Trump shrinking National Monuments on Monday

Gene S

Active Member
I think it has very much happened.
Have you driven around any urban area to see the huge opulent homes the middle class is buying? The cars they drive? How big their TVs are?

So what if the richest of the rich are richer than they ever have been.. what business is that of anyone else?

There is more widespread luxuriant living in this nation right now than has ever existed before.
What we have is envy and greed run rampent throughout the socio-economic spectrum.
Think i am wrong? Check your 500 dollar fly rod American Privledge then thank God for it.

The rich complaining about the richer and their treatment of the poor is absurd.
You are correct Rob, and...

These naysayers most likely have no real life experiences in the private sector.

Have any owned a business in the private sector for any length of time?

Have any had to make a payroll?

Have any had employees? How many?

And to think that young entrepreneurs like Gates, Wozniak, and Jobs started out in a garage making it possible for forum members to spew this socialistic vitriol on the internet...
 
When Reagan became president in 1980 inflation was hovering at 14 percent, the unemployment rate was 11 percent, and interest rates were above 20 percent. In short Reagan inherited a disaster. Reagan initiated major tax cuts to encourage businesses to grow. Federal spending was reduced by 5 percent and the money supply was decreased to avoid currency devaluation. Reagan's supply-side economic policies resulted in the largest peacetime economic boom in US history with 35 million jobs being created. His policies included deep tax cuts, extensive economic reforms, market deregulation, and sound monetary policy to combat historically high inflation. The Reagan economic boom lasted from 1982 thru 1990 one of the longest periods of growth during peacetime and second longest in US history. Real disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, resulting in the standard of living increasing by nearly 20% in seven years. The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989. The stock market tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, the largest increase in any previous decade. The period between 1982 and 2007 is considered the greatest wealth creation in history, initiated by Reagan.

Reagan's successful attack on inflation was especially beneficial to low/middle income families when rates were reduced from 14 percent in 1980 to 6.5 percent in 1982. His tax cuts exempted most of low/middle income families from paying any federal taxes when the federal tax exemptions were doubled. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 helped low/middle income even more. The old worn out argument that Reagan hated the poor is ridiculous. There was/is disparity in incomes but also a huge increase in wealth creation...a much bigger "pie" resulted. The graph posted is from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; a progressive organization with methodologies often times using misleading statistics. Regardless, when considering income disparity a graph that shows income before taxes is not a complete picture. Our tax system is highly redistributive with the rich paying a lions share of the tax burden. Tax policy and welfare spending substantially reduce inequality. Few rich people have become rich because of inheritance (not suggesting that luck and privilege doesn't play a role). Most got rich by providing goods and services that improve our lives. There is little relationship between poverty and inequality. Just because some people become rich does not mean others will become poor.

JFK stated in his state of the economy message, "Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary." Reagan followed JFK's approach which resulted in a booming economy. If Trump's tax plan becomes law we should expect a repeat of positive results. Reagan's '86 Tax Reform Act passed the senate with a 97-3 vote when democrats controlled the senate. JFK wouldn't even be welcome in today's democratic party.
Both History teachers at my HS, who are normally Republicans, that voted Libertairan this time to avoid Trump. Both will confidently admit that trickle down economics never worked. Ronald Raygun taught his constituents how to hate poor people. A lot still live with that stigma to this day.
 

Gene S

Active Member
Both History teachers at my HS, who are normally Republicans, that voted Libertairan this time to avoid Trump. Both will confidently admit that trickle down economics never worked. Ronald Raygun taught his constituents how to hate poor people. A lot still live with that stigma to this day.
What the hell do history teachers know about economics. Try again.
 
The past 40 years have seen a gradual decrease in the top bracket's income tax rate, from 91% in 1963 to 35% in 2003. It went as low as 28% in 1988 and 1989 due to legislation passed under Reagan, the trickle-down theory's most famous adherent.

Well, the last time I looked small high schools do not teach Micro and Macro Econ. So, the History teachers take on this role. You really need to try again!
 
You did see the chart, right? Denial would be to dispute facts!
I looked at your graph... then i put it into perspective... with some factual numbers.

A large part of the reason that the income growth has such a great disparity is the lazyness of the lower and middle class.

My wife's sister just became an RN 2 years ago. Now she works as a nurse for the state of Colorado base pay plus overtime she is making 500-700 dollars per day. She and her husband go on several tropical cruises per year. She works very hard and is paid very well.
Ohh and she paid off her student loans.
Lots of People don't have the income they desire because they are lazy and or make bad career decisions. I am the perfect example.

Hey young guy best advise ever right here... do not follow your passions!!!!!!
Follow opportunity and bring your passion with you..
 
The past 40 years have seen a gradual decrease in the top bracket's income tax rate, from 91% in 1963 to 35% in 2003. It went as low as 28% in 1988 and 1989 due to legislation passed under Reagan, the trickle-down theory's most famous adherent.

Well, the last time I looked small high schools do not teach Micro and Macro Econ. So, the History teachers take on this role. You really need to try again!
Both of thoes points are irrelevant.
And if teachers are teaching that the rich don't pay enough taxes they need to be fired immediately and probably jailed. It is wrong for teachers to teach their opinion as history.
A better history lesson would be about the interactions between the Wright brothers and Glenn Curtis. And the laughable outcome... The wonderful
And very historically relevant Curtis-Wright Corporation.

Fact is for anyone willing to work hard there has never been a better time or place to have a great standard of living than the USA from the 1980s til now.

So the rich are getting richer.. so is everyone else who makes good choices and applies themselves.
 

Gene S

Active Member
Well, the last time I looked small high schools do not teach Micro and Macro Econ. So, the History teachers take on this role. You really need to try again!
Let me see if I've got these facts right. So you have two normal republican turned libertarian high school history teachers in podunkville who wing it with an econ 101 class. Ok, that's special but really weak. :rolleyes: Don't get me wrong I have lot's of respect for classroom teachers, my wife being one. One last question, how many economic classes were they required to take for their history major teaching degree? Just curious I'm one of those evil private sector guys.
 
You guys both twist stories to save your asses. The teachers simply relate that Trickle Down Economics failed. Neither one of you can dispute the facts, so you revert to bullshit. Typical.
Both of thoes points are irrelevant.
And if teachers are teaching that the rich don't pay enough taxes they need to be fired immediately and probably jailed. It is wrong for teachers to teach their opinion as history.
A better history lesson would be about the interactions between the Wright brothers and Glenn Curtis. And the laughable outcome... The wonderful
And very historically relevant Curtis-Wright Corporation.

Fact is for anyone willing to work hard there has never been a better time or place to have a great standard of living than the USA from the 1980s til now.

So the rich are getting richer.. so is everyone else who makes good choices and applies themselves.
The chart Rob, the chart!!! It's not going away!
 
Try twisting this one Ray Gun boys:
1. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to economic growth.


This graph shows the fluctuations of the real GDP growth rate over the period, indicating the performance of the U.S. economy as a whole. It is true that growth increased drastically after the 1982 tax cut, reaching as high as 7.3% in 1984. However, as the Reagan-Bush, Sr. administrations went on and taxes for the rich were slashed even further, growth fell to negative levels during 1991, at the heart of the last recession. And, two of the three years with the highest growth were during the 1950s, when the top tax rate was 91%. Overall, there seems to be no close relationship between the top tax rate and the GDP growth rate, and statistical analysis backs this up: the correlation coefficient between the two variables is 0.03, meaning that there is essentially no connection. (If tax cuts were strongly related to GDP growth, we would see a coefficient close to -1.) So much for upper-class tax cuts boosting the economy; now it's on to median income growth.

2. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to income growth.



Again, we see inconclusive evidence for the power of tax cuts. We do see small peaks in median income growth, a good measure of how the average American household is doing, after top-bracket tax cuts in the mid-1960s and early 1980s, but we also actually see income decreases after the tax cuts of the late 1980s, and strong growth after the tax increase of 1993. It is true that in the year with the worst median income decrease (3.3% in 1974), the top tax rate was 70%. However, it was also 70% in the year with the highest median income growth (4.7% in 1972)! Once again, the lack of connection between the two measures is backed up by a correlation coefficient near zero: 0.06, to be exact. And yes, yet again, the coefficient is positive, indicating that income has gone up slightly (though negligibly) more in years with higher taxes. Two strikes. How about hourly wages?

3. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to wage growth.


Not surprisingly, we have mixed results yet again! Growth in average hourly wages did increase during the 1980s following the first Reagan tax cuts, albeit two years after the cuts took effect. But, just like GDP growth and median income growth, hourly wages decreased following the late 1980s tax cuts, and spiked upwards after the 1993 tax increase.

Furthermore, wages grew at a level of at least 1%, and usually much more, all throughout the period when the top income tax rate was 91%. In fact, it isn't until 1972 that we see a wage growth rate of less than 1%. However, if we look at the 19 years of the study period when the top tax rate was 50% or less, we see that 8 of the years saw an increase in wages of less than 1%. Thus, it seems that hourly wages grew more when taxes were higher - indeed, the correlation coefficient is 0.34, indicating a mild positive relationship between higher taxes for the rich and higher hourly wages. This finding flies in the face of the conservative theory. As if that's not enough, now let's see about what President Bush claimed would be the biggest result of tax cuts - job creation.

4. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to job creation.


Here, we see the change in the unemployment rate laid against the top tax rate from 1954 to 2002. Thus, negative values signify a decrease in unemployment -- in essence, job creation. Once again, while the top tax rate trends downward over the period, the annual change in unemployment doesn't seem to trend at all! Although the largest increase (2.9%) did occur in 1975, when the top marginal tax rate was 70%, three of the four largest decreases in unemployment occurred in years when the top rate was 91%. The mixed results do not bode well for those who see tax cuts for the richest as a sparkplug to incite job growth. The correlation coefficient between the variables here is 0.11 -- meaning that there have been slightly more jobs created in years with lower top tax rates, but this pattern is negligible -- nowhere near strong enough to signify a relationship.

And now the POTUS of your dreams wants to screw us over even more!
 
You guys both twist stories to save your asses. The teachers simply relate that Trickle Down Economics failed. Neither one of you can dispute the facts, so you revert to bullshit. Typical.

The chart Rob, the chart!!! It's not going away!
The chart doesn't tell the whole story!!!!

that;s what we are trying to tell you..

the rich are getting richer faster than the rest of us... SO WHAT! that is meaningless information.... Fact is people are living better in the United States during the last 40 years than at any time or location in human history.. drive around with your eyes open... you are blinded by that chart.

this has nothing to do with tax rates!!! it has to do with when the rich get rich everyone else does well too.... pay attention!
 
Try twisting this one Ray Gun boys:

And now the POTUS of your dreams wants to screw us over even more!


hey you should do some more research, the Same lady that wrote that article and graphs in another article talks about how Reaganomics actually worked to stimulate the economy..

the reason it worked is because tax rates on the rich were so high,, now they are lower and cuts are less likely to have much effect...

"
Tax cuts reduce the federal budget immediately, and dollar-for-dollar. These same cuts have a multiplier effect on economic growth. Tax cuts put money in consumers' pockets, which they spend. That stimulates business growth and more hiring. The result? A larger tax base.

But the effect that tax cuts have depends on how fast the economy is growing when they are applied. It also depends on the types of taxes and how high they were before the cut. The Laffer Curve shows that cutting taxes only increases government revenue up to a point. Once taxes get low enough, cutting them will decrease revenue instead. Cuts worked during Reagan's presidency because the highest tax rate was 70 percent. They have a much weaker effect when tax rates are below 50 percent.

so giving the rich a tax cut now won't be effective for stimulating the economy, doesn't mean there aren't other reasons to do it.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts