Are we created equal?

That's exactly what we should do actually. Private companies could do a far more efficient and effective job of building roads and you would then only pay for the roads you'd use rather than be forced to pay for a bunch of roads that don't benefit you in any way whatsoever. We'd have more of our money available for ourselves instead of providing for others who are more than capable of providing for themselves.

- - - Updated - - -

Uhhhh which industry is that?

 

Government spending increased dramatically, government employment increased dramatically, and we had a strong middle class before his "trickle down" policies took effect.

Gee, I wonder why?

(fiscal years)
Reagan
Spending increase, 1981-1985: +39.5%.
Total Government employment, 1981-1985: +607,0000

Obama
Spending increase, 2009-2013: -1.89%
Total Government employment, 2009-2013: -667,000

Sure. Don't you? Then lets do what we did under Reagan, and increase government spending and hiring.

 

Extra costs are for paying high interest debt. We went through this. I am willing to downsize to a Reagan size government. Also willing to accept the same welfare cuts. Can you name one Reagan program as expensive as obamacare? If not, lets go roll that back and vow not to spend that much on a program again. Deal.

Ok lets go back to Reagan spending levels. I like Ike too if you want to go back to his levels. Also lets cut welfare like Reagan did. Both saw massive declines in poverty.

 

Excellent plan if your goal is to make the rich richer and poor poorer.

Let government build them and they people don't have to pay to use them at all.

Military, maintenance of national interstate system, coordination of air traffic, legal system, federal law enforcement, provision of water and sewage systems, weather system, coast guard, education, just a few off the top of my head. I'd add health care to that list, private enterprise doesn't do a very good job.

- - - Updated - - -

We'd have to spend *more* to get back to Reagan spending levels, for 6 of his 8 years.

 

Please stop speaking out of ignorance.

http://www.cato.org/policy-report/marchapril-2010/limiting-government-1980-2010

 

I'm not speaking out of ignorance at all. The only ignorance being demonstrated here is yours, relying on a 4 year old Cato article.

 

Government builds them now and people pay a fortune to use them. Gas tax.

Private enterprise can do all of those things except military and police. They can outfit those organizations though.

No, size of government was lower during Reagan and we were paying high interest debt. The house of cards would collapse on the Obama economy if we had those interest rates. Again, can you think of one Reagan program as expensive as obamacare? 3 added together? 7 added together? Let me know!

 

What are you talking about? The government doesn't just magically build them with a wiggle of their nose. They appropriate tax payer dollars and then with an exceedingly high rate of inefficiency and cost, they build the roads.

Not only are we paying for the roads we use, but we're paying for the government to (*)(*)(*)(*) our money away on inefficient and costly projects to pay for roads that many of us NEVER use.

The ONLY ones in that group would be law enforcement and military. And for the record, they are not performed better by the government, we just do not need private contractors in charge of our only defense as a populace.

EVERY other example you gave would be performed FAR more efficiently, less costly and would be FAR more effective in private hands.

The fact you said education is just absurdly laughable.

 

What the hell does it being 4 years old have to do with anything? He's talking about something that happened in the 80's.

"In 1981, the president signed into law significant cuts in government spending and tax rates. Reagan’s “historic” turnaround cut the projected spending of the federal government by 4.7 percent for the next fiscal year. Taking inflation into account, the Reagan cuts amounted to 5 percent of the total cost of government. Overall, discretionary domestic spending dropped about 14.2 percent during Reagan’s first year. Several Great Society programs were sharply cut. The Community Development Block Grant program, for example, lost two-thirds of its funding. Reagan also won a 32 percent cut in mass transit spending."

"Had that trend continued, the federal government would have grown relative to national income by about 25 percent (from one-fifth of GDP to one-fourth). Instead of increasing, the relative size of government stayed roughly the same as it had been in the 1970s. Reagan thus shrank the size of government compared to what it would have been if past trends had continued."

"Reagan also reduced tax rates. The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 was expected to return $749 billion to taxpayers over the next five years. Two-thirds of both chambers of Congress voted for it, and Gallup found that the public approved the tax cut by two to one. Here again Reagan succeeded relative to a worse outcome."

"The Reagan administration tried to restrain Social Security spending. The proposals went nowhere, to put it mildly. A week after the proposals were introduced, the House Democratic Caucus unanimously adopted a resolution calling Reagan’s changes “an unconscionable breach of faith.” Republicans ran in fear of the public reaction. On May 20, 1981, with Reagan at the peak of his popularity, a Republican Senate and the Democratic-controlled House approved resolutions rebuking Reagan’s Social Security proposals. The administration backed off."

Like I said, please stop speaking out of ignorance.


BTW when Reagan cut those things... it wasn't because the other side FORCED him to like Obama was forced to do so. (Thanks Tea Party!)

In fact, the exact opposite is true. The democrats FORCED him to STOP cutting. (Thanks morons!)

 

So, you'd favor a ZERO tax State or a "voluntary taxed" State?

 

Nothing you said is based in reality... nothing whatsoever.

However, if you're about redistribution of wealth, punishing those who succeed while rewarding failures and providing a disincentive to improve for those failures and a disincentive of those who are not failures to produce then yeah your ideas work out great.

Too bad they destroy an economy.

And for the record, it is not an opinion, it is fact. There is no government enterprise that has a private competitor that performs better, is less costly or more effective... none.

- - - Updated - - -

Well surely with a volunteer tax state the liberals would just be giving their money away right and left to help the poor right?

 

They people were sold a 3% tax when they passed the 16th. That sounds Ok.

 

"People have unalienable individual rights, so anyone but me can suck it" is not the best argument to make. It's not even Lockean. This attitude only makes right-wing extremists seem even more extreme.

A capitalist society makes people rich. Everyone, as producers and consumers, helps create the prosperity that a few people benefit greatly from, Asking for them to give a small fraction of that back to the society they profited from is completely fair.

 

My post you responded to, calling it "ignorant":

Feel free to explain how your 2010 article demonstrates the "ignorance" of my data through 2013.

That is only talking about a couple programs, it is talking about projections, and doesn't mention the huge increase in military spending. It does not rebut my data in the least, much less show how it is "ignorant".

That statement belies Cato's bias and propensity to distort things in favor a a conservative/libertarian position.

Here is federal spending as a percent of GDP:

Year - Spending:GDP
1970 18.2%
1971 18.0%
1972 18.0%
1973 17.2%
1974 17.4%
1975 19.7%
1976 19.8%
1977 19.6%
1978 19.5%
1979 19.1%
1980 20.6%
1981 21.1% <-Reagan takes office
1982 22.3%
1983 22.2%
1984 21.1%
1985 21.8%
1986 21.6%
1987 20.6%
1988 20.3%

Spending to GDP never hit 20% in the 1970's and never got below 20% in the 1980s. I certainly would not characterize that as "the relative size of government stayed roughly the same as it had been in the 1970s."

The other half of the equation as to why the deficits tripled and the public debt exploded, increasing 180% during Reagan's term.

Conservatives always try to "restrain" programs that help the poorer so they can give bigger tax cuts to the richest. So what?

You've shown your own ignorance in every post.

I'm still waiting for you to show even one thing I wrote that was "ignorant".

 

Ummm they have given it back which is why our poor people have iphones and air conditioning and big screen TV's and cars. A feat which, without those rich, would be an impossibility.

You realize that "middle class" when you consider the entire world's population is ~$2,400 a YEAR don't you?

 

Thanks for sharing your baseless, unsupported opinion. I disagree with it.

If a guy makes $20 million and has to pay a 50% tax and ends up with $10 million after tax, how exactly is he being "punished" getting $10 million?

I wish someone would "punish" me like that.

Yeah, that is what they said when Clinton raised taxes too. More baseless RW class warfare propaganda.

Thanks for sharing your baseless, unsupported opinion. For the record, I disagree with it.

 

Because you are asserting that Reagan was responsible for those increases which is simply false. And the link doesn't say anything about Obama and neither did I in this context. Though you're also asserting that Obama is responsible for those cuts, which is preposterous.

Uhhhh, no. It includes more than that but you didn't read the actual link. You only read what I posted to you. Which I can't post the entire link on here. It's not my job to educate you anyway.

What are you talking about? It says when you take into consideration inflation in the article. It also states that relative to national income and it's comparative to the 70's. Which it is. In the 70's, the rate stayed around 18 or 19 increasing up to 20% by 1980. Regan came in @ 21.1% (btw, do you think it just magically went from 19.1 to 20% once it ticked over to the next fiscal year? get serious)... Reagan came in @21.1% and after his first year (where the correction was begun) the rate decreased every single year except for a slight increase in 1985 by .7% and ended LOWER than when he came into office. When you take inflation into consideration he was crushing spending.

How about you try again. This is one of the few reasons private enterprise started hiring. I will say this, if the president had been allowed to cut like he wanted to, we wouldn't have had any issues whatsoever as far as deficits or public debt. Unfortunately the liberals wouldn't let him do so and continued their campaign of spending... just like they're doing today.

The point is he tried to cut spending many many times only to be turned away by liberals who wouldn't let him do so. So your characterization of him as a president who advocated for or supported increasing government spending is blatantly false.

The only ignorance I'm showing is that I keep talking to you as if you have the capability to see the ridiculousness of your argument.

 

He's not "getting" $10 million genius. He EARNED $20M and he's only getting 50 cents of every dollar he earned and he's ending up getting his income cut in HALF.

That's tantamount to you making $50,000 a year and getting taxed $25,000 and then someone who makes $5,000 a year saying that you're "getting" $25,000 and he wishes someone would punish him like that.

Another liberal pointing to Clinton as if ANYTHING he did helped to spur the economy. The economy did well IN SPITE of what Clinton did. Clinton's policies would have crushed a normal economy. Fortunately for Clinton he had the single greatest invention the world has seen since fire explode into popularity creating an enormous amount of wealth and blunting the negative impacts of Clinton's policies.

The INTERNET is what provided a strong economy in the 90's. Clinton had less than nothing to do with it.

You can keep saying that until you turn purple. It's not going to change the fact that you can't name ONE government enterprise that performs better is less costly or more effective than it's private competitor. Just name one.

 

That is absolutely false and untrue. Cite my post where I asserted Reagan was responsible for those increases.

Can anyone make an argument without a giant straw man?

It's your job to back up your claims. And so far you've shown nothing to support your claim about my "ignorance". To the contrary.

As you have admitted, spending in the 1970s was in the 18-19% region, and in the 21-22% region for most of Reagan's term.

When you take inflation into consideration he was crushing spending. again, I certainly would not characterize that as "the relative size of government stayed roughly the same as it had been in the 1970s."

A 3 percentage point difference compared to GDP is equivalent to half a trillion in spending in today's terms.

Then we get:
Year - Inflation adjusted spending (2009$)
1981 1,396.3
1982 1,445.5
1983 1,507.6
1984 1,534.3
1985 1,651.6
Inflation adjusted spending increase: 18.3%

2009 3,517.7
2010 3,414.9
2011 3,486.6
2012 3,368.6
2013 3,244.1
Inflation adjusted spending increase: -7.8%

And we still have a 25 percentage point differential in spending increases with Reagan compared to Obama.

And we still have a 1.2 million differential in government employment.

Baseless RW propaganda class warfare bull(*)(*)(*)(*). If that were true, the economy would have sucked under Clinton and been great under Bush.

Conservatives told us Clinton's big tax increase in 1993 would wreck the economy and destroy jobs. Instead we saw the longest sustained period of growth post WWII, 22 million additional jobs created, poverty levels dropping to all time lows, stock markets tripling even with the correction, the unemployment rate dropping to the lowest level in decades, and the best average GDP growth since the 1960s. Oh yeah, and a then record deficit turning into a surplus.

Could conservatives be more wrong?

No, the point is spending and government employment skyrocketed while Reagan was president and we've had austerity and a huge drop in government jobs while Obama has been president.

Which is a big reason why the economy is sputtering and we've seen poverty stay higher.

Thanks for sharing your opinion, but you have not shown one thing I've said to be wrong. That fact that your relying on 2010 articles in an attempt to show my "ignorance" about 2013 data I submit is clear evidence of who is ignorant here, but the rest of your posts have certainly been consistent with that.

 

How did he EARN it if he is living of the investments from the trust fund he inherited from his daddy?

Having $10 million in income is tantamount to having $25,000 in income?

That is where I have to disagree with you. With $10 million you're not worried about how you're going to pay for the doctor bill. You're wondering whether you should get the 100' yacht or 120' one.

I didn't say Clinton had anything to do with the economy. I pointed out that conservatives told us that Clinton's tax increase, which flooded the Treasury with extra revnues and got us from a then record deficit (which is proportionately bigger than our deficit today) to a surplus, would wreck the economy and destroy jobs. Just like your suggesting now.

Instead, we saw the longest sustained period of growth post WWII, 22 million additional jobs created, poverty levels dropping to all time lows, stock markets tripling even with the correction, the unemployment rate dropping to the lowest level in decades, and the best average GDP growth since the 1960s. Oh yeah, and a then record deficit turning into a surplus.

Could conservatives have been more wrong?

I've named several, thanks.

 

Taxcutter says:
Egalitarianism is the road to Cuba or NorK.

 

Fantastic, that's what I was waiting for. So you admit Reagan was not responsible for those increases and in fact Reagan fought against them didn't he?

I did. It's not my fault you refuse to read a source and choose to stay uneducated on the topic.

And as you admitted originally it was not because of Reagan was it? And since you haven't explicitly stated it... I'll ask you. Are the spending decreases and decrease in government jobs because Obama? Let's see how honest you really are.

Did a liberal REALLY just accuse someone else of class warfare?? LoL Your party's ENTIRE PLATFORM is predicated on class warfare.

Another liberal pointing to Clinton as if ANYTHING he did helped to spur the economy. The economy did well IN SPITE of what Clinton did. Clinton's policies would have crushed a normal economy. Fortunately for Clinton he had the single greatest invention the world has seen since fire explode into popularity creating an enormous amount of wealth and blunting the negative impacts of Clinton's policies.

The INTERNET is what provided a strong economy in the 90's. Clinton had less than nothing to do with it.

But that's NOT because of Reagan and it SURE AS HELL is not because of Obama.

.... The fact that you continue to claim my article or original point was about Obama, even after corrected on the issue, simply shows your willingness to be dishonest.

 

Where's the link to my post asserting Reagan was responsible for those increases? Fantastic. That is what I've been waiting for. Proof that you falsely made up what I wrote in my post. Is this going to be a common theme for you?

I didn't say anything about who was responsible nor is it relevant to my point.

But look at his record on military spending and then come back and tell me how he wasn't responsible for at least part of it.

How was it related to the topic?

What difference does it make whether it was because of Reagan or Obama or not? It's irrelevant.

If so, they've been losing the war badly. The richest 1% have doubled their take of the nation's income (from 10% to 20%) and wealth (from 20% to 40%) over the past 30 years since Reagan's trickle down revolution.

Another straw man. I didn't say anything about whether what Clinton did helped spur the economy.

I just pointed out how Conservatives told us Clinton's big tax increase in 1993 would wreck the economy and destroy jobs. Instead we saw the longest sustained period of growth post WWII, 22 million additional jobs created, poverty levels dropping to all time lows, stock markets tripling even with the correction, the unemployment rate dropping to the lowest level in decades, and the best average GDP growth since the 1960s. Oh yeah, and a then record deficit turning into a surplus.

Could conservatives be more wrong?

So what?

Where did I claim that? Quote my post where I ever claimed that.

Quite making (*)(*)(*)(*) up about what I'm claiming. If you can't be accurate in paraphrasing what I say then quote it verbatim. This constant mischaracterization and strawman you are doing is getting tedious.

 

Because he wasn't a (*)(*)(*)(*)-poor steward of his finances unlike many of the people you want to give his money to. He was at the very least intelligent enough to put/keep it in investments that allow him to continue to reap the rewards. And how come I don't see you crying about having the poor participate in paying for his losses when he has a bad year in his investments. You want to take advantage of his good fortune when he's doing well but when he gets crushed he's all alone.

To someone who is making $2,400 a year like the middle class of the world's population... absolutely it is. In fact if you make >$32,000 a year you are one of the 1% as far as the rest of the world is concerned.

And with $25,000 a year you're not worried about what you're going to eat or drink or clothe yourself in today like those people who are making ~$2,400 a year. Healthcare is a dream to those people, they hate you because you can feed yourself. Don't worry, they're going to be coming after your money soon enough. Obama has already begun his rhetoric on world income inequality. Let's see you defend your position then.

BECAUSE OF THE INTERNET. It did so IN SPITE of those policies. Put those policies in this economy and you'd absolutely destroy it.

It WOULD have crashed the economy if the internet wasn't overcoming it's burden. That has nothing to do with the efficacy of those increases on it's own merit. In fact every other piece of evidence says exactly the opposite.

Yeah they could be liberals claiming that the tax increases didn't have a negative impact on the economy.

No you didn't. You even attempted to use education as an example of a success of the socialist enterprise. The socialist education system in this country is an abject failure.