Why should peole believe in Conservatism?

[Kamala Trump]

I'm not an economist but I think it would be safe to say that SSE/Reaganomics is just one point of view and would not be defined as the whole of capitalism.

How is reaganomics different than capitalism?

 

[NOVA]

Maybe I was an idiot for believing in it in the first place. Iraq wasn't the only reason why I switched sides. Let's say it was the straw that broke the Camels back. I made two points with that post. #1. I'm not the wing nut liberal ideologue Pavo is accusing me of, he in fact is the right wingnut. #2. I'm capable of looking at cold hard facts and based upon those facts concluding "Hey I'm wrong about this." Which I was about Supply Side Economics. It is a fiscal system that does not work. The facts prove that.

Supply side and tax cuts... worked every time its been tried starting with JFK....
and a "free market" doesn't mean no regulation....just as free country doesn't mean no laws, fool...

And of course the FACT that Bush went to Congress and the Iraqi War Resolution was passed means nothing to you...agreed to by a fair number of House Dems and a majority of Senate Dems...including now VP Biden and SOS Hillary Clinton...you just ignore those facts.

The fact that those infamous Dem. quotes warning about Iraq and WMD starting in 1996 mean nothing to you....warning from Pres. Clinton, VP Gore and practically all the Dem leaders at the time...

The fact that a large number of UN resolutions were unanimously passed condemning Iraq mean nothing to you...

You ignore 9/11 and its effect on US economy like it was akin to a bug bite.

Theres a line in a movie that reminds me of your attitude...."you have no code"...you're a lemming.

 

[Kamala Trump]

What is supply side anyway?

is it: If you can completely change the price structure on items, through using slave labor or whatever, that you can get a whole new market of customers going because of the mad low low prices? Kind of "if you build it, they will come?" like the field of dreams?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

How is reaganomics different than capitalism?

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned; supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are determined mainly by private decisions in the free market, rather than through a planned economy; and profit is distributed to owners who invest in businesses.

Reaganomics is an economic program utilized during the Reagan administration, which emphasized low taxes, decreased economic regulation, low social services spending, and high military spending. Reaganomics theorized, from a supply side stand point, that lowering taxes would stimulate the economy and create greater Federal revenues.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Supply side and tax cuts... worked every time its been tried starting with JFK....
and a "free market" doesn't mean no regulation....just as free country doesn't mean no laws, fool...

And of course the FACT that Bush went to Congress and the Iraqi War Resolution was passed means nothing to you...agreed to by a fair number of House Dems and a majority of Senate Dems...including now VP Biden and SOS Hillary Clinton...you just ignore those facts.

The fact that those infamous Dem. quotes warning about Iraq and WMD starting in 1996 mean nothing to you....warning from Pres. Clinton, VP Gore and practically all the Dem leaders at the time...

The fact that a large number of UN resolutions were unanimously passed condemning Iraq mean nothing to you...

You ignore 9/11 and its effect on US economy like it was akin to a bug bite.

Theres a line in a movie that reminds me of your attitude...."you have no code"...you're a lemming.

You're in denial. I just showed you objective data that it did not work. If it did work why didn't Federal revenues increase from 2001, 2002 and 2003?

Looks like you're the lemming. You can't accept that the facts don't agree with your world view.

 

[cawacko]

You're in denial. I just showed you objective data that it did not work. If it did work why didn't Federal revenues increase from 2001, 2002 and 2003?

Looks like you're the lemming. You can't accept that the facts don't agree with your world view.

Are you asking why federal revenues didn't increase during a recession and the largest terrorist attack in the continental U.S.?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Are you asking why federal revenues didn't increase during a recession and the largest terrorist attack in the continental U.S.?

No. I'm asking that why when the economy increased by 2.5% and taxes were cut, why didn't Federal revenues increase as SSE/Reaganomics predict it will? The September 11 attacks are irrelevent to the discussion and an appeal to emotion. Had the economy not grown during that period you may have a point but that didn't happen. It did grow. So why didn't Federal revenues increase?

 

[NOVA]

You're in denial. I just showed you objective data that it did not work. If it did work why didn't Federal revenues increase from 2001, 2002 and 2003?

Looks like you're the lemming. You can't accept that the facts don't agree with your world view.

The purpose of a sound and vibrant economy is NOT to increase the revenues of the Government....

and why do you just keep ignoring the profound effects of the WTC attack on the US and even world economy as if it was only a nuisance....

 

[cawacko]

No. I'm asking that why when the economy increased by 2.5% and taxes were cut, why didn't Federal revenues increase as SSE/Reaganomics predict it will? The September 11 attacks are irrelevent to the discussion and an appeal to emotion. Had the economy not grown during that period you may have a point but that didn't happen. It did grow. So why didn't Federal revenues increase?

How can you argue the Sept. 11th attacks had no economic affect on our country? The stock market is shut down. When did that last happen? And then it tanks after it re-opens. That has no affect?

And then to argue tax increases was responsible for the '90's boom? If you are arguing tax increases go look at the growth in the '90's before and after the Clinton '97 tax cut.

 

[Damocles]

No. I'm asking that why when the economy increased by 2.5% and taxes were cut, why didn't Federal revenues increase as SSE/Reaganomics predict it will? The September 11 attacks are irrelevent to the discussion and an appeal to emotion. Had the economy not grown during that period you may have a point but that didn't happen. It did grow. So why didn't Federal revenues increase?

During Reagan's tenure, federal receipts grew at an average rate of 8.2% per year. (2.5% can be attributed to Social Security increases). Your post here is a sign of too much attention on the short-term rather than the long-term effects of his tax cuts. Revenue did increase after his tax cuts.

During Reagan's tenure, because of defense spending, we went from being the largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation. His asserted desire to curb spending while cutting the taxes was obviously misapplied. However, real earnings of every tax bracket increased, and the unemployment rate dropped from a peak of 10.8% to average 7.5% during his entire tenure. With earnings increased and more people at work, revenues increased.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The purpose of a sound and vibrant economy is NOT to increase the revenues of the Government....

and why do you just keep ignoring the profound effects of the WTC attack on the US and even world economy as if it was only a nuisance....

Who said anything about that? Were talking about does Supply Side Economics work. According to the data it does not. Please try to stay on topic.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

During Reagan's tenure, federal receipts grew at an average rate of 8.2% per year. (2.5% can be attributed to Social Security increases). Your post here is a sign of too much attention on the short-term rather than the long-term effects of his tax cuts. Revenue did increase after his tax cuts.

During Reagan's tenure, because of defense spending, we went from being the largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation. His asserted desire to curb spending while cutting the taxes was obviously misapplied. However, real earnings of every tax bracket increased, and the unemployment rate dropped from a peak of 10.8% to average 7.5% during his entire tenure. With earnings increased and more people at work, revenues increased.

Oh Bravo! Finally someone with the courage to answer the question I asked. I'll check the data to see if your explanation holds water.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

During Reagan's tenure, federal receipts grew at an average rate of 8.2% per year. (2.5% can be attributed to Social Security increases). Your post here is a sign of too much attention on the short-term rather than the long-term effects of his tax cuts. Revenue did increase after his tax cuts.

During Reagan's tenure, because of defense spending, we went from being the largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation. His asserted desire to curb spending while cutting the taxes was obviously misapplied. However, real earnings of every tax bracket increased, and the unemployment rate dropped from a peak of 10.8% to average 7.5% during his entire tenure. With earnings increased and more people at work, revenues increased.

I looked at the data and your argument doesn't hold water (nor does SSE/Reaganomics).

Reagan led the largest tax cuts in US history by cutting the top marginal tax rates by 25% in 1981. That was the only year in which he cut taxes. Federal revenue in 1981 (pre tax cut) had grown by 15% from 1980. In 1982 post tax cuts the Federal revenue growth had dropped to 3%. Reagan, convinced of the fiscal irresponsibility of those tax cuts raised taxes in 1982 but it was to late. Federal Revenues dropped to -2.8% growth (2.8% less then the year before a total drop off of nearly 18% in two years.). Reagan then increased taxes again in 1983. After the 1982/83 tax increases revenues rose 11%. So Federal revenues did increase under Reagan but only after he raised taxes and he raised taxes mostly on working class people/laborers with his increase in the payroll tax.

According to SSE/Reaganomic theory this should not have happened.

Worse yet, the Reagan tax breaks impacted the lower 40% of households disproportionately as their taxes were raised to higher levels then 1980 tax rates due to raises on the payroll tax by Reagan (a highly regressive tax raise) while the wealthy still maintained significant tax breaks.

In terms of investment growth the Reagan tax cuts should have spured the economy but actually only resulted in a modest 2.5% increase in investement over the 1980's Where as during the 1990's business cycle under Clinton, who raised taxes, investment rose 5.9%. Again, SSE/Reaganomics would predict that this would not happen.

Sorry Damo, your argument doesn't hold water.

 

[cawacko]

I looked at the data and your argument doesn't hold water (nor does SSE/Reaganomics).

Reagan led the largest tax cuts in US history by cutting the top marginal tax rates by 25% in 1981. That was the only year in which he cut taxes. Federal revenue in 1981 (pre tax cut) had grown by 15% from 1980. In 1982 post tax cuts the Federal revenue growth had dropped to 3%. Reagan, convinced of the fiscal irresponsibility of those tax cuts raised taxes in 1982 but it was to late. Federal Revenues dropped to -2.8% growth (2.8% less then the year before a total drop off of nearly 18% in two years.). Reagan then increased taxes again in 1983. After the 1982/83 tax increases revenues rose 11%. So Federal revenues did increase under Reagan but only after he raised taxes and he raised taxes mostly on working class people/laborers with his increase in the payroll tax.

According to SSE/Reaganomic theory this should not have happened.

Worse yet, the Reagan tax breaks impacted the lower 40% of households disproportionately as their taxes were raised to higher levels then 1980 tax rates due to raises on the payroll tax by Reagan (a highly regressive tax raise) while the wealthy still maintained modest tax breaks.

In terms of investment growth the Reagan tax cuts should have spured the economy but actually only resulted in a modest 2.5% increase in investement over the 1980's Where as during the 1990's business cycle under Clinton, who raised taxes, investment rose 5.9%. Again, SSE/Reaganomics would predict that this would not happen.

Sorry Damo, your argument doesn't hold water.

Clinton cut business taxes in 1997. Show your 1990's growth breakdown pre and post this tax cut.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

The September 11 attacks are irrelevent to the discussion and an appeal to emotion.

how can you say that 9/11 had no economic impact and is only an emotional appeal?

The stock market remained closed until September 17. It would turn out to be the longest that the market would remain closed since 1933 and the Great Depression. During it's first day of trading after the attacks, the market lost over 680 points, the single biggest one day drop in the exchanges history. While the drop only accounted for a little over 7 percent, it is still considered a major event. By the end of that first week back open, the Dow Jones had lost over 1360 points or 14 percent of its value. It would go down as the worst week in market history. The total money losses during that time were estimated to be around 1.2 trillion.

http://ezinearticles.com/?9-11-and-The-New-York-Stock-Exchange&id=826583

 

[Kamala Trump]

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned; supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are determined mainly by private decisions in the free market, rather than through a planned economy; and profit is distributed to owners who invest in businesses.

But the federal reserve plans the economy right?

Reaganomics is an economic program utilized during the Reagan administration, which emphasized low taxes, decreased economic regulation, low social services spending, and high military spending. Reaganomics theorized, from a supply side stand point, that lowering taxes would stimulate the economy and create greater Federal revenues.

Supply of what?

What is so supply-y about supply side. whats on the side of the supply that makes that side so special?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

how can you say that 9/11 had no economic impact and is only an emotional appeal?



http://ezinearticles.com/?9-11-and-The-New-York-Stock-Exchange&id=826583

First of all, I didn't say that and second, why do ya'll keep throwing this kanard, as well as, throwing your Messiah Bush under the bus?

Were not talking about the impact of 911. Were talking about "Does supply side ecnomics work?". According to their own definition if tax cuts create growth in the economy we should see a rise in tax revenues. Both economic growth and tax cuts happened in 2001, 2002 and 2003 and revenues declined. If the economy grew after the 911 attacks, which it did by 2.5%, combined with tax cuts and Bush certainly cut taxes for the wealthy, why didn't Federal revenues grow too? Please explain that to me?

 

[Damocles]

I looked at the data and your argument doesn't hold water (nor does SSE/Reaganomics).

Reagan led the largest tax cuts in US history by cutting the top marginal tax rates by 25% in 1981. That was the only year in which he cut taxes. Federal revenue in 1981 (pre tax cut) had grown by 15% from 1980. In 1982 post tax cuts the Federal revenue growth had dropped to 3%. Reagan, convinced of the fiscal irresponsibility of those tax cuts raised taxes in 1982 but it was to late. Federal Revenues dropped to -2.8% growth (2.8% less then the year before a total drop off of nearly 18% in two years.). Reagan then increased taxes again in 1983. After the 1982/83 tax increases revenues rose 11%. So Federal revenues did increase under Reagan but only after he raised taxes and he raised taxes mostly on working class people/laborers with his increase in the payroll tax.

According to SSE/Reaganomic theory this should not have happened.

Worse yet, the Reagan tax breaks impacted the lower 40% of households disproportionately as their taxes were raised to higher levels then 1980 tax rates due to raises on the payroll tax by Reagan (a highly regressive tax raise) while the wealthy still maintained significant tax breaks.

In terms of investment growth the Reagan tax cuts should have spured the economy but actually only resulted in a modest 2.5% increase in investement over the 1980's Where as during the 1990's business cycle under Clinton, who raised taxes, investment rose 5.9%. Again, SSE/Reaganomics would predict that this would not happen.

Sorry Damo, your argument doesn't hold water.

Again, this is an immensely short-sighted view. While I did point out that 2.5% of the revenue increase was due to the payroll taxes, the reality is that decrease in income tax rates did indeed happen, and even while it happened revenues increased at a far higher rate than the payroll tax increase.

At no time did the tax rates ever go higher than his decrease, it remained lower at the end of his term than at the beginning. And while the lower portion supposedly were hit "hardest", their median income increased per household by more than $4,000 (higher than the tax "increase" by a longshot), and far more of them had jobs. The unemployment rate peaked at 10.8% and by the end of his term averaged out to 7.5% (that's average)...

GDP growth was unprecedented, the reinvestment worked to spark the economy.

The attempt to redefine the reality through abuse of statistics notwithstanding, even the poorest were better off at the end of his terms than at the beginning. There is a reason that the Independents remember Reagan fondly and conversely Carter so poorly, it is because they became better off during Reagan's terms while the opposite was true with Carter.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I'm sorry but you either haven't been paying attention or you were in a coma during the Bush years. Republicans have talked about government spending but what they mostly have done is borrow and spend because their basic fundamental policy, i.e. supply side economics/Reaganomics simply doesn't work. The only difference between conservative fiscal policy and far left liberal fiscal policy is what they spend the money on. Not how much they spend.

Sorry, but clearly you didn't even pay attention to what YOU wrote. You spoke of why people don't trust/like 'CONSERVATISM'.... pretending the Reps were exercising fiscal conservatism since 2000 is nothing short of absurd.

As for your original post....

1) CONGRESS controls the BUDGET... the President signs off on it.

2) Tax cuts work in the short term... they work in the long term if there are corresponding SPENDING cuts.

3) The Clinton tax increases SLOWED the pace of growth... the Clinton tax CUTS increased it

4) Looking at the economy and saying, it grew but revenues went down does not tell the whole picture. Yes, the economy grew, but people still possessed the tax write offs of capital losses from the downturn that began in March of 2000 and continued through the end of 2002.

5) We see today just how well the liberal idea of tax and tax and tax some more works... it doesn't. Obama and the Dem congress are digging the whole ever deeper. Raising the tax burden on small businesses, raising the tax burden on working families, spending in an irresponsible manner and hearing calls from the left wing nuts like Krugman on how we need to spend even more. Unemployment still around 10%. Home sales plummeting now that the wasted stop gap measure expired. Europe about to implode under the same liberal tax and tax and spend and spend philosophy that your messiah is trying so hard to emulate.

Get ready for the second part of the recession... all courtesy of the Dems in Congress (leading us off a cliff since 2007) and of course lets not forget the messiah, who so kindly has supplied the left wing morons with a life time supply of kool-aid (or should we call it Obamaid? Obamacare?).

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I wouldn't call 2.5% growth "AWESOME".

Let me ask you this then, if what you're saying is true then how comes that combination of economic growth and tax cuts resulted in some of the largest deficits in our nations history? Why is that? If what you're saying is true, and supply side economics/Reaganomics works, why wasn't there a Federal surplus?

1) There hasn't been an ACTUAL surplus since 1960... so by your definition neither of the two parties has the answer

2) For supply side economics to work in the long run there MUST be corresponding spending cuts. That is the part of the equation that the Reps forgot.

3) You also forget that it was CLINTONs removal of Glass Steagall that led the financial implosion and thus the ever expanding deficits. Pretending it was supply side economics is just a blatant lie.

4) Note also... the largest of the deficits under Bush came under the spend spend spend policies of the Pelosi/Reid regime in Congress. Why is it that liberals always forget that part?