AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Cycloptichorn,

I posted Clinton's numbers too, remember? Along with some evaluation of what they all meant.

Are you sure you and C.I. aren't the same person? You don't read what's written and you seem to be unable to grasp the point being made or address it with anything other than an unrelated circular argument not backed up by anything other than raw numbers. You seem uninterested in how or where those raw numbers were produced or from what sources or what demographics. For instance you seem to discount Reagan's tax cuts as having any affect on his numbers or Clinton's tax cuts as having any affect on his. You give the tax increases all the credit for both. You said you didn't care who paid the increased revenues in the Clinton administration--they increased. It doesn't matter to you that his taxes on the rich didn't affect the rich much but did increase misery for the less rich? There is a much bigger picture there than you so far have acknowledged.

But oh well. You did push me to get some more good information out there, and maybe some people will actually read and understand it.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Are you sure you and C.I. aren't the same person?

Quite, thanks.

Quote:

You don't read what's written and you seem to be unable to grasp the point being made

Laughable coming from you, Fox, the queen of misunderstanding points.

Quote:

or address it with anything other than an unrelated circular argument not backed up by anything other than raw numbers.

Raw numbers aren't good evidence? I merely posted the same thing you did about Reagan, but substituting Clinton's record. I can understand how you are frustrated by the fact that Clinton's term saw growth doubling and more that of Reagan, but the fact remains that this is true.

Quote:

You seem uninterested in how or where those raw numbers were produced or from what sources or what demographics. For instance you seem to discount Reagan's tax cuts as having any affect on his numbers or Clinton's tax cuts as having any affect on his. You give the tax increases all the credit. There is a much bigger picture there than you so far have acknowledged.

Bullshit. I have looked at actual evidence showing the revenues gained per year. You have posted theories but not the evidence to support those theories.

For example, how do you explain the fact that Reagan's tax cuts led to a paltry increase in revenues from 1981-1984? And that the larger rises in revenues came from when Reagan had instituted tax hikes? This runs counter to your argument, so you don't address it.

You would like to give Clinton's tax cuts of 1997 - which of course went into effect in 1998 - credit for the economic expansion. That's bullshit too. The chart I posted shows that every year of Clinton's term saw triple the rise in revenues that Reagan had on average. This includes the 5 years before he passed the tax cuts you credit for the expansion. An examination of the data shows that the economy excelled under Clinton before the tax cuts that you claim. What data are you using to support your argument? The data the government provides does not support your argument whatsoever.

Quote:

But oh well. You did push me to get some more good information out there, and maybe some people will read it.

Oh, I do hope so. Every time you post a graph of Reagan's shitty economic performance, it reinforces my argument and hurts yours.

Admit it; Reagan's economic record was mediocre at best. Clinton far surpassed his achievements in this area in every dimension. And he did so by raising taxes on the rich. This destroys your ideology, which is supported by vague theories and suppositions about what people will do, instead of actual data.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If you make 1000 dollars and I tax you at 10%, Fox, I realize 100 dollars in revenues.

If I raise those taxes to 15%, I then realize 150 dollars in revenues.

If you make 1000 dollars and I tax you at 100%, Cyclo, I realize 0 dollars in revenues thereafter because you will either flee my jurisdiction or go on welfare.

If I raise those taxes to 99%, I then realize 0 dollars in revenues thereafter because you will either flee my jurisdiction or go on welfare.

At what tax rate will you choose not to flee my jurisdiction or go on welfare? Is it 85%, 75%, 65% ... ?

After I decrease taxes to that amount where you are willing to continue to not flee my jurisdiction or go on welfare, will you continue to be willing to take business risks, continue to hire or increase the number you hire? What remains of any of your former motivation to excel and prosper?

Remember, it is rare if ever that those earning less than $50,000 per year, continue to hire or increase the number they hire. They themselves are being hired. They likely hire no one. They merely buy stuff from those who do hire because it is worth their effort and risk as long as they get a large enough return on effort and risk.

So ok, you say let's increase taxes on only those who hire or increase their hiring. What effect do you think raising their tax rates will have on the number they are hiring and/or the number they increase their hiring?

3 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
If you make 1000 dollars and I tax you at 10%, Fox, I realize 100 dollars in revenues.

If I raise those taxes to 15%, I then realize 150 dollars in revenues.

If you make 1000 dollars and I tax you at 100%, Cyclo, I realize 0 dollars in revenues thereafter because you will either flee my jurisdiction or go on welfare.

You are Appealing to Extremes. I also realize no revenue if I tax 0%. This is not meaningful to a discussion of taxation.

Quote:

If I raise those taxes to 99%, I then realize 0 dollars in revenues thereafter because you will either flee my jurisdiction or go on welfare.

At what tax rate will you choose not to flee my jurisdiction or go on welfare? Is it 85%, 75%, 65% ... ?

After I decrease taxes to that amount where you are willing to continue to not flee my jurisdiction or go on welfare, will you continue to be willing to take business risks, continue to hire or increase the number you hire? What remains of any of your former motivation to excel and prosper?

Remember, it is rare if ever that those earning less than $50,000 per year, continue to hire or increase the number they hire. They themselves are being hired. They likely hire no one. They merely buy stuff from those who do hire because it is worth their effort and risk as long as they get a large enough return on effort and risk.

So ok, you say let's increase taxes on only those who hire or increase their hiring. What effect do you think raising their tax rates will have on the number they are hiring and/or the number they increase their hiring?

I think that it will have almost zero effect on the number of people they hire whatsoever. You can't show me historical data which says it does, outside of Appealing to Extremes.

In the 1990s Clinton raised taxes in every way that you describe, and hiring skyrocketed. How do you explain that? He created more jobs in his first 2 years than Bush 2 did his entire term. If your theory held any water that would not have been the case, don't you think?

Your theory is simply not supported by actual data. You should consider this to be a problem with the theory, Ican.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

ican's extreme examples of taxation proves nothing. We have enough history on different levels of taxation from not only in our country, but almost all developed countries. High taxation doesn't mean the destruction of capitalism. On the contrary, most developed countries with higher tax rates than the US have highly competitive products and services throughout the world.

0 Replies

Center-left nation
http://www.learcenter.org/html/projects/?&cm=zogby/centerleft

2 Replies

@blatham,

blatham, Very good poll; it tells us that most people do not have a clear right or left position politically; there is no such thing as MACs or MALs as some would have us believe.

Very timely, indeed!

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

No, it's you who do not understand what we say; tax cuts or increase has not affected tax revenue from the average of 18% of GDP. You keep talking about the Reagan tax cuts, but in fact he had some of the biggest tax increases.

Stop talking rubbish, and we might understand what you're trying to say.

0 Replies

Lear Family Foundation
The Lear Family Foundation was established by Norman Lear, a longtime producer, director, comedy writer, screenwriter, political and social activist, and philanthropist who created People for the American Way and served as the Board President of the American Civil Liberties Foundation of Southern California for more than twenty years. Through his Foundation, Lear supports many leftist causes and organizations. According to a Proteus Fund spokeswoman, the Lear Family Foundation is a private program of the Proteus Fund. Of the $6,309,104 in grants received by the Lear Family Foundation in 2002, the Proteus Fund supplied fully $6,303,077. Norman Lear personally gave the other $6,027.
Sources: Discover the Network, ActivistCash.com
Organization Website
http://www.basicsproject.org/american_fifth_column/organizations_agencies/organizations_agencies.htm

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxie is doing it again; she's ignoring Zogby International in her comments while she challenges the Lear Family Foundation.

How about Zogby, Foxie? It was a "combined" effort.

1 Reply

The same analysis by the Pew Research Center, conducted after the Lear/Zogby survey, produced somewhat different results. Pew tends to tilt somewhat more left than right but does not tilt anywhere near as far left than Lear does. Zogby is fairly neutral though he is a Democrat and he would have been commissioned by Lear to do the survey.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1042/winds-of-political-change-havent--shifted-publics-ideology-balance

In fairness to both, however, we would need more than a single question about any single topic to fully assign the views to be either MAC or MAL. We would need a serious analysis of views on Abortion for instance. I know only a handful of people who say abortion should be illegal period--all of those I've run into on line--while I know a lot of people who identify themselves at conservative who would not want all abortion made illegal under any circumstances and most would agree with the spirit of Roe v Wade so far as the government involvement is concerned. I also know very few liberals who think all abortion should be legal at any time under any circumstances and even fewer who think partial birth abortion should be legal without question.

So it isn't as simple as it might appear at first blush in either survey.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxie, It's interesting that you would even post the Pew Research article, because it contradicts your idea on MACs.

It says:

Quote:

Still, ideological labels do not always predict opinions about key policy issues. For example, about half of Americans who describe their political views as conservative say that all (24%) or some (27%) of the tax cuts passed under George W. Bush should be repealed. More than four-in-ten conservatives (43%) say that abortion should be legal in some or all cases. On the other hand, nearly half of self-described liberals (49%) favor more offshore drilling for oil and gas in U.S. waters.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I am verymuch afraid that Cicerone, In his ignorance, does not know who Zogby really is>

0 Replies

@blatham,

Blotham-- Are you ill? Why do you post so infrequently? Miss you and your absurdities!!!

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Ican- You are correct. Cyclopitchorn will not admit that overtaxing causes a drying up of revenue which leads to even more recession. Ofcourse, Cycloptichorn will not try to rebut my post. He is still smarting from the drubbing I gave him recently. I have noticed that many liberals are like that. They avoid getting into a debate if they are afraid they will be exposed as frauds.

But you are correct.

Amity Shlaes, who wrote the highly praised. "The Forgotten Man" about the great depression tells us what happened under FDR--IT SOUNDS A GREAT DEAL LIKE OBAMA'S PROGRAMS.

Shlaes wrote:

P. 8

"Businesses decided to wait Roosevelt out and conserve their money for the future. Roosevelt decided to punish them by introducing the undistributed profits tax --to press the money out of them. Such forays PREVENTED RECOVERY and took the country into depression within the Depression of 1937 and 1938."

end of quote

It was only World War II which revived the American Economy. Actually almost all of the thirties, during which Roosevelt taxed and taxed and the only going concerns were government funded( sound familiar??) were miserable years. If we are not out of these bad times by 2012, Obama will not be re-elected, unless he can, of course, convince the American electorate that it's all Bush's fault.

But, then, the American voter never had that much patience!

0 Replies

Bearing in mind that President Obama currently continues to hold a 60% approval rating and that those identifying themselves as Democrat in the country greatly outnumber Republicans, Rasmussen's recent poll on views re the current propoed stimulus package shows views about as bi-partisan and comingled left/right ideology about as much as it ever gets:

Quote:

Sunday, February 08, 2009
Forty-eight percent (48%) of U.S. voters say that, generally speaking, increased government spending is bad for the economy.

Thirty-five percent (35%) believe more government spending will help the economy, and seven percent (7%) say it’s likely to have no impact, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Democrats have a fundamentally different perspective than Republicans or unaffiliated voters. By a 63% to 23% margin, Democrats say more government spending is likely to help the economy. By a 77% to nine percent (9%) margin, Republicans take the opposite view and believe more spending will hurt.

As for those not affiliated with either party, 52% say more government spending generally hurts the economy while 25% believe it helps.

Those who earn less than $40,000 a year are evenly divided on the question while a majority of those who earn more than $40,000 a year say increased spending is more likely to hurt than help.

By a 54% to 31% margin, investors say increased government spending generally hurts the economy while non-investors are more evenly divided.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? Sign up now. If it's in the news, it's in our polls.)

In a speech to his fellow Democrats last Thursday, President Obama expressed surprise that Republicans in Congress were critical of the proposed $800-billion-plus economic rescue plan for having too much new government spending in it. “It’s spending. That’s the whole point,” Obama said of the plan.

Voters are evenly divided on whether the president is right about that.

Forty-five percent (45%) of voters say cuts in government spending generally help the economy while 29% say it hurts.

Republican voters overwhelmingly believe cutting government spending is good for the economy. Forty-six percent (46%) of unaffiliated voters agree, although 20% of unaffiliateds say that cutting spending would harm the economy.

A plurality of Democrats hold the opposite view: 44% of those in Obama’s party say cutting government spending generally hurts the economy while 30% say it helps.

The economic recovery package working its way through Congress has come under fire from many for having too much government spending. Only 15% of voters say they’d support a plan to stimulate the economy that included only new spending and no tax cuts.

Other data shows that Americans are evenly divided on Obama’s assessment that there will be a catastrophe if an economic stimulus package fails to pass quickly.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/economic_stimulus_package/48_say_increased_government_spending_hurts_economy

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxie, Thank you for sharing the poll, and how Americans are reacting the stimulus plan.

Here's some food for thought: Without a stimulus plan to save the banks, our economy will be destroyed for sure. Without credit, consumers cannot buy the high ticket items such as cars and homes which makes up a good portion of our economy. During WWII, most of the money earned came from the build up of our military complex; building tanks, ships, airplanes, and the tools of war. That was government spending that eventually helped our economy after the war. It was money well spent. There's little difference between that and spending now on our infrastructure. The 64-thousand dollar question today is "where" to spend the stimulus plan money. The "when" is a far-gone conclusion; it's now. Waiting will only harm more Americans lose their jobs and homes.

Just some ideas and personal opinions.

0 Replies

The following quotes and my comments are reposted here to rectify falsities posted here by MALs, since I last posted this information. I will post this again in the event these MAL falsities are repeated.

Quote:

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Employment & Unemployment Table 1970 to 2008
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt
Unemployed Table 1942 to 2008
...
1977 ------------ 7.1 CARTER
1978 ------------ 6.1
1979 ------------ 5.8
1980 ------------ 7.1
1981 ------------ 7.6 REAGAN
1982 ------------ 9.7
1983 ------------ 9.6
1984 ------------ 7.5
1985 ------------ 7.2
1986 ------------ 7.0
1987 ------------ 6.2
1988 ------------ 5.5
1989 ------------ 5.3 BUSH 41
1990 ------------ 5.6
1991 ------------ 6.8
1992 ------------ 7.5
1993 ------------ 6.9 CLINTON
1994 ------------ 6.1
1995 ------------ 5.6
1996 ------------ 5.4
1997 ------------ 4.9
1998 ------------ 4.5
1999 ------------ 4.2
2000 ------------ 4.0
2001 ------------ 4.7 BUSH 43
2002 ------------ 5.8
2003 ------------ 6.0
2004 ------------ 5.5
2005 ------------ 5.1
2006 ------------ 4.6
...

Quote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2051527/posts
Highest and lowest Income Tax Rates 1913 to 2007
Partial History of
U.S. Federal Income Tax Rates
Since 1913
Applicable
Year Income
brackets First
bracket Top
bracket Source
...
1971-1981 15 brackets 14% 70% IRS
1982-1986 12 brackets 12% 50% IRS
1987 5 brackets 11% 38.5% IRS
1988-1990 3 brackets 15% 33% IRS
1991-1992 3 brackets 15% 31% IRS
1993-2000 5 brackets 15% 39.6% IRS
2001 5 brackets 15% 39.1% IRS
2002 6 brackets 10% 38.6% IRS
2003-2007 6 brackets 10% 35% IRS
...

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf
TABLE 1.1 SUMMARY OF BUDGET RECEIPTS OUTLAYS SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS 1789-2012 (IN BILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
…
YEAR -- FEDERAL RECEIPTS
…
1977 -- 355,559
1978 "- 399,561
1979 "- 463,302
1980 "- 517,112
1981 "- 599,272
1982 "- 617,786
1983 "- 600,562
1984 "- 666,486
1985 "- 734,088
1986 "- 769,215
1987 "- 854,353
1988 "- 909,303
1989 "- 991,190
1990 "- 1,032,094
1991 "- 1,055,093
1992 "- 1,091,328
1993 "- 1,154,471
1994 "- 1,258,721
1995 "- 1,351,932
1996 "- 1,453,177
1997 "- 1,579,423
1998 "- 1,721,955
1999 "- 1,827,645
2000 "- 2,025,457
2001 "- 1.991,426
2002 "- 1,853,395
2003 "- 1,782,532
2004 "- 1,880,279
2005 "- 2,153,859
2006 "- 2,407,254
…

===================================================
SUMMING UP CONTENT OF LINKS I PREVIOUSLY POSTED

CARTER
Unemployment increased from 7.1% in 1977, to 7.6% in 1981.
Income tax rates constant 14% min to 70% max in 1977 thru 1981.
Revenues increased from 355,559 million in 1977, to 599,272 million in 1981.

REAGAN
Unemployment decreased from 9.7% in 1982, to 5.6% in 1990.
Income tax rates decreased from 12% min and 50% max in 1982, to 15% min and 33% max in 1990.
Revenues increased from 617,766 million in 1982, to 1,032,094 million in 1990.

BUSH 43
Unemployment decreased from 6.0% in 2003, to 4.6% in 2006.
Income tax rates decreased from 15% min and 39.1% max in 2001, to 10% min and 35% max in 2006.
Revenues increased from 1,991,426 million in 2001, to 2,407,254 million in 2006.
============================================================================
I reduced the period of Bush 43's term I considered, because my revenue data only had estimates for the years 2007 and 2008, and did not include tax rates for 2008.

But now that I think about it, in 2007 and 2008 Bush was denied by the Democrat Congressional majority doing anything to rein in Fanny & Freddy & Ginny. Therefore, I charge that Democrat majority with playing a huge part WITH BUSH in causing the deficit and unemployment increases in those years.

0 Replies

And again the raw numbers don't tell the whole story, Ican, though they are useful in spotting trends and dispelling at least some myths.

The thing is you have to look 2 to 4 or more years down the road to know what the sustainable impact of any large scale action re tax structures, etc. by Congress will have on the economy, especially when it is phased in over a period of time. You have to look ahead maybe a decade or more to appreciate the true impact of a massive new entitlement program.

And there is always the dirty little details of good intentions producing unintended consequences.

For instance:

When the FDR administation enacted social security, the promise was that it would never be more than a 1% tax, it would only be assessed up to a low ceilings re earnings, and would not be a hardship on any person to pay or a drag on the economy. It was intended purely to ease--not prevent but ease--extreme poverty experienced by some of the elderly and it was guaranteed that it would not be used for anything else.

Now it siphons off 7.65% of virtually all wages, even those exempt from income taxes, plus another 7.65% the employers are obligated to kick in for a whopping total of 15.3%. (The employers' share of course reduces the amount available for the employers to pay in wages and/or other benefits.) You find more young people sitting in social security offices to apply for benefits than you find the elderly. And very few of us earn the ceiling at which social security no longer applies.

Unless there is a radical shift in the way we deal with it, that rate is certain to keep going up as the baby boomers continue to retire over the next 20-25 years or else the system collapses entirely.

And what do we taxpayers have in the way of a guarantee re all that money we hand over to the government? Zero. Nada. Zilch. The money all goes into the general fund, earmarked for social security yes, but also legally accessible to Congress to do anything with it they want including deciding they won't pay any more benefits. We can't borrow against it. We can't pass it on to our heirs. Whatever we don't receive in benefits upon retirement, is lost to us and/or our beneficiaries forever.

Who among us would agree to such an arrangement for a retirement plan in the private sector? But somehow we just keep on letting the government keep on with little or no accountability in how they use the money they require us to pay.

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

When the FDR administation enacted social security, the promise was that it would never be more than a 1% tax, it would only be assessed up to a low ceilings re earnings, and would not be a hardship on any person to pay or a drag on the economy. It was intended purely to ease--not prevent but ease--extreme poverty experienced by some of the elderly and it was guaranteed that it would not be used for anything else.

Are you referring here to the Social Security Act of 1935?
If 'yes', you have misspoken.

It says in the preamble:

Quote:

An act to provide for the general welfare by establishing a system of Federal old-age benefits, and by enabling the several States to make more adequate provision for aged persons, blind persons, dependent and crippled children, maternal and child welfare, public health, and the administration of their unemployment compensation laws; to establish a Social Security Board; to raise revenue; and for other purposes.

And about taxes, for instance:

Quote:

INCOME TAX ON EMPLOYEES

SECTION 801. In addition to other taxes, there shall be levied, collected, and paid upon the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 811) received by him after December 31, 1936, with respect to employment (as defined in section 811) after such date:
(1) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1937, 1938, and 1939, the rate shall be 1 per centum.
(2) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1940, 1941, and 1942, the rate shall 1 « per centum.
(3) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1943, 1944, and 1945, the rate shall be 2 per centum.
(4) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1946, 1947, and 1948, the rate shall be 2 « per centum.
(5) With respect to employment after December 31, 1948, the rate shall be 3 per centum.

But I certainly can be wrong.

2 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know