High Deficits were the Objective of Right Economics

James Crotty: High deficits deliberately created to justify return to 1920's capitalism.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• reagan
• bilderberg
• reaganomics
• wall
• street
• empire
• war
• usa
• washington
• republicans
• right
• debt
• deficit
• military
• industrial
• complex
• economy
• crisis

[lcromy]

ALL HAIL OBAMA!!!

[QuatFax]

@cjlovick Fine, then we'll start at 1982. That's still a 60% increase by 1989 (i.e.- from 617 billion to 991).

Yes, I fucking understand that taxes were dramatically cut for the rich, but taxes overall increased! When are you going to get this through your thick head?!

[QuatFax]

@cjlovick Okay, so you admit that tax revenues overall increased? That's all I've been arguing this entire time: that taxes overall increased! I'm not questioning that taxes were cut for the rich (they absolutely were), I'm saying they weren't cut OVERALL! What part of this is so hard for you to understand?

[cjlovick]

@QuatFax, here is the summary of his tax cuts that benefitted the rich:

* top rate dropped from 70% to 50% (THE BIG ONE)

* phased-in increase in estate tax exemption from $175,625 to $600,000 in 1987

* reduced windfall profit taxes

* replaced $200 interest exclusion with 15% net interest exclusion ($900 cap) (1985)

[cjlovick]

@QuatFax: Yes, you can call it a tax cut if the top 1% got the biggest cut, and the rest did not. What about that is hard to understand? Tax receipts increased by 49%? What math are you using? Based on FYs, tax receipts increased by about 35% during his two terms (mostly on the middle class) and spending increased by 65%. Result: Deficit. It is what it is. It is simple math. Spending was almost double that of receipts collected. Taxes were cut--mostly for the rich!

[QuatFax]

@cjlovick First, it wasn't a "slight" increase in revenues; it was 67%. Read the fucking charts, you idiot!

I don't disagree with you that Reagan was working to benefit the rich. He lowered taxes FOR THE RICH (but more than made up for it with taxes on the lower classes), and he shifted spending to things that benefit the rich. I don't disagree with you there. But he did not cut taxes overall; you need to get that through your thick head.

[QuatFax]

@cjlovick No, the Republicans ran massive deficits because they wanted to spend money on their cronies. They didn't have any desire to cut the size of government; if they did, they would have eventually started to do so. They just wanted to rob as much from taxpayers as possible before the system collapsed.

[QuatFax]

@cjlovick I think you need to read the fucking chart. Tax revenues went up almost every year Reagan was in office. Overall, tax revenues increased by 67% as a result of Reagan's presidency. There's no question that Reagan raised taxes.

Yes, Reagan engaged in massive deficit spending, but that's a result of Reagan's massive spending, NOT of cutting taxes. Read the fucking chart!

[cjlovick]

@QuatFax: Why do you think that called them tax cuts for the rich? The rich benefitted the most, because their taxes went down the most. So the slight increase in revenue came mostly from the middle class.....

[cjlovick]

@QuatFax: The main issue with Republicans is that they ran massive deficits when they did not have to. At least this president has a valid reason, i.e. trying to prevent a depression and a collapse of our economic/financial system. It is clear, that the reason they did so was to put pressure later on to make cuts in the size of government, and they always look to cut social programs. I figured this out back in college. Glad someone posted it.