« Power & Light District dress code | Main | Where was the outrage? »

February 25, 2009

Carter years worse

Why is it that The Star and other news organizations never challenge the statement used by politicians and liberals alike when describing our current economy as the “worst since the Great Depression?”

Do you not remember the double-digit inflation and double-digit interest rates of the Carter years??

True, we are in a real recession, as we have been several times since the Great Depression. However, to call this the worst simply is not true.

But don’t worry. The statement about the economy being the “worst since the Great Depression” will eventually come true as President Obama guides us into the depths of economic hell. But even that will take 12 to 24 months.

David Scott
Lee’s Summit

Comments

Engineer

Pub 17
Of those who file federal income tax returns, in 2006 40% do not pay any FIT. The bottom 50% of the filers in 2006 paid only 2.9% of the FIT. These figures are from the IRS. If you don't believe these figures, present something to disprove them.

Engineer

Jim
You are talking static analysis. This is not the way things ever work out. And it can't be a "cost" to the government, because it isn't the government's money.

Engineer

Jim
Obama said he was going to reduce the DOD budget by cutting out “cold war” type programs. But cutting out “cold war programs” will weaken us so far as Russia and China are concerned. Why won’t you believe what he tells you? I know that is sound practice but you are a supporter. He is getting ready to spend money like mad, but not on National Defense.
Please advise where I “insist that cutting taxes on someone making $80,000 a year is "welfare". What I have said is that giving a FIT refund check to someone who has not paid FIT is welfare. If you pay FIT and get a refund check in an amount less than you have paid, that’s a tax cut. If you have not paid FIT and get a “refund” check, that is welfare. Even a swabie should be able to understand that.

Jim

Eng,

It doesn't surprise me that you don't have any specifics in mind. It's a common Conservative tactic to scream about how "dangerous" Defense cuts can be without being able to say how or why.

The fact that you still insist that cutting taxes on someone making $80,000 a year is "welfare" tells me all I need to know about where you're coming from.


"And Federal Income Tax revenue did increase during The George W. Bush administration."

True, but do you even know by how much? It's instructive to look at recent history. Adjusted for inflation and population growth, CBO studies show that the average revenue growth for the 1980s after taxes were cut was 1.7%. The average revenue growth for the 1990s after taxes were increased was 3.5%. The average revenue growth so far after Bush's tax cuts? 0.8%.

A couple of years ago, Bush's Treasury Department did a "dynamic" analysis of the effects of making his tax cuts permanent. In even their most optimistic scenario, extending the tax cuts would increase long-term economic output by .7 percent of GDP, which is barely enough to pay for 10% of the cost of making the cuts permanent.

Pub 17

Also, will please quit with the ridiculous 40% figure? It's embarrassing and tedious, and in your words, has been repeatedly refuted.

Pub 17

That's pretty funny, Engineer. Excuse me if I don't buy Russia 2008 as being the Soviet Union, 1958.

Engineer

Jim
As to the cuts in the DOD budget, that is what Obama said he is going to do. Didn't you listen to his stump speech? Words to the effect "we will do this by cutting 'cold war' type programs that are no longer needed". But if we are to deal with Russia, "cold war" type programs are just what will be needed.
As to taxes and "blowing holes" in budgets, taking money away from people who have earned it is one thing, sending out welfare checks is another. And Federal Income Tax revenue did increase during The George W. Bush administration. If Obama actually goes ahead with the predatory tax policies on the "upper 2%" that are being hinted at and decreases taxes on 45% paying FIT and sends out welfare checks to the non-FIT paying 40%, we will see what happens to tax revenues. We will all get to watch a test of the theory behind the Laffer curve.

Jim

"Russia once again is becoming aggressive and Obama wants to cut the parts of the DOD Budget that would provide the means to counter her."

Eng,

I'd like to see the evidence of such "cuts." Please be specific about what cuts he would make on programs that would "provide the means" to counter Russia. No more of this broad brush stuff. Give me some nitty-gritty from a reputable source (Heritage doesn't count as reputable).

As for funding America's priorities, you conveniently left out the fact that we're spending $10-12 billion a month in Iraq. When we shift those resources homeward, that will help by a significant margin as well.

I know you'd prefer to see all of that money go toward more tax cuts for the top 2%, something that didn't give us anywhere near the stimulus or job creation we were promised the last time we tried it. Somehow blowing a $2.5 trillion hole in the budget via permanent tax cuts for them is not a problem, but one dime of deficit for our domestic priorities is a travesty.

Pub 17

Engineer
Find any of those Pelosi mice yet?
What about the billions of dollars going to ACORN?
And is Bobby Jindal going to take a trip to Mt. St. Helen's any time soon?

Pub 17

As we say in Lindsborg, "Yah. Shoor."

Engineer

Pub 17
Hey wasn't it NYT reporters that got caught "making it up as they went along"? And how about Dan Rather, a far left liberal posing as an impartial reporter for years and "making it up as he went along". Of course you also push some of Dan's unproven nonsense, but that's par.

Engineer

Jim & Pub 17
Reagan had to go along with the unbridled and unwise social spending of the Democrat Congress to get the means to defend the Country and defeat the USSR. If that is a record of which you feel proud, so be it. Russia once again is becoming aggressive and Obama wants to cut the parts of the DOD Budget that would provide the means to counter her. Obama's impossible goals (lies?) set out in the speech are becoming clearer. He has a great many more tax increases for the "top 2%" in mind than set out in that speech. It is clear that he intends to fund universal health care in the back of that 2%. But there isn't enough there to do it, so the rest of us are in for a trip through the ringer as well. He has stated he believes in "income redistribution". The "CHANGE" is not going to be pretty.

Pub 17

It's why all those stupid liberal rags are going bankrupt while Fox News thrives: why bother with reporters and editors when you can just make it up as you go along?

Jim

I guess Republicans weren't satisfied with simply lying about what's in the stimulus bill (ACORN money, salt marsh mice, Disneyland trains and other fabrications). Now it's becoming pretty clear that Bobby Jindal was spouting fiction during his trainwreck of a speech the other night. His "Congressman Jindal is here and he says you can arrest him too!" story appears to be completely made up. No wonder he's a favorite of the GOP establishment: he embellishes with the best of them.

Pub 17

Arminius, you're a fool and a liar, and if you don't understand the difference between real and nominal figures, you're doomed to swallow my line about Reagan tripling the national debt for all eternity.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE keep trying to get on Midwest Voices. I haven't had a right-wing loon so dimwitted, illiterate, innumerate, and basically so easy to beat up since Ross Balano tucked his tail and ran.

Arminius

Pub17's lying again.

"So the Reagan recovery was due to the Democrats holding his feet to the fire, like Bill Clinton's paying down the national debt was the result of the Republican Congress holding HIS feet to the fire."

Clinton did not pay down the national debt. The national debt was higher in 2001 than it was in 1993. A GOP Congress did start working the budget towards being balanced after 1995, but the debt still grew.

Arminius

JayhawkinMO:

"More baloney from Bedbug. The Dems may have contributed to the record deficits in the 80s, but Reagan got his defense spending war against the Soviet Union. Our defense spending finally broke the Soviet bank. Of course, we're probably still paying the bill today."

Defense spending as a percentage of the overall budget during the Reagan years was much lower than it was during the early 1960s. The debt built up during the 1980s (as well as during the 1990s and 2000s) was largely attributable to the programs Democrats put into place during FDR's time and the late 1960s.

Arminius

Pub17's lying again:

" Reagan came to power, Volcker crunched the money supply, we had a single shot of double-digit inflation, and then began the long, slow recovery resulting from Reagan's tripling of the national debt via billions in unfunded spending."

Reagan did not increase the debt. According to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress controls the nation's purse strings. Reagan's deal with Congress was that for every dollar in tax cuts, Congress would cut spending two dollars. Congress reneged on that deal.

JayhawkinMO

More baloney from Bedbug. The Dems may have contributed to the record deficits in the 80s, but Reagan got his defense spending war against the Soviet Union. Our defense spending finally broke the Soviet bank. Of course, we're probably still paying the bill today.

Pub 17

So the Reagan recovery was due to the Democrats holding his feet to the fire, like Bill Clinton's paying down the national debt was the result of the Republican Congress holding HIS feet to the fire.

Damn shame the Republican couldn't do the same to George Bush, innit? Left the poor guy with ONE HALF Jimmy Carter's approval rating. Tsk tsk.

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright