Obama policies are 'technically' socialist.
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
http://www.discovery.org/a/3713
By: Richard W. Rahn
The Washington Times
August 23, 2006
Original Article
Many in the Washington establishment were shocked Aug. 17, when the Congressional Budget Office reported a surge of "unanticipated tax receipts" that will sharply push down this year's deficit. Those who had been proclaiming the Bush tax rate cuts would result in a big reduction in tax revenues tried to hide their disappointment. It was tough being proved wrong again after having said the same thing when Ronald Reagan cut tax rates in the early 1980s.
We have now had three major experiments with tax rate reduction in the last half-century, and each time both economic growth and tax revenues have surged, despite the fears and cries of the anti-tax-cut crowd. How much more evidence will they need to understand the difference between tax rates and tax revenues? Most everyone, including most members of Congress, can understand that properly structured tax rate reduction, by decreasing the impediments to working, saving and investing, will lead to a higher rate of economic growth. Why then is it so difficult to understand that a bigger economic pie can lead to more tax revenue rather than less?
The table shows the average annual change in tax revenue from the year before the tax cut to the end of the experiment (or in Mr. Bush's case to the present).
President Kennedy proposed major tax reduction before he was assassinated in 1963. Congress passed and President Johnson signed the tax cuts in the summer of 1964. Rates for all income groups were cut and the top rate was reduced from 91 percent to 70 percent. Economic growth averaged more than 5 percent a year for the three years after the tax cut, with very low inflation. President Johnson and the Democratic Congress raised taxes in 1968, ending the Kennedy experiment.
When Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, the economy was experiencing no growth and high inflation. As part of the solution, Reagan proposed a 30 percent reduction in tax rates. His critics claimed this would increase inflation and lead to economic disaster. Twenty five years ago this month, Congress passed a slightly watered-down version of the Reagan proposals, which reduced tax rates by about 25 percent over three years, and brought the top rate down to 50 percent.
In retrospect, the entire tax rate reduction should have been made in 1981, rather than dragging it out to 1983, which had the short-run effect of reducing growth by giving people an incentive to delay income realization. However, once enacted, the results were spectacular. Real economic growth averaged more than 4 percent per year, and inflation fell from double digits and averaged roughly 4 percent.
During the Reagan years, several other tax changes were made, both increasing and lowering some rates; but at the end of his term, the maximum marginal rate was only 28 percent. The first President Bush and Congress increased tax rates in 1990, thus ending the Reagan experiment.
The latest major tax rate reductions were enacted in 2003, and the first three-year results are now in. The increase in tax revenues, as in the previous two experiments, has far outstripped inflation, and the economy is close to full employment. The economy was already falling into recession when George W. Bush took office, and he made the mistake then of giving small tax rebates (which had no positive economic effects) rather than cutting marginal tax rates on labor and capital as he did in the bigger tax cut of 2003.
The question is always asked, did the "tax cuts pay for themselves?" If, by "paying for themselves," one means more tax revenue was produced for the government after several years than otherwise would have occurred, we can provide a reasonably certain answer. As noted above, the Kennedy tax cuts led to a very high rate of economic growth and no reduction in tax revenue as a percent of gross domestic product (GDP) over the period (average of 17.6 percent). Therefore, with a very high degree of confidence, we can say the Kennedy rate cuts paid for themselves in three years.
The Reagan tax cut program also led to higher GDP growth than would have been expected; in fact, the U.S. economy grew in real terms by almost one-third during the Reagan years. Tax revenues as a percent of GDP fell slightly from 19.6 percent of GDP at the beginning of his administration to 18.3 percent at the end, but total tax revenues were almost certainly far higher -- actually, the tax cuts probably "paid for themselves" within four years. This is because the tax base was at least 15 percent larger than would have been expected without the rate reduction program.
The Bush tax cuts also appear to be well on their way to "paying for themselves," despite the dire warnings of his critics.
Richard W. Rahn is director general of the Center for Global Economic Growth, a project of the FreedomWorks Foundation and is an Adjunct Fellow with Discovery Institute.
....Hmmmm.... this from an "adjunct fellow!" ....sounds like a smart person to me!
By: Richard W. Rahn
The Washington Times
August 23, 2006
Original Article
Many in the Washington establishment were shocked Aug. 17, when the Congressional Budget Office reported a surge of "unanticipated tax receipts" that will sharply push down this year's deficit. Those who had been proclaiming the Bush tax rate cuts would result in a big reduction in tax revenues tried to hide their disappointment. It was tough being proved wrong again after having said the same thing when Ronald Reagan cut tax rates in the early 1980s.
We have now had three major experiments with tax rate reduction in the last half-century, and each time both economic growth and tax revenues have surged, despite the fears and cries of the anti-tax-cut crowd. How much more evidence will they need to understand the difference between tax rates and tax revenues? Most everyone, including most members of Congress, can understand that properly structured tax rate reduction, by decreasing the impediments to working, saving and investing, will lead to a higher rate of economic growth. Why then is it so difficult to understand that a bigger economic pie can lead to more tax revenue rather than less?
The table shows the average annual change in tax revenue from the year before the tax cut to the end of the experiment (or in Mr. Bush's case to the present).
President Kennedy proposed major tax reduction before he was assassinated in 1963. Congress passed and President Johnson signed the tax cuts in the summer of 1964. Rates for all income groups were cut and the top rate was reduced from 91 percent to 70 percent. Economic growth averaged more than 5 percent a year for the three years after the tax cut, with very low inflation. President Johnson and the Democratic Congress raised taxes in 1968, ending the Kennedy experiment.
When Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, the economy was experiencing no growth and high inflation. As part of the solution, Reagan proposed a 30 percent reduction in tax rates. His critics claimed this would increase inflation and lead to economic disaster. Twenty five years ago this month, Congress passed a slightly watered-down version of the Reagan proposals, which reduced tax rates by about 25 percent over three years, and brought the top rate down to 50 percent.
In retrospect, the entire tax rate reduction should have been made in 1981, rather than dragging it out to 1983, which had the short-run effect of reducing growth by giving people an incentive to delay income realization. However, once enacted, the results were spectacular. Real economic growth averaged more than 4 percent per year, and inflation fell from double digits and averaged roughly 4 percent.
During the Reagan years, several other tax changes were made, both increasing and lowering some rates; but at the end of his term, the maximum marginal rate was only 28 percent. The first President Bush and Congress increased tax rates in 1990, thus ending the Reagan experiment.
The latest major tax rate reductions were enacted in 2003, and the first three-year results are now in. The increase in tax revenues, as in the previous two experiments, has far outstripped inflation, and the economy is close to full employment. The economy was already falling into recession when George W. Bush took office, and he made the mistake then of giving small tax rebates (which had no positive economic effects) rather than cutting marginal tax rates on labor and capital as he did in the bigger tax cut of 2003.
The question is always asked, did the "tax cuts pay for themselves?" If, by "paying for themselves," one means more tax revenue was produced for the government after several years than otherwise would have occurred, we can provide a reasonably certain answer. As noted above, the Kennedy tax cuts led to a very high rate of economic growth and no reduction in tax revenue as a percent of gross domestic product (GDP) over the period (average of 17.6 percent). Therefore, with a very high degree of confidence, we can say the Kennedy rate cuts paid for themselves in three years.
The Reagan tax cut program also led to higher GDP growth than would have been expected; in fact, the U.S. economy grew in real terms by almost one-third during the Reagan years. Tax revenues as a percent of GDP fell slightly from 19.6 percent of GDP at the beginning of his administration to 18.3 percent at the end, but total tax revenues were almost certainly far higher -- actually, the tax cuts probably "paid for themselves" within four years. This is because the tax base was at least 15 percent larger than would have been expected without the rate reduction program.
The Bush tax cuts also appear to be well on their way to "paying for themselves," despite the dire warnings of his critics.
Richard W. Rahn is director general of the Center for Global Economic Growth, a project of the FreedomWorks Foundation and is an Adjunct Fellow with Discovery Institute.
....Hmmmm.... this from an "adjunct fellow!" ....sounds like a smart person to me!
I've gotta say, one of my new favorite things is the serious fear that conservatives are expressing over the impending socialist state under Obama, and seeing McCain as the "last hope" to stave off state control of everything.
I just caught a little bit of Limbaugh; there is just pure panic right now. They're convinced they know the "real Obama," and that once he's elected, we'll all see.
I'm just loving it.
I just caught a little bit of Limbaugh; there is just pure panic right now. They're convinced they know the "real Obama," and that once he's elected, we'll all see.
I'm just loving it.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Well yes dummy, any analyzable study of revenues has to be made in connection to GDP, otherwise, 'increase' and 'decrease' are meaningless. If you increase revenue by 2%, but you could have increased it by 10%, did you really 'increase' revenues, or did you lose 8% somewhere? This is why liberals are so stupid when it comes to the economy, you fail to realize the big picture. Increasing the GDP will increase the revenues, it always has, and always will. You do not increase the GDP by raising tax rates, you effectively decrease it. You may generate more dollars, but it is far less dollars than you would have realized, had you cut tax rates and increased GDP.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Our taxation levels are very low for an industrialized society, around the level of Germanies.
According to Marxism. There are more socialist theories than just Marxism. Democratic socialism, for instance, desires an end where the only essential industries in a nation are nationalized. But Socialist parties worldwide have even abandoned that.
The transitional socialist state, according to Marxism, is not one where we give the poor universal healthcare and unemployment insurance. It is one where the state owns everything. Communism is the system after the state will supposedly wither away, which it, of course, never will because that's a pipe dream.
Our policies were relatively moderate. In Sweden, where they used much more extreme policy, they HAVE virtually eliminated child poverty, although I'm not sure about the overall poverty statistics. Despite this, they also are one of the most competitive markets in the entire world, in every way comparable to the US. As I've said before, welfare policies have never been proven to hurt the economy. Countries with very large and generous welfare benefits are just as well off in creating wealth as countries without them.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Then let's cut taxes to 0%.
Dixie, Reagan's tax cutting from 70% to 50% was revenue neutral. 50% to 28%, not so much. It bust the budget. So, any cut from about 60% or less you are going to have to pay for the old fashion way - by bustin the budget. There's no magic in this. Keynes predicted it.
Some on here have said, or alluded to the same thing. That we’ll all be sorry. We know not what we do.
I laugh every time too. And also, I can’t help but feel that at least some of that fear is tied to racism…even if it is unconscious.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Everyone in the entire world is a socialist if they don't believe in going back to the Gilded Age. Socialism is fun. Give in Epi.
Epicurus
Reasonable
Most people worldwide are definitely socialists.
Most people are religious, too.
Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't mean it's any more valid.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
This is not true Waterhead. No one is suggesting we cut taxes to 0%, that would not increase revenues. Properly structured tax cuts, will indeed generate more revenue, because it will increase the GDP. Reagan's tax cuts, as well as Kennedy/Johnson's, Clinton's and Bush's, all increased the GDP and the revenues as a % of GDP, because they increased the GDP. Likewise, the Johnson and Clinton tax increases, lowered the GDP and produced less tax revenue as a % of GDP. No, it's not magic, it's economics, and Keynes theories have been disproved.
Obama plans to raise taxes dramatically on upper-middle class and wealthy individuals and small business, as well as corporations, capital gains, estates, etc. This will likely generate a small bump in revenue the first year, but after that, there will be virtually no economic growth, and inflation as well as unemployment, will begin to rise. The GDP will fall sharply, and the net result will be less revenues from the tax base. It's guaranteed to happen, it has happened every time it was tried this century!
Now, when this happens, and Obama discovers he can't pay for all he has promised, what will be the 'story' we are fed? Will it be blamed on Bush? Will Liberals continue to be brain-dead on the economy, and insist the economic conditions are the result of republican policies? Or maybe, they will simply spend money we don't have, and increase the already bloated national debt? Maybe they will use it as an excuse to gut the military? Those are the only questions to be answered, what will be the response when these tax increases don't work. We already know from experience, they won't.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Most of those at are would love a return to the gilded age.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Like the one that said if you raise taxes too high revenues will fall? Which is the one I was referring to?
Dumbass. You know shit about economics if you can say something like "Keynes theories have been disproved" with a straight face.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
No, it has not. In 1950, the top marginal rate was at 90% and we experienced unparalleled levels of prosperity, not seen again until the 90's when we raised taxes again. Low taxes have shit to do with a healthy economy. This has been proven every time it was tried this century!
“The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names” Chinese Proverb
It's kinda like or close to and therefor sort of the same as the very thing it seems to be rather alike in a way, oddly familiar and pretty close.
Dixie, so what, Reagan and now Bush have screwed up so badly Joe the average citizen could have done better. Time for change, you'll get used to it. Or maybe not but maybe yes, or at least........
It's kinda like or close to and therefor sort of the same as the very thing it seems to be rather alike in a way, oddly familiar and pretty close.
Dixie, so what, Reagan and now Bush have screwed up so badly Joe the average citizen could have done better. Time for change, you'll get used to it. Or maybe not but maybe yes, or at least........
PES Activist
PES Activists Dublin
Given that I'm probably the only card-carrying member of a socialist party on this forum I find it comical that anyone could think that Obama is a socialist, or that the policies he proposes come anywhere close to those typical of socialist parties in Europe for example.
Watermark comes closest in his own unique way to describing what socialism means today to those who wear that label, and as he rightly pointed out it's quite different to the 19th century definitions that Dixie quoted in his opening post.
When compared with the policies followed by mainstream socialist and social democractic parties, Obama is very much right-of-centre. He is a progressive, for sure, but in the mould of an Amercian Liberal which is a world away from what we're used to here in Europe.
Watermark comes closest in his own unique way to describing what socialism means today to those who wear that label, and as he rightly pointed out it's quite different to the 19th century definitions that Dixie quoted in his opening post.
When compared with the policies followed by mainstream socialist and social democractic parties, Obama is very much right-of-centre. He is a progressive, for sure, but in the mould of an Amercian Liberal which is a world away from what we're used to here in Europe.