This Economy sure sucks!

1246711

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 214
    jwri004jwri004 Posts: 626member
    Nice way to spam the board - 10 posts in a row
  • Reply 62 of 214
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Wait...are you honestly telling me that it was Clinton's 1993 budget that balanced the budget? I'm thinking you're wrong. You should replace "deficit reduction votes" with "vote for the biggest tax increase in history".



    I'm honestly saying that, because the budget was essentially on auto-pilot for most of the 1990s after that.



    BTW, Clinton's wasn't the biggest tax increase in history. According to Bush's Treasury Department (pdf file), Reagan's 1982 tax increase was the biggest in history.



    Clinton's tax increase was $32 billion, Reagan's was $37 billion, in real dollars. Clinton's tax increase was 2.7% of GDP, Reagan's was 4.6% of GDP.
  • Reply 63 of 214
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Wow. You are far more extreme than I first realized. Human nature is human nature. It cannot be changed. The desire for material success has built the free world as we know it. Capitalism and the free market economy DO work. Have you not seen the middle class in this country?



    The incredible shrinking middle class:

    http://www.inq7.net/nwsbrk/2004/apr/12/nbk_8-1.htm

    http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/20...406_a_main.asp



    Quote:

    Where do you think that came from? Capitalism should be regulated, as it is here, but does work.



    Free enterprise works, yes, and a free market economy is what, in theory, should work best. I have never denied that. BUT where is the free market? Anyone who believes we have a genuinely "free market" here in the USA is naive: privilege, preferred access, insider information, corruption and fraud, subsidies, massive-scale corporate welfare, closed shops etc. etc. renders the large scale market controlled and shackled. The most free "free markets" are small scale affairs, like bazaars, "farmers' markets etc.



    An apt definition of the supposedly "free market", and the writer was by no means a socialist:

    "[i]"A purely free market is like a free fox in a free henhouse." Louis Schweitzer (former Chairman of Renault, France's largest automobile manufacturer)







    Quote:

    I'm not even sure where you're going with this, sammi jo. It almost sounds like you're saying that philosophies like communism haven't worked because they haven't been implemented the right way. I hope you're not saying that.



    I already stated that communism does not work, (has never worked and will never work), in either large and/or compulsory systems. The only "communist" aspect about the USSR was the label....they were as steeped in just as much privilege, heirarchy, and inequality as any western democracy. Same with China. Cuba is probably about as "communist" as a state can get (thats why the US government hates them so much, far more than our largest trading partner, Red China perhaps). Even Cuba doesn't conform very well to Lenin's ideal.



    The only working models of real communism are where a group of people decide to form an egalitarian community, on a small scale, voluntarily, that they want to live that particular lifestyle, and they are free to leave whenever they like if the lifestyle is not for them. There are many small voluntary (often spiritually-based groups with heterarchical structure all over the world that conform to the "communist" ideal far more than any large scale experiment in state-run communism. The kibbutz of Israel is an example, and they are of no threat to anyone. Do I want to live in a commune? No thanks, it's not for me. Do I want to live in a communist state? That's a meaningless question: it is not possible, since there is no such thing.



    As for thinking that communism would work if implemented correctly, see above. Consensus is requisite, and any more than, perhaps, a few dozen people renders the consensus process chaotic, unwieldy and unworkable.
  • Reply 64 of 214
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    I'm not pawning off anything, I'm just saying Clinton wasn't necessarily responsible either.



    Edit: I'd like to add that you dodged the question I asked you regarding tax increases.




    Look you know as well as I do that the chance of Bush being reelected is in serious doubt now so you guys will try or say anything.
  • Reply 65 of 214
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jimmac

    Look you know as well as I do that the chance of Bush being reelected is in serious doubt now so you guys will try or say anything.



    I bet you are a great dodgeball player.



    Weee.
  • Reply 66 of 214
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    I bet you are a great dodgeball player.



    Weee.




    No.



    More of a straight shooter.
  • Reply 67 of 214
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,080member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    I'm honestly saying that, because the budget was essentially on auto-pilot for most of the 1990s after that.



    BTW, Clinton's wasn't the biggest tax increase in history. According to Bush's Treasury Department (pdf file), Reagan's 1982 tax increase was the biggest in history.



    Clinton's tax increase was $32 billion, Reagan's was $37 billion, in real dollars. Clinton's tax increase was 2.7% of GDP, Reagan's was 4.6% of GDP.




    That's disingenous. A while ago, I believe it was you who was arguing that we couldn't say revenue was positively affected by cutting taxes. Now, you're turining around and saying that because more revenue was projected, Reagan signed the biggest tax increase in history. That's absurd.



    From your own link:



    Quote:

    Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982



    -repealed scheduled increases in accelerated depreciation deductions

    -tightened safe harbor leasing rules

    -equired taxpayers to reduce basis by 50% of investment tax credit

    -instituted 10% withholding on dividends and interest paid to individuals

    -tightened completed contract accounting rules

    -increased FUTA wage base and tax rate



    In other words, you're full of shit.
  • Reply 68 of 214
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,080member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    The incredible shrinking middle class:

    http://www.inq7.net/nwsbrk/2004/apr/12/nbk_8-1.htm

    http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/20...406_a_main.asp







    Free enterprise works, yes, and a free market economy is what, in theory, should work best. I have never denied that. BUT where is the free market? Anyone who believes we have a genuinely "free market" here in the USA is naive: privilege, preferred access, insider information, corruption and fraud, subsidies, massive-scale corporate welfare, closed shops etc. etc. renders the large scale market controlled and shackled. The most free "free markets" are small scale affairs, like bazaars, "farmers' markets etc.



    An apt definition of the supposedly "free market", and the writer was by no means a socialist:

    "[i]"A purely free market is like a free fox in a free henhouse." Louis Schweitzer (former Chairman of Renault, France's largest automobile manufacturer)











    I already stated that communism does not work, (has never worked and will never work), in either large and/or compulsory systems. The only "communist" aspect about the USSR was the label....they were as steeped in just as much privilege, heirarchy, and inequality as any western democracy. Same with China. Cuba is probably about as "communist" as a state can get (thats why the US government hates them so much, far more than our largest trading partner, Red China perhaps). Even Cuba doesn't conform very well to Lenin's ideal.



    The only working models of real communism are where a group of people decide to form an egalitarian community, on a small scale, voluntarily, that they want to live that particular lifestyle, and they are free to leave whenever they like if the lifestyle is not for them. There are many small voluntary (often spiritually-based groups with heterarchical structure all over the world that conform to the "communist" ideal far more than any large scale experiment in state-run communism. The kibbutz of Israel is an example, and they are of no threat to anyone. Do I want to live in a commune? No thanks, it's not for me. Do I want to live in a communist state? That's a meaningless question: it is not possible, since there is no such thing.



    As for thinking that communism would work if implemented correctly, see above. Consensus is requisite, and any more than, perhaps, a few dozen people renders the consensus process chaotic, unwieldy and unworkable.






    Your first link references the Phillipines! What the hell are you talking about?

    As for the second link about CEO pay...again: What would you like to do about it? Should we limit their salaries by law? Their compensation is set by the company's board, which makes its own decisions. Corruption should be punished, and poorly performing companies will see their publicly owned stock fall. I don't see why you are up in arms over this. What is your solution to these vast inequities you see?
  • Reply 69 of 214
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,080member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jimmac

    Look you know as well as I do that the chance of Bush being reelected is in serious doubt now so you guys will try or say anything.



    Wow, speaking of dodgeball! That's your response? You attempt to disqualify everything "we" say, simply because "we" support the president? That's insane. I'll repost what I asked you regarding your claim of Clinton helping the economy by raising taxes.



    Quote:

    Let us not forget jimmac, Bush 41 RAISED taxes. So, what did he do any differently than Clinton? According to your logic, tax increases worked for Clinton, but not for Bush?



    I await your reply.
  • Reply 70 of 214
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    That's disingenous. A while ago, I believe it was you who was arguing that we couldn't say revenue was positively affected by cutting taxes. Now, you're turining around and saying that because more revenue was projected, Reagan signed the biggest tax increase in history. That's absurd.



    When that link talks about revenue, it's not talking about some kind of laffer curve/supply-side issue. It's talking about the revenue effect of the tax bill, i.e., how much tax would be lost or gained as a result. By saying that Reagan's tax increase was larger than Clinton's, it's not building in any projections about the effect of the tax increase on the economy. It's just using the standard method of evaluating tax bills, from what I can tell.



    From pages 7-8:
    Quote:

    Third, government revenue estimates do not take into account the effect of the bills on GDP, even though some bills (e.g., Tax Reduction Act of 1975) were primarily designed to stimulate the economy. The effect of most tax bills on GDP is uncertain, but probably generally small.



    In any case, I'm not saying it; take it up with the Bush Treasury department if you don't like their analysis.
    Quote:

    In other words, you're full of shit.



    While that's probably true, I don't think you've shown it in your post. That Bush Treasury paper said that Reagan's tax increase was larger than Clinton's. That's why I linked it to dispute your post saying that Clinton's was the largest. How is that "full of shit." And what's the relevance of that little blurb you quoted? I honestly don't get how that shows I'm full of shit for saying Reagan's tax increase was bigger than Clinton's.
  • Reply 71 of 214
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    When that link talks about revenue, it's not talking about some kind of laffer curve/supply-side issue. It's talking about the revenue effect of the tax bill, i.e., how much tax would be lost or gained as a result. By saying that Reagan's tax increase was larger than Clinton's, it's not building in any projections about the effect of the tax increase on the economy. It's just using the standard method of evaluating tax bills, from what I can tell.



    From pages 7-8: In any case, I'm not saying it; take it up with the Bush Treasury department if you don't like their analysis. While that's probably true, I don't think you've shown it in your post. That Bush Treasury paper said that Reagan's tax increase was larger than Clinton's. That's why I linked it to dispute your post saying that Clinton's was the largest. How is that "full of shit." And what's the relevance of that little blurb you quoted? I honestly don't get how that shows I'm full of shit for saying Reagan's tax increase was bigger than Clinton's.




    Wasn't parts of his tax cut extremely severe/big percentage wise?



    Overall what was the difference between the cut and the hike?



    So lets say he cut taxes by 5 trillion and then raised them by say 2 trillion the overall would be a tax cut of 3 trillion. I am not sure of the numbers so I am asking.
  • Reply 72 of 214
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    Wasn't parts of his tax cut extremely severe/big percentage wise?



    Overall what was the difference between the cut and the hike?



    So lets say he cut taxes by 5 trillion and then raised them by say 2 trillion the overall would be a tax cut of 3 trillion. I am not sure of the numbers so I am asking.




    I think that's right. If I'm looking at the numbers correctly, the 1982 tax increase only went about half way up from where the 1981 tax cut brought us down in revenues, maybe less depending on the measure. There are tables and figures in the back of that paper that compare all of them. Look at the figure on the last page and compare 1981 to 1982.



    Something else I notice about that graph - Bush's tax cuts are about the same size as Reagan's (in inflation-adjusted dollars, not % GDP). But after that one big one by Reagan in 1981, the rest of the 1980s have tax increases, little ones, but increases nonetheless. Since the late 1990s, we've just been getting bigger and bigger tax cuts all the time, and Bush is still calling for more now. How long can that go on?
  • Reply 73 of 214
    formerlurkerformerlurker Posts: 2,686member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    Since the late 1990s, we've just been getting bigger and bigger tax cuts all the time, and Bush is still calling for more now. How long can that go on?



    It won't go on much longer, 'cause The Rapture is coming Real Soon Now!



    Until then, why worry about deficits, peak oil, or the poisoning of the environment? None of that will matter when the Last Days are upon us !!!!!!
  • Reply 74 of 214
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Wow, speaking of dodgeball! That's your response? You attempt to disqualify everything "we" say, simply because "we" support the president? That's insane. I'll repost what I asked you regarding your claim of Clinton helping the economy by raising taxes.







    I await your reply.




    If it was the republicans ( and not Clinton ) that made our economy great during the 90's and lowered the deficit how come ( since they control everything now ) they aren't doing it today? I mean we should be doing even better now shouldn't we?



    What a bunch of bull!





    Well that unemployment ghost just keeps coming back doesn't it?



    http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/10/news...aims/index.htm
  • Reply 75 of 214
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    First-time claims for unemployment benefits rose to 352,000 last week, despite market expectations for 335,000 and versus a revised 340,000 the week before.



    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=580&e=1&u=/nm/20040611/bs_nm/markets_forex_dc
  • Reply 76 of 214
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,080member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    When that link talks about revenue, it's not talking about some kind of laffer curve/supply-side issue. It's talking about the revenue effect of the tax bill, i.e., how much tax would be lost or gained as a result. By saying that Reagan's tax increase was larger than Clinton's, it's not building in any projections about the effect of the tax increase on the economy. It's just using the standard method of evaluating tax bills, from what I can tell.



    From pages 7-8: In any case, I'm not saying it; take it up with the Bush Treasury department if you don't like their analysis. While that's probably true, I don't think you've shown it in your post. That Bush Treasury paper said that Reagan's tax increase was larger than Clinton's. That's why I linked it to dispute your post saying that Clinton's was the largest. How is that "full of shit." And what's the relevance of that little blurb you quoted? I honestly don't get how that shows I'm full of shit for saying Reagan's tax increase was bigger than Clinton's.




    No, no, no. What the link shows is that revenue was predicted to rise. That doesn't mean that he "raised" taxes at all. I don't believe he ever raised the brackets....do you?
  • Reply 77 of 214
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,080member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jimmac

    If it was the republicans ( and not Clinton ) that made our economy great during the 90's and lowered the deficit how come ( since they control everything now ) they aren't doing it today? I mean we should be doing even better now shouldn't we?



    What a bunch of bull!





    Well that unemployment ghost just keeps coming back doesn't it?



    http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/10/news...aims/index.htm




    You haven't answered my question. You've just asked me one. I'm still waiting. I will be happy to answer yours after you've answered mine:



    "What policy did Clinton implement to help the economy?"



    And really jimmac...your jobless claims number is absurd. Anyone who understand the absolute most basic things about our economy knows that jobless claims BELOW 400,000 are considered "good".



    I'm still waiting.
  • Reply 78 of 214
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    You know AO is getting bad when I think people are acting like dicks.
  • Reply 79 of 214
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    No, no, no. What the link shows is that revenue was predicted to rise. That doesn't mean that he "raised" taxes at all. I don't believe he ever raised the brackets....do you?



    That file's abstract says "the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 was the biggest tax increase of that period," referring to the post-WWII period. If you don't believe that, do some of your own research; all except the most spin-oriented sources will say the same thing. As far as raising marginal rates/brackets, I don't know. But I never argued that. There are lots of different types of taxes and different ways of raising them.



    Here's another article, calling the 1982 tax increase "Dole's" rather than Reagan's because it was being discussed during the 1996 Dole v. Clinton campaign. It gets into some of the details of which tax increase was bigger by different measures.



    And that was from a huge google list based on a ["biggest tax increase" clinton reagan] search.
  • Reply 80 of 214
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,080member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    That file's abstract says "the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 was the biggest tax increase of that period," referring to the post-WWII period. If you don't believe that, do some of your own research; all except the most spin-oriented sources will say the same thing. As far as raising marginal rates/brackets, I don't know. But I never argued that. There are lots of different types of taxes and different ways of raising them.



    Here's another article, calling the 1982 tax increase "Dole's" rather than Reagan's because it was being discussed during the 1996 Dole v. Clinton campaign. It gets into some of the details of which tax increase was bigger by different measures.



    And that was from a huge google list based on a ["biggest tax increase" clinton reagan] search.




    It really depends on how you define a tax increase. Reagan unquestionably slashed the marginal rates. It is true that with other reform acts, laws were passed that were intended to raise revenue by closing loopholes, eliminating dedecutions, etc. Just looking at the revenue side is problematic. For one, it depends on either predictions of revenue, or actual revene receipts. The problem with the former is obvious. The problem with that latter is that other factors (as you yourself have said) can contribute to the equation.



    Reagan did not raise rates. To me, a tax increase is when rates are raised or even new types of taxes are passed. I think perhaps Reagan raised the gas tax, and perhaps others. But, as far as personal and corporate income go, Reagan was a not just a tax cutter but a tax slasher. There really isn't much argument against this.
Sign In or Register to comment.