Inflation? Pfffttzz! What you really need is ...

And raised other tax rates on high earners. Somehow you forget that I suppose. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Sigh, Dems tried the same failed first two tears of Clinton. The economy got worse . Gingrich and Republicans took over in 1994 and applied supplyside economics, namely reducing government spending and economy soared and actually got a budget surplus. Only liars in theDemcratic party don’t understand that

... It wants to make the USA like France... Originally Posted by Tiny

... or when your country turns in to France. In related news: it would seem those ungrateful French peons are becoming revolting. Seems they are not taking kindly to the government mandating that they continue slaving away, much longer into their golden years.

Curiously enough, there are deep earth tremors that indicate F Joe Biden and the Demonicrats, writ large, are pursuing the same exact path. However, they still use ye olde smoke and mirrors by blaming the GOP for being the ones that want to end Social Security and raise the retirement age - as per usual.

But then, you know me - I ask the odd questions from time to time, such as:
Isn't it curious AF that many countries had and still have a burgeoning debt load, found it necessary to provide gigantic sums of free **cough, cough** money, aka stimulus while saddled with ginormous entitlement programs that need relief (as in removal) of intended recipients right about the time the covid hit the ground which coincidentally targeted that exact same demographic?

Nahhhh... Huh?

Sigh, Dems tried the same failed first two tears of Clinton. The economy got worse . Gingrich and Republicans took over in 1994 and applied supplyside economics, namely reducing government spending and economy soared and actually got a budget surplus. Only liars in theDemcratic party don’t understand that Originally Posted by farmstud60

Good lord man, you just spout shit and well it’s shit. If you actually knew anything we could actually have a discussion but it’s clear you don’t. Nice talking to you.

WRONG how do you think the economy of the 1990s was so strong? Originally Posted by farmstud60

Might it have had something to do with what happened in the 1980’s? Excellent point.

Clinton and a Republican Congress cut the capital gains tax btw. And balanced the budget. Originally Posted by Tiny

And raised other tax rates on high earners. Somehow you forget that I suppose. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

One other item, defense expenditures as a % of GDP declined from around 6% in the 1970's and 1980's to around 3% at the end of Clinton's 2nd term, when we balanced the budget. It's debatable about how much the Democrats' increase in the personal tax rates in 1993 ultimately increased government revenues, but it was certainly less than the amount we saved on defense.

You can attribute the cut in defense spending to the end of the Cold War, and Reagan had a lot to do with that.

The capital gains tax cut passed by Clinton and a Republican Congress in 1997 might have increased government revenues and helped balance the budget too. The CBO and JCT put the revenue maximizing capital gains tax rate at about 27% or 28%. Including state income taxes, the average maximum rate was higher than that before the Clinton/Gingrich tax cut. Here are revenues from capital gains taxes by year.

1996 66.4 billion
1997 79.3 billion
1998 89.1 billion
1999 111.8 billion
2000 127.3 billion

The capital gains tax cut went into effect in mid 1997. Of course the dot com boom figures into this as well.

... or when your country turns in to France. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Heaven forbid. France's GDP per capita GDP adjusted for purchasing power is about 25% less than ours. And that's where we're going if the Progressives win out.

the siren call of easy everything the progressives beguile our youth with is a powerful narcotic

given that, which is right in line with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the odds are the progressives will "win",

but some forthright survivors will rise out of the ashes like the phoenix to begin the cycle of work and goodness to destruction once more

the siren call of easy everything the progressives beguile our youth with is a powerful narcotic

given that, which is right in line with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the odds are the progressives will "win",

but some forthright survivors will rise out of the ashes like the phoenix to begin the cycle of work and goodness to destruction once more Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

I agree. I used to think we were going to be fucked when the Millennials became the big voting block, but am more optimistic now.

Good lord man, you just spout shit and well it’s shit. If you actually knew anything we could actually have a discussion but it’s clear you don’t. Nice talking to you. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

You are the one that doesn't have a clue. Clinton and Biden same crap the first two years in the White House policy wise. Gingrich's contract with American provided the strong economy. Bill Clinton just pretended he lead the parade when it was actually Gingrich. Those are the facts, the Democrats have lied all the time about those facts.

Heaven forbid. France's GDP per capita GDP adjusted for purchasing power is about 25% less than ours. And that's where we're going if the Progressives win out. Originally Posted by Tiny

Don't know if you have ever been to France and/or worked there. I have and I accidentally committed a practically mortal sin. I worked one extra hour without permission, because I was running some massive data imports. It took two hours and the equivalent of a Congressional hearing before I was allowed to leave the facility. Frankly, I was surprised they didn't give me an additional penance of 10 Hail Marys and 12 Our Fathers to boot.

Should I have used the also broadly termed - supply side economics. Would that be more in line with “conservative” in your mind? In any event, the cut taxes inordinately in favor of the wealthy and all the world will benefit, is what Tiny cries in every discussion. No other factors matter. Good job numbers - 2017 tax cuts, increase in govt revenues - 2017 tax cuts, increased demand - 2017 tax cuts. Good economic numbers under Obama - 2017 tax cuts. Good job numbers under Obama - 2017 tax cuts. Reduced deficits under democrat presidents - 2017 tax cuts. He believes, like another of the economists on the forum that cutting taxes has never done harm to the economy and has only improved the economy.

I suppose you support that belief as well. Maybe you should do less "supposing" and instead make at least a rudimentary effort to understand the topic under discussion. Unless, of course, you like to make a practice of assuming facts not in evidence. (Right, counselor?) Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Remember this golden moment from debate history?

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/...u-go-again.cnn

A nice fit for your misinformed references to "trickle-down" and "supply-side" economics, isn't it?

For starters, when were taxes "inordinately cut" for the wealthy?

Previously, you posted this little jewel:

Reagan would be proud of you Tiny. Still believing in trickle down economics, which is a failed economic theory 100 times over. But you and lusty still believe that the 2017 tax cuts helped our post Covid recovery. I’ll once again agree to disagree but I know it won’t change your beliefs. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Whoa, Nellie! Do you think Reagan advanced an agenda reasonably describable as "supply-side economics," at least in a form consistent with the popularly conceived meaning of the term?

Check out this completely erroneous entry from Investopedia:

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/05/011805.asp

Got that? The authors equate "supply-side economics" with "Reaganomics," maintaining that a key precept is that by cutting taxes on wealthy investors and entrepreneurs, we can thereby boost investment and increase the supply of goods and services, benefiting all income groups.

But that isn't what actually happened in the Reagan era, is it?

(No! It isn't!) In fact, the Tax Reform Act 0f 1986 significantly raised taxes on the wealthy and cut them for middle-class taxpayers!

But that's not what you've read in most "mainstream media" sources, is it?

One of the key elements of Biden's misbegotten "budget plan" is a big increase in corporate taxes. That's being touted as one primary way to make all those "wealthy" people pay their "fair share" (whatever that is).

But is this an effective way to tax the wealthy? Who actually pays the corporate income tax? Corporations actually write the checks, of course. But who actually bears the burden of the tax, and who would be hurt by a big increase?

This is called "tax incidence." A number of studies over recent decades have demonstrated that investors, customers, and labor all bear some of the burden, in proportions that vary across time and type of industry, and with differential elasticities of supply and demand for labor and capital along with the potential mobility of same.

The burden borne by labor may be a lot greater than many realize:

https://taxfoundation.org/labor-bears-corporate-tax/

George H. W. Bush said during discussions prior to the 1990 tax increase that when liberals start babbling about taxing the "rich," it's a good idea for middle-class workers to hang onto their wallets. (True that!)

One of the key elements of Biden's misbegotten "budget plan" is a big increase on corporate taxes... Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

Apologies for the lack of technology on these here fora for not being able to queue to the right spot in the video. Please advance directly to the 2:47 mark for the appropriate message.





Thank you for your service Captain!

Don't know if you have ever been to France and/or worked there. I have and I accidentally committed a practically mortal sin. I worked one extra hour without permission, because I was running some massive data imports. It took two hours and the equivalent of a Congressional hearing before I was allowed to leave the facility. Frankly, I was surprised they didn't give me an additional penance of 10 Hail Marys and 12 Our Fathers to boot. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

that happens here with union workers vs non union

George H. W. Bush said during discussions prior to the 1990 tax increase that when liberals start babbling about taxing the "rich," it's a good idea for middle-class workers to hang onto their wallets. (True that!) Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

George H.W. Bush also said, as he accepted the GOP nomination in 1988, "read my lips, no new taxes". (Not true that!)

If only George and his speechwriter Peggy Noonan had anticipated how the Democrats would twist & turn his words against him 4 years later!

... or when your country turns in to France. In related news: it would seem those ungrateful French peons are becoming revolting. Seems they are not taking kindly to the government mandating that they continue slaving away, much longer into their golden years.

[SNIP]

Nahhhh... Huh? Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

thats thanx to PM Chirac. France's retirement age was originally set at 65 years. He brought that down to 60 years.

later PMs eventually raised it up to 62 years. Now Macron wants to raise it to 64. why 64? why not 65????

Macron gets re-elected inspite of that promise.