reagan vs obama on the topic of socialism

[Matt1970]

How did Reagan's policies of tax cuts and deregulation work out for America? Huge deficits and financial crises, while the middle class is vanishing.

We had a spending problem but that was a Military buildup which arguably lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Federal revenue as well as GDP doubled between 1980 and 1990. Tax cuts were acroiss the board BTW. Even if not, how does letting the rich keep more of thier own money punish the middle or lower class?

 

[senseamp]

We had a spending problem but that was a Military buildup which arguably lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

So Reagan cutting taxes in the middle of a cold war is an excuse? If you are going to spend money to win the cold war, pay for it.

Federal revenue as well as GDP doubled between 1980 and 1990. Tax cuts were acroiss the board BTW. Even if not, how does letting the rich keep more of thier own money punish the middle or lower class?

Reagan years GDP growth was nothing special, pretty much looks on trend. Except more of it went to the top then in other times, so actual working people didn't benefit as much as in other times of growth.

Not sure what your second argument is? Should we not collect taxes at all, since you think it doesn't hurt anyone if someone else doesn't pay taxes?

 

[Matt1970]

1980 US GDP $2.7 Trillion US Population 226,545,805 per capita $12K
1990 US GDP $5.7 Trillion US Population 248,709,873 per capita $23K

US Population growth 10% - US GDP Growth $100% - per Capita near 100%

 

[Jhhnn]

1980 US GDP $2.7 Trillion US Population 226,545,805 per capita $12K
1990 US GDP $5.7 Trillion US Population 248,709,873 per capita $23K

US Population growth 10% - US GDP Growth $100% - per Capita near 100%

So what? What we're experiencing is decoupling, where increases in GDP go to the tippytop, and where median families get squat-

http://lanekenworthy.net/2012/03/11/is-decoupling-real/

 

[Matt1970]

Not sure what your second argument is? Should we not collect taxes at all, since you think it doesn't hurt anyone if someone else doesn't pay taxes?

All charts, all quotes, all statistics aside, you think that a cut in the taxes of the rich leads to it hurting others, but it doesn't. This is what you said:

How did Reagan's policies of tax cuts and deregulation work out for America? Huge deficits and financial crises, while the middle class is vanishing.

Maybe you mean that the middle class is vanishing because more and more are rising up to the upper class. The middle class tax rates under Reagan were cut too.

 

[senseamp]

1980 US GDP $2.7 Trillion US Population 226,545,805 per capita $12K
1990 US GDP $5.7 Trillion US Population 248,709,873 per capita $23K

US Population growth 10% - US GDP Growth $100% - per Capita near 100%

You have to normalize for inflation adjusted dollars, and compare to other 10 year periods. Then you'll see that Reagan is nothing special. He's better than the great depression years, but other than that, he's just par for the course. Except of course, the middle class benefited a lot more from the economic growth in decades preceding Reagan.

 

[Jhhnn]

maybe capital gains can be taxed as income when the government guarantees against losses.

And maybe that would matter if the govt guaranteed employment, which they don't.

Who suffers more- billionaires who lose a few dozen millions, or median earners who lose their jobs, whose meager investments in pensions & 401K's get hammered every time the economy takes a drastic swing?

We bailed out the banks & investors, but not homeowners who paid too much- apparently they're not too big to fail, so screw 'em, right?

And then there's TANF, where selected well connected investors levered up at 10:1 on FRB selected securities with zero liability loans- if the deal works, you keep the profit, and if it fails, you only lose your own money... the rest is forgiven...

We do have socialism- for the Rich.

 

[senseamp]

All charts, all quotes, all statistics aside, you think that a cut in the taxes of the rich leads to it hurting others, but it doesn't. This is what you said:

Yeah it hurts others in inflation.

Maybe you mean that the middle class is vanishing because more and more are rising up to the upper class. The middle class tax rates under Reagan were cut too.

You actually believe this or you are just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks?

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

1980 US GDP $2.7 Trillion US Population 226,545,805 per capita $12K
1990 US GDP $5.7 Trillion US Population 248,709,873 per capita $23K

US Population growth 10% - US GDP Growth $100% - per Capita near 100%

Err, even heard of inflation dumbass?

GDP adjusted for inflation in the US was about 8T in 1980, 10T in 1990.

 

[Matt1970]

So what? What we're experiencing is decoupling, where increases in GDP go to the tippytop, and where median families get squat-

http://lanekenworthy.net/2012/03/11/is-decoupling-real/

In that chart median incomes still grew. So what you are saying is that it is better that we all suffer just as long as we all suffer equally.

 

[senseamp]

You are arguing that the middle class is vanishing because they are becoming rich?

 

[Matt1970]

You are arguing that the middle class is vanishing because they are becoming rich?

No, they got sucked up by the rich. When the rich have their taxes cut it magicly sucks money from the paychecks of the middle class.

 

[senseamp]

No, they got sucked up by the rich. When the rich have their taxes cut it magicly sucks money from the paychecks of the middle class.

I quote you:

Maybe you mean that the middle class is vanishing because more and more are rising up to the upper class.

Now that is some magical thinking right there.

 

[Matt1970]

I quote you:

Now that is some magical thinking right there.

You are the one who said that the middle class is vanishing due to tax cuts.

 

[Lithium381]

$220B/year is a huge dent.

lol

remember that's not a 220b decrease in spending each year. that's a 220b decrease in the increase of spending each year. base-line budgeting . . .

besides, when politicians realize there are 220b more to spend each year, do you think they'll allow a surplus, or apply it to paying down the the debt? No, they're going to spend it.

either way,
socialism is bad for everyone

 

[Zebo]

What's so good about high GDP? Half of it is done on debt, war, sickness (HC)! That's not a good thing - none productive and can only lead to ruin.

Everytime someone gets sick our GDP goes up.
Everytime we make a bomb and shell some wedding our GDP goes up.
Everytime we (govt) pay 10% more a year for our prescriptions GDP goes up.
Everytime we borrow money to support the above our GDP goes up.

And that's a good thing?

unsustainable and has to be paid for. When Reagan started we had 10 trillion absolute debt. Today it's 60 trillion. Let me borrow 60 trillion and I'll quadruple our GDP in a year no problem.

 

[Matt1970]

Err, even heard of inflation dumbass?

GDP adjusted for inflation in the US was about 8T in 1980, 10T in 1990.

I won't stoop myself to 3rd grade name calling. Inflation was right at 50% total for the entire decade but GDP more doubled. As much as you Liberals hate it we had real growth in the 80's especially considering coming out of the pain index and stagflation of the 70's.

 

[hal2kilo]

That's why I think Obama is irrational because he thinks insurance is health care and that college degrees are everything--I have a college degree and can't get a job. To be honest, it's almost better to start working at 16 and not go to college than go to college and trying to find your first job at 24.

I'm shocked that you can't find a job.

 

[Lithium381]

Are you worried about rich individuals or companies puppeteering?

 

[her209]

Obama wants people to think that they're worthless if they're not millionaires, the same way he wants people to feel worthless if they don't have a college degree.

If that's true, then Obama is a conservative after all.