PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Social Security Debates
     Social Security Privatization

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
admin

|      |       Report Post



Administrator
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do you support the Privatization of Social Security? 

http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/social_security_privatization.HTM

(Edited by %1034118879%.)
 


Posts: 31 | Posted: 11:56 AM on May 2, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No. Social Security is not intended to make people rich. It is security. Stock market definitly does not = security, even in the best of times.

As an aside, this is post #200. Hooray for us!


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 12:17 AM on August 22, 2002 | IP
Exxoss

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

yes.  If people dont want security, so be it.n  Not everyone's smart.


-------
I am Exxoss, come to save you all from your impending doom!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

-Exxoss
 


Posts: 438 | Posted: 5:03 PM on September 24, 2002 | IP
madbilly

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

but investing in the market could elp our economy, and the fact that the earnings could be inherited by heirs is also a plus...it is these people money they should do what they want with it


-------
my name is madbilly....what did you expect me to be happy when my name says Mad in it...
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 1:45 PM on November 4, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

actually, investing all that money into the economy would in effect control it. it would be the end of capitalism as we know it.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 9:36 PM on November 4, 2002 | IP
madbilly

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i dont understand how it would control it...would you please explain?


-------
my name is madbilly....what did you expect me to be happy when my name says Mad in it...
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 01:48 AM on November 5, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The Social Security trust fund is over a trillion dollars. If all that flowed into the economy, it would be such a large influx of money that social security retirement money would be the only major player in stock movements, thus ending capitalism. Stock prices are supposed to move based on the strength of the company, not the amount of people retiring on a given day.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 4:28 PM on November 5, 2002 | IP
madbilly

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i can see that happening but the proposal to privatize does not allow all the money to be able to be invested just a portion and also not everyone would invest.


-------
my name is madbilly....what did you expect me to be happy when my name says Mad in it...
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 01:59 AM on November 6, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ok, but even a fraction of a trillion dollars exerts a disproportional influence on the market.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 5:16 PM on November 8, 2002 | IP
rjamesh

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, privatize the disaster and soon. And what is this talk about security? What security? Look at the math, please. How much should we ask the next generation to fork over as a % of income? One of our wise founding fathers said something to the effect that choosing security over freedom would ultimately leave us with neither. Why do we want to be just like any other socialist country. If we act like one, we'll be like one in every way. There are reasons we are a prosperous country. If we give away those reasons, then the consequences will follow. Look at Western Europe. They stand for nothing. They are willing to give away their freedoms if the government will just take care of them. Pathetic - that's what we want? Concerning market fears, anyone who makes the argument against privatization based on the last 3 years of the market is either uninformed or deliberately misleading. The market has always performed well in the long run (>20 year periods). That argument could be answered (though this would in effect give up some of the freedom) with a hybird wherein there are limited choices, such as money market funds, bonds, low risk mutuals, stock indices, etc. I for one am sick of the lies perpetrated by the lovers of big government.
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 6:33 PM on December 25, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The quote you refer to is from Ben Franklin "Those who would give essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security." It has more pertinance to Prez. Bush's actions in the war on terror than the social security debate.
The market as a whole performs well over time, true. But individual people still get screwed undeniably. Social Security is supposed to be just that, secure. It is a way to make sure people have a real retirement, not a get rich quick scheme. People can invest on their own time.
As for Western Europe, measured by Per Capita Income it is more prosporous than we are. So I wouldn't worry too much about becoming socialist.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 5:34 PM on December 29, 2002 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What social security trust fund? That's basically just a part of the budget... they take everything out of it.

Most people only get about 67% of what they pay into social security. Maybe they should be allowed to invest their money. It should be a choice. If you can't play the stock market, don't. The government will give you your 67% or you can invest it and try to make a lot more so you don't end up working again like a lot of elderly people.


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 8:07 PM on December 30, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

or we could just make social security actually secure from govt. raids (im valiently resisting the word lockbox here). then make it so it is paying out its dues. all that retirement money would exert far too much influence on the market. even a fraction of it would be too big an amount.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 10:47 PM on December 30, 2002 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why would it be too much? What's bad about the influence?


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 3:25 PM on December 31, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As I stated earlier (somewhere), markets are supposedly based on the economy, not the amount of people retiring on a given day.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 4:31 PM on December 31, 2002 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Markets are for investing to make more money. Who says they're supposed to be based on economic activity? The whole point is to raise money for business, isn't it?


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 4:44 PM on December 31, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

no markets are supposed to based on the economy. You are buying shares in a company on the premise that you are now a part owner and if the company does well u will too. So the price of the share should reflect whether a company is likely to do well or not. Privitization makes it based on something else, and would throw the whole market out of whack.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 9:21 PM on January 1, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Markets are for investing... I don't see a problem in people being able to invest their money.

The stock markets aren't really a good indicator of how the economy is doing.. the economy is doing much better, but do the markets show that? No.


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 2:39 PM on January 2, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1) The economy isnt doing much better.
2) The market is supposed to be a indicator. It isnt going to be perfect.
3) The market is a predictor of what the near future will be, so basically the market now is worried that the "recovery" (if it even exists) wont last or will be too weak


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 9:08 PM on January 2, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

THe economy is doing better... I think the economic indicators have shown that.


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 10:57 PM on January 2, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think the people who still have lost/are losing jobs will burn those "economic indicators" for heat.

As Ronald Reagen once said "A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours." (he later added "and a recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his!" (This was in the 1980 campaign))


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 3:11 PM on January 3, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The unemployment rate just peaked... companies are starting to hire back.


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 11:43 PM on January 3, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I can tell you right now, the economy doesn't look any better from my vantage point. Why do you think unemployement has "peaked"?


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 12:37 AM on January 4, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It was lower and it got up to as high as most economists think it will do.

Maybe if Clinton managed things better... this is his recession. It started in his last term... Bush inherited it, and right when things were looking up we have a terrorist attack. We've had three down years... things are finally starting to pick back up.


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 3:58 PM on January 4, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Clinton's recession? He started the boom years! It was his bull market too.

To be frank, I don't blame Bush for the whole recession, or credit Clinton for the whole boom. The economy moves in cycles, and they happened to be caught it a down/up swing, respectively.

However, I CAN blame/credit them for how they've managed the cycle. Clinton turned a regular bull market into our most prosporous period ever. period. And Bush turned a normal correction into an economic quagmire unrivaled since the 1930s. His idiotic tax cut made the economic go from bad to worse. contrary to your assertions, the economy was looking even worse, not better, right before 9/11. Our surplus was projected to vanish, and the projected deficit was rising daily. The market continued to tumble. Then we get hit with a terrorist strike that obviously made it all worse, but Bush's efforts to blame all our economic problems on it are disengenous at best.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 7:13 PM on January 4, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Clinton inherited his economic boom, too. The media created the economic crisis that won him the presidency in 1992. That's a fact... look anywhere you want. The economy was already picking up as a result of the Reagan tax cuts of te 80s.

Bush's tax cut stopped the recession from being even worse. The economy was looking up before 9/11, but when that happened it set things right back down.

I'm going by what I've read... I've not anywhere that the economy was still moving down before 9/11...


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 7:31 PM on January 4, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

From: The Center for Budget and Policy and Priorities, 9/10/01 (published 1 day prior to the terrorist strike).
"The Congressional Budget Office's new report on the federal budget confirms that in some years, the budget outside Social Security will be in deficit. CBO now shows a total surplus between 2002 and 2011 that is $2.2 trillion less than it estimated in May; about three-quarters of this decline was caused by the impact of the recently enacted tax-cut package. The CBO shows a deficit in the budget outside of the Social Security trust fund in 2001, 2003, and 2004."
"The new estimates by both the Administration and CBO confirm that the surpluses projected earlier in the year have shrunk considerably, reflecting the impact of tax cuts and a slowing economy. The CBO figures show that in 2001, 2003, and 2004, the budget outside the Social Security trust fund is expected to be in deficit — a conclusion the Administration was able to avoid only through the use of accounting maneuvers and rosy assumptions about economic growth. In addition, over the next ten years, CBO forecasts a non-Social Security surplus that is $460 billion smaller than the Administration projects."
http://www.cbpp.org/8-28-01bud.htm

From: The CBPP on 8/28/01
"the predicted $125 billion surplus has practically disappeared. How did this happen? The quick answer is that the recently enacted tax-cut reduced revenues by $74 billion in 2001 and the economy slowed significantly, so that revenue collections fell below predicted levels."

From the Economic Policy Institute 9/5/01:
"On net, the economy is in recession."
"Over the past year, the gap [between GDP and NDP (net domestic product, GDP minus deprecation)] has become quite large, with real NDP down by 0.1% from its year-ago level, while real GDP has grown by 1.2%. In the last quarter, real NDP was solidly in the red, falling by 1.3%, while GDP grew 0.2%. Thus, by this measure, which arguably more accurately reflects the value of goods and services available for use, the economy already appears to be in recession."

Looks to me like even pre 9/11 Bush didn't have it under control.

The Reagan tax cuts of the 80s, what did that do? Well, in the 12 years of Reagan/Bush accumulated a budget deficit more than that of every single past president...combined. That's Washington to Carter folks. And it had the S&L crisis, and the '87 market crash. Again, I don't see a "fabrication" by the media, the folks without jobs i'm sure believed the economy was going down wholeheartedly.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 12:42 AM on January 5, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We were in recession... the tax cuts may have eliminated a the surplus, but I don't hear many people denying that those tax cuts helped the economy. The government shouldn't have a surplus anyway. If they do it means they're taking too much of the people's money.

I still think the Reagan tax cuts lead to the 90s boom... it's a conservative thing :P

But you're not denying that the leftist media created an economic crisis in 1992 that didn't exist?


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 1:09 PM on January 5, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you thought I was saying that there weren't problems under Reagan it wasn't what I was referring to when I said something about the media.


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 1:32 PM on January 5, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I deny:
a) There is a leftist media (Fox News anyone?)
b) It "created" an economic crisis (Oil? Job losses?)
c) That the Bush tax cut acted as a stimulus (tax cuts aren't stimulus, they are long term policy. The $300 rebate is a stimulus, which I support, but it was too small)

I don't have a problem with deficits ONLY if they money is being spent in an effective manner. I'm a Keynesian. Govt. programs can be run into to deficit, but tax cuts that create deficits are illegit.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 2:30 PM on January 5, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

FOX News didn't exist in 1992. Thank God for FOX News! CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and NBC all are leftist media organizations! FOX is about the only one with a more rightest attitude (though it's probbaly more moderate than the rest... the have a nice political mix in anchors and show hosts).

The media created the economic crisis that won Clinton the presidency in 1992. It's actually in most books covering that race, history textbooks, etc. People don't really deny it.

Tax cuts eliminate taxes and give people more money to spend, correct? Is that not a stimulus? Tax cuts to the rich allowed them in invest in new small businesses, correct?


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 6:24 PM on January 5, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Does that not create new jobs and wealth?


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 6:29 PM on January 5, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No. Think about it. Tax cuts (as opposed to tax rebates, which are good), are just rate changes. The average middle class family got about $76 from the tax cut, excluding the rebate. Since the middle and lower class drives the economy, do you think 76 bucks is going to put us back on track? Especially considering most economic analysis of the cut says that the money went into the bank rather than being spent.

Here is MY economic stimulus plan:
Freeze the 2001 tax cut. Don't repeal it, but don't extend it further either.
expand the Earned Income Tax Credit, and make sure people take advantage of it. The EITC is quite possibly the most ingenious fed program there is.
give a 1 month payroll tax holiday to put money directly into the pockets of workers.
Make the Child Tax Credit permenant.
Raise minimum wage 50 cents, and start indexing it to inflation.
That's a stimulus package.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 7:58 PM on January 5, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What is the Earned Income Tax Credit? Haven't heard of it, but I like the sound of it... I need to get back into the closet now.

Didn't Bush want the child tax credit raised a few hundred dollars? Eliminating the marriage penalty and death tax would do some good, wouldn't it?


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 8:03 PM on January 5, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Bush did want to raise the tax credit, and I support it.

The EITC is this: A refundable tax credit based on how much you work (capped at a certain income, relatively low).
I don't know the exact figures, so I'll approxamate (in other words, the figures Im quoting are inaccurate, im just demonstrating the principle).
If you make $12,000 dollars, you get a refundable rebate of, say, $300. Since you pay no taxes at that level, come april 14th you get a $300 dollar check in the mail.
Now here's the genius of the EITC. If you make more money, the credit goes up! so if you make, say $20,000, the rebate rises to $500. At a certain income the rebate stops rising, so at say $30,000 and up the rebate stays at $1,000 no matter what, and at that level you are already paying taxes which cut into the rebate.
Why is this so great? It simoltanously puts money the pockets of the lower class (acting as a both a stimulus and a sort of welfare) AND encourages work, b/c the rebate rises as income levels rise. Its the perfect program for the lower class.

I don't know much about the marriage penalty, but it strikes me as unfair. The Estate tax would do absolutely nothing as a stimulus, being targeted SOLELY to the richest 1% and being a legitimate tax in any event. How would it be a stimulus?


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 9:32 PM on January 5, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

More money to invest...taxing the assets of a person twice? Doesn't seem legitimate to me.

The EITC sounds like a good idea... I'd really have to look more into it. And I thought all liberals wanted to do was raise taxes and make up new ones...


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 9:41 PM on January 5, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hmm... the late 80s don't seem as bad as you say. The nation recovered from the 87 crash quickly and recession didn't materialize. Economic growth continued, umemployment dropping to a fourteen year low. Bush was elected on continuing economic prosperity of the Reagan administration, which you say did not happen.

Then in 1992, when Bush was up for re-election, the economy was on its way back up. But the media created an economic crisis that was not occurring and Clinton took advantage of it. Look in any encyclopedia or book...


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 11:55 PM on January 5, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The 1982 recession helped stop runaway inflation from the Carter administration. The economy picked back up in 1984 and started one of the longest periods of sustained economic growth in the history of the nation, inflation dropping to low levels including some not seen in decades, 13 million new jobs created from 1982-1987.

Reagan signed the most important tax reform bill in 75 years in his second term, supported widely by both Republicans and Democrats. This reform cut income taxes, simplified tax brackets, and closed loopholes, the poor being taxed much more fairly.

Both Democrats and Republicans refused to cut spending that was causing the national debt to soar. It got as high as 221 thousand million but lowered back down to 150 thousand million a year later.


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 12:09 AM on January 6, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So it's not all the Republicans fault that the national debt soared. In fact, Democrats were not only refusing to cut spending, they were trying to increase it. But both parties are to blame for the huge national debt.

Now I see why no one argues about this very much on TV and why no one challenges economic prosperity under Reagan... I think I crushed your earlier posts, lol.


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 12:13 AM on January 6, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If I am not mistaken Bush 1 ran against voodoo economics and won due to an atrocious Dukakis campaign.


RE: The efficacy of the reagan tax cut
FROM: The Progressive magazine
"Reagan-era economic policy did not work. Reductions in income taxes on the rich were followed by little increases in corporate investment. Rates of economic growth were slower than during the "big-government" sixties.

The Reagan administration ran up record deficits. Its hidden goal, like that of the Bush administration, was to "starve the beast" -- to shrink government so that the private sector has more power. "

FROM: The Candian Centre for Policy Alternatives
"These ideas [that tax cuts would pay for themselves due to increased productivity] were the centrepiece of Ronald Reagan successful campaign to win the White House. Tax revenues did increase after the Reagan tax cuts, but only after the economy came out of recession, and revenues increased by less than they would have in the absence of tax cuts. Meanwhile, the US economy underperformed CanadaÕs in the 1980s, US savings and investment rates fell, and the US national debt ballooned. "

FROM: Center for Budget Policy and Priorities 8/5/96
Those who claim that the Reagan tax cuts were a great success fail to distinguish between underlying economic growth rates on the one hand and the business cycle on the other. Why is this distinction important?

So any analysis of the relationship between income tax rates and economic growth must focus on the underlying rate of economic growth — such analyses must remove the booms and busts of the business cycle, discovering instead the underlying trends. Those who claim the Reagan tax cuts caused an increase in economic growth generally measure the economy from the depths of the recession in 1982 through to the next business cycle peak in 1989, concluding that the economy grew at an average annual rate of 3.8 percent. But they have been misled; showing that the economy recovered from the recession says nothing about whether the 1981 income tax cuts caused the underlying growth rate to be greater than it would otherwise have been. "
"economic growth rates have slowed from decade to decade; if income tax rates have made any difference to economic growth, that difference has been too small to be obvious. Specifically, the CBO data show that the underlying rate of annual economic growth was lower in the 1980s than the 1970s. It averaged 3.4 percent from 1969 to 1980, then slipped to 2.7 percent in the 1980s (not the 3.8 percent that comes from measuring from the depths of the recession in 1982), and is now projected at 2.1 percent. It is plausible that the underlying annual growth rate might have been slightly less than 2.7 percent in the 1980s were it not for the 1981 tax cut, but surely only slightly. "

RE: The earlier point that the current cut only created a deficit, but helped the economy tremendously.
From the CBPP 1/28/02
"The tax cuts that have already taken effect exert a positive effect on the economy in the short run. As one example, the rebates sent out in August and September provided timely stimulus to the economy; they helped boost consumer spending in a weak economy. (The early evidence, however, suggests the beneficial impact was likely to have been relatively modest. The evidence suggests that most households saved, rather than spent, the rebates.  
The tax cuts that are scheduled for future years and are not yet in effect exert a negative effect on the economy in the short run. About half of the long-term cost of the tax legislation takes effect after 2002, with nearly all of the provisions not now in effect scheduled to take effect in 2004 or years after that, a time well after the current recession is expected to have ended. These scheduled future tax cuts adversely affect the economy today because they immediately raise long-term interest rates and thereby increase the cost of business investment and home mortgages.

The increase in long-term interest rates occurs because financial markets recognize that, due to the tax cut, interest rates in the future will increase. There are two ways to see how the tax cut affects future interest rates. First, one effect of the tax cut is that the government will be saving less than it otherwise would (i.e., it will be running much smaller surpluses). As a consequence, the pool of saving available for investment will be reduced. Firms thus will compete for a smaller pool of investment funds. Due to the laws of supply and demand, this competition for a smaller pool of investment pushes up the price of borrowing these funds — that is, it raises future interest rates."

RE: Economy wasn't bad under Bush
here are some stats I found.
Unemployment rate
5.5% '88, 5.3% '89, 5.6% '90, 6.9% '91 7.5% '92.
GDP % change,
7.7% '88, 7.5% '89, 5.7% '90, 3.2% '91, 5.6% '92

As you can see, unempoyment rose 2 percentage points in the Bush administration, and GDP growth dropped 2.

The comeback kid is back!


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 01:09 AM on January 6, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I didn't get my information out of some think tank...I knew nothing was as bad as you said it was and that it wasn't all the Republicans fault, so I went and did my research.

Bush ran saying he'd continue the economic prosperity of the Reagan administration and that he'd impose no new taxes. He ended up having to that because Democrats and Republicans were still refusing to cut spending...which is probably why Clinton won. The economic situation was not so bad. High unemployment rate usually means it peaked to me...

My reasearch pointed out one recession, which began under Carter, that ended in 1984. From 1982-1987 they had one of the largest periods of sustained growth in the history of the country. It did, however, point out that that growth was being power by out of control spending, which both Democrats and Republicans refused to cut, the Democrats wanting even more spending. So it wasn't so much the fault of the Reagan Administration... they wanted to lower the deficit but no one else did.

You said people were losing jobs? 13 million new ones created from 1982-1987, lowest unemployment rate in fourteen years after the 87 crash, which the nation quickly recovered from.

The only thing I said about Reagan on taxes was that he signed the most important tx reform bill in 75 years.

All your sources seem to pin the soaring national debt on the Reagan Administration. No one would cut spedning, Democrats trying to increase it. They did cut it by about 70 thousand million near the end of his second term.

I think my information source may be a little more impartial than think tanks and policy institutes. It pointed out things that you pointed and that I pointed out. It said that it was prosperous time, but partly because of the soaring national debt that they tried to cut, but Congress wouldn't hear of it. It's done by some British reference company anyway...


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 10:58 AM on January 6, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"I Don't get MY research from think tanks!" Read: I don't get my research from intelligent unbiased sources. The CBPP is one of the most respected economic policy groups in America, and forgive me for trusting their judgment over yours. I will be the first to agree that policy groups have alignments on the lib-conserv spectrum, HOWEVER, they print out all their methodology so you can decide for yourself whether or not their points make sense. I have read reports by dozens of different economic policy groups as a debater, liberal and conservative. If I was to rank them by most intelligent analysis/commentary it would 1) CBPP 2) CATO institute 3) Economic Policy Institute (which has a terrible website but great info). Note that #2 (CATO) is one of the predominant conservative think tanks in america. I would say they are far LESS likely to be overtly and unfairly biased than you are. Who IS your information source anyway? you never cite it (outside now "some British reference company." That's REAL credible).

"From 1982-1987 they had one of the largest periods of sustained growth in the history of the country. It did, however, point out that that growth was being power by out of control spending." SPENDING! YES! Spending is good. tax cuts bad! I like spending to stimulate the economy, and that's good, but you can't have it both ways, spending and tax cuts. its unaffordable.

My Job loss stats were for the bush admin only, '88-'92. You say its ok b/c the rate "peaked." Oh, Bush launching unemployment to its highest level in years is a GOOD thing? that's news to me. It fell constantly under Clinton.

Then you say my only attack on Reagan's cuts was that it increased the debt size. I'll reprint some off the pertinant points I already wrote regarding that.
a) From CCPA: Tax revenues did increase after the Reagan tax cuts, but only after the economy came out of recession, and revenues increased by less than they would have in the absence of tax cuts. Meanwhile, the US economy underperformed CanadaÕs in the 1980s, US savings and investment rates fell, and the US national debt ballooned.
b) From The Progressive magazine: Reagan-era economic policy did not work. Reductions in income taxes on the rich were followed by little increases in corporate investment. Rates of economic growth were slower than during the "big-government" sixties.
c) From CBPP: the CBO data show that the underlying rate of annual economic growth was lower in the 1980s than the 1970s. It averaged 3.4 percent from 1969 to 1980, then slipped to 2.7 percent in the 1980s (not the 3.8 percent that comes from measuring from the depths of the recession in 1982), and is now projected at 2.1 percent. It is plausible that the underlying annual growth rate might have been slightly less than 2.7 percent in the 1980s were it not for the 1981 tax cut, but surely only slightly.

3 good attacks unbased on debt and deficit.

To Recap:
1) Bush 1 economy bad due to rise in unemployment (to its highest levels in years) and falling GDP growth%
2) Bush 2 tax cut bad due to only moderate stimulus now and negative effect of future tax cuts.
3) Reagan's economic policies "piggybacked" on an upward trend, but lowered growth compared to what it would have been.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 12:16 PM on January 6, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What's wrong with saying the rate peaked? I think that's a good thing... it can't go any higher...

I'm getting information out of an encyclopedia on this computer... I can tell by the spellings that and the accents in sound and video clips that it was done in Britain.

I don't think we're going to get anywhere. We're just shooting facts we already stated back at each other.


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 12:40 PM on January 6, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The plan the president announces tommorow is supposed to provide $1,100 in tax relief to middle-class Americans.


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 12:42 PM on January 6, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Reagan cut income taxes by 25%... wouldn't that help the economy?


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 12:57 PM on January 6, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is no "max unemployment rate." It can always go higher, and under Bush it continually did.

A british encyclopedia commented on american affairs doesn't carry the same weight with me as indepth policy analysis. sorry. encyclopedias are dumbed down for the masses anyway.

So far you haven't hit me with any facts except:
"Anyone will tell you that..."
or
"In any book it says that..."
You have managed to turn your one tertiary book into every book, when I have quoted from around 6 secondary sources to refute it. In the battle of evidence, I am winning.

And if this is the Bush plan I heard of, it will give a $75 boost to midclass folks.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 12:59 PM on January 6, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, it's not the first cut, it's the cut he announces tommorow.

In all the history books I've seen it does say that the media created an economic crisis that didn't exist in 1992... They say the ecomomy got better, including that encyclopedia. It told me that the economy began imppoving later in 1992. I'd think a high unemployment rate would be the peak... what was the rate for the next year? I looked, but all i could find was Clinton propaganda...

I didn't say books said that about the Reagan tax cuts. Liberal say it was bad, conservatives it was good, each with evidence to back their claims. But have you heard anyone say the economy wasn't good under Reagan? It was only bad at the beginning of his term (recession inherited from Carter) and at a point near the end of his term. Actually, that reminds me of Clinton. Inherits a recession, then gives a way an economy starting not to do so well, in the case of Clinton going into recession. I think both turned the situations into prosperous times for everyone, though in my opinion Clinton was helped by the Reagan tax cuts.


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 1:11 PM on January 6, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think your reading some of what I say wrong or misinterpreting me sometimes.


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 1:11 PM on January 6, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Clinton was helped by his own "targeted" middle class tax cuts.

Problems with the Reagan cuts:
EPInet (economic policy institute) "A Tale of Two Tax Cuts."
The Reagan experiment (1981-83)
In 1981, before the recession had begun, President Reagan convinced Congress to accept a three-year tax cut. He did not justify his proposal as a way of combating recession but claimed instead that it would stimulate the “supply side” of the economy by enhancing incentives to work, save, and invest. The tax cut was heavily weighted toward reducing the tax burden of higher-income taxpayers and corporations. Its impact was also delayed—very little of the cuts actually took effect in 1981.

A recession began in the fourth quarter of 1981, as unemployment rose from 7.4% to 8.2%. By the fourth quarter of 1982, the unemployment rate peaked at 10.7%. Between October 1981 and December 1982, the shrinkage in per capita GDP averaged 3.4% in annual terms. In 1981 the economy needed a stimulus, just as in 1974-75, but this time none was provided. In fact, the federal deficit as a percentage of GDP actually declined in 1981, due to increased revenues resulting from “bracket creep” in the individual income tax and from scheduled increases in the payroll tax for Social Security. Nor was any extension of unemployment benefits passed."

I don't contest the economy was good under Reagan, I just say it could have been better (see the pertinant posted CBPP report)

Unemployment rates under Clinton's first term (from data provided by Ohio State University)
'93 6.5%, '94 5.4%, '95 5.6%, '96 5.3%
Steep drop from Bush's rates
Oh and for the record, the recession started in 1981 and continued till '83. That is the problem with tax cuts aimed at the upper class (reagan passed his in '81), the effects are delayed if at all.

Now on to the current tax cut (the one Bush is about to propose).
The Washington Post of this morning 1/6/03 brought me up to speed here. Here is the headline and some pertinant snapshots.
"Analysis finds little gain in Tax-cut plan--2 economists assess divend proposal"

"Eliminating taxes on dividends paid to individuals, the centerpiece of President Bush's stimulus package, would do little to spur economic growth or reduce the nation's jobless rate, according to an analysis this weekend by two prominent economists.
Allen Sinai of Decision Economics and Andrew F. Brimmer, a former Federal Reserve Board member who heads a consulting firm, said that even a much broader combination of additional spending measures and tax cuts worth nearly $500 billion over the next five years would raise growth by only about a half-percentage point and reduce the unemployment rate by only one-tenth or two-tenths of a percentage point this year and next. "

"several [other economists] criticized the stimulus packages analyzed because they would lead to rising federal budget deficits. "

"Among the panel members expressing concern about future budget deficits was Alice Rivlin of the Brookings Institution, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office and a deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton.

"You need to be very careful that you do not create an unfixable problem in the long run" by reducing federal revenue, Rivlin said. In particular, she criticized another part of the Bush package -- speeding up cuts in personal income tax rates now due in 2004 and 2006 and making them permanent. "
"Making the tax cuts permanent doesn't do much to help the economy in the short run and leaves policymakers a hell of a hole to climb out of in 2012," she said.

Economist George Von Furstenburg of Indiana University sharply criticized the plan to cut taxes when the country has been hit with what he called "a permanent spending shock" from the terrorist attacks in September 2001. With federal spending going up to improve homeland security and probably to cover the cost of a war with Iraq, the Bush administration should take immediate steps "to stabilize tax rates to cover that spending," he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14740-2003Jan5.html

Wow, look at the benefits go....

Here are the differences between Reagan and Clinton's situations.
I don't know where you are getting the idea that Reagan 'inheirted' the recession from Carter. I just showed you an article stating that recession didn't start until 1981. That same article, incidentally, traces the early recession back to the Ford admin, but Ford actually did the right thing about it (tax cuts for the middle class). Clinton did inheirt a, well let's call it a poor economic environment (falling gdp% increase, rising unemployment) b/c we can't say recession w/out you going back to your unknown textbooks again. From that situation what happened? Reagan had an economic collapse from '81-'83, then rode the business cycle back to good health. But he didn't stimulate the economy as much as it could have been. Clinton immediately stabilized the economy, and sent it off on a huge boom, comparable to the roaring 20s. No recession to start his first 2 years, and definitely he moved the economy higher than it would have been under normal business conditions.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 4:14 PM on January 6, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What I'm reading from said that the recession lasted five years... 1978-1983 I guess. I suppose that may be wrong.

I just read somewhere else that economic growth under Regan was higher than between 1970- 1981 and 1988-1996. Those numbers could be off a few years either wya because I'm going by memory. Reducing the tax burden for everyone by 25% did nothing? Did Reagan not double federal revenues to one trillion dollars in his eight years?

Ari said the average American family would gain over a thousand dollars in tax relief with the new stimulus package.


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 7:12 PM on January 6, 2003 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.