Supply-Side Economics

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Not only that, Whell conveniently fails to mention that Reagan also significantly raised taxes after deficits ballooned following his tax cut:

After Reagan's first year in office, the annual deficit was 2.6% of gross domestic product. But it hit a high of 6% in 1983, stayed in the 5% range for the next three years, and fell to 3.1% by 1988...

So, despite his public opposition to higher taxes, Reagan ended up signing off on several measures intended to raise more revenue.

"Reagan was certainly a tax cutter legislatively, emotionally and ideologically. But for a variety of political reasons, it was hard for him to ignore the cost of his tax cuts," said tax historian Joseph Thorndike.

Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together "constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime."

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news...axes/index.htm

Uh, no.


Top rate on regular income when Reagan took office was over 69%. When he left, it was 28%. Capital gains - you know, that tax that the rich guys pay - went from 23.7% in 1980 to 28% when he left.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Uh, no.


Top rate on regular income when Reagan took office was over 69%. When he left, it was 28%. Capital gains - you know, that tax that the rich guys pay - went from 23.7% in 1980 to 28% when he left.

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

According to a 2003 Treasury study, the tax cuts in the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 resulted in a significant decline in revenue relative to a baseline without the cuts, approximately $111 billion (in 1992 dollars) on average during the first four years after implementation or nearly 3% GDP annually.

During Reagan's presidency, the national debt grew from $997 billion in FY1981 to $2.85 trillion in FY1989. This led to the U.S. moving from the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation. Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan...t_expenditures

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. There's no question that tax cuts and/or spending (both are considered tax expenditures by economists, BTW) can stimulate the economy. However, there's also no question that they add to the deficit when financed with debt. Republicans have sold gullible ideologues (i.e., people like you) the notion that that you can simultaneously reduce taxes and pay for additional spending by revenue generated by tax cuts. It's sophistry, plain and simple regardless of how appealing the idea of a free lunch is.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Republicans have sold gullible ideologues (i.e., people like you) the notion that that you can simultaneously reduce taxes and pay for additional spending by revenue generated by tax cuts. It's sophistry, plain and simple regardless of how appealing the idea of a free lunch is.

Of course, one month does not a trend make, but OOOPS! We ran a SURPLUS in January.

https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsre...mt/mts0118.pdf

[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.