Political Forums  

Go Back   Political Forums > Economy

We appreciate your help

in keeping this site going.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-12-2018, 07:44 AM
finnbow's Avatar
finnbow finnbow is offline
Reformed Know-Nothing
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 21,961
Supply-Side Economics

Here's an interesting, informative piece spelling out the intellectual bankruptcy of supply-side economics:

Modern conservatism is built around the promise of supply-side economics ó an economic philosophy that claimed to allow Republicans to cut taxes, maintain popular social programs, robustly fund defense and balance the budget. The problem: Supply-side economics hasnít actually worked as promised, but the GOP refuses to abandon it.

And that, more than hypocrisy, is the real problem facing Republicans ó they have principles; those principles just donít work.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ed-principles/
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-12-2018, 10:50 AM
whell's Avatar
whell whell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 11,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow View Post
Here's an interesting, informative piece spelling out the intellectual bankruptcy of supply-side economics:

Modern conservatism is built around the promise of supply-side economics ó an economic philosophy that claimed to allow Republicans to cut taxes, maintain popular social programs, robustly fund defense and balance the budget. The problem: Supply-side economics hasnít actually worked as promised, but the GOP refuses to abandon it.

And that, more than hypocrisy, is the real problem facing Republicans ó they have principles; those principles just donít work.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ed-principles/
They type of factually challenged article that you'd expect from WaPo. Bravo.


The article conveniently forgets that the primary reason the deficit "exploded" was spending. As your favorite paper was at least capable of noticing at the time:

For each of the past several years, President Reagan has sent a new budget to Capitol Hill, and Congress has promptly pronounced it DOA -- dead on arrival.

This year, with the drama over the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings balanced-budget act beginning, the early reaction is different: Most Republicans as well as Democrats have declared the administration's budget DBA -- dead before arrival.


As the article goes on to detail, year after year CONGRESS refused to give up their favorite pet spending programs, even after being elected to Congress with promises to reduce spending. Yet, revenues dramatically increased each year:

FY 1989 - $991 billion
FY 1988 - $909 billion
FY 1987 - $854 billion
FY 1986 - $769 billion
FY 1985 - $734 billion
FY 1984 - $666 billion
FY 1983 - $601 billion
FY 1982 - $618 billion
FY 1981 - $599 billion
FY 1980 - $517 billion

https://www.thebalance.com/current-u...evenue-3305762
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-12-2018, 11:52 AM
Dondilion's Avatar
Dondilion Dondilion is offline
Jigsawed
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,636
Republicans' sacred love of military spending has always undermined whatever program/policy they undertook.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-12-2018, 12:18 PM
finnbow's Avatar
finnbow finnbow is offline
Reformed Know-Nothing
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 21,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell View Post
They type of factually challenged article that you'd expect from WaPo. Bravo.

The article conveniently forgets that the primary reason the deficit "exploded" was spending...
Reading comprehension has never been your strong suit. The whole point of the article is that Republicans cut taxes while raising spending somehow believing that the tax cuts will somehow pay for the increased spending (which, of course, it never has), just as they're doing now. From the article:

As president, he signed it into law with the 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act, which pushed through a 25 percent reduction in the marginal tax rate for individuals over three years. At the same time, Reagan spearheaded a massive military buildup that skyrocketed defense spending...

President George W. Bush showed that his father’s breed of Republicanism was out: Aided by a Republican Congress, he undid this balanced budget, passing two huge tax cuts despite starting two expensive wars. On top of it all, he also added a costly new prescription drug benefit to Medicare. He did so with fairly little conservative opposition: With a Republican back in the White House, deficits took a back seat to tax cutting and defense spending.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.

Last edited by finnbow; 02-12-2018 at 12:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-12-2018, 01:13 PM
whell's Avatar
whell whell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 11,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow View Post
Reading comprehension has never been your strong suit. The whole point of the article is that Republicans cut taxes while raising spending somehow believing that the tax cuts will somehow pay for the increased spending (which, of course, it never has), just as they're doing now. From the article:

As president, he signed it into law with the 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act, which pushed through a 25 percent reduction in the marginal tax rate for individuals over three years. At the same time, Reagan spearheaded a massive military buildup that skyrocketed defense spending...

President George W. Bush showed that his fatherís breed of Republicanism was out: Aided by a Republican Congress, he undid this balanced budget, passing two huge tax cuts despite starting two expensive wars. On top of it all, he also added a costly new prescription drug benefit to Medicare. He did so with fairly little conservative opposition: With a Republican back in the White House, deficits took a back seat to tax cutting and defense spending.
As usual, being a smarmy little runt IS your strong suit, while continuing to quote an article that omits essential facts. Let me help you.

1) When it suits you, you like to forget that a budget is balanced when revenue and income are (since we're talking government here, we'll just use the term) roughly equal. What that means is that spending, the increase or reduction of which, can be just as much a variable as revenue. Revenue was rising during Reagan's tenure, so you can't suggest that a tax cut produced a revenue reduction in the face of spending growth. In fact, while the Budgets submitted by the White House at that time DID call for increased spending in some areas but also called for reductions in others. Its the latter part that typically failed to materialize, as pointed out above, but as you likely failed to understand.

2) Bush started two wars? LOL This rather conveniently omits the fact that the United States was attacked on 9/11/2001. In also omits the fact that there was a significant reduction in military spending that started at the end of Bush 1 and continued by Clinton. So, yeah, there was a need to jump military spending. That same 9/11 attack also set off a number of unforseen events that softened the US economy that was still reeling a bit from the burst of the "dot.com bubble" at the end of 2000. There was also bi-partisan support for the Bush tax cuts, from EGTRA to the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 which Nancy Pelosi authored and Bush 2 signed.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-12-2018, 01:21 PM
finnbow's Avatar
finnbow finnbow is offline
Reformed Know-Nothing
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 21,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell View Post
As usual, being a smarmy little runt IS your strong suit, while continuing to quote an article that omits essential facts. Let me help you.

1) When it suits you, you like to forget that a budget is balanced when revenue and income are (since we're talking government here, we'll just use the term) roughly equal.
A budget balances when revenue and income are equal? Who knew? (Revenue is income, dimwit.) Though this may be news to you supply-siders, a budget balances when revenue and spending are equal. Acccordingly, when you depend on tax cuts to generate revenue (the fundamental and flawed premise of supply-side economics) while increasing spending, the budget goes out of whack. WTF do you think happened in Oklahoma and Kansas when their Governors went all-in on supply-side economics?
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.

Last edited by finnbow; 02-12-2018 at 01:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-12-2018, 01:24 PM
whell's Avatar
whell whell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 11,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow View Post
A budget balances when revenue and income are equal??? Revenue is income, dimwit. Though this may be news to you, a budget balances when revenue and spending are equal.
Sorry, my bad. Mean this to read revenue and "spending". What follows in that paragraph supports this.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-12-2018, 04:38 PM
donquixote99's Avatar
donquixote99 donquixote99 is offline
Ready
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 14,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell View Post
They type of factually challenged article that you'd expect from WaPo. Bravo.


The article conveniently forgets that the primary reason the deficit "exploded" was spending. As your favorite paper was at least capable of noticing at the time:

For each of the past several years, President Reagan has sent a new budget to Capitol Hill, and Congress has promptly pronounced it DOA -- dead on arrival.

This year, with the drama over the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings balanced-budget act beginning, the early reaction is different: Most Republicans as well as Democrats have declared the administration's budget DBA -- dead before arrival.


As the article goes on to detail, year after year CONGRESS refused to give up their favorite pet spending programs, even after being elected to Congress with promises to reduce spending. Yet, revenues dramatically increased each year:

FY 1989 - $991 billion
FY 1988 - $909 billion
FY 1987 - $854 billion
FY 1986 - $769 billion
FY 1985 - $734 billion
FY 1984 - $666 billion
FY 1983 - $601 billion
FY 1982 - $618 billion
FY 1981 - $599 billion
FY 1980 - $517 billion

https://www.thebalance.com/current-u...evenue-3305762
Speaking of things that are "factually challenged," the increase from 81 to 82 was not very dramatic, and OH LOOK, there's actually a DECREASE from 82 to 83!

Truth is kind of low on the list of things you care about, isn't it whell?
__________________
If things don't go right, go left!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-12-2018, 04:53 PM
finnbow's Avatar
finnbow finnbow is offline
Reformed Know-Nothing
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 21,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by donquixote99 View Post
Speaking of things that are "factually challenged," the increase from 81 to 82 was not very dramatic, and OH LOOK, there's actually a DECREASE from 82 to 83!

Truth is kind of low on the list of things you care about, isn't it whell?
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
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-12-2018, 05:43 PM
donquixote99's Avatar
donquixote99 donquixote99 is offline
Ready
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 14,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow View Post
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
Yes he did. Net effect was lower taxes on the rich, paid for by the middle class and the working poor, who's FICA and Medicaid taxes increased sharply.
__________________
If things don't go right, go left!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:09 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.