Millions out of work - a crumbling infrastructure - I have an idea!

[Rshermr]

So, oldstyle says:

All that verbal diarrhea and yet you can't give me the economic school that asks for tax increases in a slow economy? You say that economics isn't "static" so you can't use just one school of thought? So what schools WOULD you use? What NEW school is this Administration using when it calls for tax increases in the midst of a weak economy?

Poor Oldstyle. He thinks that there must be a template to follow. You know, like his beloved republicans have followed Supply Side. And continue to. Even though there are no colleges with classes in Supply Side. And even though supply side did not work. And any president, in Oldstyle's simplistic little mind, should follow just one group of economists, who favor one particular economic theory. Poor Oldstyle. Just can not manage to understand. Just wants to attack. Kinda like a con tool, which he says he definitely is not.



Sorry. I forgot that you were a con tool, incapable of actual rational thought. I will post this for others, because i am sure you can not or will not try to understand. So, if income is relatively evenly distributed, then you do a tax decrease, the actions of the upper and lower marginal income recipients will be more similar, If the upper income recipients have greatly higher incomes than the middle income recipients, as in the United States, then a tax cut would only work, from a demand creation standpoint, with the lower to middle income recipients. Simple enough.



No, they were not. But they were heavily weighted toward the wealthy. The wealthy got the meat and potatoes, and the middle class got the crumbs. Just the way you like it, as do the other con tools. Starve the middle class, make it smaller, and enrich the rich. And blame the worst economy since the great depression on other factors.

"The average tax cut that people making over $1 million received exceeded $110,000 in each of the last nine years — for a total of more than $1 million over this period.
The tax cuts made the tax system less progressive. In each of the nine years from 2004 through 2012, the tax cuts increased the after-tax income of the highest-income taxpayers by a far larger percentage than they did for middle- and low-income taxpayers. For example, in 2010, the year in which all of the Bush income and estate tax cuts were fully phased in, they increased the after-tax income of people making over $1 million by more than 7.3 percent, but increased the after-tax income of the middle 20 percent of households by just 2.8 percent.[2]
At a time of pressing fiscal problems and growing income inequality, continuing such large windfalls for the highest-income taxpayers is unaffordable.
The Highest-Income Taxpayers Have Received Immense Tax Cuts
The Bush tax cuts directed stunning tax benefits to high-income households over the last nine years:
If one adds up the average tax cuts that households with incomes between $200,000 and $500,000 received in each of the last nine years, the total exceeds $74,000.
The sum of the average annual tax cuts delivered to households with incomes between $500,000 and $1 million exceeds $189,000 over the last nine years.
The sum of the average annual tax cuts delivered to households with incomes over $1 million in each of the last nine years exceeds $1.1 million. The average tax cut these individuals received was more than $110,000 in each of these years.
Bush Tax Cuts Have Provided Extremely Large Benefits to Wealthiest Americans Over Last Nine Years — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

So, yes, I am sure you think the idea of keeping the crumbs for the middle class is a bad idea, and you should maintain the tax cut for the wealthy. Because it worked so well.



Well, lets see, oldstyle. I am really getting tired of going through this with you. I must have done so what, ten times, by now. So, here goes AGAIN. I know you refuse to acknowledge this truth, and will be back for more at some point:
Reagan provided the biggest reason for supply side economics to be understood as a non working theory ever. In 1981, right after election, Reagan provided the largest tax decrease EVER. Huge tax decrease. All during his campaign, and during the push for the tax decrease, we were sold on the idea that this tax decrease would create jobs and expand the economy, resulting in higher revenue for the gov. Unfortunately, the opposite happened. Unemployment went up. Substantially. In 18 months, we had our highest unemployment rate ever outside of the great depression. 10.8% Unemployment.
At the same time, gov revenues dropped like a rock. And the deficits started to grow like crazy. And panic erupted in the administration.

Unemployment Rates in 1982
January 1982 - 8.6%
February 1982 - 8.9%
March 1982 - 9%
April 1982 - 9.3%
May 1982 - 9.4%
June 1982 - 9.6%
July 1982 - 9.8%
August 1982 - 9.8%
September 1982 - 10.1%
October 1982 - 10.4%
November 1982 - 10.8%
December 1982 - 10.8%
Historical Unemployment Rates in the United States

Then you know what happened, Oldstyle. You just conveniently forgot to mention it. Because Reagan BORROWED like crazy. Completely against supply side theory. And he borrowed big. Enough to tripple the national debt during his admin. He borrowed more than all of the other presidents before him COMBINED. And he INCREASED TAXES 11 TIMES. Completely against Supply Side Theory. You know that, oldstyle. I have proven it to you multiple time.
And Reagan SPENT like a drunken sailor. Not that any of this was bad, but all was to recover from the effects of Supply Side Economics. And it worked.




Odd, Oldtyle, you knew we were talking about tax decreases during a BAD economy, with HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT. But neither was the case when JFK did those tax decreases. And the theory is that in good economic times, it may well be smart to decrease taxes if they seem to high. And the highest marginal tax rate was 72%.

I know that the progressive "mantra" is that Supply Side didn't work but the truth is that Supply Side economics combined with out of control governmental growth is what didn't work. Reagan proved that you could cut taxes and keep revenues at the same level because of a growing economy. He also proved that SPENDING all of that revenue and then some is bad fiscal policy.

Yes, well, you, being a con tool, believe that actually studying supply side and telling the truth about what happened is mantra. You would prefer to lie about it, as you did above. You know, leave out ALL of the details. He did not prove that you could cut taxes and keep revenues at the same level, he proved that in a bad economy, cutting taxes would decrease revenue substantially. And he did not just spend that revenue, as you lie again. He increased taxes, he borrowed like a drunk sailor, he spent stimulatively, and the economy improved.

So, You LIED AGAIN. Why a lie instead of just a mistake? Because you KNEW what you were saying was untrue.

So, here is the big question for you, OLDSTYLE. If you believe Supply Side economic theory works, then WHEN THE ECONOMY WAS BAD IN LATE 1982 DID THE REAGAN ECONOMIC TEAM TAX AND BORROW TO GET REVENUE TO SPEND STIMULATIVELY, AND THEN SPEND STIMULATIVELY. WHY DID THEY NOT FOLLOW SUPPLY SIDE THEORY, AND DECREASE TAXES, BUT INSTEAD SPEND STIMULATIVELY TO INCREASE DEMAND.

You're probably one of the bigger idiots on this board when it comes to this topic. No college in the country teaches Supply Side economics? Did you REALLY just make that statement? I'm beginning to think that the closest you've ever come to a college is driving past one.

And I can't believe after lecturing me about citing Forbes magazine because of their "conservative bias" you have the stones to use something from The Center on Budget & Policy Priorities. Do you not know that their entire reason for being is to advocate for legislation to aid the poor? You continue to amuse with your double standard.

"The Center conducts research and analysis to help shape public debates over proposed budget and tax policies and to help ensure that policymakers consider the needs of low-income families and individuals in these debates. We also develop policy options to alleviate poverty."

Gee, wonder if THEY might have a "slight" bias! (eye-roll)

You're probably one of the bigger idiots on this board when it comes to this topic. No college in the country teaches Supply Side economics? Did you REALLY just make that statement? I'm beginning to think that the closest you've ever come to a college is driving past one.

Well, now, oldstyle, what just said came from a con lamenting the fact. So I went out and looked. While there are plenty of upper level economics classes discussing Keynsian economic theory, I could find none even bothering with supply side economic theory. Maybe I should have looked at Liberty university, or one of the other far right colleges. So, yes, oldstyle, I did indeed say that.

And I can't believe after lecturing me about citing Forbes magazine because of their "conservative bias"

I did not. You are lying again. I said, in fact, that Forbes magazine was an independent enough source. And I said nothing about it having a conservative bias. If you are not lying, prove it. Just go back and copy the segment you are referring to, or provide the post number. But you can not, because what you just said was a complete lie.

you have the stones to use something from The Center on Budget & Policy Priorities. Do you not know that their entire reason for being is to advocate for legislation to aid the poor? You continue to amuse with your double standard.

Yes, I am sure that in your tiny little con mind, the mention of "the poor" would indicate, to you, that they are prejudiced. After all, in the mind of the con, the poor should not ever have their interests represented. Dipshit. What happened to you, Oldstyle. Did you get a 480 volt wire stuck up your ass, or what??

"The Center conducts research and analysis to help shape public debates over proposed budget and tax policies and to help ensure that policymakers consider the needs of low-income families and individuals in these debates. We also develop policy options to alleviate poverty."

Jesus. Damned folks actually care about the low income people. Must be communists, eh Oldstyle.

Gee, wonder if THEY might have a "slight" bias! (eye-roll)

Bias toward what, oldstyle. Caring about the low income people. What bias would that be. And by the way, the piece was just quoting numbers. I can provide you a number of others, but then, you could look them up yourself. Dipshit.

Are you saying that you do not believe the Bush tax cuts went mainly to the high income earners??? Do you really want to face off on that issue. Cause you will loose. Let me know.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Are you saying that you do not believe the Bush tax cuts went mainly to the high income earners??? Do you really want to face off on that issue. Cause you will loose. Let me know.

Peter Fererra: President Bush and his Congressional Republican majorities at the time cut taxes for everyone in the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Indeed, they cut more for lower and middle income taxpayers than they did for “the rich,” as Obama calls the nation’s job creators, investors, and successful small businesses. The top tax rate was cut by only 13%, while the lowest rate was cut by one-third, 33%.

According to official IRS data, the top 1% of income earners paid $84 billion more in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000 before the Bush tax cuts were passed, 23% more. The share of total federal income taxes paid by the top 1% rose from 37% in 2000, before the Bush tax cuts, to 40% in 2007, after the tax cuts.

In contrast, the bottom half of income earners paid $6 billion less in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000, a decline of 16%. The share of federal income taxes paid by the bottom 50% declined from 3.9% in 2000 to 2.9% in 2007.

The Bush tax cuts also included a doubling of the child tax credit from $500 per child to $1,000 per child. Because of that, and the 33% cut in the bottom tax rate, nearly 8 million more people dropped off the federal income tax rolls entirely, paying zero federal income taxes. Indeed, under the Bush tax cuts, the bottom 40% of all income earners not only paid no federal income taxes, as a group on net. By 2009, they were being paid cash by the IRS equal to 10% of all federal income taxes.

 

[Rshermr]

Are you saying that you do not believe the Bush tax cuts went mainly to the high income earners??? Do you really want to face off on that issue. Cause you will loose. Let me know.

Peter Fererra: President Bush and his Congressional Republican majorities at the time cut taxes for everyone in the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Indeed, they cut more for lower and middle income taxpayers than they did for “the rich,” as Obama calls the nation’s job creators, investors, and successful small businesses. The top tax rate was cut by only 13%, while the lowest rate was cut by one-third, 33%.

According to official IRS data, the top 1% of income earners paid $84 billion more in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000 before the Bush tax cuts were passed, 23% more. The share of total federal income taxes paid by the top 1% rose from 37% in 2000, before the Bush tax cuts, to 40% in 2007, after the tax cuts.

In contrast, the bottom half of income earners paid $6 billion less in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000, a decline of 16%. The share of federal income taxes paid by the bottom 50% declined from 3.9% in 2000 to 2.9% in 2007.

The Bush tax cuts also included a doubling of the child tax credit from $500 per child to $1,000 per child. Because of that, and the 33% cut in the bottom tax rate, nearly 8 million more people dropped off the federal income tax rolls entirely, paying zero federal income taxes. Indeed, under the Bush tax cuts, the bottom 40% of all income earners not only paid no federal income taxes, as a group on net. By 2009, they were being paid cash by the IRS equal to 10% of all federal income taxes.

Gee. Cut and paste ed. No link. He would not like you to see where that drivel came from.

 

[Oldstyle]

Substance? Dude, I asked you a simple question...to tell me what school of economics advocates tax raises in the midst of a slow economy and you give me several paragraphs of nothing. Now you want to argue substance? OK...then tell me what school of economics the Obama Administration is basing this tax increase on?

I told you what they are doing, as nearly as I can tell, oldstyle. Obviously you can not or choose not to read. So, which one do you think. Obviously you are not going to believe anything I say, regardless of how obvious it is. so, do what cons do. Make something up and believe it. dipshit.

Obviously I don't see a tax increase during an economic slowdown being advocated by ANY economic school of thought. It's actually counter to established economic thought. That's why I'm so amused by you progressives that think it's going to somehow "magically" stimulate the economy. You folks are all-in for Keynesian theory except the part where he suggests that the only time to raise taxes is during a rapid expansion of the economy.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Are you saying that you do not believe the Bush tax cuts went mainly to the high income earners??? Do you really want to face off on that issue. Cause you will loose. Let me know.

Peter Fererra: President Bush and his Congressional Republican majorities at the time cut taxes for everyone in the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Indeed, they cut more for lower and middle income taxpayers than they did for “the rich,” as Obama calls the nation’s job creators, investors, and successful small businesses. The top tax rate was cut by only 13%, while the lowest rate was cut by one-third, 33%.

According to official IRS data, the top 1% of income earners paid $84 billion more in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000 before the Bush tax cuts were passed, 23% more. The share of total federal income taxes paid by the top 1% rose from 37% in 2000, before the Bush tax cuts, to 40% in 2007, after the tax cuts.

In contrast, the bottom half of income earners paid $6 billion less in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000, a decline of 16%. The share of federal income taxes paid by the bottom 50% declined from 3.9% in 2000 to 2.9% in 2007.

The Bush tax cuts also included a doubling of the child tax credit from $500 per child to $1,000 per child. Because of that, and the 33% cut in the bottom tax rate, nearly 8 million more people dropped off the federal income tax rolls entirely, paying zero federal income taxes. Indeed, under the Bush tax cuts, the bottom 40% of all income earners not only paid no federal income taxes, as a group on net. By 2009, they were being paid cash by the IRS equal to 10% of all federal income taxes.

Gee. Cut and paste ed. No link. He would not like you to see where that drivel came from.

According to official IRS data, the top 1% of income earners paid $84 billion more in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000 before the Bush tax cuts were passed. Do you deny the IRS data? Yes or no?????

 

[Oldstyle]

And once again you trot out the old progressive refrain that Reagan raised taxes a bunch of times. Well, no shit, Sherlock! He was working with a Democratically controlled Congress. The number of tax increases that he signed over an eight year period might SOUND shocking to a head in the sand poser like yourself but it was simply the price of doing business with a staunch liberal like Tip O'Neal. You see...unlike Barry...Ronnie was willing to compromise from time to time.

Sorry, oldstyle. Those were reagan's bills, he signed them, and he had full responsibility.
"Reagan, renowned by Republicans as a tax-cutter, also increased revenue about a dozen times when confronted with surging deficits. The Treasury Department has estimated those measures would be the equivalent of $300 billion annually today -- more than what many Democrats are now seeking as part of a deal to raise the U.S. debt ceiling."
Reagan

So, I see you have your dander up. But you are making unfounded accusations. The unemployment rate had been going down, oh great economic mind. It did not start up until after reagan lowered taxes and decreased gov spending. Pure and simple.
And no, it was not that reagan had to sign any tax increases. As you will see, if you actually used google a little and stayed out of the bat shit crazy con sites, that he did so as the above bloomberg article states. To stop the rising deficit. And to try to gain money to stop the increasing unemployment numbers.
So, great economics expert, why did reagan not use supply side economics to stop the rising deficit and unemployment?? Why did he do all the stimulus spending??? And why, oh great economic mind, did he increase the size of the gov significantly??? Really, oldstyle, try a little integrity in your claims.

Are you out to prove that you are as ignorant of how our government works as you are about how economics works? Because if you don't understand that Congress sends bills to the Oval Office for the President to sign or veto then you don't know very much...do you?

 

[Rshermr]

And once again you trot out the old progressive refrain that Reagan raised taxes a bunch of times. Well, no shit, Sherlock! He was working with a Democratically controlled Congress. The number of tax increases that he signed over an eight year period might SOUND shocking to a head in the sand poser like yourself but it was simply the price of doing business with a staunch liberal like Tip O'Neal. You see...unlike Barry...Ronnie was willing to compromise from time to time.

Sorry, oldstyle. Those were reagan's bills, he signed them, and he had full responsibility.
"Reagan, renowned by Republicans as a tax-cutter, also increased revenue about a dozen times when confronted with surging deficits. The Treasury Department has estimated those measures would be the equivalent of $300 billion annually today -- more than what many Democrats are now seeking as part of a deal to raise the U.S. debt ceiling."
Reagan

So, I see you have your dander up. But you are making unfounded accusations. The unemployment rate had been going down, oh great economic mind. It did not start up until after reagan lowered taxes and decreased gov spending. Pure and simple.
And no, it was not that reagan had to sign any tax increases. As you will see, if you actually used google a little and stayed out of the bat shit crazy con sites, that he did so as the above bloomberg article states. To stop the rising deficit. And to try to gain money to stop the increasing unemployment numbers.
So, great economics expert, why did reagan not use supply side economics to stop the rising deficit and unemployment?? Why did he do all the stimulus spending??? And why, oh great economic mind, did he increase the size of the gov significantly??? Really, oldstyle, try a little integrity in your claims.

Are you out to prove that you are as ignorant of how our government works as you are about how economics works? Because if you don't understand that Congress sends bills to the Oval Office for the President to sign or veto then you don't know very much...do you?

Ah. then please tell me why you are constantly blaming Obama for everything that you feel, in your feeble little mind, is wrong. It is congress who is determining what happens. After all, they set records in filibusters. And are known by all as the do nothing congress. So, better get after those guys who filibuster everything, and the house, whoever controls that. Oh yeah, both are repubs.

Of course I understand how bills come about and how they are put into law. I am also aware of how they are filibustered, which the repubs could have done at that time if they had an issue. And how Reagan could have refused to sign the bills if he so chose. But they did not, and he did not. And, you see, you are simply making it up as you go. You must have an impartial link that will tell us all about how reagan did not want to raise taxes. Oh, and how about all of the borrowing. Same purpose, old boy. Do you want to tell us that the dems did that to him, too.

Cmon, oldstyle. Quit the insults. Stop pretending like you know more than the average joe about who sends bills to the pres. It is just WAY too ignorant.

I was watching when all this was happening. The repubs were panicked in 1982. Reagans favor ability was about the same as a turd in a punch bowl. He needed to do something, and he did. Now, oldstyle is trying to rewrite history.

NEXT

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And how Reagan could have refused to sign the bills if he so chose.

Republican politicians often don't do conservative/ libertarian things because elections are decided by independents. Is this really a big revelation to you?? See why we positive a liberal will be slow?

The issue is whether Aristotle, Jefferson , Friedman and Reagan were right, not whether a politician acted consistently in a democracy that requires compromise.

Your thinking is what we'd expect from a guy who thinks the best way to expand an economy is to strangle it with higher and higher taxes.

 

[Oldstyle]

Sorry, oldstyle. Those were reagan's bills, he signed them, and he had full responsibility.
"Reagan, renowned by Republicans as a tax-cutter, also increased revenue about a dozen times when confronted with surging deficits. The Treasury Department has estimated those measures would be the equivalent of $300 billion annually today -- more than what many Democrats are now seeking as part of a deal to raise the U.S. debt ceiling."
Reagan

So, I see you have your dander up. But you are making unfounded accusations. The unemployment rate had been going down, oh great economic mind. It did not start up until after reagan lowered taxes and decreased gov spending. Pure and simple.
And no, it was not that reagan had to sign any tax increases. As you will see, if you actually used google a little and stayed out of the bat shit crazy con sites, that he did so as the above bloomberg article states. To stop the rising deficit. And to try to gain money to stop the increasing unemployment numbers.
So, great economics expert, why did reagan not use supply side economics to stop the rising deficit and unemployment?? Why did he do all the stimulus spending??? And why, oh great economic mind, did he increase the size of the gov significantly??? Really, oldstyle, try a little integrity in your claims.

Are you out to prove that you are as ignorant of how our government works as you are about how economics works? Because if you don't understand that Congress sends bills to the Oval Office for the President to sign or veto then you don't know very much...do you?

Ah. then please tell me why you are constantly blaming Obama for everything that you feel, in your feeble little mind, is wrong. It is congress who is determining what happens. After all, they set records in filibusters. And are known by all as the do nothing congress. So, better get after those guys who filibuster everything, and the house, whoever controls that. Oh yeah, both are repubs.

Of course I understand how bills come about and how they are put into law. I am also aware of how they are filibustered, which the repubs could have done at that time if they had an issue. And how Reagan could have refused to sign the bills if he so chose. But they did not, and he did not. And, you see, you are simply making it up as you go. You must have an impartial link that will tell us all about how reagan did not want to raise taxes. Oh, and how about all of the borrowing. Same purpose, old boy. Do you want to tell us that the dems did that to him, too.

Cmon, oldstyle. Quit the insults. Stop pretending like you know more than the average joe about who sends bills to the pres. It is just WAY too ignorant.

I was watching when all this was happening. The repubs were panicked in 1982. Reagans favor ability was about the same as a turd in a punch bowl. He needed to do something, and he did. Now, oldstyle is trying to rewrite history.

NEXT

It's hard to filibuster when the opposition has Super Majorities in both the House and Senate. I love how you progressives STILL attempt to blame Obama's short-comings on Republicans blocking his agenda. The truth is that Barry was looking for Cap & Trade legislation as the next part of his plans to revamp the country...something that if he'd gotten what he was looking for would have put hundreds of thousands MORE Americans out of work. You think unemployment's been bad? If the GOP hadn't taken control of the House back from the Democrats and put a halt to Cap & Trade we'd probably be looking at unemployment back up over 9%. The Republicans SAVED you progressives from REALLY shooting yourselves in the foot.

I'm of the opinion that you don't even know what the majority of the Reagan "tax increases" consisted of. I'm quite convinced that you are ignorant of the fact that the TEFRA deal that he struck with Democrats back in 1982 called for approximately $3 in spending cuts for every $1 of new tax revenue...an agreement that the Democrats totally reneged on, instead spending slightly more than $1 for every dollar of new tax revenue. You also seem to be ignorant of the fact that Reagan's tax increases were not changes to the marginal income tax cuts but excise taxes on things like cigarettes. Reagan was adamant about NOT raising marginal tax rates and would not allow it to happen, instead dropping them even further in 1986...all the way down from 70% to 28%.

Is it any wonder that when Barry promises to cut spending sometime in the future, if he's given tax increases NOW, that it draws a less than enthusiastic response from the GOP? They've already played that game with progressives and the promised cuts never materialized.

 

[Rshermr]

You know what, Oldstyle, this is a perfect example of your posts. A combination of untruths, lies, and opinions with no factual support. So, lets deconstruct this piece of drivel and see what the truth is. Because there is no truth at all in what you say.

It's hard to filibuster when the opposition has Super Majorities in both the House and Senate.

First off, Oldstyle, you can not filibuster in the House. So, there is no such thing as a super majority in the House. Second, the republicans HELD A MAJORITY in the senate for the first 6 years of the Reagan admin. And for the last two, the Dems held the senate but DID NOT HAVE A SUPER-MAJORITY. See the link below to take a look for yourself. Not a single component of that sentence was true in any way. Kind of sets the tone of this post.
Composition of Congress by Party 1855

I love how you progressives STILL attempt to blame Obama's short-comings on Republicans blocking his agenda. The truth is that Barry was looking for Cap & Trade legislation as the next part of his plans to revamp the country...something that if he'd gotten what he was looking for would have put hundreds of thousands MORE Americans out of work. You think unemployment's been bad? If the GOP hadn't taken control of the House back from the Democrats and put a halt to Cap & Trade we'd probably be looking at unemployment back up over 9%. The Republicans SAVED you progressives from REALLY shooting yourselves in the foot.

I know you would love that. Because you are a con and believe con dogma. Damned dem idea called cap and trade. Bet no repubs ever had anything to do with its introduction or ever supported it, eh. Lets see:
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/219753-obama-cap-and-trade-was-a-republican-idea

Now, that article tells you why Cap and Trade was a republican idea. Which pretty much everyone, except you, knows.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...epublican-has-a-cap-and-trade-problem/238776/
And that article gives you a partial list of republican politicians who supported cap and trade until obama was elected. Ever here the term FLIP FLOP.

And that terrific cost, Oldstyle, is complete nonsense. Just con dogma again. Now, I know you say you never, ever look at their data, but it is none the less perfectly aligned. And, while there may be some net cost, that is debatable. What is not is that republicans believed enough in the climate scientists warnings that they thought cap and trade was a great idea, until Obama took office and they then fought EVERY SINGLE IDEA HE HAD.
Here is a link to the cost of cap and trade as it comes from the CBO:
"Now there’s evidence from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that the main greenhouse gas reduction tool—carbon cap and trade—isn’t that costly for the government. In a preliminary look at the American Power Act—the climate legislation that has been put forward by Senators John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman—the CBO found that the bill would actually reduce the budget deficit by about $19 billion over the 2011 to 2020 period. The CBO estimates that auctions of carbon allowances under the bill—which requires companies to essentially pay for the right to emit carbon dixoide—would raise government revenue by about $751 billion, more than bill would hike government spending through incentives for nuclear power, tax credits for energy efficiency and research and technology for new energy."
Read more: Congressional Budget Office Says Cap and Trade Won't Be Costly | TIME.com

Now, as a con tool, I am sure you will not like this CBO estimate. And I am sure that you would not ever, ever believe nearly all of the climate scientists that tell you what the costs are likely to be of ignoring the subject, as cons almost always do, now.

I'm of the opinion that you don't even know what the majority of the Reagan "tax increases" consisted of. I'm quite convinced that you are ignorant of the fact that the TEFRA deal that he struck with Democrats back in 1982 called for approximately $3 in spending cuts for every $1 of new tax revenue...an agreement that the Democrats totally reneged on, instead spending slightly more than $1 for every dollar of new tax revenue. You also seem to be ignorant of the fact that Reagan's tax increases were not changes to the marginal income tax cuts but excise taxes on things like cigarettes. Reagan was adamant about NOT raising marginal tax rates and would not allow it to happen, instead dropping them even further in 1986...all the way down from 70% to 28%.

The key word is opinion, oldstyle. And your opinion is not doing well when washed against fact. So, are you saying his tax increases were not tax increases?? Do you have a point here? Next you will be telling me that tripling the national debt, and borrowing more than all presidents before him combined, was not borrowing. Or that his stimulus spending was not spending. Or that the fact that he increased the size of the government is just a figment of someone's imagination.
So, relative to tax increases under Reagan, maybe this will help you to understand:
"Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together "constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime," Thorndike said.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/index.htm

In addition, Oldstyle, if you look at this link, you will find that the 1986 tax decrease was, on the highest earning taxpayers, a reduction from 50% to 28%. And the economy started down shortly after Reagan left. Remember the No New Taxes refrain of Bush 1, Who then, two years in to his administration, had to raise tax rates again to get control of a flagging economy. And remember the clinton statement, over and over, that it is the economy, stupid. Remember that he won election with the promise that he would raise taxes. And he did.
Here is a link to tax rates by years, should you ever want to get it right.
U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2011 (Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted Brackets) | Tax Foundation

Is it any wonder that when Barry promises to cut spending sometime in the future, if he's given tax increases NOW, that it draws a less than enthusiastic response from the GOP? They've already played that game with progressives and the promised cuts never materialized.

Yes, that reagan was a great compromiser, eh, oldstyle. How did you like it when Obama used reconciliation to get the Affordable Care Act passed. Bet that really pissed you off, eh. Now there is an in your face act. And Obama definitely passed the ACA without any repub votes using reconciliation. Now, Reagan, the guy who worked with the dems, as you pointed out, would not use reconciliation. Not Ronnie. He worked with the opposition party. Except, Oldstyle, Reagan used reconciliation 4 times. Four. Got that yet. Four times. More than any other president. So, why would dems trust republicans, Oldstyle. Four times in your face. Reagan, your great compromiser. Hell, cons have been comparing Obama with the devil for doing it one time.

The real question is, when Oldstyle talks, is there any reason to trust what he says. Based on your posts, I would say not. And, Oldstyle, you lie several times and I feel bound to vet your statements, which are almost always incorrect. Lies, quite obviously. And that is wasting my time. And shows again, Oldstyle, that you have a total lack of integrity.

 

[Oldstyle]

You know what, Oldstyle, this is a perfect example of your posts. A combination of untruths, lies, and opinions with no factual support. So, lets deconstruct this piece of drivel and see what the truth is. Because there is no truth at all in what you say.

It's hard to filibuster when the opposition has Super Majorities in both the House and Senate.

First off, Oldstyle, you can not filibuster in the House. So, there is no such thing as a super majority in the House. Second, the republicans HELD A MAJORITY in the senate for the first 6 years of the Reagan admin. And for the last two, the Dems held the senate but DID NOT HAVE A SUPER-MAJORITY. See the link below to take a look for yourself. Not a single component of that sentence was true in any way. Kind of sets the tone of this post.
Composition of Congress by Party 1855

I love how you progressives STILL attempt to blame Obama's short-comings on Republicans blocking his agenda. The truth is that Barry was looking for Cap & Trade legislation as the next part of his plans to revamp the country...something that if he'd gotten what he was looking for would have put hundreds of thousands MORE Americans out of work. You think unemployment's been bad? If the GOP hadn't taken control of the House back from the Democrats and put a halt to Cap & Trade we'd probably be looking at unemployment back up over 9%. The Republicans SAVED you progressives from REALLY shooting yourselves in the foot.

I know you would love that. Because you are a con and believe con dogma. Damned dem idea called cap and trade. Bet no repubs ever had anything to do with its introduction or ever supported it, eh. Lets see:
Obama: Cap-and-trade was a Republican idea - The Hill's E2-Wire

Now, that article tells you why Cap and Trade was a republican idea. Which pretty much everyone, except you, knows.
Almost Every 2012 Republican Has a Cap-and-Trade Problem - Chris Good - The Atlantic
And that article gives you a partial list of republican politicians who supported cap and trade until obama was elected. Ever here the term FLIP FLOP.

And that terrific cost, Oldstyle, is complete nonsense. Just con dogma again. Now, I know you say you never, ever look at their data, but it is none the less perfectly aligned. And, while there may be some net cost, that is debatable. What is not is that republicans believed enough in the climate scientists warnings that they thought cap and trade was a great idea, until Obama took office and they then fought EVERY SINGLE IDEA HE HAD.
Here is a link to the cost of cap and trade as it comes from the CBO:
"Now there’s evidence from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that the main greenhouse gas reduction tool—carbon cap and trade—isn’t that costly for the government. In a preliminary look at the American Power Act—the climate legislation that has been put forward by Senators John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman—the CBO found that the bill would actually reduce the budget deficit by about $19 billion over the 2011 to 2020 period. The CBO estimates that auctions of carbon allowances under the bill—which requires companies to essentially pay for the right to emit carbon dixoide—would raise government revenue by about $751 billion, more than bill would hike government spending through incentives for nuclear power, tax credits for energy efficiency and research and technology for new energy."
Read more: Congressional Budget Office Says Cap and Trade Won't Be Costly | TIME.com

Now, as a con tool, I am sure you will not like this CBO estimate. And I am sure that you would not ever, ever believe nearly all of the climate scientists that tell you what the costs are likely to be of ignoring the subject, as cons almost always do, now.

I'm of the opinion that you don't even know what the majority of the Reagan "tax increases" consisted of. I'm quite convinced that you are ignorant of the fact that the TEFRA deal that he struck with Democrats back in 1982 called for approximately $3 in spending cuts for every $1 of new tax revenue...an agreement that the Democrats totally reneged on, instead spending slightly more than $1 for every dollar of new tax revenue. You also seem to be ignorant of the fact that Reagan's tax increases were not changes to the marginal income tax cuts but excise taxes on things like cigarettes. Reagan was adamant about NOT raising marginal tax rates and would not allow it to happen, instead dropping them even further in 1986...all the way down from 70% to 28%.

The key word is opinion, oldstyle. And your opinion is not doing well when washed against fact. So, are you saying his tax increases were not tax increases?? Do you have a point here? Next you will be telling me that tripling the national debt, and borrowing more than all presidents before him combined, was not borrowing. Or that his stimulus spending was not spending. Or that the fact that he increased the size of the government is just a figment of someone's imagination.
So, relative to tax increases under Reagan, maybe this will help you to understand:
"Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together "constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime," Thorndike said.
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010

In addition, Oldstyle, if you look at this link, you will find that the 1986 tax decrease was, on the highest earning taxpayers, a reduction from 50% to 28%. And the economy started down shortly after Reagan left. Remember the No New Taxes refrain of Bush 1, Who then, two years in to his administration, had to raise tax rates again to get control of a flagging economy. And remember the clinton statement, over and over, that it is the economy, stupid. Remember that he won election with the promise that he would raise taxes. And he did.
Here is a link to tax rates by years, should you ever want to get it right.
U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2011 (Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted Brackets) | Tax Foundation

Is it any wonder that when Barry promises to cut spending sometime in the future, if he's given tax increases NOW, that it draws a less than enthusiastic response from the GOP? They've already played that game with progressives and the promised cuts never materialized.

Yes, that reagan was a great compromiser, eh, oldstyle. How did you like it when Obama used reconciliation to get the Affordable Care Act passed. Bet that really pissed you off, eh. Now there is an in your face act. And Obama definitely passed the ACA without any repub votes using reconciliation. Now, Reagan, the guy who worked with the dems, as you pointed out, would not use reconciliation. Not Ronnie. He worked with the opposition party. Except, Oldstyle, Reagan used reconciliation 4 times. Four. Got that yet. Four times. More than any other president. So, why would dems trust republicans, Oldstyle. Four times in your face. Reagan, your great compromiser. Hell, cons have been comparing Obama with the devil for doing it one time.

The real question is, when Oldstyle talks, is there any reason to trust what he says. Based on your posts, I would say not. And, Oldstyle, you lie several times and I feel bound to vet your statements, which are almost always incorrect. Lies, quite obviously. And that is wasting my time. And shows again, Oldstyle, that you have a total lack of integrity.

I point out that the Democrats held Super Majorities and your response is that the Republicans held "majorities" in the Senate for six of Reagan's 8 years? So what? Does that mean they controlled what legislation came out of the House? That unlike Obama who was able to ram through legislation without a single Republican supporting vote, Reagan was not constantly having to compromise with Tip O'Neil? Having a simple majority in the Senate is so far from having Super Majorities in both the House AND Senate that it's laughable that you try to paint them as similar.

I notice that you completely ignored the promises that Democrats made in the TEFRA deal to cut spending...promises which they subsequently reneged on. Inconvenient history for a progressive...right?

As for the decrease in the marginal tax rate? 70% was the starting marginal tax rate on the wealthy. Reagan actually dropped that twice...from 70% down to 50% the first time and from 50% down to 28% the second time. Your "correction" of what I stated is unwarranted.

Your memory of what Bill Clinton had for a platform running for his first term is rather amusing. It was "the economy stupid"...specifically Bush I's broken promise of no new taxes that Clinton used against the sitting President. Clinton on the other hand promised Middle Class tax cuts if elected...a promise that he subsequently reneged on when he raised taxes.

Now as for your "why should Democrats trust Republicans" rant? What's laughable about that is that Reagan kept his end of the TEFRA deal he struck with Tip O'Neil but it was the Democrats who DIDN'T keep theirs. Yet for some reason you now want to paint Ronnie as the guy who couldn't be trusted? Sorry, but that dog isn't going to hunt.

 

[Oldstyle]

Are you going for three days in a row where you come up short with your arguments, Tommy? This is getting to be too easy.

 

[bestlink101]

i like how everyone is blaming the party they're not on

 

[bestlink101]

nothing.... the system doesnt work anymore :,(

 

[Rshermr]

So, oldstyle, lets see what nonsense you have for us today:

I point out that the Democrats held Super Majorities and your response is that the Republicans held "majorities" in the Senate for six of Reagan's 8 years? So what? Does that mean they controlled what legislation came out of the House?

It means, oldstyle, that your sentence was a complete untruth. There was no super-majority at all, oldstyle. Do you yet see the difference. You say there were super majorities throughout reagans administration in both the house and the senate. Which was untrue. And yes, oldstyle, I hate to burst your bubble, but since there was no super majority, your argument falls apart. Since the repubs controlled the senate, then any legislation that got there could pass, barring a fillibuster by the dems. And Filibusters were still few in those days.

That unlike Obama who was able to ram through legislation without a single Republican supporting vote, Reagan was not constantly having to compromise with Tip O'Neil?

Not so, as you should know. Dems are not like lemmings. they do not vote in herds There are, for instance, the red dog dems who are repubs with a D behind their name. They pretty much always vote with the repubs. But then, you know that. And the super-majority went away with the death of Kennedy, and election of Brown. And so, you had less than 2 years as a theoretical super majority in the senate for the dems. Then, you had the leader of the house telling us that his main purpose was to make obama a one term pres. So, don't even try to compare Boehner and mcconnell, senate and house republican leaders, with any past leaders of either house or senate. These guys are run by the tea party.

Having a simple majority in the Senate is so far from having Super Majorities in both the House AND Senate that it's laughable that you try to paint them as similar.

Jesus, Oldstyle. Is this sentence suposed to mean something?? What is truly laughable is that you still do not understand that there is no such thing as a supermajorioty in the house. Will you ever learn there is no such thing, or are you simply immune to learning. And since I said no such thing as that a super majority is similar to having a majority, since there was NO SUPER-MAJORITY during the reagan administration. Which I proved to you. Are you simply stupid?

I notice that you completely ignored the promises that Democrats made in the TEFRA deal to cut spending...promises which they subsequently reneged on. Inconvenient history for a progressive...right?

No, not particularly unique history. But, they were pretty much pissed after Reagan used Reconciliation FOUR times. Maybe it was payback. But at any rate, it was the right thing to do from an economic point of view.

As for the decrease in the marginal tax rate? 70% was the starting marginal tax rate on the wealthy. Reagan actually dropped that twice...from 70% down to 50% the first time and from 50% down to 28% the second time. Your "correction" of what I stated is unwarranted.

Right. Just trying to keep you straight, Oldstyle. Your sentence said from 70% in 1986. So your statement is wrong, and gave the impression of a second tax decrease of almost 40%. And by the way, I do not buy the unwarranted comment. That is your opinion, and you know how much I have learned to value your opinion.

Your memory of what Bill Clinton had for a platform running for his first term is rather amusing. It was "the economy stupid"...specifically Bush I's broken promise of no new taxes that Clinton used against the sitting President. Clinton on the other hand promised Middle Class tax cuts if elected...a promise that he subsequently reneged on when he raised taxes.

Wrong, oh great economics historian. It was the economy, plain and simple. Clinton agreed with Bush's tax cuts, but they were way too small. So, where are your links, oldstyle. Kind of hard to produce links when you are lying, Oldstyle. Clinton promised tax increases. And provided them.
And you, oldstyle, are lying about it again.

Now as for your "why should Democrats trust Republicans" rant? What's laughable about that is that Reagan kept his end of the TEFRA deal he struck with Tip O'Neil but it was the Democrats who DIDN'T keep theirs. Yet for some reason you now want to paint Ronnie as the guy who couldn't be trusted? Sorry, but that dog isn't going to hunt.

Oh, it hunts, oldstyle, bigtime. Perhaps you missed the last election. It really, really hunts. People finally caught on and are continuing to do so. And if you think FOUR Reconciliations are not a reason to mistrust him, then keep your lip shut if obama uses three more to see if he can tie Ronnie for the record.

So, there you go, Oldstyle. You have been crushed over and over, shown to have lied, and posted ridiculous statements. And still you think you are winning this discussion. Which, Oldstyle, proves that you are a conservative and that you are delusional. Which is, I admit, redundant.

 

[Rshermr]

Are you going for three days in a row where you come up short with your arguments, Tommy? This is getting to be too easy.

If it is so easy, then why do you post lies, that are then proven to be lies. You are truly delusional.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So, there you go, Oldstyle. You have been crushed over and over, shown to have lied, and posted ridiculous statements.

too stuipid!! If that was true you could say at least one substantive thing in support of liberalism but after being asked 18 times you can't!! Do you even know what liberalism is??

That tell us a great deal about the liberal character and IQ!!

 

[Rshermr]

So, there you go, Oldstyle. You have been crushed over and over, shown to have lied, and posted ridiculous statements.

too stuipid!! If that was true you could say at least one substantive thing in support of liberalism but after being asked 18 times you can't!! Do you even know what liberalism is??

That tell us a great deal about the liberal character and IQ!!

Ed, your problem is that you are crushed so often, you would have no idea if someone else is crushed. Is that what happened to your poor brain. Just remember, your condition is not your fault. It was just plain bad luck.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So, there you go, Oldstyle. You have been crushed over and over, shown to have lied, and posted ridiculous statements.

too stuipid!! If that was true you could say at least one substantive thing in support of liberalism but after being asked 18 times you can't!! Do you even know what liberalism is??

That tell us a great deal about the liberal character and IQ!!

Ed, your problem is that you are crushed so often, you would have no idea if someone else is crushed. Is that what happened to your poor brain. Just remember, your condition is not your fault. It was just plain bad luck.

too stuipid!! If that was true you could say at least one substantive thing in support of liberalism but after being asked 19 times you can't!! Do you even know what liberalism is??

 

[rdean]

too stuipid!! If that was true you could say at least one substantive thing in support of liberalism but after being asked 18 times you can't!! Do you even know what liberalism is??

That tell us a great deal about the liberal character and IQ!!

Ed, your problem is that you are crushed so often, you would have no idea if someone else is crushed. Is that what happened to your poor brain. Just remember, your condition is not your fault. It was just plain bad luck.

too stuipid!! If that was true you could say at least one substantive thing in support of liberalism but after being asked 19 times you can't!! Do you even know what liberalism is??

Define "liberalism".