather than the economics, is not a good thing to be happening.

 

[Billy000]

GDP growth was slow, but there was nothing slow about the jobs recovery specifically. The job loss was massive and the biggest since the Great Depression. The economy lost 8 million jobs in 9 months. Obviously, it would take some time to regain all those jobs lost. Not only did the recession end 6 months into Obama's presidency, but we have had job growth EVER SINCE.

There wasn't anything slow about the jobs recovery of some sectors because those jobs never came back. We were lectured about how those jobs are gone for good and we may as well accept that. Sure, Obama replaced 3 million good-paying manufacturing jobs with service sector jobs no one can live on, many of them cutting back from full to part time employment due to the health care mandates.

Blaming how bad things were is not an argument for your policies. It's a convenient excuse for your policies not working as gloriously as promised. The recession ended and we've had the weakest economic recovery in American history. It only cost us $10 trillion.

The CBO analysis wasn't perfect, but it measured the growth in consumer spending and how that stimulus creates jobs. Either way, there was no denying the timing of the stimulus's effect was in sync with the recovery itself.

Putting aside the CBO's analysis, don't you see the logic in government benefits creating a boost in consumer spending and thus job creation? Without that boost to consumer spending, those millions of people would not have spent much money at all in the economy. 70% of the economy is consumer spending. That's how capitalism works. Sure, you could make the argument those gov benefits cost revenue, but so do republican TAX CUTS!

STIMULUS is an artificial stimulation... that's what it IS. Whatever benefits it brings are temporary and dependent upon the stimulus itself. Obviously, no economy can withstand perpetual unlimited stimulus.

Tax cuts, particularly to the top marginal income rates, does not produce LESS revenue. Historically, we can look at the Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton and Bush tax cuts on top marginals and cap gains, and we find an INCREASE in the tax revenues for subsequent years. US Treasury Dept. tables are posted at taxpolicycenter.org or you can Google "historic tax revenue tables" and research this for yourself. It's public record.

Okay so you point to job growth under Reagan being because of cutting taxes, but that there really isn't any evidence the job growth under him had anything to do with his tax cuts especially since Reagan raised taxes 11 times in total.

Consider the shitty economy under Bush. Job growth under Bush was pathetic despite him making bigger tax cuts than Reagan did. You do know his cuts were enormous right? We had two recessions under Bush despite this. Hell, you should compare the job growth under Bush and Reagan to the job growth under Obama.

Reagan didn't actually raise taxes. What he did was always part of his overall tax plan. First, he cut the top marginal rates from 71% to 28% and reduced cap gains (I think 32% to 15%?) This huge tax savings prompted these top marginal earners to reinvest in their businesses, expand and upgrade, increase production, or to just make their money available to banks who were now able to lend it to aspiring entrepreneurs, creating more and more jobs. Where this left-wing "Reagan Tax Increase" meme comes in is what Reagan had planned next... Expanding of the tax base. People who previously paid no tax, now had to pay some... and to the left, this is a "tax increase."

What it was, was brilliant. The first two years of the Reagan recovery, he created more jobs than Obama in nearly his entire presidency. And I might add, from much further down. The prime interest rate at that time was 21% with consistent years of over 10% inflation. (aka: Carter Malaise)

He did this by making a huge cut to top marginal wage earners, freeing up investment capital and enabling the free market to flourish, then expanded the tax base to include all these great new jobs created. The result was a 75% increase in tax revenues over his 8 year presidency. A 97-month period of economic growth was something that set a record at the time.

don't you see the logic in government benefits creating a boost in consumer spending and thus job creation?

I fail to see the logic that government has unlimited benefits to hand out in order to perpetuate consumer spending, thus, job creation. I fail to see the logic in this system unless the government has unlimited resources.

Generally speaking, I don't like the government being involved in the free market unless it is for the protection or encouragement of the free market system. I would rather our economy take it's lumps through the free market and let the market correct itself. I don't believe in bailouts because that's not letting the market correct itself. Businesses have to fail for others to rise up and fill their void in the market.

1) What you haven't explained is why job growth under Bush was so weak and why the Great Recession began if dramatic tax cuts are so effective in stimulating growth. Also, the debt and deficit exploded under Bush. The deficit under Obama was dramatically reduced.

2) Why do you blame Obama on loss of manufacturing jobs?

3) Artificial stimulus? So, if you give an unemployed person a few hundred dollars a month, you don't think their consumer spending wouldn't help the economy?

1) Well I explained how Reagan reduced top marginal tax rates and expanded the base. Bush's tax cuts didn't follow the same plan. With Bush, everyone got a tax cut and the base was not expanded but actually retracted, meaning fewer taxpayers. Still, his tax cuts eventually produced more tax revenue.

1b) Debts and deficits aren't related to the tax rates or tax collections. This is a bait and switch opponents like to pull. Budget deficit and debt is caused by spending more than you take in. Deficit and debt increased under Reagan as well. It had nothing to do with his tax cuts.

2) I didn't solely blame Obama. Manufacturing jobs have been leaving for years. Mostly, this is due to excessive regulation which Obama increased dramatically. Tax increases and regulations cause manufacturing businesses to close or find more profitable options.

3) Whatever help the consumer spending provided was dependent on stimulus dollars. You can't perpetually support your economy on never-ending stimulus. You keep mentioning this and I keep raising this point but you're not addressing it.

1) lol that is such a load of bullshit. You're just making that crap up on the spot about a shrinking tax base. Hell even if it did, Bush's broader tax cuts would have still applied to enough top earners. More importantly, if this economic theory had any merit to it, we still wouldn't have seen the Great Recession and pathetic job growth based on how big Bush's tax cuts were.

Okay, and no shit debt accumulates if the government spends more than it takes in revenue but the obvious effect cutting taxes would only exasperate the problem lol. Cutting taxes means less revenue and more borrowing.

2) Obama did away with many other regulations while creating more. Either way, regulations isn't the number one job killer - it's a lack of consumer demand. The BLS statistics prove that.

3) No one said anything about "never ending stimulus". Keynesian economics is based on temporary measures to mitigate an economic crisis.

1) lol that is such a load of bullshit. You're just making that crap up on the spot about a shrinking tax base. Hell even if it did, Bush's broader tax cuts would have still applied to enough top earners. More importantly, if this economic theory had any merit to it, we still wouldn't have seen the Great Recession and pathetic job growth based on how big Bush's tax cuts were.

I didn't say "shrinking tax base" ...read it again. Bush's plan didn't expand the tax base. Reagan's and Kennedy's did. Bush also didn't dramatically decrease the top marginals the way Reagan did. His cuts were across the board to all taxpayers. When you cut taxes like that, it provides instant money in everyone's pocket and this stimulates the economy for a couple of quarters. Once that money is spent, that's all the economic bang you get from that tax cut. Whereas, with a top marginal wage earner, you're probably dealing with a small businessman who is creating jobs and opportunities with his tax savings.

Cutting top marginal tax rates to generate more tax revenue is not a THEORY!

Cutting taxes means less revenue and more borrowing

WRONG!

This is a proven fact that you can confirm for yourself by looking at any year we've lowered top marginal tax rates and what we took in for tax revenue as a consequence. This is not questionable, it's actual public record. Cutting top marginal tax rates produces greater tax revenues.

Either way, regulations isn't the number one job killer - it's a lack of consumer demand.

It's actually a combination of many things that kill jobs. In a free market system, jobs are killed all the time just as jobs are created. It is indeed driven by consumer demand. Some regulations are good regulations whether they kill jobs or not, they make the free market more fair and/or competitive. They may protect the consumer, they may protect natural resources. There are beneficial aspects to regulation we can all agree upon with regard to how free markets operate.

However, excessive regulation being continuously churned out by the Federal government with regards to political initiatives and objectives rather than the economics, is not a good thing to be happening.

No, see Bush cut taxes dramatically for the top margin and as you put it, he reduced revenue broadly across the board.

I don't see how you can claim tax cuts wouldn't rack up the deficit. Bush's contribution to the debt was 10 trillion and he blew up his own deficit. Obviously, cutting revenue plays a role in this. Here's proof from a non-partisan Econ analytics site that breaks down each president's contribution to the debt. You may want to check out Reagan's contribution while you're at it:

Which President Added Most to the U.S. Debt?

The Bush tax cuts further reduced revenue. He approved a $700 billion bailout package for banks to combat the 2008 global financial crisis. Both Presidents Bush and Obama had to contend with higher mandatory spending for Social Security and Medicare. For more, see President Obama Compared to President Bush Policies.

 

[Boss]

There wasn't anything slow about the jobs recovery of some sectors because those jobs never came back. We were lectured about how those jobs are gone for good and we may as well accept that. Sure, Obama replaced 3 million good-paying manufacturing jobs with service sector jobs no one can live on, many of them cutting back from full to part time employment due to the health care mandates.

Blaming how bad things were is not an argument for your policies. It's a convenient excuse for your policies not working as gloriously as promised. The recession ended and we've had the weakest economic recovery in American history. It only cost us $10 trillion.

STIMULUS is an artificial stimulation... that's what it IS. Whatever benefits it brings are temporary and dependent upon the stimulus itself. Obviously, no economy can withstand perpetual unlimited stimulus.

Tax cuts, particularly to the top marginal income rates, does not produce LESS revenue. Historically, we can look at the Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton and Bush tax cuts on top marginals and cap gains, and we find an INCREASE in the tax revenues for subsequent years. US Treasury Dept. tables are posted at taxpolicycenter.org or you can Google "historic tax revenue tables" and research this for yourself. It's public record.

Reagan didn't actually raise taxes. What he did was always part of his overall tax plan. First, he cut the top marginal rates from 71% to 28% and reduced cap gains (I think 32% to 15%?) This huge tax savings prompted these top marginal earners to reinvest in their businesses, expand and upgrade, increase production, or to just make their money available to banks who were now able to lend it to aspiring entrepreneurs, creating more and more jobs. Where this left-wing "Reagan Tax Increase" meme comes in is what Reagan had planned next... Expanding of the tax base. People who previously paid no tax, now had to pay some... and to the left, this is a "tax increase."

What it was, was brilliant. The first two years of the Reagan recovery, he created more jobs than Obama in nearly his entire presidency. And I might add, from much further down. The prime interest rate at that time was 21% with consistent years of over 10% inflation. (aka: Carter Malaise)

He did this by making a huge cut to top marginal wage earners, freeing up investment capital and enabling the free market to flourish, then expanded the tax base to include all these great new jobs created. The result was a 75% increase in tax revenues over his 8 year presidency. A 97-month period of economic growth was something that set a record at the time.

don't you see the logic in government benefits creating a boost in consumer spending and thus job creation?

I fail to see the logic that government has unlimited benefits to hand out in order to perpetuate consumer spending, thus, job creation. I fail to see the logic in this system unless the government has unlimited resources.

Generally speaking, I don't like the government being involved in the free market unless it is for the protection or encouragement of the free market system. I would rather our economy take it's lumps through the free market and let the market correct itself. I don't believe in bailouts because that's not letting the market correct itself. Businesses have to fail for others to rise up and fill their void in the market.

1) What you haven't explained is why job growth under Bush was so weak and why the Great Recession began if dramatic tax cuts are so effective in stimulating growth. Also, the debt and deficit exploded under Bush. The deficit under Obama was dramatically reduced.

2) Why do you blame Obama on loss of manufacturing jobs?

3) Artificial stimulus? So, if you give an unemployed person a few hundred dollars a month, you don't think their consumer spending wouldn't help the economy?

1) Well I explained how Reagan reduced top marginal tax rates and expanded the base. Bush's tax cuts didn't follow the same plan. With Bush, everyone got a tax cut and the base was not expanded but actually retracted, meaning fewer taxpayers. Still, his tax cuts eventually produced more tax revenue.

1b) Debts and deficits aren't related to the tax rates or tax collections. This is a bait and switch opponents like to pull. Budget deficit and debt is caused by spending more than you take in. Deficit and debt increased under Reagan as well. It had nothing to do with his tax cuts.

2) I didn't solely blame Obama. Manufacturing jobs have been leaving for years. Mostly, this is due to excessive regulation which Obama increased dramatically. Tax increases and regulations cause manufacturing businesses to close or find more profitable options.

3) Whatever help the consumer spending provided was dependent on stimulus dollars. You can't perpetually support your economy on never-ending stimulus. You keep mentioning this and I keep raising this point but you're not addressing it.

1) lol that is such a load of bullshit. You're just making that crap up on the spot about a shrinking tax base. Hell even if it did, Bush's broader tax cuts would have still applied to enough top earners. More importantly, if this economic theory had any merit to it, we still wouldn't have seen the Great Recession and pathetic job growth based on how big Bush's tax cuts were.

Okay, and no shit debt accumulates if the government spends more than it takes in revenue but the obvious effect cutting taxes would only exasperate the problem lol. Cutting taxes means less revenue and more borrowing.

2) Obama did away with many other regulations while creating more. Either way, regulations isn't the number one job killer - it's a lack of consumer demand. The BLS statistics prove that.

3) No one said anything about "never ending stimulus". Keynesian economics is based on temporary measures to mitigate an economic crisis.

1) lol that is such a load of bullshit. You're just making that crap up on the spot about a shrinking tax base. Hell even if it did, Bush's broader tax cuts would have still applied to enough top earners. More importantly, if this economic theory had any merit to it, we still wouldn't have seen the Great Recession and pathetic job growth based on how big Bush's tax cuts were.

I didn't say "shrinking tax base" ...read it again. Bush's plan didn't expand the tax base. Reagan's and Kennedy's did. Bush also didn't dramatically decrease the top marginals the way Reagan did. His cuts were across the board to all taxpayers. When you cut taxes like that, it provides instant money in everyone's pocket and this stimulates the economy for a couple of quarters. Once that money is spent, that's all the economic bang you get from that tax cut. Whereas, with a top marginal wage earner, you're probably dealing with a small businessman who is creating jobs and opportunities with his tax savings.

Cutting top marginal tax rates to generate more tax revenue is not a THEORY!

Cutting taxes means less revenue and more borrowing

WRONG!

This is a proven fact that you can confirm for yourself by looking at any year we've lowered top marginal tax rates and what we took in for tax revenue as a consequence. This is not questionable, it's actual public record. Cutting top marginal tax rates produces greater tax revenues.

Either way, regulations isn't the number one job killer - it's a lack of consumer demand.

It's actually a combination of many things that kill jobs. In a free market system, jobs are killed all the time just as jobs are created. It is indeed driven by consumer demand. Some regulations are good regulations whether they kill jobs or not, they make the free market more fair and/or competitive. They may protect the consumer, they may protect natural resources. There are beneficial aspects to regulation we can all agree upon with regard to how free markets operate.

However, excessive regulation being continuously churned out by the Federal government with regards to political initiatives and objectives rather than the economics, is not a good thing to be happening.

No, see Bush cut taxes dramatically for the top margin and as you put it, he reduced revenue broadly across the board.

I don't see how you can claim tax cuts wouldn't rack up the deficit. Bush's contribution to the debt was 10 trillion and he blew up his own deficit. Obviously, cutting revenue plays a role in this. Here's proof from a non-partisan Econ analytics site that breaks down each president's contribution to the debt. You may want to check out Reagan's contribution while you're at it:

Which President Added Most to the U.S. Debt?

The Bush tax cuts further reduced revenue. He approved a $700 billion bailout package for banks to combat the 2008 global financial crisis. Both Presidents Bush and Obama had to contend with higher mandatory spending for Social Security and Medicare. For more, see President Obama Compared to President Bush Policies.

Remember the rules, you can reference sources but no links or copy/paste.

Bush didn't cut top marginals dramatically. (39.6 to 35%)
As opposed to Reagan who did... (71 to 28%)

I didn't say he reduced revenue across the board. I said he cut the tax rates across the board and didn't expand the tax base. He also introduced the Alternative Minimum Tax which ensures the top marginal earners can't exploit loopholes to avoid tax liability. The way the cuts were structured resulted in a decrease in tax revenue for the next 3 years. Eventually, even his tax cuts resulted in increased revenues.

This is where you again try to shift the debate over to the debt and deficits. We're not talking about the budget. We're not talking about spending. You have a rate of taxation and from that rate, you collect some amount of tax revenues. It doesn't change based on what you do or don't spend. This is not related to whether or not a president balances a budget. Those are great arguments we can have but they have nothing to do with the tax rate and subsequent collection of tax revenues.

I don't see how you can claim tax cuts wouldn't rack up the deficit.

The tax revenues are simply the amount of money we collect in taxes based on the tax rates we've established. Cutting those top marginal rates doesn't result in less tax revenue, it results in more. Congress spending more money than it has collected is not because of the lowered tax rate that produced more revenue.

Look, here's a simple analogy:

Your boss has given you a raise of $500 a month. Excitedly, you call your wife and let her know that your troubles are over, you now have an extra $500 a month! When you get home, you find you wife has spent well over $1,000 celebrating and you don't have your rent money. Now.... is the problem of you not having your rent money related to your pay raise? I suppose you could argue that if you hadn't gotten the raise, your wife wouldn't have spent the $1,000 celebrating and so it's actually your fault for getting a raise. But objectively, your problem is not that you gained $500 a month on your pay, it's the wife who spent $1,000 you didn't have.

The debt and deficit are not related to the tax rates and tax revenues. You're trying to make that connection but there's not one. Budgets, spending, debts and deficits are not related to how much tax you collected at a specific rate of taxation.

taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary

Here you will find our Receipt/Outlay summary of tax revenues (and debts) from 1940 to present. Look at tax revenue following Kennedy's 1960 tax cuts. Look at tax revenues following Reagan's 1981 tax cuts. Look at any year we lowered top marginal tax rates and you will see it actually increased tax revenues. With the Bush tax cuts this took a few years because of the way it was structured, but even his tax cuts eventually produced more tax revenue.

 

[Billy000]

1) What you haven't explained is why job growth under Bush was so weak and why the Great Recession began if dramatic tax cuts are so effective in stimulating growth. Also, the debt and deficit exploded under Bush. The deficit under Obama was dramatically reduced.

2) Why do you blame Obama on loss of manufacturing jobs?

3) Artificial stimulus? So, if you give an unemployed person a few hundred dollars a month, you don't think their consumer spending wouldn't help the economy?

1) Well I explained how Reagan reduced top marginal tax rates and expanded the base. Bush's tax cuts didn't follow the same plan. With Bush, everyone got a tax cut and the base was not expanded but actually retracted, meaning fewer taxpayers. Still, his tax cuts eventually produced more tax revenue.

1b) Debts and deficits aren't related to the tax rates or tax collections. This is a bait and switch opponents like to pull. Budget deficit and debt is caused by spending more than you take in. Deficit and debt increased under Reagan as well. It had nothing to do with his tax cuts.

2) I didn't solely blame Obama. Manufacturing jobs have been leaving for years. Mostly, this is due to excessive regulation which Obama increased dramatically. Tax increases and regulations cause manufacturing businesses to close or find more profitable options.

3) Whatever help the consumer spending provided was dependent on stimulus dollars. You can't perpetually support your economy on never-ending stimulus. You keep mentioning this and I keep raising this point but you're not addressing it.

1) lol that is such a load of bullshit. You're just making that crap up on the spot about a shrinking tax base. Hell even if it did, Bush's broader tax cuts would have still applied to enough top earners. More importantly, if this economic theory had any merit to it, we still wouldn't have seen the Great Recession and pathetic job growth based on how big Bush's tax cuts were.

Okay, and no shit debt accumulates if the government spends more than it takes in revenue but the obvious effect cutting taxes would only exasperate the problem lol. Cutting taxes means less revenue and more borrowing.

2) Obama did away with many other regulations while creating more. Either way, regulations isn't the number one job killer - it's a lack of consumer demand. The BLS statistics prove that.

3) No one said anything about "never ending stimulus". Keynesian economics is based on temporary measures to mitigate an economic crisis.

1) lol that is such a load of bullshit. You're just making that crap up on the spot about a shrinking tax base. Hell even if it did, Bush's broader tax cuts would have still applied to enough top earners. More importantly, if this economic theory had any merit to it, we still wouldn't have seen the Great Recession and pathetic job growth based on how big Bush's tax cuts were.

I didn't say "shrinking tax base" ...read it again. Bush's plan didn't expand the tax base. Reagan's and Kennedy's did. Bush also didn't dramatically decrease the top marginals the way Reagan did. His cuts were across the board to all taxpayers. When you cut taxes like that, it provides instant money in everyone's pocket and this stimulates the economy for a couple of quarters. Once that money is spent, that's all the economic bang you get from that tax cut. Whereas, with a top marginal wage earner, you're probably dealing with a small businessman who is creating jobs and opportunities with his tax savings.

Cutting top marginal tax rates to generate more tax revenue is not a THEORY!

Cutting taxes means less revenue and more borrowing

WRONG!

This is a proven fact that you can confirm for yourself by looking at any year we've lowered top marginal tax rates and what we took in for tax revenue as a consequence. This is not questionable, it's actual public record. Cutting top marginal tax rates produces greater tax revenues.

Either way, regulations isn't the number one job killer - it's a lack of consumer demand.

It's actually a combination of many things that kill jobs. In a free market system, jobs are killed all the time just as jobs are created. It is indeed driven by consumer demand. Some regulations are good regulations whether they kill jobs or not, they make the free market more fair and/or competitive. They may protect the consumer, they may protect natural resources. There are beneficial aspects to regulation we can all agree upon with regard to how free markets operate.

However, excessive regulation being continuously churned out by the Federal government with regards to political initiatives and objectives rather than the economics, is not a good thing to be happening.

No, see Bush cut taxes dramatically for the top margin and as you put it, he reduced revenue broadly across the board.

I don't see how you can claim tax cuts wouldn't rack up the deficit. Bush's contribution to the debt was 10 trillion and he blew up his own deficit. Obviously, cutting revenue plays a role in this. Here's proof from a non-partisan Econ analytics site that breaks down each president's contribution to the debt. You may want to check out Reagan's contribution while you're at it:

Which President Added Most to the U.S. Debt?

The Bush tax cuts further reduced revenue. He approved a $700 billion bailout package for banks to combat the 2008 global financial crisis. Both Presidents Bush and Obama had to contend with higher mandatory spending for Social Security and Medicare. For more, see President Obama Compared to President Bush Policies.

Remember the rules, you can reference sources but no links or copy/paste.

Bush didn't cut top marginals dramatically. (39.6 to 35%)
As opposed to Reagan who did... (71 to 28%)

I didn't say he reduced revenue across the board. I said he cut the tax rates across the board and didn't expand the tax base. He also introduced the Alternative Minimum Tax which ensures the top marginal earners can't exploit loopholes to avoid tax liability. The way the cuts were structured resulted in a decrease in tax revenue for the next 3 years. Eventually, even his tax cuts resulted in increased revenues.

This is where you again try to shift the debate over to the debt and deficits. We're not talking about the budget. We're not talking about spending. You have a rate of taxation and from that rate, you collect some amount of tax revenues. It doesn't change based on what you do or don't spend. This is not related to whether or not a president balances a budget. Those are great arguments we can have but they have nothing to do with the tax rate and subsequent collection of tax revenues.

I don't see how you can claim tax cuts wouldn't rack up the deficit.

The tax revenues are simply the amount of money we collect in taxes based on the tax rates we've established. Cutting those top marginal rates doesn't result in less tax revenue, it results in more. Congress spending more money than it has collected is not because of the lowered tax rate that produced more revenue.

Look, here's a simple analogy:

Your boss has given you a raise of $500 a month. Excitedly, you call your wife and let her know that your troubles are over, you now have an extra $500 a month! When you get home, you find you wife has spent well over $1,000 celebrating and you don't have your rent money. Now.... is the problem of you not having your rent money related to your pay raise? I suppose you could argue that if you hadn't gotten the raise, your wife wouldn't have spent the $1,000 celebrating and so it's actually your fault for getting a raise. But objectively, your problem is not that you gained $500 a month on your pay, it's the wife who spent $1,000 you didn't have.

The debt and deficit are not related to the tax rates and tax revenues. You're trying to make that connection but there's not one. Budgets, spending, debts and deficits are not related to how much tax you collected at a specific rate of taxation.

taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary

Here you will find our Receipt/Outlay summary of tax revenues (and debts) from 1940 to present. Look at tax revenue following Kennedy's 1960 tax cuts. Look at tax revenues following Reagan's 1981 tax cuts. Look at any year we lowered top marginal tax rates and you will see it actually increased tax revenues. With the Bush tax cuts this took a few years because of the way it was structured, but even his tax cuts eventually produced more tax revenue.

Are you kidding me? No links? And okay sure, it's an understandable rule we wouldn't act like the copy and paste queen known as PoliticalChic but you left me no choice but to prove you wrong about tax cuts blowing up the deficit. So no, Bush's tax cuts didn't produce more revenue because by the time his term was over, the deficit was massive. A deficit that Obama successfully reduced by the way.

Here's a key piece of info you may not be aware of: The tax receipt figure is NOT the proper way to measure revenue. The receipt model is a measure of raw dollars. When measuring revenue in terms of the budget, inflation and the size of the economy has to be taken into account. it has to be computed as a percentage of the GDP. When Bush took office in 2000, revenue as a percentage of GDP was at 20%. When he left office, it was around 15%-16%.

So yeah, that graph that shows the huge increase of tax receipt over the years may seem like revenue levels are too high, but because of inflation, that graph at its peak wasn't an adequate amount to cover the nation's expenses. That's why Bush left office with a big deficit.

 

[Boss]

Are you kidding me? No links? And okay sure, it's an understandable rule we wouldn't act like the copy and paste queen known as PoliticalChic but you left me no choice but to prove you wrong about tax cuts blowing up the deficit. So no, Bush's tax cuts didn't produce more revenue because by the time his term was over, the deficit was massive. A deficit that Obama successfully reduced by the way.

Here's a key piece of info you may not be aware of: The tax receipt figure is NOT the proper way to measure revenue. The receipt model is a measure of raw dollars. When measuring revenue in terms of the budget, inflation and the size of the economy has to be taken into account. it has to be computed as a percentage of the GDP. When Bush took office in 2000, revenue as a percentage of GDP was at 20%. When he left office, it was around 15%-16%.

So yeah, that graph that shows the huge increase of tax receipt over the years may seem like revenue levels are too high, but because of inflation, that graph at its peak wasn't an adequate amount to cover the nation's expenses. That's why Bush left office with a big deficit.

You didn't prove me wrong about tax cuts blowing up the deficit because I never made any claims about tax cuts relating to deficits. Deficits are the result of spending money we don't have. Tax revenues are the monies collected in taxes based on tax rates. To compare annually you do need to factor in inflation which my tables do. We're strictly looking at whether cutting the tax rates produce more or less revenue in taxes. The data shows it produces more. It doesn't matter how much we spent... that's spending, not the tax rate. It also doesn't matter how much the GDP grew. We're only looking at rate of taxation and revenue produced by it.

Now we can certainly debate spending and how running up a massive national debt with Keynesian policies is a really stupid economic plan, but that has nothing to do with the fact that more tax revenue is produced by lowering top marginal tax rates.