Reagan's Boom

Topspin said:
Duhla, you can't ever reach the level of being able to really debate the Reagan boom. All you have is tired old schoold turbo-lib talking points.
I'm on your and Cypress's side. The sad thing is your type of thinking is risking the 08 election by being clueless about wealth creation and it's affect on the middle class.
Click to expand...

Listen, smart boy, the initial post on this thread is horseshit, and a right wing slight of hand. I showed that when I laid out what this guy did with the years. A 25 year period vs a 13 year period, and using percentages is a clear tip off that you are about to be had. And one that leaves out the second largest economic expansion in US history, just "by chance". You never responded to that, because you can't.

Go take your smart boy shit and tell it to someone who is intimidated by it.
 
Superfreak said:
"Explain how payroll taxes affect the economy differently than income taxes, within the middle class.

I guess I'm stupid too, because I don't know either."

I did not say that Darla... I said CONSUMPTION tax vs. Income tax.
Click to expand...

Ok SF. But can you still tell address my point? Am I correct in saying that the usual justification for tax cuts is that when the middle class receives them it will stimulate the economy through increased consumerism? And since the increase in payroll taxes more than made up for the decrease in income taxes, for the middle class under Reagan, then how can we claim this?

Also, I will have to agree with Cypress that a gas tax, which is a consumption tax I believe? falls mainly on the middle class and lower, therefore, again, less discretionary income for the.
 
Topspin said:
Duhla, you can't ever reach the level of being able to really debate the Reagan boom. All you have is tired old schoold turbo-lib talking points.
I'm on your and Cypress's side. The sad thing is your type of thinking is risking the 08 election by being clueless about wealth creation and it's affect on the middle class.
Click to expand...

Democrats are better for the economy, on average dude. Everybody does better, on average: the poor the middle class and the rich.

In almost every metric you can measure: stock market, GDP, poverty, wage growth, economic growth, etc.

I've showed you the statistics many times. They're from official government sources. And this trend goes back at least to the 1930s or 1920s.

You can say Democrats "just get lucky". But, that is a really weak argument. Espcially since the trend is almost a century old.
 
Your the reason democrats have been losing their asses of until Iraq.
People vote their wallets and you don't know jack shit about wallets.
I'll give you more.
Carter was soo weak he allowed someone like Reagan to come in and lift the country by it's bootstraps.
He was soo effective that bush sr road his coat tails as did Junior. And Clinton would never have been elected without the republican lite version of moderate politics he had.
We'll see what happens, hopefully it's so bad for republicans that the overwhelming majority of business illiterate dems won't "LOSE IT AGAIN".
 
Topspin said:
Duhla, you can't ever reach the level of being able to really debate the Reagan boom. All you have is tired old schoold turbo-lib talking points.
I'm on your and Cypress's side. The sad thing is your type of thinking is risking the 08 election by being clueless about wealth creation and it's affect on the middle class.
Click to expand...

I think our basic differences are wealth creation vs wealth distribution.
 
"But, you guys have been trumpeting what a great tax cutter reagan was for years. Admit it: until I informed you yesterday, you had no idea reagan was a massive tax hiker. "

1) Try not to lump me into the same category as Republicans (although I am a fan of Reagan)

2) I certainly knew about the "increases" you are referring to. That said, most people when talking about Reagans tax cuts are referring to the income tax cuts. Those, by themselves had a net positive effect.

3) Reagan alone could not have raised the nations debt.... it takes Congress to create the budget (with input from the White House) and then the President signs it. The deficit spending since 1960 is the product of BOTH parties. This endless need by the Dems and Reps to blame each other is tiring.
 
Topspin said:
Your the reason democrats have been losing their asses of until Iraq.
People vote their wallets and you don't know jack shit about wallets.
I'll give you more.
Carter was soo weak he allowed someone like Reagan to come in and lift the country by it's bootstraps.
He was soo effective that bush sr road his coat tails as did Junior. And Clinton would never have been elected without the republican lite version of moderate politics he had.
We'll see what happens, hopefully it's so bad for republicans that the overwhelming majority of business illiterate dems won't "LOSE IT AGAIN".
Click to expand...

I'll put the business climate, eutrepeneurship, corporate success, and inventiveness of liberal Democratic california, against conservative Louisiana any day of the week, and twice on sunday.
 
I posted many times that the stock market does about 4/10 % better than republicans.
Cypress your are a partisan hack.
Please show me some current info that shows the rich doing better under dems.
I have never seen anything on the subject but intuition tells me republicans lowering their tax rates to 33% from 70% and lowering cap gains to 15% couple with constant class warfare form the dems has me questioning your facts.
 
"Ok SF. But can you still tell address my point? Am I correct in saying that the usual justification for tax cuts is that when the middle class receives them it will stimulate the economy through increased consumerism? And since the increase in payroll taxes more than made up for the decrease in income taxes, for the middle class under Reagan, then how can we claim this?"

To a degree, you are correct. If income taxes are lowered, consumption and investment tend to increase. Thus, you need to adjust your above in two ways....

1) Tax cuts are not JUST about the middle class

2) You have to factor in the effect of investment as well.

"Also, I will have to agree with Cypress that a gas tax, which is a consumption tax I believe? falls mainly on the middle class and lower, therefore, again, less discretionary income for the."

I disagree. A consumption tax is something most people can control, should they choose. There will be some cases where this does not hold true, but in the majority it will.
 
consumption taxes hit the lower and middle class much harder percentage wise of income than the uppper class.

spending another $50/mo on gas is nothing to the upper calss, but can hit hard on the lower and even middle class.

Now if it was graduated to kick in after a certain consumption level....
I stongly support that type of consumption tax on several items.
 
Superfreak said:
"Ok SF. But can you still tell address my point? Am I correct in saying that the usual justification for tax cuts is that when the middle class receives them it will stimulate the economy through increased consumerism? And since the increase in payroll taxes more than made up for the decrease in income taxes, for the middle class under Reagan, then how can we claim this?"

To a degree, you are correct. If income taxes are lowered, consumption and investment tend to increase. Thus, you need to adjust your above in two ways....

1) Tax cuts are not JUST about the middle class

2) You have to factor in the effect of investment as well.

"Also, I will have to agree with Cypress that a gas tax, which is a consumption tax I believe? falls mainly on the middle class and lower, therefore, again, less discretionary income for the."

I disagree. A consumption tax is something most people can control, should they choose. There will be some cases where this does not hold true, but in the majority it will.
Click to expand...

Ok, on the first point, I'll agree. Once we step outside of the middle class and into the top 2%, then tax cuts are going to increase investment. And the effect of that on the economy would have to be factored in. Agree. I think that personally, that Cypress has done a very good job of showing that the tax burdens were left to the middle class, and especially so, when the time came to clean up the deficits.

On the consumption tax, I have to disagree, especially when you are talking about a gasoline tax. Gasoline is not a luxury. Sure, you can cut out driving around on weekends sight seeing. But the fact is, in most parts of this country, people need their cars to get to work, many commutes are long ones, especially with the explosion of the suburbs and the exburbs, and a gasoline tax falls squarely onto the working people, lower, middle and even upper middle. They will all feel it to differing extents of course.
 
Darla said:
On the consumption tax, I have to disagree, especially when you are talking about a gasoline tax. Gasoline is not a luxury. Sure, you can cut out driving around on weekends sight seeing. But the fact is, in most parts of this country, people need their cars to get to work, many commutes are long ones, especially with the explosion of the suburbs and the exburbs, and a gasoline tax falls squarely onto the working people, lower, middle and even upper middle. They will all feel it to differing extents of course.
Click to expand...

Right Darla. I agree with you here. Around here most people have to drive at least 25 miles one way to work, some as much as 70 miles one way. Gas is definitely not a "luxury" for them. Right now it is a pain in the tukus.........and the pocketbook.
 
uscitizen said:
consumption taxes hit the lower and middle class much harder percentage wise of income than the uppper class.

spending another $50/mo on gas is nothing to the upper calss, but can hit hard on the lower and even middle class.

Now if it was graduated to kick in after a certain consumption level....
I stongly support that type of consumption tax on several items.
Click to expand...


consumption taxes hit the lower and middle class much harder percentage wise of income than the uppper class.


That's the point USC. You think Reagan was going to make the ultra affluent pay for the sea of red ink, from his budget shortfalls after his 1981 income tax cut?

No way was he going to revisit the top marginal rates.

Gasoline taxes are a great way to overwhelmingly make the middle class pay for the budget shortfalls you cause.
 
leaningright said:
Right Darla. I agree with you here. Around here most people have to drive at least 25 miles one way to work, some as much as 70 miles one way. Gas is definitely not a "luxury" for them. Right now it is a pain in the tukus.........and the pocketbook.
Click to expand...

It's the reason I'm not for higher gas taxes even though I completely understand the point of those who argue that it would reduce consumption. Which we need to do. But it would hurt working people far too much. I can't agree with it.
 
Darla said:
Ok, on the first point, I'll agree. Once we step outside of the middle class and into the top 2%, then tax cuts are going to increase investment. And the effect of that on the economy would have to be factored in. Agree. I think that personally, that Cypress has done a very good job of showing that the tax burdens were left to the middle class, and especially so, when the time came to clean up the deficits.

On the consumption tax, I have to disagree, especially when you are talking about a gasoline tax. Gasoline is not a luxury. Sure, you can cut out driving around on weekends sight seeing. But the fact is, in most parts of this country, people need their cars to get to work, many commutes are long ones, especially with the explosion of the suburbs and the exburbs, and a gasoline tax falls squarely onto the working people, lower, middle and even upper middle. They will all feel it to differing extents of course.
Click to expand...


On the consumption tax, I have to disagree, especially when you are talking about a gasoline tax. Gasoline is not a luxury.

this is patently obvious to the most casual observer. A consumption tax, like the gasoline tax, is not something working americans really have much choice in controlling how much they get hit with it.

I really detested the way Reagan tried to make up the massive deficits his 1981 tax cuts (which mostly helped the affluent), by making working americans (primarily) pay to offset some of that budget shortfall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top