RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Tue Feb 20, 2018 5:42 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: The GOP supply-side scam
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 6:36 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 33873
Republicans are total scam artists. And the sad thing is, their adherents believe the bullshit they are laying on them. For instance, glen really believes that when Reagan cut taxes, that MORE money came into the federal coffers because of it. He believes this shit!

But via Raw Story, here's what's really been going on since Reagan:

Republican strategist Jude Wanniski first proposed his Two Santa Clauses strategy in 1974, when Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace and the future of the Republican Party was so dim that books and articles were widely suggesting the GOP was about to go the way of the Whigs. There was genuine despair across the Party, particularly when Jerry Ford began stumbling as he climbed the steps to Air Force One and couldn’t even beat an unknown peanut farmer from rural Georgia for the presidency.

Wanniski was tired of the GOP failing to win elections. And, he reasoned, it was happening because the Democrats had been viewed since the New Deal as the Santa Claus party (taking care of people’s needs and the General Welfare), while the GOP, opposing everything from Social Security to Medicare to unemployment insurance, was widely seen as the party of Scrooge.

The Democrats, he noted, got to play Santa Claus when they passed out Social Security and Unemployment checks – both programs of the New Deal – as well as when their “big government” projects like roads, bridges, and highways were built, giving a healthy union paycheck to construction workers and making our country shine.

Democrats kept raising taxes on businesses and rich people to pay for things, which didn’t seem to have much effect at all on working people (wages were steadily going up, in fact), and that added to the perception that the Democrats were a party of Robin Hoods, taking from the rich to fund programs for the poor and the working class.

Americans loved the Democrats back then. And every time Republicans railed against these programs, they lost elections.

Wanniski decided that the GOP had to become a Santa Claus party, too. But because the Republicans hated the idea of helping working people, they had to figure out a way to convince people that they, too, could have the Santa spirit. But what?

“Tax cuts!” said Wanniski.

To make this work, the Republicans would first have to turn the classical world of economics – which had operated on a simple demand-driven equation for seven thousand years – on its head. (Everybody understood that demand – aka “wages” – drove economies because working people spent most of their money in the marketplace, producing demand for factory output and services.)

In 1974 Wanniski invented a new phrase – “supply side economics” – and suggested that the reason economies grew wasn’t because people had money and wanted to buy things with it but, instead, because things were available for sale, thus tantalizing people to part with their money.

The more things there were, he said, the faster the economy would grow. And the more money we gave rich people and their corporations (via tax cuts) the more stuff they’d generously produce for us to think about buying.

At a glance, this move by the Republicans seems irrational, cynical and counterproductive. It certainly defies classic understandings of economics. But if you consider Jude Wanniski’s playbook, it makes complete sense.

To help, Arthur Laffer took that equation a step further with his famous napkin scribble. Not only was supply-side a rational concept, Laffer suggested, but as taxes went down, revenue to the government would go up! Neither concept made any sense – and time has proven both to be colossal idiocies – but together they offered the Republican Party a way out of the wilderness.

Ronald Reagan was the first national Republican politician to fully embrace the Two Santa Clauses strategy. He said straight out that if he could cut taxes on rich people and businesses, those tax cuts would cause them to take their surplus money and build factories, and that the more stuff there was supplying the economy the faster it would grow.

George Herbert Walker Bush – like most Republicans in 1980 who hadn’t read Wanniski’s piece in The Wall Street Journal – was horrified. Ronald Reagan was suggesting “Voodoo Economics,” said Bush in the primary campaign, and Wanniski’s supply-side and Laffer’s tax-cut theories would throw the nation into such deep debt that, he believed, we’d ultimately crash into another Republican Great Depression.

But Wanniski had been doing his homework on how to sell “voodoo” supply-side economics.

In 1976, he rolled out to the hard-right insiders in the Republican Party his “Two Santa Clauses” theory, which would enable the Republicans to take power in America for the next forty years.

Democrats, he said, had been able to be “Santa Clauses” by giving people things from the largesse of the federal government. From food stamps to new schools to sending a man to the moon, the people loved the “toys” the Democrats brought every year.

Republicans could do that, too, the theory went – spending could actually increase without negative repurcussions. Plus, Republicans could be double Santa Clauses by cutting people’s taxes!

For working people it would only be a small token – a few hundred dollars a year on average – but would be heavily marketed. And for the rich, which wasn’t to be discussed in public, it would amount to hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts.

The rich, Reagan, Bush, and Trump told us, would then use that money to import or build more stuff to market, thus stimulating the economy and making average working people richer. (And, of course, they’d pass some of that money back to the GOP, like the Kochs giving Paul Ryan $500,000.00 right after he passed the last tax cut that gave them billions.)

There was no way, Wanniski said, that the Democrats could ever win again. They’d be forced into the role of Santa-killers by raising taxes, or anti-Santas by cutting spending. Either one would lose them elections.

When Reagan rolled out Supply Side Economics in the early 80s, dramatically cutting taxes while exploding spending, there was a moment when it seemed to Wanniski and Laffer that all was lost. The budget deficit exploded and the country fell into a deep recession – the worst since the Great Depression – and Republicans nationwide held their collective breath.

But David Stockman came up with a great new theory about what was going on – they were “starving the beast” of government by running up such huge deficits that Democrats would never, ever in the future be able to talk again about national health care or improving Social Security.

And this so pleased Alan Greenspan, the Fed Chairman, that he opened the spigots of the Fed, dropping interest rates and buying government bonds, producing a nice, healthy goose to the economy.

Greenspan further counseled Reagan to dramatically increase taxes on people earning under $37,800 a year by doubling the Social Security (FICA/payroll) tax, and then let the government borrow those newfound hundreds of billions of dollars off-the-books to make the deficit look better than it was.


Go read the whole story.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:43 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 9510
Location: Sunny South Florida
Yeah, it's a scam.

Wealth "trickles down" from the top of the economy, it isn't created from the bottom up. Raise the biggest boats, they'll pull up all the small dinghies.
Tax cuts for the rich, so many of whom are CEOs/etc., will lead to more jobs and raises for employees. (Not stock buybacks, more yachts, more money parked overseas.)
Having more of everything (supply) means more people will buy stuff, even if they can't afford it. :D
Tax cuts for the rich will increase revenue (not explode the debt) because they'll avoid taxes less and the economy will grow faster. That's Laffer's magic napkin.
Regulation is bad for business. (Despite evidence that in some cases it makes them more efficient, and actually improves their bottom line over time.)

The reason why this reminds me of Santa Claus is, of course, the fact that he's not real.

I know, it's a difficult position, to be the envoy of the reality-based community, but the toys the GOP are handing out are busted.

What grows the economy is workers with more money in their pockets. This is not a hard concept. Whether that more money comes from their boss or a check from the government, from this point of view, doesn't matter. When they have more money, they spend it. When they spend more money, more workers are hired to make the goods and services they are purchasing. This is mainstream Keynesian demand side economics, and it works.

Want to grow the economy, reduce taxes on the working population - more money in their pockets. Spend gov't stimulus programs on them - more money in their pockets. And, of course, the gov't can't order the boss to do this, but in the private sector, raises also increase their purchasing power. Also, investing in worker training, health, skills, and security increases their productivity. That's what all those hated gov't social programs actually do.

Nothing I'm saying here should be shocking, but it is contra the Republican "theology" as bird calls it.

Doing things like insuring pay equity between men and women does help - for example - because now women are spending more.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:47 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 15294
Thom Hartmann has been on this subject for a couple of weeks now. How about this, when the Democrats win back power they lay out an agenda then raise taxes to pay for that agenda? The last time I checked there is nothing to prevent them from doing so, once they regain power.

If the country is so in favor and champing at the bit for the social programs Democrats have been talking about, as those same Democrats claim. There should be no political fallout by the public from tax increases to pay for those social programs. In fact if the polls people on the left love to tout are correct people should be welcoming those tax hikes in an it's about time manner.

_________________
"Melania, another whore with no integrity in the WH"-Ike Bana 1/31/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:49 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 15294
BTW, tax revenues doubled after the Reagan Tax Cuts.

_________________
"Melania, another whore with no integrity in the WH"-Ike Bana 1/31/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 3:20 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:27 pm
Posts: 7175
Location: miles from nowhere
BTW, tax revenues doubled after the Reagan Tax Cuts.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-t ... roll-taxes

FICA taxes rose from approximately 30% of total federal revenues in 1980 to approximately 37% in 1990.

_________________
bird's theorem-"we the people" are stupid.

"No one is so foolish as to choose war over peace. In peace sons bury their fathers, in war fathers bury their sons." - Herodotus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 3:37 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 15294
https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-t ... roll-taxes

FICA taxes rose from approximately 30% of total federal revenues in 1980 to approximately 37% in 1990.


Tax revenue in 1980 517 billion, in 1990 over 1 trillion.

_________________
"Melania, another whore with no integrity in the WH"-Ike Bana 1/31/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 5:00 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:27 pm
Posts: 7175
Location: miles from nowhere

Tax revenue in 1980 517 billion, in 1990 over 1 trillion.

Reagan/Republican mantra: these tax cuts will pay for themselves

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/rep ... histo4.htm

1981 federal debt-$997.85 billion
1989 federal debt-$2.857 trillion

Your false god tripled the debt and increased taxes especially FICA which hits lower income people harder.

Ronald Reagan was a worthless hack.

_________________
bird's theorem-"we the people" are stupid.

"No one is so foolish as to choose war over peace. In peace sons bury their fathers, in war fathers bury their sons." - Herodotus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 5:24 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 15294
Reagan/Republican mantra: these tax cuts will pay for themselves

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/rep ... histo4.htm

1981 federal debt-$997.85 billion
1989 federal debt-$2.857 trillion

Your false god tripled the debt and increased taxes especially FICA which hits lower income people harder.

Ronald Reagan was a worthless hack.


I agree we did spend way to much. Had we only increased spending by around 75% we would have have a balanced budget. BTW according to historical scholars the worthless hack was our 9th greatest President. But, we all know how much the left hates those who are well educated.

_________________
"Melania, another whore with no integrity in the WH"-Ike Bana 1/31/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 5:33 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:27 pm
Posts: 7175
Location: miles from nowhere

I agree we did spend way to much. Had we only increased spending by around 75% we would have have a balanced budget. BTW according to historical scholars the worthless hack was our 9th greatest President. But, we all know how much the left hates those who are well educated.
no, we would not have. Had the hack not increased taxes including FICA revenue would not have gone up by as much. Tax cuts never, ever pay for themselves the way Republicans put it. And what would you have cut?

As regards historians and presidential rankings, they are opinion and popularity contests, nothing more, nothing less. Reagan was a pathetic hack whose actions we are still paying for.

Um, regarding education? Look at the typical Republican voter’s response in the form of “that’s just your education talking.” Conservatives hate educated people far more than liberals do.

_________________
bird's theorem-"we the people" are stupid.

"No one is so foolish as to choose war over peace. In peace sons bury their fathers, in war fathers bury their sons." - Herodotus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 5:41 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 9510
Location: Sunny South Florida
Allow me to complete the process of refutation of the earlier claim.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac ... 35a8b6cd15

First of all, revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), which is the best way to compare across years, dropped from 19.1 percent in 1981 to a low of 16.9 percent in 1984, before rebounding slightly to 17.8 percent in 1989. One reason the deficit soared during Reagan’s term is because spending went up as a share of the economy and revenues went down.

But we can get even more specific about the impact of the 1981 cut in rates. A Treasury Department study on the impact of tax bills since 1940, first released in 2006 and later updated, found that the 1981 tax cut reduced revenues by $208 billion in its first four years. (These figures are rendered in constant 2012 dollars.) The tax reform act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue neutral, reduced revenues by less than $1 billion four years after enactment.

But Reagan’s tax increases in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1987 boosted revenue by $137 billion. Overall, that’s a revenue loss from Reagan’s various tax bills, but it also shows that Moore is crediting to Reagan’s tax cuts revenues generated by Reagan’s tax increases.

[snip][end]

I know the Reagan myth obscures that he raised taxes - four times. That obscuration also conceals that any revenue increases to the gov't in the Reagan years came from his tax increases - not tax cuts.

In short, no, the Reagan years never "proved" that tax cuts can increase government revenue.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 6:39 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:27 pm
Posts: 7175
Location: miles from nowhere
Allow me to complete the process of refutation of the earlier claim.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac ... 35a8b6cd15

First of all, revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), which is the best way to compare across years, dropped from 19.1 percent in 1981 to a low of 16.9 percent in 1984, before rebounding slightly to 17.8 percent in 1989. One reason the deficit soared during Reagan’s term is because spending went up as a share of the economy and revenues went down.

But we can get even more specific about the impact of the 1981 cut in rates. A Treasury Department study on the impact of tax bills since 1940, first released in 2006 and later updated, found that the 1981 tax cut reduced revenues by $208 billion in its first four years. (These figures are rendered in constant 2012 dollars.) The tax reform act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue neutral, reduced revenues by less than $1 billion four years after enactment.

But Reagan’s tax increases in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1987 boosted revenue by $137 billion. Overall, that’s a revenue loss from Reagan’s various tax bills, but it also shows that Moore is crediting to Reagan’s tax cuts revenues generated by Reagan’s tax increases.

[snip][end]

I know the Reagan myth obscures that he raised taxes - four times. That obscuration also conceals that any revenue increases to the gov't in the Reagan years came from his tax increases - not tax cuts.

In short, no, the Reagan years never "proved" that tax cuts can increase government revenue.

Thanks, Professor.

_________________
bird's theorem-"we the people" are stupid.

"No one is so foolish as to choose war over peace. In peace sons bury their fathers, in war fathers bury their sons." - Herodotus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 7:22 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 33873
Down goes glen's talking points.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 7:42 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 15294
Allow me to complete the process of refutation of the earlier claim.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac ... 35a8b6cd15

First of all, revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), which is the best way to compare across years, dropped from 19.1 percent in 1981 to a low of 16.9 percent in 1984, before rebounding slightly to 17.8 percent in 1989. One reason the deficit soared during Reagan’s term is because spending went up as a share of the economy and revenues went down.

But we can get even more specific about the impact of the 1981 cut in rates. A Treasury Department study on the impact of tax bills since 1940, first released in 2006 and later updated, found that the 1981 tax cut reduced revenues by $208 billion in its first four years. (These figures are rendered in constant 2012 dollars.) The tax reform act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue neutral, reduced revenues by less than $1 billion four years after enactment.

But Reagan’s tax increases in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1987 boosted revenue by $137 billion. Overall, that’s a revenue loss from Reagan’s various tax bills, but it also shows that Moore is crediting to Reagan’s tax cuts revenues generated by Reagan’s tax increases.

[snip][end]

I know the Reagan myth obscures that he raised taxes - four times. That obscuration also conceals that any revenue increases to the gov't in the Reagan years came from his tax increases - not tax cuts.

In short, no, the Reagan years never "proved" that tax cuts can increase government revenue.



Reagan was the last true leader we had. One that wasn't afraid to lower taxes when they were to high. Nor raise them when his tax cuts, cut to much. In todays world you will never see a republican raise taxes or a democrat cut them.

_________________
"Melania, another whore with no integrity in the WH"-Ike Bana 1/31/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 7:50 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 9510
Location: Sunny South Florida
As you know, I believe the true liberal policy (based on Keynesian principles) is to lower taxes for the poor and working and middle classes, and raise them on the wealthy and 1%, or to put it in other terms, maintain and/or increase the progressivity of taxation.

In general, the conservative policy seems to be the opposite, lower them on the wealthy, but raise them on the poor. Make taxation less progressive (one of the most extreme examples is the regressive "flat tax" often pushed by conservatives.) As bird just pointed out, Reagan raised FICA, which falls on working people. This second part of the conservative attitude toward taxation is rarely discussed.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 7:55 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 33873


Reagan was the last true leader we had. One that wasn't afraid to lower taxes when they were to high. Nor raise them when his tax cuts, cut to much. In todays world you will never see a republican raise taxes or a democrat cut them.

Now wait a minute. What a bunch of bullshit. You say that his tax cuts caused MORE tax income for the government. Now you say he raised taxes because he cut too much?

So you don't even believe the lies you spew about this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 7:59 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 15294
As you know, I believe the true liberal policy (based on Keynesian principles) is to lower taxes for the poor and working and middle classes, and raise them on the wealthy and 1%, or to put it in other terms, maintain and/or increase the progressivity of taxation.

In general, the conservative policy seems to be the opposite, lower them on the wealthy, but raise them on the poor. Make taxation less progressive (one of the most extreme examples is the regressive "flat tax" often pushed by conservatives.) As bird just pointed out, Reagan raised FICA, which falls on working people. This second part of the conservative attitude toward taxation is rarely discussed.


Yes it is, the problem is we now have close to 50% not having to pay federal income taxes, which is fine. Except anytime the GOP proposes a tax cut the Democratic Party comes out with theior rhetoric about how the cut only helps the rich while ignoring the poor. Well, how can the numbers add up any other way when 50% [or there abouts] already arent paying FIT.

On the other hand whenever the DNC propses a tax increase they always claim it only effects the wealthy. Yet somehow my taxes seem to go up.

Also when the DNC proposes a tax increase the right demagogues it just as much as the left does to a tax cut. Meaning we are screwed because of elected "leaders" have decided to use tax revenue as a political football. As in my mind I harken back to the infractructure thread.

_________________
"Melania, another whore with no integrity in the WH"-Ike Bana 1/31/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:09 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 12:07 am
Posts: 15700
great article. spot on.

i remember when the economy was....the more people liked, wanted, something the less it would cost
since once the public wanted the album over the 45 it was cheaper to mass produce the albums.

then....it went the other way. it went "supply side"...meaning, the more people wanted that thing
the More it would then cost.
we've been fucked ever since raygun and supply side hooey.

_________________
Who are these...flag-sucking halfwits fleeced fooled by stupid little rich kids They speak for all that is cruel stupid
They are racists hate mongers I piss down the throats of these Nazis Im too old to worry whether they like it Fuck them.
HST.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:12 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:27 pm
Posts: 7175
Location: miles from nowhere

Yes it is, the problem is we now have close to 50% not having to pay federal income taxes, which is fine. Except anytime the GOP proposes a tax cut the Democratic Party comes out with theior rhetoric about how the cut only helps the rich while ignoring the poor. Well, how can the numbers add up any other way when 50% [or there abouts] already arent paying FIT.

On the other hand whenever the DNC propses a tax increase they always claim it only effects the wealthy. Yet somehow my taxes seem to go up.

Also when the DNC proposes a tax increase the right demagogues it just as much as the left does to a tax cut. Meaning we are screwed because of elected "leaders" have decided to use tax revenue as a political football. As in my mind I harken back to the infractructure thread.

Glen, like everyone else you have fallen for the right’s rhetoric.

The 50% you pointed out DO pay income tax if they make enough to have it deducted. That they get refunds is not the point. Their purchasing ability is impacted on payday. And since they are far more likely to spend because they must the pay more sales tax in relation to their income. They also pay more FICA.

The nature of tax brackets is such that tax increases impact all brackets unless the legislation says otherwise.

Personally what I want to see is elimination of pass-through and carried interest.

_________________
bird's theorem-"we the people" are stupid.

"No one is so foolish as to choose war over peace. In peace sons bury their fathers, in war fathers bury their sons." - Herodotus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:22 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:27 pm
Posts: 7175
Location: miles from nowhere


Reagan was the last true leader we had. One that wasn't afraid to lower taxes when they were to high. Nor raise them when his tax cuts, cut to much. In todays world you will never see a republican raise taxes or a democrat cut them.

Reagan was not a leader. When times are good is when you raise taxes. The Volcker Recession was caused by Volcker raising interest rates so high that the economy crashed. Reagan’s deregulation of the S&L’s cost the taxpayer, YOU, at least 200 billion in 1980’s dollars. And he did raise taxes to cover his failed theology. He engaged in Keynesian defense spending which was good but when things started going better he should have raised taxes as a smart leader would have. But he was a political animal through and through so he didn’t. Even though he barely qualifies as a Democrat Bill Clinton did raise taxes when things were going well. That it was the tech bubble that drove the economy doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t take advantage from a tax standpoint. The end result, while not long term sustainable was a surplus.

_________________
bird's theorem-"we the people" are stupid.

"No one is so foolish as to choose war over peace. In peace sons bury their fathers, in war fathers bury their sons." - Herodotus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:46 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:06 pm
Posts: 11954


Reagan was the last true leader we had. One that wasn't afraid to lower taxes when they were to high. Nor raise them when his tax cuts, cut to much. In todays world you will never see a republican raise taxes or a democrat cut them.

Conservatives loved him because he was an authorian "Daddy" figure. Other than that, what specific "true" leadership did he provide?

_________________
IMPEACH NOW, REPLACE LATER!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 1:49 am 
Offline
Policy Wonk

Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 12:39 am
Posts: 1868


Reagan was the last true leader we had. One that wasn't afraid to lower taxes when they were to high. Nor raise them when his tax cuts, cut to much. In todays world you will never see a republican raise taxes or a democrat cut them.


C'mon now you know as well as everyone else the GOP members would filibuster any tax increase. I've used this before
but some things never seem to change

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHash5takWU


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 7:02 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 33873

Yes it is, the problem is we now have close to 50% not having to pay federal income taxes, which is fine. Except anytime the GOP proposes a tax cut the Democratic Party comes out with theior rhetoric about how the cut only helps the rich while ignoring the poor. Well, how can the numbers add up any other way when 50% [or there abouts] already arent paying FIT.

On the other hand whenever the DNC propses a tax increase they always claim it only effects the wealthy. Yet somehow my taxes seem to go up.

Also when the DNC proposes a tax increase the right demagogues it just as much as the left does to a tax cut. Meaning we are screwed because of elected "leaders" have decided to use tax revenue as a political football. As in my mind I harken back to the infractructure thread.

No, you DON'T think it's fine that other people don't pay income taxes. Of course, the tax burden you are most concerned about is Mitt Romney's. Let's remember that it was Ronald Reagan that said that people below the poverty line shouldn't pay income taxes. But like MOST of the things that Reagan ACTUALLY did, you ignore the reality and instead push the myth.

Let's remember that it wasn't Trump that was the first one to refuse to release his tax returns. Romney refused, too. He had as much to hide as Trump. What he had to hide was the fact that he didn't pay income tax for many years.

Great video about our tax system. Watch and you might actually learn something.

www.youtube.com Video from : www.youtube.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:19 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 9510
Location: Sunny South Florida
That number is not 50% all the time ... depending on the tax year, it usually varies between 39 and 50%. (Surprise: varies with the economy.) Secondly, it's not like it's the same people, every year, who don't pay any income tax. Constantly, throughout the eons. Who is in that group will shift. The Romneyites seem to think there's half the population that will never pay any income tax, evah, for their entire lives. And when we say "they don't pay any income tax," well, they often do, it's just they might get a refund in the equivalent amount, so the net is zero.

So now comes most of the points in GoU's video.
1) A lot of those people are elderly, disabled, students, unemployed, etc. Are we supposed to squeeze those folks harder?
2) A big chunk are workers who ARE paying state income taxes, FICA taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes. It's not that they're not getting taxed.

There seems to be this bogus Romneyite belief that half the population gets away with never paying income tax their entire lives ... they just skate forever. That belief is bogus. Plus, even when they're not paying income tax, they are paying plenty of other taxes.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 2:31 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 1:10 pm
Posts: 15735
Location: The blue parts of the map


Reagan was the last true leader we had. One that wasn't afraid to lower taxes when they were to high. Nor raise them when his tax cuts, cut to much. In todays world you will never see a republican raise taxes or a democrat cut them.


Oh... my... frikkin... God.

Ray Gun raised taxes. Several times. He said once that "taxes should hurt." That's a quote. Look it up. He said it.

They never hurt his class very much.

The numbers supposedly backing up the whole supply side thing come from a mistake in a spreadsheet. Really. Look that up too. Good data, bad crunching, bad conclusion. Anyone in the field will tell you this, but Republicans won't because it's too politically useful not to.

Poor glen must have an awful problem getting around, with all those wires leading from his head to the nearest Republican BS machine.

_________________
True patriots are appalled.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 4:07 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 12:07 am
Posts: 15700
every fallen civilization On the planet has fallen and failed due to growing a huge disparity in who has
all the "wealth".

every one of them. today is no different.

_________________
Who are these...flag-sucking halfwits fleeced fooled by stupid little rich kids They speak for all that is cruel stupid
They are racists hate mongers I piss down the throats of these Nazis Im too old to worry whether they like it Fuck them.
HST.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ap215, Bing [Bot], carmenjonze, Ike Bana, marindem and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group