Liberal Forum

skews13 » 17 Feb 2014 3:00 pm » wrote:There isn't one single example in the history of the United States where tax cuts for the rich have ever led to economic prosperity.

Not one.

It's this premise that has been behind Ronald Reagan worship.

Which president ever cut taxes only for the rich, moonbat?

Name one.

RichClem » 17 Feb 2014 2:38 pm » wrote:I'm respected by everyone whose opinions I respect, with infrequent exception.

It's a well known fact, they have a bizarre affection for clowns. Give yourself another pat on the back, Pagliacci.

RichClem » 17 Feb 2014 3:06 pm » wrote: Which president ever cut taxes only for the rich, moonbat?

Name one.

Your question does not relate to the comment. Skews never claimed that taxes were ever cut on only the rich.

greatnpowerfuloz » 17 Feb 2014 3:08 pm » wrote: It's a well known fact, they have a bizarre affection for clowns. Give yourself another pat on the back, Pagliacci.

You've been exposed as a shameless lying troll and a hopeless ignoramus, so who care what bulls*** you write?

greatnpowerfuloz » 17 Feb 2014 3:10 pm » wrote: Your question does not relate to the comment. Skews never claimed that taxes were ever cut on only the rich.

How do you know, troll? Are you a mind reader?

But if you are correct, then like almost every liberal on the board, he was distorting reality to the point of utter deceit.

Both Reagan and Bush cut taxes for everyone paying income taxes and more.

RichClem » 17 Feb 2014 3:12 pm » wrote: You've been exposed as a shameless lying troll and a hopeless ignoramus, so who care what bulls*** you write?

Sorry, I don't have time for you here.

CP's started a cracking good thread about a hopeless ignoramus. Three guesses as to who it is?

greatnpowerfuloz » 17 Feb 2014 3:15 pm » wrote:Sorry, I don't have time for you here.

CP's started a cracking good thread about a hopeless ignoramus. Three guesses as to who it is?

You're taking that psychotic's judgment and knowledge over mine?

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

greatnpowerfuloz » 17 Feb 2014 3:10 pm » wrote:
Your question does not relate to the comment. Skews never claimed that taxes were ever cut on only the rich.

That was Rich's point. It's just sad that you were too dense to understand.

The claim that tax cuts on the rich never benefited the country is an unsupportable claim, because it's never happened.
The ONLY way to measure whether a tax cut "on the rich" created jobs or grew the economy, would be to ONLY cut taxes on them and have no other economic changes occur around that cut.

Back to Reagan just for a moment.

A few thoughts occur to me that haven't been discussed.

First, unemployment. Lots of numbers floating about but little comment on the fact that Reagan actually changed the way unemployment was counted (in a way that still helps out today's President, ironically).

Second, stagflation. Volcker (and Carter) can be argued to have most of the credit for solving that, by limiting the money supply and easing the pricing of oil. This is if you accept that it was driven by oil price hikes and an expansionary monetary policy under Nixon, which many do.

Third, Reagan benefited from a weak dollar (I recall getting two dollars for a pound in the 80s) and an oil glut (and reduced oil prices - under $30 a barrel).

Fourth, far from a reduced government, Reagan ended up with more government employees. The military spending increases (up 60%?) are indeed pumped into the economy via people's salaries.

Fifth, if this was all a necessary expenditure to end the Soviet Union, why was Reagan so keen on holding talks of disarmament and detente?

This is a guy who won the presidency with 50.7% of the vote. After he had struck a deal with the Iranians NOT to release hostages under Carter - offering arms to pay for their help. Sure enough, as soon as he got in - hey presto - hostages released!

He certainly left a legacy. A bit like Thatcher did over here. And people feel strongly about him, one way or the other.

I do think, however, that he failed to walk on water. He did some good things and some bad things. Mostly, I think he was a force for the worse and I track the death of the USA I remember being so fond of as a child, growing up, to him.

YMMV.

golfboy » 17 Feb 2014 3:21 pm » wrote: That was Rich's point. It's just sad that you were too dense to understand.

The claim that tax cuts on the rich never benefited the country is an unsupportable claim, because it's never happened.

The ONLY way to measure whether a tax cut "on the rich" created jobs or grew the economy, would be to ONLY cut taxes on them and have no other economic changes occur around that cut.

Awww, don't trouble the silly twit with facts and logic.


Never try to teach a pig to sing. It won't work, and it annoys the pig.

golfboy » 17 Feb 2014 7:48 am » wrote: No, actually I used ONE set of numbers and ONLY one set of numbers, it was YOU who presented conflicting data.
Your chart uses one set of numbers, and you quoted the other. Pick one set, you don't get both.

My OP offered to argue EITHER, because I know how dishonest you are.

YOU CHOOSE.

Do you want the set that turns the economy over to reagan at -.002 growth (basically, a flat economy), or do you want the one that gives Carter a lower OVERALL score?

You cannot have both, and I will argue neither with you until you agree to stick with one and only one throughout the argument.

Cannonpointer » 17 Feb 2014 3:46 pm » wrote: My OP offered to argue EITHER, because I know how dishonest you are.

YOU CHOOSE.

Do you want the set that turns the economy over to reagan at -.002 growth (basically, a flat economy), or do you want the one that gives Carter a lower OVERALL score?

You cannot have both, and I will argue neither with you until you agree to stick with one and only one throughout the argument.

I love that you're trying to lay your failure off on me.
YOU claimed that I used the wrong dates, and you used the that graph showing Carter with 3.4% growth to support it.
YOU were wrong.

AmazonTania » 17 Feb 2014 5:53 am » wrote:
I've already explain how debt to GDP was supposed to be used in a different post.

Yes, I apologize. I was using the "notifications" feature, and they show newer responses first. So I got to your thread that had meat in it in reverse order, discovering a deep downside to my preferred method. I withdraw my unfounded critique of your posting skill and integrity.

I'm confident I can find some other reason to hate you. Stick around.

Where's the psychotic?

.

RichClem » 16 Feb 2014 3:47 pm » wrote:

As usual, the psychotic ignores facts that get in the way of his psychotic ranting.
\
.

RichClem » 16 Feb 2014 8:17 pm » wrote: Did psycho get his restraints tightened again?

RichClem » 17 Feb 2014 4:29 pm » wrote:Where's the psychotic?

Finger.

Point at eye.

Closer.

Closer still.

Now... jab!

There, you found him!

Knew you had it in you! Attaboy!

AmazonTania » 17 Feb 2014 5:42 am » wrote: Do you understand how economic stimulus is supposed to work? The idea of economic stimulus (demand-side) is to increase the overall demand for goods and services. Exactly how do you accomplish this by increasing overall government expenditures in the military (the bulk of Reagan's budget increases). Tanks and weapons are not overall goods people purchase in the private sector, so I don't understand how you believe the government spending more on these things would increase the overall aggregate demand for other goods and services in the economy.

Sure, spending added to GDP, but no economist would actually consider it stimulus (no serious economist, anyway). The money never actually made its way into the economy. Notice the Velocity of the money supply, which is the ratio at which money is actually circulating. Velocity of money is essentially flat during the Reagan administration.

Okay, so your argument, as I see it, is that Reagan merely enriched the corporatocracy with all of his borrowing from the unborn - by-passing the hoi palloi (Ike warned us about this scoundrel, did he not?).

AmazonTania » 17 Feb 2014 5:42 am » wrote: Simply put, the economy grew simply because the economy got better. Government spending wasn't driving it.

It got better because it got better?

AmazonTania » 17 Feb 2014 5:42 am » wrote: Reagan had a better economy. Under Carter, the labour force grew by 10,241 thousand, while the amount of employed persons increased 9,955 thousand and the population grew 11,191 thousand. Employment was not keeping up with population growth (hence, the stagflation).

Does every new baby need a job?

AmazonTania » 17 Feb 2014 5:42 am » wrote: Under Reagan, labour force grew 15,148 thousand with employed persons increasing by 18,399 thousand and the population growing all while the population grew 16,364 thousand.

Did his amnesty, which brought millions out of the underground economy and onto the official roles, have any effect that you are failing to consider?

Did his tax incentives to hire part timers have any effect that you are failing to consider?

AmazonTania » 17 Feb 2014 5:42 am » wrote: The economy overall experienced better economy growth, labour force growth and income growth during the Reagan administration. Granted, you will experience more growth in times of economic recoveries, but that is the point. During a recovery, the economy should look as if it is receiving, not stagnating like what is currently happening.

I'm not really seeing much a defense of Reagan. What policies of his do you argue had anything to do with this alleged economic recovery?

I do not have your education in economics. On the other hand, I have never met a professional economist who would openly declare the Federal Reserve to be a criminal enterprise - so economists are about as high in my esteem, ultimately, as climatologists. Both are more educated than I and more able than I to sling official slogans and make arguments that sound truthy, but neither can ultimately be trusted not to be spinning ****.

Let me just give you an example. You say "the economy" experienced "better growth." Okay. But do you and I REALLY even share a common meaning of the phrase, "the economy?" When I see "the economy" spoken of in the media, they are invariably talking about the stock market. And if you REALLY listen, when they talk about how "the economy" is doing, they are REALLY talking - very specifically - about how rich people are doing. They even go so far as to declare the economy "recovered" when that "recovery" is admittedly "jobless."

Reagan borrowed, every year, close to what Carter borrowed in four. SOME of that money to Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrup, General Dynamics, etc., found its way into the economy via wages, no? Reagan did not yet destroy EVERY union - there were still some people making good wages off his military bloat.

Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 2:56 am » wrote:Carter grew the economy in the four years of HIS budget 78,79, 80 and 81 (he took office in 77, but that was ford's year - and a good one) faster than reagan did in his eight years 81-89. If anyone wants to swap years (pretend 77 was Carter's, even though the fiscal year runs from October to October) that's fine, too. Either way, Carter ROMPS on Reagan - I just want to be accurate.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/GDP-by-Ye ... istory.htm

In 4 years, carter grew the economy to 154% of where he took over. It was 2.086 trillion in 77 when he took office, and 3.211 trillion for 81 - his last fiscal budget. The numbers are even better if you run it by election year rather than fiscal year (the more accurate and honest measure).

In his 8 years, Reagan took the economy from 3.211 trillion - Carter's last fiscal year - to 5,6577 trillion in 1989 - his last fiscal year, That's an increase to 177% of what it was when he took over - in EIGHT years. Carter almost made that figure in FOUR years.

Aided and abbetted by a willing conservative MSM, repukes have floated a false narrative about Carter and reagan, playing the former as befuddled and incompetent and the latter as an economic goliath. Nothing could be farther from the truth. This is why, in the face of ALL EVIDENCE, contards pretend the press is "librul." It's called projection.

I want to give credit where it's due: Glory Hole Clem is the fool who got me to googling and discovering these facts. My own nature is what gets me crowing about it.

Contards, you are on notice: CARTER WAS BETTER FOR THE ECONOMY THAN REAGAN. SO WAS CLINTON - BETTER THAN REAGAN, BUSH AND BUSH. You people suck at business and the economy - and everything else. You even suck off men in public bathrooms.

What kind of fool are you?????? I lived through the Carter stagflation, double digit inflation, interest rates, and unemployment. I had my biggest raises then but less usable money. Foolish man!!!! Reagan took over a horrid mess and fixed it.

How many times do I have to ram this chart down the throats of fools like you. This chart starts at the end of Carter and ends near current date. What a fool you are since inflation kicked up the $ amount way above what it was at the start of his presidency. Foolish person you have to take stagflation into account for the $ amounts.


Look at the % of people working at the end of Carter and the beginning of Reagan. Reagan cut taxes and spending and look at what happened to the employment rate. Reagan's gain was using more people working while Carter and Obama's method of tax and spend kills jobs. Obama has brought us lower than the end of the Carter stagflation.

Cannonpointer » 17 Feb 2014 4:41 pm » wrote:Did his amnesty, which brought millions out of the underground economy and onto the official roles, have any effect that you are failing to consider?

Did his tax incentives to hire part timers have any effect that you are failing to consider?

Or his changes to the way the numbers are generated? See post #189.

Cannonpointer » 17 Feb 2014 2:46 pm » wrote: There it is, folks. There is Glory Hole Clem, in a nut shell.

I am going to start a thread with this, and expound further.

Glory Hole, you are about to receive the honor of having a thread title with your name in it.

I'm more than happy to donate a couple of bucks to this worthy endeavor. I'm charitable like that.