Posted by: Boldwin
- [2710422918] Mon, Nov 29, 2010, 19:42
No one gives you the straight story like Nouriel Roubini. It's like drinking from a firehose, it comes so relentless and fast. He makes zero attempt to be accessible but it is so very worth the effort to get up to his speed.
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
46
weykool
ID: 19613142 Thu, Jul 14, 2011, 10:24
Right. So now the spin is Reagan raised taxes and the deficit increased?
47
Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Jul 14, 2011, 10:29
I'll give you a few minutes to read my note more closely--this time without the bias of thinking you know what I was saying rather than what I actually said.
48
sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Thu, Jul 14, 2011, 11:27
Lowered rates yes, also did away with more than a few deductions. (Some of which have been restored as in deducting state sales tax paid.)
Overall, Reagan lowered personal income tax. Lowered them twice, raised them 6 times.(Net reduction in personal income tax) Raised sufficient other taxes, to more than offset the net reduction in personal income tax.
So yes, overall, Reagan raised taxes.
49
Boldwin
ID: 166451321 Thu, Jul 14, 2011, 11:55
Yeah, you liberals can delude yourselves all you want but not the Tea Party. I still don't get who your intended audience is since the only people who would play along and agree Reagan was pro-government growth and pro-Robbinhood are already dyed in the wool liberals and they know better which is why they hate him. Did you even fool Khahan?
50
Boldwin
ID: 166451321 Thu, Jul 14, 2011, 12:26
Reagan directly addressing the cut spending/raise taxes issue.
Prior to being elected as the President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."[8]
It appears the earliest use of the term "starving the beast" to refer to the political-fiscal strategy was in a Wall Street Journal article in 1985 where the reporter quoted an unnamed Reagan staffer. - wiki
Case closed. Stop pretending he would have raised taxes in this situation. His answer was cut taxes.
51
DWetzel
ID: 53326279 Thu, Jul 14, 2011, 12:44
So you think his answer to everything ever was "cut taxes" (proven false already), or you think that the situation today with historically LOW tax rates for the wealthy already is remotely analogous to the situation 30 years ago when we had raging inflation, remarkably HIGH interest rates instead of the historically low ones we have now, and tax rates of 70% at the top end.
I'm not sure which one of those beliefs is more out of touch with reality, but they're both pretty far out, so I guess it doesn't matter.
If all you got out of Reagan's legacy was "herp derp cut taxes and all will be well", then you really do him quite a disservice.
52
Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Jul 14, 2011, 13:08
#50: Except that the case wasn't closed. Reagan the candidate certainly said that--then when he got in office was actually flexible enough to do what was necessary for the country's economic good health.
The Right likes to forget about what Reagan actually did after his first year in office.
Yet his flexibility (and yes, raising revenues in some areas) caused the economy to respond positively.
No one, of course, said Reagan was "pro government grown" (whatever that is).
53
DWetzel
ID: 53326279 Thu, Jul 14, 2011, 13:13
Oh, to get things back on topic, the subject of this thread actually thinks we should include revene increases.
Economist Nouriel Roubini wrote in May 2010: "There are only two solutions to the sovereign debt crisis — raise taxes or cut spending — but the political gridlock may prevent either from happening...In the US, the average tax burden as a share of GDP is much lower than in other advanced economies. The right adjustment for the US would be to phase in revenue increases gradually over time so that you don't kill the recovery while controlling the growth of government spending."
So, if even this brilliant economist (I'm humoring for the moment) thinks a balance of revenue increases and spending cuts is the solution, why won't the Tea Partiers go along?
54
Boldwin
ID: 166451321 Thu, Jul 14, 2011, 15:00
Yes, sadly Nouriel is not a Reaganite and has swallowed the Keynesian pill.
Reagan was not pro-government growth and I don't know how PD is confused by that term. If you invented the tactic of starving the beast you sure weren't interested in feeding it.
Reagan had the disadvantage of having to create the Reagan revolution and build the consensus for smaller government and he faced plenty of Lyndon Baines Johnson democrats and Bob Michel country club republicans in congress. He entered office in a country that had had an entrenched big spending congress, political culture and liberal media that had presumed it would be in power for perpetuity.
He had to deal with the defection of David Stockman and for the entire two terms in office the Speaker of the House [which controls the purse strings] was a big spending Democrat, Tip O'Neil for seven years and Wright till the end.
So naturally even with the help of southern democrats he didn't get every tax cut he wanted. In fact he couldn't cut social spending anywhere near what he wanted. He had to limit social spending by making it compete with a greater national desire for defense spending. It was a round-about method of starving the beast.
56
sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Thu, Jul 14, 2011, 16:53
Boldwin...nobody said Reagan was "pro government frowth". We have said, and will continue to say, the truth. That he raised taxes more often than he lowered them and he did so OUT OF NECESSITY. Yes. after 8 yrs the end re4sult was a net drop in personal Federal Income Tax BUT, the raise in all other taxes more than offset that net declcine; resulting in a net raising of taxes. NOT because he was "pro big government tax and spend", but because IT WAS NECESSARY. (and FTR, Regan most certainly DID 'tax and spend'. Def Budget, military pay for ex, saw HUGE increases his 1st year in office. Was the whole reason I voted for him. I was PO'd that as an NCO in the Army, I qualified for California Food Stamps. I was stationed at Ft Ord on Monterey Bay at the time.)
57
DWetzel
ID: 53326279 Thu, Jul 14, 2011, 17:21
Reagan was not pro-government growth and I don't know how PD is confused by that term.
Probably has something to do with government spending and the annual deficit dramatically increasing during Reagan's term.
I know, facts are hard.
58
Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Jul 14, 2011, 17:59
Reagan was not pro-government growth and I don't know how PD is confused by that term
Nother LOL moment. The only one who mentioned "pro-government growth" is Baldwin, in attempting to mischaracterize my point about Reagan not being reflexively and stubbornly anti-revenue.
One can, of course, be against government growth and be for raising taxes to cover the size of the government one feels is appropriate. Both Reagan and PD are in that particular sphere. Boldwin is not.
59
Boldwin
ID: 16637151 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 07:48
He wasn't in favor of any taxes. He was in favor of a strong military and if Tip O'Neil wouldn't balance that with reduced domestic spending then Reagan was in favor of crowding out domestic spending. So you could justifiably say he was a big spender in a strategic way which meant to kill central planned socialist dictatorships everywhere [including Tip's] but you cannot fairly say he was pro-tax period, full stop, never.
60
Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 08:14
He wasn't in favor of any taxes.
Oh for god's sake. He proposed them in his budget. Enough with this revisionist history about your political God to cover up your inability to deal with the fact that he was not the man you are hoping he was.
He was better than you want (hope?) he was, for the very reasons you can't get your head around.
61
Boldwin
ID: 16637151 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 08:17
LOL! I was not sleeping thru the Reagan revolution. You just aren't going to tell me the moon is the sun and get away with it.
62
Boldwin
ID: 16637151 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 08:25
He was dealing with Tip O'Neil's House of Representatives and writing budgets which were all pronounced dead on arrival no matter how he crafted them. Your spinning Reagan into a hero tax and spend liberal icon is ridiculous on it's face. I still have no idea who you think would buy that crap. I guess you hope to confuse a big enuff proportion of Reagan democrats and independents because you sure won't fool any conservatives with this load of crap.
63
DWetzel
ID: 53326279 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 10:15
Your spinning him into someone who would stand here and say "no new taxes, ever, for any reason" won't fly with people who have a brain and who have studied the facts for more than three seconds.
Also, way to strawman a position nobody is putting out there and then even failing to beat that. Pretty impressive.
64
sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 12:05
Apparently there is no need to "fool" conservatives. They are proving themselves full blown fools, when they deny the historic truth.
65
Boldwin
ID: 16637151 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 12:15
Buffing up your resume for the 'ministry of truth' after the revolution are you?
66
biliruben
ID: 358252515 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 18:37
He raised taxes 11times. And he was willing to compromise for the good of the country.
Two things your current teabag cultists in congress don't have any interest in doing.
67
weykool
ID: 343561414 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 19:40
Trying to say Reagan rased taxes 11 times based on tweaks/reconciliations to the the revenue code is as close to lying as you can get. Every time a president signs a bill there will be some part of the bill that affects tax revenues. Trying to spin that as a tax increases is blatant demagoguery Reagan said big governemnt was not the answer to our problems, it was the problem. At the core of Reagan's economic plan was to lower tax rates, grow the economy, tax revenues would increase as a result. Trying to paint him as a tax increasing maniac is about as truthful as saying Obama is a fiscal conservative.
68
biliruben
ID: 358252515 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 19:47
Simply saying it doesn't make it true. Obama has, looking at actions instead of rhetoric, been far more fiscally conservative than Reagan.
69
biliruben
ID: 358252515 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 19:59
And I don't mean that as a complement to Obama. The dude is blathering on in supply side terms that are completely nonsense, and the the teabaggers are aploplectic that they have reason to oppose him, because he's spewing their kind of crap and making them look bad to their worshipers.
70
sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 20:30
Those not from CA, need to talk to Californians about Reagan and taxes. I was in CA in 1980 when Reagan 1st ran. I voted for him, because of his promise to increase military pay. (Which he did, by double digit per cents and it was LONG over due.) Californians will tell you in a heartbeat, Yes he balanced their state budget. ...BY RAISING TAXES AT EVERY TURN.
Reagan spokje of less thiss, less that. Then raised taxes left and right. Its a simple fact. Deny it if you want, but you best start denying that East is East, rain is wet, and the wind can cause damage. All are equally truthful and self evident...to an honest man
71
Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 23:29
Apparently there is no need to "fool" liberals. They are proving themselves full blown fools, when they deny the historic truth.
72
sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 23:39
lmao which history are you referring to B7? The one where Reagan escalated CA taxes to the point of many Californians being royally pissed, or the one where he raised Federal taxes repeatedly (out of necessity) though had a net lowering of personal federal income tax, or the fabricated rightwing lie wherein he lowered taxes 750% and still managed to increase revenue despite collectcing no taxes at all?
73
Mith
ID: 5631099 Sat, Jul 16, 2011, 00:04
weykool 67: Trying to say Reagan rased taxes 11 times based on tweaks/reconciliations to the the revenue code is as close to lying as you can get.
Finally, it is important to remember that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times, increasing revenues by $133 billion per year as of 1988 – about a third of the nominal revenue increase during Reagan’s presidency.
Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration. I was here. I was here. I knew him. Better than anybody in this room. He was a dear friend and a total realist as to politics.
75
Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Sat, Jul 16, 2011, 00:32
lmao which history are you referring to B7?
You better go find your ass and put it back or you won't be able to take a dump. Saying R's increase tax rates, and D's reduce unemployment for openers. You were schooled on that in another thread.
Nobody is referring to Reagan's time in California. When people refer to Reagan's performance, they're talking about his performance as President. Feel free to continue down that road, though.
Arguing about Reagan is a waste of time. Re: Roubini's predictin in #13, we'll be lucky to make it to 2013.
76
sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Sat, Jul 16, 2011, 00:38
close your mouth and open your eyes B7 (A comment I made often to my kids) Reagan raised taxes 11 times, cut them twice. Indisputable FACT. (Thats his Presidential record btw)
Reagan was not pro-government growth... He had to limit social spending by making it compete with a greater national desire for defense spending. It was a round-about method of starving the beast.
Well there's no question that government most certainly did grow under Reagan. Did you know that he is the last president to leave office with more federal employees than when he arrived, by about 250,000? And if it hasn't been established yet in this thread, he more than quadrupled the national debt.
Maybe it's just the liberal vs conservative narrative but my reading of the tax changes under reagan is that after the big tax cut in 1981 the economy went into the dumper and the GOP, already down 50 seats in the House to the Dems, lost another 26 in what would be referred to in the logic and vernacular of today's political right as a major repudiation of Reagan's economic policies. He spent the next few years raising taxes to couner about half of the cuts he made in 1981.
Reagan was no libertarian. Instead of wrapping ourselves in his mantle, those of us who support deep reductions in government's size and power should take a clear-eyed look at the Reagan record.
The Cato Institute did just that in "Assessing the Reagan Years," which showed that under Reagan, federal spending actually increased from 23 percent to 24 percent of gross national product, while payroll tax increases resulted in a net tax increase for most Americans.
Not only did Reagan renege on his promise to abolish President Carter's new Cabinet departments, Education and Energy, he appointed secretaries dedicated to their preservation.
Carter did more than Reagan to deregulate the economy, the authors explained, and while farm subsidies tripled under Reagan's watch, Reagan eliminated only one (one!) major federal program, the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (which was almost immediately reborn under another name).
"On so many issues," Boaz lamented, the Reagan administration "never even showed up for battle."
Worse, on one key issue where the president actually showed up, his efforts left the country demonstrably less free.
President Nixon popularized the phrase "the war on drugs," but Reagan was the first chief executive who really took that metaphor seriously. Via executive order, he declared drug trafficking a "national security threat," and in a 1986 televised address he invoked World War II, calling drug abuse "a form of tyranny" and imploring Americans to "join us in this great, new national crusade."
As a result of that failed crusade, the United States now has the highest incarceration rate in the developed world.
79
Boldwin
ID: 16637151 Sat, Jul 16, 2011, 02:17
Tip O'Neil
80
Mith
ID: 5631099 Sat, Jul 16, 2011, 02:29
CHOOTS pa
81
DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Sat, Jul 16, 2011, 10:40
So, let's see, Boldwin wants to give all the credit for the tax cuts (passed by Congress and signed by Reagan) to Reagan, and all the blame for the spending increases (passed by Congress and signed by Reagan) to Congress, and all the blame for the tax increases (passed by Congress and signed by Reagan) to Congress.
Well, I guess that's a pretty convincing, completely unbiased, non-lunatic argument if your worldview consists of masturbating to a Reagan picture while steadfastly avoiding any reality.
82
Razor
ID: 33520166 Sat, Jul 16, 2011, 11:15
Hard to be considered a great President or even a decent one if you are constantly signing policy that you don't agree with.
83
sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Sat, Jul 16, 2011, 11:56
Amazing, B will hang Obama because of someone he once talked to 35 years ago; but wont hold Reagan accountable for what he repeatedly DID vs said, throughout his term as President.
And he wants people to take him seriously. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
85
Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Sat, Jul 16, 2011, 13:15
Sarge33rd, you're the one who blamed the tax cuts in late 2010 on Republicans, when Democrats controlled Congress and the President.
Re: 77, Your unemployment chart does not include the three years under Obama at 9% every year. Anda all I have to do is find a Democrat where unemployment increased to disprove your premise. I'll go with those two economic wizards Jimmy Carter and Obama. They're pretty much famous for massive unemployment. But, I'm sure you'll find a couple months where unemployment improved, so I'll go ahead and head that off at the pass.
87
Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Mon, Jul 18, 2011, 03:02
Hard to be considered a great President or even a decent one if you are constantly signing policy that you don't agree with. - Razor
President Reagan pledged today to use his veto power "from now until the day I leave office" to block any tax-hike legislation that reaches his desk. - 1987 ----- President Reagan vowed in unmistakable terms Wednesday to veto any bill that would increase taxes, telling congressmen who might even be pondering such an effort: "Go ahead, make my day." - 1985 ----- President Reagan today repeated his promise to veto any bill passed by Congress that would repeal the third year of the income tax cuts he won two years ago. - 1983
Yeah that tax lover Reagan, huh PD? Never met a tax increase he didn't love. Huh PD? Wherever do these conservatives get the crazy idea he was against tax increases? Huh PD? Doncha wonder why you keep repeating those same stupid misleading Dem talking points?
88
sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Mon, Jul 18, 2011, 03:05
Odd. I dont recall him vetoing a dz plus bills and being overridden on a second vote in the Legislature. (Meaning, he may have SAID one thing, but he DID another. And yet, still, you refuse to hold him accountable for doing vs saying. What was it they called him? Oh yeah...The Teflon President. True enough.)
89
Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Mon, Jul 18, 2011, 03:17
He was overridden nine times despite your poor memory.
90
Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Mon, Jul 18, 2011, 03:39
He also vetoed a continuing resolution which action...OMG the horror, the horror...shut down the government for a day!
Don't recall the world freaking out about it either.
91
Razor
ID: 31610612 Mon, Jul 18, 2011, 03:51
How many of those tax increases were signed by President Reagan and how many were enacted in spite of Presidential veto?
92
Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Mon, Jul 18, 2011, 04:51
Really? You are still trying to spin Reagan as pro tax increases? That is at this point so perverse and disingenuous to argue something so beyond dispute.
You lambast the Tea Party for being too rigid and yet you insist if Reagan didn't veto every last action in the Tip O'Neil House he was a closet tax raiser. Get over it. This liberal talking point is a non-starter.
93
Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Mon, Jul 18, 2011, 05:02
Go the whole nine yards. Argue he was pro communism while you are at it. Your spinning powers rival Wonder Woman. Dazzle me.
94
Razor
ID: 31610612 Mon, Jul 18, 2011, 06:44
I don't think anyone is arguing Reagan was exclusively pro-tax raises. It is being argued, however, that he was not opposed to raising them based on circumstance, something you deny.
The Tea Party is too rigid. They did not have the sense of pragmatism that Reagan did, which is why Reagan was very popular among all Americans and the Tea Party is only very popular with a fraction of the GOP. Reagan signed tax increases because he believed in them, just the same as he believed in the tax decreases he signed.
Your last post indicates your inability to refute this with evidence. If you can make an evidence-based argument to contradict this idea, I invite you to do so. Else, please refrain from trying to convince anyone that Reagan was cut from the same cloth as the current day Tea Party, who insist on taking bits of the Reagan legacy and pretending to have picked up his mantle.
95
Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Mon, Jul 18, 2011, 08:24
See the difference is when I tell you what Reagan was thinking, I can show you year in year out, speech after speech where he said exactly what I tell you he was thinking.
When you tell us what Reagan was thinking all you can show us is Tip O'Neil gloating like Nancy Pelosi.
96
Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Mon, Jul 18, 2011, 09:10
Or the smirking Markos Moulitsas.
97
DWetzel
ID: 53326279 Mon, Jul 18, 2011, 10:39
And the difference is that while you look at Reagan's speeches, we look at Reagan's actual record. Because, well, often times politicians don't do what they say.
98
Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 09:54
According to people who have seen the offering book for the sale, the firm is projected to have revenues of $14 million this year and it will post a loss of roughly $2 million dollars, and projects eight percent revenue growth into next year followed by 40 percent revenue growth in 2013.
Bidders are being told to submit a range of what they would be willing to pay, but it's unclear whether there will be any takers.
The firm has been expanding its research offerings, but people who have seen the offering document tell me many of the firm's clients are corporations, not investors, making it unclear how much new business can be obtained by any buyer of RGE.
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect, you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com