How the ex-DNC chair ruined Clinton’s chance at 2020

Craig234 said:
It is important to understand why; which is different than you just throwing out things that happened and saying they are why.
Click to expand...

Throwing out things??? What he stated was accurate. The global environment after WWII cannot be compared to the past twenty years. No one wants to go back to the global conditions of the late 40's- early 60's. Europe was in shambles, trying to rebuild. Japan was broken. China not yet a player. The Soviets were consolidating power in Eastern Europe and we didn't stop it.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
idiot.....we are talking about taxes........the people you are taxing own 100% of what you want to tax.......if you're too fucking stupid to realize that you shouldn't be debating taxes......
Click to expand...

No, idiot we're talking about concentration of wealth, and the rate of taxes to reduce it. You're talking as if every tax is 'theft' and wrong, and your mouth has you one step from ignore.
 
Superfreak said:
1) Again, Clinton gave away the biggest tax DECREASE to the wealthy. Raising the marginal tax rates while not eliminating loopholes and deductions doesn't tax the rich. It simply dupes simpletons into believing that is occurring.
Click to expand...

And you're wrong. You are screaming the sky isn't blue. Look at how much the rich paid in taxes before and after. Look at the deficit reduction that happened partly because of the increase in tax revenue. 39% is higher than 28%, not a "DECREASE".

2) Wrong. The growth began under Reagan. it continued under Bush and Clinton.
Click to expand...

Look at this picture. What happened from the middle of Reagan's turn to the end of Bush's several years later? The growth rate went from a high of over 8% at peak to negative. You call that "growth" in the rate. What happened with Clinton's presidency?

https://www.fin.gc.ca/ec2008/images/ecc1_5-eng.gif


3) Reagan added about $1.6T, Bush about $800B (4 years), Clinton about $1.6T, Bush about $5T, Obama about $10T. Reagan also had to rebuild the military, provide stimulus to help us recover from Carter's ineptitude with double digit inflation and unemployment. Reagan also bankrupted the USSR by forcing them to keep pace. That also aided the prosperity we saw in the 1990's.
Click to expand...

I've had to repeat this so many times lately. Let's try it again. President 1 starts with a 0 deficit and increases it $100 billion annually for 8 years. President 2 after him reduces it $90 billion annually for 8 years. Who added more debt? Who is better on debt?

EVERY major peacetime large deficit increase in US history has been under a Republican president since Reagan. The answers to the questions above show how you distorted the issue. And Obama added about $8 trillion.
 
Superfreak said:
Throwing out things??? What he stated was accurate. The global environment after WWII cannot be compared to the past twenty years. No one wants to go back to the global conditions of the late 40's- early 60's. Europe was in shambles, trying to rebuild. Japan was broken. China not yet a player. The Soviets were consolidating power in Eastern Europe and we didn't stop it.
Click to expand...

Television was black and white and there was no modern rock music!

That's why the economy was different! No, no, it's that we hadn't gone to space yet! That's the reason for the difference! Those issues you list are not the issues that are relevant to a high concentration of wealth on the growth rate.
 
Craig234 said:
Television was black and white and there was no modern rock music!

That's why the economy was different! No, no, it's that we hadn't gone to space yet! That's the reason for the difference! Those issues you list are not the issues that are relevant to a high concentration of wealth on the growth rate.
Click to expand...

Sorry dude, the U.S. economy doesn't operate in a vacuum. You can't ignore the reality of global events because it doesn't fit well with the story you want to tell.
 
Craig234 said:
No, actually, you haven't, and reducing inequality is not what ends in bloodshed - increasing inequality does.
Click to expand...

Actually, ideologues killing the innocent masses is what causes the bloodshed. But you can't make an omelet without cracking a few eggs.
 
cawacko said:
Sorry dude, the U.S. economy doesn't operate in a vacuum. You can't ignore the reality of global events because it doesn't fit well with the story you want to tell.
Click to expand...

Ya! Those black and white TV's can't be ignored and they explain how the concentration of wealth works! Try making a more specific rational point. You haven't done it.
 
Threedee said:
Actually, ideologues killing the innocent masses is what causes the bloodshed. But you can't make an omelet without cracking a few eggs.
Click to expand...

Ideology is a problem, but it's more just people pursuing power and killing in that pursuit. And economic interests are a lot of that power. Hitler would have killed tens of millions without the ideology also.
 
Craig234 said:
Ya! Those black and white TV's can't be ignored and they explain how the concentration of wealth works! Try making a more specific rational point. You haven't done it.
Click to expand...

You don't want to discuss any factors other than tax rates as if that is the only thing that drives our economy
 
Craig234 said:
No, that's not what I'm saying. Tax rates are our main tool for reducing ineuquality, which is our biggest problem.
Click to expand...

The outcome of what you propose is choking the engine of economic growth. We can look at our friends in Europe and see how they are doing economically (low growth, aging population) and see that is a path we do not want to go down
 
Craig234 said:
And you're wrong. You are screaming the sky isn't blue. Look at how much the rich paid in taxes before and after. Look at the deficit reduction that happened partly because of the increase in tax revenue. 39% is higher than 28%, not a "DECREASE".



Look at this picture. What happened from the middle of Reagan's turn to the end of Bush's several years later? The growth rate went from a high of over 8% at peak to negative. You call that "growth" in the rate. What happened with Clinton's presidency?

https://www.fin.gc.ca/ec2008/images/ecc1_5-eng.gif




I've had to repeat this so many times lately. Let's try it again. President 1 starts with a 0 deficit and increases it $100 billion annually for 8 years. President 2 after him reduces it $90 billion annually for 8 years. Who added more debt? Who is better on debt?

EVERY major peacetime large deficit increase in US history has been under a Republican president since Reagan. The answers to the questions above show how you distorted the issue. And Obama added about $8 trillion.
Click to expand...

1) Again... you can say you are taxing them at 28 or 39 or 74%... it doesn't matter if the deductions and loopholes allow them to get their effective tax rates to 17-20%. Which the current tax code does. The drop from 28% Cap gains tax to 20% was the largest giveaway to the rich.

2) No, it was the cap gains tax cut that provided the extra revenue in part. Not the tax increase that did little to change the effective tax rate.

3) I said the growth in the economy began in 1982. It did. Reagan had growth rates in excess of 3% every year after that. That positive GDP growth continued into the Bush years (until the short recession) and into the Clinton years. Because you are not capable of comprehending what you read, you alter my comments to something they are not. I did not say the rate of growth went up every year for Reagan... it didn't. Neither did it for Clinton. But every year since 1982 until Reagan left office, we had positive GDP growth. That is a GROWING economy. If you don't understand economics, just say so and quit wasting my time.

4) AGAIN... the totals added to the debt are what I stated. You are conflating deficit with debt. Learn what words mean before using them.
 
Craig234 said:
Television was black and white and there was no modern rock music!

That's why the economy was different! No, no, it's that we hadn't gone to space yet! That's the reason for the difference! Those issues you list are not the issues that are relevant to a high concentration of wealth on the growth rate.
Click to expand...

No... those are reasons that we thrived DESPITE the high tax rates.
 
cawacko said:
The outcome of what you propose is choking the engine of economic growth. We can look at our friends in Europe and see how they are doing economically (low growth, aging population) and see that is a path we do not want to go down
Click to expand...

Wrong. One minute it's all about how you can't compare situations when it's justifying Republican low growth, and then who care about different factors in Europe when claiming that their taxes cause low growth.

So let's go with the right-wing argument. Let's make the top tax rate 0.1%, take in almost zero taxes, and watch the economy do great and everyone prosper - right?
 
Craig234 said:
Wrong. One minute it's all about how you can't compare situations when it's justifying Republican low growth, and then who care about different factors in Europe when claiming that their taxes cause low growth.

So let's go with the right-wing argument. Let's make the top tax rate 0.1%, take in almost zero taxes, and watch the economy do great and everyone prosper - right?
Click to expand...

What Republican low growth? I said nothing about Republicans or Democrats. You're trying to weave a story with the numbers to fit your desired result but it's not that simple.

It's a straw man pure and simple to say anyone (at least in this discussion) wants zero taxes. No one has argued for that. But look at current unemployment and growth across Europe compared to the U.S. You want a more European model and we see the troubles they have. (Now if you want to get into the roles the central banks have played recently in each location I'll listen.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top