Is Reaganomics coming to an end? Clinton's economic ideas are a little different....

Parent Cafe
1

<p>[Good</a> Jobs Are Where the Money Is - New York Times](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/19/opinion/19herbert.html?em&ex=1200978000&en=e6db9f048b9b7ef6&ei=5087 ]Good”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/19/opinion/19herbert.html?em&ex=1200978000&en=e6db9f048b9b7ef6&ei=5087 )</p>

<p>“I think of the people running this country as the mad-dashers, a largely confused and inconsistent group lurching ineffectively from one enormous problem to another.”</p>

<p>"Now, like children who have eaten too much sugar, they are frantically trying to figure out how to put a few dollars into the hands of working people to stimulate an enfeebled economy.</p>

<p>They should stop, take a deep breath and acknowledge the obvious: the way to put money into the hands of working people is to make sure they have access to good jobs at good wages. That has long been known, but it hasn’t been the policy in this country for many years.</p>

<p>Big business and the federal government have worked hand in hand to squeeze the daylights out of working people, stripping them (in an era of downsizing and globalization) of much of their bargaining power while ferociously pursuing fiscal policies that radically favored the privileged few."</p>

<p>"From 1980 to 2005 the national economy, adjusted for inflation, more than doubled. (Because of population growth, the actual increase per capita was about 66 percent.) But the average income for the vast majority of Americans actually declined during that period. The standard of living for the average family has improved not because incomes have grown, but because women have gone into the workplace in droves. </p>

<p>The peak income year for the bottom 90 percent of Americans was way back in 1973 — when the average income per taxpayer (adjusted for inflation) was $33,001. That is nearly $4,000 higher than the average in 2005.</p>

<p>It’s incredible but true: 90 percent of the population missed out on the income gains during that long period."</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/us/politics/21clinton.html?ref=business[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/us/politics/21clinton.html?ref=business&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>“Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said that if she became president, the federal government would take a more active role in the economy, to address what she called the excesses of the market and of the Bush administration.”</p>

<p>"Reflecting what her aides said were very different conditions today, Mrs. Clinton put her emphasis on issues like inequality and the role of institutions like government, rather than market forces, in addressing them.</p>

<p>She said that economic excesses — including executive-pay packages she characterized as often “offensive” and “wrong” and a tax code that had become “so far out of whack” in favoring the wealthy — were holding down middle-class living standards."</p>

<p>Who benefits economically in this country? This election is going to make a difference.</p>

<p>Times change. I voted for Reagan twice and now I might vote for Clinton.</p>

2

<p>

</p>

<p>aka Das Kapitalism.</p>

3

<p>“Mrs. Clinton’s approach to the economy would have three main components. She would roll back the Bush tax cuts for households with incomes over $250,000 while creating more tax breaks below that threshold; impose closer scrutiny on financial markets, including the investments being made by foreign governments in the United States; and raise spending on job-creating projects like the development of alternative energy.”</p>

<p>"In the first period, from 1946 to 1973, the pay of most workers rose steadily. The income of the median family — the one earning less than half of all other families and more than half of all others — more than doubled during those years, to almost $50,000, in inflation-adjusted terms, according to Census Bureau data analyzed by the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal group in Washington.</p>

<p>Since 1973, the income of the median family has grown only about 25 percent."</p>

<p>“Her first priority, she said, would be changing the tax code. She has proposed tax credits for college tuition, retirement savings, health care and alternative energy use, most of which would go to lower- and middle-income families. She would also raise the top marginal rate to 39.6 percent, its level for much of her husband’s administration. Increasing high-end tax rates would bring in $52 billion a year, her campaign says, and help pay for some of her other proposals.”</p>

<p>Hillary’s top tax rate would be 39.6% Reagan first cut the top tax rate to 50% from 70% (Higher than Hilary’s). He later cut it to 28% but eliminated the capital gains exclusion. Capital gains tax rates were at 28%. I have a feeling Clinton won’t raise the capital gains tax rate that high.</p>

4

<p>

</p>

<p>Nice class rhetoric, but $52 billion is literally chump change in terms of the total federal budget, which is nearing $3 trillion; heck, even under static revenue forecasting, $52B only reduces the annual deficit by 25% (absent a significant reduction in Defense).</p>

5

<p>$52 billion here, $52 billion there and soon it adds up. </p>

<p>Because it is only $52 billion, chump change, those at the top won’t miss it.</p>

6

<p>

</p>

<p>Concur.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Sure does, but not as fast as H’s proposals…it’ll be interesting to see if ‘PayGo’ survives the first 100 days of Hillary’s Presidency.</p>

7

<p>I think that the tax rates Clinton is proposing are fair and we do need the money. I bet people think when they think of Clinton they think we are going to the tax rates of Reagan 1982 or worse. Doesn’t look that way to me.</p>

<p>bluebayou, I think you might be interested in this. I wish I knew more about who put this out…</p>

<p>"EFFECT OF REAGAN TAX CUT ON REVENUES - SHORT ANALYSIS
The argument that the near-doubling of revenues during Reagan’s two terms proves the value of tax cuts is an old argument. It’s also extremely flawed. At 99.6 percent, revenues did nearly double during the 80s. However, they had likewise doubled during EVERY SINGLE DECADE SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION! They went up 502.4% during the 40’s, 134.5% during the 50’s, 108.5% during the 60’s, and 168.2% during the 70’s. At 96.2 percent, they nearly doubled in the 90s as well. Hence, claiming that the Reagan tax cuts caused the doubling of revenues is like a rooster claiming credit for the dawn. </p>

<p>Furthermore, the receipts from individual income taxes (the only receipts directly affected by the tax cuts) went up only 91.3 percent during the 80’s. Meanwhile, receipts from Social Insurance, which is directly affected by the FICA tax rate, went up 140.8 percent. This large increase was largely due to the fact that the FICA tax rate went up 25% from 6.13 to 7.65 percent of payroll. Hence, the claim that the doubling of TOTAL revenues proves the effectiveness of tax cuts is including revenues which resulted from a tax hike to prove the effectiveness of a tax cut. This seems like the height of hypocrisy. </p>

<p>Hence, what evidence there is suggests there to be a correlation between lower taxes and LOWER revenues, not HIGHER revenues as suggested by supply-siders. There may well be valid arguments in favor of tax cuts. But higher tax revenues does not appear to be one of them."</p>

<p>I agree with the conclusion. There are reasons why tax rates should be low. I think the economy will grow more with low tax rates compared to high tax rates, but we need to pay for our government. If we want low tax rates, keep spending down.</p>

<p>[Effect</a> of the Reagan and Kennedy Tax Cuts](<a href=“http://pw1.netcom.com/~rdavis2/taxcuts.html]Effect”>http://pw1.netcom.com/~rdavis2/taxcuts.html)</p>

8

<p>“Hence, what evidence there is suggests there to be a correlation between lower taxes and LOWER revenues, not HIGHER revenues as suggested by supply-siders.”</p>

<p>Yup. Laffer Curve turned into a real Laugher, but I don’t think he believed it to begin with.</p>

9

<p>Laffer made a nice career out of the Laffer curve. He said recently on CNBC that lowering the tax rates on capital gains worked in getting more government revenues but he didn’t know if cutting income tax rates worked.</p>

<p>I thought that was an interesting admission. Since the show was on CNBC that comment was ignored immediately. :)</p>

10

<p>I am trying to get through THE BLACK SWAN, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb; Not a book to skip read. </p>

<p>Perhaps Reagonomics, Bushonomics, Clintonomics (which I think are really one in same) are all wrong. Why would an investor invest into something that will recycle into another crisis? Perhaps raising taxes and encourage saving will get investors to invest in debt instruments that will be paid off? Would you invest in your neighbor’s house if you know that he is highly in debt and no savings?</p>

11

<p>I currently have an electronic device that is beeps because it is low on power. Trouble is it the beep is too short and I can not locate the device. Thankyou designer to let me know that it needs recharging but please beep it long enough so that I can find it.</p>

<p>Found it.</p>

12

<p>Perhaps that ValueVillage $3.50 sweater, should be a Nordstrum’s $35.00 sweater. </p>

<p>Banguluru is 85F today. DS is looking for great masala dosas.</p>

13

<p>"I currently have an electronic device that is beeps because it is low on power. Trouble is it the beep is too short and I can not locate the device. Thankyou designer to let me know that it needs recharging but please beep it long enough so that I can find it.</p>

<p>Found it."</p>

<p>lol</p>

<p>I can’t find my cell phone. It’s been lost over a week. The d*** thing doesn’t beep at all.</p>

14

<p>“Why would an investor invest into something that will recycle into another crisis?”</p>

<p>Because a war would bring you out of it. Who will the state-sponsors of terror attack next?</p>

15

<p>Whoever they can convince that it is in their patriotic duty to do it to? (never end in a prep but this is emotional.) </p>

<p>Isn’t that is where those expect to be least attacked?</p>