-
Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
-
Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex
Average Tax Savings for one year extension of Bush tax cuts in your state.
- Thread starter NVRBDR
- Start date
'Horrendous': Nobel economist George Akerlof criticizes Bush administration's economic stimulus package
'Horrendous': Nobel economist George Akerlof criticizes Bush economic stimulus package
Ten Nobel Laureates Say the Bush Tax Cuts Are the Wrong Approach
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/02/nyt_economists.pdf
EXPERT ECONOMISTS REFUTE REPUBLICAN MYTHS ABOUT THE TAX CUT
http://www.jec.senate.gov/archive/Documents/Reports/economistsquotes.pdf
Taking Stockman: How Nixon, Reagan, Bush and their GOP Demolished the Economy
David Stockman: How Nixon, Reagan, the Bushes and their GOP Demolished the Economy - David Stockman on Deficit Spending | FlaglerLive - Your News Service for Flagler County News Palm Coast News Bunnell Flagler Beach Beverly Beach and Marineland
Back in 1981 David Stockman was the wonderkid of the Reagan administration?the director of the
Office of Management and Budget who?d craft in actual budgets the trickle-down miracle Reagan had
promised on the campaign trail: lower budgets, lower spending, higher tax revenue. But trickle-down
economics was a wish, not a reality. It?s never worked. Lower taxes don?t generate more revenue. They
generate deficits.
Reagan knew it. So did Stockman. So did their guru, Friederich von Hayek. The deficits were
intentional all along. They were edsigned to ?starve the beast,? meaning intentionally cut revenue as a
way of pressuring Congress to cut the New Deal programs Reagan wanted to demolish. ?The plan,?
Stockman told Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan at the time, ? was to have a strategic deficit that would
give you an argument for cutting back the programs that weren?t desired. It got out of hand.?
A 1985 interview with von Hayek in the March 25, 1985 issue of Profil 13, the Austrian journal, was just
as revealing. Von Hayek sat for the interview while wearing a set of cuff links Reagan had presented
him as a gift. ?I really believe Reagan is fundamentally a decent and honest man,? von Hayek told his
interviewer. ?His politics? When the government of the United States borrows a large part of the
savings of the world, the consequence is that capital must become scarce and expensive in the whole
world. That?s a problem.? And in reference to Stockman, von Hayek said: ?You see, one of Reagan?s
advisers told me why the president has permitted that to happen, which makes the matter partly
excusable: Reagan thinks it is impossible to persuade Congress that expenditures must be reduced
unless one creates deficits so large that absolutely everyone becomes convinced that no more money
can be spent.? Thus, he went on, it was up to Reagan to ?persuade Congress of the necessity of
spending reductions by means of an immense deficit. Unfortunately, he has not succeeded!!!? Those
three exclamation points, unusually effusive for an economist, are in the original.
Keep in mind: Hayek is speaking his disillusion with the GOP?s misapplication of his theories in 1985.
To this day he remains a favored mask of budget-wreckers pretending to be fiscally conservative while
pushing for more tax cuts. Those wreckers are at work in Congress today as they argue for an
extension of the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, which were far larger than Reagan?s of 1981 and
1986 (in 1986, Reagan agreed to some tax increases, but mostly in the Social Security payroll tax,
meaning on the middle and lower classes).
Stockman resigned from the Reagan administration in 1985,
himself disillusioned.
David Stockman, Reagan's Director of OMB, Speaks Out | CJOnline.com
Stockman was quoted as referring to the Reagan Revolution's legacy tax act as ?a Trojan horse to bring down the top-rate.... It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle-down.' So the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down."
He made it even more apparent he had not drunk the kool-aid, when, soon after he left OMB in 1985, he wrote ?Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed.? The reason: no one at the time, Republican or Democrat, was willing to cut spending, and if you cut taxes, you must cut spending. Cutting taxes for the rich does not increase government income.
Sure enough, by 1988 Reagan had tripled the national debt, and our country--which from WWII until 1971 was the world?s largest creditor nation--was well on its way to becoming the world?s biggest debtor nation. George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton had some success in putting our nation?s fiscal house in order, but along came George W. Bush, determined to out-Reagan Reagan with ever larger tax-cuts for the rich.
Job Creation and Our Diminished Economic Engine: The Middle Class ? Art on Issues
One of the effects of supply-side tax cut policy that is often overlooked is its contribution to a growing skewed distribution of income and wealth favoring the top 1% of income earners in this country since 1980. The net effect of this shift has been said to be equivalent to every family in the bottom 80% of wage earners in this country writing on average a $10,000 check every year to the upper 1% of America. When one examines these figures by the number of families involved there has been a shift of almost $1 trillion dollars/year out of working America. As our economy is largely based on personal consumption (70% of GDP) this policy has worked to weaken the key driver of our economy ? the vast majority of working families in America. Additionally, as the wealthy use the tax benefit to accumulate income producing financial instruments that are taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income, the wealthiest can actually have a lower net tax rate than working America (Warren Buffet himself has objected to having a 17.7% net tax rate on $46 million in income in 2006 where his secretary?s combined rate was 30%).
'Horrendous': Nobel economist George Akerlof criticizes Bush economic stimulus package
Ten Nobel Laureates Say the Bush Tax Cuts Are the Wrong Approach
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/02/nyt_economists.pdf
EXPERT ECONOMISTS REFUTE REPUBLICAN MYTHS ABOUT THE TAX CUT
http://www.jec.senate.gov/archive/Documents/Reports/economistsquotes.pdf
Taking Stockman: How Nixon, Reagan, Bush and their GOP Demolished the Economy
David Stockman: How Nixon, Reagan, the Bushes and their GOP Demolished the Economy - David Stockman on Deficit Spending | FlaglerLive - Your News Service for Flagler County News Palm Coast News Bunnell Flagler Beach Beverly Beach and Marineland
Back in 1981 David Stockman was the wonderkid of the Reagan administration?the director of the
Office of Management and Budget who?d craft in actual budgets the trickle-down miracle Reagan had
promised on the campaign trail: lower budgets, lower spending, higher tax revenue. But trickle-down
economics was a wish, not a reality. It?s never worked. Lower taxes don?t generate more revenue. They
generate deficits.
Reagan knew it. So did Stockman. So did their guru, Friederich von Hayek. The deficits were
intentional all along. They were edsigned to ?starve the beast,? meaning intentionally cut revenue as a
way of pressuring Congress to cut the New Deal programs Reagan wanted to demolish. ?The plan,?
Stockman told Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan at the time, ? was to have a strategic deficit that would
give you an argument for cutting back the programs that weren?t desired. It got out of hand.?
A 1985 interview with von Hayek in the March 25, 1985 issue of Profil 13, the Austrian journal, was just
as revealing. Von Hayek sat for the interview while wearing a set of cuff links Reagan had presented
him as a gift. ?I really believe Reagan is fundamentally a decent and honest man,? von Hayek told his
interviewer. ?His politics? When the government of the United States borrows a large part of the
savings of the world, the consequence is that capital must become scarce and expensive in the whole
world. That?s a problem.? And in reference to Stockman, von Hayek said: ?You see, one of Reagan?s
advisers told me why the president has permitted that to happen, which makes the matter partly
excusable: Reagan thinks it is impossible to persuade Congress that expenditures must be reduced
unless one creates deficits so large that absolutely everyone becomes convinced that no more money
can be spent.? Thus, he went on, it was up to Reagan to ?persuade Congress of the necessity of
spending reductions by means of an immense deficit. Unfortunately, he has not succeeded!!!? Those
three exclamation points, unusually effusive for an economist, are in the original.
Keep in mind: Hayek is speaking his disillusion with the GOP?s misapplication of his theories in 1985.
To this day he remains a favored mask of budget-wreckers pretending to be fiscally conservative while
pushing for more tax cuts. Those wreckers are at work in Congress today as they argue for an
extension of the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, which were far larger than Reagan?s of 1981 and
1986 (in 1986, Reagan agreed to some tax increases, but mostly in the Social Security payroll tax,
meaning on the middle and lower classes).
Stockman resigned from the Reagan administration in 1985,
himself disillusioned.
David Stockman, Reagan's Director of OMB, Speaks Out | CJOnline.com
Stockman was quoted as referring to the Reagan Revolution's legacy tax act as ?a Trojan horse to bring down the top-rate.... It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle-down.' So the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down."
He made it even more apparent he had not drunk the kool-aid, when, soon after he left OMB in 1985, he wrote ?Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed.? The reason: no one at the time, Republican or Democrat, was willing to cut spending, and if you cut taxes, you must cut spending. Cutting taxes for the rich does not increase government income.
Sure enough, by 1988 Reagan had tripled the national debt, and our country--which from WWII until 1971 was the world?s largest creditor nation--was well on its way to becoming the world?s biggest debtor nation. George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton had some success in putting our nation?s fiscal house in order, but along came George W. Bush, determined to out-Reagan Reagan with ever larger tax-cuts for the rich.
Job Creation and Our Diminished Economic Engine: The Middle Class ? Art on Issues
One of the effects of supply-side tax cut policy that is often overlooked is its contribution to a growing skewed distribution of income and wealth favoring the top 1% of income earners in this country since 1980. The net effect of this shift has been said to be equivalent to every family in the bottom 80% of wage earners in this country writing on average a $10,000 check every year to the upper 1% of America. When one examines these figures by the number of families involved there has been a shift of almost $1 trillion dollars/year out of working America. As our economy is largely based on personal consumption (70% of GDP) this policy has worked to weaken the key driver of our economy ? the vast majority of working families in America. Additionally, as the wealthy use the tax benefit to accumulate income producing financial instruments that are taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income, the wealthiest can actually have a lower net tax rate than working America (Warren Buffet himself has objected to having a 17.7% net tax rate on $46 million in income in 2006 where his secretary?s combined rate was 30%).
Braveheart82
Registered
These cuts better be extended or hello double dip recession.
it's coming regardless of these cuts because the EU is falling into recession. wages for the working class have decreased some the past couple of years when combined with higher costs of various goods and services leaves most with not much money left for excess consumption beyond the basic necessities. debt was fueling the majority of consumption in the 2000's but with 40% of the total US working class wealth gone the personal savings rate has increased.
Household Debt to GDP for United States (HDTGPDUSQ163N)
Household Debt to GDP for United States (HDTGPDUSQ163N) - FRED - St. Louis Fed
Personal Saving Rate (PSAVERT) - FRED - St. Louis Fed
Household Financial Obligations as a percent of Disposable Personal Income (FODSP) - FRED - St. Louis Fed
Household Debt Is at Heart of Weak U.S. Economy: Business Class - Bloomberg
Similar threads
