Name your President now

[fansince62]

asf.....interesting thoughts......i would just point out that, as delineated in the "bush doctrine", assistance /succor etc. by nation states to terrorist groups constitutes complicity. a direct military provocation isn't required to trigger this notion of hostile forces. you can fill in the rest of this thought.

[gbear]

Hey Art, check this out:

http://bized.ac.uk/virtual/economy/policy/tools/income/inctaxth5.htm

It's got all kinds of info on the laffer curve, the one whose name I couldn't remember before. It also gives one a chance to play around with the tax rates of a fake economy. Just translate pound signs to dollars in your head.

It's kind of funny because their model pretty accurately descibes what happened to our economy under Reagonomics and latter under Bush and Clintonomics.

Try decreaseing the tax rate: You get increased gov. barrowing, but lower debt over the long term. It assumes you can get continuous source of gov. barrowing at a continuous low rate which many economists feel is a bad thing because it takes away from people investing. I didn't see much on the crouding out of available loan money in there, so I'm unsure whether it was accounted for or not. The other down sides include rapid inflation and a hurt exchange rate. The good stuff is down the line, you get lower unemployment, which we saw here.

I think it's also worth noting that there is a pretty big blip in the government debt where the lower tax result ends up resulting in the government taking on significantly more debt as apart of the GDP. Now if you wait it out, you do get eventuall gains. We didn't wait it out. Bush raised the taxes back, so all we got out of it was the increased gov. debt. I'd like to point out that the increase in debt happens regardles of whether you increase gov. spending, contrary to your point above.

My question for you: Given our political system, can you ever see a point in time where the gov, allows itself to run a current time surplus in order to pay down the debt. We never did it here, atleast significantly. I think it's too tempting for all politicians to spend or give back the money and just keep the debt that we all ignore. If we aren't willing to pay the debt the laffer model suggests, then all we do is run up a huge tab. As a result, we end up blaiming the guy who set us on the path for running up a huge debt. Funny, that sounds like exactly what we did. Before you blaim that all on the Dems, I'd point out we should have been starting to pay it off under the last Reagan term and the Bush term. I just don't see it as a politically viable solution here. Let's also remember people's response here just a week ago when I posted the pie charts with how much money we are spending just to pay the interest on current debt. It's hard not to argue that we shoud increase taxes to pay that off. According to this model, our choices are either raise taxes and pay it off or live with large inflation making it harder to save money. Pick your poison. Keep in mind, a six percent inflation means one has to double one's money every 12 years just to have the SAME spending power. When you start doing that, saving for retirement becomes pretty hard.

For a note on what I did, I simply reduced the tax rates across the board. If I have time latter, I'll probably go back and play with just reducing the tax rates for the rich which is closer to Reaganomics.

[Sarge]

The problem with raising taxes is that there are those in Congress who piss it away on worthless crap, studies of the broke-dicked grasshopper and such. If they could find the will one day to keep taxes the same or lower them, AND hold or cut spending, then apply that to the debt, they could really say they got something done.

[redskin56]

Darryl Green might be retired in 2004 right? He wouldn't have to move far. I say Darryl in '04. John Riggins, running mate, I'd love to see his choices for Supreme Court Justices.

[Guest SkinsHokie Fan]

Congress actually cutting or not increasing spending. Boy thats a good one :laugh:

If that does ever happen or if useless programs are eliminated then we will see the full effects of lower taxes. Common people having more money in their pockets

[Burgold]

Question. Were you attributing the economic difficulties during the Carter years to Jimmy Carter? If so, I think this counters a major thesis I have heard reprised over and over again. Specifically, that there is a germination period. Clinton can't be held accountable for the good economy because there was a six year lag before Reagan's policies made the country prosper. Ironically, the recession during Bush Sr. for some reason also can not be related to the eight prior years of Reagonomics and trickle down. However, In the case of Jimmy C. the poor economy during the Carter years had nothing to do with the economic policies of those who preceded him? Perhaps, if we follow the line of precedent thinking, the difficulties of the late 70's economy therefore were established by Nixon and Ford. Same time period. Same germination.

[Guest SkinsHokie Fan]

Carter's problem was he had no plan. I honestly like him as a person and think highly of his humble roots. But as far as I know he came into office because he said he was "not from Washington." Well unfourtantley that killed him in office and he had no economic plan to deal with the mindset of the time. High oil prices thanks to another Arab Isreali war, inflation out of control (about 12 percent at the time) and then flubbing up big time on Iran. The Nixon-Ford era was cleaning up the mess of Vietnam and that war. Can't say what they did wrong (I really dont know enough about their economic polocies) but Carter had no plan to fix it and fumbled the ball even more. Regan had a plan. Regan came into office and pretty much for the last 20 years we have seen consistent economic growth and low inflation. Pretty good record since 1981.

[JackC]

Looks like I missed a lot in my few days away. Same old same old. The right wingers try to blame everything on Bill Cliinton and give credit for the good things to Ronald Reagan.

I noticed one RW here blamed President Clinton for the Cole and the embassy attacks are the same ones who refuse to blame Dubya for September 11th. You will say he didn't have enough time to stop it! Cop out in my book. What steps did Bush take in his 9 months since he took office to protect us? I will tell you the answer. Nothing! Nada! Zelch!

As for military spending. The vast majority of the decrease came under Dubya's daddy. Don't you think we should have decreased military spending in response to the fall of the Soviet Union? Now you buys want to double the size of our military and become the worlds policeman, judge, jury and excutioner?

Remember it was under Bill Clinton we actually balanced the federal budget! One and 1/2 year into Dubya the surplus is gone and our 401K are wrecked! Good work GOP!

Art: The economy in the 1980's which fueled increased revenues was driven by government spending. That's right it didn't have anything to do with the tax cut.

For the record I wasn't born in the 80's I was born in the 60's. I used to think Va Tech was a good school. Maybe you can get a refund for those classes?

[JackC]

Originally posted by SkinsHokie Fan

Carter's problem was he had no plan. I honestly like him as a person and think highly of his humble roots. But as far as I know he came into office because he said he was "not from Washington." Well unfourtantley that killed him in office and he had no economic plan to deal with the mindset of the time. High oil prices thanks to another Arab Isreali war, inflation out of control (about 12 percent at the time) and then flubbing up big time on Iran. The Nixon-Ford era was cleaning up the mess of Vietnam and that war. Can't say what they did wrong (I really dont know enough about their economic polocies) but Carter had no plan to fix it and fumbled the ball even more. Regan had a plan. Regan came into office and pretty much for the last 20 years we have seen consistent economic growth and low inflation. Pretty good record since 1981.

Does Dubya have a plan? One would think someone who went to Va Tech would be able to spell Reagan? Get a refund!

[NavyDave]

This is getting tiresome kennedy even new lower taxes would kick start the economy.

Bush seniors problem was he listened to the liberal congress and got suckered for not keeping his promise on read my lips and signed the tax hike.

What can liberals do for the country? What is their plan increase taxes?

Pass a law so the lawyers can sue another business like big beer or big hamburger?

legalize pot, allow pedophiles to keep preying on kids since its wrong to lock them up for life?

[gbear]

Hey Navy Dave,

Check out the link I posted above. All of the conservatives repeatedly suggest "just lower the taxes stupid."

Try it out. See if those are the results you really want. I don't know about you, but saving the money in taxes doesn't particularly interest me if I end up losing the gains to inflation and a weak dollar. I want more spending power, not more money.

Then there's the increase in government debt. UNless you propose to change how our government is ellected, that debt increase is huge and lasting. Just check out our history.

[NavyDave]

So how is it that people with more of THEIR Money in their pocket are more than willing to take risks ie create businesses?

Why would anyone with sense take money out of a tax shelter if he cant profit from it?

Believe it or not its OUR money not the government.

Liberals have this idea that out of the good graces of the government we should be happy with the percentage they decide for us to have.

I dont blame people and businesses one bit for looking at tax havens offshore.

[JackC]

Originally posted by NavyDave

This is getting tiresome kennedy even new lower taxes would kick start the economy.

Bush seniors problem was he listened to the liberal congress and got suckered for not keeping his promise on read my lips and signed the tax hike.

What can liberals do for the country? What is their plan increase taxes?

Pass a law so the lawyers can sue another business like big beer or big hamburger?

legalize pot, allow pedophiles to keep preying on kids since its wrong to lock them up for life?

I really don't know where you get your ideas. (actually I bet you Parrot Rush Limbaugh) Do you think liberals are in favor of pedophiles? Gimme a break. As for the lawyers do you want to make coporation exempt from lawsuits? How smart would that be. I'm sure we can trust them.

As for taxes, I'm all for lowering the payroll tax! Let's do it!

[JackC]

Originally posted by NavyDave

So how is it that people with more of THEIR Money in their pocket are more than willing to take risks ie create businesses?

Why would anyone with sense take money out of a tax shelter if he cant profit from it?

Believe it or not its OUR money not the government.

Liberals have this idea that out of the good graces of the government we should be happy with the percentage they decide for us to have.

I dont blame people and businesses one bit for looking at tax havens offshore.

If you want to lower taxes you must cut spending. This administration has proven it is unable to do that. For the record I do favor a flat tax with zero deductions and all unearned income counting as income. Lower the payroll tax!

[gbear]

But when you are ignoring is that to some extent giving some of your money to the government increases your purchasing power.

You can talk about it ALL being your money, but if the choice is between having a whole lot of useless money and having money with value, I know which option I'll chose.

Of course that is at the extremes. With no taxes, there is no government, and thus no value to the money.

As for real life and taking money out of here for a tax shelter, have you compared our tax rates to other industrialized counties? I know in the mid 90's we had one of the lowest tax rates of any industrialised country. Check out:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/hies97/d/fig10.jpg

I know it's dated, but...

Oy, debating tax stuff. Is it the regular season yet?

[JackC]

Gbear,

I hear you. Can't wait for the season. Trying to get some of these right wingers to understand anything even a little bit complex can get real tired! I think it's a lost cause.

[Big Will]

I noticed one RW here blamed President Clinton for the Cole and the embassy attacks are the same ones who refuse to blame Dubya for September 11th. You will say he didn't have enough time to stop it! Cop out in my book. What steps did Bush take in his 9 months since he took office to protect us? I will tell you the answer. Nothing! Nada! Zelch!

JackC, I don't blame Clinton for the Cole and Embassy bombings. Also, I don't blame Bush for September 11th. You have to realize the difference between the two President's reactions FOLLOWING the attacks. Unlike Clinton, Bush is actually doing something about the terrorism.

[Art]

Gbear, you're killing me here.

You'd have me pay close attention to an economic philosophy rather than the reality of what happened under Reagan's Presidency? Again, under Reagan, when tax rates were lowered, government income spiked. That's a fact. That renders irrelevant your thoughts that a hypothetical curve is somehow helpful.

We KNOW that lowering taxes three times in our country's history has led to increased government tax intake. These are absolutely uncontroverted facts. Now, that the government further borrowed beyond even the spike in tax intake is a problem that is not relevant to lowering taxes. That's an issue completely apart form the benefit of lowering taxes.

Lowering taxes has been tried three times and in each case, it raised government revenue. That's pretty solid data.

[Art]

Gbear,

I'm not going to rehash actual history in a debate with your hypothetical economics. But, please refer to this thread for background to this very conversation already on this board.

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=75&perpage=15&display=&highlight=tax%20cut&pagenumber=2

[Sarge]

JackC, nice reply. It surely is a sign of both a feeble mind and an unsupportable position to revert to name-calling. And thanks for the reply on the demographics. It helps to know I’m not dealing with someone who spent their formative years when Bubba was in office, but rather someone who could have possibly done a little too much LDS as a youngster.

First, it does not surprise me that you are from Maryland. You have already lost more of your Constitutional rights than even you realize, so you should be used to it. For example, (and I’ll use this example because I know it’ll stick in your liberal crawl) how long would it take you to buy a gun in Maryland? That right is in the Second Amendment, you know. Also, I don’t recall the Constitution calling for taxation to run all the different agencies that most states are operating. How does anyone think that big government is the way to go, especially in MD, when they raise tax rates so high that businesses relocate to Virginia for relief? Guess what, that leaves all that more burden for you, the average person, to pay to keep your bloated government up and running. Congratulations, I know you’re probably more than happy to do it. In fact, you’re probably someone that has 0 deductions on your taxes, because you think it’s a good deal to get money back at the end of the year. Have fun, I prefer to keep my money, thank you.

Now, as for a lot of words in my reply, I write replies to the level of understanding of the receiver. Were I speaking to someone that has one bloody clue about the way the world works, or about the military, I’m certain I could’ve gotten away with a lot fewer words. However, I will at least take the time to clear up your misconceptions on military downsizing. Feel free to check these facts, but I have found in the past that people like you seldom tend to let facts get in the way of their opinions.

During Bush Sr’s term, he did indeed start the downsizing of the military. Actually, if you look at real spending, Reagan started the downsizing in 1987. (That was probably the year in college that you missed liberal arts class because someone passed one last bong around that night, and instead of going to class the next day you went in search of a frig to raid). That year the defense budget was $400 billion. After that, spending went down every year, especially after 91, when the Soviet Union collapsed (due to their attempt to match Reagan’s military build up) And what a feat that was alone. Reagan drove an aggressive, expansionist country to ruin……and never fired a shot. Anyway, Bush Sr said in 1991 in reference to the defense budget, “ This far, and no more.” Well, guess what happened next year? Along came Bubba, who dodged service, and self admittedly “Loathed the military”. And in order to support an increase in government spending (on worthwhile programs like feeding illegal immigrants and giving them healthcare), he increased everyone’s taxes and cut the military’s budget even further. It finally bottomed out in 1997 ( Who was in office, JackC?) at 260 billion, with minor increases to about 290 billion in 2002, thankfully clinton’s last budget and year in orifice. (By the way, none of this is adjusted for inflation) In that time, the Air Force went from 21 fully supported and operational Air Wings to 12. Other services suffered similar cuts in personnel and manpower. Meanwhile, our work quotient (That would be all of the pizza delivering deployments masquerading as peace missions, or the lobbing of bombs whenever someone got caught getting their pecker sucked) went up 200%. There lies the infamous, “Do more with less” saying that we have been living with ever since. It’s a true testament to everyone in the service that we can still do what we did recently, and do it as well as we did. But now our equipment, in general, is OLD and needs to be replaced. That, and the fact that military pay was some 14%-19% behind the private sector and increasing. Hence, the increase in defense spending. Had the military been properly maintained over the clinton years, the increase probably wouldn’t need to be as dramatic. That’s pretty much military spending in a nutshell. Like I said, feel free to check these FACTS. If you want to come back and dabble in the area of foreign policy, I’ll be happy to lay a few FACTS on you in that area, as well. Now, please note my comments in paragraph 3 about a lot of words. Have a nice day.

[Sarge]

Sorry, last reply was supposed to be under anothe thread

[JackC]

Originally posted by Big Will

JackC, I don't blame Clinton for the Cole and Embassy bombings. Also, I don't blame Bush for September 11th. You have to realize the difference between the two President's reactions FOLLOWING the attacks. Unlike Clinton, Bush is actually doing something about the terrorism.

And that something would be?

[JackC]

Art,

All three times taxes were lowered government spending went way up. Are you sure it was the taxes that caused revenues to go up and not the increased spending?

[Art]

Jack,

I don't even know how to answer that question. If you don't know the difference between government spending and tax revenue intake the government brings in, there's no way I can spend the time teaching you now.

But, the accountants at WorldCom probably couldn't figure out the difference between an expense and an asset either. Giving money back to people spurred the economy and brought more money into the government coffers in every case we've undertaken an effort at lowering the tax burden.

What the government spends does not increase revenue. You understand that right? The government can't make money. It doesn't produce anything. The only revenue the government receives is through tax dollars. That's all there is. So, yes, I'm positive increased government spending didn't cause government revenue to go up.

And, I'm stunned someone beyond preschool could even offer the question up.

[gbear]

"What the government spends does not increase revenue. "

Um Art...when the government spends money is it your position that the money just disappears? Are you trying to say that government spending isn't a significant part of our economy? I don't buy that.

I'd also challenge one of your assumptions from earlier. You seem to think that every dollar reduced in taxes is invested? Check out the actual saving rates. What you might notice about the U.S. of late is that we spend more than we take in.

People do the same thing the government does with the money for the most part. They SPEND it.

A psych teacher in college said something that stuck with me through econ classes: "Correlation does not equal causation." In my opinion before you start setting policy, you better be sure what you have is causation. I'd submit to you that theory born out by predictions and results is the best way to determine causation. That's why I reject your dismissal of teh theory weblinks I put up for you earlier.

In addition, I think there's a huge precident for spending one's way out of a depression too. Check out the government spending increases that got us out of the great depression.