View Full Version : quote of the week - 'Just tax the heck out of people'
eagle2
09-05-2008, 08:28 PM
^^^ your graph is probably not scaled in 'real' dollars ... and thus shows an apparent increase even though the rate of inflation cancelled out that increase and then some ...
http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/taxpol/fig-5.gif
Again, this chart only shows 1993. The economy fared much better during Clinton's 8 years than it did under Reagan's 8 years.
Melonie
09-06-2008, 05:14 AM
The economy fared much better during Clinton's 8 years than it did under Reagan's 8 years
^^^ which could be paraprased to say 'the economy fared much better during New Gingrich's 'contract with America' republican congressional majorities', which forced President Clinton to implement classically Republican economic measures i.e. cutting the capital gains tax, reducing welfare spending ...
G-Real
09-06-2008, 05:52 AM
^^^ which could be paraprased to say 'the economy fared much better during New Gingrich's 'contract with America' republican congressional majorities', which forced President Clinton to implement classically Republican economic measures i.e. cutting the capital gains tax, reducing welfare spending ...
For the issue of full-disclosure, can you atleast tell us if you are working for the republicans?? ;D
Also, Republicans didn't takeover the House till 1995?
Also, democrats were in control of the house during reagan's tenure.
Not going to let you cherry-pick your arguements....
Melonie
09-06-2008, 06:19 AM
For the issue of full-disclosure, can you atleast tell us if you are working for the republicans??
Are you crazy ? These days most Republicans are indistinguishable from Democrats, at least in terms of personal interest such as real world taxation and gov't spending policies !
I might have worked for Ron Paul though ...
Jay Zeno
09-06-2008, 07:31 AM
For the issue of full-disclosure, can you atleast tell us if you are working for the republicans?? ;DI don't think any poster here is obligated to "full disclosure." The sympathies here are pretty transparent, are they not?
Also, Republicans didn't takeover the House till 1995?You're both right. Melonie said "Congress," and the Republicans gained Senate control along with Reagan's first Presidency, very likely under the "Contract With America" campaign.
Also, democrats were in control of the house during reagan's tenure.True. See above.
threlayer
09-08-2008, 07:50 PM
... These days most Republicans are indistinguishable from Democrats, at least in terms of personal interest such as real world taxation and gov't spending policies...
Other than what you said, Republicans are VERY distinguishable from Democrats. The Dems. have become more liberal and the Repubs. have become more conservative; there are very few middle-of-the-roaders. People are being forced to become more polarized. Both are highly entrenched and that is the basis of the polarized stagnation in Washington.
There are 4 spend/tax trends:
spend less and tax less - less governmental service including regulations;
spend more and tax less - leading to increasing deficit spending;
spend less and tax more - leading to reducing deficit spending;
spend more and tax more - the old nightmare for Republicans;
I think Republicans like less government so they are less encumbered by govt regulations of their 'business practices' which are exploitative of workers.Not only do we citizens have to be protected from exploitative individuals (criminals) but we have to be protected from exploitative businesses (Robber Barons if they are allowed by government).
eagle2
09-08-2008, 08:42 PM
^^^ which could be paraprased to say 'the economy fared much better during New Gingrich's 'contract with America' republican congressional majorities', which forced President Clinton to implement classically Republican economic measures i.e. cutting the capital gains tax, reducing welfare spending ...
No, Newt Gingrinch and every other Republican voted against Clinton's tax increase which had a bigger impact on the economy than anything else during the Clinton Administration, and resulted in budget surpluses.
The economy was already growing rapidly by the time the capital gains tax was passed. The economy actually grew slower in 1998, the first full year the capital gains tax cut took effect, than it did the previous year.
http://www.euroekonom.com/database/graphs.php?type=gdp-growth-usa&lang=an&time=0
Reducing welfare spending would have little to no impact on the economy. AFDC and food stamps each compromise approximately one percent of the government budget.
Melonie
09-09-2008, 01:23 AM
Reducing welfare spending would have little to no impact on the economy. AFDC and food stamps each compromise approximately one percent of the government budget.
I have to add that while this is arguably true on the surface it only applies at the federal level and then only from a myopic viewpoint. Large amounts of federal money from a different 'pocket' i.e. block grants to states and cities also goes towards these programs. And even larger amounts of state and local budgets also go toward these programs. One would begin to think that the fragmented nature of funding for these programs was not an 'accident' of legislative evolution, but instead a deliberate plan to make a true accounting of the actual cost of social welfare programs next to impossible.
PS relayer I'll take 'door number one' ... spend less and tax less
DB Cooper
09-09-2008, 07:44 AM
No, Newt Gingrinch and every other Republican voted against Clinton's tax increase which had a bigger impact on the economy than anything else during the Clinton Administration, and resulted in budget surpluses.
The budget surpluses were largely (almost exsclusively I'd say) a result of the drawdown in defense spending. Cut 100 billion dollars out of the budget and even Washington can manage a surplus. Unfortunately much of that was cut from long-term procurement programs and we've been playing catch-up ever since.
Eric Stoner
09-11-2008, 01:37 PM
Just how exactly did Bush's tax cuts CAUSE the current financial and economic mess ?
I would appreciate someone connecting ALL the dots to show a DIRECT negative effect of those tax cuts. Too much spending ? Definitely. Under-regulation ? You betcha. Clinton raised taxes and the deficit went down ? Sort of. First of all, Clinton's tax increase was retroactive i.e. '92 income was taxed at the '93 rate and a lot of rich folks had underpaid their Quarterly estimated taxes using the expected tax rate and had to send in money to make up the shortfall. The increased revenues COMBINED with further reductions in Defense spending brought down the deficit
but did NOT create surpluses. Those occurred AFTER Clinton cut Capital Gains AND GRAMM-RUDMAN was implemented.
So leaving theory aside, could someone please show how tax cuts created the current mess ? How did they increase unemployment ? Create mortgage defaults ? Affect the stock market in a negative way ? Increase inflation ? Increase the deficit ? - Be careful with that one. Revenues went UP !
Melonie
09-11-2008, 02:41 PM
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/chart2_lg.gif
.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/chart3_lg.gif
.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/table_2_lg_1.gif
many thanks to heritage.org for the charts !
Miss_Luscious
09-11-2008, 06:46 PM
Just how exactly did Bush's tax cuts CAUSE the current financial and economic mess ?
I would appreciate someone connecting ALL the dots to show a DIRECT negative effect of those tax cuts. Too much spending ? Definitely. Under-regulation ? You betcha. Clinton raised taxes and the deficit went down ? Sort of. First of all, Clinton's tax increase was retroactive i.e. '92 income was taxed at the '93 rate and a lot of rich folks had underpaid their Quarterly estimated taxes using the expected tax rate and had to send in money to make up the shortfall. The increased revenues COMBINED with further reductions in Defense spending brought down the deficit
but did NOT create surpluses. Those occurred AFTER Clinton cut Capital Gains AND GRAMM-RUDMAN was implemented.
So leaving theory aside, could someone please show how tax cuts created the current mess ? How did they increase unemployment ? Create mortgage defaults ? Affect the stock market in a negative way ? Increase inflation ? Increase the deficit ? - Be careful with that one. Revenues went UP !
Although no one can say that the sole reason for the current economic woes are the tax cuts, they were indeed at contributing factor. Here (http://www.slate.com/id/2078115/) is an article that cites the Whitehouse historical tables volume (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/pdf/hist.pdf)which attributes the current economic problems, in part, to the Bush tax cuts. Again, the tax cuts were not to only cause of our problems but they were part of it and the Whitehouse has admitted this.
Also, here (http://www.cbpp.org/9-27-06tax.htm) are some of the problems with the Bush tax cuts.
Eric Stoner
09-12-2008, 07:45 AM
Although no one can say that the sole reason for the current economic woes are the tax cuts, they were indeed at contributing factor. Here (http://www.slate.com/id/2078115/) is an article that cites the Whitehouse historical tables volume (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/pdf/hist.pdf)which attributes the current economic problems, in part, to the Bush tax cuts. Again, the tax cuts were not to only cause of our problems but they were part of it and the Whitehouse has admitted this.
Also, here (http://www.cbpp.org/9-27-06tax.htm) are some of the problems with the Bush tax cuts.
ML- You get an "E" for effort BUT the articles you cite all make a gigantic assumption - that tax increases would NOT have any effect on economic growth. In other words, the authors all ASSUME that economic growth would have continued at the same pace as that promoted by the tax cuts. History has proven the converse- lower rates help generate HIGHER economic growth and higher revenues. So to prove their point they would have to somehow show that more money to the government would have generated the same amount of investment; the same number of PRIVATE sector new and re-hires; the same amount of profits; the same salary levels; the same level of employment and unemployment because BEFORE the Feds can tax it; somebody has to make it.
Miss_Luscious
09-12-2008, 09:08 AM
I was just giving you what the Whitehouse has said in their own paperwork about the cause of the shitty economy. And they did say that the tax breaks were a factor. That's all I'm saying. I don't think the sole reason for all of this is the tax breaks and anyone who tries to argue that is very uninformed.
Eric Stoner
09-12-2008, 09:46 AM
I was just giving you what the Whitehouse has said in their own paperwork about the cause of the shitty economy. And they did say that the tax breaks were a factor. That's all I'm saying. I don't think the sole reason for all of this is the tax breaks and anyone who tries to argue that is very uninformed.
My argument is that the tax cuts had NOTHING to do with the current mess. And the White House Paper you cite makes the same fallacious assumption; that higher taxes would either be neutral or somehow have a salutary effect on the economy.
Reckless spending including but not limited to the War in Iraq; under-regulation and Fed policy caused the current mess. Period.
bem401
09-12-2008, 09:56 AM
If giving the people back more of their money is a bad idea, please explain the tax rebates overe the last few years and their intent of stimulating the economy. The theory behind it is that the lower rates stimulate business leading to more tax revenues. Why did the very Democratic congress approve such tax cuts unless they knew this to be true?
Miss_Luscious
09-12-2008, 10:22 AM
My argument is that the tax cuts had NOTHING to do with the current mess. And the White House Paper you cite makes the same fallacious assumption; that higher taxes would either be neutral or somehow have a salutary effect on the economy.
Reckless spending including but not limited to the War in Iraq; under-regulation and Fed policy caused the current mess. Period.
Well if you don't believe the Whitehouse when they say that something they did contributed to the problems then I guess I have nothing else to say to you on the matter. I don't think they would try to take the blame if they thought differently though. People don't generally confess to being accesories to murder just for fun.
Eric Stoner
09-12-2008, 11:55 AM
If giving the people back more of their money is a bad idea, please explain the tax rebates overe the last few years and their intent of stimulating the economy. The theory behind it is that the lower rates stimulate business leading to more tax revenues. Why did the very Democratic congress approve such tax cuts unless they knew this to be true?
Bush's Tax Cuts were approved by a REPUBLICAN Congress.
As for the most recent tax rebates, the very short term stimulatative effect has petered out. How and why anyone seriously expected them to have any serious effect is beyond me.
I have consistently argued for permitting a recession ( painful though it will be ) and for mergers and buyouts in the banking sector as opposed to government bailouts and takeovers. I would argue that "irrational avoidance" of a recession by the Fed went a long way in causing and aggravating the current situation.
Eric Stoner
09-12-2008, 11:59 AM
Well if you don't believe the Whitehouse when they say that something they did contributed to the problems then I guess I have nothing else to say to you on the matter. I don't think they would try to take the blame if they thought differently though. People don't generally confess to being accesories to murder just for fun.
It's not a question of credibility. The report says what it says but as I've pointed out, it is based in part on the same erroneous assumptions - that revenues would have been higher at higher rates and more importantly, that HIGHER rates would not have had a negative effect on the economy. That we would have experienced the same economic growth under higher marginal rates.
threlayer
09-19-2008, 06:34 AM
I know this is a controversial statement to some but I'm convinced that without sufficient government oversight, the country can experience things like: free run of banking and investment houses, misdirected wars against imaginary foes, lack of leadership/influence in reducing oil imports, misdirection of initiatives to develop strategic technical alternatives, etc.
Basically a nation as diverse as this one needs some guidance from government, not just a national defense. Ther are just too many influences.
The country is like a teenager - powerful enough to do some real damage, but not wise enough to used that power for the good of self and others.
kdogg247
09-19-2008, 07:06 AM
Other than what you said, Republicans are VERY distinguishable from Democrats. The Dems. have become more liberal and the Repubs. have become more conservative; there are very few middle-of-the-roaders. People are being forced to become more polarized. Both are highly entrenched and that is the basis of the polarized stagnation in Washington.
There are 4 spend/tax trends:
spend less and tax less - less governmental service including regulations;
spend more and tax less - leading to increasing deficit spending;
spend less and tax more - leading to reducing deficit spending;
spend more and tax more - the old nightmare for Republicans;
I think Republicans like less government so they are less encumbered by govt regulations of their 'business practices' which are exploitative of workers.Not only do we citizens have to be protected from exploitative individuals (criminals) but we have to be protected from exploitative businesses (Robber Barons if they are allowed by government).
Republicans are not becoming more conservative. One of the main tenets of conservative thought is a limited federal government. They should be in the "spend less and tax less - less governmental service including regulations" category. However, most of the Republicans have been expanding the federal government as fast as they can. Most are in the spend more and tax less category unless they run short on money to spend - then it is spend more and tax more.
Richard_Head
09-19-2008, 07:42 AM
Republicans are not becoming more conservative. One of the main tenets of conservative thought is a limited federal government. They should be in the "spend less and tax less - less governmental service including regulations" category. However, most of the Republicans have been expanding the federal government as fast as they can. Most are in the spend more and tax less category unless they run short on money to spend - then it is spend more and tax more.I think that their goal may have been to bankrupt the system in hopes that it would lead to the dismantlement of the so-called entitlement programs they so hate.
Eric Stoner
09-19-2008, 08:59 AM
I think that their goal may have been to bankrupt the system in hopes that it would lead to the dismantlement of the so-called entitlement programs they so hate.
A less conspiratorial view actually supported by the historical record is that "unified" government with Republicans controlling the Presidency and both houses of Congress caused this mess. The rate of increase in Federal spending is less than half under "divided" government than when one party controls.
To try and perpetuate their hold on Congress, the Republicans spent like drunken sailors and Bush the Dummy went along. Carter and Johnson were also patsies for the Dem controlled Congress as was Clinton during his first two years. We got fiscal discipline AFTER the Reps. took over Congress.
kdogg247
09-19-2008, 09:02 AM
I think that their goal may have been to bankrupt the system in hopes that it would lead to the dismantlement of the so-called entitlement programs they so hate.
That's not a logical plan, although good planning has never been the govt's strong point.
kdogg247
09-19-2008, 09:07 AM
A less conspiratorial view actually supported by the historical record is that "unified" government with Republicans controlling the Presidency and both houses of Congress caused this mess. The rate of increase in Federal spending is less than half under "divided" government than when one party controls.
To try and perpetuate their hold on Congress, the Republicans spent like drunken sailors and Bush the Dummy went along. Carter and Johnson were also patsies for the Dem controlled Congress as was Clinton during his first two years. We got fiscal discipline AFTER the Reps. took over Congress.
*ding ding* We have a winner.
It's sad but true. The Republicans can not be trusted to control the White House and Congress without screwing something up. The Democrats are no better.
threlayer
09-19-2008, 09:17 PM
Republicans are not becoming more conservative. One of the main tenets of conservative thought is a limited federal government. They should be in the "spend less and tax less - less governmental service including regulations" category. However, most of the Republicans have been expanding the federal government as fast as they can. Most are in the spend more and tax less category unless they run short on money to spend - then it is spend more and tax more.
OK, more polarized toward the right. The Reps have helped alter the financial picture so that the fat cats would get fatter at a cost to the masses. They have done that by reducing the financial regulatory system. That's their incentive. Also a right spectrum thing is defense, and they have been more than willing to allow that to increase. So in those senses, yes, more conservative.
threlayer
09-19-2008, 09:21 PM
...
To try and perpetuate their hold on Congress, the Republicans spent like drunken sailors and Bush the Dummy went along. Carter and Johnson were also patsies for the Dem controlled Congress as was Clinton during his first two years. We got fiscal discipline AFTER the Reps. took over Congress.
Now that is baloney. We started the fiscal discipline problem after a couple of years in the Reagan administration, and each subsequent administration has made it all the worse. More liberal fiscal policies, bail-outs, etc. Don't blame this at all the Democrats you can point to. There is blame enough for everyone.
Eric Stoner
09-20-2008, 01:45 PM
Now that is baloney. We started the fiscal discipline problem after a couple of years in the Reagan administration, and each subsequent administration has made it all the worse. More liberal fiscal policies, bail-outs, etc. Don't blame this at all the Democrats you can point to. There is blame enough for everyone.
Please either re-read what I posted or do something to improve your reading comprehension. We had good fiscal discipline under Truman with a Republican Congress; Eisenhower with a Democrat Congress; during Nixon's first two years
and during Clinton's last five years with a Republican Congress.
Both the Dems and the Reps got us in the mess. 90% of the blame can fairly be laid on the Government including the Fed. The private sector gets the other 10% imo.
It was the Dems under Clinton who radically expanded the Community Development Act and instituted regs that REQUIRED writing mortgages without proper lending guidelines. Fannie Mae bought those mortgages and issued bonds
"secured" by said mortgages under Jim Johnson and then Franklin Raines who both pocketed as much as $100 MILLION in bonuses.
When Bush ( in one of his few lucid intervals ) tried to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac it was the Dems - Dodd; Kerry; Frank; Pelosi who stopped him.
On the other hand, Bush appointed two Treasury Secretaries; Snow and O'Neill who knew very little about Wall Street and what it was doing with mortgage backed securities. He appointed a string of laissez faire dim wits to head the SEC culminating with his appointment of Mr.Cox who cut back on oversight;investigation and regulation and who did away with the "uptick rule" that encouraged NAKED short -selling i.e. "Bear Raids" on financial stocks. But it was Clinton who signed the Banking Deregulation bill that removed restrictions on commercial and investment banks.
Are you picking up the pattern ? It was BOTH parties who set the stage for the current mess. And let's not leave out Bernanke and especially Greenspan who did NOTHING to rein in easy money mortgages.
threlayer
09-20-2008, 08:49 PM
Comprehension...?
Are you picking up the pattern ?
As you recall, I pointed out the pattern of succeeding adms, BOTH Rep and Dem, relaxing their regulatory impact. See this...
There is blame enough for everyone. As you recall easy mortgage money became available from a myriad of causes, mostly STUPIDITY and GREED.
The unethical enticements foisted on a stupid public during an irrational housing cost bubble and lack of effective controls, I believe, led to this crisis; let me say deserved crisis. 'Deserved' because a lot of people (consumers, businesspeople, and government) bought into this idiocy. I got out of this mess some years ago (5-6) by paying off my mortgage and I have stuck it out in my old home because I thought that the whole picture was royally screwed up.