How are we going to pay for all this shit?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

what an idiot claim. it's all Ronnie's fault? your data was intentionally misleading. the highest debt to gdp ratio during Reagan's presidency was 50%. and that was one year his 8 year average was 37%.


prove me wrong.

Hmmmmmmm...what I've said is that Reagan started this nonsense. It is like a snowball...of course the internal is not as larger as the external but is part of the catastrophic damage leveling your idiotic house.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S


.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by WTF

Hmmmmmmm...what I've said is that Reagan started this nonsense. It is like a snowball...of course the internal is not as larger as the external but is part of the catastrophic damage leveling your idiotic house.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S


.

OMG! you've exposed me! Reagan's 8 year average was actually 39%. OMG!!

BAAHHA idiot. your own graph proves me right. do you ever read anything you post?

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

what was the average? and you know the full list shows numbers far higher at times that 50% for a single year. and years way before Reagan where it was 50% or greater. like 1960/61/62.


1960 $286 54% Recession
1961 $289 52% Bay of Pigs
1962 $298 50% JFK budgets & Cuban missile crisis
1963 $306 48% U.S. aids Vietnam, JFK killed
1964 $312 46% LBJ's budgets & war on poverty
1965 $317 43% U.S. entered Vietnam War
1966 $320 40% 1967 $326 40%
1968 $348 39%
1969 $354 36% Nixon took office
1970 $371 35% Recession
1971 $398 35% Wage-price controls
1972 $427 34% Stagflation
1973 $458 33% Nixon ended gold standard & OPEC oil embargo
1974 $475 31% Watergate & budget process created
1975 $533 32% Vietnam War ended
1976 $620 33% Stagflation
1977 $699 34% Stagflation
1978 $772 33% Carter budgets & recession
1979 $82732%


your argument it "was going south" doesn't hold water. it averaged 34%. from 1969 to 1979. 37% going back to 1960. Reagan averaged 39%.

1980 $908 32% Volcker raised fed rate to 20%
1981 $998 31% Reagan tax cut
1982 $1,142 34% Reagan increased spending
1983 $1,377 37% Jobless rate 10.8%
1984 $1,572 38% Increased defense spending
1985 $1,823 41%
1986 $2,125 46% Reagan lowered taxes
1987 $2,350 48% Market crash
1988 $2,602 50% Fed raised rates


tell me professor poofter what's Reagan's average?

you do know basic arithmetic yes?



bahahhaaaaaaa

[WTF]

If you had a credit card and the more you spent the smaller your minimum payment was....may cause you to think this credit card defies economic sense.

That is how you Tiny and lusty perceive tax cuts. Oh you may grunt every now and then about your wife spending too much or in lustylad's case his bf, but really all you tap about is tax cuts.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

OMG! you've exposed me! Reagan's 8 year average was actually 39%. OMG!!

BAAHHA idiot. your own graph proves me right. do you ever read anything you post?




bahahhaaaaaaa

Check out the graph...and the graph doesn't even show Trump's debt to GDP

Like I have all along , Reagan started this nonsense.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by WTF

Check out the graph...and the graph doesn't even show Trump's debt to GDP

Like I have all along , Reagan started this nonsense.

no he didn't. his average was inline with prior gdp to debt ratios. the numbers prove it. 39%.

it's yer gotdam DEMONRATS that skyrocketed it and the numbers show it.

i feel bad posting in this thread. it could be considered elder abuse making a fool of you old man.

[Precious_b]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

and yet you don't offer anything to prove Chung's point.

my review is fake.

Houston Riley said so.





bahahahahaaaaaa

and the republicans paid for the Steele dossier.


BAAAHHHAAAAA

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Why would he? You still don't get it.

The event happened 30 months ago, and until I brought it up some 10 days ago, no one had mentioned it since 2019. I remember every damn detail, because it was a local, and frankly riveting story... And I posted then, and got pushback from the crime softies then, that the Security Guard failed to prevent 2 murders, even as the media quickly called him a Hero.

Only you cared to argue about it recently. Nobody else here gives two shits, and certainly wouldn't ''side'' with either of us.

Ironic that you defend the Guard against my characterization of him as being inept, slow to respond and allowed 2 people to get murdered.. But you had no comment about the link I provided, where a Grand Jury no-billed the Guard.. I said it was outrageous that the case was ever presented. That suggests to me that your interest in the subject lay solely for sport, to argue against whatever I posted.

Seems like another misdirection from him.
Since he can't counter your point, tries to grab attention away by saying you have no bandwagon. Adeptly pointed out that his wagon wheels ain't spinning, has to reach for another thing to draw peoples attention away from the fact he has no legs to stand on.

And still doesn't get that his buddies started the snowball which had the (sing it everyone) Steele Dossier caught up in it like the tp on donnys shoe.

It's been fun.

But the demo primetime event this week will get new threads a-going.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Precious_b

Seems like another misdirection from him.
Since he can't counter your point, tries to grab attention away by saying you have no bandwagon. Adeptly pointed out that his wagon wheels ain't spinning, has to reach for another thing to draw peoples attention away from the fact he has no legs to stand on.

And still doesn't get that his buddies started the snowball which had the (sing it everyone) Steele Dossier caught up in it like the tp on donnys shoe.

It's been fun.

But the demo primetime event this week will get new threads a-going.

what's the deal with these Chung Tran micro-ban's? he's banned, he's not banned? wtf??

bahahahaaa

these hearings are a farce. all partisan shit. two neo-dem RINO's hand booger picked by NancyPants.

whatever.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

what an idiot claim. it's all Ronnie's fault? your data was intentionally misleading. the highest debt to gdp ratio during Reagan's presidency was 50%. and that was one year his 8 year average was 37%.


prove me wrong.

During the Reagan Administration, WTF prefers to look at gross federal debt as a % of GDP, because it fits his narrative better. However it makes more sense to look at debt held by the public. That excludes government debt that the government itself owns. And the highest level during the Reagan years was 39%. That's way under what used to be considered the 100% "danger zone." When places like Greece and Italy passed that level people started to get worried. Not so much Japan. We're at about the 100% level now.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYGFGDQ188S

Captain Midnight posted a link that said government revenues during the Reagan years were 18.2% of GDP, a touch up from 18.1% during the Carter years. So tax collection didn't dip under Reagan, if you look at the entirety of his two terms in office.

What Reagan did was boost defense spending, up to around 6.5% or 7% of GDP. Now both WTF and I would like to see us spend less on defense. But Reagan had an excuse, the cold war. And you can make a strong argument that the higher defense spending ended the cold war, because Russia realized it couldn't keep up with our spending.

This put Clinton and Gingrich in a position to lower defense spending, and it went all the way down to around 3% of GDP in 2000.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countrie...defense-budget

I'd blame the situation we're in with the national debt on George W. Bush, Barrack Obama, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, and Congress. What came after Reagan. Not Reagan.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

total nonsense. lower taxes increases government spending???

Agreed. WTF can't explain that. It makes no sense.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by WTF

I know these things are hard for you to understand....

https://www.forbes.com/sites/taxnote...h=25fc26945d14

“This first tax cut taught Republicans that tax cuts could be popular — something that was not clear at the time, because for decades before then opinion polls had shown strong and consistent opposition to deficits,” Prasad writes.

“ERTA transformed the Republican Party from a party of fiscal rectitude into a party whose main domestic policy goal is to cut taxes.” That transformation, moreover, proved extremely durable — far more durable than ERTA itself.

Nowadays, it’s fashionable to talk about the 1986 tax reform as a watershed moment in the history of American taxation. And in some respects it was: It was certainly the apotheosis of good intentions in fiscal policymaking.

As Captain Midnight pointed out to you in his link to the CNN web site, and as I did in a post, you're totally ignoring what came after ERTA. Subsequent bills passed during the Reagan administration broadened the base and eliminated loopholes and tax shelters. You're the Laffer Curve expert, but I'd suspect when you drop the maximum marginal rate from 70% to 28%, as Reagan and Congress did, you don't loose as much revenue as people would think. At 70% people are scrambling to find ways to avoid recognizing income and paying tax. At 28%, not so much.

[Salty Again]

... Blimey! ... Over a hundred pages of this rich bullshit!

Bambino's Right about things! ... The Election WAS Rigged!

Some o' you droo

... Oh! ... Me bad... wrong thread! ... Please forget I posted.

### Salty

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Salty Again

... Blimey! ... Over a hundred pages of this rich bullshit!

Bambino's Right about things! ... The Election WAS Rigged!

Some o' you droo

... Oh! ... Me bad... wrong thread! ... Please forget I posted.

### Salty

### Salty
### Salty
### Salty

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Tiny

As Captain Midnight pointed out to you in his link to the CNN web site, and as I did in a post, you're totally ignoring what came after ERTA. Subsequent bills passed during the Reagan administration broadened the base and eliminated loopholes and tax shelters. You're the Laffer Curve expert, but

I'm not sure you even realize what your saying as you seem to be bragging about Reagan's increasing taxes on one hand and cutting them on the other.

You're conflating two different things and leaving out two others. And you seem not able to comprehend exactly what the Forbes article suggests.

Reagan lowers taxes on higher income and then turns around with the most significant slight of hand ever! He raises the SS/Medicare tax. That is base broadening for sure!

I'm sure you're smart enough to figure out how by cutting taxes on higher wages and increased taxing on all wages under what was it 65k at the time (as that what the SS tax did)?....would create more income inequality. Which it did.

It also skews the budget as lawmakers then use the surplus SS/Medicare as a way to hide the deficits on the discretionary side of the Federal tax aisle.

Which then produces a generation of Reagan lovers who think that tax cuts are the answer to everything....which is what the Forbes article pointed out. I've highlighted where the Republican party was (opposition to deficits) to where it is now (cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/taxnote...-world-war-ii/

This first tax cut taught Republicans that tax cuts could be popular — something that was not clear at the time, because for decades before then opinion polls had shown strong and consistent opposition to deficits,” Prasad writes.

“ERTA transformed the Republican Party from a party of fiscal rectitude into a party whose main domestic policy goal is to cut taxes.” That transformation, moreover, proved extremely durable — far more durable than ERTA itself.

Nowadays, it’s fashionable to talk about the 1986 tax reform as a watershed moment in the history of American taxation. And in some respects it was: It was certainly the apotheosis of good intentions in fiscal policymaking

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Tiny

As Captain Midnight pointed out to you in his link to the CNN web site, and as I did in a post, you're totally ignoring what came after ERTA. Subsequent bills passed during the Reagan administration broadened the base and eliminated loopholes and tax shelters.

Originally Posted by WTF

I'm not sure you even realize what your saying as you seem to be bragging about Reagan's increasing taxes on one hand and cutting them on the other.

Part of me wants to believe that you're naive. Another part wants to believe you're a tax shelter lobbyist. I shall educate you. I could use thoroughbred horses, pig farms or real estate partnerships as examples. But I shall use an industry near and dear to your heart, oil and gas.

If I got a nickel for every time an old time oil promoter told me "we made a lot of money under the Democrats", I'd have at least a buck. Maybe two.

What are they talking about? Well, Democrats effectively controlled Congress from Roosevelt all the way until the Reagan administration, when Republicans controlled the Senate but not the House. They jacked the maximum marginal tax rate up to over 90%. Kennedy kind of saw the light and brought it down to 70%.

Now who's going to pay 90% of their income in taxes? Or even 70%? Every imaginable tax shelter arose.

One was oil and gas drilling partnerships. You hand over, say, $100,000 to the partnership. The partnership goes out and gets another $200,000 on your behalf, through nonrecourse loans. That is, the lender couldn't demand repayment from you, but rather only from the partnership.

You may get to deduct the majority of that $300,000 the first year, through intangible drilling costs and the like. If you deduct $200,000 and you're in a 90% tax bracket, then you've already realized $180,000 in tax savings on your $100,000 investment.

And then there's the sweatener. Thanks to the percentage depletion deduction, kept in effect by Lyndon Baines Johnson and his Democratic colleagues, you got to deduct 27.5% of the REVENUES from production. In the past, I believe there were no limitations on the percentage depletion deduction, in terms of the wells actually producing income. So if your well was making $100,000 a year in revenues, and expenses were $110,000, who cares. You're pocketing an extra $27,500 in tax deductions so you're still making money!

That's an example of a tax shelter. You can lose money hand over fist and still end up like a bandit, after the tax deductions. If you're in a 90% tax bracket, this sort of thing made a lot of sense. Obviously it was great for oil promoters.

I don't know whether the Reagan Administration did anything to modify percentage depletion, which in its current form is 15% and subject to income limitations, but the 1986 tax act did make it where you couldn't deduct passive losses, like what you'd get from the drilling partnership, from your other income. So it shut down drilling partnerships as tax shelters.

So you can call it a tax increase if you want. I call it common sense. Instead of allocating capital to drilling partnerships that were going to lose money, people used their money more productively.

More later on the rest of your incredibly misleading post.

[nevergaveitathought]

be careful

soon you might find yourself exasperated to no end

having become stuck in an endless cycle to a tar baby of ever changing positions and non sequiturs never addressing one thing you might point out

no repeating of truth or countless times of dispelling his silly notions only to have him move along to something else without recognition of any previous absurdity of his will save you from the endless morass of his fixations