Jump to content
Jessi_G

Who should/will be the Republican presidential candidate?

Recommended Posts

Wait, what? You're just wrong. Reagan raised taxes 11 times as president. They went up in 7 of the 8 years he was in office. To suggest that that didn't happen and we only increased revenue because there was incentive is, uh, stupid. If you're going to really suggest that I'm factually wrong in suggesting that Reagan increased taxes, then lol. And if taxable income goes up because people invested more, then that's hardly a "burden". It's the cost of doing business. The fact that the top 1% grew by 51% is 1)un-persuasive because it just suggests that the population of super-rich jumped from 3 million to 4.5 million and 2) dumb. I don't think that's how numbers work. 1% does not become 1.5%. It does nothing to demonstrate that there's not still income inequality, nor does it do much for the argument that income inequality is good, since, by every empirical measure, it's not. Even if it's inevitable, it should be minimized.

4 steps back and 2 steps forward doesnt make a tax increase buddy. His initial cuts were severe and actually did start effecting revenue as the "laffer curve" dictates. The point was by the end of his administration taxation was significantly cut. As for the cost of doing business, increasing that "cost of doing business" has some serious implications for costs, future investments and income. And the tax burden grew 51% not the amount of people in the 1%. As for income inequality, i hear and read the terms being thrown around and they have little meaning anymore. There is zero threshhold as to how much inequality is good and how much is bad, theres no evidence that inequality is even a significant problem currently, inequality is a non issue if annual income increases within the lower and middle classes so i dont know why were even discussing this.

 

 

Links?

 

You keep saying "tax cuts good" though I don't think that's been demonstrated. All of your arguments about why tax cuts actually increase revenue because people start paying their taxes (which just doesn't make a whole lot of sense), fall apart in the context of the Bush cuts. Revenues certainly didn't increase. Taxes are at their lowest level ever? Where's the prosperity? Even if tax cuts are good sometimes, it's a question of uniqueness. If you're right and Reagan cuts stimulated the economy, then it's likely because the Carter economy was pretty bad. The Clinton economy was decidedly un-bad. That seems to suggest that there was no propensity for stimulus.

 

How does this not make sense? People skip out on taxes if they think they are unfair or too high. Lower taxes means more people will likely pay their taxes. Also you think the bush tax cuts shouldnt have worked as proof as why decreasing taxes doesnt work is answered and supported in an earlier post. Prospective tax hikes means even short term tax cuts become meaningless which is why the rich are sitting on their money and not investing like we want. Im not saying the clinton administration was good or bad but it did have a positive feature which was fiscal restraint. I dont know about the Carter economy but it couldnt be much worse that 9% unemployment and a 9-10? trillion dollar deficit.

 

 

While you're probably right that there's not a significant correlation between tax cuts and increased government expenditure, it is an important part of the political narrative. I wouldn't suggest that tax cuts and spending increases are intrinsically connected, but I would suggest that Republicans like to cut taxes because it's politically convenient, but that they also like to spend ridiculous amounts of money on things/populations that they like because 1) it's politically convenient 2) they are stupid and 3) they are dicks.

and ridiculous spending is not being proposed in '12 so...

 

Also, the argument isn't so much that lower taxes cause economic contraction so much as they don't do a damn thing to prevent or remedy economic contraction, but whatever. If tax cuts were really that stimulating, "Where's the jobs?"

Answered above. Prospective tax hikes means no short term jobs. As far as the budget is concerned, its mostly gunna be consolidating agencies/programs or doing away with many all together. Economic contraction is an effect of ALLLLLLLLLLL the things we've been discussing on here. Lower taxes (for everyone) and fiscal restrain "remedies/prevents" economic contraction.

 

 

This one's about politics. If the right gets to call cap-and-trade a tax on consumers, then clearly cuts to social programs and medicare are a tax on the people that need them. Not that I'm making this argument, just that Republicans should be more careful about rhetoric. The real argument, though, is that when we don't have stable revenue streams and a robust social safety net, it's not the rich that are hurt by recession or hardship. It's the lower and middle class. But fuck them, right?

I agree that we have to have a social saftey net but since when has anyone or any republican said "fuck em!?" Its the difference between direct and indirect economic recovery, direct being taxes increase and indirect being lower taxes. And when the middle and lower class hurt, they stop spending as much meaning less income for business meaning less hours and potentially higher costs. Fortunately i have never had the need to go on one of those government programs that helps out those that lost their job or disability and what not. However, i know many that have and the money to live off of is miniscule and their are restrictions on products you can buy and people have to really watch how theyre spending it. At best this is a bandaid or temporary fix that will just stop the economy from getting worse, at its worst it will cause loss of more jobs and higher costs. People want growth not stagnation and thats the bottom line.

 

 

 

Apparently. They sure as hell haven't been using it to create jobs. answered above

 

Heres a question, assuming a static economy... If you have a large amount of money, an unreasonable amount of money, an unnecessary amount, what would you do with it? Do you really think rich people just like to see the zeros pile up in their bank accounts? Your rich so you can spend it. The reasonable thing to do in an uncertain economy is to start putting money away so that you can maintain (at least for a bit) your standard of living. If the government becomes more lenient on some of these "greedy bastards" or at least ensure their taxes wont increase anytime soon, why would they not spend their excess money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the government becomes more lenient on some of these "greedy bastards" or at least ensure their taxes wont increase anytime soon, why would they not spend their excess money?

Because (among other things) human beings are not rational actors. In introductory economics classes you learn about what rational actors would do; in advanced-level courses you learn why people rarely do those things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's rein this in a little bit. Talking deficit. Your claim is that revenues actually increase when taxes drop because assholes stop breaking the law for some reason that allegedly has something to do with a sense of fairness or something. If that's true, where were the revenues when Bush cut taxes? If you're trying to tell me that lower taxes=higher revenues, then demonstrate that a little bit, please. It seems to me that asshole millionaire criminals will be asshole millionaire criminals regardless of whether or not taxes are a few percentage points higher.

 

The government's revenue stream took a big hit in 2001 and 2003. Clearly, that means tax cuts don't mean increased revenue, so much as it means that taxes got cut. There's certainly not revenue to be lost by eliminating the Bush tax cuts, because we already lost it. Most projections suggest that eliminating those tax cuts would pull the deficit to basically the same level that passing the Ryan budget would. Do that, then let the Republicans and Democrats take a shot at negotiating some spending cuts that don't, you know, give old people useless vouchers. Maybe cut some defense spending (maybe we won't be able to sell F-35's to Japan, thus averting a nuclear standoff in East Asia or something), get rid of one or two subsidies. It's still a discussion about the deficit. Take serious steps in both directions, or quit pretending you're looking for a solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because (among other things) human beings are not rational actors. In introductory economics classes you learn about what rational actors would do; in advanced-level courses you learn why people rarely do those things.

While that might make sense in most cases i find that hard to believe and empirically false in this particular case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's rein this in a little bit. Talking deficit. Your claim is that revenues actually increase when taxes drop because assholes stop breaking the law for some reason that allegedly has something to do with a sense of fairness or something. If that's true, where were the revenues when Bush cut taxes? If you're trying to tell me that lower taxes=higher revenues, then demonstrate that a little bit, please. It seems to me that asshole millionaire criminals will be asshole millionaire criminals regardless of whether or not taxes are a few percentage points higher.

Ive given reasons why thats so many times already. Go back and read dude. POTENTIAL TAX INCREASES = NO SHORT TERM GAIN BY BUSH TAX CUTS!!! Careful when you throw around the word asshole considering the middle and lower class make up a larger "failure to pay" population lol. The only difference is the people that make alot of money annually find ways to skip out on taxes and they make up a large part of the taxable income for the country.

 

The government's revenue stream took a big hit in 2001 and 2003. Clearly, that means tax cuts don't mean increased revenue, so much as it means that taxes got cut. There's certainly not revenue to be lost by eliminating the Bush tax cuts, because we already lost it. Most projections suggest that eliminating those tax cuts would pull the deficit to basically the same level that passing the Ryan budget would. Do that, then let the Republicans and Democrats take a shot at negotiating some spending cuts that don't, you know, give old people useless vouchers. Maybe cut some defense spending (maybe we won't be able to sell F-35's to Japan, thus averting a nuclear standoff in East Asia or something), get rid of one or two subsidies. It's still a discussion about the deficit. Take serious steps in both directions, or quit pretending you're looking for a solution.

I think your confusing massive government spending and the housing market with tax cuts. Just because tax cuts happened and at the same time we went into an economic slowdown/recession doesnt mean theres a correlation between the two. Any intro to logic class will teach you that. Its called trickle down not flood down, it does take some time but it also has empirically worked. Before any good could come out of it we had 9/11, iraq, afghanistan, gov't spending and the near collapse of the housing market. Alllllllll these things seem to kinda disrupt any hope in positive economic growth from tax cuts doncha think?

clinton-tax-hike.jpg

Those projections your talking about seem either conflated, just plain wrong or they dont assume lost economic incentive which means, yeah we might and i stress might get more more revenue coming in in the short term but long term growth halts and eventually that number goes back down to less taxable income and an increased deficit. At best we become stuck in the position were in like it was with the clinton economy. You still have it stuck in your mind that because "Hey it worked for clinton" that itll work now but it didnt work for clinton. The economy didnt grow. The thing that saved his ass was a congress that wanted to become fiscally responsible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's difficult to use empirical data as a test of the decisions because variables can almost never be isolated, ie there are almost never two situations where the economy was in the exact same state except for one difference. Because of this, the correlation of tax cuts and a decline in real income is not enough to imply causation.

 

I may have missed it, but I don't believe this thread has an explanation of how Reaganomics caused the real income of the middle class to shrink.

Can someone please provide one for me?

 

To those of you who are citing statistics: can you please provide us with your source material?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's difficult to use empirical data as a test of the decisions because variables can almost never be isolated, ie there are almost never two situations where the economy was in the exact same state except for one difference. Because of this, the correlation of tax cuts and a decline in real income is not enough to imply causation.

 

I may have missed it, but I don't believe this thread has an explanation of how Reaganomics caused the real income of the middle class to shrink.

Can someone please provide one for me?

 

To those of you who are citing statistics: can you please provide us with your source material?

I'd also add that any set of facts can be interpreted by different schools of economic thought resulting in conflicting "truth." Keynesians say sure the economy grew under Reagan...we changed interest rates under Carter and there was plenty of room to grow (as per Wikipedia's interpretation.) Or you could say "Gee, we've had cyclical economics...it's natural" versus, "We've made dramatic shifts in economic policy from administration to administration for decades, no wonder we have cyclical economics."

 

My take is really somewhere in the middle. Sometimes (as in the late 70s) the middle and highest tax rates were ridiculously high and did have a chilling effect on investment...70% really? On the other hand, the Bush tax cuts were cutting top rates while the market was at record highs and demand, NOT supply was the primary economic issue. (As globalization happened, we could produce more product than we yet had markets for, yet stock prices stayed up.) In that case, cutting middle class tax cuts or even (gasp) stimulating the economy with government spending may help. (Although, unless those are investments, the effect is short term IMO.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's difficult to use empirical data as a test of the decisions because variables can almost never be isolated, ie there are almost never two situations where the economy was in the exact same state except for one difference. Because of this, the correlation of tax cuts and a decline in real income is not enough to imply causation.

 

I may have missed it, but I don't believe this thread has an explanation of how Reaganomics caused the real income of the middle class to shrink.

Can someone please provide one for me?

 

To those of you who are citing statistics: can you please provide us with your source material?

 

While this is true, it doesnt mean we cant utilize past data to help determine what we should do. Obviously there wasnt a housing crisis or SS, medicaid and medicare problem during the reagan years (although i did read some gov't report indicating that it might become a problem in '10) however, when reagan took office, we had a spending problem and unemployment was higher than it is even now. Both of these issues will most likely be resolved by repeating history rather than attempting to write our own and im basing that information on the data that the gov't has come out with. Is it a 100%? no but its highly probable because the situation is not that much different or include many variables that matter.

 

JEC report i cited earlier http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While this is true, it doesnt mean we cant utilize past data to help determine what we should do. Obviously there wasnt a housing crisis or SS, medicaid and medicare problem during the reagan years (although i did read some gov't report indicating that it might become a problem in '10) however, when reagan took office, we had a spending problem and unemployment was higher than it is even now. Both of these issues will most likely be resolved by repeating history rather than attempting to write our own and im basing that information on the data that the gov't has come out with.

None of this is a reason why Reaganomics caused a decline in purchasing power. Correlation isn't causation without a strong theory to explain why one leads to the other.

 

Is it a 100%? no but its highly probable because the situation is not that much different or include many variables that matter.

You assert that there weren't many differences in the Reagan years from now. This is patently false. Furthermore, it is not the number of uncontrolled variables that invalidates correlation as causation, its the effects those variables have. It is possible for there to be very few changes which have a major impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the person who keeps saying that tax cuts cause more revenue thanks to the laffer curve is only partially correct. I hope you realize that the laffer curve is a semi circle exclusively located on the y-axis.

 

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/06/~/media/Images/Reports/2010/bg1765/bg1765figure1sm.ashx?w=432&h=434&as=1

 

This shows that as you lower tax rates, revenue may increase, but if you cut too much revenue rapidly decreases. That's what we've seen from the Bush Tax Cuts with a loss in revenue. Now this has little impact on how much the government spends, but it obviously affects the deficit, something that Republicans say that they are very concerned about.

 

Now Shadow Boxer, I'd like for you to explain to me how tax cuts that decrease government revenue (revenue used to fund essential programs that we wouldn't need to deficit spend for) help to decrease the deficit. And give me the claim that we need to focus on cutting government spending. Even if we did limit government spending to only the most basic things needed to survive, we still would be losing money in terms of spending more than the revenue we generate from taxes.

 

Also, as for your claims that taxing the rich will lead to negative economic consequences, can you show me a negative economic consequence that came from Clinton's tax increases? That's right, his tax increase applied mainly to those with high incomes. In fact, at the time they were passed, the economy was just getting out of a recession, just like we are now, and they economy still grew at a large rate. Historical evidence contradicts your incorrect analytics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huckabee just announced he's not seeking election. Does anybody currently getting media attention, besides Romney, have a shot at beating Obama in 2012?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huckabee just announced he's not seeking election. Does anybody currently getting media attention, besides Romney, have a shot at beating Obama in 2012?

 

Oh snap! And NO. I was pretty sure he COULD win the nomination, but didn't really spend much time speculating about whether he would run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...