What destroyed the American conservative MIND?

[JohnEngelman]

Revenues doubled over a ten-year span, but for every new $1.00 of revenue, Congress (which was mostly under Democrat control) spent $1.73. IOW, the tax cuts grew the economy (as they had for Coolidge and JFK and would for Bush and Trump) but the Big Government politicians increased spending even faster than the revenue increases.

The Senate had a Republican majority from 1980 to 1988.

The Second World War ended in 1945. The national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) was 114%. President Carter's last full year in office was 1980. By then the national debt as a percentage of GDP had declined to 32%. During this time the top tax rate never got below 70%, and was often much higher.

Reagan cut the top tax rate to 28%. During Reagan's last full year in office, in 1988, the national debt as a percentage of GDP had grown to 50%. From 1980 to 1988 the national debt had grown from $908 billion to $2,602 billion.

https://www.thebalancemoney.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

Anyone with an accurate memory of the Reagan administration knows that it was not a time for bold new initiatives in domestic spending. What did increase was the military budget.

 

[JohnEngelman]

BTW, those crazy right wingers as the IRS say that since the 2-17 tax cuts, the wealthiest taxpayers now pay a higher share of taxes than before the cuts.

Document your assertions. If what you say is true it is because the wealthiest tax payers earn a lot more, even as incomes for most Americans have stagnated or declined.

 

[JohnEngelman]

That's a good way to reduce the amount of money in the country. They'll move it somewhere where we can't tax it, stop producing as much, reduce wealth-generating activities. When you tax something, you get less of it. Tax wealthe creation and you'll get less wealth creation, which will reduce the standard of living for all of us.

The more income you redistribute, the less income you have.

When we raise the top tax rate we get more tax revenue.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Of course you haven't. Your cult doesn't allow you to.

SkyBubble, you never document any of your assertions. Your mind is full of Republican cliches and you speak off the top of your head.

 

[SkyBubble]

SkyBubble, you never document any of your assertions.

Another of your lies.

 

[SkyBubble]

When we raise the top tax rate we get more tax revenue.

Only for a short period.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Another of your lies.

When and where have you documented your assertions?

 

[SkyBubble]

All the time, but of course you choose not to see it.

 

[JohnEngelman]

SkyBubble, I have already posted this. Read it this time. When the top tax rate never got below 70% and as often much higher the national debt was not a problem. It only became a problem when Reagan cut the top tax rate from 70% to 28%. The following chart demonstrates that Reagan's economic policies did not benefit most Americans.

The Senate had a Republican majority from 1980 to 1988.

The Second World War ended in 1945. The national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) was 114%. President Carter's last full year in office was 1980. By then the national debt as a percentage of GDP had declined to 32%. During this time the top tax rate never got below 70%, and was often much higher.

Reagan cut the top tax rate to 28%. During Reagan's last full year in office, in 1988, the national debt as a percentage of GDP had grown to 50%. From 1980 to 1988 the national debt had grown from $908 billion to $2,602 billion.

https://www.thebalancemoney.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

Anyone with an accurate memory of the Reagan administration knows that it was not a time for bold new initiatives in domestic spending. What did increase was the military budget.

 

[JohnEngelman]

All the time, but of course you choose not to see it.

I never noticed you before now. Post your documentation again.

 

[SkyBubble]

SkyBubble, I have already posted this. Read it this time. When the top tax rate never got below 70% and as often much higher the national debt was not a problem. It only became a problem when Reagan cut the top tax rate from 70% to 28%. The following chart demonstrates that Reagan's economic policies did not benefit most Americans.

View attachment 2616220

Again, that's because spending was a lot lower. Do you know the only Preisdent in the last hundred years under whom the budget was balanced every year? It was Coolidge, the pioneer in this. He cut taxes and we gained more revenue. (The same thing happened each subsequent time we've done so.

Again, you're looking at short term numbers. Raising taxes cuts the deficit for a short period, but over ht long haul it does the opposite.

It's a SPENDING problem. We need to cut spending dramatically.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Again, that's because spending was a lot lower. Do you know the only Preisdent in the last hundred years under whom the budget was balanced every year? It was Coolidge, the pioneer in this. He cut taxes and we gained more revenue. (The same thing happened each subsequent time we've done so.

Again, you're looking at short term numbers. Raising taxes cuts the deficit for a short period, but over ht long haul it does the opposite.

It's a SPENDING problem. We need to cut spending dramatically.

Coolidge not only cut taxes, he reduced military spending.

 

[YDB95]

Giving freebies to illegals while veterans are living on our streets is intentional. I don't want to pay a dime for illegals.

Then it's a good thing we're not giving freebies to illegals.

Revenues doubled over a ten-year span, but for every new $1.00 of revenue, Congress (which was mostly under Democrat control) spent $1.73.

Wrong. The Senate was Republican-controlled for all but Reagan's last two years, and the balance of power in the House was conservative Southern Democrats who mostly voted like Republicans.

Do you know the only Preisdent in the last hundred years under whom the budget was balanced every year? It was Coolidge, the pioneer in this.

Yes, and what happened immediately after he left office? THAT is what fiscal austerity will get you.

 

[Chernosoth]

This could be another fun thread to bump later this year if the Pubs gain seats and diehard Dems start saying they have always been conservative.

 

[eric_erosfan]

This could be another fun thread to bump later this year if the Pubs gain seats and diehard Dems start saying they have always been conservative.

Have you read anything that doesn't predict a Republican bloodbath in November?

 

[Chernosoth]

Have you read anything that doesn't predict a Republican bloodbath in November?

Trump lets the war run too long. That's most of what I see now in the possibility of throwing away a sure thing. But both parties still tend to nominate empty suits, morons, lunatics, corporate shills, etc. There are possibilities for performing above expectations by nominating competent humans with working brains.

 

[YDB95]

There are possibilities for performing above expectations by nominating competent humans with working brains.

Russ Feingold --> Ron Johnson
Doug Jones --> Tommy Tuberville
Harris Wofford --> Rick Santorum

That is, all too often, what you get when you pit a competent, intelligent legislator against a dimwitted ideologue. It's nice to think smarter = more likely to get elected and make a difference, but it just does not work that way. At least not usually.

 

[nowisthetime]

They’re really just a symptom of a bigger decline in American society.

That’s why you see so many efforts to chip away at public education because an uninformed ignorant population with weaker critical thinking skills is easier to influence.

The R party knows they are incompetent with the economy and other pressing concerns, of course they play up these culture wars. Just look at all the gender identity bills popping up in some states, targeting trans people who make up less than one percent of the population.

What? You're telling me hating some trans chick in heels and a lacefront minding their own business is more of a concern than clean air, water, lower grocery prices, affordable healthcare and housing, and educator pay? That right there is a sickness, particularly plaguing those regressive red states.

 

[eric_erosfan]

Trump lets the war run too long. That's most of what I see now in the possibility of throwing away a sure thing. But both parties still tend to nominate empty suits, morons, lunatics, corporate shills, etc. There are possibilities for performing above expectations by nominating competent humans with working brains.

Trump's approval rating was 15 points higher at this point in his first term and he still lost the House in the mid-terms.

At 31% approval it is going to be a bloodbath.

 

[Chernosoth]

That is, all too often, what you get when you pit a competent, intelligent legislator against a dimwitted ideologue. It's nice to think smarter = more likely to get elected and make a difference, but it just does not work that way. At least not usually.

OK. The Dems should run more morons and lunatics.

 

[icanhelp1]

Then it's a good thing we're not giving freebies to illegals.

https://fine.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=116

The federal government is projected to spend $177 billion on welfare for noncitizens between 2024 to 2034. This cannot continue in our country while we're currently $38 trillion in debt. Congressman Fine understands that and is introducing this bill to end the left's runaway gravy train of freebies for non-citizens.

“Americans are being robbed,” said Congressman Randy Fine. "Somalians, illegals, and even legal immigrants are getting free handouts at the expense of American taxpayers. That is insane, it is immoral, and it must stop.”

"Hardworking Americans should not be paying for non-citizens' healthcare, free housing, food stamps, Medicaid, or anything else for that matter. Citizens come first. Period,” Fine continued. "My legislation will ensure that non-citizens don't receive any government benefits from the taxpayer. If you want free stuff, then you need to go home."

Wrong. The Senate was Republican-controlled for all but Reagan's last two years, and the balance of power in the House was conservative Southern Democrats who mostly voted like Republicans.



Yes, and what happened immediately after he left office? THAT is what fiscal austerity will get you.

 

[SkyBubble]

Coolidge not only cut taxes, he reduced military spending.

He reduced spending all around. We need to do that now, without sacrificing readiness.

 

[SkyBubble]

Then it's a good thing we're not giving freebies to illegals.

Taht's completely untrue.

 

[SkyBubble]

The Senate was Republican-controlled for all but Reagan's last two years, and the balance of power in the House was conservative Southern Democrats who mostly voted like Republicans.

Spending bills start in the House, and the leadership has a LOT of control, and no, the balance of power was *NOT* supposedly "conservative" Democrats. Other than Larry McDonald, I can't think of one.

 

[SkyBubble]

Russ Feingold --> Ron Johnson
Doug Jones --> Tommy Tuberville
Harris Wofford --> Rick Santorum

False, false, and false.