Right and now youre being obscure and dishonest. Let me spell it out, the average top marginal brkt is 40-50% lets say, give or take, so when I talk of tax cuts or tax increases, Im, talking raising it above or below that line. Yes JFK cut taxes from 91% to 77%, is that really a tax cut? Technically, yes, but fascist Ronnie chopping taxes from 70% to 28% is a tax cut. To draw an analogy, a 400lb person could say I lost weight after they lost 20lbs. Technically theyre right, but realistically they are still very fat, just like the toper was still very large at 58%, way above an average amount, so when I ask when taxes have been cut to inprove economic conditions, recover from recession, I giess for guys like you I need to expound: WHEN HAVE TAXES BEEN CUT LOW TO RECOVER FROM EN ECONOMIC CRISIS? You apparently dont have the character to answer, but why dont you: - IS HAVING A TOP MARGINAL INCOME TAX BRKT AT 58% OK WITH YOU? Youre a complete coward if you cant answer that. Now, lets cover other areas that make that data not 100% reliable. - In the 1920s we had virtually no social svs, very little military spending, no labor laws to speak of, so that era is not really applicable to todays times? The debt actually fell during the 1920s, so that establishes that if we cut most military and social svs that the economy can flourish, of course elderly people would be dying in the streets and we would have no defense system, but other than that we would be doing well. So thats not a reality that we will ever encounter, no matter how excited the chaos-loving sociopaths (Libertarians) want it. Also, you pretend to know that recovery wasnt completed or near by 1921 where taxes were 73%, not to mention revenues from 1921 were collected and used in 1922, so the benefit from the 73% brkt was utilized in 1922, the year when you say recovery took place. Another major point is that maybe the recession was so short due to the high 73% brkt. If taxes were Harding or Reagan low, wouldnt that bode well for a long recession/depression? So the very point youre bragging is the point that you claim to dislike. Its ridiculous to see you argue over whether 73% or 53% were low tax amounts. Yet you never seem to want to address that issue. These are vast citations, so if you want me to address a given point then youll have to post a quote and ask a question. Address this point: IS HAVING TAXES AT 58% A GOOD PLACE TO HAVE THEM ALL THE TIME OR IN CASE OF RECESSION?
No idea as I am not familiar with every recession/depression in U.S. history. And I never typed that cutting taxes alone would help recovery. I typed that cutting government spending and not interfering with the economy was the way to go. It was you that is going on and on about how important raising taxes are...and I have shown that that theory does not make sense with the 1920/21 Depression. Ideally...nope. (BTW, I did not say the recovery took place in 1922. I said it started in 1922.) And yes, and that 'benefit' was less government spending AND lower taxes (spending in 1922 was down 1/3 from 1921) - and the unemployment rate plummeted after these things came into effect in 1922. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_G._Harding#Domestic_policies_and_economy No...ideally they should always be lower, imo. But it is always good to have them lowered during a recession/depression...as the stats I provided for the 1920/21 Depression show. Now you answer my question please: You typed the following: 'show me a time when recovery has been almost exclusively with the private sector...so I'm asking for a time when the private sector has done it w/o much/any assitance from the government by way of: - Tax increases - Stimulus/deficit spending' http://www.politicalforum.com/4758894-post42.html And I answered your question...the 1920/21 Depression. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_of_1920–21#Government_response http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_G._Harding#Domestic_policies_and_economy And I showed you a time when a recovery from a Depression happened with lower taxes AND FAR less government spending... True or False? Have a nice day.
The military is one of the single largest contributors to the budget. In fact, looking at discretionary spending alone, it is the largest piece. It's impossible to cut the budget meaningfully without reducing the military budget. You don't have to boot people out, simply reduce recruitment quotas and allow people to retire out normally, or at most offer truncated contracts or other motivations to quit earlier. No need to boot anyone out. Food stamps/unemployment are one of the best ways to stimulate the economy. And Reiver is correct about the military-industrial complex issue; I think we should maintain R&D levels or even boost them; the main way to save money is a drastic reduction in troop numbers. Our military is far too bloated as it is. Dropping the number of active duty by, say, 500,000 or so and shifting some of that defense burden onto the National Guard would save enormous amounts of money. We don't particularly need a large amount of troops for the kinds of missions we're doing now, and if a country were to foolishly attack us our air and naval forces are more than sufficient. In the event that it comes to a ground war on our soil, we should have had enough time to get the Guard up and running and the draft reinstated, considering that our navy and air force are more powerful than the rest of the world's combined.
I wouldn't restrict the analysis to MIC. This tends to underplay the economic role of the military sector, referring to how- without accountability- politicians will be manipulated by interested parties towards over-expenditure. We have to acknowledge the economic role of the military, as you do with your reference to R&D
Your link does not work http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...hanksgiving-week-drop-since-32-on-europe.html
Your lack of refutation sounds typical of someone who has no idea what they are talking about. Agreed. I think we should leave research and procurement at pretty much the same level it is at now and focus on savings from base and personnel reduction.
Are you aware that the Tax Reform Act of 1986 close most of the loopholes that used to exist when tax rates were much higher? Very few people paid taxes at the 70% marginal rate.
Reduction must be done slowly so as not to upset the economy. Reduction must not cripple the military like Clinton did
That's because Pelosi and I are quoting proven, mainstream, uncontroversial economic theory. Consumer spending is about 70% of the economy. If you put food stamps and unemployment checks in the hands of the people who need it the most, consumer spending is boosted and, as a result, 70% of the economy receives a boost. The multiplier effect is also highest from unemployment checks in particular.
No you spewing wealth redistribution lies. The little bit unemployment and food stamps provide would not pay my bills and my house and vehicles are paid for
Hardly. http://useconomy.about.com/od/usfed...its-Are-The-Best-Way-To-Boost-The-Economy.htm That's a great article that explains how it works. Basically, the multiplier effect (the article calls it the ripple effect) is highest in unemployment checks due to the nature of consumer spending. How does whether or not unemployment/food stamps pay your bills have anything to do with the macroeconomic effect they have? Besides, you've never mentioned your monthly budget, even with a house and car paid for it could be anything. Lastly, are you suggesting that, because it doesn't pay your bills, we should end it or that it doesn't help people? That's illogical.
To preface this response, I will say that at least youre starting to actually answer questions and address some of the points. You must admit your side, conservatism, tends to cherry pick a lot, whereas liberalism usually over-addresses these points. So kudos, more to address for you tho and also, be honest and in good faith, quit trying to lawyer the answers but converse in good faith as to what the real meanings are, not split semantic lines. I ASKED::: WHEN HAVE TAXES BEEN CUT LOW TO RECOVER FROM AN ECONOMIC CRISIS? You answered: 2 issues here: taxing and spending. youre now bringing in spending issues and they are relevant, but were talking taxes here. Id be glad to entertain spending in another thread, but lets keep this one on-track. So in your response you claim, no ides then go on to say, that theory does not make sense with the 1920/21 Depression. So I guess we can ignore your first assertion that claims you dont know, as in you dont have an opinion. Remember, look at my question, I ask when TAXES HAVE BEEN CUT LOW, you, however, respond with the 1920-21 depression. Well, as we have both acknowledged, therefore undisputed, the top marginal brkt went as such: 1919 - 73% 1920 - 73% 1921 - 73% 1922 - 58% 1923 - 58% 1924 - 46% 1925 - 25% The Depression of 192021 was an extremely sharp deflationary recession in the United States, shortly after the end of World War I. It lasted from January 1920 to July 1921.[1] The extent of the deflation was not only large, but large relative to the accompanying decline in real product. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_of_1920–21 So it was over by July 1921 where taxes were 73% top brkt. The cause was troops coming home, flooding the labor market supply while using less product. This was very predictable and was repeated after WWII, so there were no other economic ills, just protocol. Now when was recovery? Your cite, post #69: So in 1923, with the top marginal brkt at 58%, unemp had curtailed to 2.4% and you find that a bragging point? If taxes are cut from 90% to 80% that is a tax cut, but it isnt a place where taxes are cut low. As an example, at the end of WWII the top brkt was cut from 94 to 82%; would you also brag that as a tax cut? To decipher your points: - 1922 unemp was down to 5.7% % 58% top tax brkt - 1923 unemp was down to 2.4% % 46% top tax brkt - By the end of 1923 it was almost 100 @ 58% top brkt So these are your bragging points in regard to low taxes being beneficial. I fail to see your point as taxes were very high, which brings me to my next point. Social benefits were scant pre-FDR, military spending, esp after WWI was little and like good little sociopaths we had very few if any social svs for elderly or homeless. The extended family took care of their elders, but that was disintegrating at the turn of the 20th century, so social svs were needed. Still, until FDR, that didnt happen sp my point is that 73 and 58% were very high taxation, more so than if we instituted it now. With that, all of this depression recovery was done under AND COMPLETED UNDER HIGH TAXATION. The fact that taxes were coming down is not real relevant, the depression was caused by a major shift in the economy and ended under 73% taxation for top bracket earners. Your point is one of a technicality, you want to claim that taxes were on the way down, therefore the recovery was under tax cuts, but taxes were still very high. By todays standards I would put the average top brkt taxes at 40% or so, then with far less spending probably 30%, so even in 1924 where recovery was well completed, the top brkt was still 46%. This is where common sense has to come in and find an average/normal brkt and see if were above or below that, then decide if recovery was under high taxes or low taxes. If you want to continue a game semantics and futility, so be it, but taxes were incredibly high then, exit from the depression were incredibly high and full recovery was done with taxes high to well above average then. So I see the squirming, but it just seems comical to try to convince us that taxes were low during the depression ending and recovery. My analogy: A 400lb fat person loses 20 lbs and brags theyre skinny, what do you say? Less fat, but still fat. A person argues taxes were cut from a huge rate to a little less rate to an above average rate that constitutes a skinny tax rate. Just be honest, not semantic or abstract. I ask: IS HAVING A TOP MARGINAL INCOME TAX BRKT AT 58% OK WITH YOU? So that translates to it is still a high rate since you like low taxes. Honestly, you agree taxes are still very, very high under this period of tax reduction and that exit from and recovery from the depression was under above average to very high taxation, right? I asked: Also, you pretend to know that recovery wasnt completed or near by 1921 where taxes were 73%, not to mention revenues from 1921 were collected and used in 1922, so the benefit from the 73% brkt was utilized in 1922, the year when you say recovery took place. I agree that spending is less relevant than taxing, again, a different topic, but that is undisputed between us with this depression. Spending is a quick stimulus that burns out quickly, taxing creates the need to defer profiting and is long-term. You did say, in post #69, that by 1923 unemp was down to 2.4% with a 46% top bracket, so again, I dont see your point or the answer to my question: WHEN HAVE TAXES BEEN CUT LOW TO RECOVER FROM AN ECONOMIC CRISIS? I asked: Address this point: IS HAVING TAXES AT 58% A GOOD PLACE TO HAVE THEM ALL THE TIME OR IN CASE OF RECESSION? Always be lower???? Always? But taxes were sky high during the recession and it recovered very well, esp considering the recession was very deep and not caused by high or low taxes, financial markets or anything but moving from a major war economy to a peactime economy and the glut of workers and reduced consumption that prevailed. Still, under those immediate and horrible factors, the 73% top brkt was enough to expeditiously pull us thru, yet you insist on bragging low taxation pulled us out, Im just amazed. And the really sad thing is that once taxes were lowered to the cellar at 25%, 3 years later the wheels started coming off. Recovery under very high taxation, 3 years of uber-low taxation and deregulation, then all hell breaks lose and you advocate low taxes?
1) I think you should move to another thread or start another one if you wish to continue to discuss this subject. The subject of this thread has nothing to do with income tax rates from 1918 to 1940 or so. '14. Off Topic Posts, Trolling, Metaposts and Thread Disruption: While a certain amount of natural ‘topic drift’, particularly on longer threads, is inevitable the golden rule is IF YOU DON’T WANT TO DISCUSS THE TOPIC, DON’T POST IN THE THREAD!' http://www.politicalforum.com/latest-world-news/announcements.html but, to answer your LONG post 2) As the following chart shows, the GDP skyrocketed under lowered income taxes (not that I am saying that was the primary reason). http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/connections_n2/depression9.html And I have already stated that I believe the number one reason (but by no means the only reason) for the 1929 crash was the Fed increasing the monetary supply by over 60% between 1921 and 1929. You disagree? That is your prerogative. But there is NO WAY you are convincing me that lowering income taxes created the Great Depression. And no economist I have EVER read was convinced of that either - not Keynesian or Austrian School or any other 'type'. So that is that for me - certainly in this thread. I never typed in this thread that taxes during that time period were low. I said they were being lowered. And, as I typed above, this is WAY off the threads topic. We are both guilty of it...but now I am moving on... So that is it for me on this for now. Have a nice day.
The military is certainly due for some cuts as the war winds down. However, I do not believe we should be cutting on weapons systems. Maybe cut on aging weapons systems and replace them with fewer more advanced systems. We should increase capability so we ran reduce the number of older systems we have to maintain. Thus reducing the amount of manning needed to maintain those systems. The only reason our aircraft have not been shot down in so long is because we have not faced an enemy with a capable air force in 40 years.
I absolutely agree with you, and it's good to hear from a serviceman's perspective; their opinion is the one that really matters in this debate. It seems to me that we've moved away from large-scale conflicts and instead need smaller forces able to carry out shorter-term missions, from quick raids like the one on Bin Laden's compound to maybe medium term ones where we work with a country's security forces to eradicate terrorist infrastructure quickly and decisively and avoid a counterinsurgency situation by maintaining the country's current regime. Advanced weaponry and less manpower is the direction we need to go in. Do you think that cutting 500,000 active duty troops over ten years would be reasonable after scaling down conflicts and closing some overseas bases, if we shifted some of those into National Guard/Reserves and maintained advanced weapons systems?
Advanced weaponry, given the immense R&D costs, goes hand in hand with high military expenditure. A "great weapons, low military burden" combination is largely a myth
I disagree. If you look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States You'll see that personnel cost per year is almost twice as high as R&D spending. I'm not calling for MORE R&D spending, just the same level that has gotten us so far ahead of everyone else up to this point. And to add to the above, "Operations and Maintenance" is the highest expenditure of them all. By scaling forces back and upgrading, you'd theoretically lower this cost over time as well, at least in the Operations sphere. Maintenance could become more costly with more complex weapons systems, though. Our Air Force requires quite a bit of maintenance for its fleet.
I don't particularly care. Military expenditure and arms production cannot be so neatly separated. Its wishful thinking. Economies of scale, by definition, will lead to expenditures that- in terms of public good delivery- we find disagreeable. The notion that somehow technology can rid us of the military burden is nonsense.
