- This topic has 59 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 7 months, 2 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Were all the Republican presidents prior to Ronald Reagan "RINOs"?
-
All Republican presidents have been scrote moving subhumans. All Democrat presidents since Wilson have been DINOs
-
Actually Reagan was the first RINO
-
-
>Even among households that did fall into the 91 percent bracket, the majority of their income was not necessarily subject to that top bracket. After all, the 91 percent bracket only applied to income above $200,000, not to every single dollar earned by households.
This kind of progressive taxation is exactly what people want to happen today but neocon constituents are too stupid to understand it.-
>This kind of progressive taxation is exactly what people want to happen today but neocon constituents are too stupid to understand it.
>calls anybody stupid, when he can’t even read a basic article stating that effective real tax rate was 42%
typical chinlet-
Please have a nice day you low IQ cretin
-
do facts and reality trigger you bunkercuck?
-
-
>when he can’t even read a basic article stating that effective real tax rate was 42%
Not him but if the real tax rate back then was higher than what our stated (so not real) tax rate is right now, then that’s at least a start to work from-
did you even read the article leftoid?
-
Yeah, and they paid 6% more than they do now (or rather than they did in 2014).
-
the number of people who qualified for that bracket was way lower back then. What are you even trying to say? At least read the article before trying to spew your ideological nonsense.
-
>the number of people who qualified for that bracket was way lower back then.
Yeah no shit, we also have 3 times the population we did back then.
>What are you even trying to say?
There’s more people now we can tax at that rate and yet despite that we’re still taxing them less than we could.-
>There’s more people now we can tax at that rate and yet despite that we’re still taxing them less than we could.
just because we can doesn’t mean we should you leftist boot licker-
>just because we can doesn’t mean we should
Yes it does. Nations aren’t built on "every man for himself", we’re all in this together, and if you’re succeeding more then you need to contribute more, no one would ask a poor person to contribute as much to the pie as a rich person because they’re not capable of doing so without starving themselves. -
>Yes it does. Nations aren’t built on "every man for himself", we’re all in this together, and if you’re succeeding more then you need to contribute more, no one would ask a poor person to contribute as much to the pie as a rich person because they’re not capable of doing so without starving themselves.
this is why children aren’t allowed on the internet.. They have no understanding of basic society and nations. -
A nation can only stand when every single man, woman, and child is mobilized to sustain its existence. The state is the nation and the nation is its people. Nothing exists outside of the state, everything is within it.
-
there is better ways to contribute to a country as a corporation than being taxed.
>The state is the nation and the nation is its people.
after 1945 nobody left alive believes this anymore.
-
>after 1945 nobody left alive believes this anymore.
The state is more than just a country’s government -
>better ways to contribute to a country as a corporation
And corporations, by nature, aren’t interested in them. The entire trend for decades has been minimizing any possible positive offshoot of corporate activities.
-
-
-
-
-
Just from a googling, in 2021, the top 1% of income earners in the US paid 25.4% of their income in taxes. According to that article, in the 1950s they paid 42%.
It doesn’t matter if it wasn’t really 91% like people say, the reality is we squeezed more out of them than we did now.
-
-
-
-
-
imbecile
-
-
Ronald Reagan was the single worst president in American history and the disastrous state the country’s currently in is largely a result of his godawful economic policies intended to break the American population and redistribute wealth from them to the rich. He was just an utter wretch who traded away the longterm wellbeing of the country in order to give quick, short term rewards to his wealthiest donors.
>inb4 akktually the worst president was Lincoln/Cleveland/Wilson/FDR/Eisenhower/LBJ/some other contrarian, dibshit answer where actually the good presidents are bad and the bad presidents are good
-
Reagan literally saved America from stagflation
-
Stagflation continued well through Reagan’s term, it was also largely created as a result of post-war US foreign policy so stagflation was largely self-inflicted by the west and not because of domestic spending. The big concern was that the US was losing its economic dominance over the rest of the first world (along with military dominance over the third) and that a wealth redistribution had to take place in order to kick wealth from the American people upwards and increase government support for US business so that it’d be able to compete with far superior West German and Japanese corporations. Reagan was the king of deficits, debt, reckless government spending, growth of the federal government, tariffs, government subsidies in support of US business, and increasing military spending in order to help US business.
Inflation’s also a non-crisis that’s always easy to solve, it’s just considered difficult within the ideological framework that everyone’s demanded to adhere to.
-
>not because of domestic spending
I’d argue building tanks and guns for war is domestic spending
>Inflation’s also a non-crisis
How to spot a braindead socialist-
>I’d argue building tanks and guns for war is domestic spending
It’s not. You’d have to actually be braindead to think it is.-
>paying people to build guns in your country with printed money isn’t domestic spending
lol okay-
Infrastructure and funding of public services is domestic spending, giving government money to some bloated defense contractor to put another 3500 tanks in Afghanistan to never be used until the Taliban eventually captures them all without firing a shot is not. The first is domestic spending which benefits the country, the second is a giant government handout to a business to waste resources and man-power in exchange for the nanny state ensuring the company remains profitable and financially afloat.
This isn’t hard to understand.
-
>building things for war with money that doesn’t exist is not domestic spending
>benefits the country
Why? It operates the exact same way-
>paying people to build guns in your country with printed money isn’t domestic spending
lol okayMilitary expenditure is mostly consumption. Having spent that money, you’re not actually in a better economic position or left with any semi-permanent improvement to the country’s economic base. Even direct stimulus effects are limited because the enterprises that supply the modern military are generally specialized around that, and have limited spinoffs in the civilian economy. Thus, the 1990s downsizing of the military and reduction in acquisition caused defense companies to shrink and consolidate while sloughing off employees. They didn’t just pivot to servicing consumers.
-
Then all you’re really debating is if you think government expenditure and war both create an end product, not that it is printing money that boosts the economy
-
There is no boost other than temporary, is the point. Long-term growth occurs through investment. Defense spending is mostly mal-investment (though the segment of the 40s-50s spending that went into infant technological fields was highly productive). Thus, the Cold War’s massive budgets didn’t turn into outsize economic gains for either of the superpowers, while countries that spent significantly less on their militaries (above all, Japan), poured the savings into investment and reaped in large segments of market share.
-
most domestic spending never turns a profit either
-
>Military expenditure is mostly consumption. Having spent that money, you’re not actually in a better economic position or left with any semi-permanent improvement to the country’s economic base
Oh boy are you going to be shocked when you find out where most non-military spending goes (Hint: It’s not infrastructure) -
I’m not claiming that social spending is infrastructure; it is mostly also consumption.
That said, Social Security-type programs decrease risk in old age, which promotes consumption and risk-taking during the working years. Medical programs similarly reduce the need to hedge against medical disaster, while promoting productivity: a sick worker is not an effective worker.
Even with that (and distinctly unlike claims for military keynesianism), the primary case for social spending is not the economic effects.
Governments have obligations towards their citizens that government don’t have towards tanks or rifles.
-
-
-
>a giant government handout to a business to waste resources and man-power in exchange for the nanny state ensuring the company remains profitable and financially afloat.
That’s both domestic and defense spending.
-
-
-
-
-
-
you mean. he saved the capitalist class from "stagflation" meanwhile screwing everybody else. there was no trickle down.
-
Nobody calls it trickle down
-
>he saved the capitalist class
>unironically using "capitalist class"
opinion discarded you will be escorted to the nearest sub reddit.
-
-
>he thinks the president actually has an effect on the economy
This mindset is the biggest obstacle to intelligent discourse in America. The Federal Reserve can barely influence the economy, and they’re fully independent from the government-
Presidents can have a NEGATIVE effect on the economy
-
-
-
-
How did the Reagan administration fund the government if he cut the taxes more than half?
t. non-American-
>How did the Reagan administration fund the government if he cut the taxes more than half?
He doesn’t know…
-
Not all the taxes, but the taxes on very highest income households.
So trickle-down economics?
-
Any time conservatives pass tax cuts democrats raise the federal budget (which is paid by taxes). This is a political move so that they can claim that the republicans are runnign a budget deficit. Reagan may have increased the deficit, but deficit related spending fell by 100% in comparison to GDP. By deregulating (regulations are essentially fines that the federal government forced businesses to pay) he allowed businesses to expand and offset the lower amount of money gained from income and other related taxes. So instead of taxing people massively during economic downturns like the democrats used to do, he taxed them during economic booms. Nowadays both teams deficit spend like it doesn’t mean anything
-
>Any time conservatives pass tax cuts democrats raise the federal budget
If you’re in a position to lower taxes, you’re in a position to control the budget.
>Reagan may have increased the deficit
>may have
Dude, lower taxes and increase military spending. One wonders what that will do fiscally.
> offset the lower amount of money gained from income and other related taxes.
That never happened, as shown by the deficit figures, or even the GDP figures. Contrary to the common belief, taxes/regulations are not remotely the primary constraint affecting economic performance.-
>If you’re in a position to lower taxes, you’re in a position to control the budget.
>doesn’t know what midterms are-
Deficits start popping up well before Midterms in basically all cases. Capital investment isn’t even something companies start in a year or two.
-
I never said it was just because of midterms. Democrats always want more money for their failed projects, regardless of the economic situation. My point was they will pass some sort of scrotebrained spending bill and then turn around and berate the president for runnign a increasing deficit.
-
You’re the one that brought up Midterms.
Your point was/is wrong, again, as data shows. Deficits aren’t being retroactively assigned to (R). (R) likes unilaterally cutting revenue, increasing military spending (or why not both?), then acting surprised at the result.-
Deficits are tied to the economy, your graph proves nothing. What it does prove is that as soon as the economy is doing well congress expands their own budget to continuously run a deficit
-
>Deficits are tied to the economy,
The graph shows all possible patterns other than deficits decreasing during a recession (which would be silly, which is why it doesn’t happen).
> as soon as the economy is doing well
Congress was MIA during the late 1980s, and 1990s? And 2004? -
Congress sometimes doesn’t raise the budget enough to run deficit like during Clinton’s presidency, you know, when republicans controlled congress?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Not all the taxes, but the taxes on very highest income households.
-
-
there was a different mindset back then at the top level. Welfare distributive policies to some degree were presented as a bipartisan selling point of the western system instead of a slippery slope to socialism.
-
-
The top tax rate is a meme anyway, its not like Bezos or Buffet derived their wealth from a $1 billion/year salary or some shit.
-
>Reagan
>anything but a liberal-
>scrote worshiper
>having non-schizophrenic opinions
-
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.