US Elections - FK CL October vote

[FlashLackey]

Revenues increased after the tax cuts. So, there is no greater reason to slow spending when cutting taxes. Not that increasing spending is good in either case.

In Reagan's case, much of the spending was the cold war military strategy. The one that liberals said was dangerous and wasn't going to work. Then, it worked.

In Bush's case, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars didn't help. But, mostly, he doesn't have a good excuse for the increase in government. He should have been far more pro-active with the veto pen.

[gerbick]

I was referring to Bush Sr., the "read my lips" one.

[FlashLackey]

H.W. was forced to raise taxes on the top bracket by a Democrat controlled congress. You can see in the data that the rate of increase in tax revenues was slower than periods in which there was a cut in marginal income rates. But, he also instituted PAYGO which reduced spending and eliminated the deficit by the time he left office.

In the wake of a struggle with Congress, Bush was forced by the Democratic majority to raise tax revenues; as a result, many Republicans felt betrayed because Bush had promised "no new taxes" in his 1988 campaign.[10] Perceiving a means of revenge, Republican congressmen defeated Bush's proposal which would enact spending cuts and tax increases that would reduce the deficit by $500 billion over five years.[10] Scrambling, Bush accepted the Democrats' demands for higher taxes and more spending, which alienated him from Republicans and gave way to a sharp decrease in popularity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_...2.80.931993.29

[gerbick]

So the current Bush's decline in popularity is due to?

[Loyal Rogue]

Just one page back you were claiming that Reagan and Bush raised taxes on the middle class. Shown to be 100% false.

Sorry FL, but that just highlights the difference between us.
You look at the price of eggs and say the grocery bill went up or down based on that alone.
I look at the eggs plus the rest of the groceries.

You saying that the tax burden on the lower and middle class went down based on nothing but the Federal Income Tax rate is just as myopic and 100% false.
If a politician cuts income taxes by 2% but then increases gasoline taxes by 5%, does that qualify as a taxcut or a tax increase?
That depends on how much your income is versus how much gasoline you buy, and whether you purchase that gasoline as an individual and pay all of that tax or whether you purchase it as a business and get to deduct it as an expense.
In that case you have just shifted some of the tax burden away from the wealthy and onto the lower and middle class while still claiming you technically gave the lower and middle class a 2% taxcut.

The same can be said when the tax burden is shifted from the Federal level to the State and local levels by cutting Federal tax rates and Federal funding for services at the same time.
The bills for those services still get paid, but the "invoice" just comes from the State, County, or City instead of from the Federal government.
The taxpayer hasn't been taken off the hook or seen any decrease in overall taxation, while the politician in charge can technically claim a "taxcut".

True, Reagan gave a huge tax cut to everyone in 1981... which was immediately followed by The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 which the Treasury Dept. reports as raising taxes by almost 1% of GDP and qualifies it as the largest peacetime tax increase in US history, which undid about a third of the original cut for the lower and middle class.
That same year Reagan passed the Highway Revenue Act, raising the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion which shifted more overall tax burden to the lower and middle class.

One year later Reagan passed the Social Security Reform Act of 1983 which increased payroll taxes, not income taxes, which not only did away with the rest of the original cut for the lower and middle class but actually caused their overall tax burden to increase.
Later Reagan passed the Tax Reform Act of 1986 which again shifted more tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class through the expansion of the AMT and elimination of deductions.
In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent—but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up, not down.

All of that doesn't even take into account the massive tax burden that was shifted to the next generations of Americans by deficit spending (aka Reaganomics or Voodoo Economics) as employed by Reagan, and both Bushes.
Instead of eliminating the tax burden, which is what most people equate to a "taxcut", all they did was hide it and moved it around like some kind of IOU shellgame to make the current economic numbers look good when they really weren't.
We are currently paying over $100 billion a year just in interest on all the money that Reagan had to borrow in order to try and make his economy look good.
In that regard, Reagan's "tax increase" on the middle class is still going on today, and will continue to grow well into the future.

Republicans are great for running up the credit cards and then sticking someone else with the bill.
Clinton had to come in and clean up the economic and budget mess left behind by Reagan and Bush I, and chances are Obama will have to get in there and start cleaning up the mess left behind by Bush II.

As for your assertions about McCain's healthcare plan in regards to drug companies and doctors.
None of your assumptions makes any sense whatsoever.
The inclusion in McCain's lobbyists of some healthcare organizations that include doctors doesn't change any of the facts I posted about more doctors (59%) supporting nationalized healthcare as opposed to the 33% that are against it.
Those 33% gotta support somebody so it's no surprise that some of McCain's lobbyists are from a couple of doctors.
Nor does it change the fact that more doctors than ever before in history have come out to publically support a candidate as they have for Barack Obama.
Nor does the lack of provisions for presciptions in his plan mean that his senior policy advisors who are lobbyists for the drug companies, and wrote his healthcare policies, should be dismissed as irrelevent.
To the contrary, this gaping hole in his plan speaks volumes.
I am sure the drug company lobbyists are very happy that there is no addressing or regulation in his plan that would affect their products or profits.

Are you saying that of the 130+ lobbyists that are working on McCain's campaign, holding management, chair, co-chair, and senior policy advisor positions and raising funds for him are not lobbyists for those companies I listed?
Are you also saying that those senior policy advisors are not doing the job of helping and advising him on writing policy, including his healthcare plan?
The names and clients of the lobbyists working on McCain's campaign, including the couple that he fired when he came under scrutiny, are public knowledge and are readily available with a simple google search.
You can verify it with whichever source you trust most.

[FlashLackey]

You saying that the tax burden on the lower and middle class went down based on nothing but the Federal Income Tax rate is just as myopic and 100% false.

I didn't say that it went down only because of the income tax. It's true that some bills brought taxes up and some down. But, the net result was a reduction in tax burden, including the bills you mention.

If a politician cuts income taxes by 2% but then increases gasoline taxes by 5%, does that qualify as a taxcut or a tax increase?

lol. Unless a person is spending an unusual amount on gas per year it qualifies as a net tax reduction. For example, if you made $50k a year, you would have to spend $20k per year on gas in order for your example to net an increase in taxes paid.

There should be a little button somewhere on your computer desktop that looks like a calculator...

That depends on how much your income is versus how much gasoline you buy, and whether you purchase that gasoline as an individual and pay all of that tax or whether you purchase it as a business and get to deduct it as an expense.

A business paying for gas is not getting a reduction in taxes paid on the gas. It simply reduces the amount of taxable income they earn. It's true that the rate of taxes paid on income is higher than on gas. But, that doesn't mean that the business is not paying the same gas tax everyone else is.

In that case you have just shifted some of the tax burden away from the wealthy and onto the lower and middle class while still claiming you technically gave the lower and middle class a 2% taxcut.

As I pointed out already, you would have to spend a huge proportion of your income in order for the increase in gas taxes to catch up to changes in income tax rates. The changes in gas taxes aren't even close to as significant a change as income taxes. Not remotely.

Furthermore, it's obviously false that such a tax affects lower or middle class any more than the wealthy or corporations. Wealthy people drive just as much as other people. The tax affects them in terms of dollars the same as it affects anyone else who drives and needs fuel. Corporations and businesses are affected far more by gas taxes than middle class individuals since they pay for multiple vehicles, shipping, fuel for construction vehicles, etc.

The same can be said when the tax burden is shifted from the Federal level to the State and local levels by cutting Federal tax rates and Federal funding for services at the same time.

The bills for those services still get paid, but the "invoice" just comes from the State, County, or City instead of from the Federal government.

The taxpayer hasn't been taken off the hook or seen any decrease in overall taxation, while the politician in charge can technically claim a "taxcut".

What services specifically were cut federally that were then picked up at the state level? It's not true that services cut federally are always picked up that way. It's also a rather pointless argument in the context of federal tax policy. The president doesn't have control over state tax laws. Whether they raise or lower federal taxes, states have always had jurisdiction to raise or lower their own independently.

True, Reagan gave a huge tax cut to everyone in 1981... which was immediately followed by The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 which the Treasury Dept. reports as raising taxes by almost 1% of GDP and qualifies it as the largest peacetime tax increase in US history, which undid about a third of the original cut for the lower and middle class.

It's true that the tax increase here off-set the initial tax cut by about a third. So, Reagan's tax cut in 1981 was three times larger than the largest tax increase in history.

However, it's completely false that this tax increase affected the lower and middle class more than the upper class or businesses. In fact, it was just the opposite. It lessened tax breaks on depreciation which businesses use to write equipment off as it becomes used. Taxes on dividends and interest to individuals were increased. So, people who own stocks, and nobody has more stocks than the wealthy, were taxed more. The Federal Unemployment Tax Act rate was increased, affecting businesses rather than individuals.

That same year Reagan passed the Highway Revenue Act, raising the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion which shifted more overall tax burden to the lower and middle class.

Completely false. Raising gas taxes affects everyone who uses gas by the same rate and businesses use far more than individuals.

The flaw in your thinking seems to be that you're not counting in terms of individuals. Instead of counting cost of gas per person, you seem to be counting the increase of 5% for 5000 people as being an increased burden over an increase of 5% for 50 people simply because the number of people in one group is higher.

One year later Reagan passed the Social Security Reform Act of 1983 which increased payroll taxes, not income taxes, which not only did away with the rest of the original cut for the lower and middle class but actually caused their overall tax burden to increase.

First. There is no such thing as "Social Security Reform Act of 1983." There are amendments in 1983 and a reform act in 1984. So, I'm not sure which one you're referring to here. I'm going to assume the amendments in 1983.

Just like gas taxes, this increase in cost affected all working people the same. It did not shift the burden to the lower or middle class. In fact, it's supposed to be your money that you are putting away to get back when you retire. So, it's debatable whether or not this should even be considered a "tax" since the person is theoretically retaining something personally of equal value (a retirement fund).

One could argue that social security should have been dumped rather than amended. I would agree with that. But, for you, an advocate of social security, to throw this out there as if it was some sinister Republican plan to shift a burden rather than a bi-partisan effort to make social security last, is comical.

Later Reagan passed the Tax Reform Act of 1986 which again shifted more tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class through the expansion of the AMT and elimination of deductions.

You mean the bill sponsored by Democrats Gephardt and Bradley?

Yes. The Democrats did get this stupid Act by Reagan. But, it still didn't "shift the burden" as you seem to think.

The AMT affected upper class households. Not lower and middle class people. It was a bad system for many reasons. But, the main one and the reason why you hear more about it now, is that it wasn't written to be indexed to inflation. So, that has caused many more upper-middle income people to be affected by AMT now, years later.

In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent—but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up, not down.

I do find it hilarious that the article you plagiarized this from praises Reagan for the payroll increase on Social Security. As a social security loving guy, I assume that you also praise this cost. After all, "you get what you pay for."

I'm not sure how the author arrives at those figures. You can see the rates here: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html

They are not 9.5-11.8 but 6.65-7.51 making a net reduction in taxes paid. Additionally, even if the rates did result in a net increase in taxes, these figures would not reflect a shift in burden as you claimed. Upper income people pay this as well and employers have to match the amount.

In that regard, Reagan's "tax increase" on the middle class is still going on today, and will continue to grow well into the future.

I agree that AMT and Social Security haunt us. However, the AMT expansion was designed by Democrats and you think Social Security is a good idea.

Nor does it change the fact that more doctors than ever before in history have come out to publically support a candidate as they have for Barack Obama.

I find it unremarkable that a group of partisan doctors got together in support of a political candidate. Is it traditional for doctors to lobby in this way? Seems like it could be the most in history simply because doctors historically haven't made commercials in this way.

I liken it to people doing weird things to get in the guiness book of world records.

Nor does the lack of provisions for presciptions in his plan mean that his senior policy advisors who are lobbyists for the drug companies, and wrote his healthcare policies, should be dismissed as irrelevent.

Considering that health insurance plans include terms for drugs already and there are no provisions in McCain's plans other than to fund insurance plans, I'd say that makes those lobbyists completely irrelevant toward the subject we have been discussing.

Are you saying that of the 130+ lobbyists that are working on McCain's campaign, holding management, chair, co-chair, and senior policy advisor positions and raising funds for him are not lobbyists for those companies I listed?

I'm not sure. I can't say either way. I can say that almost every entity on that list is irrelevant to the subject we have been discussing.

Are you also saying that those senior policy advisors are not doing the job of helping and advising him on writing policy, including his healthcare plan?

Whoever came up with his healthcare plan did a great job. I don't really care what, if any, company they were from. Are you not capable of judging the plan based on it's merits without delving into attacking the messenger?

The names and clients of the lobbyists working on McCain's campaign, including the couple that he fired when he came under scrutiny, are public knowledge and are readily available with a simple google search.
You can verify it with whichever source you trust most.

lol

Why are you so reluctant to post the source of your own information? Are you hiding something about that source? If you can cut and paste the list, you can cut and paste the link.

Also, what else in your response was written by someone else?

[Loyal Rogue]

Also, what else in your response was written by someone else?

LOL
Ok FL, you got me.
I have to admit that I frequently use facts and figures from other sources.
I'll let you in on another little secret... 100% of the polls and studies that I've used in the past were actually conducted by other people as well.

The two sentences that I didn't rewrite and expand upon was from an article I came across that quoted a column by Nobel Prize-winning economist, Paul Krugman.
I intended to replace the text with my own paraphrasing after reading his original column and looking up the CBO reference, but was on my computer at work and didn't have time to before leaving for the day.
If I had known you were going to make such an issue of it I would have at least put it in a quote like this one regarding your oft repeated myth of the Reagan taxcuts being responsible for generating revenue...

I couldn’t have asked for a better example of why it’s important to correct for inflation and population growth, both of which tend to make revenues grow regardless of tax policy.

Actually, federal revenues rose 80 percent in dollar terms from 1980 to 1988. And numbers like that (sometimes they play with the dates) are thrown around by Reagan hagiographers all the time.
But real revenues per capita grew only 19 percent over the same period — better than the likely Bush performance, but still nothing exciting. In fact, it’s less than revenue growth in the period 1972-1980 (24 percent) and much less than the amazing 41 percent gain from 1992 to 2000.

Is it really possible that all the triumphant declarations that the Reagan tax cuts led to a revenue boom — declarations that you see in highly respectable places — are based on nothing but a failure to make the most elementary corrections for inflation and population growth? Yes, it is. I know we’re supposed to pretend that we’re having a serious discussion in this country; but the truth is that we aren’t.

Update: For the econowonks out there: business cycles are an issue here — revenue growth from trough to peak will look better than the reverse. Unfortunately, business cycles don’t correspond to administrations. But looking at revenue changes peak to peak is still revealing. So here’s the annual rate of growth of real revenue per capita over some cycles:

1973-1979: 2.7%
1979-1990: 1.8%
1990-2000: 3.2%
2000-2007 (probable peak): approximately zero

Do you see the revenue booms from the Reagan and Bush tax cuts? Me neither.

As for the list of Insurance and Drug company lobbyists, I looked but couldn't find a premade list with just those industries so I went down the full list of all the lobbyists working on his campaign and just picked out the names of healthcare, insurance, or pharma companies that any of his lobbyists work for.
I'm sure I missed several of them because there were lots of acronyms for companies and that I didn't recognise and they were mixed in with tons of other companies ranging from Big Tobacco to Telecoms so I only included a few that I googled.

But anyway, consider all that moot.
I concede.
I agree with you that you are much more knowledgable about economics than a Nobel Prize winner.
I also agree with you that McCain's senior policy advisors have no influence and nothing to do with writing McCain's policy.
Furthermore I agree that an increase in payroll taxes affects lower, middle and upper classes equally as a percentage of their income even though some are capped at 90k of income so that a small business owner making 100k a year pays the exact same amount as Bill Gates.
Finally I'll also agree with you that there is absolutely no difference between paying for an expense including taxes then paying income tax on that money, or paying for that same expense including taxes but then deducting that payment from your taxable income.

...

Just a sidenote on deregulation... it seems that there are several ways that the term can be used in regards to business.
Deregulation of a regulated monopoly like Bell is one way.
Deregulation as in "free market" removal of regulations like pollution laws, minimum wage laws, or worker slavery laws is completely different.
A 100% deregulated Free Market works as well in real life as removing all laws, signs, lights, lanes, and driver license requirements from America's highways.

[FlashLackey]

I have to admit that I frequently use facts and figures from other sources.
I'll let you in on another little secret... 100% of the polls and studies that I've used in the past were actually conducted by other people as well.

I wasn't referring to the times that you properly quoted and included your source. I was referring to the time that you posted a segment of an article as if it was something you wrote. I was just wondering if there were other times that you did this.

If I had known you were going to make such an issue of it...

You can tell how much of a deal I made by the smilie face I included when pointing it out. But, yes, I can understand your embarrassment.

As for the list of Insurance and Drug company lobbyists, I looked but couldn't find a premade list with just those industries so I went down the full list of all the lobbyists working on his campaign and just picked out the names of healthcare, insurance, or pharma companies that any of his lobbyists work for.

Where is the full list of lobbyists that you mention?

I agree with you that you are much more knowledgable about economics than a Nobel Prize winner.

I'm not sure that I know more about economics than Krugman. But, I am comfortable insisting that I am more interested in being correct than he is. The guy is a ridiculous, partisan crank.

Furthermore I agree that an increase in payroll taxes affects lower, middle and upper classes equally as a percentage of their income even though some are capped at 90k of income so that a small business owner making 100k a year pays the exact same amount as Bill Gates.

Good. I'm glad that you agree that Bill Gates shouldn't be forced by government to put away for retirement more money than could possibly be spent by a person simply to keep him in line with a fixed rate. The cap is there for just about the most common sense reason imaginable.

As I pointed out before, is it even logical to call saving for retirement when you are supposed to get the money back an increased burden?

Finally I'll also agree with you that there is absolutely no difference between paying for an expense including taxes then paying income tax on that money, or paying for that same expense including taxes but then deducting that payment from your taxable income.

I didn't say that there wasn't a difference. Only that a tax increase on gas is an increase on expenses for a business just like it is an increase on expenses for an individual. Since businesses that use fuel almost always use it in much larger quantities than individuals, most of the time, gas taxes amount to a greater burden on businesses than to individuals.

Just a sidenote on deregulation... it seems that there are several ways that the term can be used in regards to business.
Deregulation of a regulated monopoly like Bell is one way.
Deregulation as in "free market" removal of regulations like pollution laws, minimum wage laws, or worker slavery laws is completely different.
A 100% deregulated Free Market works as well in real life as removing all laws, signs, lights, lanes, and driver license requirements from America's highways.

We can always count on LR to come up with the most hyperbolic examples imaginable.

Yes. Regulations, in the strictest definition of the word, include all laws. However, "deregulation", as popularly understood and meant, is not a call for the removal of every law as you imply. In general, it typically is meant to remove government manipulations that interfere with competition. Many government regulations were designed with good intentions but result in negative unintended consequences, frequently to those who they were intended to benefit. That is not to say that there aren't laws that are fundamental and necessary toward maintaining a free market.

[FlashLackey]

Hehe. That's a big question. I think it depends on who you ask. He did things to piss people off on all sides of the aisle.

The Democrats were going to hate him no matter what he did simply as a strategy to regain power. But, his allowing spending to increase (largely by by-passing PAYGO for his giant drug bill) didn't sit well with Republicans either.

[As far as economics goes, I would say that Democrats are winning the sales and marketing war easily. They have the same advantage that has allowed the same crack-pot theories to be sold repeatedly all over the world. Giving things away for nothing is always going to be popular to lots of people. I could guarantee increasing my popularity too if I took out all my savings and started throwing cash out of my car window while driving around the city.]

[Frets]

Re health care. How is a plan that rapes consumers a great plan?
He wanted to apply the same principles that he promoted with the banking industry which has lead to the situation which required a bailout.

[FlashLackey]

It doesn't rape consumers. It moves the ability to choose a plan from employers to consumers. That's good for consumers.

The situation requiring the bailout was the result of mostly Democrats asserting their agenda onto the financial industry. It was the failure of a heavily regulated system. People watched the numbers accrue over a long time and warned in the most public way in government that this would happen and the Democrats thumbed their noses. Now, they want to pretend like it's all a big surprise and the fault of some aspect that was not regulated.

[gerbick]

Prove one place where deregulation has been actually good.

[FlashLackey]

Ma Bell.

[FlashLackey]

Remember also that "deregulation" isn't like some special case. "Deregulated" business is the norm. It is a return to the same rules that work for nearly every other industry. So, in a way, the success of the US economy (despite problems caused mostly by regulation), being mostly "deregulated", is a testament to it being good.

The burden of proof should be on government to justify why it will be good for them to interfere and make exceptions for an industry. Time and time again, it has proven itself not to be good.

[gerbick]

Have you not been paying attention?

Ma Bell is basically over 2/3rds back to it's formerly broken up size when the FCC regulation allowed the consolidation of AT&T and BellSouth last year. And that's not including it's influence.

Sorry. The 24+ year reformation of Ma Bell is not a good example at all. Deregulation has historically proven to be horrific. Ask Lincoln Savings and Loan.

[FlashLackey]

Ma Bell is basically over 2/3rds back to it's formerly broken up size when the FCC regulation allowed the consolidation of AT&T and BellSouth last year. And that's not including it's influence.

Phone service is better and prices are way down since the days when it was a regulated monopoly.

Sorry. The 24+ year reformation of Ma Bell is not a good example at all. Deregulation has historically proven to be horrific. Ask Lincoln Savings and Loan.

Businesses fail. When they are engaging in something illegal, they should be held accountable. But, also, we should not be surprised that humans running businesses make bad decisions in good faith, even catastrophic ones from time to time. Trying to further regulate an industry doesn't protect us from humans making bad decisions. All it does is make tax payers liable for the outcome instead of the parties that made the decisions, just like we are seeing in the current crisis.

History has proven that regulations can slow economies. Look at China and India. Their recent improvements are the results of deregulation.

[jAQUAN]

Maaa bell... got the ill communication.

[gerbick]

Prices fell because landlines went the way of the dinosaur, VoIP actually went mainstream, and dial-up networking became obselete.

In some areas, there is no competition, the prices were not competitive. In fact, that's exactly what is happening in some areas with cable television/internet access. Despite FCC regulations (loosely placed) on pricing, they still keep going up in price.

Deregulation has proven to allow more bad practices than good.

Seriously. We're going to have to 100% disagree on this because I refuse to buy into the slant you've stated. I see the exact opposite.

When you refer to India and China - honestly, the Philippines would have been the perfect example of how regulation led to rampant monopolization and stifled progress in terms of telecommunication since that system there is just really eff'd up - you're also dealing with a different culture pertaining competition and economies.

I am not 100% for government regulation; however regulatory rules are a good set of checks and balances.

We will just have to disagree.

[FlashLackey]

Deregulation has proven to allow more bad practices than good.

I respect that you disagree. But, no it hasn't. The founding basis of the US economy is to have as little regulation as possible. It has resulted in the wealthiest and most resilient economy in the history of man. Every country of comparable size that has attempted a more regulated approach has caused them to have enormous populations of impoverished people and a lower quality of life over-all.

[gerbick]

I respect that you disagree. But, no it hasn't. The founding basis of the US economy is to have as little regulation as possible. It has resulted in the wealthiest and most resilient economy in the history of man. Every country of comparable size that has attempted a more regulated approach has caused them to have enormous populations of impoverished people and a lower quality of life over-all.

You are overlooking the bad issues with rampant deregulation all too easily for the smaller examples of where it might have benefit a few people, not the many.

The fact that I also, like Frets, live in an area where it's either one cable company or one phone company is frustrating. When I lived in Charleston, I had access to 3 cable companies, 2 phone companies. And my rates were hella lower than here.

And once per year, the prices go further up here. Not so while in Charleston.

And how so? Deregulation on cable. They smothered the "competition", were allowed. And now can sidestep that pricing issue by doing it in increments.