After 30 years, The New York Times has admitted that Reaganomics worked. (23)
you lost. the 2% lost.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Foxmaine: After 30 years, The New York Times has admitted that Reaganomics worked.
The inadvertent revelation comes in a November 29th article by Binyamin Appelbaum chronicling the steadily falling tax burden Americans have experienced since the 1980s.
AEI columnist James Pethokoukis notes that the heart of The Times' article is that in 2010 Americans "paid far less in total taxes -- federal, state and local -- than they would have paid 30 years ago."
Pethokoukis points out that some tax hike advocates think this means that America's tax burden is too low and time has come for a hike. But Pethokoukis disagrees.
Maybe I’m crazy, but I think the reduction in the tax burden — staring with the Reagan tax cuts — has been a huge competitive advantage for the U.S. We should keep that edge. Check out these numbers. In 1981, France’s per capita GDP was 81% of U.S. per capita GDP, Germany’s 83%, Italy’s 81%, Britain’s 69%.
In 2010, France’s per capita GDP was 73% of U.S. per capita GDP (down 8 points), Germany’s 81% (down 2 points), Italy’s 68% (down 12 points), and Britain’s 76% (up 7 points).
Pethokoukis reminds readers that Europe was closing the gap with U.S. wealth by 1980, but after Reagan's tax cuts that trend stagnated and in other cases even began to reverse.
There are many great points made in the Pethokoukis piece and you need to go read them, but his last one is the funniest—or saddest, depending on your point of view.
4. Another bit: “Economists agree that taxes on business are passed on to investors, reducing profits, and to workers, reducing wages. Upper-income households bear the brunt of these taxes, and corporate tax collections have fallen sharply.” That is right. Taxes matter.
Funny, the NYT never mentioned this widely known economic fact when Mitt Romney was attacked for saying “Corporations are people.”
It seems there are a lot of things the Gray Lady never mentions.
The inadvertent revelation comes in a November 29th article by Binyamin Appelbaum chronicling the steadily falling tax burden Americans have experienced since the 1980s.
AEI columnist James Pethokoukis notes that the heart of The Times' article is that in 2010 Americans "paid far less in total taxes -- federal, state and local -- than they would have paid 30 years ago."
Pethokoukis points out that some tax hike advocates think this means that America's tax burden is too low and time has come for a hike. But Pethokoukis disagrees.
Maybe I’m crazy, but I think the reduction in the tax burden — staring with the Reagan tax cuts — has been a huge competitive advantage for the U.S. We should keep that edge. Check out these numbers. In 1981, France’s per capita GDP was 81% of U.S. per capita GDP, Germany’s 83%, Italy’s 81%, Britain’s 69%.
In 2010, France’s per capita GDP was 73% of U.S. per capita GDP (down 8 points), Germany’s 81% (down 2 points), Italy’s 68% (down 12 points), and Britain’s 76% (up 7 points).
Pethokoukis reminds readers that Europe was closing the gap with U.S. wealth by 1980, but after Reagan's tax cuts that trend stagnated and in other cases even began to reverse.
There are many great points made in the Pethokoukis piece and you need to go read them, but his last one is the funniest—or saddest, depending on your point of view.
4. Another bit: “Economists agree that taxes on business are passed on to investors, reducing profits, and to workers, reducing wages. Upper-income households bear the brunt of these taxes, and corporate tax collections have fallen sharply.” That is right. Taxes matter.
Funny, the NYT never mentioned this widely known economic fact when Mitt Romney was attacked for saying “Corporations are people.”
It seems there are a lot of things the Gray Lady never mentions.
So where are all these jobs that they promised? These cuts very obviously have only benefitted the wealthy ??
------ This thread is Archived ------
Who cares what the New York Times says.
Reaganomics... Ah yes, that was that propaganda bit that Reagan used to justify screwing the middle class, wasn't it? Amazing how many people bought that trickle down crap.
Reaganomics... Ah yes, that was that propaganda bit that Reagan used to justify screwing the middle class, wasn't it? Amazing how many people bought that trickle down crap.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Scubadiva: Who cares what the New York Times says.
Reaganomics... Ah yes, that was that propaganda bit that Reagan used to justify screwing the middle class, wasn't it? Amazing how many people bought that trickle down crap.
Reaganomics... Ah yes, that was that propaganda bit that Reagan used to justify screwing the middle class, wasn't it? Amazing how many people bought that trickle down crap.
Funny I did "REALLY" well with Reagan as Pres. I made more than with most any others we had as Pres.
------ This thread is Archived ------
raphael111: you lost. the 2% lost.
I didn't loose I did great with Reagan as Pres.
------ This thread is Archived ------
In response to: After 30 years, The New York Times has admitted that Reaganomics worked.
When Reagan took office the US national debt, after 200 years of the nation's existence was 1 trillion dollars (one million million). When Reagan left office eight years later the debt was over 2 trillion. In other words Reagan doubled the national debt during his term.
Anybody who considers that a success deserves to read the New York Times.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Foxmaine: I didn't loose I did great with Reagan as Pres.
Sure you did. Borrowed money seems great at the time. It's only when the debt comes due that you feel the effects. Reagan's wild spending policies, continued by both Bush's and by Obama wrecked the US economy.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Scubadiva: Amazing how many people bought that trickle down crap.
Yep
------ This thread is Archived ------
RayfromUSA: Yep
------ This thread is Archived ------
Bush and Reagan almost bankrupted America with tax cuts for the 2%. Clinton did just the opposite.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Foxmaine: Funny I did "REALLY" well with Reagan as Pres. I made more than with most any others we had as Pres.
I'm sure you did, you would have been between about 16 to 24 years of age during the time Ronnie was the pres. You likely lived at home with Mom and Pop, had some sort of a job, and next to nothing for expenses.
Kind of hard to not to do well, unless you're a complete idiot.
------ This thread is Archived ------
You are right Corporations are people",what people???? The one's with a very good salary every month,and huge bonuses by the end of the financial year,as well dividends from shares given free to the top echelon in the corporation.In short the cream for those running the show, and breadcrumbs for the lower paid workers.Who invented the "golden boys" and the "golden hand shakes"??? Reaganomics+Thatcheromics did.-
------ This thread is Archived ------
kidatheart: I'm sure you did, you would have been between about 16 to 24 years of age during the time Ronnie was the pres. You likely lived at home with Mom and Pop, had some sort of a job, and next to nothing for expenses.
Kind of hard to not to do well, unless you're a complete idiot.
Kind of hard to not to do well, unless you're a complete idiot.
WRONG! I started my first body shop and as the people had money to spend the shop did well.
------ This thread is Archived ------
raphael111: http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
Bush and Reagan almost bankrupted America with tax cuts for the 2%. Clinton did just the opposite.
Bush and Reagan almost bankrupted America with tax cuts for the 2%. Clinton did just the opposite.
Clinton stole all the money from SS and then claimed surplus! Without that SS money he hid his pres was a train wreck!
------ This thread is Archived ------
chris27292729: You are right Corporations are people",what people???? The one's with a very good salary every month,and huge bonuses by the end of the financial year,as well dividends from shares given free to the top echelon in the corporation.In short the cream for those running the show, and breadcrumbs for the lower paid workers.Who invented the "golden boys" and the "golden hand shakes"??? Reaganomics+Thatcheromics did.-
If greeks stop thinking that who makes a lot of money does it robbing others, you might have more jobs created by rich people who want to be even richer.
And I'm not denying that many are rich because they steal, in my country and in yours.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Don't know how reliable this is but here's a article titled 'Myth the Clinton Surplus.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Foxmaine: Clinton stole all the money from SS and then claimed surplus! Without that SS money he hid his pres was a train wreck!
SS? WW2?
train wreck? http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/ heres a link to help you get things right, its very simple------ This thread is Archived ------
raphael111: SS? WW2? train wreck? heres a link to help you get things right, its very simple
Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion
As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Ccincy: Don't know how reliable this is but here's a article titled 'Myth the Clinton Surplus.
that site is obscure and radical conservative. Clinton ran an operating surplus in his budget, he took in more money year to year than he spent. The debt is something different.
The massive debt started in the Reagan years when top taxes were reduced by huge amounts for the top 2%
------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
Why is this shameful?
The GOP Representatives owned by Vladimir Putin
The Real Stormy Story
One week of the most outrageous GOP leadership!
Trump Elementary
What happened to CS while i was away.. (Long time)
Kultur-multur
Democrats destroyed America
Karen McDougal - Playmate Model will testify in Hush Money Trial
See It All The Time
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Stats for this Thread
1,110 Views
22 Comments
Created: Dec 2012
Last Viewed: Apr 24
Last Commented: Dec 2012
0 Likes
Related Forums
- Why is this shameful?
- The GOP Representatives owned by Vladimir Putin
- The Real Stormy Story
- One week of the most outrageous GOP leadership!
- Trump Elementary
- What happened to CS while i was away.. (Long time)
- Kultur-multur
- Democrats destroyed America
- Karen McDougal - Playmate Model will testify in Hush Money Trial
- See It All The Time
The inadvertent revelation comes in a November 29th article by Binyamin Appelbaum chronicling the steadily falling tax burden Americans have experienced since the 1980s.
AEI columnist James Pethokoukis notes that the heart of The Times' article is that in 2010 Americans "paid far less in total taxes -- federal, state and local -- than they would have paid 30 years ago."
Pethokoukis points out that some tax hike advocates think this means that America's tax burden is too low and time has come for a hike. But Pethokoukis disagrees.
Maybe I’m crazy, but I think the reduction in the tax burden — staring with the Reagan tax cuts — has been a huge competitive advantage for the U.S. We should keep that edge. Check out these numbers. In 1981, France’s per capita GDP was 81% of U.S. per capita GDP, Germany’s 83%, Italy’s 81%, Britain’s 69%.
In 2010, France’s per capita GDP was 73% of U.S. per capita GDP (down 8 points), Germany’s 81% (down 2 points), Italy’s 68% (down 12 points), and Britain’s 76% (up 7 points).
Pethokoukis reminds readers that Europe was closing the gap with U.S. wealth by 1980, but after Reagan's tax cuts that trend stagnated and in other cases even began to reverse.
There are many great points made in the Pethokoukis piece and you need to go read them, but his last one is the funniest—or saddest, depending on your point of view.
4. Another bit: “Economists agree that taxes on business are passed on to investors, reducing profits, and to workers, reducing wages. Upper-income households bear the brunt of these taxes, and corporate tax collections have fallen sharply.” That is right. Taxes matter.
Funny, the NYT never mentioned this widely known economic fact when Mitt Romney was attacked for saying “Corporations are people.”
It seems there are a lot of things the Gray Lady never mentions.