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

.

I'll note that you've moderated my thinking as well on a couple of topics, for example how federal spending is better controlled when the parties controlling the House and the Presidency are different. Originally Posted by Tiny

You need to pay attention a tad better...I've said it only works when there is a Democrat in the WH.

When you have a Republican in the WH and a Democrat Congress, they spend like crazy. Just check out Reagan, Bush Jr, Trump.

Vs

Clinton and Obama and when they had Republican congresses.

And isn't that what you're supposed to do? Cut taxes when there's a recession? I'm no economist but I thought that was classical Keynesian theory. Then you raise them when times are good. Somebody, maybe you, said Congress and Reagan did that in 1986. . Originally Posted by Tiny

From the Stockman article...




(in 1986, Reagan agreed to some tax increases, but mostly in the Social Security payroll tax, meaning on the middle and lower classes).

I've got a couple more things to add You're way overreaching. It's reasonable for Lusty Lad to reply.

He may be partisan and caustic at times. But you should bear with him, you might learn something. like I have. I'd be damn happy if Paul Krugman decided to start posting here. And even though he's partisan and caustic at times, I'd treat him with respect.
Originally Posted by Tiny

I treat posters with respect that do so in kind.

I suppose I could learn something from watching gay porn but why would I want to learn about that? The only thing worse than listening to lustylad's take on economics would be watching him discuss economics while he was giving Ronnie a reach around.

So now we've established that Ronnie cut taxes on the highest earners and raised the regressive SS tax....by a lot.

So now we've established that Ronnie cut taxes on the highest earners and raised the regressive SS tax....by a lot. Originally Posted by WTF

Only in your mind.

Why do you hate Reagan and distort his legacy? Did your parents tell you he was evil when you were growing up?

It was Democrats, not Republicans, who pushed dropping the tax rate from 70% to 50% during the Reagan administration. They recognized that tax at that level actually reduced revenues. Only 1% of tax collected was from the 70% bracket.

https://www.politico.com/agenda/stor...x-rate-000879/

Texas Contrarian has shown that the higher earners paid more tax after the changes to the tax code during the Reagan administration. You should go back and read his posts.

And Democrats are responsible for raising contributions, or as you put it, the “SS tax,” in 1983 to save social security. Republicans wanted to cut benefits. From the left of center Brookings Institution:

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/t...ty-reform/amp/

Isn’t the CBPP your favorite source of left-of-center info for tax and budget policy? They laud Reagan and Tip O’Neill for saving social security:

https://www.cbpp.org/blog/social-security-its-not-1983

Only in your mind.

Why do you hate Reagan and distort his legacy? Did your parents tell you he was evil when you were growing up?



Texas Contrarian has shown that the higher earners paid more tax after the changes to the tax code during the Reagan administration. You should go back and read his posts.....

..... They laud Reagan and Tip O’Neill for saving social security. Originally Posted by Tiny

How about you reread just the title to this thread.

Reagan was the one who got the ball rolling concerning debts and deficits not mattering in the GOP. That is a fact....your continued defense of this is what I both hate about Reagan and tip my hat to him.


Now let me offer my proof and not go chasing you, TC and lustylad's rabbits.

You will admit that the debt exploded under Reagan and Bush Sr. The proof is that the GOP base rejected Bush Sr when he did the correct thing and increased taxes and the debt and deficits shrunk SHRUNCK and Clinton and Newt got all the credit!

So let me repeat....it was Ronnie who taught a bunch of young Republicans that debt does not matter....except when there is a Democrat in the WH.

I know it is like having to admit that there is not a God....but in Reagan's case , there isn't.

Read the article, Stockman lays it out for all to see.

You and others are stuck on the this spending mantra. What fucking President is going to slash government largeness?

Carter tried and look what happened to him! Bush Sr tried, look what happened to him!

Reagan was the blueprint...just spend baby, let future generations worry about the debt.

Do you understand that NOBODY in either party seems to care about the debt? Republicans used not to be like that. Bush Sr was the last Republican I voted for.

My biggest worry is about debt.

Has been since I was just out of High School and Reagan was blowing it up. So as much as I respect him as a politician, sort of, his economic policy has wrought havoc on this country. Reagan could have convinced million of gay men during the AIDS endemic in the mid 80's that not only was buttsex not dangerous, it was healthy! In fact I'd be shocked if a few economic guru's who made it through that Era still probably believe both that tax cuts are always the answer and buttsex is always good for you! So you be very leary of accepting lunch invitations with nine other guys. According to lustylad, they'll all be looking to fuck the richest one!

Hmmm... so your post #49, which I've now cited twice, was in response to a "numbnut" and a "fool" who wouldn't "stay on point"?

Better go back and read it again. You quoted from - and were responding to - Texas Contrarian's comments in the immediately preceding post #48.

Are you calling TC a "numbnut" and a "fool"?

Awww... that's not very nice! Originally Posted by lustylad

Ouch! Okay, although I'm rather embarrassed to admit this, I will confess that I am a fool. For many years now, attractive young women have continually been scheming up ways to extract cash from my wallet. And I fall for it every fucking time.

But I am NOT a numbnuts! (OK, I was for about one day back in 1988, but then the anesthesia from my vasectomy wore off.)

From the Stockman article...

(in 1986, Reagan agreed to some tax increases, but mostly in the Social Security payroll tax, meaning on the middle and lower classes). Originally Posted by WTF

Wrong. Why is it that any discussion of Reagan-era tax policy as it relates to inequality always seems to veer into a non sequitur involving the Social Security adjustments?

First, that new law was passed in 1983, not 1986, and on a bipartisan basis. Any president of either party would have supported and signed it.

Second, the income tax cuts for the lower income groups during this period were much larger than the Social Security withholding increase.

Third, the 1986 tax reform was the legislation that significantly raised taxes on the wealthy while further cutting them for the middle class.

Furthermore, who seriously believes that Ronnie's deficits convinced the nation that "deficits don't matter?"

Do you not remember that in the late 1980s/early '90s, nearly every media myrmidon in the nation was prattling almost nonstop about the need to rein in deficit spending?

GHW Bush was pressured into tax increases in 1990, and Bill C. pushed up the top bracket significantly further three years later.

And what topic do you think was most central to the animation of Ross's 1992 campaign?

Ouch



Wrong. Why is it that any discussion of Reagan-era tax policy as it relates to inequality always seems to veer into a non sequitur involving the Social Security adjustments?
Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

The subject was deficits and debt...not income inequality.

I'll not let you have me running down rabbit holes.

The topic was how Reagan got Republican voters to not worry about deficits and debt.

Have you forgotten, "Read my lips" and the ensuing loss?

Hell half the posters in this forum think tax cuts always will result in more tax revenue!

My apologies on 86, yes 83 was the year of the heist!

https://www.fedsmith.com/2013/10/11/...ecurity-heist/

Instead of being a proud day for America, April 20, 1983, has become a day of shame. The Social Security Amendments of 1983 laid the foundation for 30-years of federal embezzlement of Social Security money in order to use the money to pay for wars, tax cuts and other government programs.

The payroll tax hike of 1983 generated a total of $2.7 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue. This surplus revenue was supposed to be saved and invested in marketable U.S. Treasury bonds that would be held in the trust fund until the baby boomers began to retire in about 2010. But not one dime of that money went to Social Security.

https://www.fedsmith.com/2013/10/11/...ecurity-heist/

Instead of being a proud day for America, April 20, 1983, has become a day of shame. The Social Security Amendments of 1983 laid the foundation for 30-years of federal embezzlement of Social Security money in order to use the money to pay for wars, tax cuts and other government programs.

The payroll tax hike of 1983 generated a total of $2.7 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue. This surplus revenue was supposed to be saved and invested in marketable U.S. Treasury bonds that would be held in the trust fund until the baby boomers began to retire in about 2010. But not one dime of that money went to Social Security. Originally Posted by WTF

I don’t believe that. The last sentence is probably a bald faced lie, based on what I’m reading here:

https://www.cbpp.org/research/social...-trust-funds-0

Please note the source is your favorite left of center think tank. And they have something favorable to say about the 1983 act that saved social security.

I don’t believe that. The last sentence is probably a bald faced lie, based on what I’m reading here:

https://www.cbpp.org/research/social...-trust-funds-0

Please note the source is your favorite left of center think tank. And they have something favorable to say about the 1983 act that saved social security. Originally Posted by Tiny

Saved SS?

If someone convinces you to save more money for retirement and then takes it and buys tanks....how is that saving it?

Are you for raising federal taxes to pay that money back? o
How large should our debt get before investors lose faith? You are under the impression that just because we have never defaulted, we never will.

That was the hoodwink ,the scam....that huge tax revenue allowed 40 years of even more over inflated spending than what it would have been before you Ronnie lovers lost your minds concerning debt.

What you need to focus on are the two differing budgets...you wouldn't tell your kids you were putting away a 1000$ a month for their college education and then instead buy a new car with that money. Come college time there'd be a day of reckoning.

And AND you then will have the audacity to bitch about the cost of something that you should have had the money for!

You don't

I can't make heads or tails if you now think raising taxes on SS is good or bad.

I thought you were a "CUT TAXES MORE MORE MORE..." kinda guy.

OK, as you know, when I compare you to Bernie Sanders, and his position on deficits in particular, I'm joking. You however appear to really think that I'm a believer in greater inequality and larger deficits. Which is ass backwards from what I've posted. Maybe this is the problem, you're not reading my replies to your posts,

That said, you should know I have ADHD , rarely proof read and am perfectly fine getting close to the intended word. You would be too if you always posted from your phone (half the time while driving) Originally Posted by WTF

Unlike you, I believe social security and Medicare are Ponzi schemes. The 1983 legislation was a way of extending the Ponzi scheme, so more people can be paid off before the piper comes calling again. And that's a good thing to have done, given the system we're stuck with.

I'm in favor of transitioning from social security to something like Australia's Superannuation scheme or, better yet, if we could trust our federal government to administer it, something like Singapore's Central Provident Fund. In other words, transition from a Ponzi scheme akin to a defined benefit retirement program to a defined contribution program. Every American sets aside sufficient money to have a decent retirement, and they'd have their own "accounts", instead of relying on their kids and grandkids to pay up. This would potentially entail vastly larger contributions than what we have now. In Singapore the employee pays 20% of his salary and the employer 17%.

This goes against Libertarian principles. However, the majority of Americans are spendthrifts who spend money as fast as they get it. Maybe forcing them to save is a good idea. If we had a system like Singapore's, in addition to retirement, they'd also be saving for medical expenses, a house, and higher education.

Your solution to inequality is to jack up taxes on higher income Americans, even though we've already got the most progressive tax system in the developed world. My solution is "bottoms up." And if you force people to start saving, that's a significant part of the solution.

SS is not a Ponzi scheme unless you think we are going to run out of people!

The counter argument is exactly why we need to separate the two taxes!

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Po...bly%20collapse.

Social Security is different from a Ponzi scheme because:

No outsize returns are promised by Social Security.
Participation in Social Security is not voluntary.
Ponzi schemes are insolvent; Social Security is not insolvent.
Funds received into Social Security are invested in government-backed securities at a certain interest rate, thus generating returns. In a Ponzi scheme, there are no investments made.
Ponzi schemes work only until people get wind of what is going on, at which point they inevitably collapse. Social Security's finances are plainly visible for all to see. Modest adjustments in tax rates, benefit formulas and the retirement age can ensure the program's viability for generations to come.[1]
Ponzi schemes are a criminal enterprise; Social Security is not.

SS is not a Ponzi scheme unless you think we are going to run out of people!

The counter argument is exactly why we need to separate the two taxes!

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Po...bly%20collapse.
Originally Posted by WTF

If you believe what your link says, then why do you slam the 1983 act, which shored up the Trust Fund? You've always said the extra money from social security contributions went to defense spending and other discretionary expenditures. From what you quoted:

"The payroll tax hike of 1983 generated a total of $2.7 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue. This surplus revenue was supposed to be saved and invested in marketable U.S. Treasury bonds that would be held in the trust fund until the baby boomers began to retire in about 2010. But not one dime of that money went to Social Security."

That sure sounds like a Ponzi scheme to me. If what you believe is true, there's no money sitting around in a Trust Fund. We've got 2.6 workers for every beneficiary right now, and that will shrink to 2.0 workers. How is this going to work with that low a ratio, with no Trust Fund?

I call this a Ponzi scheme only half seriously. You ought to believe it 100%, given what you think has been happening with social security contributions in excess of benefits.

The subject was deficits and debt...not income inequality. Originally Posted by WTF

Really? Then why do we see statements like this?

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

Tax breaks for the wealthy? Seriously? When did Reagan introduce "tax breaks for the wealthy?" ( He didn't. He eliminated them!)

It seems that almost all anti-Reagan screeds, once you distill away all the extraneous crap, get back to the same narrative -- that is, that somehow Reagan increased "unfairness" in the economy by cutting taxes for the wealthy. (But he didn't!)

My apologies on 86, yes 83 was the year of the heist!

https://www.fedsmith.com/2013/10/11/...ecurity-heist/

Instead of being a proud day for America, April 20, 1983, has become a day of shame. Originally Posted by WTF

Huh?? Somehow this is Reagan's fault? Looked pretty bipartisan to me!

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/artic...it-can-be-done

But we won't be getting any criticism of Tip from you, will we? (Of course not! He was a Democrat.)