Why can't Republicans explain their "Fiscal Policy"?

[Oldstyle]

So, Oldstyle says:

What's "irrational" is passing fiscal policy that punishes the very people you need to invest their capital because you have some misguided notion that you need to "shut them up".

Uh, I am a bit confused. Who is getting punished??? You are saying that raising taxes to provide revenue for deficit spending, as Clinton did when he was faced with a bad economy, punished someone. Perhaps you would like to show who was punished during that time. Best economy this century, me boy. Stimulus workes, as it did for Reagan, and as it did for Clinton.

Bill Clinton understood what you obviously DON'T because he lowered the capital gains tax from 28% to 20%. Why did he do that? Because Clinton understood basic economics enough to know that lowering the tax on profits induces investment.

Now I see who is confused. You think that Clinton lowered capital gains tax rates by 8% in an economy similar to ours NOW. What you must get through your little con tool brain is that there is no problem with lowering taxes. A tax decrease in a really, really good economy, is not a bad thing, all else being equal. So, what does that have to do with today, me boy??? Obviously, nothing at all.

Tax increases, as Oldstyle well knows, since I have explained it to him at least 20 times by now, are not the issue in a bad unemployment economy. What Clinton did when he raised taxes to the same level that the current administration is doing, was generating revenue to spend in a stimulative way. What Oldstyle is saying is that lowering taxes in a booming economy proves that one should always simply lower taxes, no matter what. And that therefor raising taxes would be bad. And that is NONSENSE.
Here, Oldstyle, are the UE rates for 1997. Perhaps you can show when they compared with our current UE rates.

Unemployment Rates in 1997
January 1997 - 5.3%
February 1997 - 5.2%
March 1997 - 5.2%
April 1997 - 5.1%
May 1997 - 4.9%
June 1997 - 5%
July 1997 - 4.9%
August 1997 - 4.8%
September 1997 - 4.9%
October 1997 - 4.7%
November 1997 - 4.6%
December 1997 - 4.7%

Your "solution"...raising taxes to 94% would chase investment capital out of the economy and into tax shelters. It is...to use a simple description...IDIOTIC!

There is no proposal out there, me boy, to raise income taxes on 94%. You may actually want to try to stick with the facts.

Just when a "newbie" was trying to claim the most clueless poster when it comes to economics crown, Rshermr comes out of retirement to stake his claim on that dubious honor!

The so called "teacher" of college level economics that doesn't even understand basic Keynesian economic theory!

The "proposal" to raise income taxes was made by the board's NEWEST clueless progressive, ReallyMeow...who knows even less about the subject than you do, "Tommy"!

 

[Oldstyle]

Rshermr STILL can't give a single school of economic thought that advocates tax increases in a weak economy...nor can he explain why Clinton lowered the capital gains tax from 28% to 20% right before running those three surpluses in a row.

And why can't he do this? Because Rshermr is a sham. He knows so little about economics that for him to come here and portray himself not only as an economics major in college but someone who TAUGHT the subject at the college level is farce at it's finest. He's the George Costanza...the Tommy Flanagan of this board.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why can't Republicans explain their "Fiscal Policy"?

Because it’s no longer the 19th Century.

 

[Toronado3800]

You see, Bozman, most people may actually know that Reagan tried the republican plan, which was the same then as now.

too stupid as usual! Federal Reserve policy drove interest rates to 20%. What happened then had nothing to do with Reagan. Only a total liar would pretend otherwise.

For the longest time you thought you were being so profound about Reagan only to learn that you were tricking yourself out of desperation to finally win just only argument.

Are you ashamed of yourself. Would your mother be ashamed of your Nazi-like ego mania?

Ed, did you say you hated Reagan and his HUGE government defecit spending to pump the economy era or that he was a conservative hero for running such a tab?

The other choice is to blame it on his congress.....of course then they get the credit for the revival....your pick.

 

[Oldstyle]

Hate to point out the inconvenient truth, Toronado...but compared to the deficits that we're running now...the deficits we were running back in Dutch Reagan's time were rather minuscule. His highest was 478.8 billion which pales in comparison to the smallest that Barack Obama has done which was 885 billion...let alone his high...which was a trillion and a half.

 

[Oldstyle]

And let's be honest about what Reagan was dealing with...he was forced to make compromises with a Democratically controlled House led by Tip O'Neil in order to get much of what he wanted passed...compromises that invariably included increased spending on entitlement programs. Obama on the other hand had super majorities in both the House and Senate and simply needed the votes of his own party to pass legislation while he was running up those huge deficits.

 

[Rshermr]

That is their solution to every problem

Economy good? Cut taxes
Economy bad? Cut taxes
Need Jobs? Cut taxes
Reduce debt? Cut tasxes
Healthcare? Cut taxes

And they can never, ever show when decreasing taxes has helped in a bad economy. So they commission a study by the Congressional Research Service, a non partisan group, and then suppress the findings when the study is released. Because the study finds that tax decreases have no effect on economic growth. "In fact, the study found that higher tax rates for the wealthy are statistically associated with higher levels of growth."
Study: Tax Cuts for the Rich Don

So, the tax decrease "policy" is meant to make the gov smaller and put more $ in the back pocket of those with very high incomes. Because, after all, those very wealthy are the very ones who support the repubs. What a surprise.

Just like Democrats have never shown how raising taxes will improve an economy.

Go figure.

Problem is, cons have insufficient economic capability to understand that it is not about tax raises, but what is done with them. Then, look up clinton. And Reagan 11 times, dipshit.

 

[Rshermr]

So, Oldstyle says:

What's "irrational" is passing fiscal policy that punishes the very people you need to invest their capital because you have some misguided notion that you need to "shut them up".

Uh, I am a bit confused. Who is getting punished??? You are saying that raising taxes to provide revenue for deficit spending, as Clinton did when he was faced with a bad economy, punished someone. Perhaps you would like to show who was punished during that time. Best economy this century, me boy. Stimulus workes, as it did for Reagan, and as it did for Clinton.



Now I see who is confused. You think that Clinton lowered capital gains tax rates by 8% in an economy similar to ours NOW. What you must get through your little con tool brain is that there is no problem with lowering taxes. A tax decrease in a really, really good economy, is not a bad thing, all else being equal. So, what does that have to do with today, me boy??? Obviously, nothing at all.

Tax increases, as Oldstyle well knows, since I have explained it to him at least 20 times by now, are not the issue in a bad unemployment economy. What Clinton did when he raised taxes to the same level that the current administration is doing, was generating revenue to spend in a stimulative way. What Oldstyle is saying is that lowering taxes in a booming economy proves that one should always simply lower taxes, no matter what. And that therefor raising taxes would be bad. And that is NONSENSE.
Here, Oldstyle, are the UE rates for 1997. Perhaps you can show when they compared with our current UE rates.

Unemployment Rates in 1997
January 1997 - 5.3%
February 1997 - 5.2%
March 1997 - 5.2%
April 1997 - 5.1%
May 1997 - 4.9%
June 1997 - 5%
July 1997 - 4.9%
August 1997 - 4.8%
September 1997 - 4.9%
October 1997 - 4.7%
November 1997 - 4.6%
December 1997 - 4.7%

Your "solution"...raising taxes to 94% would chase investment capital out of the economy and into tax shelters. It is...to use a simple description...IDIOTIC!

There is no proposal out there, me boy, to raise income taxes on 94%. You may actually want to try to stick with the facts.

Just when a "newbie" was trying to claim the most clueless poster when it comes to economics crown, Rshermr comes out of retirement to stake his claim on that dubious honor!

The so called "teacher" of college level economics that doesn't even understand basic Keynesian economic theory!

The "proposal" to raise income taxes was made by the board's NEWEST clueless progressive, ReallyMeow...who knows even less about the subject than you do, "Tommy"!

And here, we have another attack by Oldstyle. Personal attacks are all he does once he has no other place to go. Lies and personal attacks are Oldstyles thing.

 

[Oldstyle]

So tell me how this worked, "Tommy"? You know...when you were teaching that economics class as an undergraduate four times a week? What was your schedule for that? My college classes were either three times a week on Mon., Wed., and Fri. or twice a week on Tues. and Thurs. But YOURS met four times a week? How exactly did that work, little buddy?

 

[Oldstyle]

And they can never, ever show when decreasing taxes has helped in a bad economy. So they commission a study by the Congressional Research Service, a non partisan group, and then suppress the findings when the study is released. Because the study finds that tax decreases have no effect on economic growth. "In fact, the study found that higher tax rates for the wealthy are statistically associated with higher levels of growth."
Study: Tax Cuts for the Rich Don

So, the tax decrease "policy" is meant to make the gov smaller and put more $ in the back pocket of those with very high incomes. Because, after all, those very wealthy are the very ones who support the repubs. What a surprise.

Just like Democrats have never shown how raising taxes will improve an economy.

Go figure.

Problem is, cons have insufficient economic capability to understand that it is not about tax raises, but what is done with them. Then, look up clinton. And Reagan 11 times, dipshit.

You're the guy who espouses a Keynesian approach to government stimulus but won't admit that even Keynes only advocated tax increases in an expanding economy and specifically advised against them in a weak economy. "Insufficient economic capability"? That pretty much sums you up, Tommy!

 

[Oldstyle]

You're also the guy parroting the nonsense you gleaned from progressive sites that make you believe that Reagan was a tax and spend conservative simply because he raised a tax 11 times over an eight year period of time. What you won't admit is that those taxes were by and large all excise taxes on items such as cigarettes, alcohol and gasoline...and that Reagan fought hard to keep the rates on income taxes low. Nor can you explain Bill Clinton's dropping of the capital gains tax from 28% to 20% right before he put up those three budget surpluses in a row.

I think the REAL question here is why you think you CAN come on here and argue economics, Tommy? It's quite obvious that you know very little about the subject. When you DO try...you invariably end up embarrassing yourself.

 

[Rshermr]

So, Oldstyle says:

Rshermr STILL can't give a single school of economic thought that advocates tax increases in a weak economy...nor can he explain why Clinton lowered the capital gains tax from 28% to 20% right before running those three surpluses in a row.

Well, oldstyle, here you go again. Playing the same game. I have answered your question many many times, including in my last post. If you want me to go and explore all of the economic theories to determine which says you should raise taxes, I suggest instead you go fuck yourself. Because I have no idea if they did, nor do I care. But many suggest what I am suggesting, my poor economic wasteland. And that is to use stimulus spending. Which requires revenue. Which tax increases provide. And which I have told you at least 20 times.

Now most people would be ashamed to admit that they had been caught asking the same question again and again, and getting answers again and again. But not Oldstyle. Because he LIKES to play games, and he is a con tool, and wants to stop any argument that may destroy his point.

See my response below, from a few posts ago. You will see your answer there, again.
In post 68, I said:

Now I see who is confused. You think that Clinton lowered capital gains tax rates by 8% in an economy similar to ours NOW. What you must get through your little con tool brain is that there is no problem with lowering taxes. A tax decrease in a really, really good economy, is not a bad thing, all else being equal. So, what does that have to do with today, me boy??? Obviously, nothing at all.

Tax increases, as Oldstyle well knows, since I have explained it to him at least 20 times by now, are not the issue in a bad unemployment economy. What Clinton did when he raised taxes to the same level that the current administration is doing, was generating revenue to spend in a stimulative way. What Oldstyle is saying is that lowering taxes in a booming economy proves that one should always simply lower taxes, no matter what. And that therefor raising taxes would be bad. And that is NONSENSE.
Here, Oldstyle, are the UE rates for 1997. Perhaps you can show when they compared with our current UE rates.

Unemployment Rates in 1997
January 1997 - 5.3%
February 1997 - 5.2%
March 1997 - 5.2%
April 1997 - 5.1%
May 1997 - 4.9%
June 1997 - 5%
July 1997 - 4.9%
August 1997 - 4.8%
September 1997 - 4.9%
October 1997 - 4.7%
November 1997 - 4.6%
December 1997 - 4.7%

So, though Oldstyle has been caught again, lying. And caught again, playing games, he immediately moves to personal attacks and immature games. Rather pathetic to most people, but part and parcel of Oldstyle.

And why can't he do this? Because Rshermr is a sham. He knows so little about economics that for him to come here and portray himself not only as an economics major in college but someone who TAUGHT the subject at the college level is farce at it's finest. He's the George Costanza...the Tommy Flanagan of this board.

You see, when Oldstyle has his points shoved back down his throat, he then moves quickly. To personal attacks and juvinile games.

So, I suspect that you have now given up on the whole Clinton lowered capital gains taxes. So that proves that lowering taxes is a good thing always??? The fact is you have tried that argument before, and were schooled by me then. I showed you that the raise in capital gains taxes was after the economy was booming. And had nothing to do at all with making a bad economy good. So, again lying. Rather pathetic, me boy.

 

[Oldstyle]

So, Oldstyle says:

Rshermr STILL can't give a single school of economic thought that advocates tax increases in a weak economy...nor can he explain why Clinton lowered the capital gains tax from 28% to 20% right before running those three surpluses in a row.

Well, oldstyle, here you go again. Playing the same game. I have answered your question many many times, including in my last post. If you want me to go and explore all of the economic theories to determine which says you should raise taxes, I suggest instead you go fuck yourself. Because I have no idea if they did, nor do I care. But many suggest what I am suggesting, my poor economic wasteland. And that is to use stimulus spending. Which requires revenue. Which tax increases provide. And which I have told you at least 20 times.

Now most people would be ashamed to admit that they had been caught asking the same question again and again, and getting answers again and again. But not Oldstyle. Because he LIKES to play games, and he is a con tool, and wants to stop any argument that may destroy his point.

See my response below, from a few posts ago. You will see your answer there, again.
In post 68, I said:

Now I see who is confused. You think that Clinton lowered capital gains tax rates by 8% in an economy similar to ours NOW. What you must get through your little con tool brain is that there is no problem with lowering taxes. A tax decrease in a really, really good economy, is not a bad thing, all else being equal. So, what does that have to do with today, me boy??? Obviously, nothing at all.

Tax increases, as Oldstyle well knows, since I have explained it to him at least 20 times by now, are not the issue in a bad unemployment economy. What Clinton did when he raised taxes to the same level that the current administration is doing, was generating revenue to spend in a stimulative way. What Oldstyle is saying is that lowering taxes in a booming economy proves that one should always simply lower taxes, no matter what. And that therefor raising taxes would be bad. And that is NONSENSE.
Here, Oldstyle, are the UE rates for 1997. Perhaps you can show when they compared with our current UE rates.

Unemployment Rates in 1997
January 1997 - 5.3%
February 1997 - 5.2%
March 1997 - 5.2%
April 1997 - 5.1%
May 1997 - 4.9%
June 1997 - 5%
July 1997 - 4.9%
August 1997 - 4.8%
September 1997 - 4.9%
October 1997 - 4.7%
November 1997 - 4.6%
December 1997 - 4.7%

So, though Oldstyle has been caught again, lying. And caught again, playing games, he immediately moves to personal attacks and immature games. Rather pathetic to most people, but part and parcel of Oldstyle.

And why can't he do this? Because Rshermr is a sham. He knows so little about economics that for him to come here and portray himself not only as an economics major in college but someone who TAUGHT the subject at the college level is farce at it's finest. He's the George Costanza...the Tommy Flanagan of this board.

You see, when Oldstyle has his points shoved back down his throat, he then moves quickly. To personal attacks and juvinile games.

So, I suspect that you have now given up on the whole Clinton lowered capital gains taxes. So that proves that lowering taxes is a good thing always??? The fact is you have tried that argument before, and were schooled by me then. I showed you that the raise in capital gains taxes was after the economy was booming. And had nothing to do at all with making a bad economy good. So, again lying. Rather pathetic, me boy.

Ah, Tommy? Clinton LOWERED the capital gains tax...he didn't raise it. Try to keep up here, will ya?

You school people? Really? Now THAT is some funny shit.

Speaking of school? Did you want to address how that econ class you supposedly taught four times a week was scheduled? Sucks when you get caught lying your ass off...doesn't it, Tommy?

 

[Toronado3800]

Hate to point out the inconvenient truth, Toronado...but compared to the deficits that we're running now...the deficits we were running back in Dutch Reagan's time were rather minuscule. His highest was 478.8 billion which pales in comparison to the smallest that Barack Obama has done which was 885 billion...let alone his high...which was a trillion and a half.

Don't let the raw numbers mislead you. Obama has terrible deficits but you have to take a couple things into account. Inflation and what he inherited. If hypothetical Republican candidate Ron Perot took over this year it would be unfair to expect him to balance the budget in two years. That kind of turmoil would be dangerous. But it would be fair to expect to see a trend or turnaround throughout his term.

SO percentages are important.

I got the raw data from here and did some math while watching the kid. If you can't find any errors I would be amazed.
Historical Tables | The White House

The important points are:

Reagan sucked in reference to the debt. Maybe all that deficit spending helped the economy, maybe it tanked the Soviet Union, maybe he just watched and Congress deserves the blame/credit. Maybe the truth is in the middle.

Bush H was okish with the debt. Really. Then again I remember his economy was not doing so well and he became a one term President.

Clinton and or his congress mastered the debt and the economy. Did they hunt Osama Bin Laden?

Bush W sucked. The ridiculous housing market and the war got him re-elected.

Obama has sucked for the debt but I guess he can blame the economy. At least his 2011 deficit was similar to 2008's and that gives me hope.

 

[Rshermr]

So, Oldstyle, now completely relying on lies, says:

You're also the guy parroting the nonsense you gleaned from progressive sites that make you believe that Reagan was a tax and spend conservative simply because he raised a tax 11 times over an eight year period of time. What you won't admit is that those taxes were by and large all excise taxes on items such as cigarettes, alcohol and gasoline...and that Reagan fought hard to keep the rates on income taxes low.

Lies again. I never parroted any progressive site, ever. Nor did I ever say that Reagan was a tax and spend conservative. And you seem to have a problem with what the taxes were used for. Somehow, using tax increases to generate revenue has the same result whether you are using income taxes or excise taxes or any of the other taxes he raised. But then, you know that Oldstyle.

Nor can you explain Bill Clinton's dropping of the capital gains tax from 28% to 20% right before he put up those three budget surpluses in a row.

So, what you are missing, Oldstyle, is my answers from before, as usual. As I said in post 68 above, there was never an issue lowering taxes, as anyone who understands anything about macro economic policy would recognize. Both dems and repubs have done so many times over the years. And it can be stimulative at that point. And was somewhat in this case. But what is interesting is that Cons have a difficult time picking at Clinton's economy, and LOVE to use this issue (lowering the capital gains tax rate in 1997) to try to show that Clinton believed in tax decreases as an answer to all economic ills. And only conservative nut case web sits say this. Odd, eh, Oldstyle. Where COULD you have gotten that idea. Untrue, but said by all the con web sites, and only the con web sites. Which is why Oldstyle can not come up with an impartial source that will back that lowering the capital gains tax rate caused the deficits. Rather incredible claim, but there is Oldstyle, right there with the bat shit crazy con web sites saying it. But remember, Oldstyle says he is no a con tool.

I think the REAL question here is why you think you CAN come on here and argue economics, Tommy? It's quite obvious that you know very little about the subject. When you DO try...you invariably end up embarrassing yourself.

And, cut to personal attacks. That is oldstyle's style. Loose the argument. Always. And revert to personal attack. Always. But never bother to try to defend your untruth. Because you know you are caught.

 

[Oldstyle]

Still not touching that class schedule...are ya', Tommy! Too funny...

 

[Rshermr]

Hate to point out the inconvenient truth, Toronado...but compared to the deficits that we're running now...the deficits we were running back in Dutch Reagan's time were rather minuscule. His highest was 478.8 billion which pales in comparison to the smallest that Barack Obama has done which was 885 billion...let alone his high...which was a trillion and a half.

Don't let the raw numbers mislead you. Obama has terrible deficits but you have to take a couple things into account. Inflation and what he inherited. If hypothetical Republican candidate Ron Perot took over this year it would be unfair to expect him to balance the budget in two years. That kind of turmoil would be dangerous. But it would be fair to expect to see a trend or turnaround throughout his term.

SO percentages are important.

I got the raw data from here and did some math while watching the kid. If you can't find any errors I would be amazed.
Historical Tables | The White House

The important points are:

Reagan sucked in reference to the debt. Maybe all that deficit spending helped the economy, maybe it tanked the Soviet Union, maybe he just watched and Congress deserves the blame/credit. Maybe the truth is in the middle.

Bush H was okish with the debt. Really. Then again I remember his economy was not doing so well and he became a one term President.

Clinton and or his congress mastered the debt and the economy. Did they hunt Osama Bin Laden?

Bush W sucked. The ridiculous housing market and the war got him re-elected.

Obama has sucked for the debt but I guess he can blame the economy. At least his 2011 deficit was similar to 2008's and that gives me hope.

Thanks for your post. I was going to put the numbers together but had not. The problem most people have is they tend to forget about inflation. Kind of stupid to miss it. Sort of like looking at the price of a car over time, and comparing one now with then. Like an 1985 model would compare with a 2012 model.
And on the other hand, you often have those trying to push an agenda using un-adjusted numbers to get their point made. Dishonest at that point, in my opinion. It is common with people trying to rewrite Reagans history. And yes, I have seen Oldstyle use this little game over and over. Just takes more of your time than it should, helping correct their little efforts.

 

[Rshermr]

Still not touching that class schedule...are ya', Tommy! Too funny...

Funny?? Again, apparently Oldstyle humor. You make zero sense. Is it some projection problem you are having???? I answered that question before. You know. After you brought up the subject for the twentieth time to buy time and waste time. After you said you would let the issue go, and waste no more time with it. Which I suggested was not going to happen, because you never could stop the personal attacks. And were not a person of your word. And there you are, proving that you are not. Again. The answer, my poor ignorant con education expert, is simple. It was a five credit course. And Clair Lillard, the professor of the class, taught the class in total on FRIDAYS. Jesus, you are a dipshit, Oldstyle.

Obviously, Oldstyle is out of any argument having to do with economics. And is now off just trying to play games. And wasting everyones time. Because, you see, that is all he is actually capable of.

Want to explain again why that capital gains decrease was important to explaining whatever it was that you thought you were explaining? Or are you done with your point?

Of course, what Oldstyle will now do is make some token effort at an economic argument and transition immediately to unsubstantiated personal attacks and game playing.

 

[Oldstyle]

"Lies again. I never parroted any progressive site, ever. Nor did I ever say that Reagan was a tax and spend conservative. And you seem to have a problem with what the taxes were used for. Somehow, using tax increases to generate revenue has the same result whether you are using income taxes or excise taxes or any of the other taxes he raised. But then, you know that Oldstyle."

You're so full of shit you're eyes have to be brown, Rshermr! That whole "Reagan raised taxes 11 times was the progressive site's"mantra". They used that to try and paint Ronnie as a "tax and spend conservative" when if you REALLY look at his record on taxes it's quite obvious that he cut taxes and rather substantially.

Gee, little buddy...where DID you come up with your Reagan raised taxes 11 times rant?

 

[Oldstyle]

Still not touching that class schedule...are ya', Tommy! Too funny...

Funny?? Again, apparently Oldstyle humor. You make zero sense. Is it some projection problem you are having????

Obviously, Oldstyle is out of any argument having to do with economics. And is now off just trying to play games. And wasting everyones time. Because, you see, that is all he is actually capable of.

Want to explain again why that capital gains decrease was important to explaining whatever it was that you thought you were explaining? Or are you done?

Ah, I see...you claimed to have taught college economics as an undergrad four times a week but when I point out that A) undergrads don't teach college courses and B) most college courses meet for 3 hours a week...typically for an hour and a half on Tues and Thurs...and an hour on Mon, Wed and Fri...but YOUR class met only on Fridays? If it only met on Friday then why did you state earlier that you taught it four times a week? You can't keep your lies straight...can you? It's time for you to panic and decide that any further talk about your past teaching "experience" is a waste of everyone's time. You're a joke...