So, Who Are Those Top 1% We're To Hate?

[dnsmith35]

Why do conservatives, republicans and libertarians find it necessary to come to the aid of the well to do?

Because they are the ones who invest money and create jobs. Only a fool wants to reduce the money the rich have to use for investment and job creation. Put Obamass in that category (fool)

 

[edthecynic]

Why do conservatives, republicans and libertarians find it necessary to come to the aid of the well to do?

Because they are the ones who invest money and create jobs. Only a fool wants to reduce the money the rich have to use for investment and job creation. Put Obamass in that category (fool)

Except they invest and create jobs overseas!!! Only a fool wants to see that they get a tax cut to send more money and jobs abroad. Put CON$ in that category (fool).

What a Cynic would do is replace the Bush tax cuts, that rewarded outsourcing American jobs, DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR with cuts in the payroll tax which rewards only American workers and businesses that employ Americans, exactly the people you would want to reward if you loved this country.

The GOP are against Obama's cutting the payroll tax and want to make Bush's tax cuts permanent, which doubled the number of people who pay no income taxes. The GOP are happily presiding over the decline of this great country!!!

 

[dnsmith35]

Why do conservatives, republicans and libertarians find it necessary to come to the aid of the well to do?

Because they are the ones who invest money and create jobs. Only a fool wants to reduce the money the rich have to use for investment and job creation. Put Obamass in that category (fool)

Except they invest and create jobs overseas!!! Only a fool wants to see that they get a tax cut to send more money and jobs abroad. Put CON$ in that category (fool).

OK only a fool. Your post is just so much bullcrap.

What a Cynic would do is replace the Bush tax cuts, that rewarded outsourcing American jobs, DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR with cuts in the payroll tax which rewards only American workers and businesses that employ Americans, exactly the people you would want to reward if you loved this country.

Your post has so many flaws which may be too numerous to rebut.

1. Payroll tax is a premium called FICA, of which workers only pay half for a pension and disability insurance, and is returned to the under employed with the EITC.

2. Sending jobs overseas is a normal practice when labor in this country over prices its demands; especially the 12% of our labor force which is unionized. But gee, about 30% of the UAW jobs lost in Michigan and other states up north didn't go over seas, they went to the south; Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina. You unionists will seriously impact big companies in closed shop states; Boeing being a perfect example. Likely will go bankrupt over time if the labor department has its idiotic way. Also, sending jobs overseas helps the poor of the 3rd world economies who deserve a reasonable life style as much as workers in the western world. Or do you believe an innocent human in India is of less value than an innocent American? That would be elitist now, wouldn't it?

The GOP are against Obama's cutting the payroll tax and want to make Bush's tax cuts permanent, which doubled the number of people who pay no income taxes. The GOP are happily presiding over the decline of this great country!!!

That sentence is basically contrary to your original premise. If you want to do something about Social Security we need to raise the FICA premiums by eliminating the cap on which those premiums are collected while continuing to return those premiums to the working poor with EITC.

The OWS people would cut their own throats if the get what they say they want. They are a bunch of un/misinformed idiots while their leaders know full well it will not help the middle class or the poor. The leaders of the OWS are hoping for a more socialist economic system which controls wages and earnings at the federal level. The end result of that is the elimination of motivation of intelligent highly productive workers to settle instead of leading the economy in the right direction.

BTW, in my opinion the poor or underemployed should not pay federal income tax. I believe in a progressive income tax in which those who make the most pay the most income tax.

Socialism has failed in every country in which it was the primary political system. Only the elite leaders are rich and they make up less than 1% and the different in wages are much more restricted to those elitists.

 

[chanel]

Many small business owners are millionaires. By their own sweat and tears, many have achieved the American dream. They do not ship jobs overseas. **** them too, right?

 

[edthecynic]

Because they are the ones who invest money and create jobs. Only a fool wants to reduce the money the rich have to use for investment and job creation. Put Obamass in that category (fool)

Except they invest and create jobs overseas!!! Only a fool wants to see that they get a tax cut to send more money and jobs abroad. Put CON$ in that category (fool).

OK only a fool. Your post is just so much bullcrap.

What a Cynic would do is replace the Bush tax cuts, that rewarded outsourcing American jobs, DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR with cuts in the payroll tax which rewards only American workers and businesses that employ Americans, exactly the people you would want to reward if you loved this country.

Your post has so many flaws which may be too numerous to rebut.

1. Payroll tax is a premium called FICA, of which workers only pay half for a pension and disability insurance, and is returned to the under employed with the EITC.

2. Sending jobs overseas is a normal practice when labor in this country over prices its demands; especially the 12% of our labor force which is unionized. But gee, about 30% of the UAW jobs lost in Michigan and other states up north didn't go over seas, they went to the south; Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina. You unionists will seriously impact big companies in closed shop states; Boeing being a perfect example. Likely will go bankrupt over time if the labor department has its idiotic way. Also, sending jobs overseas helps the poor of the 3rd world economies who deserve a reasonable life style as much as workers in the western world. Or do you believe an innocent human in India is of less value than an innocent American? That would be elitist now, wouldn't it?

The GOP are against Obama's cutting the payroll tax and want to make Bush's tax cuts permanent, which doubled the number of people who pay no income taxes. The GOP are happily presiding over the decline of this great country!!!

That sentence is basically contrary to your original premise. If you want to do something about Social Security we need to raise the FICA premiums by eliminating the cap on which those premiums are collected while continuing to return those premiums to the working poor with EITC.

The OWS people would cut their own throats if the get what they say they want. They are a bunch of un/misinformed idiots while their leaders know full well it will not help the middle class or the poor. The leaders of the OWS are hoping for a more socialist economic system which controls wages and earnings at the federal level. The end result of that is the elimination of motivation of intelligent highly productive workers to settle instead of leading the economy in the right direction.

BTW, in my opinion the poor or underemployed should not pay federal income tax. I believe in a progressive income tax in which those who make the most pay the most income tax.

Socialism has failed in every country in which it was the primary political system. Only the elite leaders are rich and they make up less than 1% and the different in wages are much more restricted to those elitists.

Actually, the very fact that both the employer and the employee each pay half is why the payroll tax is the ideal tax to cut if you rationalize that tax cuts are needed to create jobs. A payroll tax cut would give the American wage earner an immediate increase in take home pay to spend on a regular basis without costing the employer a single penny thus stimulating demand, and the businesses that employ Americans would have an immediate cut in the cost of labor without downsizing or outsourcing a single American job as well as saving the cost of compliance.

 

[edthecynic]

Many small business owners are millionaires. By their own sweat and tears, many have achieved the American dream. They do not ship jobs overseas. **** them too, right?

As long as they are employing Americans rather than illegals, they will not be fucked. If they claim they were fucked by a change from the Bush tax cuts to a payroll tax cut, then you know they were employing illegals and they deserve to be fucked.

 

[JWBooth]

I just saw four or five of the fuckers on tonight's rerun of Freedom Watch. They were up at the capitol begging for higher taxes on the rich. When asked to turn loose of a bit in a voluntary way while they were being interviewed, they declined. One actually stated that he wanted the government to use force to collect the money as taxes.

 

[dnsmith35]

Except they invest and create jobs overseas!!! Only a fool wants to see that they get a tax cut to send more money and jobs abroad. Put CON$ in that category (fool).

OK only a fool. Your post is just so much bullcrap.Your post has so many flaws which may be too numerous to rebut.

1. Payroll tax is a premium called FICA, of which workers only pay half for a pension and disability insurance, and is returned to the under employed with the EITC.

2. Sending jobs overseas is a normal practice when labor in this country over prices its demands; especially the 12% of our labor force which is unionized. But gee, about 30% of the UAW jobs lost in Michigan and other states up north didn't go over seas, they went to the south; Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina. You unionists will seriously impact big companies in closed shop states; Boeing being a perfect example. Likely will go bankrupt over time if the labor department has its idiotic way. Also, sending jobs overseas helps the poor of the 3rd world economies who deserve a reasonable life style as much as workers in the western world. Or do you believe an innocent human in India is of less value than an innocent American? That would be elitist now, wouldn't it?

The GOP are against Obama's cutting the payroll tax and want to make Bush's tax cuts permanent, which doubled the number of people who pay no income taxes. The GOP are happily presiding over the decline of this great country!!!

That sentence is basically contrary to your original premise. If you want to do something about Social Security we need to raise the FICA premiums by eliminating the cap on which those premiums are collected while continuing to return those premiums to the working poor with EITC.

The OWS people would cut their own throats if the get what they say they want. They are a bunch of un/misinformed idiots while their leaders know full well it will not help the middle class or the poor. The leaders of the OWS are hoping for a more socialist economic system which controls wages and earnings at the federal level. The end result of that is the elimination of motivation of intelligent highly productive workers to settle instead of leading the economy in the right direction.

BTW, in my opinion the poor or underemployed should not pay federal income tax. I believe in a progressive income tax in which those who make the most pay the most income tax.

Socialism has failed in every country in which it was the primary political system. Only the elite leaders are rich and they make up less than 1% and the different in wages are much more restricted to those elitists.

Actually, the very fact that both the employer and the employee each pay half is why the payroll tax is the ideal tax to cut if you rationalize that tax cuts are needed to create jobs. A payroll tax cut would give the American wage earner an immediate increase in take home pay to spend on a regular basis without costing the employer a single penny thus stimulating demand, and the businesses that employ Americans would have an immediate cut in the cost of labor without downsizing or outsourcing a single American job as well as saving the cost of compliance.

Payroll premiums are not enough to bring this economy back to normal.

Also almost a trillion didn't help the demand issue from consumers. The bigger problem is the uncertainty in the Administration which has industry waiting for reasonable economic policies to hire, and don't forget, the huge amount of money staying out of the country because those companies are not going to repatriate them and pay that exorbitant tax. A little supply side economics is needed here.

 

[edthecynic]

OK only a fool. Your post is just so much bullcrap.Your post has so many flaws which may be too numerous to rebut.

1. Payroll tax is a premium called FICA, of which workers only pay half for a pension and disability insurance, and is returned to the under employed with the EITC.

2. Sending jobs overseas is a normal practice when labor in this country over prices its demands; especially the 12% of our labor force which is unionized. But gee, about 30% of the UAW jobs lost in Michigan and other states up north didn't go over seas, they went to the south; Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina. You unionists will seriously impact big companies in closed shop states; Boeing being a perfect example. Likely will go bankrupt over time if the labor department has its idiotic way. Also, sending jobs overseas helps the poor of the 3rd world economies who deserve a reasonable life style as much as workers in the western world. Or do you believe an innocent human in India is of less value than an innocent American? That would be elitist now, wouldn't it? That sentence is basically contrary to your original premise. If you want to do something about Social Security we need to raise the FICA premiums by eliminating the cap on which those premiums are collected while continuing to return those premiums to the working poor with EITC.

The OWS people would cut their own throats if the get what they say they want. They are a bunch of un/misinformed idiots while their leaders know full well it will not help the middle class or the poor. The leaders of the OWS are hoping for a more socialist economic system which controls wages and earnings at the federal level. The end result of that is the elimination of motivation of intelligent highly productive workers to settle instead of leading the economy in the right direction.

BTW, in my opinion the poor or underemployed should not pay federal income tax. I believe in a progressive income tax in which those who make the most pay the most income tax.

Socialism has failed in every country in which it was the primary political system. Only the elite leaders are rich and they make up less than 1% and the different in wages are much more restricted to those elitists.

Actually, the very fact that both the employer and the employee each pay half is why the payroll tax is the ideal tax to cut if you rationalize that tax cuts are needed to create jobs. A payroll tax cut would give the American wage earner an immediate increase in take home pay to spend on a regular basis without costing the employer a single penny thus stimulating demand, and the businesses that employ Americans would have an immediate cut in the cost of labor without downsizing or outsourcing a single American job as well as saving the cost of compliance.

Payroll premiums are not enough to bring this economy back to normal.

Also almost a trillion didn't help the demand issue from consumers. The bigger problem is the uncertainty in the Administration which has industry waiting for reasonable economic policies to hire, and don't forget, the huge amount of money staying out of the country because those companies are not going to repatriate them and pay that exorbitant tax. A little supply side economics is needed here.

Supply side voodoonomics has never worked.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
- Albert Einstein

 

[chanel]

Do those "patriotic millionaires" believe that the extra revenue should be used to pay down the debt? Or do they believe it should be used for more social programs and/or "redistributed" to the poor?

Even if the government "raised revenue", how would that money be spent? I can guarantee you that 99% of those folks who approve of raising taxes would not agree. Should we bail out more failing green energy firms? Should we offer HC to illegals? Should we mail out higher "rebates" to people who pay no federal taxes? Or should we pay for the shit that has already been promised (like SS, etc)?

Neither the tea party, the OWS, the military, the greenies, the seniors, the college kids, etc. would ever agree. So people will still be pissed off. Good plan.

 

[edthecynic]

Do those "patriotic millionaires" believe that the extra revenue should be used to pay down the debt? Or do they believe it should be used for more social programs and/or "redistributed" to the poor?

Even if the government "raised revenue", how would that money be spent? I can guarantee you that 99% of those folks who approve of raising taxes would not agree. Should we bail out more failing green energy firms? Should we offer HC to illegals? Should we mail out higher "rebates" to people who pay no federal taxes? Or should we pay for the shit that has already been promised (like SS, etc)?

Neither the tea party, the OWS, the military, the greenies, the seniors, the college kids, etc. would ever agree. So people will still be pissed off. Good plan.

So, do you really think there would likely be more agreement on what to cut????

Well, since we probably agree nobody will ever completely agree on anything then we should do nothing. How's that for a plan?

 

[chanel]

If I knew the answers editec, I'd run for Congress. But I don't. And neither do these knuckleheads protesting on Wall Street.

But one thing I do know, is that MORE social programs translates into MORE debt. That much I know is true. Wouldn't it be refreshing if the government balanced its checkbook like you and I? This is how much we have, so this is how much we can spend?

Two years ago our district laid off 35 teachers. Many of the students were upset. One of my special education girls said, "I don't understand why they can't just print more money". I told her she should run for president.

 

[edthecynic]

If I knew the answers editec, I'd run for Congress. But I don't. And neither do these knuckleheads protesting on Wall Street.

But one thing I do know, is that MORE social programs translates into MORE debt. That much I know is true. Wouldn't it be refreshing if the government balanced its checkbook like you and I? This is how much we have, so this is how much we can spend?

Two years ago our district laid off 35 teachers. Many of the students were upset. One of my special education girls said, "I don't understand why they can't just print more money". I told her she should run for president.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Actually, the very fact that both the employer and the employee each pay half is why the payroll tax is the ideal tax to cut if you rationalize that tax cuts are needed to create jobs. A payroll tax cut would give the American wage earner an immediate increase in take home pay to spend on a regular basis without costing the employer a single penny thus stimulating demand, and the businesses that employ Americans would have an immediate cut in the cost of labor without downsizing or outsourcing a single American job as well as saving the cost of compliance.

Payroll premiums are not enough to bring this economy back to normal.

Also almost a trillion didn't help the demand issue from consumers. The bigger problem is the uncertainty in the Administration which has industry waiting for reasonable economic policies to hire, and don't forget, the huge amount of money staying out of the country because those companies are not going to repatriate them and pay that exorbitant tax. A little supply side economics is needed here.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
- Albert Einstein

Now look what you have done!!!!

"Supply side voodoonomics has never worked."

Do you have any idea how hard I have to work to prevent you from looking like a total jerk???

"Supply side voodoonomics has never worked."

That, in the face of the following???

1. The tax cuts of the Economic Recovery Act of 1981 stimulated economic growth. “As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,[1] similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid.” The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform
“As inflation came down and as more and more of the tax cuts from the 1981 Act went into effect, the economic began a strong and sustained pattern of growth.” US Department of the Treasury

2. The benefits from Reaganomics:
a. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
b. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
c. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
d. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
e. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) Economic Report of the President: 2010 Report Spreadsheet Tables
f. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

3. The broadest and most accurate measure of living standard is real per capita consumption. That measure soared by 74% from 1980 to 2004. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

a. A study of table 7.1 would show that between 1973 and 2004, it doubled. And between 1929 and 2004, real per capita consumption by American workers increased five fold. The fastest growth periods were 1983-1990 and 1992-2004, known as the Reagan boom.


Look how far you've stuck your foot down your throat this time!!

Rush is going to fire you, for sure!!!

 

[Ava]

Oregon has three of the "wealthiest in Congress" as they are members of Obama's War on Prosperity.

WASHINGTON — Sen. Ron Wyden and Reps. Kurt Schrader and Earl Blumenauer all rank among the 100 wealthiest members of Congress, a study released Tuesday by the Center for Responsive Politics shows.

Wyden ranked 72nd out of the 535 members of Congress, with a net worth of $6.84 million based on assets listed on 2010 financial disclosure forms.

Schrader ranked 77th at $6.4 million.

Blumenauer ranked 98th at $4.92 million.

All three are Democrats.

Rankings for other members of the state delegation included:

-Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore.: $2.96 million, 144th.

-Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore.: $2.1 million, 174th.

-Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.: $1.64 million, 204th.


More: Oregon has three of wealthiest in Congress | Statesman Journal | statesmanjournal.com

 

[edthecynic]

Payroll premiums are not enough to bring this economy back to normal.

Also almost a trillion didn't help the demand issue from consumers. The bigger problem is the uncertainty in the Administration which has industry waiting for reasonable economic policies to hire, and don't forget, the huge amount of money staying out of the country because those companies are not going to repatriate them and pay that exorbitant tax. A little supply side economics is needed here.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
- Albert Einstein

Now look what you have done!!!!

"Supply side voodoonomics has never worked."

Do you have any idea how hard I have to work to prevent you from looking like a total jerk???

"Supply side voodoonomics has never worked."

That, in the face of the following???

1. The tax cuts of the Economic Recovery Act of 1981 stimulated economic growth. “As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,[1] similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid.” The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform
“As inflation came down and as more and more of the tax cuts from the 1981 Act went into effect, the economic began a strong and sustained pattern of growth.” US Department of the Treasury

2. The benefits from Reaganomics:
a. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
b. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
c. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
d. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
e. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) Economic Report of the President: 2010 Report Spreadsheet Tables
f. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

3. The broadest and most accurate measure of living standard is real per capita consumption. That measure soared by 74% from 1980 to 2004. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

a. A study of table 7.1 would show that between 1973 and 2004, it doubled. And between 1929 and 2004, real per capita consumption by American workers increased five fold. The fastest growth periods were 1983-1990 and 1992-2004, known as the Reagan boom.


Look how far you've stuck your foot down your throat this time!!

Rush is going to fire you, for sure!!!

After both tax cuts revenue went down. Reagan then began raising taxes, starting with the largest peacetime tax increase in history and the economy recovered and revenues increased.

Year Nominal Constant (87 dollars)
---------------------------------------
1980 $517.1 $728.1
1981 599.3 766.6 < tax cut passed
1982 617.8 738.2 < drop
1983 600.6 684.3 < drop


Year Receipts Percent change from previous year
--------------------------------------------------
1961 $138,069 ---
1962 150,567 + 9.0%
1963 155,375 + 3.2
1964 156,804 + 0.9 < tax cut takes effect
1965 154,475 - 1.5

 

[PoliticalChic]

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
- Albert Einstein

Now look what you have done!!!!

"Supply side voodoonomics has never worked."

Do you have any idea how hard I have to work to prevent you from looking like a total jerk???

"Supply side voodoonomics has never worked."

That, in the face of the following???

1. The tax cuts of the Economic Recovery Act of 1981 stimulated economic growth. “As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,[1] similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid.” The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform
“As inflation came down and as more and more of the tax cuts from the 1981 Act went into effect, the economic began a strong and sustained pattern of growth.” US Department of the Treasury

2. The benefits from Reaganomics:
a. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
b. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
c. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
d. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
e. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) Economic Report of the President: 2010 Report Spreadsheet Tables
f. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

3. The broadest and most accurate measure of living standard is real per capita consumption. That measure soared by 74% from 1980 to 2004. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

a. A study of table 7.1 would show that between 1973 and 2004, it doubled. And between 1929 and 2004, real per capita consumption by American workers increased five fold. The fastest growth periods were 1983-1990 and 1992-2004, known as the Reagan boom.


Look how far you've stuck your foot down your throat this time!!

Rush is going to fire you, for sure!!!

After both tax cuts revenue went down. Reagan then began raising taxes, starting with the largest peacetime tax increase in history and the economy recovered and revenues increased.

Year Nominal Constant (87 dollars)
---------------------------------------
1980 $517.1 $728.1
1981 599.3 766.6 < tax cut passed
1982 617.8 738.2 < drop
1983 600.6 684.3 < drop


Year Receipts Percent change from previous year
--------------------------------------------------
1961 $138,069 ---
1962 150,567 + 9.0%
1963 155,375 + 3.2
1964 156,804 + 0.9 < tax cut takes effect
1965 154,475 - 1.5

Look, BeetsAndSpinach.....you can try to ignore it, but don't you think everybody saw this:

a. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
b. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
c. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
d. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
e. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) Economic Report of the President: 2010 Report Spreadsheet Tables
f. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

And this:

...real per capita consumption by American workers increased five fold. The fastest growth periods were 1983-1990 and 1992-2004, known as [the Reagan boom

Can you figure a way to prove that data wrong....or at least inconclusive???

(And some smartypants will remember that Reagan defeated the Evil Empire...without firing a shot!!! Then where will you be???)


C'mon, Beets....more smoke and mirrors...or you'll be left with nothing by playing music vids for posts!!

 

[Dragon]

Want to talk about rates of economic growth? Fine.

From 1900 to 1940, the U.S. economy grew per capita at an average annual rate of 2.15%.

From 1940 to 1980, the U.S. economy grew per capita at an average annual rate of 4.46%.

From 1980 to the present, the U.S. economy has grown per capita at an average annual rate just over 2% (can't pin that down precisely because there are no figures for very recent years that I could find).

1940 to 1980 outperformed the periods before and after by more than 2 to 1.

1940 to 1980 also featured top marginal tax rates between 70% and 93%, and strong government support for labor unions resulting in a peak of 39% of the private-sector labor force belonging to a union in 1959.

1940 to 1980 exemplified liberal economics. 1900 to 1940 and 1980 to the present have come much closer to exemplifying conservative economics.

From this, it's not at all hard to see which works better.

 

[edthecynic]

Now look what you have done!!!!

"Supply side voodoonomics has never worked."

Do you have any idea how hard I have to work to prevent you from looking like a total jerk???

"Supply side voodoonomics has never worked."

That, in the face of the following???

1. The tax cuts of the Economic Recovery Act of 1981 stimulated economic growth. “As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,[1] similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid.” The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform
“As inflation came down and as more and more of the tax cuts from the 1981 Act went into effect, the economic began a strong and sustained pattern of growth.” US Department of the Treasury

2. The benefits from Reaganomics:
a. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
b. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
c. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
d. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
e. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) Economic Report of the President: 2010 Report Spreadsheet Tables
f. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

3. The broadest and most accurate measure of living standard is real per capita consumption. That measure soared by 74% from 1980 to 2004. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

a. A study of table 7.1 would show that between 1973 and 2004, it doubled. And between 1929 and 2004, real per capita consumption by American workers increased five fold. The fastest growth periods were 1983-1990 and 1992-2004, known as the Reagan boom.


Look how far you've stuck your foot down your throat this time!!

Rush is going to fire you, for sure!!!

After both tax cuts revenue went down. Reagan then began raising taxes, starting with the largest peacetime tax increase in history and the economy recovered and revenues increased.

Year Nominal Constant (87 dollars)
---------------------------------------
1980 $517.1 $728.1
1981 599.3 766.6 < tax cut passed
1982 617.8 738.2 < drop
1983 600.6 684.3 < drop


Year Receipts Percent change from previous year
--------------------------------------------------
1961 $138,069 ---
1962 150,567 + 9.0%
1963 155,375 + 3.2
1964 156,804 + 0.9 < tax cut takes effect
1965 154,475 - 1.5

Look, BeetsAndSpinach.....you can try to ignore it, but don't you think everybody saw this:

a. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
b. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
c. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
d. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
e. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) Economic Report of the President: 2010 Report Spreadsheet Tables
f. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

And this:

...real per capita consumption by American workers increased five fold. The fastest growth periods were 1983-1990 and 1992-2004, known as [the Reagan boom

Can you figure a way to prove that data wrong....or at least inconclusive???

(And some smartypants will remember that Reagan defeated the Evil Empire...without firing a shot!!! Then where will you be???)


C'mon, Beets....more smoke and mirrors...or you'll be left with nothing by playing music vids for posts!!

Again, all of that happened AFTER Reagan's tax increases. From 1981 to 1983, the period after Reagan's tax cuts and before his tax increases was a complete economic disaster. Unemployment went from 7+% to nearly 12% and revenues were down. Reagan abandoned supply side voodoonomics at the end of 1982, and then raised taxes and spent money he didn't have like a Keynesian to fight the Cold War you were kind enough to mention, so the Keynesian boom that started in 1983 repudiates supply side Reaganomics!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

After both tax cuts revenue went down. Reagan then began raising taxes, starting with the largest peacetime tax increase in history and the economy recovered and revenues increased.

Year Nominal Constant (87 dollars)
---------------------------------------
1980 $517.1 $728.1
1981 599.3 766.6 < tax cut passed
1982 617.8 738.2 < drop
1983 600.6 684.3 < drop


Year Receipts Percent change from previous year
--------------------------------------------------
1961 $138,069 ---
1962 150,567 + 9.0%
1963 155,375 + 3.2
1964 156,804 + 0.9 < tax cut takes effect
1965 154,475 - 1.5

Look, BeetsAndSpinach.....you can try to ignore it, but don't you think everybody saw this:

a. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
b. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
c. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
d. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
e. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) Economic Report of the President: 2010 Report Spreadsheet Tables
f. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

And this:

...real per capita consumption by American workers increased five fold. The fastest growth periods were 1983-1990 and 1992-2004, known as [the Reagan boom

Can you figure a way to prove that data wrong....or at least inconclusive???

(And some smartypants will remember that Reagan defeated the Evil Empire...without firing a shot!!! Then where will you be???)


C'mon, Beets....more smoke and mirrors...or you'll be left with nothing by playing music vids for posts!!

Again, all of that happened AFTER Reagan's tax increases. From 1981 to 1983, the period after Reagan's tax cuts and before his tax increases was a complete economic disaster. Unemployment went from 7+% to nearly 12% and revenues were down. Reagan abandoned supply side voodoonomics at the end of 1982, and then raised taxes and spent money he didn't have like a Keynesian to fight the Cold War you were kind enough to mention, so the Keynesian boom that started in 1983 repudiates supply side Reaganomics!!!

So glad you agree that "all of that" happened.

Because of Ronald Reagan, we no longer have Soviet missiles pointing at us, school children no longer participate in drills having them put their heads under their desk, and successive presidents have benefited from the “peace dividend” in no longer having to deal with the Cold War.

Now, let’s put Ron where he belongs, on Mt. Rushmore!