Where the "deficits do not matter" mentality came. RR

That or inform folks their benefits would be reduced.

But what you can't seem to grasp is that I'd separate the two accounts so as no to confuse the slower economic guru's to actually reality.

For example would your wife let you borrow from her 401k so you could go fuck a bunch of hookers or buy a car?

That is basically what Ronnie did and you still seem to sanction! Originally Posted by WTF

Sacrilege! Ronald Reagan did not borrow from Nancy's 401K so he could go fuck a bunch of hookers and buy a car.

Sacrilege! Ronald Reagan did not borrow from Nancy's 401K so he could go fuck a bunch of hookers and buy a car. Originally Posted by Tiny

No, he borrowed your SS and Medicare savings to buy tanks and tax breaks for the wealthy!

No, he borrowed your SS and Medicare savings to buy tanks and tax breaks for the wealthy! Originally Posted by WTF

Did Ronnie support and then later sign legislation giving tax breaks to the wealthy? When did he do that? (Didn't he actually sign the 1986 tax reform that raised taxes on the wealthy?)

We will do exactly what Reagan did....we will wait until SS and Medicare are going to have to reduce their output and then we will increase the tax rate on the poor and middle class and to be fair the high income earners too. This windfall regressive tax will then hide the discretionary side of the ledger where the rich are not paying... Originally Posted by WTF

Didn't the tax rate and other adjustments to the Social Security system, arising from the 1983 "Greenspan Commission," have broad bipartisan support? And weren't the tax increases inherent in these changes minuscule in comparison to the Reagan-era income tax cuts for the middle class?

In fact, after all the Reagan-era tax policy changes, wasn't the US tax system considerably more progressive, not less, than it was when Ronnie took office?

Did Ronnie support and then later sign legislation giving tax breaks to the wealthy? When did he do that? (Didn't he actually sign the 1986 tax reform that raised taxes on the wealthy?) Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

Yes he did that but after he slashed taxes in 1981

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-fr...gans-tax-cuts/



The Reagan tax cut was huge. The top rate fell from 70 percent to 50 percent. The tax cut didn’t pay for itself. According to later Treasury estimates, it reduced federal revenues by about 9 percent in the first couple of years. In fact, most of the top Reagan administration officials didn’t think the tax cut would pay for itself. They were counting on spending cuts to avoid blowing up the deficit. But they never materialized.

Q. So the spending cuts never materialized, the deficit increased, and then what?
A. As projections for the deficit worsened, it became clear that the 1981 tax cut was too big. So with Reagan’s signature, Congress undid a good chunk of the 1981 tax cut by raising taxes a lot in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1987. George H.W. Bush signed another tax increase in 1990 and Bill Clinton did the same in 1993. One lesson from that history: When tax cuts are really too big to be sustainable, they’re often followed by tax increases.

Didn't the tax rate and other adjustments to the Social Security system, arising from the 1983 "Greenspan Commission," have broad bipartisan support? And weren't the tax increases inherent in these changes minuscule in comparison to the Reagan-era income tax cuts for the middle class?

In fact, after all the Reagan-era tax policy changes, wasn't the US tax system considerably more progressive, not less, than it was when Ronnie took office? Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

Yes to the Greenspan Commission.

Now let me explain once again.

Reagan cut taxes, then raised taxes and spent like crazy.

He did get bipartisan legislation passed in 1986.

But if there are two side of the Federal Budget and you cut taxes on the discretionary side (Defense Spending for example)and raise taxes on the non-dicretionary (SS for example) you get a construed view of how well you have/are budgeting.

Is it any wonder that the huge increase in non-dicretionary side would hide the budget shortfalls on the other side of the ledger? What you get is not surprising....a growing income inequality. I argue that is not a good thing. We could further look at how CEO compensation expanded after he beat back the striking traffic controllers.

You can cherry pick the micro but the macro for this 40 year period does not lie.

Yes he did that but after he slashed taxes in 1981

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-fr...gans-tax-cuts/



The Reagan tax cut was huge. The top rate fell from 70 percent to 50 percent. The tax cut didn’t pay for itself. According to later Treasury estimates, it reduced federal revenues by about 9 percent in the first couple of years. In fact, most of the top Reagan administration officials didn’t think the tax cut would pay for itself. They were counting on spending cuts to avoid blowing up the deficit. But they never materialized.

Q. So the spending cuts never materialized, the deficit increased, and then what?
A. As projections for the deficit worsened, it became clear that the 1981 tax cut was too big. So with Reagan’s signature, Congress undid a good chunk of the 1981 tax cut by raising taxes a lot in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1987. George H.W. Bush signed another tax increase in 1990 and Bill Clinton did the same in 1993. One lesson from that history: When tax cuts are really too big to be sustainable, they’re often followed by tax increases.



Yes to the Greenspan Commission.

Now let me explain once again.

Reagan cut taxes, then raised taxes and spent like crazy.

He did get bipartisan legislation passed in 1986.

But if there are two side of the Federal Budget and you cut taxes on the discretionary side (Defense Spending for example)and raise taxes on the non-dicretionary (SS for example) you get a construed view of how well you have/are budgeting.

Is it any wonder that the huge increase in non-dicretionary side would hide the budget shortfalls on the other side of the ledger? What you get is not surprising....a growing income inequality. I argue that is not a good thing. We could further look at how CEO compensation expanded after he beat back the striking traffic controllers.

You can cherry pick the micro but the macro for this 40 year period does not lie. Originally Posted by WTF

The Democrats controlled the House in 1981. So regretfully I must admit that Reagan and the Republicans weren't solely responsible for the 1981 tax cuts. Recall that all bills for raising revenues must originate in the House of Representatives.

Pinning rising inequality on Reagan is simple minded. The hallowed gini coefficent has steadily increased since Carter was elected and showed its biggest jump during Clinton's first term. Technology and, secondarily, globalization are the culprits. And our standard of living, for rich and poor alike, is a lot higher than it would be without those factors. There's just not the demand for low wage, unskilled labor that there used to be.

You have so much potential WTF. You just have to get over your pathological hatred of Ronald Reagan.

Pinning rising inequality on Reagan is simple minded. The hallowed gini coefficent has steadily increased since Carter was elected and showed its biggest jump during Clinton's first term. Technology and, secondarily, globalization are the culprits. And our standard of living, for rich and poor alike, is a lot higher than it would be without those factors...

You have so much potential WTF. You just have to get over your pathological hatred of Ronald Reagan. Originally Posted by Tiny

Is income inequality measured on a pre-tax or post-tax basis? If it's prior to taxes, then tax policy has little to do with the underlying causes of income inequality. You can argue that Ronnie Reagan merely raised everyone's incentives to earn more gross income, but he had no control over who took advantage of it and who didn't.

I wonder if any of this has even occurred to WTF as he spouts mysterious buzzwords like "Gini coefficient" along with simplistic, misleading DNC talking points blaming income inequality on Ronnie and demagoguing any & all tax cuts as being "for the rich".

Please school us in this magical Gini coefficient. Is it calculated from pretax or post-tax income data?

Another Biden lie - this one was slipped into Joey's speech touting the CHIPS bill.

Did he really promise 1 million construction jobs? Actual number is 6200.

Biden’s bogus boast of 1 million ‘construction jobs’

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...on-jobs-boast/

Please school us in this magical Gini coefficient. Originally Posted by lustylad

Now why would I do that? I'm not into class warfare. It makes more sense to look at inflation adjusted median income IMHO. Median household income increased a lot during the Reagan and Clinton administrations, then remained stagnant during the Bush and Obama administrations, before taking off after Trump took office, up until COVID. What's more striking is comparing median income after taxes and transfers among countries. The countries that are best off, save small places and petrostates, are countries like the USA, Switzerland and Singapore with low taxes and low government expenditures as a % of GDP.

However, out of respect for you, I looked up the Gini Coefficient on Wikipedia. To really understand it, I'd have to brush up on integral calculus and statistics. Wikipedia does have a good geometric representation of how it's calculated, and given that, I figure I could calculate the Gini coefficient for a country given an Excel spreadsheet with the income for each resident. And a fast PC. That doesn't mean I'd really understand what the Gini coefficient represents, beyond the chart on Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

Is it calculated from pretax or post-tax income data? Originally Posted by lustylad

Damn LustyLad. Two stupid comments in a row. I may have to re-evaluate my belief that you're one of the two smartest people posting here. (Texas Contrarian is the other.)

Of course it's based on income before tax and before transfers. That way you don't take into account the equalizing effects of our tax system, which is the most progressive in the developed world, and social security payments, food stamps, etc. That's what those on the left want you to look at when they start spouting "Gini Coefficient."

Seriously, just googling something like "United States Gini Coefficient by year" you'll see the U.S. Census bureau and the World Bank provide series. I'm too lazy to see how they're calculated, but from the magnitude of the numbers suspect the Census is using numbers before taxes and transfers. And the World Bank's figures are after taxes and possibly transfers. They both show the same general trend, in terms of changes through the years.

Let's just take Ronnie's redo of SS.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/th...am-11661175459

OMG

Truth is no one cares about the deficit. Its just a made up number! The national debt ticker always makes me snicker when someone shows it. Its not real. If you were to unplug it and reset to zero nothing would change! Here comes the but but but this and that and markets would.... No none of that has to happen.

And while were on deficits. Which is "Spending"!

Reagan built up our military and protected us from communism. We still can thank Reagan for that today!
Id whole lot rather spend it on something real and needed than the social b/s programs dems shove down our throats!
These programs can be shown on the streets of san fran la philly ny city chicago rochester st louis new orleans portland seattle etc......Those social programs led to what ails em'. But secures votes.. smdh

Hmm.

Isn't real median income a better measure of how the poor are doing than income/wealth inequality?

Under BO, real median household income increase $28 in his first five years, despite the recession ending five months into his first term and his $800 billion "stimulus."

And while were on deficits. Which is "Spending"!

Reagan built up our military and protected us from communism. We still can thank Reagan for that today!
Id whole lot rather spend it on something real and needed than the social b/s programs dems shove down our throats!
These programs can be shown on the streets of san fran la philly ny city chicago rochester st louis new orleans portland seattle etc......Those social programs led to what ails em'. But secures votes.. smdh Originally Posted by winn dixie

I'm no fan of big military spending. But by outspending the Soviets on defense and thus bringing down the Iron Curtain, Ronnie may just have set us up for the peace dividend that enabled Clinton, Gingrich, et al to balance the budget some years later.

I'm no fan of big military spending. But by outspending the Soviets on defense and thus bringing down the Iron Curtain, Ronnie may just have set us up for the peace dividend that enabled Clinton, Gingrich, et al to balance the budget some years later. Originally Posted by Tiny

Jesus H Christ....you and others act as if the Soviets were vanquished to the dustbin of history!

You act as if it wasn't Saudi oil flow that mostly bankrupt the Soviets and our oil companies in the process!

You act as if Reagan's policy towards Saudi Arabia did not in part bring Osama bin to the forefront. That then results in 9/11 and the resulting Trillions of dollars blown in Iraq!

And you sure af never acknowledge that Reagan spawned a generation of winn dixies and lustylad's that's believe the debt not matter!

Now why would I do that? I'm not into class warfare. Originally Posted by Tiny

Damn... that question was directed at WTF, not you. WTF is our resident expert on how to measure and correct the scourge of income inequality throughout the world. He is a determined class warrior. I assumed he must have studied the problem thoroughly and applied his usual deep thinking to it, but I could be wrong.

Sorry to send you off on a tangent looking up answers to questions our resident expert could have explained to everyone off the top of his head!