Supply-Side Economics

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

Could you please expand.

In 1990, President George H. W. Bush raised taxes, and GDP growth increased over the next five years. In 1993, President Bill Clinton raised the top marginal tax rate, and GDP growth increased over the next five years. In 2001 and 2003, President Bush cut taxes, and we faced a disappointing expansion followed by a Great Recession.

Similar case can me made for the Reagan era and predictions are dire for the Trump tax cuts.

Tax Cuts Don't Lead to Economic Growth, a New 65-Year Study Finds

https://www.theatlantic.com/business...-finds/262438/

[Dondilion]

But recession?

BTW Dubya years were unusual...expensive war and huge housing bubble.

Here is a contrarian view. It is a hope and it is a prayer.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...lly-make-sense

[whell]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

Similar case can me made for the Reagan era and predictions are dire for the Trump tax cuts.

Tax Cuts Don't Lead to Economic Growth, a New 65-Year Study Finds

https://www.theatlantic.com/business...-finds/262438/

Give me a break. The Bush first term was met with the economic impact of the burst of the dot com bubble, the lingering impact of the Y2K scare. EGTRA was passed in June 2001, but then we had planes ramming into the WTC and the Pentagon. This caused the recession to deepen and lengthen, caused a huge ripple in the insurance / reinsurance markets and a significant downward push in stock prices. To say that the tax cut, and the face of that set of circumstances, "didn't lead to economic growth" is really playing pretty fast and loose with the facts.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Give me a break. The Bush first term was met with the economic impact of the burst of the dot com bubble, the lingering impact of the Y2K scare. EGTRA was passed in June 2001, but then we had planes ramming into the WTC and the Pentagon. This caused the recession to deepen and lengthen, caused a huge ripple in the insurance / reinsurance markets and a significant downward push in stock prices. To say that the tax cut, and the face of that set of circumstances, "didn't lead to economic growth" is really playing pretty fast and loose with the facts.

His large tax cuts and the financing of two wars through debt did indeed greatly increase the national debt. It was yet another example of supply-side not working out as planned. Never has, never will because it defies the laws of economics and math.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

Give me a break. The Bush first term was met with the economic impact of the burst of the dot com bubble, the lingering impact of the Y2K scare. EGTRA was passed in June 2001, but then we had planes ramming into the WTC and the Pentagon. This caused the recession to deepen and lengthen, caused a huge ripple in the insurance / reinsurance markets and a significant downward push in stock prices. To say that the tax cut, and the face of that set of circumstances, "didn't lead to economic growth" is really playing pretty fast and loose with the facts.

The Deafness Before the Storm

The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

Bush II was warned and then as retaliation, he started a war in Iraq.
Whether you like it or not, he gets the blame for compounding our financial woes. Tax cuts, war(s) and the the beginning of TARP.

From the failing NYT of course.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/op...-warnings.html

[Chicks]

The moron in chief right now babbling about “massive bonuses” for “millions and millions” of workers. Flat out lie, yet Whell continues to defend him. Sigh.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Chicks

The moron in chief right now babbling about “massive bonuses” for “millions and millions” of workers. Flat out lie, yet Whell continues to defend him. Sigh.

How is it a lie, genius?

https://www.atr.org/list

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by whell

How is it a lie, genius?

You must not understand the meaning of “massive”. Why am I not surprised?

[whell]

Originally Posted by Chicks

You must not understand the meaning of “massive”. Why am I not surprised?

I think I understand it pretty well. I'm not surprised at your desire to downplay the value of a bonus or pay increase to folks who might really need it. For you, a extra dollar an hour or $1000 bonus might not mean much, but to other folks it is pretty "massive".

Your comments are cynical and heartless. Why am I not surprised.

[Rajoo]

Warren Buffet's company had a $28 Billion windfall from the tax cuts. Ask him how many people he plans to hire?