Supply-Side Economics

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Read and learn, Grasshopper.

The Economic Recovery Act of 1981, also known as the Reagan tax cuts, was the biggest reduction in U.S. taxes of the past 70 years, possibly even the biggest ever. That much is reasonably well-known.

What is less well-known is that these cuts were then followed by a series of tax increases that, if you add them all together, were almost as big as or even bigger than the 1981 cuts, depending on the measure you use.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...s-of-1982-1993

You do realize that you're mixing apples and oranges here, don't you? I'm talking about income tax rates on earnings. The the Tax Reform Act of 1986 changes actually did some things that liberals wanted, such as closing come loopholes favored by "the rich". That's why it was a tax law sponsored by Dems. What the TRA really was, IMHO, was a deal with the devil. Reagan wanted further tax law simplification and made a bipartisan deal with the Dems to get it. In typical lefty fashion, that law is now used like an albatross to hang around Reagan's neck.

Originally Posted by finnbow

The bottom line is that supply-side economics has never once delivered what conservatives have promised - that tax cuts pay for themselves and that tax cuts for the wealthy equally benefit the poor.

Except that no one is saying that. There you go, arguing with yourself again.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Except that no one is saying that. There you go, arguing with yourself again.

BS. That's exactly what supply-side dogma is. Moreover, you said much the same thing in support of the $1.5 trillion tax cut.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

BS. That's exactly what supply-side dogma is. Moreover, you said much the same thing in support of the $1.5 trillion tax cut.

No, I didn't. That was you putting words in my mouth. I guess you're starting to believe your own bullshit.

Go back and look at post 9 in this thread. There will need to be spending reductions. Trump is attempting to do what Reagan could not in obtaining these spending reductions. I've said that same thing in this forum in many threads. In fact, it has been YOU arguing in many threads that spending reductions are not possible.

We will need spending reductions, and such reductions are long overdue.

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by whell

We will need spending reductions, and such reductions are long overdue.

When the Repubes finally do cripple Medicare, you’re 80 and there’s no safety net to help cover your mounting medical costs, maybe you’ll finally wake up. You’re not terribly bright, so I have my doubts.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

No, I didn't. That was you putting words in my mouth. I guess you're starting to believe your own bullshit.

Go back and look at post 9 in this thread. There will need to be spending reductions. Trump is attempting to do what Reagan could not in obtaining these spending reductions. I've said that same thing in this forum in many threads. In fact, it has been YOU arguing in many threads that spending reductions are not possible.

We will need spending reductions, and such reductions are long overdue.

Your boy, Lying Donnie Dotard, just signed a budget bill that increased spending for social programs and then released a budget that does the exact opposite. In any event, if you knew anything about how Washington works (and you don't), you'd realize Trump's budget proposal is DOA, just as his budget proposal from last year was. Moreover, the deal he struck last week increases DoD funding beyond what Trump even wanted and his new budget proposal greatly increases defense spending. How's that for spending reductions?

Your Dear Leader made a campaign promise to eliminate the national debt in 8 years and now his own Treasury plans to borrow $1 trillion per year for the next 3 years and independent estimates show his budget will result in annual deficits of ~$2 trillion per year within 10 years.

As for me putting words in your mouth, you've been singing the praises of supply-side economics for months, repeating the ridiculous myth that tax cuts pay for themselves. Do you wish to renounce your previous defense of supply-side economics now that you see what a Republican President, House and Senate are doing to the deficit by their implementation of this discredited dogma?

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Your boy, Lying Donnie Dotard, just signed a budget bill that increased spending for social programs and then released a budget that does the exact opposite.

So did Obama, Bush 2, Clinton, Bush 1.....etc. Show me a Prez budget that has ever been adopted. The budgets are a framework for discussions but will never be passed as is and everyone knows it....well, except for you I guess.

Originally Posted by finnbow

As for me putting words in your mouth, you've been singing the praises of supply-side economics for months, repeating the ridiculous myth that tax cuts pay for themselves.

I've been singling the praises of the current round of tax reductions because they are necessary. You throw around terms like "supply side economics" but the definition has been corrupted and used out of context, and folks like you likely get it wrong on purpose just so you can turn the idea into a straw dog that you can kick around.

"Supply side economics" was a theory SOME of what was done in the Reagan era. However, to say that "Reaganomics" = supply side economics is sophistry. But that's exactly what you and your WaPo drivel in the OP is trying to convey.

So, either you and WaPo don't know what the hell you're talking about or you're being a lying sack of crap. Doesn't matter to me which one it is.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

So did Obama, Bush 2, Clinton, Bush 1.....etc. Show me a Prez budget that has ever been adopted. The budgets are a framework for discussions but will never be passed as is and everyone knows it....well, except for you I guess. ...

I've been singling the praises of the current round of tax reductions because they are necessary...

"Supply side economics" was a theory SOME of what was done in the Reagan era. However, to say that "Reaganomics" = supply side economics is sophistry.

This doesn't square with your several comments about how Trump is attempting to reduce spending. I'd call it very charitable to characterize his ridiculous budget proposal as a serious attempt at anything...

The rest of your post is simply bullshit. Huge tax cuts are needed in a robust economy, that despite its robustness, is still running huge deficits? You're a complete idiot when it comes to matters economic.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

This doesn't square with your several comments about how Trump is attempting to reduce spending. I'd call it very charitable to characterize his ridiculous budget proposal as a serious attempt at anything...

Sure it does, if you're not suffering from near-sightedness. The book on whether there will or will not be significant budget reductions hasn't been written yet. Hell, VOX is freaking out about "shocking cuts" in the recent budget proposal, but even Vox can figure out that a lot of what's in the budget proposal isn't going to become reality.

Originally Posted by finnbow

The rest of your post is simply bullshit. Huge tax cuts are needed in a robust economy, that despite its robustness, is still running huge deficits? You're a complete idiot when it comes to matters economic.

Yeah, your fellow travels in the mainstream press are screaming about this, but let 'em scream. Hell, I encourage them to scream. Its awesome to hear the left scream about budget deficits, even if they only do it when a Repub is in office. I'll be more interested to see what comes out of Congress over the next few months. I suspect there will be some compromises about the Dreamer issue, which will allow the Dems to not bitch too much about budget reductions. But I strongly suspect there will be substantive proposals for budget reductions forthcoming. And if there aren't, I'll be right there screaming with you, Finn....just without the girly voice.