CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I don't know if I agree with everything he did, but he did cut taxes a lot. Most economists would say that tax cuts are generally good for the economy because the free market allocates resources more efficiently than the government.
He didn't cut spending enough to compensate for the drop in revenues though.
In order to have a good credit America has to have a certain amount of debt. I don't know enough about Reagan's spending, though, in order to know if he did it efficiently, though. But debt is good.
But, less government spending is usually good (although, I believe in big government spending for science, education and military).
As a real world example as opposed to quoting academics:
I was sitting in a country club the other day with a roundtable of business executives. They were discussing how many factories to shut down to move to low income tax jurisdictions like asia, eastern europe, even Ireland.
Then we also talked about how many businesses they opened back in the 80's IN AMERICA when Reagan reduced the top tax rate by almost 50%.
If you begrudge the rich for being rich, they won't stick around because there are plenty of other places in the world who welcome them with open arms. and i don't want to learn chinese.
Taxes are not a primary reason that businesses left the US in favor of foreign operations. The greatest incentive towards the exodus is labor costs in America.
$7/hr on an assembly line might not sound like a lot here, but it buys that $7 buys an employee for a week in Taiwan (example) instead of 1hr as it does here.
Regan did the right thing and got us through that recession. His Regananomics were beneficial to the economy. The government shouldn't be able to tax there way into prosperity.
I'd say for the most part, his programs were helpful to the economy (except for the MASSIVE SPENDING part of Reaganomics). The government should try to keep mostly ou tof the way of the free market system (proof-communist governments).
One of the primary ways to measure the effects of a tax policy is to analyze job creation. Reagan signed multiple tax reduction bills during his presidency, and over those eight years approximately 20 million jobs were created. Indeed, his economic policies aided in ending a rather unpleasant recession that had begun in the 1970s.
Ronald Reagan’s income tax cuts along with his tax reform package of 1986 are credited with increasing federal revenue and sparking an unprecedented period of economic expansion.
But has credit been given where credit is really due? Taxes in one form or another were raised every year Reagan was in the White House except one. If tax cuts are always good for the economy, shouldn’t it be concluded that they are always bad for the economy as well? So what was the net effect of Reagan’s tax policies on the economy- beneficial? Harmful? Or inconsequential because something like tax policy cannot override other factors (money supply, new technologies, cheap imports etcetera)?
In my view the 3rd option is likely the correct option. The economy is too complicated for us to be able to isolate the effects of tax policy on it. In today’s politics tax cuts are considered to be an integral component of conservatism, but tax policy actually has nothing to do with conservatism. The Republican Party has historically supported rather high taxes (namely a protective tariff). Tax cuts didn’t become Republican Policy until the libertarian supply-siders took over the party in 1980, after which they failed to maintain any consistent tax policy so we will never know whether or not their ideas work.
Taxes have a huge impact to the economy because in fact they influence business decisions EVERY DAY. Like when my bosses want to move their factory to hongkong because they're afraid of tax hikes and Obamacare healthcare.
Your bosses are afraid of the destruction of the employer based health insurance system? Unless you work for a health insurance company, I'm not sure why they would be scared.
You just demonstrated your ignorance of health care issues. The United States currently spends 15% of its GDP on health care more than any other country. Yet the WHO ranks the our health care at #37 in the world. Something is clearly broken if we are spending so much and not receiving the benefits. All that extra money is lining the pockets of the owners of health insurance companies and it is also used for administrative costs. Because every company has their own way of doing things and it is very decentralized, much money is spent on administration. A single-payer system is simply more efficient. Think of Costco if you have one near you, or any other consumer co-op. The same principle is in use.
"You just demonstrated your ignorance of health care issues"
great argument- just insult when frustrated!
"The United States currently spends 15% of its GDP on health care more than any other country. Yet the WHO ranks the our health care at #37 in the world"
We spend alot on heathcare because we're a bunch of fatasses. Hart disease and diabetes are eating us alive. Take responsibility for your health- if you don't, just don't ask me or the rich to pay for it.
"Yet the WHO ranks the our health care at #37 in the world".
The technologies fostered by the AMERICAN free market- created by companies like abbot labs, tellabs, JNJ- are invaluable and probably have saved the life of someone you know.
"All that extra money is lining the pockets of the owners of health insurance companies"
Yes, that would be investors who own the companies such as me, you and your pension fund.
"A single-payer system is simply more efficient."
Ah, yes Uncle sam, that efficient captain of industry!! I could drive out competition too if i had the power to tax and print dollars.
I don't deny that we have many serious health problems in the United States, but this would not mean we have lower care. It could increase the amount we spend slightly.
How do we spend so much money, yet have pretty poor quality health care?
Medical research is separate from actual health care. The current employer-based insurance system is not efficient regardless of how many medical advancements have come from the US. When 50% of bankruptcies are caused by medical bills, there is a problem.
It has nothing to do with driving out the competition. If you can't see how a single payer system is a more efficient distributor of resources, I don't really know what to tell you. Try shopping at Costco or getting a loan from a credit union I guess, maybe that will make you understand.
you seem to seriously underestimate how much cost-push our own behavior brings to the system. Our unhealthy lifestyle is a huge contributor to hearrt disease, diabetes, stroke, some cancers, etc. C'mon, please realize we have to take care of ourselves. It's like a catch-22: the more healthcare you give for free, or give away at the expense of the rich, the more unhealthy we are incentivized to be.
2.
How is medical research separate from healthcare??? if there is no profit in the system, what incentivizes companies from discovering life-saving technologies?? those lifesaving technologies, drugs, etc. were VERY, VERY risky to discover, so they demand a higher return. No return on investment= no investment of capital.
3.
I'm sure alot of bankruptcies happen because of medical bills. That does not mean we need reform. Life is meant to be hard. we have to deal with that, without socializing every aspect of our life.
4.
socializing medicine any further beyond our bankrupt medicare/caid system would absolutely drive out competition because the government would ration care and lower prices. They can lower prices because they can a)print money b) tax the rich. Before you come back with "gee if prices are lower isn't that good?", remember i am saying they would not be reducing cost by lowering prices, but instead subsidizing the cost of care by taking money from others through taxes and other mandates.
1. Then why are countries with universal health care so much healthier than ours if it 'encourages people to be unhealthy.' Maybe the reason why we are so unhealthy is that our medical system fails at preventative medicine.
2. Thank for the beginners economics lesson, but that isn't what I was talking about. The companies and researchers developing new medicines and techniques are not the same people administering health care. Health insurance companies have nothing to do with developing new medical technology. Therefore cutting health insurance companies profits does nothing to decrease incentives of other companies to do research.
3. "Life is meant to be hard." According to who? So because you think life is meant to be hard, we should do nothing to help people who are in need of assistance. Alright so if see an old man fall down just walk up to him and say "I'm sorry sir, but life is meant to be hard. Good luck gramps" and walk away.
4. That will not necessarily happen and that is not what is being proposed. They can lower by prices by doing that, but if they don't what is the problem?
1. stop with the obama tagline of "prev care"- just dont be a fatass and live healthy- there's your prevention
2. intermediate economics lesson: govt mandates to reduce reimbursements will reverberate back to the drug companies inasmuch as it will create pressure on them to lower the cost of their drugs. so they'll just stop being inventive. and yes, again i say it will result in rationed care. I like my care, so leave it alone please.
3. Life is meant to be hard. But by all means if you WANT to help the old man, that is admirable. but i won't force you to because you have free will and i don't want to control you.
4. of course that is not what is being proposed- have you ever had to sell something? the problem with not reducing cost is that it will skyrocket when we line up with our welfare cards.
1. I have never even heard Obama say that line before, but I'm fairly certain he neither invented it nor popularized it. Many people do not understand how to live a healthy lifestyle. They can underestimate its significance or simply not know how. It may seem simple to me or you, but many people were simply never properly educated about basic physiology. Or maybe they just need a bit of motivation. Bottom line is that countries that spend more on preventative medicine spend much less on treatment.
2. I never argued a government mandate to reduce reimbursements. A universal health care option will force insurance companies to streamline their business models to stay competitive. The cost of medicine is not the issue. The cost and availability of health insurance is.
3. Life is not meant to be hard. Life is not meant to be anything. It may be hard, but this does not mean it is meant to be hard. I'm not sure if I can make you understand because you seem to be a borderline sociopath. If you can't be persuaded to help other people then maybe you can be persuaded to help yourself. Like I said we waste a ton of money of health care. And that actually does hurt you. The less money everyone has, the worse this is for the economy and as you are a member of the economy, you as well.
4. I have no idea what you are talking about. You are arguing a different point and I can't really even tell what it is.
1. he says prev care all the time because it is a catch-phrase that makes him seem like an MD. it really doesnt take that much education. and if people need motivation- then let them suffer because that is motivation.
2. streamline?? the FED is going to streamline? are you serious? do you really think software companies havent already worked on electronic med records? care is expensive becauese our lives are the most precious things.
3. Again, feel free to help people. for instance, i myself give 5% of my wages to charity. I also work about 10 hours per week helping a non-profit provide- get this- healthcare services to children and the elderly. But the point is not to brag but that i of my own free will do this without a redistributionist govt making me do so. being a sociopath would be giving up on society and wishing it pain. i just have more faith in the common man than that.
4. what are you having trouble understanding? i'm just saying that govt can print money to pay for healthcare for all or just increase tazes to pay for artificially low healthcare costs. Low healthcare costs would drive out private competition that does not have the power to extort people or destroy fiat currency value.
1. Obviously it does take more education than that if people are continuing to have unhealthy lifestyles.
2. No I mean health insurance companies need to streamline. No it is not because our lives are precious. Like I said we spend the greatest percentage of our GDP on health care, but have only the 37th best quality of health care.
3. The problem is that not everyone will help out of their own free will.
4. I am not arguing for artificially low health care costs. I am arguing for creating a single-payer system that is so efficient that it forces private health insurance companies to become as efficient.
Unless they don't spend the money because the majority of the tax cuts are given to the people who don't need to spend it, like what happened with the Bush tax cuts remember, and actually the Reagan ones as well because
1. Reaganomics didn't work no matter how hard you Conservatives keep trying to rewrite history.
2. the minimal "prosperity" you conservatives look back on through rosey glasses actually wasn't all that prosperous.
The longest and strongest stretch of economic expansion happened while Clinton was in office. And as a result of a combination of a bunch of things.
But if you were going to blame a president for an economy, which they do play a hand in, I think Clinton should be the one to emulate.
I mean, why did Conservatives try to distract everyone with the sex stuff? Because his policies worked so damn well that's all they had left.
“Unless they don't spend the money because the majority of the tax cuts are given to the people who don't need to spend it, like what happened with the Bush tax cuts remember, and actually the Reagan ones as well because”
I have never seen anything on the net results of Reagan’s tax policy- whether the end result was lower or higher taxes, but the income tax cuts that Congress approved in 1981 were an across the board cut in income tax rates. Everybody that paid income taxes got the same tax cut regardless of how wealthy they were. Bush’s tax cuts were not across the board so some people who paid income taxes did not get a tax cut under Bush.
The standard explanation for supply-siders is that cutting taxes for the rich will give the rich more money to invest in things like factories and stores which create jobs that help the economy in the long run. But my contention is that Reagan’s tax hikes would have undone anything that his tax cuts supposedly achieved and that the economy is too complicated to isolate the effects that tax policy may have on it.
“1. Reaganomics didn't work no matter how hard you Conservatives keep trying to rewrite history.”
Define work. Under Jimmy Carter the country had double-digit inflation, high unemployment and double-digit mortgage rates. Inflation, unemployment and interest rates came down under Reagan.
“2. the minimal ‘prosperity’ you conservatives look back on through rosey glasses actually wasn't all that prosperous.”
Explain. What do you call minimal? I did not start this debate just to give liberals an excuse to repeat their standard complaints against Reagan. If you have evidence that any of what you say is true, produce it. Otherwise stop wasting everybody’s time.
[quote]The longest and strongest stretch of economic expansion happened while Clinton was in office.[/quote]
Documentation?
The percent change in yearly GDP as measured in year 2000 dollars:
1980 -0.2
1981 2.5
1982 -1.9
1983 4.5
1984 7.2
1985 4.1
1986 3.5
1987 3.4
1988 4.1
1989 3.5
1990 1.9
1991 -0.2
1992 3.3
1993 2.7
1994 4.0
1995 2.5
1996 3.7
1997 4.5
1998 4.2
1999 4.5
2000 3.7
Average yearly change under Reagan: +3.42%
Average yearly change under Reagan and George H. W. Bush: +2.99%.
Average yearly change under Clinton: +3.72%. Clinton’s 8 years had only marginally higher GDP growth than Reagan’s 8 years did.
[quote]I mean, why did Conservatives try to distract everyone with the sex stuff? Because his policies worked so damn well that's all they had left.[/quote]
How much of Clinton’s credit goes to the Republican Congress that was in place for 6 of his 8 years in the White House? Reagan had a Democrat-controlled House of Representatives for all 8 of his years in office and a Democrat-controlled Senate for 2 of his 8 years in office and still managed to do as much as Clinton did.
1. Reagan did an across the board tax cut, but it was a percentage across the board tax cut, so to say it was equal is incorrect. ie 3% of 1,000,000 is a good chunk of change, but 3% of 30,000 is like groceries for a week. So yeah, it was geared toward the rich. The middle class and lower economic classes did not see any significant benefit, nor did the economy due to their increased spending, little as it was.
2. Yes, building factories etc is the standard explanation. But that's not how it works. People build factories when and only when there is demand. Demand comes from the middle classes unless you're selling high-end stuff. The rich do not use a tax cut during a recession or depression to blindly start hiring people and building stuff. "Build it and they will come" only works if you're Kevin Costner and in a movie. So Reaganomics cannot work if one just puts a little thought into it, and if one does not bother to think, we can see clearly how it failed miserably when Bush used that template for his tax cuts.
I say that Republicans are trying to rewrite history, because that is precisely what they are doing. They are trying to say again that Reaganomics is somehow the solvent for our problems, when the real answer is the opposite of what they want, tighter regulations, investing in large State and National projects that employ large numbers of people, and a return to the tax codes of the 90s or something similar.
3. GDP is only one indicator of a nations prosperity. China has the second largest GDP after us, I don't think anyone would argue their citizens are well off by any stretch of the imagination.
During the Reagan years we still had a huge national defecit, Reagan "warned" that the national debt our country had accumulated in the 200 years of its existance was approaching 1 trillion... and when he left office in only 8 years it was 2.9 trillion, hm...
Clinton has been the only one in recent history to erase that defecit without a world war, and he did so with what would be almost the exact opposite of what Reagan did.
By Reagan's second year, unemployment reached 10.8%. That was the highest since the great depression, and higher than now. And Republicans blamed Carter for this... that's two years into his presidency, meanwhile they are already trying to shift blame to Obama for this depression.
Again, rewritting history.
On top of that, the Reagan administration used funny math to pad the poor scores.
Things like not counting unemployed people as unemployed after 6 mo. to make the numbers look better.
One of Bush Sr.'s admonishments of the Reagan era was no more funny math, Republicans ate it up,
but again, short memories and they love rewriting history. And of course that funny math remains in government even today.
And finally, are you kidding me? You're actually going to try to credit the House and Senate with anything as far as the economy is concerned during the 90s? The fact is, after fighting those Republicans tooth and nail on nearly every budget issue, it was Clinton who ended up getting his way in the end, at least part of what he wanted, on nearly everything.
Now you want to give the credit for the resulting benefits of those budget decisions to the very people who fought against them?
Jeez, I almost prefer arguing with the plain dumb Conservatives as opposed to the slick slightly informed ones.
“1. Reagan did an across the board tax cut, but it was a percentage across the board tax cut, so to say it was equal is incorrect.”
It was equal in that everybody who paid income taxes got a tax cut. Unlike Bush’s tax cut you didn’t have to be in a certain category or class to get a tax cut. Furthermore, I have always heard that the tax rates were all cut by 25% so everyone received the same tax cut.
“ie 3% of 1,000,000 is a good chunk of change, but 3% of 30,000 is like groceries for a week.”
Since when is it fair to tax someone just because they have more that can be taxed? Does paying 3% of 1,000,000 earn the taxpayer to more Medicare/Medicaid, more food stamps, better public schools or better roads than paying 3% of 30,000? No. The opposite is more likely true. Taxing people to make them pay for welfare that they are not entitled to is the essence of communism.
“2. Yes, building factories etc is the standard explanation. But that's not how it works. People build factories when and only when there is demand.”
People build factories as an investment in hopes of making a profit in the future. They don’t always wait for consumer demand to develop.
“I say that Republicans are trying to rewrite history, because that is precisely what they are doing. They are trying to say again that Reaganomics is somehow the solvent for our problems,”
You mean solution and your general level of ignorance is showing- or either you are foaming at the mouth to the point that you cannot talk.
“3. GDP is only one indicator of a nations prosperity.”
Then what else should be considered? What other than GDP tells us that Clinton’s economy was better than Reagan’s?
“During the Reagan years we still had a huge national defecit,”
Which we also had under Clinton until the Republicans in Congress balanced the budget.
“Clinton has been the only one in recent history to erase that defecit without a world war, and he did so with what would be almost the exact opposite of what Reagan did.”
Explain. What did Clinton do to reduce the deficit and grow the economy?
“That was the highest since the great depression, and higher than now.”
As of this morning only by 0.5 percentage point, so what’s your point?
“And Republicans blamed Carter for this... that's two years into his presidency,”
Reagan’s tax cuts were not made law until the summer of 1981 and they were phased in over a 3 year time period, so whatever happened in 1982 was still being influenced more by Carter than Reagan.
“Things like not counting unemployed people as unemployed after 6 mo. to make the numbers look better.”
Documentation?
“And of course that funny math remains in government even today.”
So Obama is using it too?
“And finally, are you kidding me? You're actually going to try to credit the House and Senate with anything as far as the economy is concerned during the 90s?”
Yes. The federal budget was not balanced until after the Republicans took over both Houses of Congress.
Since when is it fair to tax someone just because they have more that can be taxed?
Where did I say anything about fair? I'm talking about what works.
People build factories as an investment in hopes of making a profit in the future. They don’t always wait for consumer demand to develop.
Then again, why didn't the Bush tax cut work?
You mean solution and your general level of ignorance is showing- or either you are foaming at the mouth to the point that you cannot talk.
Hm, now you're just getting boring. I've given you plenty of real world examples of why Reaganomics does not work, during the Reagan years, and the Bush years.
I assure you I'm not foaming at the mouth, and while I'm certainly not an expert in the subject, apparently I know much more about it than you do.
I see for example you quote me where I say that GDP is not the only indicator of national prosperity. Then you ask me what else is. Well, unemployment, mean income, standard of living to name a few. But that quote was part of a larger point, the point being China has the second highest GDP.
All of my points you refuse to answer, you simply take out a snipet, then ask me another question that would be easy enough for anyone to figure out. So I'm done debating this topic with you. Anyone who seriously thinks Reaganomics still works isn't really worth debating much anyway.
But if you do have another laundry list of lame points, you simply have to look at my above arguement, and I'm sure the come back is there somewhere since you at this point seem to be simply rehashing tired old arguements.
“Where did I say anything about fair? I'm talking about what works.”
Then what about slavery? It worked.
What about giving smallpox infected blankets to the Indians so homesteaders could move west? It worked.
Putting AIDS patients in concentration camps would work, wouldn’t it?
Ask people who have to pay higher taxes just because they can afford higher taxes whether or not your tax system works. I doubt that you’d get many takers.
That my friends is how you know you have lost a debate. You cease debating the actual points because you are unable to do so, so you instead red herring the argument until your opponent gives up. You stay classy jafl.
Oh and just to illustrate how ridiculous your 'argument,' to use the term loosely, is. That is like debating on whether Macs or PCs are better and your opponent says, "Well PCs work better" and you say "Oh yeah the holocaust worked really well too, so take that obviously you are incorrect."
His definition of work in context was to function to create a sound economic system that promotes stability, growth, and fairness. So if you want to explain how slavery, smallpox, or AIDS concentration camps would result in a stable economy then by all means do so, I'm quite interested.
I just want to emphasize that I am really shocked at how moronic what you just said is.
I was demonstrating absurdity by being absurd. Making people pay more in taxes just because they can afford to pay more in taxes is as immoral as any of the examples I gave. Compelling a certain class of people, the rich, to support everyone else is the epitome of extortion; it is moral bankruptcy. If I broke into a rich man’s home and seized his property it would be called a crime, but letting the government do the same thing with the tax code is considered good politics.
First of all I would argue that slavery, infecting indians with small pox, and putting people with AIDS in concentration camps all had and would have much better options available from both an economic and humane standpoint, but that aside,
I hardly think any of those examples are a comparable to say returning to the the tax codes of the 90's, which would mean a 3% tax increase for those making over 250,000 a year.
Like if I were doing what you've been doing in your last couple replies I could take a point you said... The standard explanation for supply-siders is that cutting taxes for the rich will give the rich more money to invest in things like factories and stores which create jobs that help the economy in the long run.
And I would reply with something like:
Oh yeah! Well then like why not just give rich people all the money huh? I mean, that would make a bunch of jobs wouldn't it! (insert sarcasm)
That's basically what your arguement amounts to.
So you see why I said I'm bored with arguing with you and I don't want to do it anymore? I replied to you in another debate somewhere, find that one if you still want to argue with me, I'm done with this one.
I mean really? You're gonna compare my statement to Slavery?
“First of all I would argue that slavery, infecting indians with small pox, and putting people with AIDS in concentration camps all had and would have much better options available from both an economic and humane standpoint, but that aside,”
The same is true for taxes. We have better options that soaking the rich. Taking someone’s money just because they have money that can be taken and laws on the books saying doing so is OK may be legal, but it also immoral in the extreme.
lol, listen, you have me banging my head against the wall now... I might as well be talking to the wall I think.
again, you took a snipet of what I said and are vainly trying to throw it back at me.
The only thing I can surmise from this new arguement of yours is that you accept my point as valid. Since my point was refuting a point of yours, I guess I win.
Now on to the arguement which I'm guessing you have now shifted to "there must be another way" which by the way was not your original point, but whatever, since you've so graceously accepted that I am right and you are wrong I will humor you.
No one is suggesting we "soak" the rich, infact getting wet has nothing to do with it. The only suggestion is returning to a previous tax code under which there was much more prosperity for rich and poor alike. Now if you have a better suggestion... I'm actually not interested because as I've said you bore me jafl, but I'm sure someone somewhere will listen, why not start a whole new debate?
" ie 3% of 1,000,000 is a good chunk of change, but 3% of 30,000 is like groceries for a week"
It is equal percentage wise and if it was dollar wise, david would be bitching it was not percentage wise.
2.Cutting taxes increases demand,I keep more of my money and I decide where to spend it.I spend more and the demand grows.Demand grows and you admitted demand leads to growth.
Goverment raises taxes,spends the money less frugally than consumers.Picks winners and losers that only last short periods of times (cash for clunkers.......recent housing incentives) and then the money dries up because of the higher taxes.
"By Reagan's second year, unemployment reached 10.8%. That was the highest since the great depression, and higher than now. And Republicans blamed Carter for this... that's two years into his presidency, meanwhile they are already trying to shift blame to Obama for this depression.
Again, rewritting history."
Who controlled Congress in Reagan's first two years?
you could not be more misinformed about the clinton economy. That disasterous expansion of money supply he perpetrated on america with his buddy greenspan lead to a painful and persistent collapse of our banking system and housing market that spread to the real economy.
How do you liberals like that "affordable housing" thing? I have to admit, you sure did accomplish it!!!
You liberals? I seem to remember everyone enjoying affordable housing. And the housing bubble didn't burst until well after Clinton's watch, like 6 years after, so I'm not sure what your point is... other than spewing your selective memory over the internet.
OMG. i'm no economist i admit.but please do some basic reading on how fed reserve discount window and open market operations influence money supply and interest rates. The rate of gdp growth during clinton was great- it was expansion fed by the housing bubble created by easy money. who cares what president saw the bubble pop when the seeds were sown earlier?
Affordable housing: a bit of sarcasm. the housing bubble popping gave us this recession and affordable housing(lower prices) for those who get obamas $8,000 freebie. But my housing value went down. seems like a wealth transfer from me to them, so please forgive the sarcasm.
er, I think the internet bubble had much more to do with the economy in the 90's than any other single issue. And when that bubble burst, it didn't lead to the kind of issues the housing bubble has.
The gdp was great because the budget was balanced for the first time ever. The governement and the people were taking in more money than they were spending. Again though, gdp is only one issue. The basic living standard was much higher, and the debt to income ratio much lower. This has everything to do with jobs and pay rate, and very little to do with tax cuts, as there were none at that time.
gdp is not a good basis to judge whether people in a country are in a good economic shape. ie, the Swiss have one of the highest standards of living, much higher than the US. They also make more money on average, something like 60k on average, we're around 48k on average. A recent poll was taken of who the happiest people in the world are, guess what? It's the Scandinavian countries, followed by a few other random places around Europe, followed by the US.
Outside of the US, one thing all these countries have in common are high standards of living, socialized medicine, greater average income... and none even are in the top 10 for gdp except for the US.
More, China has the second highest gdp, it's people are miserable and poor and mistreated.
Judging the health of a nation by the gdp alone is a huge mistake.
So sure, maybe cutting taxes on the rich, getting rid of social programs, and making the poor pay a bigger chunk of the taxes may lead to a greater gdp, just like China. But why would anyone, dem or repub, want that?
Nothing in this argument refutes either point. And there is nothing mutually exclusive about points one or two so no, it is not talking out of both sides. Dittos, you're not smart enough to debate me. There's a whole group of teenies arguing over Twilight, go play with them.
Government doesn't consume wealth. It spends it just like an individual or a private sector company does (on roads, schools, etc.). So there is no economic basis to say that high taxes hurt of help an economy, because the only difference is /who/ is controlling the cash flow.
Then explain how private sector spending supposedly spurs the economy when government sector spending cannot? If the same amount of money is spent, what can it possibly matter who is doing the spending? How much economic growth was caused by Reagan’s tax cuts and how much was caused by Reagan’s massive spending? Where I live there are entire neighborhoods that came about in the 1980s due to Reagan’s naval build up. I doubt that tax cuts alone could have caused this kind of economic growth.
The government cannot spend money on roads, schools, ships etcetera without pumping money into the economy and the size of an economy is a direct measure of how much money is spent. If high taxes give the government more money to spend, then high taxes can spur the economy.
If cutting taxes gives people more money to spend, how does raising taxes not give the government more money to spend so that the same amount of money ends up being put into the economy?
If want to put money into the economy you let the consumer do it not the government. By letting people spend their money on what they want or need is the best way to stimulate the economy not a trillion dollar plan that will take 2 years to work. The economy will get fixed quicker with the consumer rather than with the government.
If want to put money into the economy you let the consumer do it not the government.
Why?
By letting people spend their money on what they want or need is the best way to stimulate the economy not a trillion dollar plan that will take 2 years to work.
Actually, we've had a contemporary example of this experiment failing in America. Please remember that the Bush tax-cuts were accompanied by the the encouragement to spend. And Americans did. They spent their money on whatever they pleased and ultimately the economy collapsed in a four year period because of it. Consuming doesn't stimulate an economy. It doesn't even maintain one. It never has and never does and it probably never will. Spending tax-cut money really only equates to recirculating an existing pool of hard-currency. Nothing is actually being made: tangible wealth is not increasing. Producing, on the other hand, does stimulate economies.
Remember, in a capital environment, the best and possibly only way to stimulate an economy is to produce more capital: resources, produce for free exchange in an open market, not spending an abstractly valued thing like green paper. In a consumer environment, and one that is increasingly becoming service oriented, no one is funding production.
So we let the Goverment spend money and they give incentives to buy certain things(recently homes and cars). The bubble rises as the Goverment spends and home and cash for clunkers raised demand. When the Goverment then stops giving incentives,those markets crash and sales slump.
Let consumers spend it because we are about freedom.
Housing and cash for clunkers is your contemporary example of your experiment not working.
We have tried supply-side economics before, it just doesn't work. I really wish I could find a citation for this, but I couldn't because it was on NPR about a month ago, but they had an economist talking about the stimulus package and things like that and he said that tax cuts are four times more effective at stimulating the economy when given to the lower and middle class than when given to the upper class. It makes sense when you think about it. Working families will spend their money right away to pay for bills, food, gas and things like that. However upper class families might save the money or invest it in such a way that doesn't directly stimulate the economy.
To quote Noble Prize winning economist Paul Krugman "When Ronald Reagan was elected, the supply-siders got a chance to try out their ideas. Unfortunately, they failed." Under Reagan public debt tripled, job growth was just average for a twentieth century president, unemployment was higher, private investment decreased, and real wages decreased. Reagan started the huge national debt that has not been payed off even today. And his system of deregulation led to a recession. Just like it did during the Great Depression. And just like it did in 2008. When will you conservatives understand that Reagan was a bad president. I do not understand why you all love him so much. And please stop espousing his moron economic theories. History has shown that they don't work.
"...but they had an economist talking about the stimulus package and things like that and he said that tax cuts are four times more effective at stimulating the economy when given to the lower and middle class than when given to the upper class."
I seriously doubt this. Tax cuts for people that don’t pay taxes are not tax cuts but rather welfare.
Furthermore, in an era of rising prices (as we had in 1980-81 and again now) giving subsidies to the working poor will simply cause prices to go up even more before the economy doesn’t have the agricultural and manufacturing capacity to meet the demand that already exists.
Most working class families do not pay federal income taxes because they either earn too little to be obligated to file a tax return or they have so many children and other deductions that they get back whatever they pay in taxes- and with the earned income child credit they can actually get back more than they have paid in for a year.
But either way our tax code is skewed to tax the rich. The working poor and the middle class are pretty much one and the same thing when it comes to taxes. They both either have little taxable income relative to the rich or their deductions erase whatever taxes they do pay.
People with an annual income greater than $364,657 file only 1% of the total number of federal income tax returns, but they pay 38.39% of all federal income taxes that are collected.
People with an annual income greater than $103,912 file only 10% of the total number of federal income tax returns, but they pay 70.3% of all federal income taxes that are collected.
50% of the people who file federal income tax returns earn less than $30,881 but they pay 3.07% of all federal income taxes that are collected.
“Also could you please explain how the agricultural and manufacturing sectors don't have the capacity to meet demand.”
You obviously haven’t purchased groceries any time in the past 20 years. If supply had kept up with demand, grocery prices would be the same now as they were 10-20 years ago. Over the past few years I have seen price hikes for groceries that remind me of Jimmy Carter’s stagflation.
Just because the price of a good has risen does not mean suppliers have not been able to meet demand. There is this thing called inflation which is a general rise of the price of all goods and services in an economy over time.
Your user name is appropriate since you must have lead for brains.
As long as supply and demand are in equilibrium there will be no change in price. If the price for something goes up it either means that there are more consumers or the same number of consumers want to buy more or there are fewer producers or the same number of producers are producing less than they were before or the supply of raw materials has declined relative to demand over time so it costs more to produce the same amount of finished product.
What we are having now- high consumer prices and high unemployment- is just what we had during the Carter Administration. You cannot stimulate an inflationary economy- something Carter tried doing with $50 government stimulus checks. The economy couldn’t produce enough energy and food and manufactured goods to meet consumer demand. People who had money would try to buy more than they needed or could use right away because they knew that if they waited to buy, prices would go up in the meantime. Inflation in the late 1970s became a self-fulfilling prophecy. We are not far from the same thing now.
i don't disagree in theory. but not because there is no capacity. we actually have excess capacity right now. For instance, 10% of the labor force is sitting at home right now. Also, look around and notice that only about 40% of capacity is being used in our factories. it wouldn't be this way if we didnt destroy our banking system.
O RLY? an economist said something about how tax cuts are bad?
let me mention another economist who says that not only are tax cuts good, but Laissez Faire capitalism is the best. In fact, he's one of the most prestige and well known economists of all time. Adam Smith.
Paul Krugman is openly liberal and believes that liberal mentality is the only right mentality. Think of Rush Limbaugh, but as a liberal... you'd get Paul Krugman (with a radio show).
I don't mind what you have to say (slam Reaganomics) but the way you did it was kind of... eh. Like I said, economists all have different views on the economy. We should look more to experience. Reagan's era was a great one for the market. It's possible that he just got lucky, and anyone can argue that forever, but to say that certain economists are against tax cuts makes Reaganomics wrong just kind of ruins the whole debate.
Oh wow, that was an egregious error in reading comprehension. I kind of feel bad for you. I am amazed at how you managed to misinterpret what I said so extremely.
I didn't say he said tax cuts are bad. I said that the economist said that tax cuts are more effective when given to people of the middle class rather than upper class.
And Adam Smith may be the father of modern economics, but that does not make him correct, just as most of Frued's theories (the father of modern psychology) have been proven to not be entirely right.
I'm not sure how the fact that Paul Krugman is liberal invalidates any of his theories. He thinks liberalism is the best mentality. You think being a libertarian is the best mentality. You can't discredit someone solely based upon their philosophy, you should look at the substance of what they are saying. And are you really trying to compare a Nobel Prize winning economist to a hate-mongering wing-bag with no recognition outside of his extreme group of followers.
"I don't mind what you have to say (slam Reaganomics) but the way you did it was kind of... eh."
Oh really good argument. I was too "eh" with my statements.
I don't think libertarianism is the best mentality. only in certain situations. economically, I'm more of a Corporate Capitalist (which is definitely not Libertarian).
and even so, presenting what a random economist had to say doesn't do much.
i actually agree that middle class deserve more tax cuts than the higher class, but this is because I want more spending for the things Reagan actually DID spend taxes on. I just want to spend even more on it. So that money has to come from the rich. but to improve the economy, the Middle Class need more tax breaks.
When all of your jobs are given to the Chinese, you will have a different view on Reganomics. Is this website a republican propaganda instrument? It's strange that the two possible views one can vote on are "Beneficial" or "NO EFFECT/Harmful". Why not devide into 3 categories?
Everyone allways talks about how great cax cuts are, but when you look more closely, our congress could cut our taxes by 10% and it doesn't make a big difference on the individual lower or middle class tax payer. Regan opened the door for corporate America to give an ENORMOUS number of our jobs to foriegners... Walk into any store and grab any item off the shelf. See how long it takes you to find an item that was nmade in the U.S.A.
