What Would Carter Have Done Differently?

But on this debt issue, I think the important thing to remember is that Reagan really had two higher priorities than balancing the budget. One was to put America back to work again. I mean people forget that in the late 1970s and early 1980s we were in a mini-depression. The unemployment rate was 8 percent. I mentioned the high inflation. Most Americans really felt that there was something fundamentally wrong with America. Jimmy Carter had given a speech in August of 1980 where he said that America was in a decline and that we couldn't get out of this problem of joblessness and high inflation.

Reagan really restored the faith in the private sector economy to grow. So I think that the price we paid for those high deficits was to win the Cold War and to rebuild our economy with 15 million new jobs that were created in the 1980s and certainly Robert Reich as labor secretary under Clinton respects that kind of job growth.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, do you?

ROBERT REICH: Undoubtedly I respect job growth. In the 1990s when Bill Clinton became president, I was with him. We faced a huge mountain of debt...

Full Interview

 

We often hear criticizm of Reagnomics because of the huge deficits. But his defenders will point out that in order for Reagan to turn around the economy he inherited from the Carter 70's and to defeat the Soviet Union he needed to do what he did with the economy and military spending. Both of which did have some benefit to the economy and did contribute to the Soviet Union collapsing.

My question is had Jimmy Carter been re-elected in 1980 what would he had done differently from Reagan to turn around the bad shape the economy was in during the late 70's and to contribute to the Soviet Union collapsing without a war?

Wouldn't Carter also have needed to cut that 70% tax on high income earners like Reagan did to turn around the economy? Wouldn't he also have needed to increase U.S military spending to contribute to the Soviets bankrupting themselves into collapsing like Reagan did? If not, then militarily what would Carter have done differently in relation to the Soviets had he been re-elected?

 

Yes, there is still job growth.

Unfortunately, most new jobs are not happening here in the U.S.
They are being created overseas.

 

Where?

 

Looking at job growth is deceiving. Do you want a job or to earn a living? You can earn a living at a job, working for someone else, but you can also do so doing something you like that might be helping yourself, your community and the world. I don't see why people get excited about job growth and then wake up Monday morning grumbling about having to go to their job.

 

I'd like to see at least a 70% tax on the wealthy. Yeah, really. Hit em HARD. Make the whiny bastards cry.

I remember meeting someone once who paid 70% of their family income to taxes, and he was a very happy man, and regarded that as a very fair and reasonable tax. I'll never forget the speech he gave about it, wording approximate:

"I still have enough left over to spend and travel. I live in a country that's at peace, that is a shining example to the world in human rights. We have no crime to speak of, so you never have to even give that a thought. We have great education, and if you need medical care you simply go get it. Our inner cities are safe, fun, and that's where people want to live. I like it far better here than the USA, and it's simply the best deal on the planet for a quality life. Seventy percent taxes for this? It's a steal and a deal. I wouldn't trade it for life in America again, and I don't even like traveling here to visit."

 

who was that crazy rich man SunLion? 70% is just way too much and really i'd like to see all income taxes disappear. right now the rich pay a lower percent of income than all the rest. Clinton lowered their rate to 22 from 30%. Bush lowered further to 17%.

 

This gives some clarity on "tax cuts for the rich" in America.


Kerry's Tax Ad: Literally Accurate, But Misleading


Updated: November 8, 2004

His ad says "the middle class is paying a bigger share of America's tax burden." True. But it's a smaller burden all around. And the richest still pay the most.

And the overall system remains progressive, with upper-income groups paying significantly both higher rates and a higher share of the overall burden than lower-income groups...

Factcheck.org

 

the "evil" rich already pay more of a % than any other class.

The richest 1% int he country have roughly 17% of the income but pay roughly 37% of the federal taxes, the top 20% pay nearly 80% and you want to tax them more?

I would argue they already pay their "fair share", it is our greedy govt who wants/needs the money to fund much of their ill advised spending. Instead of raising taxes, look at how those taxes are spent. Billions could be cut from every angle of govt.

 

people who get rich do not pay tax this is how they get rich

 

the figures i've read state that the richest 1% have about 50% of all income.

the people with money have influence in our gov't and are having laws passed and favors given in order to help themselves to the public trough.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth


Those are stats for the world, not the us. These include many countries where a very select few amount of people own much more, where there is no middle class.

I am trying to find united states breakdown but of course all stats i find are from an either right or left wing site and i would like a more official total.

 

I work at a company owned buy a rich man. If he were taxed to highly he would have to close up the shop and put around 70 people out of work.

 

remember

all profit is private

all debt is public

 

Well most of the rich in America do pay their taxes. This is one reason some countries have adopted flat taxes. With progressive taxation the rich will always find loopholes for their taxes. With a flat tax there is less of a problem with the rich avoiding paying their taxes because the flat taxes are usually low and the tax system is simple.

 

Who knows what Carter would have done. Reagan and cronies pulled off Iran Contra and got elected, much as this war in Iraq was founded on lies.

 

A rich man and he only has 70 employees?

 

smiles

tax is something levied on the poor, the rich do not pay much tax, no matter what tax system is put in place. who do you think makes all these tax rules? is it the same people who decide that america doesn't need a free medical system? i wonder why?

i admire your enthusiasm

 

Even tho the top 1% pay 29% OF THE TAXES.

 

Well, maybe not rich rich, but enough to have a $10M+ per year company.