Saw this somewhere last night...

[nathanm]

The current GOP has defined their conservatism with their social issues.  In that vein, the GOP has become far more conservative.  In fiscal terms Reagan wouldn't recognized all these "Reagan Conservatives" who have been blowing money like drunken sailors since 2001. 

During Reagan's term, the national debt almost tripled. I think he'd feel right at home with the deficit spending, especially since the deficits were caused mainly by military adventures and tax cuts, just as his were. There was no massive tax increase on the poor and middle class under Bush, though, so he might be a little miffed about that bit.

[AquaMan]

Look I get it, I'm young (30) and don't have first hand knowledge of this stuff. But I understand how things work too. I get what political parties are for and why they are a huge threat to our freedoms. But what I don't get is how the Republican party (for lack of a better name) is considered more radically conservative than ever (when they have been saying that since way before the Tea Party, Bachman, etc. mind you), when most of the policies at the federal level have been more big government than ever. Sure there are some outliers and stupid legislation, but I would contend that stupidity knows no political party. And just because you guys say its true doesn't make it so.

And I understand we live in Oklahoma so the issue may be more pronounced here, so maybe that's it. I just find it hard to believe that the party that has been labeled too conservative for at least the last 25 or 30 years and still keeps getting its members elected, is really too conservative at all.

Edit:

Again, I am not trying to be ignorant or rude. This is just my perspective. I've been wrong before, I could be wrong now. But nothing (again, in my opinion) has shown me otherwise. Maybe it's because I don't really care about the social issues so I just tune them out. Maybe?

You're being a good sport about all this. Its just a hard argument to sustain. To make your point you would have to strictly define what a real conservative is all about and do so in a way that transcends time periods. A conservative in 1964 is way different than a conservative from say, the 1930's or the 1970's. Then you would have to make the argument that, time differences aside, conservatives became more liberal....after you define Liberal with the same constraints.

Instead of asking us to find a reason why your proposition is untrue, how about you telling us why it is true? Deficit budgets? It wouldn't be that. Reagan ran them hard. Lower taxation? Maybe but you haven't made that case. Social Security? Privatization isn't becoming liberal.

So, knock yourself out!

[erfalf]

During Reagan's term, the national debt almost tripled. I think he'd feel right at home with the deficit spending, especially since the deficits were caused mainly by military adventures and tax cuts, just as his were. There was no massive tax increase on the poor and middle class under Bush, though, so he might be a little miffed about that bit.

At least we partially agree on something.

[erfalf]

You're being a good sport about all this. Its just a hard argument to sustain. To make your point you would have to strictly define what a real conservative is all about and do so in a way that transcends time periods. A conservative in 1964 is way different than a conservative from say, the 1930's or the 1970's. Then you would have to make the argument that, time differences aside, conservatives became more liberal....after you define Liberal with the same constraints.

Fair enough. So if you compare rhetoric, yes, some of the loons today seem far more right wing than Reagan (drink). But if you compare things Republicans have actually done, it paints a far different picture. And for that matter, go and listen to several of Reagan's (drink) speeches. They would be right up the alley of any red blooded Tea Partier.

That being said, since Reagan, we have had a couple of wars in Iraq, one in Afghanistan, plus several other skirmishes. The tax rate on the top bracket is up 25%, although the rate on the lowest bracket is down 33%. How many social programs have been expanded under Republican supervision? Too many to county. Spending in general has been getting out of control for some time, and I really don't see any of the so-called "radicals" doing anything to change that. Personally I think our own Senator Coburn is probably the most ardent in this respect and I don't know anyone who would call him a radical.

Instead of asking us to find a reason why your proposition is untrue, how about you telling us why it is true? Deficit budgets? It wouldn't be that. Reagan ran them hard. Lower taxation? Maybe but you haven't made that case. Social Security? Privatization isn't becoming liberal.
So, knock yourself out!

Again, what they say and what they do are two totally different things. You seem to think politicians of the past wouldn't be able to play the game like they do today. I think you would be mistaken.

[heironymouspasparagus]

How so? I understand you're not a mean guy and you don't want to just call me nieve or stupid or whatever, but your patronization isn't much better. I understand that Republicans have been called extreme for quit some time now, yet the party (from my perspective mind you) appears to be moving in a more liberal direction (at least by what they actually do, not what they say). I don't want a simple, you don't get it. answer.

Not being patronizing - am harping about what I harp about all the time...well, one of the many things I harp about...we have no sense or knowledge of history and how it has affected where we are and where we are heading.  And no real information about the background surrounding that history.  Some of my past posts do actually answer some of this.  I will try to give you more.  I don't pretend to know all of history, but I make it a point to learn something new every day if possible.  It is a never ending process.

You are young, energetic, full of enthusiasm and drive, probably some professional career (business major?) - what I am getting at is to broaden the scope and apply some of that energy to finding out more background information.   

A couple of quick examples of how the Republican's have so totally lost it - have been hijacked by extreme rightists - goes to the "gold standard."  There has been a low level 'commotion' about the gold standard for pretty much my entire life.  Fringe elements want to go back to it with a complete ignorance of what that might mean.  There would be a large number of side effects if this were really attempted, ALL of them bad.  But one little thing to think about is the FACT that there is an extremely limited amount of gold in the world.  It is currently parsed between jewelry, industrial, antiquities, government stockpiles, and "preppers".  There are likely other areas, but these should cover the big chunks.

The total amount ever mined in the history of the world and at least partially available for use is, at today's prices worth somewhere in the $6 trillion dollars, plus or minus.  And we are at or near world record prices.  So what the Republicans are saying is that they want to limit the entire world domestic product to 6 trillion.  And that would grow the economy how??  And to the specious reply that gold would just go up in value - well, yes, it would.  That's what happens when there are too many units of currency - dollars - 'chasing' too few goods - gold.  And that would happen faster than the changeover to gold standard due to speculation. 

So how would massive hyperinflation 'help' create jobs?  Probably about the same way more tax cuts for the richest will create jobs and cut the debt.

Second thing we have touched on here is Ayn Rand - as I have mentioned, the "gateway drug".  The extreme rightists embrace her one point about the individual being able to determine their own life direction better than anyone else (a point I happen to agree with VERY strongly) and then put the lie to their whole premise by their attempts to intrude into the private lives of people in MUCH more direct ways than pretty much anything I have seen/heard from the extreme leftists.


On last little thing goes to the debt/deficit.  I don't remember you explicitly saying that Obama's budgets have increased the deficit, but there are those here who have made those assertions - mouthing the platitudes and plaintive bleats of Rupert Murdoch, Inc.  In actual fact - one of the things Obama also promised was to cut the deficit in half during first term.  Bush's last year the increase in debt year over year (the true deficit) was about $1.9 trillion.  Projections I see, since we aren't there yet are saying about $1.1 trillion.  By anybody's calculation (except for the extreme rightists) that is a substantial reduction.  Maybe not quite half, but certainly close enough to show serious progress.  And that has been pretty much all by "cuts" to increases (even with the huge tax cuts the middle class got in 2009!  You do know about those, don't you?) - shows that the economy IS slowly growing into it's new "skin"...another lie the ER would have you believe.  And now we are at the point where the only way to make further progress is to increase revenue - in this case, let the Bush cuts expire.

And you should also look at what the tax cut/increase cycle has been in this country so you can understand how EVERY single regime except for Baby Bush understood how to perform these manipulations to address downturns and maximize the 'rebound' at each previous recession for over 70 years.  Another one of those "sense and knowledge" of history things....

[heironymouspasparagus]

And I understand we live in Oklahoma so the issue may be more pronounced here, so maybe that's it. I just find it hard to believe that the party that has been labeled too conservative for at least the last 25 or 30 years and still keeps getting its members elected, is really too conservative at all.

Again, I am not trying to be ignorant or rude. This is just my perspective. I've been wrong before, I could be wrong now. But nothing (again, in my opinion) has shown me otherwise. Maybe it's because I don't really care about the social issues so I just tune them out. Maybe?

People as a whole tend to move to being more conservative when they are afraid - whatever the source of fear.  That is just a natural reaction - part of "fight or flight", I suspect.

And Rupert Murdoch, Inc and his minions have been fanning the flames of fear at a ferocious pace for the last 30 + years.

[AquaMan]

Fair enough. So if you compare rhetoric, yes, some of the loons today seem far more right wing than Reagan (drink). But if you compare things Republicans have actually done, it paints a far different picture. And for that matter, go and listen to several of Reagan's (drink) speeches. They would be right up the alley of any red blooded Tea Partier.

That being said, since Reagan, we have had a couple of wars in Iraq, one in Afghanistan, plus several other skirmishes. The tax rate on the top bracket is up 25%, although the rate on the lowest bracket is down 33%. How many social programs have been expanded under Republican supervision? Too many to county. Spending in general has been getting out of control for some time, and I really don't see any of the so-called "radicals" doing anything to change that. Personally I think our own Senator Coburn is probably the most ardent in this respect and I don't know anyone who would call him a radical.

Again, what they say and what they do are two totally different things. You seem to think politicians of the past wouldn't be able to play the game like they do today. I think you would be mistaken.

Incorrect inferences aside, I can't understand why you aren't trying to prove your thesis. If the failure of Republicans to convince the electorate and their compadres (boo...Spanish reference!) that their ideas are worthy of passage, is your argument, then no. Its a fail.

What they believe and what they are able to put into practice are two different things. The conservatives have failed to make alliances that accomplished their ideology and that makes you think they have become more liberal.  They failed to make those alliances because they have increasingly become belligerant and unable to effect compromise. Their answer to that is two-fold:
     (1.) to seek total control of the three branches, then force our medicine down our throats and
     (2) to take control of state legislatures and governorships and assert the age old "states rights" ideology. 

Its a classic pincers movement from above and below. I don't believe its going to work. I pray it doesn't work.

[nathanm]

The tax rate on the top bracket is up 25%, although the rate on the lowest bracket is down 33%.

When you say it's "up 25%" when you're talking about a rate it makes it sound like it went from 28% to 52%.

Of course, in reality, the average tax rate at the upper end of the income tax distribution has declined quite dramatically since the 1986 act, owing to all the loopholes opened up since then, not the least of which is the preferential tax treatment for long term capital gains, which in the 1986 act were taxed as regular income.

Conversely, the total tax paid by those at the bottom of the income distribution has increased as a proportion of their income, despite the lowering of the headline rate.

I think we can both agree that the tax code needs to be replaced, although I doubt we'd agree on what it should be replaced with.

[heironymouspasparagus]

That being said, since Reagan, we have had a couple of wars in Iraq, one in Afghanistan, plus several other skirmishes. The tax rate on the top bracket is up 25%, although the rate on the lowest bracket is down 33%.

Just gotta ask - will probably regret it...where did you come up with that nonsense??  Drudge?

[erfalf]

Just gotta ask - will probably regret it...where did you come up with that nonsense??  Drudge?

I assume you are referring to the tax rate info.

Well:

1988 highest bracket: 28%
2012 highest bracket: 35% up 28%

1988 lowest bracket: 15%
2012 lowest bracket: 10% down 50%

[erfalf]

I think we can both agree that the tax code needs to be replaced, although I doubt we'd agree on what it should be replaced with.

Probably not, but I think we would both be how shocked on how much we might have in common if we were to really hash something out.

That's the thing, I think most non-political people could really come to common sense solutions that are feasable. But maybe it's just me being neive?

[AquaMan]

I assume you are referring to the tax rate info.

Well:

1988 highest bracket: 28%
2012 highest bracket: 35% up 28%

1988 lowest bracket: 15%
2012 lowest bracket: 10% down 50%

I know I'm losing some of my math skills. But isn't a decrease from 15% to 10% really a 33 1/3% decrease? Unless you use the decrease as a percentage of the final rate.  The highest tax bracket only went up 25% not 28.

Either way the % is fairly useless. No one at the higher tax brackets would dare pay that much unless they are unaware of tax accountants. And, the resulting increase/decrease of tax revenue would be the only meaninful measure.

IOW, if the 25% increase really amounted to a net decrease in real collected revenues while unemployment at the lower levels actually resulted in less collected revenues from that bracket, your'e just spinning.

You are spinning aren't you?

[Red Arrow]

I know I'm losing some of my math skills. But isn't a decrease from 15% to 10% really a 33 1/3% decrease? Unless you use the decrease as a percentage of the final rate.  The highest tax bracket only went up 25% not 28.

I think your calculator skills are still OK. I agree with using the starting value for a percentage change.  The fun thing is using  percentages to one's advantage for talking points.  An increase in a tax rate of 10% to 15% is a 50% increase but to drop the rates back to 10% would only be the 33.3% decrease you noted.  So, if you only look at percentage change, it would appear (to the unknowing) that taxes would still be higher than originally by 50-33.3 = 16.7%.  

Adding to the confusion is (what I have been told) the correct way to evaluate mark-up (or maybe it was "profit").  If you buy something for $100 then mark it up by $10, the mark-up is only (10/110)x100 = 9.09%.  In this case, the final value is used.

Edit:

Erflaf actually got the numbers correct in his first shot:

« Reply #33 on: August 30, 2012, 07:23:50 am »
The tax rate on the top bracket is up 25%, although the rate on the lowest bracket is down 33%.

[Red Arrow]

That being said, since Reagan, we have had a couple of wars in Iraq, one in Afghanistan, plus several other skirmishes. The tax rate on the top bracket is up 25%, although the rate on the lowest bracket is down 33%.

Just gotta ask - will probably regret it...where did you come up with that nonsense??  Drudge?

You and Nathan both love to abuse percentages.  It makes for some interesting discussions but is also why I distrust any of either of your numbers.

[erfalf]

I honestly wasn't trying to be misleading by using percentages. And I had a moment this morning where I apprently lost all my math skills. I can't use dollar value, they don't mean anything. I could have used the number of percentage point changes, but I thought it more appropriate to show percentage change, since larger changes are often harder to get done in government.