I think you need to read my last post more carefully but, just as an aside - Bush cut taxes and the economy did not flourish. There are also many other factors in play. Reagan, for example cut taxes but, he ran up massive deficits as well. Now Reagan was a bit lucky in that he came in at a time when the economy was on the rise anyway - so he should not have had to run massive deficits. Obviously, deficit spending is one way to stimulate the economy. Given these two factors - how much can we really attribute to tax cuts. Reagan continued massive deficit spending as did Bush Sr. By the time Clinton came into office the debt was so high that they had no choice but to cut spending. Interest as a ratio of income was higher than it had ever been in modern times and in has never been as high since. From fiscal policy standpoint - there has never been anything more reckless than Reagan and Bush Sr.
Wake up !! You are tip toeing through the tulip patch in your brain again - "where life is beautiful all the time" and you actually have some material to back up your claims.
I lived in Laos for eight years. Laos has a free market economy where business and property ownership is encouraged. There is tight government control on many commodities, especially food staples. This stops people profiteering from basic food commodities. If you produce or grow it, you can sell it for profit. It also has the highest land ownership of any subsistence agriculture based country. In 1986 the communist Lao government returned the land back to the 'peasants'. If you could prove you have worked the land for so many generations it was yours, as long as that land remained productive. All families have what is called a Family Book where all births, deaths and marriages are documented and verified going back many generations. I have a friend whose Family Book goes back eight generations.
What nonsense. ESPECIALLY when that redistribution involves taxes collected from the capitalist economy. Under socialist economy there would be no accumulation of wealth in need of redistribution.
Perhaps you should dust off your Webster's, and look up what "socialism" means, and then look at those "socialist" countries and see how their economies are actually run. In many areas, those "socialist" countries are more free market oriented and have less damaging governmental interference in their businesses than is the case in the US. That socialism as economic policy doesn't work - especially compared to laissez-faire capitalism - has been clearly demonstrated everywhere it's been tried on a national scale throughout history. That's not rationally debatable. It is exactly to the extent that countries like Norway have defenestrated their socialist economic paradigm and replaced it with laissez-fair capitalist policy that they are now thriving.
Your lack of understanding of the fact that Socialism is about wealth redistribution (and in fact it is the main principle) is not my fault and you standing on a soap box crying "Nonsense nonsense" will not change this fact. The second point you seem not to understand is the fact that Taxes are a form of wealth redistribution ... and yes - even in a capitalist economy.
You really don't have a clue. Wealth redistribution isn't socialism. Ever hear the term "welfare Capitalism" that directly contradicts your silly theories. Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
That is a very simplified definition which would be fine if you understood it but clearly you don't. The whole point of "social ownership" and or "democratic control" is wealth redistribution. What part of "range of economic systems" went right over your head ? Good grief Charlie Brown. Then you make some nonsensical reference to "welfare capitalism" say it contradicts my theory but do not even manage to say how it contradicts my theory ? Are you now saying that welfare is not wealth redistribution ?
Why certainly. It couldn't be because the right wing seeks to give all the wealth to the 1% while ignoring the needs of the people. LOL, what a joke. How does the right wing show their "love" for their fellow man? And nor did I say He did. And robbing from the poor to give to the rich is unfettered capitalism. Comprehension is a problem with the right wing. Income inequality, which the right wing supports, is all about greed. mandate n 1. an official or authoritative instruction or command http://www.loveincsantaclaracounty.org/resources/Commentary On Biblical Mandate.pdf {quote}This was fun. Anything else you want to know?[/QUOTE] Well, if you ever come up with something relevant I guess I can read it, or refute it.
This is in regard to personal income taxes since their inception in 1913. When they went into effect they immediately had a detrimental effect on the economy. This is easy to understand. When a person (economy) has money removed from their personal income then there is less money for that person to spend and they must adapt their spending which will be less and not more. Here is a run down of tax increase and tax cuts and what happened. 1913. Personal incometax was implemented. The economy weakened drastically and the top rate was only 7%. https://www.forbes.com/sites/realsp...s-in-cutting-taxes-and-spending/#26a8e71f799c 1920's Harding cut taxes (see above) and the economy was prospering with in 18 months. Coolidge continued cutting taxes. Unemployment dropped to 1.8%. Also, when Coolidge left office Congress was spending less than when he took office. Hoover meddled with taxes and tarrifs and we got the Great Depression. 1930's FDR raised personal income taxes to 90%. The economy foundered. At one point, (1937?) unemployment was 19% and we had a depression inside of a depression. Nothing FDR did helped the economy. They only made things worse. 1940's-1950 High taxes remained. The economy wasn't good. Eisenhower increased government spending. 1960's JFK got Congress to cut taxes from 90% to 70%. The economy flourish for the first time since the 1920's. He didn't overly increase the size of the government. He understood that less was better. LBJ created the debacle called the Great Society. The economy weakened because government was out of control. 1970's The economy was in the tank. Nixon and Ford both failed to help the economy. Instead they allowed more unnecessary government intervention. Carter didn't help. It got worse. 1980's President Reagan got Congress to agree to cut personal income taxes to 28%. The economy flourish. Unemployment fell. 1990's Both Bush and Clinton raised personal income taxes. It didn't help. Thankfully for Clinton, the Internet boom took place and kept the effect of higher taxes from weakening the economy. Republicans got taxes cut and the economy took off again. 2000's W lowered taxes and the economy continued to grow until Congress refused to do anything about the housing market.
Not flourished but it still improved. No it wasn't. The economy was in the tank. It didn't improve until the first tax cuts were enacted.
When the 1% are helped then everyone is helped. By letting them take care of themselves. By the way, I'm Libertarian. So far I've refuted you but you've not been able to successfully refute what I've posted.
When the 1% are helped then everyone is helped. By letting them take care of themselves. By the way, I'm Libertarian. So far I've posted nothing but relevance and refuted you. You've not been able to successfully refute what I've posted.
It all has to do with an uniformed public, which is why the powers that be feed the people so much entertainment. Romans called it cake and circuses! Give them plenty and the people won't care what the leaders do. That is of course until the fall of the empire or massive wars. The people seem to wake up when it's to late.
This answer is way too simplistic. Second - the economy had been in the doldrums for a quite some time and was set to rise due to megapolitical factors such as the baby boomers hitting their peak spending years. Regardless - Reagan spent money like a princess with a credit card - raising deficits like crazy ( a spending mania which continued through Bush Sr. and almost ended up sinking the ship). If you throw nitrous oxide into the engine .. the car goes faster. I do not say that a tax cut did not help but, there were many other factors. In general - someone who thinks a President has that much power over the Economy (especially in the short term) does understand the factors that control the economy. One of the biggest problems we have right now is that the worker/Corp Tax split is 80/20. Back in the 60's it used to be 50/50 which is where it is supposed to be. This is a huge amount of money which is taken out of the pocket of the consumer. Consumer spending is the backbone of the economy. Price fixing and anti competitive practices and monopolism are rampant which puts downward pressure on wages and keeps the little guy from competing. This also takes money out of the pocket of the worker "in the name of the almighty shareholder" The wealth of the nation is being siphoned out of the nation. This is a big economic problem that will not be solved by Tax Cuts.
Socialism is wealth redistribution. WTF are you talking about ? In pure socialism - where Gov't owns all resources and means of production ... ALL the fruits of labor are put in the hands of Gov't where it is redistributed. Please stop talking before you hurt yourself.
Neverthe less it's simply true. High taxes harm an economy. Low taxes improve an economy. Correction. Don't blame Reagan for what the Democrats did. He necessarily spent money on the military. The opposition spent like a princess with a credit card AFTER they agreed to cut spending. Reagan then agreed to give them what they wanted if they would give him tax cuts, military spending and cut non military spending. The fact remains, the economy soared. The tax cuts worked. Correct! He must rely upon Congress to do the right thing, in this case cut personal income taxes. Don't discount a President who understands economices and has the intelligence to look at history, which I provided for you. Kennedy cut taxes and the economy improved. Today taxes are too high. And when the consumer has more money, via lower taxes, he has more power. That isn't taking place in the US. However, government regulations and high taxes prevent the companies from keeping prices down and employing people. It will be solved by Tax Cuts! It's worked every single time. Please provide one instance where the US economy prospered because of tax increases? I've provided the evidence of the success of tax cuts. It's your turn to provide evidence of higher taxes improving the economy.
I agree with everything you said here. I would think you might be a democrat just off how you used Reagan. To me, either side at this point doesn't matter. Besides by definition, there is no republican or democrat in Washington. They merely hide behind the names. If one was to make a new party for politicians, and name it "LIARS" Both parties of today would fall into that category. Politicians are not in Washington thinking, "how can I make American lives better". They are thinking how they can, manipulate, con, steal, lie, whatever it is that makes their lives better.
I'm a Libertarian. For the people and the US in general, Reagan was the best President of the 20th Century and since. They are either pro Liberty or they are Collectivists. Never the two shall meet. for the most part, yes.