How many fascist, murderous dictators do you have to illegally prop up to qualify for “great president” status in your view? How many deaths do you have to despicably abet? How many traitorous acts do you have to perform? How many laws do you have to break? How many huge, deliberate lies do you have to tell the American people? How many people’s lives, hopes, and dreams do you have to crush? How many poor people do you have to make poorer while making the very rich even richer?
You sure seem to have some sick, bizarre criteria for presidential “greatness”!
By the way, Krugman today has an article on Reagan that makes a point similar to the one that I was making, that is, he praises Reagan (in contrast to GW) for having enough sense to reverse some of his tax cut policies once it was clear the problems they would cause. In fact, he says that the first tax increase that undid some of the 1981 tax cut actually came in 1982.
Ahem. I asked why you singled out Reagan as having “proven” that economics is not a zero-sum game.
Strawman. You’re conflating anyone to the left of Reagan with “communists and socialists”. That is beyond ignorantly insulting; it is, in fact, bollocks.
Does it move your “ideologically blinded” heart in the least to consider that anti-totalitarianism has bugger-all to do with tax policy? That “argument” was a complete non-sequitur. Or, for that matter, that Reagan was in fact a *sponsor * of totalitarianism through much of the world, especially Central America?
If you’re not willing to address the topic, it’s best not to pretend you are. That shit never works here.
Some of us value intelligence. That’s why we don’t register as Republicans.
In any event, there’s a difference between “appeal to authority” and “interesting anecdote”; you should try differentiating between the two this weekend.
As usual, he overstates the point. He says “*The first Reagan tax increase came in 1982. By then it was clear that the budget projections used to justify the 1981 tax cut were wildly optimistic. In response, Mr. Reagan agreed to a sharp rollback of corporate tax cuts, and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. Over all, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut; as a share of G.D.P., the increase was substantially larger than Mr. Clinton’s 1993 tax increase.
*”
From this cite discussed earlier there does not seem to show much of a rise in tax rates at all. Much less any sort of “sharp rollback” Admitedly, this seems to be effective tax rates as opposed to legal rates. But this cite clearly shows that the top rate most definitavely did not roll back sharply. This cite seems to suggest that no such “sharp” roll back of corporate rates occured either.
So, It seems that the tax increases he is talking about are more to do with other sorts of changed in the tax code besides adjusting the rates. Perhaps we are talking about broading the tax base again?
Well then you Amen a long string of strawmen so stupid they hardly merit an answer. Not to say a post which in no way try to reach out or start an honest exchange of views, but apparently exists solely for the purpose howling at the moon. Funny that audilover, probably the only person in this thread that has shown any ambiguity, should be singled out for such a vicious attack.
Well actually I find ambushed a kinda funny in a cheesy kind of way “How many people’s lives, hopes, and dreams do you have to crush?”. Fer Cecil’s sake, tell me you were joking!
I understand the meaning of the words you used. Apparently, you do not, because you misused many of them. I did, however, gather the tone of your post, which was pretentious. Clear now? I’m not going to get into a word by word criticism of what you wrote; you can do that yourself with a thing called a “dictionary”.
Either that, or learn how to use them properly.
That’s better - thank you.
Hmmm…I wonder if they asked any of the people who were being murdered and tortured in El Salvador.
Because of Reganomics og voodoonomics or whatever you call it. But I already wrote that I considered the foreign police results the main reason for my high regard for Reagan, and mostly included the taxation as an afterthought. But now that I answered your question perhaps you’ll answer mine?
Then you misunderstood my intention. Those two sentences are separated by a period, there was a new-line which disappeared. First sentence is a simple assertion, it is not meant to carry over into sentence two, which introduced a new subject. One btw I have yet to hear a single liberal address.
I was unaware that the discussion in this thread was to be kept solely to Reagan’s tax policies. I asked you a straightforward question which you choose to evade with an accusation that I didn’t address the topic. How clever is that? But I am honestly interested in your answer. What does it mean to you that those oppressed under communistic regimes had such high regard for Reagan?
I thought I did. I don’t think the victims of the brutal right-wing oppressors that Reagan covertly supported would consider him as a liberator. Are you really going to ignore that in favor of some cheesy rhetoric Reagan used against the U.S.S.R.?
Speaking of addressing questions…You appear to be leading us in circles. Let’s try again: In what way was economics considered to be a zero-sum game before Reagan’s time and in what way did he show it not to be?
In fact, the general history of the U.S. (and most civilizations) has been a rise in living standards of all over time. My guess is that if anything, the 1980s distinguished themselves by showing that one could implement policies that brought vastly increased income to the rich while bringing almost no increase in income to the poor (in contradiction to general trends over time, particularly during periods of sustained economic expansion). And, of course, I presented evidence that it is in fact true that the 1980s saw such a trend in comparison to the 1990s. The only question is what was happening previous to the 1980s…But, the general impression I get is that the post-WW II years so a large expansion of income for the growing middle class, and I also seem to recall that the War on Poverty resulted in reall improvements at the bottom of the scale at least for a while.
I think we have already determined that nominal tax rates don’t tell you that much. My interpretation of Krugman’s statement is that he meant it undid about a third of the cut in the sense that the amount of revenue that one got (or expected to get) for a fixed GDP went up by 1/3 of the amount it had gone down by due to the 1981 cut. For example (in today’s parlance), if the CBO had said that the 1981 tax cuts would have cost $200 billion per year and then their estimate of how much the 1982 tax increase would have brought back is $67 billion per year, that would amount to undoing a third of the tax cut. And, I think the way the CBO calculates these things is way, way more complicated than just by looking at the nominal tax rate.
That being said, it would be nice to know where Krugman got this figure from. I myself was rather surprised to find him saying that rollbacks started in 1982 since I thought it was more like 1984, with the biggest one during Reagan’s time being the 1986 Tax Reform Act.
Actually, here is an interesting article from CNN/Money that also refers to the 1982 tax bill as a rollback of some of the 1981 cuts although it doesn’t say by how much. It also has some generally interesting things to say about how well supply-side policies seemed to work in practice:
"‘The world must not forget that under his leadership, America helped the Indonesian military commit genocide in East Timor,’ said Jose Luis Oliveira, who heads Yayasan HAK, the country’s leading rights organisation.
During Reagan’s presidency, Washington maintained close ties with Indonesia’s military dictator Suharto, whom the administration viewed as a bulwark against the spread of communism in Southeast Asia.
…Despite pleas from human rights groups, Reagan - who visited Indonesia at the height of the bloodshed in 1986 - refused to ban the use of US-supplied arms in East Timor.
‘Reagan was a key supporter of the Indonesian military who gave them the equipment that was used to kill … the people of East Timor,’ Oliveira said."
Here is the aformentioned CBO study and it appears to answer your questions, pervert about the 1982 tax bill:
By contrast, to the estimated $50 billion in 1987, the estimated effects of the 1981 tax cut were that “JCT estimated that the revenue losses from the act would climb to $294 billion by 1987”. So, the estimates beforehand suggested that the 1982 bill amounted to scaling back the tax cut by a factor of 1/6. However, as we see above, CBO believes in retrospect that they underestimated the revenue enhancement of the 1982 bill and that they underestimated the revenue reductions of the 1981 bill (although due in part to the recession). I’ll leave it to you to figure out whether this changes this factor of 1/6 to Krugman’s claimed factor of 1/3. (It is sort of confusing wading through their stuff.) But, it seems at least plausible that it could.
Oh. I must have been unclear because my question was directed at the brutal left-wing oppressors. As in #197”In 1983, I was confined to an eight-by-ten-foot prison cell on the border of Siberia. My Soviet jailers gave me the privilege of reading the latest copy of Pravda. Splashed across the front page was a condemnation of President Ronald Reagan for having the temerity to call the Soviet Union an “evil empire.” Tapping on walls and talking through toilets, word of Reagan’s “provocation” quickly spread throughout the prison. We dissidents were ecstatic. Finally, the leader of the free world had spoken the truth - a truth that burned inside the heart of each and every one of us.. What about those oppressed under brutal left-wing regimes, whom held Reagan in such high regards, what do you make of them?
It wasn’t and isn’t, except by extreme left wing dogma. Which was why I found it strange that you seemed to think so with your sentence “If the share of income earned by the group grows due to growing inequality”. But if you say you don’t then all’s fine and dandy and perhaps we can move on to fighting over misunderstandings where we actually disagree?
By increasing taxes (if not 100%) by decreasing tax-rates. But I’ve already for about 42 times said the remark was only an afterthought, and somebody with more knowledge on economics and America would have to argue the case, but Allah-on-a-pongo-stick now you’ve worn me down. So let’s just agree that Reagan’s tax polices were an abject failure, horrible idiotic, a blot on mankind, evil, stupid and despicable. Then perhaps we can go back to his stellar foreign policy results regarding the Soviet – and the strange fact that they seem to love him more than you do?
Last time it was explosion, this time it is “distinguished” don’t such words indicate that you have evidence that the 80s were unique in some way in this regards?
I would be very glad for any evidence of this. My impression is just the opposite.
But again, as I said before, this seems to me to be a profound misunderstanding the ideas behind supply side economics. I think you would agree that there are many ways to increase revenues by changes in the tax laws. Supply side economics suggests that one way is to lower taxes. This does not always mean lowering revenue. I know that many claim that economic growth alone does such. I also understand that this claim is mostly doubted. However, Krugman is making the same mistake you did earlier. Namely that any revenue enhancement is a defacto reversal of supply side economics. They would certainly be if the increses had come from rate increases or the addition of brackets or things like that. But as it is, I don’t see any of the changes made during the 80s to Reagan’s tax policies as reversals. Comprimises, perhaps. Adjustments to facts on the ground even. But reversal is a strong word, I suspect chosen as hyperbole by you and Krugman.
You have to register to view the article but yes that clearly seem to be not so great. However, I hate to repeat myself but it has proven to be extraordinary difficult to get a straight answer on this, what do you think of the fact that the people of Eastern Europe and Soviet apparently though he did a stellar job?
