Reagan vs Harding / Coolige

[Lucky... 0]

This was an entry in another thread, I think it deserves a life of its own. Uncanny the comparison to tax policy between Harding/Coolige and Reagan. As I said, disaster was realized as Reagan cut taxes, it's just that during Reagan he diverged by gross deficit spending for the first time while not at war. Here comes the Cold War comments; hardly a war, just a political pissing match. Hell, the bay of pigs was more a war than was the upturning of the political pissing between the USSR and the US.


Here's a graph that is really illustrative. Look at the top marginal brkt from Harding/Coolige and then compare it to Reagan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

Gpaph at the bottom right side. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/MarginalIncomeTax.svg/500px-MarginalIncomeTax.svg.png

(may or may not work, just go to the parent site, the first one)

Amazingling almost identical.

1922-1925

1981-1986

The step is larger with Reagan's, but the starting and stopping point are virtually carbon copy. The results, well similar but in a different way.

In the 1920's they didn't believe in deficit spending, so they suffered and waited for the economy to come around. Reagan believed in deficit spending so his good deeds weren't really noticed until after his death or at least his mind left us. If Reagan didn't deficit spend as he did, I think we would have been in a depression by the end of his illustrious 2nd term.

Rhetorically, when will the morons quit thinking that cutting taxes to shreds is a good idea?

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

when will the morons quit thinking that cutting taxes to shreds is a good idea?

Probably when the morons quit thinking that more spending is the cure for all of our problems.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

when will the morons quit thinking that cutting taxes to shreds is a good idea?

Probably when the morons quit thinking that more spending is the cure for all of our problems.

Probably about the same time the other morons figure out tax cuts aren't either.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

when will the morons quit thinking that cutting taxes to shreds is a good idea?

Probably when the morons quit thinking that more spending is the cure for all of our problems.

Well, the same morons who cut taxes are teh ones who do the massive spending. So we're talking about the same morons here; Reagan and GWB and all their faithful.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

when will the morons quit thinking that cutting taxes to shreds is a good idea?

Probably when the morons quit thinking that more spending is the cure for all of our problems.

Then quit voting for the same morons who pretend to be for small government and fiscal responsibility with a HUGE cold plate of morality thrown in

Be like Mike... and get butt hurt over how bad the people you have voted for have let you down so badly.

[rhaig 0]

I think the only spending that will help us out is consumers spending real money, not credit.

I liked that last year the Obama administration cut tax withholding for some brackets to be about $20/week. The thought (from what I heard discussed on NPR on the way home from work) was that people would be more willing to spend that amount and not save it. If it was a massive cut, people would be more likely to save most of the excess, and while they'd still be spending more than before, the total benefit would be less. (lower tax revenues)

Cutting taxes on people with a certain amount of income and higher (don't know the number 150K? 250K?) wouldn't likely have the same increased consumer spending effect, as they likely already have enough excess income that an extra 20-50/week wouldn't change their habits.

Increasing their (higher incomes) taxes would (in my uneducated opinion) probably just cause them to exercise more tax write-offs. It's a pain to start a business on paper every few years, but if it's an additional 15% of your income, you might make the effort.

I don't like the current tax system, and favor a consumption based tax system, (with anti-regressive mechanisms built in) but realistically believe it shouldn't get implemented until the economy is stronger.

--
Rob

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I think the only spending that will help us out is consumers spending real money, not credit.

Right now and the last couple years if we didn't have deficit spending we would be in the 2nd coming of the GD; disagree? Low taxes allow the uber rich to remove their money from the game w/o penalty, high taxes and generous writeoffs require the uber rich to keep much of their money in the game vs stagnate in their account.

Taxing to recover takes a lot longer than deficit stimulus spending, look at the GD and see how taht is obvious. Both are neccessary, but a big shit in the arm is a good thing.

Quote

I liked that last year the Obama administration cut tax withholding for some brackets to be about $20/week. The thought (from what I heard discussed on NPR on the way home from work) was that people would be more willing to spend that amount and not save it. If it was a massive cut, people would be more likely to save most of the excess, and while they'd still be spending more than before, the total benefit would be less. (lower tax revenues)

True, but that's a temp measure too. After we have at least stopped the bleeding, which Obamanomics have, now we need to inch up the tax brkts to hopefully restore jobs / investment.

Quote

Cutting taxes on people with a certain amount of income and higher (don't know the number 150K? 250K?) wouldn't likely have the same increased consumer spending effect, as they likely already have enough excess income that an extra 20-50/week wouldn't change their habits.

These aren't the very rich by any means, but these are the people with some fluid income who need higher taxes, hopefully they reinvest and hold that cash value while building a retirement which they can pullout in small measures as they age. But I agree, if you are in the brkt of a saver, cutting taxes means you save more in an economy that needs pissers; AKA low incomers.

Quote

Increasing their (higher incomes) taxes would (in my uneducated opinion) probably just cause them to exercise more tax write-offs.

Yes, these tax writeoffs create jobs much of the time. That's the idea, wanna take your money out of the game at once, leave a bunch. Wanna take a little and reinvest most, go ahead.

Quote

It's a pain to start a business on paper every few years, but if it's an additional 15% of your income, you might make the effort.

You still have to suffer a loss in order win a writeoff. Also, most peopel aren't that industrious or energetic to learn the game that well. But if they do, they have to circulate cash to get the deduction.

Quote

I don't like the current tax system, and favor a consumption based tax system, (with anti-regressive mechanisms built in) but realistically believe it shouldn't get implemented until the economy is stronger.

Yea, nothing s/b done until we've stabilized, which is why Obama was right to not immediately institute taxes. Of course Hoover incr the top brkt from 25% to 63% in teh midst of a total mess, but I think he was right to then. I think the economy has stabilized enough to certainly let the GWB tax cuts expire, as it gets better raise them a little more to 50% top brkt-ish.

Clinton received an already recovering economy, so he was able to jack them up 9% more immediatley, which still isn't that much. With the tax cuts expiring, I see some benefit realized by 2012, but we wouldn't see a lot of betterment until 2014-16, so hopefully we don't get another quack Republican in there in 12.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

I think the only spending that will help us out is consumers spending real money, not credit.

Right now and the last couple years if we didn't have deficit spending we would be in the 2nd coming of the GD; disagree?

I was referring to consumers spending, not government's spending. But govt deficit spending injects money into the economy, and that's good. It leaves debt that must be paid, and that's bad. It's a balancing act to pick how much debt to incur when deficit spending with the aim of economic stimulus.

Quote

Taxing to recover takes a lot longer than deficit stimulus spending, look at the GD and see how taht is obvious. Both are neccessary, but a big shit in the arm is a good thing.

big shit in the arm... heh... can't keep from snickering at that.

I think we can tax to increase revenues, or reduce foreign spending. Domestic cashflow needs to increase.

--
Rob

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

teh ones who do the massive spending.

Bush deficit: 450B
Obama deficit: 1.4T

When you're right, you're right.

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

[quade 4]

Quote

Bush deficit: 450B
Obama deficit: 1.4T

I'm curious if you know what Reagan's was?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Bush deficit: 450B
Obama deficit: 1.4T

I'm curious if you know what Reagan's was?

Reagan's highest deficit was in 1983 - 360.75 billion (2005 dollars).

1989 deficit was 219.57 billion (2005 dollars).

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

[quade 4]

Cool.

Now, take a look at this.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1900_2015&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy11&chart=G0-fed_30-fed&bar=0&stack=0&size=l&title=&state=US&color=c&local=c

That's deficit and military spending expressed as a function of gross domestic product.

Notice anything?

Sure, Obama's deficit spending is going up, but to a certain extent that pretty much always happens when we're at war.

Going to war is exceptionally costly.

The US generally does much better in terms of finances when we're not at war.

No, I'm not trying to blame it on Bush. It's a statement of fact; we do better without war.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Going to war is exceptionally costly.

Not this one. The 100 or 200B / year price tag is a pretty small piece of our current budget. Contrast it to the Stimulus Bill.

[quade 4]

Quote

Not this one. The 100 or 200B / year price tag is a pretty small piece of our current budget. Contrast it to the Stimulus Bill.

Well, yeah, sure, a couple of hundred billion here, a couple of hundred billion there . . . pretty soon it starts adding up to real money.

So, there's a trillion dollars gone down the tubes.

Imagine for a second what else we could have done with a trillion dollars?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Meso 38]

*cue Anti-Flag's - "1 Trillion Dollars"*

I must say though, when I look at Reagan, the financial details would have been the least of my worries. One tends to pay less for oppression.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think the only spending that will help us out is consumers spending real money, not credit.

Right now and the last couple years if we didn't have deficit spending we would be in the 2nd coming of the GD; disagree?

Quote

I was referring to consumers spending, not government's spending. But govt deficit spending injects money into the economy, and that's good. It leaves debt that must be paid, and that's bad.

You have choices and being partially pregnant is not one of them. Now you can adjust how much deficit spending, but if you don't deficit spend enough then we will have GD part II; agree?

Quote

It's a balancing act to pick how much debt to incur when deficit spending with the aim of economic stimulus.

OK, I see you agree. I think we've spent teh right amount, give or take.

Quote

Taxing to recover takes a lot longer than deficit stimulus spending, look at the GD and see how taht is obvious. Both are neccessary, but a big shit in the arm is a good thing.

Quote

big shit in the arm... heh... can't keep from snickering at that.

*shot* Typo, not uncommon with me or here.

Quote

I think we can tax to increase revenues, or reduce foreign spending. Domestic cashflow needs to increase.

Taxing to increase revs includes increasing income taxes, agreed? How do we reduce foreign spending? I guess keep letting the USD fall and we can achieve that.

Agreed on domestic cash flow, to do that we need to enhance circulation which means break loose some of the cash and motivate investment; this is done by increased taxes. The RW approach is to cut taxes thinking it will free up money, this fairytale has never worked - show me where is has. When you lower taxes, it allows teh uber rich to take it out of the market, out of business and pocket it for a rainy day.

• Quote

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

teh ones who do the massive spending.

Bush deficit: 450B
Obama deficit: 1.4T

When you're right, you're right.

Gee, the fiscal year from 2008 to 2009, the addition to the debt was > $1T, I guess you're talking the fantasy deficit. When you want to be honest, come around. Oh, and that wasn't including TARP money.

See, when you sit there and watch the mortgage indust run into the ground and start wars that yield no benefit, your fantasy budget gets doubled, tripled, etc. Back to your normally scheduled fantasy now.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Cool.

Now, take a look at this.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1900_2015&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy11&chart=G0-fed_30-fed&bar=0&stack=0&size=l&title=&state=US&color=c&local=c

That's deficit and military spending expressed as a function of gross domestic product.

Notice anything?

Sure, Obama's deficit spending is going up, but to a certain extent that pretty much always happens when we're at war.

Going to war is exceptionally costly.

The US generally does much better in terms of finances when we're not at war.

No, I'm not trying to blame it on Bush. It's a statement of fact; we do better without war.

Not to mention that inheriting a budget out of control is hazzardous, you can't just chop these programs w/o causing total chaos, you must taper them off. Obama was in the unsavory position of having to not only support these illegitimate wars, but to fix a grossly upside down economy; Regan had a stable but sluggish economy and watched as Volkers contracted teh money, driving unemp from 7.5% to 10.8%.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Not this one. The 100 or 200B / year price tag is a pretty small piece of our current budget. Contrast it to the Stimulus Bill.

Well, yeah, sure, a couple of hundred billion here, a couple of hundred billion there . . . pretty soon it starts adding up to real money.

So, there's a trillion dollars gone down the tubes.

Imagine for a second what else we could have done with a trillion dollars?

Gotten Obama's deficit down matching Bush's?

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

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Imagine for a second what else we could have done with a trillion dollars?

You mean, like have a comprehensive national health coverage system like every other industrialized nation in the world for the past 50 years, instead of a bloated military-industrial complex and being the de facto security umbrella for those other countries? How communist, and .... evil.

I'd also much rather spend money on soldiers keeping armed criminals from crossing from Mexico into the US than on keeping them from crossing from Pakistan into Afghanistan.

Where the fuck are our priorities?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Imagine for a second what else we could have done with a trillion dollars?

You mean, like have a comprehensive national health coverage system like every other industrialized nation in the world for the past 50 years, instead of a bloated military-industrial complex and being the de facto security umbrella for those other countries? How communist, and .... evil.

I'd also much rather spend money on soldiers keeping armed criminals from crossing from Mexico into the US than on keeping them from crossing from Pakistan into Afghanistan.

Where the fuck are our priorities?

We can blame Reagan and GWB all we want, the real morons are ones who put them in place to make the decisions they do.

[Andy9o8 2]

To clarify, my post #20 refers to universal US policy dating back from the Truman Administration.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Not this one. The 100 or 200B / year price tag is a pretty small piece of our current budget. Contrast it to the Stimulus Bill.

Well, yeah, sure, a couple of hundred billion here, a couple of hundred billion there . . . pretty soon it starts adding up to real money.

So, there's a trillion dollars gone down the tubes.

Imagine for a second what else we could have done with a trillion dollars?

Oh, no doubt, it's serious money. But it's not the primary cause of our current situation, and it's not the same as the impact of Vietnam, Korea, or WWII. Not remotely close. That was your assertion.

As for what we could have done with that money - since it is debt, the answer is nothing. But we'd have more options in the future.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

But it's not the primary cause of our current situation,...

Yep, low taxes are the cause of them. GWB lowered taxes, the economy stagnated, the fed lowered int rates to spur the economy and house prices, being the inverse of prinicpal value, soared creating false appreciation of home values.

Either way, cut taxes, things go to shit, it's been shown time and again, denied by the neos.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Yep, low taxes are the cause of them. GWB lowered taxes, the economy stagnated, the fed lowered int rates to spur the economy and house prices, being the inverse of prinicpal value, soared creating false appreciation of home values.

Prove it.

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