The Evidence is In!

[NYcarbineer]

Pretty much the same stimulus plan that has always proved effective:
1. lower taxes
2. less regulation
3. smaller government.

When did the Bush tax cuts stop 'working'? And why?

Say it slowly: tax cuts do not work when congress/President increase spending. It means: THEY ARE SPENDING TOO MUCH.

So the Reagan and Bush tax cuts didn't work?

Don't tell me, tell your rightwing pals.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Results are doing the talking.

Those results are not a lie.

What specifically should Obama have done that he didn't?

Not passed Obama care
Allowed the oil companies to drill
Not stopped the oil companies from drilling
Not appointed Czars that are unaccountable to run the government
Done away with the TSA in airports
Kept his hands off executive orders (not passed any)
Reduced regulations or streamlined regulations
Played class warfare
Played sexual preference warfare
Played racist warfare
Played cops against professor warfare
Playing illegal immigration warfare
FIRED Eric Holder when he proved his leadership would not be blind justice but blatant discrimmination
He should not have allowed those firearms to go to crimminals in the southwest (all to limit the second Ammendment) that were used in crimes and the murder of one of our own
He should have left the terrorists trials that were set in place and not made a big spectacle of them about moving the trial to NYC
He should have acknowledged the terrible floods in the Nashville, TN area (were those citizens the wrong color)
He should have acknowledged ther terrible floods in the Midwest (were those citizens the wrong color)
He should have stood proud for the USA, and not apologized for our very existence to every foreign country he visited
He should have met foreign leaders like a man, and not bowed like an "inferior"
Should I go on .....

We were talking about economic stimulus.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Should we have said that Obama didn't focus at all on the economy?

So now that Obama is done - and he is, you fully know; do you still get a check from the DNC to post your idiocy here?

I think they might as well lay you off and focus on the 2014 midterms.

Do you need it repeated?

Obama has signed over a trillion and half of stimulus. 3/4's of which was tax cuts.

NOW -

what should he have done that he didn't do, in regards to 'focusing'?

Be specific, or be silent.

Then why are we still borrowing, if he stimulated the economy?

Because the trillion dollars in tax cuts didn't work, EXCEPT to cause us to need to borrow more money.

 

[del]

When Reagan came into office in 1981, he forced through Congress not only his famed, historic tax cuts, but also a package of budget cuts. That package was close to 5%, (a $31 billion cut) of the Federal budget at the time, which would be the equivalent of roughly $200 billion today.

In nominal terms, non-defense discretionary spending actually declined by 7.1% from 1981 to 1982. But the roaring inflation at the time actually masks the true magnitude of the Reagan spending cut achievement. In constant dollars, non-defense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983.

Moreover, in constant dollars, this non-defense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan's two terms! By 1988, this spending was still down 14.4% from its 1981 level in constant dollars. Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which, remember, won the Cold War without firing a shot, total Federal spending as a percent of GDP declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989. That's a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%. When the Republicans Cut Spending | Economy | American Solutions

Woah, woah, back up.

Why would you not include defense spending?

And why are you using GDP to make the comparison?

GDP grew, true.. so did government.

And, let me ask you this:

If government spending supposedly went down, and revenue supposedly went up...

Then how did Reagan build up 3 Trillion dollars in debt?

1. What you and the other Lefties fail to give proper respect and honor to is that President Reagan saved the United States, and the world, from communism. No price can be put on this feat.
And he did it without going to war.

2. Here, the answer to your question, from the NYTimes:
Reagan’s tax cutting vs. the realities of politics:

“No democratic mandate could have been clearer than President Reagan's to cut Government spending. Yet the very same people who wanted this also wanted their own goodies preserved. On any particular issue it is the pro-goody faction that is motivated and organized. No one in America wants a subsidy program for peanut farmers, for example, except for a few peanut farmers. But non-peanut farmers don't care that much about this one little program. By skillfully trading their votes for things non-peanut farmers do care about, the Congressmen for the peanut farmers were able to save their program.

There are dozens of stories like this one. The result is that Mr. Stockman was unable to cut the goodies of anyone except those least able to organize and protect themselves: the very poor. After five years of unrelenting ideological assault, non-defense spending is just nine percent lower than it would have been if all the pre-1981 programs had remained untouched.” IN THE LAND OF THE MAGIC ASTERISK - NYTimes.com


3. The Democratic Congress offered this deal: For every dollar you raise taxes, we’ll cut three dollars in spending. On that basis he signed the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. How did that work out? From Ronald Reagan’s WSJ op-ed: “Despite the “assurances,” “promises,” “pledges” and “commitments” you
are given, the spending cuts have a way of being forgotten or quietly lobbied out of future budgets. But the tax increases are as certain to come
as, well, death and taxes.In 1982, Congress wanted to raise taxes. It promised it would cut federal
spending by $3 for every $1 in new taxes. Being a new kid in town, I agreed
to this. Unfortunately, although the new taxes went into effect, Congress never cut spending by even a penny.” (Reagan 1993) http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_12_01_01_bartlett.pdf


4. I am glad to see, Leftie, that spending and deficits are a consideration for you!
Bravo! You are on the right track...and on course to have your standing in the 'Left-wing' suspended!
The Left lives by one word: "MORE!"
You might be surprised to know that President Reagan never ran a deficit higher than 6%...which is about half of the deficit run by the current administration.

Go get 'em, Leftie!

reagan didn't save shit

 

[Jroc]

reagan didn't save shit

The brilliance of Del Thank you for that informative contribution to this thread.

 

[Jroc]

When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009. Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%. At the same time America suffered roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years). The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped, at least not without a calamitous economic collapse.

All of the above was accompanied by double-digit interest rates, with the prime rate peaking at 21.5% in 1980. The poverty rate started increasing in 1978, eventually climbing by an astounding 33%, from 11.4% to 15.2%. A fall in real median family income that began in 1978 snowballed to a decline of almost 10% by 1982. In addition, from 1968 to 1982, the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 70% of its real value, reflecting an overall collapse of stocks.

President Reagan campaigned on an explicitly articulated, four-point economic program to reverse this slow motion collapse of the American economy:

1. Cut tax rates to restore incentives for economic growth, which was implemented first with a reduction in the top income tax rate of 70% down to 50%, and then a 25% across-the-board reduction in income tax rates for everyone. The 1986 tax reform then reduced tax rates further, leaving just two rates, 28% and 15%.

2. Spending reductions, including a $31 billion cut in spending in 1981, close to 5% of the federal budget then, or the equivalent of about $175 billion in spending cuts for the year today. In constant dollars, nondefense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover, in constant dollars, this nondefense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan's two terms! Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War without firing a shot, total federal spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989. That's a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%.

3. Anti-inflation monetary policy restraining money supply growth compared to demand, to maintain a stronger, more stable dollar value.

4. Deregulation, which saved consumers an estimated $100 billion per year in lower prices. Reagan's first executive order, in fact, eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas. Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%.

These economic policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history. The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990, when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it. This set a new record for the longest peacetime expansion ever, the previous high in peacetime being 58 months.

During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy. In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.

The shocking rise in inflation during the Nixon and Carter years was reversed. Astoundingly, inflation from 1980 was reduced by more than half by 1982, to 6.2%. It was cut in half again for 1983, to 3.2%, never to be heard from again until recently. The contractionary, tight-money policies needed to kill this inflation inexorably created the steep recession of 1981 to 1982, which is why Reagan did not suffer politically catastrophic blame for that recession.

Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years. The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak. The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade.

Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures | The Carleson Center for Public Policy

 

[PoliticalChic]

No president in your lifetime has done ALL three.

The question was, when did the Bush tax cuts stop working?

I'll elaborate.

If taxes need to be lower, when did the Bush tax cuts stop working?

While I may not have been eligible to vote for him, President Reagan did.

Even adjusted for inflation, government spending increased year over year every year of the Reagan presidency except one, 1987, which was long after the recession ended. So Reagan? smaller government?

No.

So for the third time, when did the Bush tax cuts stop working?

For the Nth time....see post #104.

Better, have someone with a degree higher than your GED explain it to you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What was "smaller" about government in 1988, relative to 1980?

As far as I know, Reagan greatly expanded the government during his two terms. By 90% by some estimates.

I will say it again...Reagan was a lot better than what we have in office now.

Reagan is the reason we're in this mess. Reagan was the father of the massive peacetime deficit, and the unpaid for war.

Reagan made fiscal irresponsibility politically and socially acceptable.

Actually, the reason for the 'mess' is that society has turned over the dissemination of information to the Leftists in what is laughingly referred to as 'education,' and the press-titutes.

The result? Folks like you who simply imbibe the propaganda.

BTW, if one is seeking the source of the economic morass, start with FDR, they take a look at this:

Average Annual Spending Increases (excluding interest)
a. JFK 4.6%
b. LBJ 5.7%
c. Nixon 2.9%
d. Ford 2.7%
e. Carter 3.2%
f. Reagan 1.9%
g. BushI 2.0%
h. Clinton 1.9%
i. BushII 5.6%
Historical Tables | The White House

 

[Uncensored2008]

What was "smaller" about government in 1988, relative to 1980?

As far as I know, Reagan greatly expanded the government during his two terms. By 90% by some estimates.

Estimates you pulled straight out of your ass...

Some huge areas are the deregulation Civil Aeronautics Board which saw air travel move from a perq for the monied elite to a mode of transportation for the masses. The actual dollars spent - NOT adjusted for inflation, are less today for a plane ticket than in 1980.

Deregulation of the telephone system. In 1980, a peak call from Los Angeles to New York cost $1.35 for 3 minutes. Today it costs nothing - "long distance" is a memory of the bad old days of government enforced monopolies. Telecommunication is affordable and reliable, thanks to the deregulation by Reagan.

Ocean Shipping. Reagan stopped the monopoly provided by the federal government to ocean freight carries, cutting the cost of shipping by 95%

Oil - the administration deregulated oil and broke the back of Opec. Reagan came into office with Gas averageing $2.20 a gallon, it dropped to $0.68 by the time he left. Even today, the inflation adjusted price is well below the regulated $2.20

Reagan dramatically cut the federal government - which substantially improved the quality of life for ALL Americans.

 

[AmericanFirst]

When did the Bush tax cuts stop 'working'? And why?

Say it slowly: tax cuts do not work when congress/President increase spending. It means: THEY ARE SPENDING TOO MUCH.

So the Reagan and Bush tax cuts didn't work?

Don't tell me, tell your rightwing pals.

Idiot. They would work if the idiots like obamaturd would stop the spending. Obamaturd=not good.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Woah, woah, back up.

Why would you not include defense spending?

And why are you using GDP to make the comparison?

GDP grew, true.. so did government.

And, let me ask you this:

If government spending supposedly went down, and revenue supposedly went up...

Then how did Reagan build up 3 Trillion dollars in debt?

1. What you and the other Lefties fail to give proper respect and honor to is that President Reagan saved the United States, and the world, from communism. No price can be put on this feat.
And he did it without going to war.

2. Here, the answer to your question, from the NYTimes:
Reagan’s tax cutting vs. the realities of politics:

“No democratic mandate could have been clearer than President Reagan's to cut Government spending. Yet the very same people who wanted this also wanted their own goodies preserved. On any particular issue it is the pro-goody faction that is motivated and organized. No one in America wants a subsidy program for peanut farmers, for example, except for a few peanut farmers. But non-peanut farmers don't care that much about this one little program. By skillfully trading their votes for things non-peanut farmers do care about, the Congressmen for the peanut farmers were able to save their program.

There are dozens of stories like this one. The result is that Mr. Stockman was unable to cut the goodies of anyone except those least able to organize and protect themselves: the very poor. After five years of unrelenting ideological assault, non-defense spending is just nine percent lower than it would have been if all the pre-1981 programs had remained untouched.” IN THE LAND OF THE MAGIC ASTERISK - NYTimes.com


3. The Democratic Congress offered this deal: For every dollar you raise taxes, we’ll cut three dollars in spending. On that basis he signed the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. How did that work out? From Ronald Reagan’s WSJ op-ed: “Despite the “assurances,” “promises,” “pledges” and “commitments” you
are given, the spending cuts have a way of being forgotten or quietly lobbied out of future budgets. But the tax increases are as certain to come
as, well, death and taxes.In 1982, Congress wanted to raise taxes. It promised it would cut federal
spending by $3 for every $1 in new taxes. Being a new kid in town, I agreed
to this. Unfortunately, although the new taxes went into effect, Congress never cut spending by even a penny.” (Reagan 1993) http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_12_01_01_bartlett.pdf


4. I am glad to see, Leftie, that spending and deficits are a consideration for you!
Bravo! You are on the right track...and on course to have your standing in the 'Left-wing' suspended!
The Left lives by one word: "MORE!"
You might be surprised to know that President Reagan never ran a deficit higher than 6%...which is about half of the deficit run by the current administration.

Go get 'em, Leftie!

reagan didn't save shit

Super idiot on steroids. Keep opening mouth and farting.

 

[BDBoop]

"the evidence is in, and it is definitive"

Mr Wills opinion is neither evidence or definitive

WHAT????

You didn't agree with Mr. Wills???

Stop the presses!


But...in the light of the economic and political landscape, I'm sure you are too smart to vote for this guy again...

......aren't you?????

Why did you claim this mans opinions are evidence and Definitive.

Habit?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

This President clings to his extremist political ideology. Even his fellow Democrats were a bit angry with him on how he handled the Debt Limit issue. He came off as a little brat and certainly not a leader.

 

[PoliticalChic]

WHAT????

You didn't agree with Mr. Wills???

Stop the presses!


But...in the light of the economic and political landscape, I'm sure you are too smart to vote for this guy again...

......aren't you?????

Why did you claim this mans opinions are evidence and Definitive.

Habit?

You're confusing thoughtful analysis based on data, and habit.


So...you seem to be less than convinced as to the efficacy of conservative versus liberal economomic policy...

Until this administration, the discussion has centered around the presidencies of FDR and LBJ, combining social and economic policies, versus that of President Reagan...

But it seems to the OP, and to myself, that Barack Obama has put to rest any question....

.....don't you agree?


Or do you stand foursquare behind uncalculated financial burdens, failed 'stimulus,' and income redistribution?

Careful now, it is a one-question test of your acumen.

 

[Uncensored2008]

reagan didn't save shit

Does it hurt being that stupid?

I mean actual, physical pain?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Say it slowly: tax cuts do not work when congress/President increase spending. It means: THEY ARE SPENDING TOO MUCH.

So the Reagan and Bush tax cuts didn't work?

Don't tell me, tell your rightwing pals.

Idiot. They would work if the idiots like obamaturd would stop the spending. Obamaturd=not good.

Reagan and Bush didn't stop the spending. They borrowed their presidencies' prosperity.

 

[NYcarbineer]

While I may not have been eligible to vote for him, President Reagan did.

Even adjusted for inflation, government spending increased year over year every year of the Reagan presidency except one, 1987, which was long after the recession ended. So Reagan? smaller government?

No.

So for the third time, when did the Bush tax cuts stop working?

For the Nth time....see post #104.

Better, have someone with a degree higher than your GED explain it to you.

Post 104 doesn't answer the question.

All you people have on the Right is to keep claiming we need lower taxes for economic growth.

You say it every time there's a recession, even though taxes were already lowered from the last recession.

You do realize that if cutting taxes is the only solution to getting out of recessions, then eventually taxes are at zero, hell,

fed income taxes are already at zero for half of America. 50% paying no income tax. Next round of GOP tax cuts, what?

60% paying no taxes? Then 70%, then 80%, then 90%?

Question for Conservatives:

What will the Right's plan be for getting us out of some recession in the future, when taxes are already at zero?

Earned Income Credits for Millionaires?????

Think, people.

 

[Vast LWC]

"...Ronald Reagan single-handedly defeated the Russians..."

1. At the same time the Soviets started deploying the deadly SS-20 missiles, Moscow began a political program to disarm American and NATO forces opposing them in Europe. Moscow's political program included direct and indirect support for the "Nuclear Freeze" movement inside Europe and America.

The Soviets found many willing patsy friends inside America.

The "Freeze" movement pushed for the total dismantling of U.S. and NATO nuclear weapons, staging massive demonstrations and pressuring the newly elected government of Ronald Reagan.

The liberal press called upon Reagan to remove the tactical nuclear arsenal from Europe. Europeans fell easy prey to the false theory that a nuclear war between the Warsaw Pact and NATO in Europe would remain inside the continent. Freeze supporters here in the U.S. clamored that the strategic arsenal based inside America was more than enough to stop any attack in Germany.

The Hollywood establishment labeled Reagan a reckless "cowboy" who would press the nuclear button at the drop of a hat. The wide liberal criticism openly insulted Reagan as a senile fool who could carry the world into global nuclear war.
Walk Softly ...

Reagan did not give in. Instead of caving to the political pressure, Reagan went against the polls, against the liberal media and against Hollywood's advice to disarm in the face of the Soviet threat. Reagan opted instead to match Moscow's firepower and up the ante.

The Reagan administration decided to deploy a new series of U.S. nuclear missiles in Europe. Despite the protests and howling liberal media, Reagan began to deploy advanced Pershing II tactical missiles and land-based Tomahawk cruise missiles to meet the Soviet SS-20 threat.
The Legacy of Ronald Reagan – Peace

So, yes....pretty much "single-handedly."
But I'll include Lady Thatcher, if you like.

So, again, as I pointed out, you're saying that you believe Obama single-handedly killed Osama Bin Laden.

2. Are you aware of the fact that the 'Liberal Lion,' Senator Ted Kennedy offered the Soviets a pact against the sitting Presidnent of the United States?

The following from the Central Committee archives, in Moscow: May 14, 1983, Committee on State Security of the USSR, On 9-10 May of this year, Senator Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant J. Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Center Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov. "… very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations. … dangerous. The main reason for this is Reagan’s belligerence, and his firm commitment to deploy new American middle range nuclear weapons… the President’s refusal to engage any modification on his politics…. "

" …a personal meeting in July of this year. The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations … so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA… also invite one of the well known Republican senators, for example, Mark Hatfield.
… to influence Americans it would be important to organize in August-September of this year, televised interviews with Y.V. Andropov in the USA… the president of the board of directors of ABC, Elton Raul and television columnists Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters…"
Letter Details Kennedy Offer To USSR | Sweetness & Light

3. I strongly suggest that you educate yourself as to the duplicity of the Left, the Democrats, and the following texts would go a long way in that direction:

Dr. Paul Kangor, Hoover Institution, Stanford “DUPES: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century”

and

"The Mitrokhin Archives", a fascinating cache of documents was taken out of Russia by a defector...
The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB [Paperback]
Christopher Andrew (Author)
(Author), Vasili Mitrokhin (Author)

And no, I'm not going to buy that line of BS.

Might as well read some lefty novels about how Bush was a secret Nazi who loved to kill babies, or watch Farenheit 9/11.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Even adjusted for inflation, government spending increased year over year every year of the Reagan presidency except one, 1987, which was long after the recession ended. So Reagan? smaller government?

No.

So for the third time, when did the Bush tax cuts stop working?

For the Nth time....see post #104.

Better, have someone with a degree higher than your GED explain it to you.

Post 104 doesn't answer the question.

All you people have on the Right is to keep claiming we need lower taxes for economic growth.

You say it every time there's a recession, even though taxes were already lowered from the last recession.

You do realize that if cutting taxes is the only solution to getting out of recessions, then eventually taxes are at zero, hell,

fed income taxes are already at zero for half of America. 50% paying no income tax. Next round of GOP tax cuts, what?

60% paying no taxes? Then 70%, then 80%, then 90%?

Question for Conservatives:

What will the Right's plan be for getting us out of some recession in the future, when taxes are already at zero?

Earned Income Credits for Millionaires?????

Think, people.

Lower taxes, fewer regulations, less wasteful government spending.

 

[Vast LWC]

This President clings to his extremist political ideology. Even his fellow Democrats were a bit angry with him on how he handled the Debt Limit issue. He came off as a little brat and certainly not a leader.

Yeah... Democrats dislike how he was too Centrist for their tastes.

And there was NOTHING about the Debt Limit deal that had anything to do with left-wing extremism.

Way to project though.