Do tax cuts for the rich lead to horrible economic times?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

See, now this is where you lose everyone.

Everyone? I think guys like Kallend, Bill and many others follow easily, perhaps people with educations understand critical thinking moreso than those who have never been to college.

Quote

You continue to whip out these charts, claim 'oh you don't know anything about the big picture' and then you never explain squat.

Well then go back to each chart or other data and LMK what you don't understand. BTW, I have never been accused of brevity; I think you know that's not true.

Quote

Reagan sucked when he spent lots o cash, but you're on board with the big 'O' spending a heck of a lot more than that?

Reagan and GWB cut taxes and spent massive amounts, that's where the chart that has to do with spending as a ratio of GDP comes in. IOW's, if the economy is doing well, you can spend more. http://carriedaway.blogs.com/carried_away/images/economics/u.S.%20Spending%20And%20Revenue%20In%20Relation%20To%20GDP.GIF

Look at the center pair of orange/blue lines. The top (orange) line represents spending, see how it climbs under Reagan and dips, then peaks in 1992, then falls drastically? That is spending under Reagan/Bush, Bush had to spend in the Gulf War and had the recession to deal with, but he did cut military spending otherwise.

Mow, see the blue line that represents tax revenues. It peaks in 1981 as Reagan takes office, then falls drastically, that represents his tax cuts from a 70% brkt to a 50% brkt, making the rich very rich. It meanders along until 1992 when it starts to climb, that was Bush's tax increase no doubt, it then carries a straight line in a nice upward angle until 200, when we had a downturn in the economy.

Now, to culminate the 2 lines and data they represent. See how in 1997 they cross and the blue line is on top of the orange? That's a good thing, that's when we started to create a surplus and the debt started to level off. If you go back you can see when the blue is on top of the orange, a healthy economy. In 1969 when taxes were 77% as I recall for a top brkt. Look atthe Eisenhower years, the lines criss-crossed, but the blue was on top a lot, the debt actually fell at this time and the top tax brkt was 91%.

Now for GWB. Tax revenues were falling anyway as the economy was sputtering. So what did Bush do? He cut taxes and really smoked it. And spending was on the upswing, so what did Bush do? He spent more. The idea is Bush should not only have maintained the Clinton tax brkt at 40% max, he should have increased them to keep up with spending, the orange line. Here's another chart, set the dates from 1980 to 2010 if it doesn't translate that way: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1980_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy10&chart=F0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title=Spending As Percent Of GDP&state=US&color=c&local=s

Look at after Clinton how it went thru the roof and how Obama inherited that mess. Since revenues are down so low, the chart peaks. Bush should have raised taxes and the result would be a smaller hump instead of a dagger, but he had commitments to his rich buddies, as well he had no clue. In fact, the graph actually shows the peak falling down again after 2010, I wonder if that's an est?

So when people say it's the spending, not the taxing, you understand that is ridiculous.

Now, for Obama. He inherited a total pile of shit, how can you blame him for spending for a recovery? Do you want another Great Depression? No, so he has no choice. And remember, the 700B bank bailout occurred under Bush and he released the first 317B, so how do you blame ANY of that on Obama?

You wanted an explanation of my charts, give me a detailed explanation of how this is Obama's mess and he's handling it all wrong when the DJIA is WAY ahead of schedule and the GDP just broke + ground from a -6.4% the quarter Obama took office after having 4 of the last 5 quarters negative. I've come to the table, why don't you?

Quote

Obama is spending his way out of Bush but Reagan wasn't spending his way out of Carter?

Go back to this chart: http://carriedaway.blogs.com/carried_away/images/economics/u.S.%20Spending%20And%20Revenue%20In%20Relation%20To%20GDP.GIF

Look at 1977 to 1981. The chart is moving around as for the blue and orange lines, but they virtually touch in 1979 (balanced budget) and aren't far away in 1981 until Reagan cut taxes and smoked spending, making the lines spread HUGELY thru the 80's. So what mess did Reagan inherit? The interest rate was high, but that was thru the 70's as a result of OPEC and general energy issues. The 70's weren't great, Ford was a spender, but taxes were high enough to offset that.

Quote

I'm happy to pay my own way, right after you. Pay for a strong defense? Sure. Pay for roads? Sure. Pay for your subsistence, food stamps, HC? I don't think so. You can't afford coverage than you spend eight hours a week at the Postal Service unloading trucks or at the federal building sweeping floors. We had this great thing in Uni called 'Work Study.' How about the same on a National level? Like I said- work for it.

This is basically babbling rhetoric. You just get emotional and act as tho your money goes to some welfare house immediately. There is no connect between taxes and spending other than the deficit/debt, so quit acting as if welfare is going to cost you a nickel.

Quote

Oh and according to your chart, Clinton didn't deficit spend he got it under control. Was I happy about how he did it? Not really, but he gets props for pounding his desk and saying 'THE BUCK STOPS HERE!'

Yes, he cut spending and raised taxes, the best things to do. Also he didn't get stupid with some proxy war, something I accredit Reagan, GHWB and Clinton for not doing. Actually Clinton did deficit spend the first few years, but you can't flip it in a day; NOR CAN OBAMA. And if you want to act as tho the sluggish economy Clinton inherited was ANYTHING like what Obama inherited, you're not watching very closely. Would you like data-based comparisons? Clinton's inherited economy was mostly recovered, but jobs were scarce at 7.2% unemp. Obama's inheritance was about 8% and nose-diving, not to mention all the other factors like the banks, the mortgage mess and auto disaster/shutdown.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

So you're OK with spending on things you approve of, but not on things others approve of.

Quote

Nice try putting words in my mouth but I don't think so. That's not what I said. I'll pay my own way, but not yours.

I didn't have to put words in your mouth, because you wrote them down:

Quote

Pay for a strong defense? Sure. Pay for roads? Sure. Pay for your subsistence, food stamps, HC? I don't think so.

Once again- I will pay my own way, but I expect you to pay yours. Obviously we have a disagreement on what constitutes 'your own way'.

I'm quite sure that a significant portion of the taxes I pay goes to support services that YOU USE. And unless you are in the top 1.5% of households, I suspect I pay far more taxes than you do. Since you choose to post anonymously, we have no idea - maybe you're Bill Gates.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

show me a major federal tax cut that led to prosperity for all but the rich.

Here's a better one - show us an income tax cut that only the rich got.

So if a tax cut helps the poor 1 penny, than it's a neutral tax measure. Brilliant, Binary Mike

I didn't say that, Strawman Lucky.

Quote

Same old tired 'classist' argument snipped

Translation: I can't answer the question, so I'm going to fall back on my threadbare 'class' argument and forget I ever asked the question in the first place.

So now you have to modify previous posts to make a point, my aren't you especially dishonest?

What did I modify, besides snipping out your argument and replacing it with a statement? Show me.

Quote

Then you actually delete my argument

Seeing as how it's the same tired thing you say in every post in this thread, I figured I'd save some server space.

Quote

and say I can't answer the question.

Guess what? You *didn't* (Still haven't, for that matter)

Quote

What a joke.

Yup, that's pretty much all your 'classist' threads.

Quote

If you care to debate it, replace the original text and hit me up, or just be revisionist Mike.

Feel free to show examples of what I modified (besides the deletion of the 'classist' bullshit, that is).

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

show me a major federal tax cut that led to prosperity for all but the rich.

Here's a better one - show us an income tax cut that only the rich got.

So if a tax cut helps the poor 1 penny, than it's a neutral tax measure. Brilliant, Binary Mike

I didn't say that, Strawman Lucky.

Quote

Same old tired 'classist' argument snipped

Translation: I can't answer the question, so I'm going to fall back on my threadbare 'class' argument and forget I ever asked the question in the first place.

So now you have to modify previous posts to make a point, my aren't you especially dishonest?

What did I modify, besides snipping out your argument and replacing it with a statement? Show me.

Quote

Then you actually delete my argument

Seeing as how it's the same tired thing you say in every post in this thread, I figured I'd save some server space.

Quote

and say I can't answer the question.

Guess what? You *didn't* (Still haven't, for that matter)

Quote

What a joke.

Yup, that's pretty much all your 'classist' threads.

Quote

If you care to debate it, replace the original text and hit me up, or just be revisionist Mike.

Feel free to show examples of what I modified (besides the deletion of the 'classist' bullshit, that is).

You replied to your assertion: Same old tired 'classist' argument snipped

SO let's quit this pettiness and address my points. Do I need to enumerte them for you?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

You replied to your assertion: Same old tired 'classist' argument snipped

So sorry - you were supposed to be answering a question, remember?

Quote

SO let's quit this pettiness and address my points. Do I need to enumerte them for you?

No, you need to answer the question. Do I need to restate it for you, since you seem to have problems staying on-task?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

You replied to your assertion: Same old tired 'classist' argument snipped

So sorry - you were supposed to be answering a question, remember?

Quote

SO let's quit this pettiness and address my points. Do I need to enumerte them for you?

No, you need to answer the question. Do I need to restate it for you, since you seem to have problems staying on-task?

I told you which statements of mine you made as yours, why are you so excited about avoiding the issue of: Do tax cuts for the rich lead to horrible economic times?

Is this your tangent. I posted your quote that wasn't mine, deny it or whatever, let's talk tax cuts, unless that is a sore issue for you.

[Lucky... 0]

For example, let me hear your take on this:

Reagan and GWB cut taxes and spent massive amounts, that's where the chart that has to do with spending as a ratio of GDP comes in. IOW's, if the economy is doing well, you can spend more. http://carriedaway.blogs.com/...ation%20To%20GDP.GIF

Look at the center pair of orange/blue lines. The top (orange) line represents spending, see how it climbs under Reagan and dips, then peaks in 1992, then falls drastically? That is spending under Reagan/Bush, Bush had to spend in the Gulf War and had the recession to deal with, but he did cut military spending otherwise.

Mow, see the blue line that represents tax revenues. It peaks in 1981 as Reagan takes office, then falls drastically, that represents his tax cuts from a 70% brkt to a 50% brkt, making the rich very rich. It meanders along until 1992 when it starts to climb, that was Bush's tax increase no doubt, it then carries a straight line in a nice upward angle until 200, when we had a downturn in the economy.

Now, to culminate the 2 lines and data they represent. See how in 1997 they cross and the blue line is on top of the orange? That's a good thing, that's when we started to create a surplus and the debt started to level off. If you go back you can see when the blue is on top of the orange, a healthy economy. In 1969 when taxes were 77% as I recall for a top brkt. Look atthe Eisenhower years, the lines criss-crossed, but the blue was on top a lot, the debt actually fell at this time and the top tax brkt was 91%.

Now for GWB. Tax revenues were falling anyway as the economy was sputtering. So what did Bush do? He cut taxes and really smoked it. And spending was on the upswing, so what did Bush do? He spent more. The idea is Bush should not only have maintained the Clinton tax brkt at 40% max, he should have increased them to keep up with spending, the orange line. Here's another chart, set the dates from 1980 to 2010 if it doesn't translate that way: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...;color=c&local=s

Look at after Clinton how it went thru the roof and how Obama inherited that mess. Since revenues are down so low, the chart peaks. Bush should have raised taxes and the result would be a smaller hump instead of a dagger, but he had commitments to his rich buddies, as well he had no clue. In fact, the graph actually shows the peak falling down again after 2010, I wonder if that's an est?

So when people say it's the spending, not the taxing, you understand that is ridiculous.

Now, for Obama. He inherited a total pile of shit, how can you blame him for spending for a recovery? Do you want another Great Depression? No, so he has no choice. And remember, the 700B bank bailout occurred under Bush and he released the first 317B, so how do you blame ANY of that on Obama?

You wanted an explanation of my charts, give me a detailed explanation of how this is Obama's mess and he's handling it all wrong when the DJIA is WAY ahead of schedule and the GDP just broke + ground from a -6.4% the quarter Obama took office after having 4 of the last 5 quarters negative. I've come to the table, why don't you?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Is this your tangent. I posted your quote that wasn't mine, deny it or whatever,

I've already said a couple times that I snipped your boring stock argument out of the thread and replaced it with that text - what more explanation do you need from me to be able to comprehend that?

Quote

let's talk tax cuts, unless that is a sore issue for you.

I asked you about that already, and got the stock 'classist' argument in reply. Planning on answering my question anytime soon, or am I going to have to sit through a few more iterations of the whole 'classist' thing again?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Is this your tangent. I posted your quote that wasn't mine, deny it or whatever,

I've already said a couple times that I snipped your boring stock argument out of the thread and replaced it with that text - what more explanation do you need from me to be able to comprehend that?

Quote

let's talk tax cuts, unless that is a sore issue for you.

I asked you about that already, and got the stock 'classist' argument in reply. Planning on answering my question anytime soon, or am I going to have to sit through a few more iterations of the whole 'classist' thing again?

Your question about what you changed in my reply? I showed you that unless you have another question. If so, please post.

[mnealtx 0]

I guess reading ain't so fundamental, anymore.

Quote

***show me a major federal tax cut that led to prosperity for all but the rich.

Here's a better one - show us an income tax cut that only the rich got.

Remember that one? You know, the one you 'answered' with your canned reply about classism?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I guess reading ain't so fundamental, anymore.

Quote

***show me a major federal tax cut that led to prosperity for all but the rich.

Here's a better one - show us an income tax cut that only the rich got.

Remember that one? You know, the one you 'answered' with your canned reply about classism?

I answered it a page-and-a-half ago. Short memory or not the answer you're looking for so you want to re-ask it?

Post 247 I wrote:

So if a tax cut helps the poor 1 penny, than it's a neutral tax measure. Brilliant, Binary Mike. With the lower 50% of all filers accumulating to pay 2.89% of all taxes as of 2007 how is it that even a 50% tax cut would matter? You can't help that class by cutting taxes, you have to increase taxes on top and redistribute. Even if you took that entire bottom 50% of filers and made them all tax exempt it wouldn't be that big a deal. However if you do things like establish universal HC and other programs, that is what is real and brings them up.

Furthermore, the trhead reads: Do tax cuts for the rich lead to horrible economic times?

Since the rich pay most taxes therefore taxes can only be cut where teh money is, tax cuts help the rich. So do they lead to horrible economic times? Yes, they do; pls show otherwise. You want to flip the question around to read: 'Are there tax cuts aimed 100% exclusively at the rich.' I doubt it, but that's irrelevant as taxes for teh poor are irrelevant, only benefits. The rich want a tax cut, the poor want boost in services, so to act as tho these classes have identical needs is ridiculous.

Basically I reworded the question as I believe it was Iago or Ion who twisted the previous question, but this question still stands: How can the bottom 50% of all filers get rich from a tax cut when they collectively pay 2.87% of all income tax? Even if you made them tax expempt, they still wouldn't have shit. Poor people get advantage from social service increases, rich people get advantage from tax cuts. I'm not sure how that isn't clear when the lower 50% pay < 3% of all taxes. I could pose the the same inverse question: How do rich people get an advantage with the increase of social services? THEY DON'T. Taxes are for rich people or at least well-off people, they don't affect the poor either way other than by spreading the classes it tends to push them lower.

I'm sure this is not the answer you want, so you'll re-ask it, but in short, if you pay virtually no taxes, you can't get a real tax cut.

[rhaig 0]

see that little [In relpy to] ??

watch what happens when you click it. Do you want a bailout with your free tech support?

--
Rob

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

see that little [In relpy to] ??

watch what happens when you click it. Do you want a bailout with your free tech support?

In response to???????? What's your point, what statements? Post them.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Sorry, I don't buy it. You have a very circumstantial sort-a kinda relationship if you look at it from precisely the right angel. Post-WWII we were the manufacturing king of the world. No one could touch us and we rocked the house. GDP growth and per-capita income increased steady throughout the 50s, 60s, and 70s not because of top-tier tax rates but the manufacturing and technology machine that drove it. Computers and tech breakthroughs fueled that fire, the space race kicked innovation into high gear and the massive debt from WWII was paid down with those high tax rates.

Looking into modern times the manufacturing base has eroded during the 70s and 80s. We lost lots of ground to the auto manufacturers of Japan, the steel industry surrendered to the Chinese, and companies moved overseas to take advantage of the surplus of cheap labor. What caused all the turmoil from the 80s on? Technology transfer. No one would dare do business with the Commie areas of Asia (particularly after the congressional witch hunts of the 50s and 60s) but with the fall of the Soviet Union (bluffed and spent into oblivion by Reagan, in my opinion) the flow of tech from West to East has left the United States with a cracked foundation struggling to form a new economic identity in technology, finance, and services with mixed success.

You seem to base everything here on taxes, but your main argument seems to be jacking spending way up will boost the economy. We can all enjoy a good sugar high but the crash will have to come eventually. Jack taxes back to 70 and 90% to pay for it? Well, I don't know about that- Americans are looking to retire and expat out of country these days. Previously there was nowhere decent to go but the times have changed the world drastically. 'Atlas' can finally shrug and find a comfortable life elsewhere.

In response to what? Is it that hard to post what I wrote and address each statement or paragraph? Really, what can I do with this mess?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

In response to what? Is it that hard to post what I wrote and address each statement or paragraph? Really, what can I do with this mess?

Those postings you (and a few others) did with sentence by sentence rebuttals are basically unreadable. We're not in grade school - write paragraphs. It should be sufficient to select a couple quotes and response to deliver your point.