Jump to content

Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Economy headed for banner year!

Election 2004 Economy Bush

  • Please log in to reply
82 replies to this topic

#81 Delvo

  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 13 July 2004 - 06:51 PM

Aric, on Jul 13 2004, 01:49 AM, said:

Remember that with growth of the population and need for services increasing every year, if funding growth does not keep pace... no matter how many times you try to eradicate the dead weight in any department, you will still need to increase funding over time
But you don't need tax increases to get that increased funding; a constant (non-changing) tax system applied to the increasing population and economy will yield increasing returns.


governments spend money for a variety of reasons, using a multitude of metrics to determine spending levels.  Trying to find the necessary levels of funding to satisfy the social benefit for the country could run counter to what an accounting calculation would give you.
Somehow, the amount government decides that it "needs" to spend is always growing faster than the economy, or the population, or the inflation rate.


Reagan's tax cuts didn't increase federal revenue growth by themselves, revenues trend upwards almost all the time.
True, but not at a rate that more than doubles in under a decade.


Examine the late 70s pace, Reagan's revenue growth pace in the first three years only once managed to be comparable, his tax cuts also helped see a decline in revenues from 1982 to 1983.
It was well into 1981 before the big tax cut was done, and nobody's claiming the effect of a tax change on the economy is immediate.


Hi Delvo.  Perhaps, but tax cuts that are targeted for the rich is much different than a tax cut that simply benefits the rich.  For instance, if I remove capital gains tax, I'm targeting the rich.  If I reduce the two lowest tax bracket rates by 2% each, it's certainly not targeting the rich, but they'll certainly benefit.  Bush was targeting the rich, not simply allowing them to benefit from the tax cuts.
You're also targetting the rich if you INcrease those same taxes, which is what has kept happening. Somehow, it's OK to increase their tax burden but it's never OK to lighten up on them. Cutting taxes that were only so hugely bloated in the first place to punish the rich for their success is targetting the rich with the tax cut, but it's not giving them anything special; it's just countering the class warfare that's been picking on them for years.

#82 Aric



  • Islander
  • 504 posts

Posted 14 July 2004 - 07:32 PM

Hi Ogami.  I think you might be confusing the economic upturn with better handling of the books.  Reagan's election win over Mondale was secured by a stronger economy, not a better fiscal balance.

Ogami, you realise that makes no sense, right?  Let's look at the numbers, shall we?

Personal Income tax revenues, in billions of dollars...

1988- $401.2
1989- $445.7
1990- $466.9
1991- $467.8
1992- $476.0
1993- $509.7
1994- $543.1

As I said before, the economic slowdown was depressing the rate of growth, without the tax increase in 1991, 1992 and 1993 would likely have never been able to grow that quickly.

Sadly, Ogami, I don't understand your point, so I guess it's assured I won't be a conservative supply sider.  I also doubt your point, perhaps you can prove it?

Hi Delvo.  You're tying two completely different points, in the first, I'm arguing that by not maintaining spending growth levels, with the increases in need for services, more people will have to do with less, this is why it's mischaracterised as a cut, especially against the poor.  In the second, I'm commenting on your point that you can revert spending to a couple of years ago, which I argue is impossible, with the greater needs of the larger population, not to mention the wars.  As to your point about increasing returns, you're right, of course, a growing economy will produce those results, but after Bush's tax cuts, it will be years before revenues match pre tax cut levels.

Perhaps, but Bush has only himself and his right wing Repulblicans to blame for their fiscal ineptitude.  Didn't they ever learn how to budget?  If they lack the fiscal discipline to run the books, hopefully they are booted out of office and perhaps their replacements will do better.

Indeed, more often than not.  I'm not against Reagan's tax cut, his was a much different situation.  At that time, tax rates were choking the economy, the same cannot be said for Bush's tax cuts.  Compared to Reagan, his was a wasteful indulgence.

The whole principle of progressive taxation is so that those with more ability to pay taxes pay more in taxes.  If you're against this principle, there's nothing I can say that would change your mind on that one, but think of it this way, if you're required to pay an additional $500 a year in taxes when you make $10 000 per year, you're going to much harder hit than if someone making $100 000 is required to pay another $5 000.  And as for lightening their tax burden, why not wait until you've restored some fiscal discipline, and can actually afford it?  Look at Canada, after balancing the books and getting surpluses, the government cut our taxes by $100 billion over 5 years, which would be equivalent to slightly smaller than a $1 trillion tax cut in the US.  We did it when we could afford it, it didn't hurt our financial position, something that certainly can't be said about Bush's tax cuts.


#83 Ogami

  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 15 July 2004 - 11:06 AM

Aric, I notice your little selection starts at 1988. This is interesting to me, because the Federal Budget Deficit reached its peak under Reagan in 1986. Let's start from there, again from the CBO webpage, Table 12:

Standardized-Budget Surplus or Deficit and Related Series, 1962 to 2003

Year     Deficit Revenue
1986         -211                          747
1987         -157                          815
1988         -128                          867
1989         -121                          934
1990         -124                          989
1991         -148                          1,071
1992         -186                          1,127
1993         -188                          1,171
1994         -142                          1,249

Raising taxes on the rich is like squeezing water in your fist. They will find ways to protect and retain their wealth, such tax increases rather serve the purpose of preventing new people from getting rich.

That's what it means when John Kerry promises to raise the taxes on those evil rich. He is lying, he really means that he likes his wife's wealth, and they don't want company from any new people becoming rich. The government will provide all to mindless peons, that's Kerry's message.


Edited by Ogami, 15 July 2004 - 11:09 AM.

Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Election, 2004, Economy, Bush

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users