Obama '08?

@parados,

parados wrote:

You do realize that Reagan's tax cuts INCREASED the defict, don't you ican?

He knows it, but like most Reps he is willing to lie and deny the facts. He knows that many people believe the blatant lie.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

...it is an absolute insult to give these people a venue in civil courts, a showplace for their propaganda.

What? Your excuse for wanting to ignore the Due Process clause of the 4th amendment (a concept that pre-dates that document by centuries); in a desire to deny free speech as guaranteed by the 1st? You should consider thinking before posting.

okie wrote:

Do you not have any honor or respect for this country at all, cyclops?

You wipe your ass with the Bill of Rights and then suggest others lack honor and respect for not doing the same.

What if you or someone you loved was falsely accused of being a terrorist, Okie? Would you want the state to deny you Due Process in an effort to silence you?

0 Replies

@Irishk,

Irishk wrote:

Oh my. CNN is reporting John Murtha passed away today.

That should go a long way towards reducing pork-barrel spending...

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Nice

0 Replies

@parados,

Surely you do realize, parados and Advocate, that Reagan's tax cuts increased both federal receipts and USA jobs, while Reagan's increased outlays increased federal deficits.

3 Replies

@ican711nm,

Year.....Dollars.....following yr / previous yr
Total Civil Employed
1980...99,302,000
2008...145,362,000...1.4638

Federal Receipts
1980...517,112,000
2008...2,521,175,000...4.8755

Federal Outlays
1980...590,941,000
2008...2,931,222,000...4.9603

Federal Receipts minus Outlays
1980...-73,829,000
2008...-410,047,000...5.5540

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2051527/posts
Partial History of U.S. Federal Income Tax Rates
Highest and lowest Income Tax Rates 1971 to 2009
...
1971-1981: minimum = 14%; maximum = 70% [CARTER 1977-1980]
1982-1986: minimum = 11%; maximum = 50% [REAGAN 1981-1988]
1987-1987: minimum = 11%; maximum = 38.5%
1988-1990: minimum = 15%; maximum = 33% [BUSH41 1989-1992]
1991-1992: minimum = 15%; maximum = 31%
1993-2000: minimum = 15%; maximum = 39.6% [CLINTON 1993-2000]
2001-2001: minimum = 15%; maximum = 39.1% [BUSH43 2001-2008]
2002-2002: minimum = 10%; maximum = 38.6%
2003-2009: minimum = 10%; maximum = 35%

Reagan reduced the minimum tax rate from Carter's 14% to 11%.

Reagan reduced Carter's maximum tax rate from 70% to less than 39%.

The maximum tax rate remained below 40% ever since Reagan's tax cuts, so that Reagan's tax cuts are primarily responsible for increasing Federal Receipts thereafter.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Surely you do realize, parados and Advocate, that Reagan's tax cuts increased both federal receipts and USA jobs, while Reagan's increased outlays increased federal deficits.

Federal receipts went up a bit. Jobs increased because there was massive government spending and excessively low taxes. However, the increase in jobs was relatively tepid, especially in comparison to the 23 million new jobs under Clinton, when there were tax increases.

Deficits under Reagan soared, largely due to the large tax cuts for the super-rich. Also, Clinton produced large surpluses, which were quickly reversed under Bush.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Surely you do realize, parados and Advocate, that Reagan's tax cuts increased both federal receipts and USA jobs, while Reagan's increased outlays increased federal deficits.

Why would they realize something completely untrue about tax cuts? You have been given ample proof that what you claim simply isn't true; you just ignore it because it doesn't fit your meme.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Advocate,

THE TOTAL JOB INCREASE UNDER CLINTON WAS LESS THAN 19 MILLION.
1992…….….......118,492,000
1993...............120,259,000 [CLINTON 1993 TO 2000]
1994...............123,060,000
1995………….....124,900,000
1996...............126,708,000
1997………….....129,558,000
1998...............131,463,000
1999...............133,488,000
2000...............136,891,000

THE JOB INCREASE AND BUDGET SURPLUS UNDER CLINTON WAS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE WEALTHIEST NOT BEING TAXED AT 70% AND INSTEAD BEING TAXED LESS THAN 40%.

Reagan deserves most of the credit for that.

Clinton's budget surpluses 1998 to 2001 were followed by a budget deficit in 2002 along with job losses that year. That downturn occurred because other economic factors started to have their effects--notably Fannie's and Freddie's increased bleeding of the private credit market. Subsequent to that 2002 downturn to job losses, Bush reduced the maximum tax rate from 39.6% to 35% and job increases resumed in 2003 until 2008.

Although Bush started recovering jobs in 2003 with his 2003 tax cut to 35%, Bush's increased spending in 2007 coupled with his TARP in 1980, and his failure to persuade Congress to reign in Fannie and Freddie's increased bleeding of the private credit market, led to job losses occurring again in 2008.

Obama increased the rate of those job losses in 2009 by continuing and expanding Bush's errors. Obama is continuing to do that and is proposing more expansion of his same errors in 2010.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Why would they realize something completely untrue about tax cuts? You have been given ample proof that what you claim simply isn't true; you just ignore it because it doesn't fit your meme.

Cyclo, you continue to reject without rational argument what does not fit your gospel!

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Why would they realize something completely untrue about tax cuts? You have been given ample proof that what you claim simply isn't true; you just ignore it because it doesn't fit your meme.

Cyclo, you continue to reject without rational argument what does not fit your gospel!

Your argument isn't rational at all. The rates of job creation from 1980-present are not much different then what they were historically when tax rates were much higher. It gives the lie to your entire theory.

I refer you to the graph on this page, which I cannot reproduce here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

Quote:

Watching the “professor Obama” label bandied about again, one of the president’s longtime mentors says he doubts it will gain traction outside of Tea Party rallies. Taken to its logical conclusion, the message just doesn’t make sense, says Charles J. Ogletree, a Harvard professor who has known Obama since he was a law student there.

Quote:

“I think anyone who examines it closely and carefully will see this type of criticism of Obama will ultimately be counterproductive,” Ogletree says. “Do you want to tell your children we don’t want smart people in government?”
Ogletree, founding and executive director of the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice, says he sees the “professor” label as a thinly veiled attack on Obama’s race. Calling Obama “the professor” walks dangerously close to labeling him “uppity,” a term with racial overtones that has surfaced in the political arena before, Ogletree said.

Quote:

“The idea is that he’s not one of us,” Ogletree says of the professor label. “He has these ideas that are left wing, that are socialist, that he’s palling around with terrorists -- those were buzzwords, but the reality was they were looking at this president as an African American who was out of place.”

Quote:

Thomas L. Haskell, a professor emeritus of history at Rice University, agrees that racial bias may be implicit in the attack on Obama’s professorial past. “For me and a lot of other academic types, we identify with Obama precisely because he is an intellectual,” Haskell says. “But what does that mean to John Q. Public? I don’t know. John Q. Public may be frightened of these people, especially because this particular intellectual is a black.”

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/02/10/obama

You can't make this stuff up!

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

There's nothing radical about what he wrote at all. It's just an uncomfortable truth that your side wishes to ignore.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Interesting quotes. I also read the linked article.

Like Cyclo, I agree there is nothing either new or radical here. It's just more of the tedious and self-serving rhetoric of academic types trying overhard to remind each other that they are important, and that the mass of subhumans out there - about whom their hero, Richard Hofstadter, wrote in "Anti Intellectualism in American Life" a generation ago - remain ever so far beneath their august stature.

One is reminded of Henry Kissinger's quip when someones asked why academic rivalries and disputes are pursued with so much tenacity and vigoe - "Because the stakes are so low", he said.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

FROM CYCLOPTICHORN'S LINK

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms
U.S. President Party...Term years...Start jobs...End jobs*...MillionsIncrJobs...AvgAnn%Chg
Harding/Coolidge R.....1921-1925.....25,000 **.....29,500 **.....+4.5 **.....+4.2% **
Calvin Coolidge R.....1925-1929.....29,500 **.....32,100 **.....+2.6 **.....+2.2% **
Herbert Hoover R.....1929-1933......32,100 **......25,700 **......-6.4......-9.0%
Franklin Roosevelt D.....1933-1937.....25,700 **.....31,200 **.....+5.5 .....+5.3% **
Franklin Roosevelt D.....1937-1941.....31,200 **.....34,480.....+3.3.....+2.6% **
Franklin Roosevelt D.....1941-1945.....34,480.....41,903.....+7.4.....+5.2%
Roosevelt/Truman D.....1945-1949.....41,903.....44,675.....+2.8.....+1.8%
Harry Truman D.....1949-1953.....44,675.....50,145.....+5.5.....+3.0%
Dwight Eisenhower R.....1953-1957.....50,145.....52,888.....+2.7.....+1.4%
Dwight Eisenhower R.....1957-1961.....52,888.....53,683.....+0.8.....+0.4%
Kennedy/Johnson D.....1961-1965.....53,683.....59,583.....+5.9.....+2.6%
Lyndon Johnson D.....1965-1969.....59,583.....69,438..... +9.9.....+3.9%
Richard Nixon R .....1969-1973.....69,438.....75,620.....+6.2.....+2.2%
Nixon/Ford R.....1973-1977.....75,620.....80,692.....+5.1.....+1.7%
Jimmy Carter D.....1977-1981.....80,692.....91,031.....+10.3.....+3.1%
Ronald Reagan R.....1981-1985.....91,031.....6,353.....+5.3.....+1.5%
Ronald Reagan R.....1985-1989.....96,353.....107,133.....+10.8.....+2.7%
George H. W. Bush R 1989-1993.....107,133.....109,725.....+2.6.....+0.6%
Bill Clinton D.....1993-1997.....109,725.....121,231.....+11.5.....+2.6%
Bill Clinton D.....1997-2001.....121,231.....132,469.....+11.2.....+2.3%
George W. Bush R.....2001-2005.....132,469.....132,476.....+0.01.....+0.002%
George W. Bush R.....2005-2009.....132,476.....134,333.....+1.9.....+0.3%
Barack Obama D.....2009-2009.....134,333.....130,910.....-3.4.....-2.5%

According to the link you provided to wikipedia, Hoover and Obama adminstrations are the only administrations in which jobs decreased!

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The rates of job creation from 1980-present are not much different then what they were historically when tax rates were much higher.

If that were true, then why have a maximum tax rate higher than 35%, like it is at present? Let's root for everyone to continue to enjoy their current percentage of their gross income and use it lawfully as they desire..

After all, you claimed: "job creation from 1980-present are not much different then what they were historically when tax rates were much higher."

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

If that were true, then why have a maximum tax rate higher than 35%, like it is at present? Let's root for everyone to continue to enjoy their current percentage of their gross income and use it lawfully as they desire..

No, let's root for our country to pay off the bills we have piled up. We all share a responsibility for clearing the national deficit and debt. The maximum level of marginal taxation has nothing to do with job creation, as my evidence has shown. Therefore we ought to be taxing at a level which will allow us to take care of our financial obligations. I advocate the immediate raising of taxes on ALL citizens, including myself, to levels which will allow us to address these problems.

Quote:

According to the link you provided to wikipedia, Hoover and Obama adminstrations are the only administrations in which jobs decreased!

You may note that Obama's administration is not yet done, being but a year in. Let's give him the full 4 years that the other presidents enjoyed before making a decision about his job creation record.

And, after all there was one other who was damn close to being negative -

Quote:

George W. Bush R.....2001-2005.....132,469.....132,476.....+0.01.....+0.002%

That's as close to being negative as possible without actually being negative. And this includes a gigantic tax cut on his part - another data point which gives the lie to your theories.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

No, let's root for our country to pay off the bills we have piled up. We all share a responsibility for clearing the national deficit and debt. The maximum level of marginal taxation has nothing to do with job creation, as my evidence has shown. Therefore we ought to be taxing at a level which will allow us to take care of our financial obligations. I advocate the immediate raising of taxes on ALL citizens, including myself, to levels which will allow us to address these problems.

Let's "pay off the bills we have piled up," by decreasing the spending that caused the fed's bills to pile up. Based on your own referenced link, increasing taxes won't "pay off the bills we have piled up."

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You may note that Obama's administration is not yet done, being but a year in. Let's give him the full 4 years that the other presidents enjoyed before making a decision about his job creation record.

Yes, Obama's administration is not yet done. We know what it has done and Obama has told us what it will continue to attempt to do. He says he will attempt to do the same wrong things Bush did, plus an expansion of those wrong things, plus an additional set of wrong things. I don't think it wise to wait for him to accomplish all those wrong things and suffer their damnable consequences.

Many of those wrong actions taken by the Obama administration consist of directing the federal government to give money to people and organizations that did not earn it. That is clearly unconstitutional, because those actions clearly do not "provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States."

Extending Bush's income tax rate cut beyond 2010, will not harm the private economy's ability to grow, earn more income, employ more people, and pay more total taxes to the federal government. But increasing the income tax rates on the wealthy will harm the private economy's ability to grow, earn more income, employ more people, and pay more total taxes to the federal government.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

Let's "pay off the bills we have piled up," by decreasing the spending that caused the fed's bills to pile up. Based on your own referenced link, increasing taxes won't "pay off the bills we have piled up."

Yes, it will. We have conclusive evidence that this is true, for it is exactly what lead to us running surpluses and paying down the debt in the last part of the Clinton administration.

It is impossible to cut our spending to the point where we would pay off our bills. Purely impossible. When RJB challenged people to show how they would do that in this thread, nobody was able to adequately answer the question. We would have to drastically cut both defense spending and Medicare and Social Security; the people of America, as a whole, have signaled that they do not wish cuts in this area.

Surely you admit that the one time in the last 50 years that we have paid off our debts AT ALL was under a higher-tax environment then you currently advocate? And that no lower-tax environment has ever lead to us paying off bills?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

increasing taxes won't "pay off the bills we have piled up."

Yes, it will. We have conclusive evidence that this is true, for it is exactly what lead to us running surpluses and paying down the debt in the last part of the Clinton administration.

It is impossible to cut our spending to the point where we would pay off our bills. Purely impossible. When RJB challenged people to show how they would do that in this thread, nobody was able to adequately answer the question. We would have to drastically cut both defense spending and Medicare and Social Security; the people of America, as a whole, have signaled that they do not wish cuts in this area.

Surely you admit that the one time in the last 50 years that we have paid off our debts AT ALL was under a higher-tax environment then you currently advocate? And that no lower-tax environment has ever lead to us paying off bills?

Hoover's maximum tax rate increase from 25% to 63% occurred in 1932. Total jobs decreased 6.4 million in 1933.

Quote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2051527/posts
U.S. MAXIMUM FEDERAL INCOME TAX RATES
1930-1931 25% [HOOVER 1928 TO 1932]
1932-1933 63% [ROOSEVELT 1933 TO 1944]

Reagan reduced the maximum income tax rate in 1982 from 70% to 50%. In 1987, Reagan reduced it from 50% to 38.5%. In 1988, Bush41 reduced it from 38.5% to 33%. In 1991, Bush41 reduced it from 38.5% to 33%. In 1993, Clinton increased it from 31% to 39.6%. In 2001, Bush43 reduced it to from 39.6% 39.1%. In 2002, Bush43 reduced it from 39.1% to 38.6%. In 2003, Bush43 reduced it from 38.6% to 35%.

Quote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2051527/posts
MAXIMUM INCOME TAX RATES 1971 to 2009
1971-1981: 70% [CARTER 1977-1981]
1982-1986: 50% [REAGAN 1981-1989]
1987-1987: 38.5%
1988-1990: 33% [BUSH41 1989-1993]
1991-1992: maximum = 31%
1993-2000: 39.6% [CLINTON 1993-2001]
2001-2001: 39.1% [BUSH43 2001-2009]
2002-2002: 38.6%
2003-2009: 35%

Clinton's budget surplus lasted from 1998 to 2001 after he raised the maximum income tax rate from 31% to 39.6%.

Bush43's tax cut to 35% in the year 2003 had nothing to do with Clinton's surplus ending in 2001. Obviously, Bush43's tax cuts from 39.6% to 39.1% in 2001 and from 39.1% to 38.6% in 2002 were too small to have caused Clinton's surplus to no longer exist in 2002.

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf
RECEIPTS - OUTLAYS
1998..….+ 69,270,000 [CLINTON 1996 TO 2000]
1999..…+ 125,610,000
2000..…+ 236,241,000
2001..…+128,236,000 [BUSH43 2001-2009]
2002..…- 157,758,000

It is NOT" impossible to cut our spending to the point where we would pay off our bills." All we have to do is cut spending over the next decade or two to maintain budget surpluses each and every year. That's something Obama could begin to do now and in each year including 2012.

Lower-tax environments and controlled spending can together lead us to reducing future budget deficits.

2 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know