PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: CharlieTango on May 26, 2016, 09:46:05 AM
-
I approve
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/trump-brings-ronald-reagans-economic-team-out-of-retirement-in-effort-to-ignite-a-boom-like-the-eighties
“Every conversation that we have with either Mr. Trump or the Trump campaign staff, we say, ‘This is the JFK-Reagan, supply-side, tax-cutting agenda that worked to cause a big economic boom in the ’60s and ’80s, and we can do it again.’ ”
-
I approve
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/trump-brings-ronald-reagans-economic-team-out-of-retirement-in-effort-to-ignite-a-boom-like-the-eighties
I approve too,
but how old are those guys now?
-
I approve too,
but how old are those guys now?
As old as Hillary and Bernie?
-
As old as Hillary and Bernie?
;D
-
As old as Hillary and Bernie?
You are close:
I looked it up and Arthur Laffer, Larry Kudlow and Stephen Moore are 75, 68 and 56 respectively.
Hillary and Bernie are 68 and 74 respectively.
So let's wait for Jeff to come along and tell us what fakes and charlatans these guys are, or maybe he will tell us that the Reagan economy really was as bad as the Democrats try to tell us.
-
You are close:
I looked it up and Arthur Laffer, Larry Kudlow and Stephen Moore are 75, 68 and 56 respectively.
Hillary and Bernie are 68 and 74 respectively.
So let's wait for Jeff to come along and tell us what fakes and charlatans these guys are, or maybe he will tell us that the Reagan economy really was as bad as the Democrats try to tell us.
How old is Robert Reich who is a Democrat economic advisor? Cut taxes, but also CUT SPENDING!
-
I can't see any logic in attacking Donald Trump because he brought in people that were successful at helping jump start the dreadful Carter Economy.
-
How old is Robert Reich who is a Democrat economic advisor? Cut taxes, but also CUT SPENDING!
My wife says he will be 70 in June. She works with him.
-
I can't see any logic in attacking Donald Trump because he brought in people that were successful at helping jump start the dreadful Carter Economy.
Who do you perceive was attacking Trump? I missed that.
-
If they did what they did during Reagan's term, our national debt should grow substantially. Reagan's tenure only proved that cutting taxes, but not cutting spending, will boost the economy, whoever, not enough to make up the loss of revenue. So much for the Laffer Curve.
-
If they did what they did during Reagan's term, our national debt should grow substantially. Reagan's tenure only proved that cutting taxes, but not cutting spending, will boost the economy, whoever, not enough to make up the loss of revenue. So much for the Laffer Curve.
Which party controlled Congress then? ;)
-
So much for the Laffer Curve.
What do you think the Laffer Curve models, and why do you think your example falsifies it?
-
If they did what they did during Reagan's term, our national debt should grow substantially. Reagan's tenure only proved that cutting taxes, but not cutting spending, will boost the economy, whoever, not enough to make up the loss of revenue. So much for the Laffer Curve.
wow, how incredibly ignorant of the causes of increased debt.
here's a clue for ya, during the Reagan years, the federal revenues rose. The problem was created by the idiot democrats that spent $1.29 for every addition dollar of revenue. Maths is hard for liberal.
here's another clue for ya: Congress has the authority to appropriate and authorize budgets, not the President, not the SCOTUS. If you have a problem with overspending and the debt, complain to your congresscritter. Blaming the President is just exposing your ignorance.
-
When liberals figure out that tax revenues usually increase after tax cuts their heads spin around several times.
-
So much for the Laffer Curve.
Do you understand what a Laffer Curve is? Google that and then explain how it relates to your post please? Because right now I'm pegging you with another topic (economics) that you're woefully uninformed about and shooting your mouth off on.
-
here's another clue for ya: Congress has the authority to appropriate and authorize budgets, not the President, not the SCOTUS. If you have a problem with overspending and the debt, complain to your congresscritter. Blaming the President is just exposing your ignorance.
And yet many here blame Obama for increased debt. ::)
-
And yet many here blame Obama for increased debt. ::)
Well, if he campaigned in 2008 on controlling the growth of the national debt, this can be seen as a fail, right?
-
And yet many here blame Obama for increased debt. ::)
The president signs the bills into law. Yes, Congress makes the budgets and appropriations but the president signs it. If President Obama was so eager to control federal spending (he's not) then he would've vetoed it and told Congress to come back with something more reasonable. But Democrats will never pass up the opportunity to take other people's money and spend other people's money.
-
And yet many here blame Obama for increased debt. ::)
Yeah, Obama AND the Democrats that were in charge when he got his most expensive ideas passed (with that Pen and Phone). Debt also increased under Reagan AND the Democrats that were in charge of Congress at the time.
-
Yeah, Obama AND the Democrats that were in charge when he got his most expensive ideas passed (with that Pen and Phone). Debt also increased under Reagan AND the Democrats that were in charge of Congress at the time.
How soon everyone forgets.........
Paul Ryan’s first major legislative achievement is a total and complete sell-out of the American people masquerading as an appropriations bill.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/16/paul-ryan-betrays-america-1-1-trillion-2000-plus-page-omnibus-bill-funds-fundamental-transformation-america/
-
And yet many here blame Obama for increased debt. ::)
Did Obama ask for increased spending that was over and above the projected revenues?
-
Well, if he campaigned in 2008 on controlling the growth of the national debt, this can be seen as a fail, right?
Sure, if that's what he said. I can't recall, I don't really listen to him much. However I'm told here that the congress spends the money and it I believe the president controls it, I'm ignorant. Apparently you didn't see it-
here's another clue for ya: Congress has the authority to appropriate and authorize budgets, not the President, not the SCOTUS. If you have a problem with overspending and the debt, complain to your congresscritter. Blaming the President is just exposing your ignorance.
-
The president signs the bills into law. Yes, Congress makes the budgets and appropriations but the president signs it. If President Obama was so eager to control federal spending (he's not) then he would've vetoed it and told Congress to come back with something more reasonable. But Democrats will never pass up the opportunity to take other people's money and spend other people's money.
And where was Reagan's mighty veto? Did they really over ride him on all that spending? I am not a Democrat, or a Liberal and I don't care for Obama at all, but I have to say the double standards and hypocrisy runs rampant around here. Every president since 1838 has run debt. Both Obama's and Reagan's tenure is a steep incline. Which is it?
The president has influence over debt or not?
Percentage of debt to GDP since 1790
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Federal_Debt_Held_by_the_Public_1790-2013.png)
-
Both branches bear responsibility for getting us where we are today. Yes, Reagan signed the spending bills. Certainly he probably signed them because they contained some things that he wanted and he was compromising. Maybe the key point here is that even though tax rates were cut, revenues increased as Laffer had predicted. There is a sweet spot on the Laffer curve though at which point you would not see the increased revenue.
The current President seems to believe he can spend money for things that Congress did not appropriate it for as witnessed by the ACA.
"House Republicans won Round 2 in a potentially historic lawsuit Thursday when a federal judge declared the Obama administration was unconstitutionally spending money to subsidize health insurers without obtaining an appropriation from Congress (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics-government/government/u.s.-congress-ORGOV0000131-topic.html).Last year, U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer broke new ground by ruling the GOP-controlled House of Representatives had legal standing to sue the president over how he was enforcing his signature healthcare law (http://www.latimes.com/topic/health/healthcare/healthcare-policies-laws/affordable-care-act-%28obamacare%29-EVGAP00039-topic.html)."
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obamacare-court-ruling-20160512-snap-story.html
-
don't forget that President Reagan got blamed for the Government "shutdowns" that occurred when he didn't sign the appropriate bills sent to him by the democrats.
damned if you do, damned if you don't.
-
don't forget that President Reagan got blamed for the Government "shutdowns" that occurred when he didn't sign the appropriate bills sent to him by the democrats.
damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Yeah, people forget little things like that when it suits their agenda.
-
Which party controlled Congress then? ;)
For the first six years of Reagan's term, the GOP had the Senate and the Dems had the House.
-
What do you think the Laffer Curve models, and why do you think your example falsifies it?
The Laffer Curve can model most anything with respect to tax rates versus government revenues. The version that was being promoted in the Reagan administration was used to justify lowering taxes by claiming it would reduce the deficit. It did not.
-
wow, how incredibly ignorant of the causes of increased debt.
here's a clue for ya, during the Reagan years, the federal revenues rose. The problem was created by the idiot democrats that spent $1.29 for every addition dollar of revenue. Maths is hard for liberal.
here's another clue for ya: Congress has the authority to appropriate and authorize budgets, not the President, not the SCOTUS. If you have a problem with overspending and the debt, complain to your congresscritter. Blaming the President is just exposing your ignorance.
You seem confused about our government. Let me offer you some clues. While spending bills start in the House, they are typically proposed by the executive branch. That is the branch that is headed by the President. Speaking of the early 80's, the President was Ronald Reagan. He was a Republican. Now after the House has voted on and likely amended, then it goes to the Senate. The Senate has to approve it too. The Senate at that time was controlled by the Republicans. Then it goes to the President to be signed into law, or vetoed. That is how it works. The Democrats did not control the process, but they did have some input. See, that isn't too hard to understand, now is it.
-
When liberals figure out that tax revenues usually increase after tax cuts their heads spin around several times.
Sure, when you don't cut spending. But the problem is that the spending does not bring back a one to one ratio, so the debt keeps getting bigger. If the spending was cut, dollar for dollar, revenue would probably go down. You can't ignore the part that government spending plays in the economy.
-
don't forget that President Reagan got blamed for the Government "shutdowns" that occurred when he didn't sign the appropriate bills sent to him by the democrats.
damned if you do, damned if you don't.
When! I don't recall one shutdown in Reagan's administration that was more than a day or two and was because Congress didn't have agreement on a bill to send to Reagan.
-
You seem confused about our government. Let me offer you some clues. While spending bills start in the House, they are typically proposed by the executive branch. That is the branch that is headed by the President. Speaking of the early 80's, the President was Ronald Reagan. He was a Republican. Now after the House has voted on and likely amended, then it goes to the Senate. The Senate has to approve it too. The Senate at that time was controlled by the Republicans. Then it goes to the President to be signed into law, or vetoed. That is how it works. The Democrats did not control the process, but they did have some input. See, that isn't too hard to understand, now is it.
Apparently it is too difficult for you to grasp.
Apparently you aren't old enough to remember the democrats gleefully calling all of President Reagan's proposed budgets DOA.
Apparently you can't understand that while a President can propose a budget, the appropriation bill must originate in the House*. Here's a question: is the appropriation bill proposed by the President or does it require a congresscritter to propose the bill?
*maybe you are confused about this because of the recent illegalities of the POS obamacare.
-
Apparently you aren't old enough to remember the democrats gleefully calling all of President Reagan's proposed budgets DOA.
All budgets submitted to the House are DOA by definition. They are not a bill. They are a proposal, and idea, a suggestion, a thought experiment, a tool of political manipulation, or whatever else you want to call it.
I recall the Democrats being disparaging about Nixon's budgets, Ford's budgets, Reagan's budgets, Bush the First's budgets, and at the very end, Bush the Second's budgets. I also recall the GOP being similarly disparaging of Clinton's budgets and Obama's budgets. That is politics. Your point would be?
Apparently you can't understand that while a President can propose a budget, the appropriation bill must originate in the House*. Here's a question: is the appropriation bill proposed by the President or does it require a congresscritter to propose the bill?
I think you have answered your own question. An appropriations bill must originate in the House. The President is not a member of the House of Representatives. Neither is any staff in the Executive branch a member of the House. So if a bill must originate in the House, then some member of the House must introduce that bill. The budget may, or may not, be muchly reflected in any appropriates or spending bill. Neither party seems much inclined to reduce spending, rather just arguing about whose pets get what money.
-
The Laffer Curve can model most anything with respect to tax rates versus government revenues. The version that was being promoted in the Reagan administration was used to justify lowering taxes by claiming it would reduce the deficit. It did not.
The reporting I've seen on this, the real numbers on revenue went down while spending went up and of course the deficit rose. But that is just 3 data points of a very complex financial model. When adjusted to current year numbers (the analysis I was reading was done in 2005), spending was way up and revenue rose after the tax cut.
My conclusion is the deficit rise was caused by excessive spending, not by reduced revenue.
-
The reporting I've seen on this, the real numbers on revenue went down while spending went up and of course the deficit rose. But that is just 3 data points of a very complex financial model. When adjusted to current year numbers (the analysis I was reading was done in 2005), spending was way up and revenue rose after the tax cut.
My conclusion is the deficit rise was caused by excessive spending, not by reduced revenue.
Correct. The Laffer Curve does not address spending.
-
The reporting I've seen on this, the real numbers on revenue went down while spending went up and of course the deficit rose. But that is just 3 data points of a very complex financial model. When adjusted to current year numbers (the analysis I was reading was done in 2005), spending was way up and revenue rose after the tax cut.
My conclusion is the deficit rise was caused by excessive spending, not by reduced revenue.
-
Yes, Federal Revenue doubled in the 1980's due to a GROWING ECONOMY caused partially by lower tax rates. Reagan like Bush didn't cut spending when the cut taxes. He spent a lot on Defense because Carter let the military wither. We beat the Russians. Was it worth it?
My question is, will Washington ever allow real spending cuts, not just cuts in the rate of spending growth?
-
Yes, Federal Revenue doubled in the 1980's due to a GROWING ECONOMY caused partially by lower tax rates. Reagan like Bush didn't cut spending when the cut taxes. He spent a lot on Defense because Carter let the military wither. We beat the Russians. Was it worth it?
My question is, will Washington ever allow real spending cuts, not just cuts in the rate of spending growth?
Don't forget that President Reagan was loudly critized by liberals for cutting spending... except the "cuts" were smaller increases than the liberals were demanding.
-
Don't forget that President Reagan was loudly critized by liberals for cutting spending... except the "cuts" were smaller increases than the liberals were demanding.
I remember all of the news propaganda about the "homeless" supposedly due to Reagan policies.
Funny how we haven't seen any under 8 years of the Obama Malaise.
-
I remember all of the news propaganda about the "homeless" supposedly due to Reagan policies.
Funny how we haven't seen any under 8 years of the Obama Malaise.
And the homeless, poor, and poverty in general has grown tremendously under Obama. This is purposeful creation of more dependence, hence more control.
-
The reporting I've seen on this, the real numbers on revenue went down while spending went up and of course the deficit rose. But that is just 3 data points of a very complex financial model. When adjusted to current year numbers (the analysis I was reading was done in 2005), spending was way up and revenue rose after the tax cut.
My conclusion is the deficit rise was caused by excessive spending, not by reduced revenue.
Unfortunately, not only did we not curb spending, we increased it. Dems wanted their giveaways and Reagan was building up the military.
The question is did the increase in revenue after the initial cut get back to where it had been before the tax cut.
-
The question is did the increase in revenue after the initial cut get back to where it had been before the tax cut.
omg - of course it did, went waaaaaaaaaaaaaaau above it
-
Unfortunately, not only did we not curb spending, we increased it. Dems wanted their giveaways and Reagan was building up the military.
The question is did the increase in revenue after the initial cut get back to where it had been before the tax cut.
Did you not look at the graph I posted in Replay 35 above?
-
I saw that afterwards, but it doesn't quite answer the question either. I didn't see a spike in the economy due to more money being in people's pockets, though the resolution of the graph might not have revealed that. However, I have yet to see evidence that cutting the taxes directly resulted in a boost in federal revenue, as was claimed, at least to the public.
-
You will not see "a spike" because changes like this in economic policy don't produce spikes. Nor are the effects immediate, there is a delay in seeing results of economic changes.
If someone is determined that an economic policy works or doesn't work it is rarely possible to get them to understand that the proper answer is usually "it's pretty complicated" and beyond the law of supply and demand, there isn't one answer that is always right. However I think the extremely low unemployment rate through the 80s is strong evidence that when people have more money, it eventually finds its way into funding businesses and creating jobs, producing higher revenues.
But then I am biased because I think letting people keep more of their money is better than taking it from them.
-
I will buy that it is all complicated. I am sure that whatever the economic truth of the matter, small government and less regulation and less taxes makes for a better economy. If anything good comes of this dismal election, it will be the Libertarian Party getting some press and some more general debate about what we really want government to be doing for us or not doing for us.