Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
And raised other tax rates on high earners. Somehow you forget that I suppose.
Sigh, Dems tried the same failed first two tears of Clinton. The economy got worse . Gingrich and Republicans took over in 1994 and applied supplyside economics, namely reducing government spending and economy soared and actually got a budget surplus. Only liars in theDemcratic party don’t understand that
... or when your country turns in to France. In related news: it would seem those ungrateful French peons are becoming revolting. Seems they are not taking kindly to the government mandating that they continue slaving away, much longer into their golden years.
Curiously enough, there are deep earth tremors that indicate F Joe Biden and the Demonicrats, writ large, are pursuing the same exact path. However, they still use ye olde smoke and mirrors by blaming the GOP for being the ones that want to end Social Security and raise the retirement age - as per usual.
But then, you know me - I ask the odd questions from time to time, such as:
Isn't it curious AF that many countries had and still have a burgeoning debt load, found it necessary to provide gigantic sums of free **cough, cough** money, aka stimulus while saddled with ginormous entitlement programs that need relief (as in removal) of intended recipients right about the time the covid hit the ground which coincidentally targeted that exact same demographic?
Sigh, Dems tried the same failed first two tears of Clinton. The economy got worse . Gingrich and Republicans took over in 1994 and applied supplyside economics, namely reducing government spending and economy soared and actually got a budget surplus. Only liars in theDemcratic party don’t understand that
Good lord man, you just spout shit and well it’s shit. If you actually knew anything we could actually have a discussion but it’s clear you don’t. Nice talking to you.
WRONG how do you think the economy of the 1990s was so strong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiny
Might it have had something to do with what happened in the 1980’s? Excellent point.
Clinton and a Republican Congress cut the capital gains tax btw. And balanced the budget.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1blackman1
And raised other tax rates on high earners. Somehow you forget that I suppose.
One other item, defense expenditures as a % of GDP declined from around 6% in the 1970's and 1980's to around 3% at the end of Clinton's 2nd term, when we balanced the budget. It's debatable about how much the Democrats' increase in the personal tax rates in 1993 ultimately increased government revenues, but it was certainly less than the amount we saved on defense.
You can attribute the cut in defense spending to the end of the Cold War, and Reagan had a lot to do with that.
The capital gains tax cut passed by Clinton and a Republican Congress in 1997 might have increased government revenues and helped balance the budget too. The CBO and JCT put the revenue maximizing capital gains tax rate at about 27% or 28%. Including state income taxes, the average maximum rate was higher than that before the Clinton/Gingrich tax cut. Here are revenues from capital gains taxes by year.
Heaven forbid. France's GDP per capita GDP adjusted for purchasing power is about 25% less than ours. And that's where we're going if the Progressives win out.
Good lord man, you just spout shit and well it’s shit. If you actually knew anything we could actually have a discussion but it’s clear you don’t. Nice talking to you.
You are the one that doesn't have a clue. Clinton and Biden same crap the first two years in the White House policy wise. Gingrich's contract with American provided the strong economy. Bill Clinton just pretended he lead the parade when it was actually Gingrich. Those are the facts, the Democrats have lied all the time about those facts.
Heaven forbid. France's GDP per capita GDP adjusted for purchasing power is about 25% less than ours. And that's where we're going if the Progressives win out.
Don't know if you have ever been to France and/or worked there. I have and I accidentally committed a practically mortal sin. I worked one extra hour without permission, because I was running some massive data imports. It took two hours and the equivalent of a Congressional hearing before I was allowed to leave the facility. Frankly, I was surprised they didn't give me an additional penance of 10 Hail Marys and 12 Our Fathers to boot.
Should I have used the also broadly termed - supply side economics. Would that be more in line with “conservative” in your mind? In any event, the cut taxes inordinately in favor of the wealthy and all the world will benefit, is what Tiny cries in every discussion. No other factors matter. Good job numbers - 2017 tax cuts, increase in govt revenues - 2017 tax cuts, increased demand - 2017 tax cuts. Good economic numbers under Obama - 2017 tax cuts. Good job numbers under Obama - 2017 tax cuts. Reduced deficits under democrat presidents - 2017 tax cuts. He believes, like another of the economists on the forum that cutting taxes has never done harm to the economy and has only improved the economy.
I suppose you support that belief as well. Maybe you should do less "supposing" and instead make at least a rudimentary effort to understand the topic under discussion. Unless, of course, you like to make a practice of assuming facts not in evidence. (Right, counselor?)
A nice fit for your misinformed references to "trickle-down" and "supply-side" economics, isn't it?
For starters, when were taxes "inordinately cut" for the wealthy?
Previously, you posted this little jewel:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1blackman1
Reagan would be proud of you Tiny. Still believing in trickle down economics, which is a failed economic theory 100 times over. But you and lusty still believe that the 2017 tax cuts helped our post Covid recovery. I’ll once again agree to disagree but I know it won’t change your beliefs.
Whoa, Nellie! Do you think Reagan advanced an agenda reasonably describable as "supply-side economics," at least in a form consistent with the popularly conceived meaning of the term?
Check out this completely erroneous entry from Investopedia:
Got that? The authors equate "supply-side economics" with "Reaganomics," maintaining that a key precept is that by cutting taxes on wealthy investors and entrepreneurs, we can thereby boost investment and increase the supply of goods and services, benefiting all income groups.
But that isn't what actually happened in the Reagan era, is it?
(No! It isn't!) In fact, the Tax Reform Act 0f 1986 significantly raised taxes on the wealthy and cut them for middle-class taxpayers!
But that's not what you've read in most "mainstream media" sources, is it?
One of the key elements of Biden's misbegotten "budget plan" is a big increase in corporate taxes. That's being touted as one primary way to make all those "wealthy" people pay their "fair share" (whatever that is).
But is this an effective way to tax the wealthy? Who actually pays the corporate income tax? Corporations actually write the checks, of course. But who actually bears the burden of the tax, and who would be hurt by a big increase?
This is called "tax incidence." A number of studies over recent decades have demonstrated that investors, customers, and labor all bear some of the burden, in proportions that vary across time and type of industry, and with differential elasticities of supply and demand for labor and capital along with the potential mobility of same.
The burden borne by labor may be a lot greater than many realize:
George H. W. Bush said during discussions prior to the 1990 tax increase that when liberals start babbling about taxing the "rich," it's a good idea for middle-class workers to hang onto their wallets. (True that!)
One of the key elements of Biden's misbegotten "budget plan" is a big increase on corporate taxes...
Apologies for the lack of technology on these here fora for not being able to queue to the right spot in the video. Please advance directly to the 2:47 mark for the appropriate message.
Don't know if you have ever been to France and/or worked there. I have and I accidentally committed a practically mortal sin. I worked one extra hour without permission, because I was running some massive data imports. It took two hours and the equivalent of a Congressional hearing before I was allowed to leave the facility. Frankly, I was surprised they didn't give me an additional penance of 10 Hail Marys and 12 Our Fathers to boot.
George H. W. Bush said during discussions prior to the 1990 tax increase that when liberals start babbling about taxing the "rich," it's a good idea for middle-class workers to hang onto their wallets. (True that!)
George H.W. Bush also said, as he accepted the GOP nomination in 1988, "read my lips, no new taxes". (Not true that!)
If only George and his speechwriter Peggy Noonan had anticipated how the Democrats would twist & turn his words against him 4 years later!
... or when your country turns in to France. In related news: it would seem those ungrateful French peons are becoming revolting. Seems they are not taking kindly to the government mandating that they continue slaving away, much longer into their golden years.
[SNIP]
Nahhhh... Huh?
thats thanx to PM Chirac. France's retirement age was originally set at 65 years. He brought that down to 60 years.
later PMs eventually raised it up to 62 years. Now Macron wants to raise it to 64. why 64? why not 65????
