Steve_American wrote:Like a typical right winger, you accuse me of lying with figures, while doing it your self.
Yet, of course, you cannot cite a single instance when I "lied with figures"? Of course not. Because I never have.
In 1983 Reagan raised FICA taxes by almost 100%. So, when you say "tax revenues" increases did you mean income tax revenues or all tax revenues?
Immediately after accusing me of being dishonest, you immediately launch into attacking me on a point I have never discussed. This is the epitome of dishonesty.
If the bank can make a loan, it wasn't constrained.
The fact that the bank had to take a loan to make a loan shows that it was constrained.
This image shows 2 things.
1] Averaged over Reagan's 8 years he had 5% inflation in each year. Is it any surprise that tax revenues went up after his income tax curs? I think not.
2] Oils prices were around $32/barrel for the 1st 5 years and then dropped to about $16/barrel for the last 3 years. These high oil prices meant that the US Gov. had to pay a lot for oil/gas. Compare these prices to the 70s. Until 1973 they were about $3/b, then in '74 jumped to $11/b and increased to $14 over the next 5 years. Then they jumped again in '79 to $22/b, and reached $37/b in '80.
Unless your argument is that inflation increased over decreases in tax cuts, which is impossible, then yes, I call BS on your figures.
The only ways Reagan spent more money that I remember were a) he increased the size of the US Navy, and b) had to spend more on everything because of inflation. But, I may not remember all the ways Reagan increased spending.
Your remembrances mean nothing. His expenditures went up every year OVER increased revenues. No source disputes this fact, so if you disagree, you're simply stupid.
This may be my last reply because I'm sick of shooting down his attempts to dispute my claim.
You have yet to shoot down a single claim. But if you ever TRY, I'll let you know.
I repeat the corrected claim for the lurkers. I admitted that my sources had combined the CARES Act spending with the actions of the Fed. Res. that had bought US bonds, corp. bonds , and even corp. stock shares to make sure that the stock market didn't crash. The Feds actions were actually larger that the CARES Act. But, Wolvenbear has ignored my correction and claimed that I had moved the goalposts for the last 3 or 4 replies. So, yes I moved them as soon as he made his 1st reply. Now, he s refusing to give any credit for my doing that. He keeps repeating numbers that relate only to the CARES Act.
. . . Maybe he doesn't grok that the Fed. Res. bank isnot independent. That the Gov. (Treasury Sec.) can give it suggestions or orders. That the Gov., therefore, includes the Fed. n any case, Repubs in Congress were well are of promises made by the Fed. Chairman to "do whatever is necessary" in the pandemic.
Now, he points out that "small business" has a strange definition. It is "fewer than 500 employees". My definition would be more like fewer than 50 employees, for my thinking in this pandemic of what businesses that needed the relief the most. For me a corp. with 400 employees is a large business. Therefore, I don't accept that the CARES Act was written well. I'm not able to research to see what part of the $18 B to $45 B (of the $500B authorized) actually spent under the PPP part of the CARES Act went to corps I would call small. medium size or large, let alone 'huge'. About $100M *seems* to have gone the Trimp and his family.
So, in short, "I had no idea what I was talking about. Wolvenbear repeatedly corrected me. I have been wrong on every single point I have argued, but ignore it because I am too lazy or stupid to look stuff up before I argue it. Is that about the long and short of your argument, you dishonest hack?
You have spent this entire post backpedalling from one stupid assertion to another. You have made a dozen incorrect claims, which have all been disproven, yet, dispite being proven wrong, you insist you are still correct. What am I missing here?