Rivers

You got an MBA? From where, an online diploma factory?! Your argument is the typical brain dead leftist argument. High taxes are one of the big reasons we have a stagnant economy today. You need a refresher course. The rest of your rant is just leftist bullshit.

Roseland Loc: Florida

==================
Dumb people believe that raising taxes will raise more federal pending and more money for handouts.
On the contrary, here are the benefits of lowering corporate tax. It expands the economy.
How?
1. Increase in net revenue, therefore corporations expands their businesses, produce more products and services.
2. As a result more people are employed.
3. When more people are employed, these people pay income tax, social security and Medicare tax.
4. Therefore more revenue is collected by the US Treasury.
5. Reduction of welfare and food stamps because those who got jobs becomes the earners instead of handouts.
6. More people buy homes, products, and services, because those employed have more money to buy.
7. US Corporations sent previously to foreign countries, return home enticed by low corporate tax.
8. When that happens we have a boom in economy, our people would benefit the full employment.

Aren't you happy about that?

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Reaganomics have been tried before. Some guy named Reagan and another named Bush.. We are still recovering from those failed efforts..

Ronnie had to steal the SS fund to hold his tax cuts together. Bush watched the worst recession from the 30s...

That Reaganomics also saw the start of the offshore rush by American companies..

It is very clear that trickle down does not work.. We do not need to try it again..

We have seen the proof...

PeterS

Leftist bull shit? You don't even know who pays what! How is the fact that LLC's, partnerships, and proprietorship pay at the personal rate leftist bullshit? Given that you consider yourself an expert in these matters explain how a corporation getting their rate cut to 15% is going to help small business paying at 39% when virtually none of them are C class Corporations! You're stupid enough to sign off on a corporate tax cut and then you are going to wonder just why the fuk small business is still mired with high taxes. No wonder you "used" to own a business--morons like you are the reason small businesses usually fail...

Rivers

What comic book do you get your news from? Reagan had one of the largest economic expansions this country has ever seen! He had GDP increases in the 7-8% range....your boy Obama couldn't even get one quarter of 3%, the first president to ever have such low GDPs. The SS fund was put into the General Fund by the Democrat President LBJ...once in the General Fund, those funds can be used for anything Congress sees fit. Of course, you didn't squeal any when Obama raided the Medicare Fund and transferred funds ($400M or so) for Obamacare.

Bush lowered taxes which got us out of a recession that he inherited from Clinton. His tax cut was a success, not a failure. Sure, Bush handed Obama a recession, thanks to the housing bubble popping....a bubble created and protected by the Democrats. And, what did your boy Obama do? He had the slowest economic recovery since WWII, and ran up more debt than all previous presidents combined. And, he handed Trump a stagnant economy with anemic growth at best, and a huge national debt of close to $20T.

Trickle down works, and it worked well. You have not seen any REAL FACTUAL proof that the Reagan or Bush tax cuts failed. Unless, your news sources are comic books and fake news sites.

S. Maturin

That diploma, I'm gonna guess, came from Fairy Town U. just "around the bend"..

Rivers

You know, him, and his leftists ilk, talk about a lower effective tax rate for corporations like it is a bad deal. Well, I wonder what his effective tax rate is? Everyone's effective tax rate is much lower that the highest rate....unless one does not take any deductions at all. I guess by keeping the corporate tax rate, the highest in the world BTW, high and causing corporations to keep that $2T in off shore accounts out of the American economy is just fine with him, and his leftist ilk?

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Good morning rivers, have a nice dream did you?

I can post much more on you subject, but for now this will do...


hat can people possibly mean when they say they want America to “return” to being a country ruled by the values of Ronald Reagan? When was this blissful time when thrift and hard work were rewarded and the government knew its place? Certainly not when Reagan was actually president. Under President Reagan (1981–89), the size of the federal government increased by any measure. Executive-branch civilian employment, which covers almost everything except the uniformed military and the Postal Service, was 2.109 million in 1981 and 2.129 million in 1989. Total federal-government employment rose during this period from 4.9 million to 5.3 million.

I could go on. Well, why not? Reagan inherited a federal budget of $599 billion in revenue, $678 billion in spending, and a deficit of $79 billion. He left office with a federal budget of $909 billion in revenue, a little less than $1.1 trillion in spending, and a deficit of $155 billion.

Rivers

Did you live, and work, under the Reagan era? I did, in fact I was in the Navy during the Carter and Reagan era's. Now, you can quote all the leftist fake news facts, or what you socialists perceive as facts, you want, but they do not tell the whole story. Reagan happen to inherit a massive recession, far worse than what Obama inherited, a recession that had double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, double digit interest rates, gas rationing, hostages held in Iran, etc.. Also, like Trump, Reagan inherited a depleted military, whom at times ships couldn't get underway due to lack of fuel, and many soldiers did not have sufficient ammo (look it up). Reagan had to rebuild a depleted military and a recessionary economy while trying to do so with a Democrat run House. Reagan had to strike a deal with the House Speaker Tip O'Neal which in short gave Reagan the approval and money for his programs, and Tip got to spend what he wanted on domestic and entitlement programs....thus the increase in national debt. Reagan reduced taxes to stimulate the economy which eventually produced gains in GDP of unprecedented 7-8% quarterly gains. It produced an unprecedented 25 years of economic growth of which Clinton rode in on the coat tails into office in 1991.

Now you can twist that all you want with your leftist bent ideology, pal....but, that is the actual history.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Ho Ho Ho, Rivers, where to start with you strange beliefs....

To start, I am a Vietnam era marine so a civilian for the 70s and on..

Carter was the man you worked out the Iran hostage release. He did the negotiation and his name is on the agreement.. Iran hated him for a hard ass attitude/demands.

They held up release for the first day on Reagan term..

Military----While we did see a reduction in the military after Vietnam, the larger draw down was due to the end of the cold war.. That did not happen until near the end and even after Ronnie was in office.

I heard that no gas for ship rumor.. Do not know if it could be true. Find it doubtful that the Military would be unable to have a full supply of fuel..

I was laid off during Reagan term and Yes, I also took it in the slats with the inflation problem..

25 years???? LOL.. You do know that none other then Bush the elder had to change much of what Ronnie had done. that started a brand new economic upturn and yes those same events helped Clinton keep it going for the most health economy the country has ever had..

So many articles on the Reagan tax that I can not post a good one, but this excerbt from Forbes is not bad, follow the link for more.......... I points out the difference with the Bush recession which Obama had to deal with..

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/09/18/the-obama-economy-vs-the-reagan-economy-its-literally-no-contest/#3281affb5f01

ote that President Reagan was never able to make good on the promise of reducing government spending (discussed in a moment) nor balancing the federal budget.

Interestingly, while the Economic Tax Recovery Act would become the most sacred cornerstone of modern day Republican Party ideology, the ideas were not immediately taken to heart by many Congressional Republicans of Reagan’s era. These Members, along with most Democrats, were skeptical of an approach that was designed to improve the economy by making life harder on the nation’s poor, not to mention the fear that such policies could negatively impact their own political futures.

Nevertheless, and in no small measure the result of the sympathy felt for President Reagan when he was hit by an assassin’s bullet in July on 1981, the bill was passed into law approximately a month after the failed attempt on Reagan's life.

Make no mistake—things most assuredly became harder for all but the wealthy who, as the primary beneficiaries of the across-the-board 24 percent tax cut, watched their net worth skyrocket as those less fortunate or less successful took a major hit.

With dramatic cuts to the social welfare safety net—including deep cuts even to the budget for kids who received their primary source of nourishment from school lunch programs—things were pretty grim for those without money. And they were about to get a whole lot worse as the Federal Reserve raised interest rates in response to the mad inflation that was growing annually at an astounding 14 percent.

Unable to borrow money at an interest rate they could afford, 17,000 businesses had failed by the fall of 1982 and unemployment reached record highs. With the national debt also at a record high, even supply-side gurus like David Stockman, Reagan’s budget director, pushed the President to raise taxes in order to put some money into the national treasury or face even greater debt as the nation would be forced to borrow to make up the difference.

Reagan agreed to rollback the corporate tax cuts and, to a much lesser extent, the individual income tax cuts. By the time he was finished with the adjustment, he had undone approximately one third of the tax cut put through the previous year.

So, who was the true hero of the Reagan expansion? Was it the President who convinced Congress to try out the notion of putting more money in the pockets of Americans and their businesses so that they could re-invest and create jobs or was it Paul Volker, Chairman of the Federal Reserve and initially a Carter appointment, whose focused resolve to destroy inflation laid the groundwork for all those baby boomers entering the work force to start and power the businesses that would employ so many Americans?

The truth is that we can’t be sure which of these two men deserves the lion’s share of the credit but we can be sure that Volker’s conquering of inflation played a huge role in turning around the economy as quickly as it did. Simply put, as inflation dropped, interest rates dropped and that led to a massive economic boom.

This was a solution not available to Barack Obama.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Just a bit more...


When President Obama moved into the Oval Office, the nation was not gripped in the throes of inflation. As a result, it was not a situation where he could subject the nation to a year or two of pain that comes from the Fed quickly raising interest rates only to see the inevitable economic boom that follows when those interest rates plummet downwards. Indeed, what we experienced was quite the opposite as the Fed lowered rates to entice banks to loan money, with an eye always on the frightening prospect of deflation.

In reality, there is little about the economic issues President Reagan inherited that is similar to what President Obama faced—and that is why the comparison between the two is one of apples and oranges.

The economic crisis faced by the newly arrived Barack Obama was the result of two primary factors—a housing bubble that had not just “popped” at the end of his predecessor’s term but had dramatically exploded. On top of that problem, there was the banking crisis that had left the country standing on the edge of a financial cliff that freaked out every participant in the American economy, leaving banks to hold onto their money with the tightest of fists.

While the Reagan recession was a deep one (much deeper than many Democrats of today like to acknowledge), the truth is that Reagan had it easy when compared to the economic buzzsaw that awaited Barack Obama.

What’s more, while Reagan was able to push through his large tax cut only to later back off and raise the rates in the face of a rising national debt, the debt total inherited by Obama was so large (yes, I know he’s made it larger), and tax revenues already so reduced as a result of the Bush tax cuts and the economic crisis preceding his arrival, that cutting taxes was really not as attractive an option as was available to Ronald Reagan.

I know that many readers will reply to the last paragraph by noting that they would have much preferred dramatically cutting spending and shrinking the size of government to the point where, to quote Grover Norquist, it could be drowned in the bathtub rather than increase government spending as a way out of the soup.

While I understand the ideology behind such a belief, given the profound differences between Reagan’s problem and Obama’s problem, one must ask whether that alone would have produced a significantly faster turn around in the economy.

We will never know because, contrary to the myth, President Reagan did not reduce government spending as he had promised to do. In fact, he spent a larger percentage of the nation’s private wealth via government programs than either of his predecessors, Ford and Carter.

Take a look at this myth buster, brought to you by none other than the Ludwig von Mises Institute—

Rivers

Wallowing in bullshit....sigh.

Rivers

More leftist bullshit. Have another bowl of stupid. Your eyes have to be brown, because you're full of shit clear to the top of your pin head.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Gosh, a right winger who refuses to let facts enter his mind..

Who woulda thought it...LOL

Rivers

You haven't explained any REAL FACTS yet, just a lot of leftist misinformation and bullshit. It's impossible to explain, or debate real facts, especially on the economy with a brain washed leftist. Might as well spit into the wind...stay stupid, it seems to suit you so much.