ROMNEY TELLS THE TRUTH ABOUT OBAMA VOTERS

Reagan cut tax rates and DOUBLED TAX REVENUE. It's called supply side economics. You should read up on it. Originally Posted by joe bloe

CaptainMidnight will be here soon!

http://mises.org/daily/1544



Tax Cuts. One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?
The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes even though the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same. The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall. Not only that, but soon thereafter; when the Social Security System was generally perceived as on the brink of bankruptcy, President Reagan brought in Alan Greenspan, a leading Reaganomist and now Chairman of the Federal Reserve, to save Social Security as head of a bipartisan commission. The "saving," of course, meant still higher Social Security taxes then and forevermore.
Since the tax cut of 1981 that was not really a cut, furthermore, taxes have gone up every single year since, with the approval of the Reagan administration. But to save the president's rhetorical sensibilities, they weren't called tax increases. Instead, ingenious labels were attached to them; raising of "fees," "plugging loopholes" (and surely everyone wants loopholes plugged), "tightening IRS enforcement," and even revenue enhancements." I am sure that all good Reaganomists slept soundly at night knowing that even though government revenue was being "enhanced," the president had held the line against tax increases.

Careful don't say fuck, you will hurt JB's fragile sensibilities.

You gotta speak to JB as though he was a southern debutant and add a few "I do declare"s in the mix if you expect him to reasonable and competently answer a question.

Originally Posted by SkylarCruzWantsYou

I'm not offended by the word. Fuck is a perfectly fine word. It's just been my observation that profanity is very often a substitute for making a rational argument. Like I posted earlier, if the facts aren't on your side, pound the table.

Anyone one to bet that as soon as the polls start reflecting his fuck up Romney will be apologizing and flip flopping again?

Reagan cut tax rates and DOUBLED TAX REVENUE. It's called supply side economics. You should read up on it. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Technically you are correct JB, but if you put it in historical context it actually proves nothing about tax cuts.

The argument that the near-doubling of revenues during Reagan's two terms proves the value of tax cuts is an old argument. It's also extremely flawed. At 99.6 percent, revenues did nearly double during the 80s.

What no one tells you when the tout how "great' Reagan did is that tax revenues had likewise more than doubled during EVERY SINGLE DECADE SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION! They went up 502.4% during the 40's, 134.5% during the 50's, 108.5% during the 60's, and 168.2% during the 70's. At 96.2 percent, they nearly doubled in the 90s as well under Clinton. Hence, Reagan's performance in doubling tax revenues was really the poorest in 50 years and even poorer in this area than the 70's (168.2%).

Technically you are correct JB, but if you put it in historical context it actually proves nothing about tax cuts.

The argument that the near-doubling of revenues during Reagan's two terms proves the value of tax cuts is an old argument. It's also extremely flawed. At 99.6 percent, revenues did nearly double during the 80s.

What no one tells you when the tout how "great' Reagan did is that tax revenues had likewise more than doubled during EVERY SINGLE DECADE SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION! They went up 502.4% during the 40's, 134.5% during the 50's, 108.5% during the 60's, and 168.2% during the 70's. At 96.2 percent, they nearly doubled in the 90s as well under Clinton. Hence, Reagan's performance in doubling tax revenues was really the poorest in 50 years and even poorer in this area than the 70's (168.2%). Originally Posted by austxjr

joe blow has cut and ran...

And now on to more interesting stuff! The following article was found on Peggy Noonan's Wall Street Journal Blog. It was written by Peggy herself and reflects a well regarded Conservative view of Mitt Gaffeney's candidacy. Enjoy!

WSJ Blogs

Real-time commentary and analysis from The Wall Street Journal
Peggy Noonan's Blog

Daily declarations from the Wall Street Journal columnist.
Search Peggy Noonan's Blog1

• Sep 18, 2012
  7:04 PM Time for an Intervention
  
  
  What should Mitt Romney do now? He should peer deep into the abyss. He should look straight into the heart of darkness where lies a Republican defeat in a year the Republican presidential candidate almost couldn’t lose. He should imagine what it will mean for the country, for a great political philosophy, conservatism, for his party and, last, for himself. He must look down unblinkingly.
• And then he needs to snap out of it, and move.
• 
  
• 
  He has got seven weeks. He’s just had two big flubs. On the Mideast he seemed like a political opportunist, not big and wise but small and tinny. It mattered because the crisis was one of those moments when people look at you and imagine you as president.
• 
  
• 
  Then his comments released last night and made months ago at the private fundraiser in Boca Raton, Fla. Mr. Romney has relearned what four years ago Sen. Barack Obama learned: There’s no such thing as private when you’re a candidate with a mic. There’s someone who doesn’t like you in that audience. There’s someone with a cellphone. Mr. Obama’s clinger comments became famous in 2008 because when people heard what he’d said, they thought, “That’s the real him, that’s him when he’s talking to his friends.”
  
  * * *
  And so a quick denunciation of what Mr. Romney said, followed by some ideas.
  
• 
  The central problem revealed by the tape is Romney’s theory of the 2012 election. It is that a high percentage of the electorate receives government checks and therefore won’t vote for him, another high percentage is supplying the tax revenues and will vote for him, and almost half the people don’t pay taxes and presumably won’t vote for him.
  
• 
  My goodness, that’s a lot of people who won’t vote for you. You wonder how he gets up in the morning.
  
• 
  This is not how big leaders talk, it’s how shallow campaign operatives talk: They slice and dice the electorate like that, they see everything as determined by this interest or that. They’re usually young enough and dumb enough that nobody holds it against them, but they don’t know anything. They don’t know much about America.
  
• 
  We are a big, complicated nation. And we are human beings. We are people. We have souls. We are complex. We are not data points. Many things go into our decisions and our political affiliations.
  
• 
  You have to be sophisticated to know that. And if you’re operating at the top of national politics, you’re supposed to be sophisticated.
  
• 
  I wrote recentlyof an imagined rural Ohio woman sitting on her porch, watching the campaign go by. She’s 60, she identifies as conservative, she likes guns, she thinks the culture has gone crazy. She doesn’t like Obama. Romney looks OK. She’s worried about the national debt and what it will mean to her children. But she’s having a hard time, things are tight for her right now, she’s on partial disability, and her husband is a vet and he gets help, and her mother receives Social Security.
  
• 
  She’s worked hard and paid into the system for years. Her husband fought for his country.
  
• 
  And she’s watching this whole election and thinking.You can win her vote if you give her faith in your fairness and wisdom. But not if you label her and dismiss her.
  As for those workers who don’t pay any income taxes, they pay payroll taxes—Social Security and Medicare. They want to rise in the world and make more money. They’d like to file a 1040 because that will mean they got a raise or a better job.
  
• 
  They too are potential Romney voters, because they’re suffering under the no-growth economy.
  
• 
  So: Romney’s theory of the case is all wrong. His understanding of the political topography is wrong.
  
• 
  And his tone is fatalistic. I can’t win these guys who will only vote their economic interests, but I can win these guys who will vote their economic interests, plus some guys in the middle, whoever they are.
  
• 
  That’s too small and pinched and narrow. That’s not how Republicans emerge victorious—”I can’t win these guys.” You have to have more respect than that, and more affection, you don’t write anyone off, you invite everyone in. Reagan in 1984 used to put out his hand: “Come too, come walk with me.” Come join, come help, whatever is happening in your life.
  
• 
  You know what Romney sounded like? Like a kid new to politics who thinks he got the inside lowdown on how it works from some operative. But those old operatives, they never know how it works. They knew how it worked for one cycle back in the day.
  
• 
  They’re jockeys who rode Seabiscuit and thought they won a race.
  

http://blogs.wsj.com/peggynoonan/

It's just so much easier to go with what's on the bumper sticker. Ain't that right, joe bloe-viate?

BULLSHIT!

Simple math. If you CUT taxes, you CUT revenue to the government. IT IS A LOSS OF MONEY!!! It then has to be covered by taking money from somewhere else!

Are you guys in another fucking universe? Originally Posted by markroxny

It is not that simple. Did having a luxury tax on boats increase revenue to the government or did it severely damage the US boat building industry. If you cut taxes and the reduction stimulates economic activity it can be a net gain to the government.

The bigger half of the problem is spending. Much government spending is counter productive. The intentions may have been good but the result is bad. That includes military spending. We have allowed the rest of the world to become dependent to the point that they can't even deal with a pissant dictator in Libya without our help.

So tell us, you two. How many people in your respective families don't pay any federal income tax? Originally Posted by Doove

Joe bloe? Cog? Come on. How many in your family are freeloading moochers who don't believe in personal responsibility? Originally Posted by Doove

Tap tap tap tap tap tap tap tap tap tap tap tap.

Well? Originally Posted by Doove

I'm stayin' on this one until you guys answer.

How many family members do each of you have who are leeching moochers who don't take responsibility for themselves by not paying federal income taxes?

Well, I guess we'll see how it works out. There is something very appealing about just telling the truth, even when all the focus groups indicate that lying is a better strategy. I wish Romney would tell the general population the same message he tells the party loyalists.

The Democrats show amazing discipline in religiously sticking to dishonest political rhetoric. Once in a while, they tip their hand, and reveal their true nature, like when Obama made his infamous "you didn't build that" comment. If Obama was ever honest about how radical he really is, I think most people would be shocked. Originally Posted by joe bloe

So you think I'm a parasite on the Federal government??!!! I've never voted for a Republican in my life and my Federal Incom Tax bill has been six figures for fifteen years or more.

Technically you are correct JB, but if you put it in historical context it actually proves nothing about tax cuts.

The argument that the near-doubling of revenues during Reagan's two terms proves the value of tax cuts is an old argument. It's also extremely flawed. At 99.6 percent, revenues did nearly double during the 80s.

What no one tells you when the tout how "great' Reagan did is that tax revenues had likewise more than doubled during EVERY SINGLE DECADE SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION! They went up 502.4% during the 40's, 134.5% during the 50's, 108.5% during the 60's, and 168.2% during the 70's. At 96.2 percent, they nearly doubled in the 90s as well under Clinton. Hence, Reagan's performance in doubling tax revenues was really the poorest in 50 years and even poorer in this area than the 70's (168.2%). Originally Posted by austxjr

Don't confuse the wing nuts with facts.

So you think I'm a parasite on the Federal government??!!! I've never voted for a Republican in my life and my Federal Incom Tax bill has been six figures for fifteen years or more. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Obviously, if you are a high income earner, you're not a parasite, in the traditional sense. On the other hand, since you always vote Democrat, you have participated in creating a social welfare state, that is parasitic by it's nature.

I believe I could make a good case, that most lawyers are parasites on the system, due to the fact that many law suits are essentially a form of extorsion; but that's a separate issue.

Social welfare states do create a relationship between the productive and unproductive members of society, that is parasitic. No society should make it possible for able bodied people, to choose not to work, and to live off the work of others; it isn't morally defensible and it isn't sustainable. Liberal politicians don't redistribute wealth out of compassion; it's simply a way of buying votes.

The Usual Suspects, like their leader, are in damage control/reboot mode.

40+ days left, boys.

Plenty of time for Romney to get caught on tape jerking off in a porn house, or the like. Don't think he'll do it?

the man has no credibility and will be cast out by his own...

Obviously, if you are a high income earner, you're not a parasite, in the traditional sense. On the other hand, since you always vote Democrat, you have participated in creating a social welfare state, that is parasitic by it's nature. Oh, the irony of it all! Now, we're spitting cunthairs and going with the ol' guilt by association bromide. Since you've never paid ANY income tax, bloehardly, I suppose that you're blameless and pure as the driven snow by your own high standards when it comes to being a participant.

I believe I could make a good case, that most lawyers are parasites on the system, due to the fact that many law suits are essentially a form of extorsion; but that's a separate issue. Make that case when circumstances require their services. THEN, hardlybloeme, we'll see if you've got balls or bb's swinging between your legs.

Social welfare states do create a relationship between the productive and unproductive members of society, that is parasitic. No society should make it possible for able bodied people, to choose not to work, and to live off the work of others; it isn't morally defensible and it isn't sustainable. Liberal politicians don't redistribute wealth out of compassion; it's simply a way of buying votes. We're hung up on the parasitism, are we? That's nice. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Once again, AS FUCKING USUAL, the standard talking points about our "socialist" society and lawyers are brushed off, polished up and trotted out for all to see and behold their wonderousness.....*puke*

CaptainMidnight will be here soon! Originally Posted by WTF

Excuse me, did someone call?

Looks like it's once again time for a little fact-checking!

It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. Originally Posted by WTF

That's simply wrong. Don't take my word for it; check for yourself. It's easy enough to do:

http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-...usted-brackets

You can check brackets and rates for any level of inflation-adjusted income. If you check the record, you will also see that the increase in social security payroll taxes pales in comparison to the middle class income tax cuts of the 1980s.

The puzzling thing to me is why someone of Rothbard's stature would make such an error. I think it's probably because that assumption comported with a set of widely held beliefs, and he may have relied on a sloppy or lazy reseach assistant. In any event, Rothbard was one who criticized the Reagan record from the right, whereas most did so from the left. He was disappointed that the Reaganites failed to control spending as promised.

You might also note that the 1986 tax law changes actually increased taxes on the wealthy, contrary to popular belief. The reason is that the new code, even though it dramatically lowered rates, disallowed a number of huge loopholes such as accelerated depreciation on leveraged investments. The 1986 tax law can be viewed as the forced acceptance (by wealthy taxpayers) of a sort of expanded AMT. That's why people who think "supply-side" tax cuts (creating more investment and production by leaving more money in the hands of wealthy "job creators") drove the recovery of the 1980s do not understand the issue, as I posted a few days ago in another thread. The reasons for that recovery were altogether different.

...Did having a luxury tax on boats increase revenue to the government or did it severely damage the US boat building industry... Originally Posted by Laz

The luxury tax of 1990, at least insofar as it applied to domestically produced goods such as expensive boats, was one of the most boneheaded moves in the history of policymaking. Congress had to change course in a hurry to avoid further damage.

The bigger half of the problem is spending. Originally Posted by Laz

True that!

The Peggy Noonan article bigtex posted (post #96) hits the nail on the head, in my opinion. She concisely explains why Romney is failing to make his case to independent voters.

He needs to connect with voters and explain how he's going to fix things. Confused, predictable platitudes will not work. Voters have been asked to overdose on those for long enough.