Supply-Side Economics

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Sorry to confuse you with the facts, but:

[I]All four Republican presidents since 1980 increased the federal deficit during their time in office: Ronald Reagan had a 94% increase, George H.W. Bush had a 67% increase, George W. Bush had a 1,204% increase, and Trump had a 317% increase.

There have been budget deficits every year since around 1960. The only common denominator during most of that time gas been Dem control of the House. Year after year the controllers of the Federal purse have demonstrated their insatiable appetite for spending.

It is worth noting that most of the years that Clinton ran a surplus were the years the Repubs controlled the House. But to me, that's almost a throw-away point since Repubs of late have been spending like drunken Dems.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

There have been budget deficits every year since around 1960. The only common denominator during most of that time gas been Dem control of the House. Year after year the controllers of the Federal purse have demonstrated their insatiable appetite for spending.

It is worth noting that most of the years that Clinton ran a surplus were the years the Repubs controlled the House. But to me, that's almost a throw-away point since Repubs of late have been spending like drunken Dems.

Dubya inherited the first budget surplus in decades and instead of paying down the debt, he totally blew it up with irresponsible tax cuts. So, please do not even bother telling me that Republicans care at all about the debt or deficits other than as an argument against Democratic priorities when Republicans are out of power.

[Rajoo]

Ever past recession since Nixon have always been after a Republican presidency. In fact that is how they get elected. Run country down to the ground, the Dems take over and need to increase taxes, the Repubs scream "tax and spend" and the people are dumb enough to vote them in again till the next recession. This cycle has been repeating itself since the 60's.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Dubya inherited the first budget surplus in decades and instead of paying down the debt, he totally blew it up with irresponsible tax cuts. So, please do not even bother telling me that Republicans care at all about the debt or deficits other than as an argument against Democratic priorities when Republicans are out of power.

Speaking of blowing things up, those tax cuts had bipartisan support because terrorists blew up the World Trade Center, which caused massive upheaval in the economy. Those tax cuts were extended by Obama.

As far as you second point, I didn't say that. You've said it twice now, so I guess you're back to arguing with yourself again.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

Ever past recession since Nixon have always been after a Republican presidency. In fact that is how they get elected. Run country down to the ground, the Dems take over and need to increase taxes, the Repubs scream "tax and spend" and the people are dumb enough to vote them in again till the next recession. This cycle has been repeating itself since the 60's.

Really?

The dot.com recession followed the Clinton presidency. The recession that started in July of 1981 followed the Carter presidency. Nixon actually inherited a recession from Johnson.

Man, you guys need to go back and brush up on history just a bit.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Speaking of blowing things up, those tax cuts had bipartisan support because terrorists blew up the World Trade Center, which caused massive upheaval in the economy. Those tax cuts were extended by Obama.

As far as you second point, I didn't say that. You've said it twice now, so I guess you're back to arguing with yourself again.

The fact remains that Dubya turned a $128 billion surplus into a $1.4 trillion deficit (which Obama subsequently reduced by more than half).

As far as this being bipartisan, 5 swing Democrats sided with Bush and all were from states Bush won the previous fall while two Republicans voted against it and they were both from districts that Bush lost. It's clear that supply-side economics has a certain appeal with the (economically unsophisticated) public (such as you). After all, it promises no curtailment in programs they favor while giving them tax cuts that "will pay for themselves." A win-win based upon a lie.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

After all, it promises no curtailment in programs they favor while giving them tax cuts that "will pay for themselves." A win-win based upon a lie.

What you call a "lie" is what others call "fact". Examples:

From Discourse, a "right down the middle" publication from George Mason University: In Actual Dollars, Tax Cuts Boost Revenue Time After Time

Let’s take a look at the major post-war tax cuts. The first was the U.S. Revenue Act of 1964, which reduced the top personal income tax rate from 91% to 70% and the top corporate tax rate from 52% to 48%. Keynesian economists, as well as skeptical Treasury staffers, estimated that the cuts would result in a cumulative revenue loss of $32 billion by 1966 (in constant 1963 dollars).

But instead, federal receipts grew by 65%, or 32% in real terms, from 1965 through 1970.

Politico: U.S. sees biggest revenue surge in 44 years despite pandemic

From Oct 2021: Despite a pandemic, a recession and a slew of tax cuts, federal tax receipts are booming. Revenues jumped 18 percent in the fiscal year that just ended, analysts say — the biggest one-year increase since 1977.

For example, corporate tax receipts leaped 75 percent, CBO says. At $370 billion, they easily top where they were immediately before Republicans slashed the corporate rate as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

The overall revenue increase wasn’t only an anomaly compared to 2020, when receipts fell by just 1.2 percent to $3.420 trillion. Revenues in 2021 still rose 17 percent even when compared to 2019 levels, before the pandemic hit.

Here's one from the left side of the spectrum, Roll Call: Unexplained tax revenue growth vexes budget scorekeepers

In 2017, prior to passage of the GOP tax law, the CBO estimated that federal tax receipts would total $43 trillion over fiscal 2018 through 2027. Combining actual results in the early years after enactment with the latest forecast, [B]tax revenue is now expected to be $1.7 trillion higher during that time than the agency had forecast before the tax cuts became law./B]

There are more examples, but you get the idea.

The idea that tax cuts "pay for themselves" is Washington-speak for requiring "proof" that a tax cut will be budget neutral. That idea is a joke on its face since congressional spending is almost NEVER budget neutral. But, when there is a deficit, it does give Congress something to blame their over-spending on.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

The reason being there is no compulsion on the beneficiaries of these mega tax cuts to reinvest in the economy to create jobs. .

There lies the crux.

[Rajoo]

Our rating: True

While it is difficult to assess blame for the root causes, at least one recession did begin under every Republican president since Ronald Reagan compared with zero under Democratic presidents over the same period. As a "strong recovery," the Clinton administration clearly qualifies, landing in the fourth spot for growth since World War II. The Obama administration recovery is a jump ball, posting a weaker 2% average GDP, but scoring 75 months of positive job growth.

Let us not forget that Obama inherited the greatest recession since the Great Recession. Also,

During Obama's two terms, the economy added jobs for 75 straight months and ended with the highest level of household income ever recorded, according to Factcheck.org.

Folks, if ever there is proof needed, here it is. Bush tax cuts finally came through to Obama's administration.
Then Trump not to be outdone, gave it all away again and now the GOP is blaming the 'Biden' economy.

Except, no recession yet though still predicted but the job market remains very strong. Software guys that Twitter and FB laid off were grabbed sooner than one can say huh. Mortgage interest rates coming down and Feds promising no more rate increases. Oil prices are down, railroad strike is thwarted, Dems kept the Senate, new House under GOP leadership is already is in shambles. And the GOP can now do very little to prevent Biden (and NATO) from continuing the proxy war with Russia in Ukraine. More than victory by Ukraine, this will decimate Russia's economy.

Final insult?
Dems electing Hakeem Jeffries as House leader who once called Trump a Fake President.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...es/5235957002/

[Chicks]

^^^^^^ No fair! You're confusing poor Whell with facts! Whell doesn't do facts!