"We have now sunk to a depth at which re-statement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." Orwell
"Men are so simple of mind and so dominated by immediate needs that the deceitful man can easily find those ready to be deceived."
MachiavelliThe fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one... credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.
C'mon Sid, you're insulting my intelligence...I'm sure you remember the myriad of deductions you rich bastards could take back when the top rate was %90... now I can't even deduct my noon educational conferences at Hooters...and anyway's if this is true, why y'all attached yourself to O-bamas crotch like the Alien in "Alien"....You dissapoint me Sid,Frank
That really hurts. Disappointing Frank Drackman. How can I live with the shame?Insulting your intelligence? Like that's a high bar! I guess it'd be worse if I were appealing to it.P.S: I assume the person who, of late, is posting as anonymous but signing with Frank Dreg$man is not really you? It's slimy, even by your standards.
The context, Sid, as you like to consider, is that Reagan was bringing taxes down. He couldn't so it all at once, and he didn't raise them during a recession. That's a rookie mistake."Obama is a socialistic wealth-punishing over-taxer." I never screamed it, but...yeah.
BB: first of all, the new rates don't happen for two years, at which time -- we'll see -- we should be well into recovery. A rookie might have raised them immediately. Or cut them when starting wars.Second of all, as is the case every time it's been done, Reagan's cuts and Bush's led to huge deficits which revealed the smoke and mirrors to be just that. And, as you well know, it was after the Clinton raises -- to some of which Obama plans to return -- that the budget came into balance and the economy flourished. People can and do argue about such things, and will always take credit for the good and avoid blame for the bad. Bush economic policies led to disaster. The medicine to cure it will taste bad for a while, even as there are already some signs of hope. I guess it's a matter of what one is hoping for.
Who ever's stolen my identity and is posing as "Frank Dreg$man" made a pretty basic mistake...I LOVE Lesbians...I'm one in a Man's body actually,Frank
"Reagan's cuts and Bush's led to huge deficits"...No. Check the revenue into the government after the Reagan tax cuts. Pretty much the same (a little up or down, I don't remember.) Now check the spending--Congress budget, signed by Reagan. He should have vetoed it--the spending went way up.Remember the Reagan budgets (never balanced, though, regrettably) were declared "Dead On Arrival" by Congress?The fact that the tax increases have been announced is the same as them going up--it's the effect on people's behavior that matters. Rookie mistake.
I guess you're right. HW Bush raised Reagan's cuts because everything was going great. And, small (because it's all, y'know, factie and historish) point: revenue in - revenue out = deficits. Reagan said he could cut taxes, raise military spending, and balance the budget. HW called it "voodoo economics." It was; and was again. Too bad intelligence isn't just genetic.
revenue in - revenue out = deficitsWell, right, if too much money goes out. GHWB raised taxes because the Dems promised to cut spending by 1.50 (or so( for every dollar taxes went up. Then they spent 2.50 (or so) for every dollar of taxes raised. And the Rs fired Bush.Did you check the revenue under Reagan? Did it really go down??????? Maybe you could look up the Laffer Curve.Facts are hard to argue against.
Arthur Laffer.By the way, the Laffer curve, discredited in practicality in the way it was used, said something so useless, even I agree (and have so stated): if you raise taxes to 100%, the economy stops; if you lower them to 0% government stops. The problem is that no Republican tax cuts starting with Reagan/Laffer have ever led to diminishing deficits. Facts are things against which it's hard to argue.
And if we disagree with your facts, I'm sure you have others...
Well, Frank, by definition "facts" are true. Disagree all you want. Care to disprove?
"the Laffer curve, discredited in practicality in the way it was used"The prove was the great growth in the 80s. Did you look up federal revenue in the 80s yet? You'll never learn if you don't try. Discredited, yet you agree with it. Odd.BTW--as weird as it seems, "facts" (in a strict academic sense) aren't true--they are reports. "Events" are true.
BB: did you watch the video of your hero, Laffer? (great aptonym, no?). "Growth" under Reagan was just like "growth" under Bush: if you are given a credit card and told to go spend, you will appear to be growing. It's only when the bill comes due that the fallacy is evident. Revenue under Reagan.But look, we aren't getting anywhere. Like Cheney, you seem to believe "deficits don't matter." I think they do. I think the proof is the pudding in which we now find ourselves. You seem to think the economy was just peachy under Bush, and I think it was a house of cards. The "events" don't seem to matter any more than the "facts." So we'll go round and round forever.
Krugman? Really? Maybe Congress has a more reputable thought:http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm"Incidentally, the claim that unrealistic supply side Reagan Administration revenue projections caused large budget deficits during the 1980s is false."I don't think that deficits don't matter. That's why I against Obama running up trillions in deficit. Join me.
Here's your problem, BB, in addition to arguing in favor of the Reagan and Bush deficits and against the Obama ones: you've been fed a diet of free lunch and fairy dust for so long you believe it's true. You believe there's no price to pay for the excesses of Bush/Reagan. You believe that the damage can be repaired in the way it was created: with no pain. It's not true. To get the economy going, to attend to those things conveniently ignored in those decades, will cost money. You didn't complain when Reagan/Bush ran the car on bald tires and worn-out brakes, because it was still running. Now it's in a ditch. You expect Obama to fix it for free, because that's what you've been told for decades: you can have what you want for free, and the tires are fine.Too bad for all of us: it was a lie, told to convince you to look the other way when the wealth-mongers had their way with you. Told you gay marriage was a bigger threat than the money that was being stolen. Told you Democrats hate America because they want to fix it. And you bought it. Now that the wreckage is undeniable you still want to believe that a) it's not actually a wreck and b) if it is, it can be fixed painlessly. Sorry. It doesn't work that way. Those of us who've said it was a house of cards were, unfortunately, right. It's a bitter pill, but we all have to be willing to take it. Which means the party is over for a while. I'm willing to do my part, ie pay more in taxes, give up some plans. You should be, too, but you aren't. Which is why I worry, and is central to why I think George Bush was so terrible: not only has he wrecked our economy and increased terrorism, he's convinced people like you that patriotism is just a word; a word, mainly, to be used as a weapon against those who disagree with him. It's the ultimate irony that the party that claimed a monopoly on patriotism is the one now least willing to give up anything to save the country.
Sid- I never endorsed deficits--I argued that they weren't caused by the tax cuts. Revenue did not go down under Reagan--the reduced taxes encouraged people to shuffle their money more, and make more money, and pay more taxes. The problem was that spending went up. That's a deficitI will say that spending should not have gone up. Reagan should have vetoed the budgets sent him, but he didn't.I also don't endorse Obama's deficits, which are far greater that Reagan's or Bush's. Obama: spend less--let us spend more. Watch the economy grow.
"fairy dust"Like this?http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/03/18/business/fed.php
Not exactly: it's what's necessary to bring the fairy dust of the last eight years back into reality. As long as you and those like you fail to see the difference, we'll never get anywhere. Bush left much more than deficits: if that were all, raising revenue would solve it. But he left millions unemployed, businesses failing, the banking system in ruins. It takes money to fix the damage. Let's see what happens after we're back on track. Obama has said he'll return the budget toward balance. This isn't the time, and the vast majority of economists agree.But there's no point in saying such things to you, or Frank, or BB: as I've pointed out in other posts: studies show that when confronted with facts that disprove what they believe, conservatives -- as opposed to liberals -- actually believe MORE in the disproved. So I'm wasting my time on you. Yet here I am, just a crazy liberal, believing people can change, actually responding to your perseverations with factual and (to the extent that it's deserved, which ain't much) respectful responses...
Sid, Sid, Sid -- you and I live in the reality-based world. Frank and BB live in the ideology-based world. There's little chance for rapprochement here. All we've got on our side are those boring old facts, whereas they have the magic Laffer cocktail napkin of win.And no, they don't care a bit that the magic cocktail napkin didn't do what was claimed for it. Why, they'll just DECLARE that it did, and everyone knows that's just as good. Everyone who doesn't live in the reality-based world, that is.
Post a Comment