|
Post by k on Jun 8, 2004 6:27:26 GMT -5
Liberals love to badmouth tax cuts to the "rich". The politics of envy and resentment. Liberals hate people who contribute to society and love those who draw their handouts.
But Reagan's tax cuts did work. Tip Oneil wouldn't cut the spending. But tax cuts do produce jobs. Kennedy and Reagan administrations prove that. The current tax cut appears to be working also.
John Tax and Spend Kerry is for tax increases. Look at the stagnant European economies where tax and spend socialism has drug down their standard of living.
|
|
Guarp
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by Guarp on Jun 8, 2004 7:32:28 GMT -5
Liberals love to badmouth tax cuts to the "rich". The politics of envy and resentment. Liberals hate people who contribute to society and love those who draw their handouts. But Reagan's tax cuts did work. Tip Oneil wouldn't cut the spending. But tax cuts do produce jobs. Kennedy and Reagan administrations prove that. The current tax cut appears to be working also. Off course tax cuts do produce jobs in the short run, but at the expense of public services (education, health care) and future generations. It is a good instrument to start up the economy, but in combination with these very low interest rates, it can be harmful to the economy in the long run. I can only see a positive correlation between liberal presidents and an flourishing economy.. just think about the unemploymentrate and economic growth during the liberal Clinton administration.
|
|
|
Post by no name on Jun 8, 2004 11:47:53 GMT -5
Off course tax cuts do produce jobs in the short run, but at the expense of public services (education, health care) and future generations. It is a good instrument to start up the economy, but in combination with these very low interest rates, it can be harmful to the economy in the long run. Well, one would think this would be the case, but it's not tax cuts that harm the economy. In fact, tax cuts generate extra tax revenue. Government revenues increased over $1 trillion in the 10 years follwoing the 1981 - 1983 tax cuts by Reagan. Increases in our budget deficits was the result of spending increases, not the tax cuts. Generally, those who believe in big government will look at it this way, I think. The liberals in our country feel this way as well . . . . Clinton increased taxes when he came into office, and this created a budget surplus eventually, which meant they were taking in more than they should have been. Then, of course, the tendency in government is that if they have extra $$, they must, of course, spend it! Many people feel Clinton benefitted from Reagan's policies, not that it was the result of Clinton's tax increases -- I dunno. But I do know that at the end of Clinton's term, there were economic problems the country was heading into. Bush promised tax cuts, delivered on the promise, and our economy is now in the middle of a good recovery. It can be a fine line, to be sure -- taxes can't be too low, or government services will suffer. But they can't be too high, or it will take away the incentive for businesses/entrepreneurs. Many people will agree that there is far too much wasteful spending in government -- It's always easier to spend other's people's money, and the politicians too quickly forget that it is the people's money they are using.
|
|
funniestthingiveeverheard
Guest
|
Post by funniestthingiveeverheard on Jun 8, 2004 12:03:02 GMT -5
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
you made my day!
|
|
|
Post by inatent on Jun 8, 2004 14:41:08 GMT -5
There are two primary factors in the economy that most people overlook in their desire for a quick, simple, explanation for what they perceive to be happening.
1. The president is not primarily responsible for the economy, and does not have the primary influence over it - Congress does!
2. There is usually a lag of two to six years, maybe more, between tax or spending changes and their effect on the average individual.
Good or bad, presidents get blame or credit for things they had absolutely nothing to do with!
inatent
|
|
Guarp
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by Guarp on Jun 8, 2004 15:54:18 GMT -5
In fact, tax cuts generate extra tax revenue. Government revenues increased over $1 trillion in the 10 years follwoing the 1981 - 1983 tax cuts by Reagan. Increases in our budget deficits was the result of spending increases, not the tax cuts. I was just wondering how this could be possible when I ran into an article about "Reaganomics". Interesting I think it is an impressive record, looking at interest rates, economic growth and inflation. But... it wasn't created without increasing the budget deficit by 300% in his term.. As I stated, I feel that's nothing more then creating wealth on the expense of future generations. In the end, the country has to pay the interest for those loans... and as Bush is still spending way more then he should, interest just increases. Just a few years from now and the States will be technically bankrupt. Together with these low interest rates, you can already see a weakening of the dollar in the long run. One other comment about "reagonomics": the article stated also that "the Reagan years also produced the greatest disparity between rich and poor in four decades." Which actually supports my point that tax cuts are very welcome for rich people instead for the people who do really need some more money in their pockets. www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20040606-9999-1n6econ.html (Don't shoot at the article unless you have some valid counterevidence, please) You hold Clinton responsible for the dotcom crash and economic cycles?? interesting.. I completely agree with this. But I guess that for me that line is a little higher then for you.
|
|
Guarp
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by Guarp on Jun 8, 2004 16:00:43 GMT -5
1. The president is not primarily responsible for the economy, and does not have the primary influence over it - Congress does! ---- Good or bad, presidents get blame or credit for things they had absolutely nothing to do with! What about Bush asking the congress for a tax cut or a budget to approve? does he have nothing to do with his own proposals? I think I can use some explanation on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by no name on Jun 8, 2004 21:04:20 GMT -5
I do know that people who opposed Reagan’s economic policies have tried to put forth the idea that his tax cuts were responsible for the deficit. The fact is, the budget deficit was not because of the tax cuts, but because of increased government spending: Reagan ballooned defense spending. But Democrats, who controlled appropriations back then, refused to give him the corresponding cuts in other domestic programs -- and instead increased spending. In fact, the Democrat Congress outspent every one of the nine budgets Reagan proposed, but one. www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22108The bottom line is that government policies shouldn’t redistribute wealth up or down the economic ladder. America wasn’t built on Socialist principles – it was built on individual success, individual progress – America wasn’t founded on the thought that government was the answer to people’s problems – that government was not a cradle to the grave type of service. And a government that is powerful enough to provide everything for you, is also powerful enough to take it all away. Rich and poor people should be allowed to keep what they earn, and give away what they want. Government is not the way people get rich – new wealth is not the result of government intervention. It comes from entrepreneurship – creativity, service, and risk-taking. It does not come from government. www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=2371 (discusses the above paraphrased comments) Additionally: It is not true that the gains by the wealthiest Americans came at the expense of low-income Americans. From 1981 to 1989, every income quintile--from the richest to the poorest--gained income according to the Census Bureau economic data. The reason the wealthiest Americans saw their share of total income rise is that they gained income at a faster pace than did the middle class and the poor. But Reaganomics did create a rising tide that lifted nearly all boats. By 1989 there were 5.9 million more Americans whose salaries exceeded $50,000 a year than there were in 1981 (adjusting for inflation). Similarly, there were 2.5 million more Americans earning more than $75,000 a year, an 83 percent increase. And the number of Americans earning less than $10,000 a year fell by 3.4 million workers. www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html(Full and detailed reporting of Reagan's economic policies). What I said was that I know that at the end of his term, there were economic problems the country was heading into. People have forgotten that, and have placed blame on Bush for the country’s economic problems that were felt early in his term. He pushed through two tax cuts, but since the economy is a sluggish entity, and it doesn’t turn around/improve overnight, the effects took awhile to kick in (just as it did in the beginning of Reagan’s administration). And I do know that during Clinton’s term, there was an historic budget surplus, which isn’t worth lauding as something wonderful -- as far as America, a Capitalist country, is concerned. It simply means the government was raking in too much of the people’s money. That’s what separates the Socialists from the Capitalists – ;D I would say that the President does have much to do with his own proposals – the catch is whether or not Congress goes along with those proposals. There’s a certain majority needed to even pass a proposal. Then again, the President can always veto a final bill that he finds overly objectionable. However, the problem sometimes is that Congress will put measures in a bill that promote the various agendas of different politicians, and if I’m not mistaken, the President cannot line-item veto those things. In other words, it’s all or nothing. Congress has used this method to almost “force” a President to sign a bill into law, if he wants his own agenda passed. And so the cycle goes . . . . In the “Democrats Seem to be Anti-American” thread, there were a few posts debating Socialism/Capitalism.
|
|
|
Post by inatent on Jun 9, 2004 0:30:11 GMT -5
What about Bush asking the congress for a tax cut or a budget to approve? does he have nothing to do with his own proposals? I think I can use some explanation on this issue. The President can ask and try to persuade all he wants, but congress need not agree and they can over-ride anything the president tries to put into the budget, or add anything they choose that he does not want. inatent
|
|
Guarp
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by Guarp on Jun 9, 2004 3:52:09 GMT -5
I do know that people who opposed Reagan’s economic policies have tried to put forth the idea that his tax cuts were responsible for the deficit. The fact is, the budget deficit was not because of the tax cuts, but because of increased government spending. One way or another: cutting taxes, or spending too much. A budget needs to be in balance on the long run. Can you spend too much money year on year and not suffer under increasing interestpayments? I doubt it. The main character of a well developed society is that there are no huge differences between the poor and the rich. I won't get back to the discussion about what's considered "poor", but personally I believe that my Christian values are better reflected in a society in which we share a piece of our wealth with those who don't have the privilige of earning a reasonable income. And that'not purely socialism. I would prefer to describe myself as "left-liberal" How capitalist are the US actually?? You have a extended welfare system, labor is subsidized to protect jobs moving to countries like India, import and export is heavily regulated.. I don't live in a socialist economy. I doubt it the American economy is wholly "capitalist". Both have influences from both and I guess we're polarizing a little here.
|
|
|
Post by inatent on Jun 9, 2004 10:49:00 GMT -5
The main character of a well developed society is that there are no huge differences between the poor and the rich. I won't get back to the discussion about what's considered "poor", but personally I believe that my Christian values are better reflected in a society in which we share a piece of our wealth with those who don't have the privilige of earning a reasonable income. Unfortunately, most of the people do not share these values. . . . .How capitalist are the US actually?? You have a extended welfare system, labor is subsidized to protect jobs moving to countries like India, import and export is heavily regulated.. I don't live in a socialist economy. I doubt it the American economy is wholly "capitalist". . . . . The United States was formed as a capitalistic republic. The founders of our constitution would be shocked to discover that is has evolved into mostly a socialistic democracy. That will be its downfall. inatent
|
|
hinds
Junior Member
Posts: 142
|
Post by hinds on Jun 9, 2004 12:25:41 GMT -5
"those who don't have the privilige of earning a reasonable income. "
Everyone in the United States has the "privilige" of earning a "reasonable income".
Fact.
|
|
Guarp
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by Guarp on Jun 9, 2004 13:28:52 GMT -5
Unfortunately, most of the people do not share these values. I know most people in the USA won't share these values with me. That's fine, i just wanted to give my opinion about these issues. I didn't say / or meant to say that the US has become into "mostly a socialistic democracy.." I stated I had my doubts if "the American economy is wholly capitalist."
|
|
|
Post by inatent on Jun 9, 2004 13:57:27 GMT -5
I know most people in the USA won't share these values with me. That's fine, i just wanted to give my opinion about these issues. I didn't say / or meant to say that the US has become into "mostly a socialistic democracy.." I stated I had my doubts if "the American economy is wholly capitalist." I didn't mean my response to sound like a disagreement.
|
|
|
Post by no name on Jun 10, 2004 22:18:30 GMT -5
I didn't say / or meant to say that the US has become into "mostly a socialistic democracy.." I stated I had my doubts if "the American economy is wholly capitalist." I would say that you are correct about the observation that our economy is not fully capitalistic. We have, through the years (and thanks to past presidents of the 1900s), trended towards aspects of socialism. The intentions are certainly good, but imo the results have spiraled out of control. Well, our country was founded on principles of individual empowerment, individual achievement, not empowerment by the government. The individual should be able to reach whatever heights they want to, or are capable of – their desire for achievement should not be hampered by centralized government. Our society is very generous, very giving, and we’ve numerous charitable institutions established to help people in need, not to mention the countless government programs that extend “help” to people. The problem with aid from the government is that it is fraught with abuse by people who are perfectly capable of providing for themselves. Hinds posted this info on another thread, which I have also read from other sources as well. Achieving low poverty rates can be costly, however. Sweden and Denmark, for instance, spend slightly more than 50 percent of their gross domestic product (GDP) on forms of public support. In France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and many other countries, citizens and politicians question whether their national welfare systems can be maintained into the indefinite future.
Not surprisingly, many European countries——including the United Kingdom, France, The Netherlands, and Denmark——have recently discussed whether U.S.-style reforms that emphasize personal responsibility and work are appropriate for them. The common theme in policy proposals in Europe is to combat what many Europeans call ““social exclusion,”” the situation in which certain vulnerable groups do not fully participate in society. Policymakers tend to favor initiatives designed to facilitate full participation in society, not necessarily to reduce dependency on government.
Contributed By: Thomas J. Corbett, B.A., M.A., Ph.D. Assistant Professor, School of Social Work, and Associate Director, Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Coeditor of Welfare Reform: Can Government Promote Parental Self-Sufficiency While Ensuring the Well-Being of Children? Author of portions of President Bill Clinton’’s proposed bill, the Work and Responsibility Act of 1994. "Welfare," Microsoft®® Encarta®® Online Encyclopedia 2004 encarta.msn.com ©© 1997-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved. ©© 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
The leftist liberals here are generally referred to as Socialists. I would agree with this. The founding fathers would indeed be dismayed at how many aspects of socialism are ingrained into our modern form of government. And I agree that unless it’s kept in check, or pulled back, it will lead to significant weakening of our country. If everyone has the attitude of expecting something from government, further strengthening society’s utter dependence on government to solve life’s problems, that will indeed drag us down in a big way. Agreed. Every determined person in our country has the capability to reach their best potential. That's what draws so many people here from all over the world. Something that disappoints me is that some people who were born here can, at times, take our country for granted and are content to sit back without putting too much effort into their future, while other people who come here from another country can often have more drive/motivation and more determination to succeed.
|
|
Guarp
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by Guarp on Jun 11, 2004 16:59:34 GMT -5
We have, through the years (and thanks to past presidents of the 1900s), trended towards aspects of socialism. The intentions are certainly good, but imo the results have spiraled out of control. Building up a welfare state takes time. Too bad Bush broke everything down that what Clinton had carefully built up.. This is true, and there are things that have to change within our welfare-societies as the work-force is gradually becoming smaller compared to the aging population. The ideal solution for "social exclusion" in the case of a healthy person, is a job, off course. That's something we now agree on in my country. It has been made harder to abuse these provision, and that's something that works. The purpose is to keep these provisions available for the people who actually need it. Still, it is a lot more generous system then it is in the States. Well, I guess that's just something I have to live with. As in Europe the differences between the political parties are a lot smaller then in the States, I see quite some differences between the socialist parties and the left-liberal parties. But if it's all the same to you folks over there, that's allright. I'll just be the recalcitrant liberal, socialist European with communist views
|
|
|
Post by inatent on Jun 11, 2004 20:04:23 GMT -5
Building up a welfare state takes time. Too bad Bush broke everything down that what Clinton had carefully built up.. He'll need another four years and more to completely unbury us from the manure that the former president piled upon us! ;D inatent
|
|
Guarp
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by Guarp on Jun 12, 2004 16:23:44 GMT -5
He'll need another four years and more to completely unbury us from the manure that the former president piled upon us! Mmm.. I thought Clintons environmentalism would have made the States a lot cleaner.
|
|
|
Post by inatent on Jun 12, 2004 17:29:30 GMT -5
Mmm.. I thought Clintons environmentalism would have made the States a lot cleaner. Sure, just like his morals made us more holy. inatent
|
|
|
Post by HA on Jun 13, 2004 4:41:47 GMT -5
From BusinessWeek, June 21
...
Yet despite different fiscal policies, the macroeconomic outcomes were remarkably similar. Under Reagan, lower taxes and a soaring budget deficit produced a growth rate of 3.4%. Under Bill Clinton, higher taxes and a budget surplus generated growth of 3.6%. Throughout both Presidencies, from 1982 to 2000, interest rates fell and the stock market roared. So much for ideology.
There were differences, of course. Under Clinton, unemployment was lower than under Reagan, poverty declined more, and wages rose faster for ordinary workers. But the essential truth remains: Strip away doctrinaire rhetoric, and here's the lesson of nearly two decades of economic activity: Decisive Presidential leadership that tackles the greatest threat of the day produces the policy mix best suited for growth. Sometimes that means lower taxes, sometimes higher. Sometimes it means less regulation, sometimes more.
In the end, perhaps the most important inheritance President Reagan has to offer is not his philosophy but his pragmatism, not his specific policies but his willingness to act decisively, not his partisanship but his ability to reach across political boundaries. The hagiography surrounding President Reagan today presents him as an ideologue with a cause. The truth, as usual, is much more complex.
(Editorial entitled «The Real Economic Legacy Of Ronald Reagan, There's much more to it than tax cuts and small government»
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Jun 14, 2004 9:54:23 GMT -5
Mmm.. I thought Clintons environmentalism would have made the States a lot cleaner. Well, at least they did not cause the problems that we have seen elsewhere. As governor of Texas Bush changed pollution laws for power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union. But the people of Los Angeles can be proud they no longer live in the most smog ridden city. Houston as has grabbed that claim to fame.
|
|
|
Post by inatent on Jun 14, 2004 15:28:13 GMT -5
Well, at least they did not cause the problems that we have seen elsewhere. As governor of Texas Bush changed pollution laws for power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union. But the people of Los Angeles can be proud they no longer live in the most smog ridden city. Houston as has grabbed that claim to fame. Houston has a lot of heavy industry compared with Los Angeles, so it would not surprise me if the pollution is higher. However, the state of Texas is mostly wide open prairie and desert, so I doubt as a whole it has any pollution problem at all. Neither are significant compared with São Paulo or Mexico City and, I have heard, cities in China. However, according to www.cnn.com/2004/US/04/28/air.pollution/dated 29 April 04, Los Angelas still has the most smog in the country, and Houston is fifth - with the top four all in the Los Angelas area. (Smog does not directly translate to total pollution, but according to this report from the American Lung Association this study does include particulates.) In another study, www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=50752, by the same organization, for short-term particle pollution among 23 major metropolitan areas, NONE were in Texas. For year-round particle pollution among 24 areas NONE were in Texas. Among 24 of the most polluted counties in the country, NONE were in Texas. The only place where a problem showed up in any part of Texas was with Ozone pollution, where Houston was 6th and Dallas 10th. Overall, Texas seems to be one of the cleanest states in the country! I don't know where you got your information. inatent P.S. I am not from Texas, but have driven through it many times, and generally found it to have very clean air and water compared with many other states.
|
|
|
Post by inatent on Jun 16, 2004 11:58:01 GMT -5
No response yet from "Present" retracting or defending his statement about pollution in Texas, so I assume his initial remarks were drawn out of pure air! inatent
|
|