what is more important: reducing debt or stimulating the economy

Yes. We have a middle class -- the great engine of spending -- that has been gutted by 30 years of "trickle down" policies as well as automation and outsourcing. And we have a government practicing austerity instead of spending.

(fiscal years)
Reagan
Spending increase, 1981-1985: +39.5%.
Total Government employment, 1981-1985: +607,0000

Bush
Spending increase, 2001-2005: +32.7%
Total Government employment, 2001-2005: +603,000

Obama
Spending increase, 2009-2013: -1.9%
Total Government employment, 2009-2013: -667,000

Sure you can extract $500 billion more the wealthy.

What "opportunities"? The opportunity to stick another $500 billion in offshore accounts?

That is 1% apologist bull(*)(*)(*)(*). The 1% aren't taking double the nation's income and wealth because everyone else got lazy and became criminals and didn't go to school.

 

You could.

They block and obstruct every effort.

Nope. We have a funding problem. Republicans continuing block programs that would get more people working -- to the contrary, the Republican dominated states have eliminated 700,000 government jobs.

How do you figure? The fact that unemployment isn't eliminated overnight doesn't mean jobs are being created faster. And unemployment in fact has been decreasing.

Then we better figure out how to get more of the nation's wealth and income into the hands of the people who would spend the money, creating those jobs. Reverse trickle down.

People spending money.

 

Eliminate worthless Government Agencies (Dept of Education and the EPA). Cut taxes on payroll. Vigorously prosecute welfare and social security fraud and waste. Start putting people in prison. 1 in 7 Americans are on food stamps. Some making over 60K a year. I personally know at least 8 people on full SS disability who are as healthy as I am. Just these couple of things would balance the budget and create a surplus. Education needs to be given back to the States and taken from the clutches of the Union, whose only role is a money laundering facility for the DNC.

 

The answer is to make our populace dumber so billionaires can keep more tax cuts, eh? Sounds like a great plan.

 

You totally didn't understand what I said. Not surprised of course, you're not going to deviate from your talking points. As they say over at Talking Points Memo, thinking is hard, but talking points are easy.

 

I 100% stand by my former words...

 

Here is an idea. You say that government creates jobs? So why not have the Federal government hire everyone who is unemployed and eliminate unemployment.

 

After reading these quotes from JFK, i wonder if we can even find an elected democrat in Washington who would agree with him:

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference
​

“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”
​

​

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.”

​

​

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”

“In today’s economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.”

​

​

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”

“It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today’s economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates.”
​

​

 

Interesting point, since we have 11.3 million unemployed in this nation according to the latest BLS Summary. Take our $1 trillion deficit and divide that into the 11.3 million and each of the unemployed would receive over $88,000.

 

Obama's own GAO has been submitting multiple reports to him, outlining hundreds of billions of cuts he could have been making, and many of them come from the DOD.

GAO Report Indicates Tens of Billions Blown on Duplicate Programs

 

It would be excessive, but possible.

- - - Updated - - -

If you don't address the comments and questions I posed its easy to say.

 

When the top tax rate is 91% and you don't have a huge debt burden, his words make sense.

So let's put the top tax rate to 70% like Kennedy did if you think he was spot on. A lot of Democrats would agree with that.

- - - Updated - - -

The deficit was $680 last year.

 

They made hundreds of billions in cuts. Spending last year was $150 billion lower last year than in 2010. An relative to GDP, spending has dropped by hundreds of billions.

The Govt in FY2013 spent, proportionate to GDP, less than in 6 of 8 Reagan years, and 9 of 12 Reagan/Bush1 years.

 

Because we have a federal doctrine and State at-will employment laws to consider, and already existing infrastructure in our republic.

 

I understand you are trying to be as accurate as possible, but none of your arguments hold water, they change nothing.

The tax rates at the time are irrelevant to my point. JFK saw the private sector as the engine that drives economic growth not the current Democrat policies of government tax & spend. It was a running theme with JFK, cutting taxes and stimulating the private economy were the ways to grow the economy.

I was averaging out 0bama's deficits over five years and rounding down to a trillion, but if it makes you feel better, divide out 11.4 million into $680 billion, it's more the the median family income in the US.

 

You are talking about a reduction in deficit spending, the GAO report is actual cuts in government. Did you even read the link, concerning the report? The report details actual cuts in government agencies; permanent cuts, as in jobs and agencies and employees CUT, gone, deleted wiped from existence. those are not simply a reduction in deficit spending, or asking an employee to go on a temporary unpaid furlough.

 

My argument holds water just fine. It's based on the Laffer curve theory. When you cut taxes from 91% to 70%, the taxpayer now gets to keep about 3x, 200%, more after tax money (he now keeps 30% vs. 9%). That's some pretty good incentive to earn more. OTOH, the revenue to the government has decreased only 23%. There's a reasonable position to take that the greater incentive produced by a 200% increase in take home will offset the 23% reduction from the rate cut.

Now let's switch it to a 35% tax rate, which we had until recently. That same 20 percentage point tax cut (to 15%) means that the taxpayer gets to take home 85% instead of 65%. That's a 30% increase, which is nice, but doesn't have nearly the same bang for the buck as the 200% increase we got from the 91% tax rate cut. But on the governments side, its revenues drop a whopping 60%. That's a serious drop in revenues that the 30% increase in incentive isn't likely to make up for.

A tax cut at 91% makes some sense, particularly where you have your budget under control. A tax cut from the 35% level makes a lot less sense especially when you have a massive debt and big deficits.

So I can see the benefit of a tax cut from 91%, as Kennedy did. But if he would have said the same thing when a 35% tax rate with big debt, well, you'll have to show me where he'd take that position, as I don't believe you are in a position to speak for him.

I agree with you concern about the size of the deficit. Thanks in no small part to the 2013 tax rise, we got that deficit way down from 2009, but we need to get it down some more. Now that you understand the relative effects of taxes at different rates, you can write you Republican Tea Party rep and tell him to compromise on revenue increases so we can get a budget deal done and get that deficit down further.

 

I don't know what kind of reply this is. But I'll bit anyway.

The people in this thread say that government creates jobs. Fine, then why don't they just hire all the unemployed people. Over staff government agencies if they have to.

 

Who really knows what the actual tax rates were back them, with so many loopholes, don't even try and tell me that 91% tax rate figure was anything of the kind.

The point is, JFK was far to the right, as a patriot and with his views on government's roll in the economy, that to the likes of 0bama, Reid and Pelosi, he'd be an outcast, a Tea Party freak.

 

Now explain to us how cutting jobs, agencies, and employees are good for our economy.

- - - Updated - - -

The government does create jobs. Do you have anything factual to dispute it?

 

They change everything. Just because you don't like being taxed doesn't mean his argument has no water. 70% tax rate he advocated is still TWICE as high as the current rates.

So your solution is to lower taxes even more? Reagan showed us what that does to the debt.

The national debt to median income is an irrelevant talking point. The citizens do not pay the debt, they benefit from it.


What does Obama have to do with this? Obama didn't cause the national debt. If anything, he has reduced spending and the deficit.

 

Reagan enacted tax cuts? Last time I checked, legislative power lies in the hands of the legislature, but don't take my word on it, I only learned that in grammar school.

 

Great catch. The Reagan Administration. Reagan signed them into law, just like Obama did with "Obama"care.

Any other nitpicks or do you actually have an argument?

 

We know the top marginal rate was 91%. It's true that the effective rate people paid was lower, but that is always the case.

I guess we should do the far right thing like Kennedy and put the top marginal rate at 70%. Right in line with the Tea Party's objectives, right?

 

LOL, now they are the Democratic tax cuts that conservatives give credit to the recovery under Reagan?

The tax cuts were the Reagan administration's agenda, step one in the "trickle down" plan to help the rich take a larger portion of the nation's income and wealth.

While the Dems had a majority, in practice a gaggle of conservative "boll weevil" often voted with Republicans on things like tax cuts and military spending, given Reagan and the Republicans a de facto majority.