Is Obama really as stupid about economics as his recent statements imply he is?

Ha-Ha!

Very good, BestViewedWithCable!

 

You are vey correct, hiimjered.

Thanks for sharing!

Obama is indeed a committed socialist!

 

The answer to that question is easy; YES he is really that ignorant. But if you think his version of economics is asinine, you should see his versions of Constitutional law!!!

 

You are indeed correct, TD.

And to think this guy says he went to "Harvard"!

I intend to "rep" you for this observation!

 

As far as Reagan's tax cuts /increases goes:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-22/democrats-recall-reagan-s-tax-increases.html

Reagan is remembered for his tax cuts, owing to his signature Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which slashed the top marginal rate to 50 percent from 70 percent. And even with the later increases, he was a net tax-cutter: He didn’t rescind the marginal cuts, and lowered the rates again in a 1986 overhaul that traded rate reductions for the elimination of individual tax preferences. By the end of his administration, the top marginal rate had been dropped to 28 percent.


So Reagan increased some taxes, but cut taxes more, particularly marginal tax rates, which are key in supply side.


Now, as to your remark about "the fact that the economic freefall and prospects for worldwide depression that were so glaringly evident in early 2009 are no longer with us."

Other than Obama apologists, from where did you hear that we were heading towards a depression in 2009? And what did the Obama administration do to stop this alleged depression? What studies or computer models show that we were depression bound until Obama somehow saved the day?



I will throw you this bone though. In early 2009 the administration did do something that helped stabilize the banks and it didn't cost us a cent. What was it?

 

There isn't much question over how Ronald Reagan is remembered, at least by some. People bought into the kindly grandfather character he played on TV. But back in the real world, did he reverse course on taxes? Your article says he did. Did he enact significant tax increases in 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, and 1987? Your article confirms most of those. Would Reagan's tax increases amount to about $300 billion per year in the economy of 2011? That's what your article states. $300 billion per year in new taxes -- we can even call them Reagan Taxes -- would be a good start. Let's do it.

Supply side? Marginal rates are important in every sort of tax analysis, and just about everyone was comfortable with reducing them as long as overall revenues were being increased at the same time. Reagan liked to call them "revenue enhancements" and "loophole closings". Big deal. As long as they were actually tax increases.

Everyone. Did you sleep through this period in our history or something? When you have radicals like Lindsey Graham conceding that we may just have to nationalize the banking system, you know you've got problems. The US had never been in such a credit-driven downward spiral before. No one knew where it would end or how it could be stopped. Halting it in five months was the equivalent of a miracle. Hats off to Obama, Geithner, and Bernanke for pulling that off.

You think this was just some minor blip on the economic radar screen? Bush bumbled his way into the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression, and his event wasn't all that far behind. The Depression was worse only by a factor of two or three. No place was left untouched by the ravages of Bush's storm. The governments of places like Vietnam and Thailand had to run stimulus programs to try to overcome the negative effects on their economies. Speaking of which, go back and apparently for the first time read about events at the G-20 finance ministers' and summit meetings in the Spring of 2009. Keep in mind that those came against a backdrop of anti-American anger whipped up by eight years of Bush in general that was more than supplemented by our having failed to contain the economic crisis in particular, allowing it to spring into their economies as well through bascially no fault of their own. Then look at how we came out of those meetings with virtually every signifcant economy working together and on the same page as part of a coordinated effort to restore liquidity, shore up demand, maintain trade, and modernize the infrastructure of global economic oversight. Who did all that, do you think?

Even the stress tests cost money. There is no "free".

 

Uselss drivel, James.
Thanks for wasting bandwidth.

 

Great question, MissJonelyn!

 

So when all is said and done, you agree with me that Reagan cut more taxes than he raised, so we had net tax cuts, and that the cuts were in marginal tax rates?

Seesh, can't you just tell me I'm right and be done with it?

Was I wrong in asking you what studies or computer models show that we were depression bound until Obama somehow saved the day? That would require links after all, which you are loath to give when your imagination works so much better at filling in the blanks.

That is the real question, which of course you ignored. Now, let's try again. How do we know that we were heading for a depression? What is the basis of that belief? Certainly it isn't Lindsey Graham. This should be an easy one if it were true.

For someone who wants to heap undeserved praise on the administration, I would have thought you would have been on top of deserved praise. So nope, try again.

 

This is nothing more than an outright fabrication; why is it you always feel compelled to lie in order to promote the massive failure of an ideology you believe in?

Reagan never abandoned his goals to bring down tax rates and promote liberty; his efforts were obfuscated and attacked by the famous Speaker of the House Tip O’Neil who delighted with claiming every Reagan budget was DOA in the House.

The FACT is that the Democrats like O'Neil LIED and claimed they would find spending cuts if Reagan signed into law the moderate increases. Once more the FACTS suggest that Democrats and leftists are massive liars in their desperate efforts to promote their massive failure of an ideology; an ideology that argues for massive Government intrusions into our lives, massive tax burdens and the hypocritical belief that BIG Government is good; but ONLY if THEIR "deciders" are in charge.

Leftists do nothing but erode others liberties and rights in the idiot farcical belief that only THEY know what is "good" for the rest of us.

Inconvenient FACTS for the left:

Reagan inherited a top marginal tax rate of 70%. By 1982, tax cuts had reduced that to 50%, where it stayed until 1987, when it was reduced to 38.5%. The next year, in 1988, it was reduced even further to 28%.

http://ivysneakers.blogspot.com/2009/04/top-marginal-tax-rates.html

 

Detroit, a liberal bastion of leftist policies and union thuggery went from a population of 1.85 million in the 1960's to 951 thousand today; a decrease of over 94% for those who only comprehend liberal math.

Do you think this was just because taxes went up a few pennies or does it portray something much more complex based on political policy?

What do you think has happened to the population in Dallas, Spartanburg NC, Lincoln AL, or Marysville OH over the same time period?

 

So tell me 17th, how's that $trillion stimulus working so far?

I am amused when the clueless argue for more of the same and make the specious claims that spending half the previous amount will really, REALLY create jobs this time and that raising marginal rates is a way to increase economic activity. Who besides morons like Obama and his economic butt clowns make such specious claims anyway?

Democrats are so inept they couldn’t even pass a budget their last year in total power and so filled with hypocrisy that we should ignore the fact that they didn’t give crap about tax increases and “jobs” legislation when they had majorities but now when they are out of power suddenly care and blame Republicans with a slim majority in the House and none in the Senate.

It’s as laughably stupid as claiming Obama is a “uniter” with his asinine divisive class envy rhetoric.

 

The claim has not been on the table. It is a new one that you seemingly now want to slink off into rather than continue a failed defense of your original claim that Reagan's plan worked and Obama's didn't. That claim is and always will be false on both counts. Even Reagan knew his plan had failed. This is why he reversed course. Passage of the largest peacetime tax increase in US history in 1982 was a solid first step in that reversal. There would be nearly a dozen more such steps over the succeeding five years. Reagan may be remembered for being a tax-cutter, but that is hardly how he spent the majority of his time.

Do math much? Marginal rates are one term in an equation. The tax reform bill of 1986 cut marginal rates significantly. It was still a tax increase.

Just as soon as that happens.

Were you alive between 2007 and 2009? Dd you read anything relevant?

To summarise: the world is currently undergoing an economic shock every bit as big as the Great Depression shock of 1929-30. Looking just at the US leads one to overlook how alarming the current situation is even in comparison with 1929-30. The good news, of course, is that the policy response is very different. The question now is whether that policy response will work.
-- Eichengreen and O'Rourke, Financial Times, 2009

This paper examines the depth and duration of the slump that invariably follows severe financial crises, which tend to be protracted affairs. We find that asset market collapses are deep and prolonged. On a peak-to-trough basis, real housing price declines average 35 percent stretched out over six years, while equity price collapses average 55 percent over a downturn of about three and a half years. Not surprisingly, banking crises are associated with profound declines in output and employment. The unemployment rate rises an average of 7 percentage points over the down phase of the cycle, which lasts on average over four years. Output falls an average of over 9 percent, although the duration of the downturn is considerably shorter than for unemployment. The real value of government debt tends to explode, rising an average of 86 percent in the major post-World War II episodes. The main cause of debt explosions is usually not the widely cited costs of bailing out and recapitalizing the banking system. The collapse in tax revenues in the wake of deep and prolonged economic contractions is a critical factor in explaining the large budget deficits and increases in debt that follow the crisis. Our estimates of the rise in government debt are likely to be conservative, as these do not include increases in government guarantees, which also expand briskly during these episodes.
-- Reinhart and Rogoff, NBER Working Paper 14656, 2009.

See if you can summon up such energy as it might take to track down and read those two all by yourself. You know, the way the big kids do. Lots of graphs and mathematics in the first one, by the way.

Since you like links so much, here's one.

 

Ha-Ha!

Great response, Truth Detector!

"Obama and his economic butt clowns" ... priceless!

 

I ask the same question everyday about some of the posters here.

 

History is not an ideology. Reagan signed two tax increases in 1982, two in 1983, one in 1984, two in 1985, one in 1986, two in 1987, and some people even count the CR in 1988 since that carried forward the increases from 1987.

Your notion of FACT meanwhile includes things that have been incontrovertably proven wrong dozens of times. The notion that Democrats broke their spending promises for instance. Those were kept, but the cuts to social programs were overwhlemed by Reagan's own crazed increases in defense spending.

 

94%, eh?

Yes, I understand the Scott's Miracle-Gro Museum is in the heart of Marysville. That must be what draws them in.

 

It actually expired and foolish, recovery-killing TP-Republicans didn't extend much of it. Still a good deal of pipeline money to push out, but it just won't be the same. Americans will just have to suffer, I guess.

 

Yes.

And his policies, along with those of his Democrat buddies in the Congress, which have resulted in the current state of the American economy right now, prove it.

As well as proving that the man is neither qualified nor competent to hold the office of the President of the United States.

 

Baloney, the so called "stimulus" went to Obammy and company's political buddies.

Like Solyndra for example.

Ut oh, we aren't supposed to mention that though are we libs.

 

So basically, you didn't contradict anything that I've said, you just keep insisting his plan failed. Is that the sum total of your argument?

You've neither explained what studies or models show we were heading for depression (the excerpt you provided didn't' seem to make that claim ). This summary describes the economy as it is right now, not a depression. So let me try again: What studies or models show that we were heading for a depression?

That's about as close to a reasoned response as you've provided!

 

150K jobs created last month, more than Bush's average in 8 years.

Unemployment insurance filings down to lowest level since the Bush Recession.

You're losing!

 

That's the Romper Room version that you get if you tune in FOX News et al. Hundreds of billions in tax credits. Hundreds of billions for infrastrcuture projects. Tens of billions for unemployment and COBRA benefits. But I guess no Republicans pay taxes, no Republicans run construction companies, and no Republicans have been laid off from their jobs since December of 2007. Just Obammy and company's political buddies have been involved in any of that.

Mention it all you like. China is pumping billions (not millions) of dollars into its green energy companies even though they are not nearly as efficient as leading companies in the US and EU. Why? Because they recognize the importance of the field in the future. They are doing the Walmart/Home Depot thing. Use their accumulated wealth to subsidize their own outlets now and drive superior foreign competition out of the marketplace. Once you have taken control, create barriers to entry that allow their companies to rule the industry forever.

What are you going to do about it? Abandon the field and admit that capitalism is a failure because it exclusively values the short-term interests of investors?