Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Quote:Yep. You have no clue.

No you don't.

Wow, that's an easy way to discuss stuff. I should have been using this method ages ago.

Quote:You guys realize before the neocons brainwashed you, Eisenhower--a conservative-- was pro livable wages and sensible government regulation.

Maybe trump will wake some of you up. The racist stuff is kind of a shame, though...

Quote:Oh dear... I don't even know where to start, or whether it's worth it or not... You're just gonna ignore what I say and just make up some more non-sense.



1st off, your "theory" on the laffer curve is cute and may garner you some nods of approval from your neo-con friends (wink wink, Malabar), but it's just not accurate. I mean, I have this theory called the Anchorman Curve. In the Anchorman Curve, you give all your money to me, and then inflation goes down, wages go up, the middle class grows, and women all want you. (It's like RAINNN on your wedding day... It's a free ridddddeeeee when you're already late!)



Yes, you specifically, JJ... See, just because I say something doesn't make it true, just because. Inflation went up because of the monetary policy started in the 60's and then exacerbated by Nixon, and then the great oil crisis came to head under Carter. So to blame it all on "liberals" would be foolish, but not beneath you. Kensyian economics actually models this issue.



Two democrat administrations and one administration that pioneered abandoning the bretton woods system, founding opec, instituted wage and price controls etc. etc. and you want to blame conservatives? Good luck with that.



However, to say that the laffer curve was the only way to resolve this problems is ridiculous. Keynsian eonomic models and theories would have gotten us out of this mess just as easily, and probably with more benefits to workers. Reagan can put another coal on the fire of whatever perdition he resides with in. Millionaires and Billionaires can thank Reagun, I tell him to go kick rocks.



The laffer curve was the theory about optimizing revenue. That's actually not directly correlated to the idea of leaving more money in the private sector to stimulate the economy without direct devaluation of the currency or the inefficiency that plagues public works. 20 million jobs created tells YOU to kick rocks.



As for the minimum wage discussion... You're changing the topic. The miminum wage has been stagnant to getting lower in terms of dollars... That's the point. That's why your boy Trump thinks it needs to be looked at and possible raised. Obviously, minimum wage isn't the gold standard of how an nation/economy is doing. There you go again... Deflecting.



No, not getting off that easy. You called me out by name. You insinuated that just because i don't read or comment on every post in a thread that i am in some way DENYING FACTS. You did this based on a post about LIVING WAGE and how SENSIBLE Eisenhower was. a.) emotional qualifiers don't pass as fact. b.) I then pointed out to you what the minimum wage was with Eisenhower and then further elaborated that in reality our current minimum wage is mathematically in line with the rate under Eisenhower.



You can point out that it was higher in inflation adjusted dollars in 1968, but that negates the idea that Eisenhower's rate had anything to do with it!



And as for government expansion under Obama... Care to elaborate? Or are you just parrotting what you hear on Fox News and your boy Hannity/Limbaugh? Federal employment under Obama has actually DECREASED!!! You may call them whatever you like, but that's what historians and

You advocate more spending to drive the growth of the economy. We will have spent a greater percentage of GDP through the federal government than at any time in our history at the end of the current administration. Yet we will have never grown at a rate of 3% or higher... Who needs the nutmeg now brother?

A livable wage and sensible regulations... So then I provided you how the wages have decreased based on purchasing power over time... But during Eisenhowers period, it was pretty respectable... Here's the link AGAIN!!!! https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42973.pdf

Additionally, Eisenhowever himself was looking to increase the minimum wage, here's a quote from his State of the Union Address in 1955 First, in the past five years we have had economic growth which will support an increase in the Federal minimum wage. In the light of present economic conditions, I recommend its increase to ninety cents an hour. I also recommend that manyothers, at present excluded, be given the protection of a minimum wage.

Whether or not you like the term livable wage and sensible regulations, it's clear that republicans before Reagun saw it's importance. And additionally, you are still trying to skip out and deflect from this point. I will not let you get away with it, my good friend.

As for the laffer curve, your statement is my point. The laffer curve didn't generate jobs, it just redistributed wealth. The increase of jobs over time is a normal process of the business cycle. It didn't occur because of the laffer curve!! All economists that aren't paid shills for the republican party know this. Every economist knows that based on providing additional revenue to businesses does not increase jobs. That extra money stays at the top. The laffer curve is a joke. And Laffer can kick rocks right along side Reagun. :-)

Your definition of government spending and your discussion of government expansion are clearly 2 different things that you are trying to use to create a political point. That's fine, but it's really too much to discuss here in this threat that is already becoming multiple things. Let's stick to the minimum wage issue and your boy trump's love of increasing it... If you want to talk about Obama, let's create a new thread to fight over that topic separately.

Quote:No you don't.

Wow, that's an easy way to discuss stuff. I should have been using this method ages ago.

Sorry. Your description of Neocon was totally wrong.

The term "Neocon" is used to self-describe former liberals, mainly Jews, who drifted to the Republican party in the 1990s. They are typically war hawks, especially in defense of Israel, but are not small government or fiscal responsibility hawks.

Quote:Sorry. Your description of Neocon was totally wrong.

The term "Neocon" is used to self-describe former liberals, mainly Jews, who drifted to the Republican party in the 1990s. They are typically war hawks, especially in defense of Israel, but are not small government or fiscal responsibility hawks.

Thank you, that's better. I apologize. It appears I may have used the term too loosley. Though I will maintain that I think many of those ilk have morphed into having small government ideals in every area except the war machine.

Quote:As for the laffer curve, your statement is my point. The laffer curve didn't generate jobs, it just redistributed wealth.

The Laffer curve is a display of government income vs. tax rate. Consider, if taxes are zero then there is zero government revenue. If taxes are 100% then there is also essentially zero government revenue because only a fool would work for income under that condition (barring totalitarian labor at gunpoint, essentially slavery). But as the tax rate moves from those two extremes revenue is generated. There is some tax rate where revenue is maximized.

The Laffer curve was used to justify cutting taxes under Reagan, which did generate jobs.
When taxes were cut under Reagan revenues also rose, as predicted. That doesn't mean that Reagan chose the ideal tax rate, just a better one than under Carter.

And calling the act of people keeping more of their hard-earned money "redistribution" is a claim only a Marxist would love.

Quote:The Laffer curve is a display of government income vs. tax rate. Consider, if taxes are zero then there is zero government revenue. If taxes are 100% then there is also essentially zero government revenue because only a fool would work for income under that condition (barring totalitarian labor at gunpoint, essentially slavery). But as the tax rate moves from those two extremes revenue is generated. There is some tax rate where revenue is maximized.

The Laffer curve was used to justify cutting taxes under Reagan, which did generate jobs.
When taxes were cut under Reagan revenues also rose, as predicted. That doesn't mean that Reagan chose the ideal tax rate, just a better one than under Carter.

And calling the act of people keeping more of their hard-earned money "redistribution" is a claim only a Marxist would love.

Correlation does not imply causation. Consider this... why did the increase in taxes at the upper level under Clinton result in a bigger increase in job creation compared to the job increase under raygun when he cut taxes at the upper level?

The job increase was a result of the business cycle and other factors. It's been debunked that lower tax rates result on an increase in jobs. It's just not true. It's a lie that people are finally waking up to.

Also, taxes are a part of a society. Cutting the taxes of the wealthy, thus adding extra burden on the middle class is absolutely a redistribution of wealth. If you want to say I'm a Marxist because I believe that those that get the most benefit from our society should pay a progressive rate of taxes, so be it.

Or, I just may be a normal American that sees things differently than you... one of those two

Quote:Correlation does not imply causation. Consider this... why did the increase in taxes at the upper level under Clinton result in a bigger increase in job creation compared to the job increase under raygun when he cut taxes at the upper level?

The job increase was a result of the business cycle and other factors. It's been debunked that lower tax rates result on an increase in jobs. It's just not true. It's a lie that people are finally waking up to.

Also, taxes are a part of a society. Cutting the taxes of the wealthy, thus adding extra burden on the middle class is absolutely a redistribution of wealth. If you want to say I'm a Marxist because I believe that those that get the most benefit from our society should pay a progressive rate of taxes, so be it.

Or, I just may be a normal American that sees things differently than you... one of those two

Normal Americans don't believe in "From each according...", so if you believe "that those that get the most benefit from our society should pay a progressive rate of taxes, so be it." then yes, you aren't normal.

Quote:Correlation does not imply causation. Consider this... why did the increase in taxes at the upper level under Clinton result in a bigger increase in job creation compared to the job increase under raygun when he cut taxes at the upper level?

The job increase was a result of the business cycle and other factors. It's been debunked that lower tax rates result on an increase in jobs. It's just not true. It's a lie that people are finally waking up to.

Also, taxes are a part of a society. Cutting the taxes of the wealthy, thus adding extra burden on the middle class is absolutely a redistribution of wealth. If you want to say I'm a Marxist because I believe that those that get the most benefit from our society should pay a progressive rate of taxes, so be it.

Or, I just may be a normal American that sees things differently than you... one of those two

1. It has NOT been "debunked." Sure, there are many factors in how jobs are created or lost. Taxes are one factor.

2. How does cutting taxes on the wealthy add an extra burden to the middle class? Are you are postulating a tax increase on the middle class to offset the tax cut? That wasn't the case under Reagan, nor Bush when taxes were cut in 2001.

Quote:Normal Americans don't believe in "From each according...", so if you believe "that those that get the most benefit from our society should pay a progressive rate of taxes, so be it." then yes, you aren't normal.

Hmm... Well that's interesting, considering that's the exact philosophy of the progressive tax system that is set up... IN THE USA.... LOL.

Quote:1. It has NOT been "debunked." Sure, there are many factors in how jobs are created or lost. Taxes are one factor.

2. How does cutting taxes on the wealthy add an extra burden to the middle class? Are you are postulating a tax increase on the middle class to offset the tax cut? That wasn't the case under Reagan, nor Bush when taxes were cut in 2001.

It has been debunked. See, I can do that too.

Except I actually give reasons why... Just look at the huge growth in jobs after clinton raised taxes it was a higher growth rate than when Reagun lowered taxes. Also, every study shows that what has happened with the additional profits that corporations have been getting from lower taxes since W. Bush has been not to create more jobs, but to retain those earnings, give them back to shareholders, or do stock buy backs. They are not investing in jobs, that's for sure. I mean, this is all basic business and news for the last several years...

As for the middle class-- have you noticed the reports that the middle class is dying off? It's obvious, at least to me, that burning the candle at both ends (hooking up the wealthy and hooking up the poor) is squeezing the middle class. I thought this was something we all agreed upon.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadle...ca145f772c

Quote:Hmm... Well that's interesting, considering that's the exact philosophy of the progressive tax system that is set up... IN THE USA.... LOL.

Here's a pretty good article I just found. I've just skimmed it, but I plan on reading it over the next few days.

oops, here's the link http://jurisprudence.com.au/juris23/westin.pdf

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/20...d837067746

What we do know is that recent history reveals that raising taxes did not produce the economic disaster that conservative philosophy predicted— just as cutting taxes did not produce the economic boom that Reagan economic theory promised.

Didn't read past the progressive headline

Quote:http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/20...d837067746

What we do know is that recent history reveals that raising taxes did not produce the economic disaster that conservative philosophy predicted— just as cutting taxes did not produce the economic boom that Reagan economic theory promised.

If you keep reading he says that tax cuts from 70% to 35% did create an economic boom but required using debt to fund liabilities when the revenue was drastically reduced. His argument isn't that cutting taxes doesn't stimulate the economy it's that we can't cut the top bracket 60% when the current rate is 39% it would damage the revenue to much and require more dependency on a deficit.

I've long argued we don't have an income problem as a nation we have a spending problem. We can cut or raise taxes all day long, until we figure out how not to spend as much it won't make a damn bit of difference. That means less spending on the military, less on social programs, less on welfare, less on government employees, less on everything.

Quote:If you keep reading he says that tax cuts from 70% to 35% did create an economic boom but required using debt to fund liabilities when the revenue was drastically reduced. His argument isn't that cutting taxes doesn't stimulate the economy it's that we can't cut the top bracket 60% when the current rate is 39% it would damage the revenue to much and require more dependency on a deficit.

I've long argued we don't have an income problem as a nation we have a spending problem. We can cut or raise taxes all day long, until we figure out how not to spend as much it won't make a damn bit of difference. That means less spending on the military, less on social programs, less on welfare, less on government employees, less on everything.

Well, I'm not sure how far off we are on spending. But I will agree there are major areas where our spending should be reduced. Subsidies for corporations and military spending are 2 areas I agree with. That is for another thread, though.

The article also points out that the cuts Reagun put in place caused huge deficits. This was because Reagun was not very fiscally responsible. He made those huge tax cuts, but increased government spending.

But here's my point: The cuts in taxes from 70% (the marginal rate when Reagun came into office) to 29% and the rise in taxes under clinton had about the same effect.

To me, that means that A-- The clinton tax rise didn't kill the economic expansion that occurred in the 90s. The boom was un-altered by the rise. So, it's clear that raising taxes doesn't kill job growth. This is also something that most economists will say.

As for Reagun's cuts, let's also remember that the under Reagun, government spending also increased. Government spending creates job growth as well. So you can't just say that these huge tax cuts were the sole reason for the job growth under Reagun.

That's been my point this whole time. The cut in taxes may have some marginal effect on jobs if you have a starting tax rate of 70%. But at what level does it become diminishing returns? 50%? 45%? Under Clinton, jobs weren't affected at 38%... So, I think we can got back up to at least 45%. But again, that's a different discussion as well...

Quote:Didn't read past the progressive headline

LOL, you're so lazy. It's from the same website you got your opinion piece... And I actually read your article.

Quote:If you keep reading he says that tax cuts from 70% to 35% did create an economic boom but required using debt to fund liabilities when the revenue was drastically reduced. His argument isn't that cutting taxes doesn't stimulate the economy it's that we can't cut the top bracket 60% when the current rate is 39% it would damage the revenue to much and require more dependency on a deficit.

I've long argued we don't have an income problem as a nation we have a spending problem. We can cut or raise taxes all day long, until we figure out how not to spend as much it won't make a damn bit of difference. That means less spending on the military, less on social programs, less on welfare, less on government employees, less on everything.

Yep, cutting taxes only works if you cut spending as well. Since the American people are hooked on that sweet green cocaine from Uncle Sugar that ain't happening ever again.

Quote:Yep, cutting taxes only works if you cut spending as well. Since the American people are hooked on that sweet green cocaine from Uncle Sugar that ain't happening ever again.

I accept your concession. :-)

Quote:Well, I'm not sure how far off we are on spending. But I will agree there are major areas where our spending should be reduced. Subsidies for corporations and military spending are 2 areas I agree with. That is for another thread, though.

The article also points out that the cuts Reagun put in place caused huge deficits. This was because Reagun was not very fiscally responsible. He made those huge tax cuts, but increased government spending.

But here's my point: The cuts in taxes from 70% (the marginal rate when Reagun came into office) to 29% and the rise in taxes under clinton had about the same effect.

To me, that means that A-- The clinton tax rise didn't kill the economic expansion that occurred in the 90s. The boom was un-altered by the rise. So, it's clear that raising taxes doesn't kill job growth. This is also something that most economists will say.

As for Reagun's cuts, let's also remember that the under Reagun, government spending also increased. Government spending creates job growth as well. So you can't just say that these huge tax cuts were the sole reason for the job growth under Reagun.

That's been my point this whole time. The cut in taxes may have some marginal effect on jobs if you have a starting tax rate of 70%. But at what level does it become diminishing returns? 50%? 45%? Under Clinton, jobs weren't affected at 38%... So, I think we can got back up to at least 45%. But again, that's a different discussion as well...

If give you a top rate of 40% if you'd give me a reduction of 10% across the board. That's not 10% less of an increase for the next year it's 10% less than we spent in every department the previous year. That's every government worker, contractor, and department gets a 10% reduction.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

The_Anchorman

The_Anchorman

MalabarJag

The_Anchorman

MalabarJag

The_Anchorman

flsprtsgod

MalabarJag

The_Anchorman

The_Anchorman

jj82284

The_Anchorman

The_Anchorman

jj82284

EricC85

The_Anchorman

The_Anchorman

flsprtsgod

The_Anchorman

EricC85