Shock Poll: Any Republican would beat Obama in 2012...

[DanXIII 8]

Which one did it with tax cuts?

 

If you think that the recovery from the 70s-early 80s recession(s) came solely through tax cuts you are ignoring history. Reagan ramped up spending to unprecedented levels and the national debt effectively tripled over his two terms. Even his successor saw that what was going on was unsustainable and was forced to renege on his "Read My Lips" campaign promise not to institute new taxes.

 

Even Art Laffer's curve (not Art Laffer, who has gone quite batsh!t crazy since his days with Reagan) demonstrates that cutting taxes isn't always the panacea to a healthy economy and prosperity that many would have us believe.

 

[redtodd 7]

If you think that the recovery from the 70s-early 80s recession(s) came solely through tax cuts you are ignoring history. Reagan ramped up spending to unprecedented levels and the national debt effectively tripled over his two terms. Even his successor saw that what was going on was unsustainable and was forced to renege on his "Read My Lips" campaign promise not to institute new taxes.

 

Even Art Laffer's curve (not Art Laffer, who has gone quite batsh!t crazy since his days with Reagan) demonstrates that cutting taxes isn't always the panacea to a healthy economy and prosperity that many would have us believe.

 

 

 

Reagan used tax cuts as one of his tactics. Obama is spending more than Reagan could have ever dreamed AND he also is raising taxes.

 

You asked why Reagan would get better treatment than Obama, right? Gee, I have no clue why someone would view Reagan in a better light than Obama.

[DanXIII 8]

Reagan used tax cuts as one of his tactics. Obama is spending more than Reagan could have ever dreamed AND he also is raising taxes.

 

In terms of whole dollars, maybe. Adjusted for inflation that is absolutely not the case, especially when you factor in a. the fact that the interest on the national debt now is MUCH higher than it was in 1982, and b. Obama inherited two wars at a cost of ~$12 billion/month v. Reagan's 0 wars at a cost of $0/month. I'm not sure where the tax increases are that you referred to. Are you talking about the tanning-bed tax?

 

Also, by this point in Reagan's term, unemployment had increased by over 3% from where it was when he first took office. Unemployment is less than 2% higher now than it was when Obama moved into the White House.

 

You asked why Reagan would get better treatment than Obama, right? Gee, I have no clue why someone would view Reagan in a better light than Obama.

 

Like I said, neither do I.

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

 

The national debt could have been largely eliminated during his second term but Newt & Company insisted on tax cuts.

 

 

Funniest thing ever posted on this bored.

 

the debt went up EVERY year under Clinton.

[DanXIII 8]

Actually, I was mistaken. The debt could not have been "largely eliminated." The surpluses weren't big enough. The debt certainly could have been decreased. Mea culpa.

 

Funniest thing ever posted on this bored.

 

the debt went up EVERY year under Clinton.

 

I never said otherwise. When you spend budget surpluses on tax cuts instead of on paying down the debt, what else do you expect it to do but go up?

 

Though I have to hand it to Clinton & Newt...at least they actually paid for their tax cuts.

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

So you've bought inti the "tax cuts cost money" myth.

 

1. This assumes all money belongs to the govt, and letting people keep more money equates to a "cost" to the govt.

 

2. Every time we have enacted meaningful income tax rate cuts it has resulted in INCREASED revenue to the treasury due to the fact this leads to economic growth. Happened under Kennedy. Happened under Reagan. Happened under Bush. Look it up.

[BRANDON ROSS 0]

Do you think we can cut and save our way back to job growth and economic prosperity?

 

 

I think intervention in the economy could do more harm than good. It was intervention that cause the depth of the recession in the first place. The economy is cyclical just let it do its thing.

[BRANDON ROSS 0]

So if unemployment plummets down to FraudBamas worst case scenario he will be a hero?

 

Only in the eyes of rubes like you.

 

He was just talking about the average american rube, not his personal beliefs. I just wanted him to throw out a number.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

He was just talking about the average american rube, not his personal beliefs. I just wanted him to throw out a number.

 

 

Lumpy is the poster boy for the Average American Rube.

[redtodd 7]

In terms of whole dollars, maybe. Adjusted for inflation that is absolutely not the case, especially when you factor in a. the fact that the interest on the national debt now is MUCH higher than it was in 1982, and b. Obama inherited two wars at a cost of ~$12 billion/month v. Reagan's 0 wars at a cost of $0/month. I'm not sure where the tax increases are that you referred to. Are you talking about the tanning-bed tax?

 

Also, by this point in Reagan's term, unemployment had increased by over 3% from where it was when he first took office. Unemployment is less than 2% higher now than it was when Obama moved into the White House.

 

 

 

Like I said, neither do I.

 

 

I like you. You are funny.

[DanXIII 8]

So you've bought inti the "tax cuts cost money" myth.

 

1. This assumes all money belongs to the govt, and letting people keep more money equates to a "cost" to the govt.

 

No it doesn't. Just because revenue flows to the coffers of gubmint doesn't mean it isn't the people's money in the first place.

 

2. Every time we have enacted meaningful income tax rate cuts it has resulted in INCREASED revenue to the treasury due to the fact this leads to economic growth. Happened under Kennedy. Happened under Reagan. Happened under Bush. Look it up.

 

Tax cuts may very well lead to short-term economic growth, maybe even long-term growth in some cases. That doesn't mean they lead to increased government revenues in practice. Economic growth does not automatically = increased gubmint revenues. It doesn't even happen in the Laffer-curve-supply-side theory upon which you are basing your statement.

 

[DanXIII 8]

I think intervention in the economy could do more harm than good. It was intervention that cause the depth of the recession in the first place. The economy is cyclical just let it do its thing.

 

You could very well be right. I think much of it has to do with how you define "intervention." Defined most broadly, pretty much any direct or indirect policy decision might qualify as an "intervention" in the economy.

 

I would be interested in reading how you came to the conclusion that, "It was intervention that caused the depth of the recession in the first place." I'm not saying you're wrong, mind you. I would merely like to understand your reasoning. I could certainly make a case that an acute lack of intervention (deregulation, lack of oversight in financial markets, et al) caused the depth and breadth of the current recession.

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

 

 

 

Tax cuts may very well lead to short-term economic growth, maybe even long-term growth in some cases. That doesn't mean they lead to increased government revenues in practice. Economic growth does not automatically = increased gubmint revenues.

 

 

What do you base that on besides your opinion? Every time meaningful income tax rate cuts have been enacted the result has been expansion of the economy and increased revenue to the treasury. I'll take historical fact over your opinion each and every day.

[BRANDON ROSS 0]

You could very well be right. I think much of it has to do with how you define "intervention." Defined most broadly, pretty much any direct or indirect policy decision might qualify as an "intervention" in the economy.

 

I would be interested in reading how you came to the conclusion that, "It was intervention that caused the depth of the recession in the first place." I'm not saying you're wrong, mind you. I would merely like to understand your reasoning. I could certainly make a case that an acute lack of intervention (deregulation, lack of oversight in financial markets, et al) caused the depth and breadth of the current recession.

 

 

Well, I think this sums it up pretty well: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2010/05/roberts_on_the_2.html

 

But I'll give the ultra-abbreviate bullet list for the board (I'm pretty sure each is covered in greater detail in the paper):

 

1- Past Govt bailouts created what is called the "Greenspan Put". This removed the counterbalance to investor greed which is fear of loss, and created incentives to be aggressive with investments. http://mercatus.org/publication/gambling-other-peoples-money

2- Government initiatives to promote housing ownership (including Fannie/Freddie) artificiall drove up the housing market. Housing ownership can actually hurt the economy when people who probably shouldn't own houses decide to buy. Houses in the lowest end of the market tend not to appreciate at all. Also, high levels of home ownership decrease mobility in the work force which can have negative economic effects.

3- The Fed kept interest rates too low for too long after the dot.com bust and minor economic dip in the early 2000s. This made businesses and investor unable to properly evaluate the cost of capital and caused a misallocation of investment.

4- The protections for the creditors of the investment banksin made borrowing too easy, and this caused a level of leverage on these risky investments that was unprecedented.