Millions out of work - a crumbling infrastructure - I have an idea!

[Oldstyle]

Rshermr: "Well, Oldstyle, that is the problem with you. You lie, and you lie, and you lie. then you get amused. Which always tells me that you are about to or have, just lied. In this case you are lying before being amused. As I mentioned, and as I have said many times before, you raise taxes to get capital to do stimulus spending when the economy is BAD. As it was at the beginning of the Clinton term. When the economy turns around, and the economy is good, then you do not use stimulus spending, generally. Instead, you decrease spending, and you may want to decrease tax rates. Because the economy is good. Unemployment is down. But you know that, or should, because I have told you so many, many times.
Sorry to have to do this to all that have an understanding of economic history. This is for our little problem child, Oldstyle:"

Do you REALLY not understand that taxes don't create money...taxes simply take money away from the private sector and gives it to the public sector? Your concept that you can raise taxes to pay for a stimulus to the economy is nonsensical. It's robbing Peter to pay Paul. We just spent 780 billion dollars in borrowed money and got very little stimulus from it...now you want to sped billions in taxed monies trying to do the same thing? Your understanding of economics is so piss poor I don't know why I even bother to have these debates with you.

 

[Rshermr]

You are such a blatant liar at this point it's not even funny. You gave me the school of economic thought that advocates tax raises in a weak economy to create jobs? When did that take place? Since you've already DONE that, it should be easy for you to give it to me again...right? (eye-roll)

So what economic school advocates tax raises in a weak economy to create jobs, Rshermr?

You and I have many, many posts back and forth. And I have told you this many, many times. I have also explained the following:
the basic belief by most economists is that tax decreases to the wealthy do no real good as far as stimulus is concerned. As reagan learned, accross the board tax cuts are a really, really bad idea, because most of the tax reduction goes to the wealthiest taxpayers.
So, you see, oldstyle, it is not that tax increases can not be stimulative, it is that tax increases to the wealthy are not. Because, as I have told you before, they do not spend the money. Now, tax increases to the middle class and lower are stimulative. Because they spend the money.
Here is an article that explains this, again. I used this link before, and you seem to have ignored it.\\

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/09/25/tax-the-rich-kill-the-economy-heres-proof-it-doesnt-work-tha/

So, again, oldstyle, try to understand this. The plan is stimulus. It is not tax decreases. But, oldstyle, tax decreases to the middle class and below are stimulative. And the idea is NOT tax increases or decreases. It is STIMULUS.
I try and I try to educate you, oldstyle. But it just does not take. So, I am sure you will be back calling me a liar again. What is it, oldstyle, that you are compensating for?

It is simple enough for you to prove me wrong. The challenge has been out there time after time, for months and months. Simply show a time when tax increases in a bad economy, with high unemployment, has HURT THE ECONOMY as you say it will. And you have tried, oldstyle. And you have failed, time after time. Because, you see, those tax increases in a bad economy were always for one, and only one, reason. And that reason, oldstyle, WAS TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR STIMULUS.. The other option is borrowing, which has also be used. Reagan, famously, used borrowing. But, as it did then, it is hard on the national debt and a killer on the budget.

I notice that you are sounding quite desperate. Tends to happen to con tools when they are cornered.

 

[Oldstyle]

Desperate? LOL I keep asking you to tell me what school of economics advocates tax raises in a bad economy and you keep on dodging the question with the same nonsense you pulled from your progressive sites.

It's a simple question, Rshermr. One that an economics major that "taught" the subject at the college level should be able to answer easily...yet you can't.

"Now, tax increases to the middle class and lower are stimulative. Because they spend the money."

Did you really just make that statement? You've got yourself so confused trying to argue something you know NOTHING about that you can't even make a post without screwing something up. Now you're advocating tax increases to the Middle Class and the Lower Classes? You don't have a CLUE what you're babbling about...do you?

You ask me to show you an example of where tax increases in a bad economy with high unemployment has hurt the economy? I can't do that, Rshermr, and do you know WHY? It's quite simple actually. Nobody has been stupid enough to raise taxes in a bad economy until Barry and his band of Economic idiots came along because it's bad fiscal policy.

 

[Rshermr]

So, oldstye says:

Desperate? LOL I keep asking you to tell me what school of economics advocates tax raises in a bad economy and you keep on dodging the question with the same nonsense you pulled from your progressive sites.

I pulled nothing from any site, oldstyle, except the link in the last post that backed what I said. dipshit. And I have answered your question, ad nausium. You seem unable to understand the kings English. I have said, over and over, multiple economic theories support what I am saying. It is called stimulus spending, oldstyle. You are fixated on the tax increases, because that is not what the theories are about. Tax increases, me boy, are one way to generate revenue needed for stimulus spending. If, on the very unlikely event, you have the money sitting around you do not need to increase taxes. Then, oldstyle, as I have also said multiple times, if you do not have the revenue available, and you do not wish to raise taxes, you COULD borrow. Up to you, oldstyle, either pay as you go with taxes, or borrow and directly increase the national debt.

It's a simple question, Rshermr. One that an economics major that "taught" the subject at the college level should be able to answer easily...yet you can't.

I can. And I have. Multiple times. Not my problem you can not understand. And that you want to keep asking the same stupid question time after time.

"Now, tax increases to the middle class and lower are stimulative. Because they spend the money."
Yup. Meant tax deceases. As you know, because I have said so multiple times.

Did you really just make that statement? You've got yourself so confused trying to argue something you know NOTHING about that you can't even make a post without screwing something up. Now you're advocating tax increases to the Middle Class and the Lower Classes? You don't have a CLUE what you're babbling about...do you?

You ask me to show you an example of where tax increases in a bad economy with high unemployment has hurt the economy? I can't do that, Rshermr, and do you know WHY? It's quite simple actually. Nobody has been stupid enough to raise taxes in a bad economy until Barry and his band of Economic idiots came along because it's bad fiscal policy.

You can not do that because there is no case where tax increases in a bad economy have hurt that economy. Not that you have not tried. Problem is, in each case the tax increase was used to generate revenue for stimulus spending, and it did help.

So, you say, no one has done so before?? Well, once again, I have shown you that, there are three bad economies right off the top where tax increases were used to provide stimulus spending revenue. And in each case thing got better. Those three, as you well know, were Roosevelt when he was inagurated and the ue was over 23%. He used stimulus spending and the ue went down, a long ways. Then there was Reagan, when after LOWERING tax rates, the ue went up, month after month for over a year and a half. Then, oldstyle, as Bartlett has said, he raised taxes 11 times. And he borrowed more than all of the presidents before him combined. And he used stimulus spending, useing that revenue to pay for it. So, Reagan used both methods of getting revenue. Tax increases and borrowing. Tripled the national debt, oldstyle. As you know. Then, oldstyel, there was Clinton. As I have proven to you.

Here is the link relative to the Clinton years, from a famous republican by the name of Bartlett. Try actually reading it this time, oldstyle. You may learn something. though I certainly doubt it.
Bruce Bartlett: The Clinton Tax Challenge for Republicans - NYTimes.com

So, oldstyle. After your golf story, here is a more relateable comparison. You ask, I provide answers with links. You make stupid statements, I provide the answer again, with links. In a circle, over and over and over. I have been noticing that you sound like an echo. Ever here of the Hinebird, oldstyle. You know, the bird that flies in smaller and smaller concentric circles until it disapears up its own ass hole. That is you, oldstyle. Maybe it explains the hollow sound of your questions.

 

[Rshermr]

So, Oldstyle says:

Do you REALLY not understand that taxes don't create money...taxes simply take money away from the private sector and gives it to the public sector?

Again, showing desperation, oldstyle. Saying the same thing over and over. We have discussed this before. I provided links, you could not. Same old thing.
So, oldstyle, once again, it is not about the taxes, it is about the stimulus spending tax increases allow. So, go complain to the Reagan admin. Tax increases worked for them. And for Roosevelt. And for Clinton. As you well know.
Relative to that money going to the public sector, oldstyle, same thing. I have explained why reagan did those nasty tax increases. Because, by using that money to spend stimulatively, the money went right back to the private sector. To contractors, to private suppliers, to barbers, to retailers, and on and on. Is this just too complex for you to understand??? Or do you just like posting that con dogma.

Your concept that you can raise taxes to pay for a stimulus to the economy is nonsensical. It's robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Go tell the the reagan folks, oldstyle. gave you the link before. You know better. Just another lie.

We just spent 780 billion dollars in borrowed money and got very little stimulus from it...now you want to sped billions in taxed monies trying to do the same thing? Your understanding of economics is so piss poor I don't know why I even bother to have these debates with you.

Again you lie, oldstyle. First, of that 780B, 290B were in tax decreases that the repubs demanded. And which did little good. Second, you need to go argue your point with the cbo. As was proven in the link given you before, they believe the stimulus provided millions of jobs. So, I can believe you, or the CBO. I will take the cbo every time, dipshit. And third, relative to your assessment of my economic knowledge, that would be your opinion. And since I proved my statements with links to cbo statements, it is either, again, the cbo or a food services specialist. Maybe you should get back to washing those dishes.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Because, as I have told you before, they( the rich) do not spend the money.

and they don't put it in their mattresses either!! They invest or their banks invest their own hard earned money in productive, sustainable, stimulative ways which is far far better than having it taxed away by soviet Solyndra bureaucrats and wasted!!

Further we all know how the seemingly ultra safe Luxury Tax on yachts killed the industry and had to be repealed becuase the rich are very protective of their hard earned money.

Further we all know that when you tax away venture capital from the rich they can invest in fewer new ventures like Apple Goggle Intel Spacex, Face book, and Amazon.

Further , we know that giving free money to the poor and middle class merely churns the existing economy with mal-investment temporarily but cannot cause growth, just recession as the new spending ends.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So, go complain to the Reagan admin. Tax increases worked for them.

does the liar think that when the Fed reduced interest rates from 21% to 4% that helped too????

 

[Oldstyle]

So, Oldstyle says:

Do you REALLY not understand that taxes don't create money...taxes simply take money away from the private sector and gives it to the public sector?

Again, showing desperation, oldstyle. Saying the same thing over and over. We have discussed this before. I provided links, you could not. Same old thing.
So, oldstyle, once again, it is not about the taxes, it is about the stimulus spending tax increases allow. So, go complain to the Reagan admin. Tax increases worked for them. And for Roosevelt. And for Clinton. As you well know.
Relative to that money going to the public sector, oldstyle, same thing. I have explained why reagan did those nasty tax increases. Because, by using that money to spend stimulatively, the money went right back to the private sector. To contractors, to private suppliers, to barbers, to retailers, and on and on. Is this just too complex for you to understand??? Or do you just like posting that con dogma.

Your concept that you can raise taxes to pay for a stimulus to the economy is nonsensical. It's robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Go tell the the reagan folks, oldstyle. gave you the link before. You know better. Just another lie.

We just spent 780 billion dollars in borrowed money and got very little stimulus from it...now you want to sped billions in taxed monies trying to do the same thing? Your understanding of economics is so piss poor I don't know why I even bother to have these debates with you.

Again you lie, oldstyle. First, of that 780B, 290B were in tax decreases that the repubs demanded. And which did little good. Second, you need to go argue your point with the cbo. As was proven in the link given you before, they believe the stimulus provided millions of jobs. So, I can believe you, or the CBO. I will take the cbo every time, dipshit. And third, relative to your assessment of my economic knowledge, that would be your opinion. And since I proved my statements with links to cbo statements, it is either, again, the cbo or a food services specialist. Maybe you should get back to washing those dishes.

You know what, Rshermr? You come here spouting your nonsense about how people like FDR used tax increases as a means to stimulate the economy and to be quite blunt with you YOU'RE TALKING OUT OF YOUR ASS!!! The truth is that FDR didn't raise taxes until after the start of WWII, when unemployment was below 2%. Why? Because raising taxes in a bad economy is horrible fiscal policy.

As for Ronald Reagan's "11" tax increases? Do you even know what those tax increases consisted of? They didn't increase the marginal tax rate that he'd fought so hard to lower. For the most part they were "excise tax" increases on things like booze, cigarettes and gasoline. The following from PolitFact illustrates exactly what I'm referring to.

"Did the Gipper really raise taxes during five years of his presidency? We checked.

Let’s start by noting that if you recall Reagan as tax cutter, your memory is good. Reagan campaigned in 1980 on reducing taxes. During his administration, the top income tax rate decreased from 70 percent in 1981 to 28 percent in 1986.

But to combat a rising deficit and debt burden, Reagan also approved increased taxes.

In 1982, The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year, and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by $3.3 billion.

In 1983, Reagan signed off on legislation to raise payroll taxes and tax Social Security benefits for some higher earners.

In 1984, the Deficit Reduction Act included increases in taxes on estates and distilled spirits and ended some business tax breaks, to the tune of $18 billion per year.

In 1985, Reagan signed legislation making permanent a 16-cent federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes, then worth about $2.4 billion a year.

In 1986, the Tax Reform Act lowered the top income tax bracket from 50 percent to 28 percent. To pay for the reductions, however, the legislation closed a number of tax loopholes.

In 1987, Reagan signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act that extended the telephone excise tax and eliminated a real estate tax deduction loophole.

So it’s accurate to say Reagan increased levies during five years of his administration, but there’s a caveat: The overall tax burden on businesses and individuals went down during his presidency."

So do you want to take a crack at explaining why you progressives have to resort to a total distortion of what Reagan's fiscal policies were? Why you keep repeating the "Reagan raised taxes 11 times" without any examination of what taxes he raised and which ones he would not allow to be raised? Explain why it is that you have to mislead people with this crap because that's what you are doing, each and every time that you trot out that claim about Reagan.

So if FDR didn't increase taxes until the start of WWII...a full EIGHT years after he originally took office...and Reagan decreased the overall tax burden during his Presidency then all we're left with from your "examples" is Bill Clinton and Clinton raised taxes in accordance with long standing Keynesian economic principles...in the midst of a boom period brought on by the expansion of the economy thanks to the hi-tech industry. As usual, Rshermr....your progressive websites have led you down the garden path. There ARE no examples of tax raises being successful in a bad economy. Why? Because it's horrible fiscal policy that would lead to an even weaker economy. So why is Obama asking for something that makes no sense at all from an economic standpoint? Because raising taxes on the rich was a populist message that "resonated" with the people Obama needed to get reelected. So now we're about to do something that has no basis in sound economic thought...because it was a "selling point" to get a politician elected.

 

[Oldstyle]

And I'm STILL waiting to see you show ANY economic school that advocates the raising of taxes as a means to stimulate a bad economy!

Surely, Rshermr...with the multitude of different economic schools...ONE must advocate that!!! Yet you can't pull that "rabbit" out of a hat...can you?

 

[Norman]

So, Oldstyle says:

Do you REALLY not understand that taxes don't create money...taxes simply take money away from the private sector and gives it to the public sector?

Again, showing desperation, oldstyle. Saying the same thing over and over. We have discussed this before. I provided links, you could not. Same old thing.
So, oldstyle, once again, it is not about the taxes, it is about the stimulus spending tax increases allow. So, go complain to the Reagan admin. Tax increases worked for them. And for Roosevelt. And for Clinton. As you well know.
Relative to that money going to the public sector, oldstyle, same thing. I have explained why reagan did those nasty tax increases. Because, by using that money to spend stimulatively, the money went right back to the private sector. To contractors, to private suppliers, to barbers, to retailers, and on and on. Is this just too complex for you to understand??? Or do you just like posting that con dogma.


Go tell the the reagan folks, oldstyle. gave you the link before. You know better. Just another lie.

We just spent 780 billion dollars in borrowed money and got very little stimulus from it...now you want to sped billions in taxed monies trying to do the same thing? Your understanding of economics is so piss poor I don't know why I even bother to have these debates with you.

Again you lie, oldstyle. First, of that 780B, 290B were in tax decreases that the repubs demanded. And which did little good. Second, you need to go argue your point with the cbo. As was proven in the link given you before, they believe the stimulus provided millions of jobs. So, I can believe you, or the CBO. I will take the cbo every time, dipshit. And third, relative to your assessment of my economic knowledge, that would be your opinion. And since I proved my statements with links to cbo statements, it is either, again, the cbo or a food services specialist. Maybe you should get back to washing those dishes.

You know what, Rshermr? You come here spouting your nonsense about how people like FDR used tax increases as a means to stimulate the economy and to be quite blunt with you YOU'RE TALKING OUT OF YOUR ASS!!! The truth is that FDR didn't raise taxes until after the start of WWII, when unemployment was below 2%. Why? Because raising taxes in a bad economy is horrible fiscal policy.

As for Ronald Reagan's "11" tax increases? Do you even know what those tax increases consisted of? They didn't increase the marginal tax rate that he'd fought so hard to lower. For the most part they were "excise tax" increases on things like booze, cigarettes and gasoline. The following from PolitFact illustrates exactly what I'm referring to.

"Did the Gipper really raise taxes during five years of his presidency? We checked.

Let’s start by noting that if you recall Reagan as tax cutter, your memory is good. Reagan campaigned in 1980 on reducing taxes. During his administration, the top income tax rate decreased from 70 percent in 1981 to 28 percent in 1986.

But to combat a rising deficit and debt burden, Reagan also approved increased taxes.

In 1982, The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year, and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by $3.3 billion.

In 1983, Reagan signed off on legislation to raise payroll taxes and tax Social Security benefits for some higher earners.

In 1984, the Deficit Reduction Act included increases in taxes on estates and distilled spirits and ended some business tax breaks, to the tune of $18 billion per year.

In 1985, Reagan signed legislation making permanent a 16-cent federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes, then worth about $2.4 billion a year.

In 1986, the Tax Reform Act lowered the top income tax bracket from 50 percent to 28 percent. To pay for the reductions, however, the legislation closed a number of tax loopholes.

In 1987, Reagan signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act that extended the telephone excise tax and eliminated a real estate tax deduction loophole.

So it’s accurate to say Reagan increased levies during five years of his administration, but there’s a caveat: The overall tax burden on businesses and individuals went down during his presidency."

So do you want to take a crack at explaining why you progressives have to resort to a total distortion of what Reagan's fiscal policies were? Why you keep repeating the "Reagan raised taxes 11 times" without any examination of what taxes he raised and which ones he would not allow to be raised? Explain why it is that you have to mislead people with this crap because that's what you are doing, each and every time that you trot out that claim about Reagan.

So if FDR didn't increase taxes until the start of WWII...a full EIGHT years after he originally took office...and Reagan decreased the overall tax burden during his Presidency then all we're left with from your "examples" is Bill Clinton and Clinton raised taxes in accordance with long standing Keynesian economic principles...in the midst of a boom period brought on by the expansion of the economy thanks to the hi-tech industry. As usual, Rshermr....your progressive websites have led you down the garden path. There ARE no examples of tax raises being successful in a bad economy. Why? Because it's horrible fiscal policy that would lead to an even weaker economy. So why is Obama asking for something that makes no sense at all from an economic standpoint? Because raising taxes on the rich was a populist message that "resonated" with the people Obama needed to get reelected. So now we're about to do something that has no basis in sound economic thought...because it was a "selling point" to get a politician elected.

Yeah he has been told countless times he is completely wrong. And in fact I don't even understand what he is trying to say. That tax cuts do not stimulate the economy? But increase in spending somehow does then? Probably a hack... Maybe even paid as he repeats the same message over and over. Although his message is unusual in that everyone usually agrees that tax cuts are a sort of stimulus.

Anyway let's look at the tax% 1981 to 1989, raw numbers instead of bullcrap. And for the record I think that the notion that tax rates control the whole of economy absolutely ridiculous in the first place, which you more or less have to assert to draw conclusions in Rshermr fashion. And to add to that it's much more complex than just the tax rates... how do you account for taxes collected vs tax rates and how do the different kind of taxes affect the economy etc. Anyway, here are the numbers for this useless discussion:


(80: 32% $886 B)
81: 32% $1,016 B
82: 33% $1,077 B
83: 31% $1,104 B
84: 31% $1,221 B
85: 32% $1,347 B
86: 32% $1,439 B
87: 33% $1,582 B
88: 33% $1,676 B
89: 33% $1,822 B
(90: 33% $1,928 B)

So there you go. Yes, absolutely massive conclusion can be drawn from these numbers.

 

[Oldstyle]

At this point, I don't think Rshermr knows what he's trying to say. He's got it in his head that a tax increase, that will then be used to fund an infrastructure based stimulus, is the ticket out of this stagnant economy...that it will cause a boom like we experienced during the Clinton years. Think about it though...if the stimulus spending that we did with borrowed money, that wasn't removed from the private sector, didn't do much to grow the economy...then why would anyone expect that a stimulus paid for by taking money OUT of the private sector to have a better result? It simply doesn't make sense. This is a guy who supposedly taught economics at the college level and yet he can't grasp the fallacy of his entire argument.

 

[Rshermr]

So, Oldstyle says:

You know what, Rshermr? You come here spouting your nonsense about how people like FDR used tax increases as a means to stimulate the economy and to be quite blunt with you YOU'RE TALKING OUT OF YOUR ASS!!! The truth is that FDR didn't raise taxes until after the start of WWII, when unemployment was below 2%. Why? Because raising taxes in a bad economy is horrible fiscal policy.

Hmmm. No links, Oldstyle. Wonder why. Could it be because you are lying again?
The first major tax increase was by Hoover, in 1932. At the point that, as I have said before in this thread, he determined finally that he had to do something. However, Hoover was voted out and did not have an opportunity to see the revenue from that tax increase. The point here is that Roosevelt did use that revenue for stimulus spending and the UE rate started down as a result. Then, the next tax decrease was in 1936. Hoover had increased the tax rate from 25% to 63% in 1932, and Roosevelt raised it in 1936 to 78%. For the same reason. The 2% increase was in 1941, still before we were at war.
So, Oldstyle, there you go. Lying again. No links again.
Here is the link to the tax increases I mentioned above.
Top Federal Income Tax Rates 1916-2013 Reference. Compare reviews & ratings.

As for Ronald Reagan's "11" tax increases? Do you even know what those tax increases consisted of? They didn't increase the marginal tax rate that he'd fought so hard to lower. For the most part they were "excise tax" increases on things like booze, cigarettes and gasoline. The following from PolitFact illustrates exactly what I'm referring to.

"Did the Gipper really raise taxes during five years of his presidency? We checked.

Let’s start by noting that if you recall Reagan as tax cutter, your memory is good. Reagan campaigned in 1980 on reducing taxes. During his administration, the top income tax rate decreased from 70 percent in 1981 to 28 percent in 1986.

But to combat a rising deficit and debt burden, Reagan also approved increased taxes.

In 1982, The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year, and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by $3.3 billion.

In 1983, Reagan signed off on legislation to raise payroll taxes and tax Social Security benefits for some higher earners.

In 1984, the Deficit Reduction Act included increases in taxes on estates and distilled spirits and ended some business tax breaks, to the tune of $18 billion per year.

In 1985, Reagan signed legislation making permanent a 16-cent federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes, then worth about $2.4 billion a year.

In 1986, the Tax Reform Act lowered the top income tax bracket from 50 percent to 28 percent. To pay for the reductions, however, the legislation closed a number of tax loopholes.

In 1987, Reagan signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act that extended the telephone excise tax and eliminated a real estate tax deduction loophole.

So it’s accurate to say Reagan increased levies during five years of his administration, but there’s a caveat: The overall tax burden on businesses and individuals went down during his presidency."

So, you disagree that these were tax increases???
"For one thing, that measure doesn’t take account of inflation. Using “constant” dollars — all adjusted to equal the value of a dollar in 2009 — the ACA drops to fourth place, and the tax increase signed in 1982 by President Reagan becomes the largest since 1968."
Based on a rational consideration of tax increase size, which is revenue from that tax increase divided by GNP, Reagans tax increase of 1982 was the second largest in history.
FactCheck.org : Biggest Tax Increase in History?

Do you suppose that tax increase by Reagan generated Revenue? Do you suppose that the revenue was spent and was meant to stimulate the economy. That increase, Oldstyle, was done during the year that taxes were increasing to the highest rate since the great depression. To 10.8%. And this tax increase was in response to that reality.

So do you want to take a crack at explaining why you progressives have to resort to a total distortion of what Reagan's fiscal policies were? Why you keep repeating the "Reagan raised taxes 11 times" without any examination of what taxes he raised and which ones he would not allow to be raised? Explain why it is that you have to mislead people with this crap because that's what you are doing, each and every time that you trot out that claim about Reagan.

There is no distortion by me on this issue, oldstyle. From the standpoint of generating revenue, tax increases are all the same. Reagan did not want to raise taxes on the wealthy, though he did during this time. And he did borrow enough to triple the national debt. And he did deficit spending. And he did increase the size of the government. So I have posted no CRAP oldstyle. The crap is your wanting to rewrite history surrounding Reagan. He raised taxes and used the revenue for stimulus spending.

So if FDR didn't increase taxes until the start of WWII...a full EIGHT years after he originally took office..

Your lie. See proof above.

and Reagan decreased the overall tax burden during his Presidency

Yes, he did. And I have never said he did not. But, oldstyle, he did also increase taxes 11 times. But the point is, he brought in revenue to the government to spend on stimulus. Which has always been my point. Not sure what your point is, oldstyle.

then all we're left with from your "examples" is Bill Clinton and Clinton raised taxes in accordance with long standing Keynesian economic principles...in the midst of a boom period brought on by the expansion of the economy thanks to the hi-tech industry.

Nice try, oldstyle. Interesting again that you are missing a link to prove your lie. That tax increase was in 1991, oldstyle. Unemployment was high. So, you are lying again. Had the high tech boom been going on, then Bush 1 would not have lost the Election. Clinton would not have run on "it's the economy, stupid. Perhaps some actual facts will help you, oldstyle:

The unemployment rate in January of 1993 was 7.3%.
Historical Unemployment Rates in the United States
Rather high for a boom, oldstyle. And relative to your high tech bubble, you are speaking of the .com bubble. Which had not started, and did not start until 1994. Here is the timeline:
Topic: Dot-Com Bubble - Timelines.com

So, lying again. Talking about a bubble that you do not know the name of but that did not start until a year after the tax increase and stimulative spending began. And if you actually look at the link provided, the period that you would have expected the stimulus to have worked was about the same as the time when the .com bubble happened.

As usual, Rshermr....your progressive websites have led you down the garden path. There ARE no examples of tax raises being successful in a bad economy. Why? Because it's horrible fiscal policy that would lead to an even weaker economy.

And here we see oldstyle twisting himself into a pretzel, based on the lies posted above. The information I posted was never from partial, or as you would like to believe, progressive, websites. Just the truth, oldstyle. While you twist the truth as hard as you can, and end up lying.
Again and again and again. So, as I have said and as I proved again here, those tax increases were in bad economies in each case. And they were done when I said they were, by Roosevelt (in addition to Hoover the year he lost office), by Reagan, and by Clinton. I just try to tell the truth. But I have to keep disproving your lies, oldstyle. Gets really, really wearing.

So why is Obama asking for something that makes no sense at all from an economic standpoint?

See above. You are lying again, of course. He is doing so because it is GOOD ECONOMIC POLICY. Raising tax rates on those who have the very least impact on the economy, and using the revenue to stimulate the economy. Because, oldstyle, as opposed to the obstructionist repubs, he wants the economy to improve.

Because raising taxes on the rich was a populist message that "resonated" with the people Obama needed to get reelected. So now we're about to do something that has no basis in sound economic thought...because it was a "selling point" to get a politician elected.

See above. Your opinion, of course, based on your lies above. Here is the problem, oldstyle. You have to base fact on fact. Basing it on lies, and on what you would like to believe, simply brings you to where you are. A con tool posting lies. Sad.

 

[Si modo]

Republicans have spent trillions on Iraq and Afghanistan. During the presidential debate, Romney said we should invest in economies and schools and infrastructure overseas.

What will it take to get conservatives to want to invest in this country?

The Election is over, Obama "won".

Will Obama keep his campaign promise from 2008 and bring the troops home?

Let's see $700 Billion is Stimulus didn't work. I have an idea!

More Stimulus!

Obama just sent 15K+ back to Iraq.

 

[Rshermr]

At this point, I don't think Rshermr knows what he's trying to say. He's got it in his head that a tax increase, that will then be used to fund an infrastructure based stimulus, is the ticket out of this stagnant economy...that it will cause a boom like we experienced during the Clinton years. Think about it though...if the stimulus spending that we did with borrowed money, that wasn't removed from the private sector, didn't do much to grow the economy...then why would anyone expect that a stimulus paid for by taking money OUT of the private sector to have a better result? It simply doesn't make sense. This is a guy who supposedly taught economics at the college level and yet he can't grasp the fallacy of his entire argument.

And you can still not show a time when lowering taxes during a bad economy has helped the economy. Perhaps you are talking to Norman, who avoids entirely the unemployment rate which went sky high after a tax decrease. And he completely ignores the deficit, which shot up after the tax decrease. That tax decrease, of course, was in 1981. So, when thing got really, really bad, in 1982, Reagan started raising taxes. And he borrowed enough to triple the national debt. And he used that money to spend in a stimulative manner.

So, two con tools trying to bypass the actual facts. And insulting the person who provides the facts. If you believed what you were saying, you should be pissed at whoever told you what they did. Because it was they, not I, who was lying.

Reagan, Bush tax concessions haunt Republicans as they eye 'fiscal cliff' - NBC Politics

Bruce Bartlett: Romney's Tax Plan and Economic Growth - NYTimes.com

Interesting how you could not provide links to prove your contentions. Just an over-site, I am sure.

 

[Rshermr]

So, Oldstyle says:



Again, showing desperation, oldstyle. Saying the same thing over and over. We have discussed this before. I provided links, you could not. Same old thing.
So, oldstyle, once again, it is not about the taxes, it is about the stimulus spending tax increases allow. So, go complain to the Reagan admin. Tax increases worked for them. And for Roosevelt. And for Clinton. As you well know.
Relative to that money going to the public sector, oldstyle, same thing. I have explained why reagan did those nasty tax increases. Because, by using that money to spend stimulatively, the money went right back to the private sector. To contractors, to private suppliers, to barbers, to retailers, and on and on. Is this just too complex for you to understand??? Or do you just like posting that con dogma.


Go tell the the reagan folks, oldstyle. gave you the link before. You know better. Just another lie.



Again you lie, oldstyle. First, of that 780B, 290B were in tax decreases that the repubs demanded. And which did little good. Second, you need to go argue your point with the cbo. As was proven in the link given you before, they believe the stimulus provided millions of jobs. So, I can believe you, or the CBO. I will take the cbo every time, dipshit. And third, relative to your assessment of my economic knowledge, that would be your opinion. And since I proved my statements with links to cbo statements, it is either, again, the cbo or a food services specialist. Maybe you should get back to washing those dishes.

You know what, Rshermr? You come here spouting your nonsense about how people like FDR used tax increases as a means to stimulate the economy and to be quite blunt with you YOU'RE TALKING OUT OF YOUR ASS!!! The truth is that FDR didn't raise taxes until after the start of WWII, when unemployment was below 2%. Why? Because raising taxes in a bad economy is horrible fiscal policy.

As for Ronald Reagan's "11" tax increases? Do you even know what those tax increases consisted of? They didn't increase the marginal tax rate that he'd fought so hard to lower. For the most part they were "excise tax" increases on things like booze, cigarettes and gasoline. The following from PolitFact illustrates exactly what I'm referring to.

"Did the Gipper really raise taxes during five years of his presidency? We checked.

Let’s start by noting that if you recall Reagan as tax cutter, your memory is good. Reagan campaigned in 1980 on reducing taxes. During his administration, the top income tax rate decreased from 70 percent in 1981 to 28 percent in 1986.

But to combat a rising deficit and debt burden, Reagan also approved increased taxes.

In 1982, The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year, and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by $3.3 billion.

In 1983, Reagan signed off on legislation to raise payroll taxes and tax Social Security benefits for some higher earners.

In 1984, the Deficit Reduction Act included increases in taxes on estates and distilled spirits and ended some business tax breaks, to the tune of $18 billion per year.

In 1985, Reagan signed legislation making permanent a 16-cent federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes, then worth about $2.4 billion a year.

In 1986, the Tax Reform Act lowered the top income tax bracket from 50 percent to 28 percent. To pay for the reductions, however, the legislation closed a number of tax loopholes.

In 1987, Reagan signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act that extended the telephone excise tax and eliminated a real estate tax deduction loophole.

So it’s accurate to say Reagan increased levies during five years of his administration, but there’s a caveat: The overall tax burden on businesses and individuals went down during his presidency."

So do you want to take a crack at explaining why you progressives have to resort to a total distortion of what Reagan's fiscal policies were? Why you keep repeating the "Reagan raised taxes 11 times" without any examination of what taxes he raised and which ones he would not allow to be raised? Explain why it is that you have to mislead people with this crap because that's what you are doing, each and every time that you trot out that claim about Reagan.

So if FDR didn't increase taxes until the start of WWII...a full EIGHT years after he originally took office...and Reagan decreased the overall tax burden during his Presidency then all we're left with from your "examples" is Bill Clinton and Clinton raised taxes in accordance with long standing Keynesian economic principles...in the midst of a boom period brought on by the expansion of the economy thanks to the hi-tech industry. As usual, Rshermr....your progressive websites have led you down the garden path. There ARE no examples of tax raises being successful in a bad economy. Why? Because it's horrible fiscal policy that would lead to an even weaker economy. So why is Obama asking for something that makes no sense at all from an economic standpoint? Because raising taxes on the rich was a populist message that "resonated" with the people Obama needed to get reelected. So now we're about to do something that has no basis in sound economic thought...because it was a "selling point" to get a politician elected.

Yeah he has been told countless times he is completely wrong. And in fact I don't even understand what he is trying to say. That tax cuts do not stimulate the economy? But increase in spending somehow does then? Probably a hack... Maybe even paid as he repeats the same message over and over. Although his message is unusual in that everyone usually agrees that tax cuts are a sort of stimulus.

Anyway let's look at the tax% 1981 to 1989, raw numbers instead of bullcrap. And for the record I think that the notion that tax rates control the whole of economy absolutely ridiculous in the first place, which you more or less have to assert to draw conclusions in Rshermr fashion. And to add to that it's much more complex than just the tax rates... how do you account for taxes collected vs tax rates and how do the different kind of taxes affect the economy etc. Anyway, here are the numbers for this useless discussion:


(80: 32% $886 B)
81: 32% $1,016 B
82: 33% $1,077 B
83: 31% $1,104 B
84: 31% $1,221 B
85: 32% $1,347 B
86: 32% $1,439 B
87: 33% $1,582 B
88: 33% $1,676 B
89: 33% $1,822 B
(90: 33% $1,928 B)

So there you go. Yes, absolutely massive conclusion can be drawn from these numbers.

So, norman says.
Yeah he has been told countless times he is completely wrong. And in fact I don't even understand what he is trying to say. That tax cuts do not stimulate the economy? But increase in spending somehow does then? Probably a hack... Maybe even paid as he repeats the same message over and over. Although his message is unusual in that everyone usually agrees that tax cuts are a sort of stimulus.

Anyway let's look at the tax% 1981 to 1989, raw numbers instead of bullcrap. And for the record I think that the notion that tax rates control the whole of economy absolutely ridiculous in the first place, which you more or less have to assert to draw conclusions in Rshermr fashion. And to add to that it's much more complex than just the tax rates... how do you account for taxes collected vs tax rates and how do the different kind of taxes affect the economy etc. Anyway, here are the numbers for this useless discussion:


(80: 32% $886 B)
81: 32% $1,016 B
82: 33% $1,077 B
83: 31% $1,104 B
84: 31% $1,221 B
85: 32% $1,347 B
86: 32% $1,439 B
87: 33% $1,582 B
88: 33% $1,676 B
89: 33% $1,822 B
(90: 33% $1,928 B)

So there you go. Yes, absolutely massive conclusion can be drawn from these numbers.


Only by con tools. Like you.
1. You forgot a link to your source of information. At this point I have no idea if they are true or completely made up, or somewhere in between.
2. You make the assumption that the raw tax receipt numbers tell us something. They tell a little. But they do not tell where those receipts were spent.
3 You apparently do not believe that unemployment affects the economy. It went to 10.8% in 1982, a year and a half after the great tax decrease of 1981.


Unemployment Rates in the United States since 1948




inShare
2


The Bureau of Labor Statistics currently provides unemployment data from January 1st, 1948, right up until the present day.

If you need to look up national unemployment rates from a specific month and year, simply use the tool below.


Month: Year:

The unemployment rate in January of 1981 was 7.5%

Non-Farm Payroll Jobs Added: 95,000

--

Unemployment Rates in 1981
January 1981 - 7.5%
February 1981 - 7.4%
March 1981 - 7.4%
April 1981 - 7.2%
May 1981 - 7.5%
June 1981 - 7.5%
July 1981 - 7.2%
August 1981 - 7.4%
September 1981 - 7.6%
October 1981 - 7.9%
November 1981 - 8.3%
December 1981 - 8.5%

Unemployment Rates in 1982
January 1982 - 8.6%
February 1982 - 8.9%
March 1982 - 9%
April 1982 - 9.3%
May 1982 - 9.4%
June 1982 - 9.6%
July 1982 - 9.8%
August 1982 - 9.8%
September 1982 - 10.1%
October 1982 - 10.4%
November 1982 - 10.8%
December 1982 - 10.8%
Historical Unemployment Rates in the United States
That last line is called a LINK. And the data above, me boy, says volumes.

4. In 1982 when the UE hit it's highest rate Reagan did the second largest tax increase every, as a percentage of GCP. So you had counterbalancing impacts on gov receipts that year. Unemployment took it down, the tax increase took receipts up. Kind of ignored that, eh.

So, there you go. Facts with links. And not opinion based on agenda.

 

[Oldstyle]

Let me get this straight? You're going to list a tax imposed by Hoover as one that Roosevelt imposed because he used the revenue it produced? Are you kidding?

I've never made the assertion that Reagan didn't raise SOME taxes, Rshermr...but you've attempted to portray what Reagan did as applicable to what Obama is trying to do now and that's simply a distortion of his fiscal policies. Reagan revamped the tax code, cutting out exemptions and imposed excise taxes on cigarettes, booze, gas and telephone service the latter of which translates out into almost imposing a flat tax on those items or services. Obama wants to raise the marginal tax rate on the wealthy. Reagan dropped that tax rate and fought hard to keep it from being raised again.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Let me get this straight? You're going to list a tax imposed by Hoover as one that Roosevelt imposed because he used the revenue it produced? Are you kidding?

I've never made the assertion that Reagan didn't raise SOME taxes, Rshermr...but you've attempted to portray what Reagan did as applicable to what Obama is trying to do now and that's simply a distortion of his fiscal policies. Reagan revamped the tax code, cutting out exemptions and imposed excise taxes on cigarettes, booze, gas and telephone service the latter of which translates out into almost imposing a flat tax on those items or services. Obama wants to raise the marginal tax rate on the wealthy. Reagan dropped that tax rate and fought hard to keep it from being raised again.

And let's not forget the role of monetary policy during Reagan. When Volker dropped interest rates from 21% to 4% the economy of course soared.

To ignore the monetary policy of the era is to ignore the economy of the era.

 

[Si modo]

High speed trains really are amazing. We took a regular train from Paris to Carcassonne in the south of France in the wine country.

Photos are in case you might be interested in traveling there. It is an amazing experience.

Anyway, we stayed there a few days and then took the high speed train from there to the other end of France and to Belgium. We left mid-morning, had wonderful food on the train, sat back and enjoyed the scenery. The cost was minimal, very pleasant trip and we arrived in Belgium feeling terrific.

But, sadly, Europe is way ahead of us in this way too.

Here in the US, we do have the Zip cars in some cities - like Boston. You pick up a car where ever you happen to be and leave it where ever you happen to be. Its cheap and convenient.

Some cities have bicycles and in Europe they have the very cool little two wheeled, stand up scooter things.

It really is stupid of us to keep on sucking down the gas when we know it will someday run out, its dirty and its its expensive.

But, we're the United States and we take pride in using more than our fair share, especially if it harms others.

Cool. And France is smaller than the state of Texas.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

High speed trains really are amazing. We took a regular train from Paris to Carcassonne in the south of France in the wine country.

Photos are in case you might be interested in traveling there. It is an amazing experience.

Anyway, we stayed there a few days and then took the high speed train from there to the other end of France and to Belgium. We left mid-morning, had wonderful food on the train, sat back and enjoyed the scenery. The cost was minimal, very pleasant trip and we arrived in Belgium feeling terrific.

But, sadly, Europe is way ahead of us in this way too.

Here in the US, we do have the Zip cars in some cities - like Boston. You pick up a car where ever you happen to be and leave it where ever you happen to be. Its cheap and convenient.

Some cities have bicycles and in Europe they have the very cool little two wheeled, stand up scooter things.

It really is stupid of us to keep on sucking down the gas when we know it will someday run out, its dirty and its its expensive.

But, we're the United States and we take pride in using more than our fair share, especially if it harms others.

Cool. And France is smaller than the state of Texas.

too bad they are not profitable here. If we had 400 million people crammed into a tiny area they might be and other public transportation too.

 

[Rshermr]

Let me get this straight? You're going to list a tax imposed by Hoover as one that Roosevelt imposed because he used the revenue it produced? Are you kidding?

I've never made the assertion that Reagan didn't raise SOME taxes, Rshermr...but you've attempted to portray what Reagan did as applicable to what Obama is trying to do now and that's simply a distortion of his fiscal policies. Reagan revamped the tax code, cutting out exemptions and imposed excise taxes on cigarettes, booze, gas and telephone service the latter of which translates out into almost imposing a flat tax on those items or services. Obama wants to raise the marginal tax rate on the wealthy. Reagan dropped that tax rate and fought hard to keep it from being raised again.

So, oldstyle said the following:

Let me get this straight? You're going to list a tax imposed by Hoover as one that Roosevelt imposed because he used the revenue it produced? Are you kidding?

Apparently you are reading something into what I said that I did not say. Lets look. Here is my statement, copied and pasted here from post 412:

The first major tax increase was by Hoover, in 1932. At the point that, as I have said before in this thread, he determined finally that he had to do something. However, Hoover was voted out and did not have an opportunity to see the revenue from that tax increase. The point here is that Roosevelt did use that revenue for stimulus spending and the UE rate started down as a result.

So, oldstyle, read it again. It does not say FDR was responsible for that tax increase, now did it, oldstyle. What it said is that FDR used the revenue of Hoovers tax increase for stimulus spending. Which is absolutely true. And makes your breathless assertion absolutely wrong.

I've never made the assertion that Reagan didn't raise SOME taxes, Rshermr...but you've attempted to portray what Reagan did as applicable to what Obama is trying to do now and that's simply a distortion of his fiscal policies. Reagan revamped the tax code, cutting out exemptions and imposed excise taxes on cigarettes, booze, gas and telephone service the latter of which translates out into almost imposing a flat tax on those items or services. Obama wants to raise the marginal tax rate on the wealthy. Reagan dropped that tax rate and fought hard to keep it from being raised again.

Right. Sure, oldstyle. Here is the thing, oldstyle. Both wanted to do stimulus spending, and both had the need to use tax increases to do so. The big difference is that reagan borrowed like crazy to gain those revenues. Obama is not. He is straight up about what he wants to do, which is stimulus spending paid for by taxes, by the very people who will benefit. Mostly the wealthy. And not by people who will be paying off the national debt for years.