• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tax Rates, Spending, Recessions and the Reagan Myth

Cecil James

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
156
Reaction score
71
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Tax Rates, Spending, Recessions and the Reagan Myth

There seems to be some debate regarding the effect of tax increases/reductions and the revenue they yield. We have several examples to pull from here. The data shows that tax increases on the top income quintiles (from current rates) actually results in increased revenues.

As you can see, any arguable positive effects of the Reagan and Bush tax cuts are dwarfed by the effects of Clinton's tax increases. And the "increases" under Reagan and Bush were merely recoveries that yielded revenue below the 1965-2005 average. On the other hand, the Clinton's revenue increase happened at a level above this average. In other words, the economy actually grew after Clinton's tax increases.

Do%20Tax%20Cuts%20Increase%20Revenues.jpg


clinton-bush-job-growth.png


At the very least, the data shows the error in supply side economics. Reagan's tax cuts wasn't followed by an increase in the economy's productive capacity beyond the average business cycle. Clinton's tax increase didn't result in economic despair supply siders would like to argue.

There seems to be some confusions as to the who and whens of these tax increases (and the effects of the Contract with America), so let's be clear. The top earners did not receive a tax cut after the GOP takeover. Also, it should be noted that under Reagan, the bottom quintile experienced a tax increase.

income_federal_graph.png


What the data shows is that tax increases on the top income earners largely taxes money that would otherwise be stored away under the proverbial mattress. On the other hand, the middle and lower earners tend to spend their entire paycheck, which means this money goes back directly into GDP.

Another effect of the regressive effects of the tax structure is the wealth disparity that has followed. As taxes on the top margins have been reduced, more of the wealth has coalesced here (this is Reaganism's contribution to America)

top1percent.jpg


republican-tax-cuts-have-significantly-increased-the-gap.jpg
 

Cecil James

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
156
Reaction score
71
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal

Conservative

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
108,013
Reaction score
9,826
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Cont'd

snap20060621.jpg


In fact, of all advanced nations, the US has the least progressive tax structure and the greatest wealth disparity. We are also among the worst in terms of social mobility.

15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Wealth and Income Inequality in the USA

unitedstatessocialmobil.jpg


Another example of the amnesia that comes with Reagan nostalgia is how long it took him to curb the unemployment rate, and how much quicker Obama's policies have taken hold.

unemploymentobama.jpg


chart-480w-jobs-20100507.jpg

Now for the rest of the story, BLS.gov is the keeper of job creation and growth. Seems that the charts show job growth meager at best with unemployment rising and the number of employed dropping as well. Seems that the majority in this country are now waking up to that reality. Obama ratings are in the low 40's for a reason. The American people don't see that job growth as evidenced by over 3 million more unemployed since the stimulus plan passed. Just think, we spent over a trillion dollars to generate these results.

From BLS.gov

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2000 5708 5858 5733 5481 5758 5651 5747 5853 5625 5534 5639 5634
2001 6023 6089 6141 6271 6226 6484 6583 7042 7142 7694 8003 8258
2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640
2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317
2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934
2005 7784 7980 7737 7672 7651 7524 7406 7345 7553 7453 7566 7279
2006 7059 7185 7075 7122 6977 6998 7154 7097 6853 6728 6883 6784
2007 7085 6898 6725 6845 6765 6966 7113 7096 7200 7273 7284 7696
2008 7628 7435 7793 7631 8397 8560 8895 9509 9569 10172 10617 11400
2009 11919 12714 13310 13816 14518 14721 14534 14993 15159 15612 15340 15267
2010 14837 14871 15005 15260 14973 14623 14599


Discouraged workers

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 236 267 258 331 280 309 266 203 253 232 236 269 262
2001 301 287 349 349 328 294 310 337 285 331 328 348 321
2002 328 375 330 320 414 342 405 378 392 359 385 403 369
2003 449 450 474 437 482 478 470 503 388 462 457 433 457
2004 432 484 514 492 476 478 504 534 412 429 392 442 466
2005 515 485 480 393 392 476 499 384 362 392 404 451 436
2006 396 386 451 381 323 481 428 448 325 331 349 274 381
2007 442 375 381 399 368 401 367 392 276 320 349 363 369
2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642 462
2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929 778
2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185


Employed workers

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2000 136559 136598 136701 137270 136630 136940 136531 136662 136893 137088 137322 137614
2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047
2002 135701 136438 136177 136126 136539 136415 136413 136705 137302 137008 136521 136426
2003 137417 137482 137434 137633 137544 137790 137474 137549 137609 137984 138424 138411
2004 138472 138542 138453 138680 138852 139174 139556 139573 139487 139732 140231 140125
2005 140245 140385 140654 141254 141609 141714 142026 142434 142401 142548 142499 142752
2006 143142 143444 143765 143794 144108 144370 144229 144631 144797 145292 145477 145914
2007 146032 146043 146368 145686 145952 146079 145926 145685 146193 145885 146483 146173
2008 146421 146165 146173 146306 146023 145768 145515 145187 145021 144677 143907 143188
2009 142221 141687 140854 140902 140438 140038 139817 139433 138768 138242 138381 137792
2010 138333 138641 138905 139455 139420 139119 138960
 

Cecil James

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
156
Reaction score
71
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Now for the rest of the story, BLS.gov is the keeper of job creation and growth. Seems that the charts show job growth meager at best with unemployment rising and the number of employed dropping as well. Seems that the majority in this country are now waking up to that reality. Obama ratings are in the low 40's for a reason. The American people don't see that job growth as evidenced by over 3 million more unemployed since the stimulus plan passed. Just think, we spent over a trillion dollars to generate these results. ....

Well, at this point in Reagan's presidency, his approval ratings were worse, and unemployment was still spiraling towards 10%

Reagan-Job-Approval-1.jpg
 

Conservative

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
108,013
Reaction score
9,826
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Tax Rates, Spending, Recessions and the Reagan Myth

There seems to be some debate regarding the effect of tax increases/reductions and the revenue they yield. We have several examples to pull from here. The data shows that tax increases on the top income quintiles (from current rates) actually results in increased revenues.

As you can see, any arguable positive effects of the Reagan and Bush tax cuts are dwarfed by the effects of Clinton's tax increases. And the "increases" under Reagan and Bush were merely recoveries that yielded revenue below the 1965-2005 average. On the other hand, the Clinton's revenue increase happened at a level above this average. In other words, the economy actually grew after Clinton's tax increases.

Do%20Tax%20Cuts%20Increase%20Revenues.jpg


clinton-bush-job-growth.png


At the very least, the data shows the error in supply side economics. Reagan's tax cuts wasn't followed by an increase in the economy's productive capacity beyond the average business cycle. Clinton's tax increase didn't result in economic despair supply siders would like to argue.

There seems to be some confusions as to the who and whens of these tax increases (and the effects of the Contract with America), so let's be clear. The top earners did not receive a tax cut after the GOP takeover. Also, it should be noted that under Reagan, the bottom quintile experienced a tax increase.

income_federal_graph.png


What the data shows is that tax increases on the top income earners largely taxes money that would otherwise be stored away under the proverbial mattress. On the other hand, the middle and lower earners tend to spend their entire paycheck, which means this money goes back directly into GDP.

Another effect of the regressive effects of the tax structure is the wealth disparity that has followed. As taxes on the top margins have been reduced, more of the wealth has coalesced here (this is Reaganism's contribution to America)

top1percent.jpg


republican-tax-cuts-have-significantly-increased-the-gap.jpg

Would you please explain to me why there is such passion and a concerted effort on the part of liberals to reduce take home pay for all American taxpayers? Why are liberals working so hard to keep the taxpayer from becoming less dependent on the govt? Hmmm, enquiring minds want to know?
 

Conservative

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
108,013
Reaction score
9,826
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Tax Rates, Spending, Recessions and the Reagan Myth

There seems to be some debate regarding the effect of tax increases/reductions and the revenue they yield. We have several examples to pull from here. The data shows that tax increases on the top income quintiles (from current rates) actually results in increased revenues.

As you can see, any arguable positive effects of the Reagan and Bush tax cuts are dwarfed by the effects of Clinton's tax increases. And the "increases" under Reagan and Bush were merely recoveries that yielded revenue below the 1965-2005 average. On the other hand, the Clinton's revenue increase happened at a level above this average. In other words, the economy actually grew after Clinton's tax increases.

Do%20Tax%20Cuts%20Increase%20Revenues.jpg


clinton-bush-job-growth.png


At the very least, the data shows the error in supply side economics. Reagan's tax cuts wasn't followed by an increase in the economy's productive capacity beyond the average business cycle. Clinton's tax increase didn't result in economic despair supply siders would like to argue.

There seems to be some confusions as to the who and whens of these tax increases (and the effects of the Contract with America), so let's be clear. The top earners did not receive a tax cut after the GOP takeover. Also, it should be noted that under Reagan, the bottom quintile experienced a tax increase.

income_federal_graph.png


What the data shows is that tax increases on the top income earners largely taxes money that would otherwise be stored away under the proverbial mattress. On the other hand, the middle and lower earners tend to spend their entire paycheck, which means this money goes back directly into GDP.

Another effect of the regressive effects of the tax structure is the wealth disparity that has followed. As taxes on the top margins have been reduced, more of the wealth has coalesced here (this is Reaganism's contribution to America)

top1percent.jpg


republican-tax-cuts-have-significantly-increased-the-gap.jpg

I actually prefer the following:

Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record | William A. Niskanen and Stephen Moore | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
107,596
Reaction score
51,456
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Would you please explain to me why there is such passion and a concerted effort on the part of liberals to reduce take home pay for all American taxpayers? Why are liberals working so hard to keep the taxpayer from becoming less dependent on the govt? Hmmm, enquiring minds want to know?

Why do you not want to reduce the deficit? Got to do two things, grow revenue, and reduce spending. Why don't you care about the debt?

See how easy spin is?
 

Conservative

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
108,013
Reaction score
9,826
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well, at this point in Reagan's presidency, his approval ratings were worse, and unemployment was still spiraling towards 10%

Reagan-Job-Approval-1.jpg

Yes, they were worse but changed dramatically after the Tax cuts started benefiting the economy. How many states did he win in 1984. Unemployment actually went over 10% but it was Reagan pro growth policy that got those numbers under control and led to the biggest landslide re-election in modern history.

Not sure why you have a problem with people keeping more of their own money and it is obvious to me that you don't have a clue as to what Reaganomics is. What is your agenda here? Why the full court press on taking more money from the taxpayer?

Results matter, not rhetoric, what is it in the following that is a lie?

Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record | William A. Niskanen and Stephen Moore | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis
 
Last edited:

Cecil James

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
156
Reaction score
71
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Would you please explain to me why there is such passion and a concerted effort on the part of liberals to reduce take home pay for all American taxpayers? Why are liberals working so hard to keep the taxpayer from becoming less dependent on the govt? Hmmm, enquiring minds want to know?

I care more about what the data shows and enjoy refuting prevailing myths. I don't know or care what conservatives assume 'liberals are trying to do' so much as I care about the actual effects of policy. And if the data shows anything, is that from our current tax levels, revenue would increase if taxes on the top earners were raised (or rather, if the Bush taxes are allowed to expire). It has nothing to do with "wanting" to do anything to anyone.

It seems to me that your POV stems more from a sentiment. The wild-wild west 'leave me alone' mentality and this dictates your economic point of view.

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Conservative

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
108,013
Reaction score
9,826
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I care more about what the data shows and enjoy refuting prevailing myths. I don't know or care what conservatives assume 'liberals are trying to do' so much as I care about the actual effects of policy. And if the data shows anything, is that from our current tax levels, revenue would increase if taxes on the top earners were raised (or rather, if the Bush taxes are allowed to expire). It has nothing to do with "wanting" to do anything to anyone.

It seems to me that your POV stems more from a sentiment. The wild-wild west 'leave me alone' mentality and this dictates your economic point of view.

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire what does that do to the take home pay of the American taxpayer? What affect will less take home pay have on the American consumer?
 

Cecil James

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
156
Reaction score
71
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Yes, they were worse but changed dramatically after the Tax cuts started benefiting the economy. How many states did he win in 1984. Unemployment actually went over 10% but it was Reagan pro growth policy that got those numbers under control and led to the biggest landslide re-election in modern history.

Not sure why you have a problem with people keeping more of their own money and it is obvious to me that you don't have a clue as to what Reaganomics is. What is your agenda here? Why the full court press on taking more money from the taxpayer?

Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record | William A. Niskanen and Stephen Moore | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis

Long-since debunked.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21krugman.html
 

Cecil James

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
156
Reaction score
71
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
When the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire what does that do to the take home pay of the American taxpayer? What affect will less take home pay have on the American consumer?

Sorry I should be more clear. They should be allowed to expire on the top quintiles. This can be used to help pay down the deficit, which will potentially stave off any currency crisis the dollar could face, thereby preserving the buying power of the American consumer.
 

Conservative

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
108,013
Reaction score
9,826
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

No, posting anything from Krugman destroys your case. BEA.gov, BLS.gov, and the U.S. Treasury refute Krugman who knows that liberals will never verify the rhetoric. Why do you want to reduce take home pay for taxpayers? Have you followed what is going on in NY when Patterson raised the taxes on the rich? What affect did that have on govt. revenue?
 
Last edited:

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
107,596
Reaction score
51,456
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
No, posting anything from Krugmen destroys your case. BEA.gov, BLS.gov, and the U.S. Treasury refute Krugman who knows that liberals will never verify the rhetoric. Why do you want to reduce take home pay for taxpayers? Have you followed what is going on in NY when Patterson raised the taxes on the rich? What affect did that have on govt. revenue?

You used the Cato Institute and you bitch about Krugman? I posted the WSJ and you ignored it....
 

Conservative

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
108,013
Reaction score
9,826
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Sorry I should be more clear. They should be allowed to expire on the top quintiles. This can be used to help pay down the deficit, which will potentially stave off any currency crisis the dollar could face, thereby preserving the buying power of the American consumer.

Any idea how much revenue that will generate for the govt and please don't give me projections give me facts? Look to NY State as an example. What liberals have a problem understanding is human behavior. There are options for the rich to paying higher taxes but that fact never crosses a liberal's mind.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
107,596
Reaction score
51,456
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Any idea how much revenue that will generate for the govt and please don't give me projections give me facts?

You want him to predict the future, without projections. Can't imagine why I found that so funny....
 

Cecil James

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
156
Reaction score
71
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Any idea how much revenue that will generate for the govt and please don't give me projections give me facts? Look to NY State as an example. What liberals have a problem understanding is human behavior. There are options for the rich to paying higher taxes but that fact never crosses a liberal's mind.[/QUOTE]

Notice how you are now ignoring all the data I've posted and are now focusing on spin and rhetoric?

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Cecil James

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
156
Reaction score
71
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
No, posting anything from Krugman destroys your case. BEA.gov, BLS.gov, and the U.S. Treasury refute Krugman who knows that liberals will never verify the rhetoric. Why do you want to reduce take home pay for taxpayers? Have you followed what is going on in NY when Patterson raised the taxes on the rich? What affect did that have on govt. revenue?

Actually, BEA.gov, BLS.gov, and the U.S. Treasury will show the same graphs I posted in my initial post, which you ignored and hid for cover behind a CATO article (this is like getting paleontology from a creation science website). CATO is not an unbiased source for informaiton. Their entire mission is to find ways to argue for limited govt. Just like creationist organizations exist to 'refute' evolution, not provide unbiased information on paleontology or geology.


Cato Institute: Sponsors Program

Support the Cato Institute's mission of advancing liberty

Sponsorship is one way you can defend, in a concrete way, America's heritage of individual liberty, free markets, and constitutionally limited government. Cato depends solely on tax-deductible contributions from Sponsors who share our commitment to a free and prosperous society. When you support the Cato Institute, you are not just a contributor, you are a colleague. You'll have access to the latest Cato publications, reports, newsletters, and invitations to Cato events. You aren't merely supporting our mission, you become a part of Cato.

Please click here to become a Cato Sponsor today.

Your contribution helps support...



The Cato Institute stands in defense of the traditional American principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace. Cato's scholars emphasize the due influence the Declaration of Independence and Constitution should have in the public policy debate and the importance of preserving the basic liberties that are the foundation of a free society.




For more than a quarter century, the Cato Institute has been the most effective voice in Washington, D.C., advocating a smaller, less intrusive federal government. From media appearances, policy studies, and book publishing to Capitol Hill visits, conferences, and outreach to college students, the Cato Institute is America's leading voice for individual liberty and limited government.




The Cato Institute provides the only consistent voice for individual liberty and limited government in the Washington policy arena. Thanks to Cato's work, journalists and policymakers understand that the ideals that animated the American Revolution are alive today, and that substantial numbers of Americans believe in those principles. Since 1977, Cato scholars have been influential in a range of policy debates, including
Social Security reform
 

Conservative

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
108,013
Reaction score
9,826
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Any idea how much revenue that will generate for the govt and please don't give me projections give me facts? Look to NY State as an example. What liberals have a problem understanding is human behavior. There are options for the rich to paying higher taxes but that fact never crosses a liberal's mind.[/QUOTE]

Notice how you are now ignoring all the data I've posted and are now focusing on spin and rhetoric?

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look, you don't want to answer the question, don't blame you. How many businesses moved out of New York to keep from paying higher taxes? Is it human behavior to spend more money when their taxes go up? All I see from you are diversions from the tough question because you know the answer and just cannot admit it.

People have a choice and it is human behavior that liberals ignore. How many projections has Obama made that have come true? Show me a chart on BLS that shows jobs saved? Show me the 4%+ economic growth that Obama projected? Show me any chart on bea.gov that shows what the economy would be today had we not passed the stimulus plan? You buy rhetoric and ignore substance as well as human behavior.

The keeper of the economic data is bea.gov, the keeper of employment/unemployment data is bls, the keeper of the checkbook of the U.S. is the Treasury Dept. None show what Krugman is claiming and like all liberals it is about taxing the rich. Well, the rich are people and their behavior changes when they have more money taken from them. They have the options the workers do not have, they can leave and will.

I ignore nothing and that is why I posted actual data from the non partisan sites. You can claim that Cato is partisan just like I can claim that Krugman is partisan but what you cannot claim is that bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S. Treasury data is partisan. Liberals claim that tax cuts cause deficits yet the numbers show govt. revenue going up AFTER tax rate cuts. You claim it was due to coming out of a recession yet you ignore why we came out of that recession. You deny what all liberals deny, human behavior that happens when people keep more of what they earn.
 

Conservative

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
108,013
Reaction score
9,826
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Actually, BEA.gov, BLS.gov, and the U.S. Treasury will show the same graphs I posted in my initial post, which you ignored and hid for cover behind a CATO article (this is like getting paleontology from a creation science website). CATO is not an unbiased source for informaiton. Their entire mission is to find ways to argue for limited govt. Just like creationist organizations exist to 'refute' evolution, not provide unbiased information on paleontology or geology.


Cato Institute: Sponsors Program

Support the Cato Institute's mission of advancing liberty

Sponsorship is one way you can defend, in a concrete way, America's heritage of individual liberty, free markets, and constitutionally limited government. Cato depends solely on tax-deductible contributions from Sponsors who share our commitment to a free and prosperous society. When you support the Cato Institute, you are not just a contributor, you are a colleague. You'll have access to the latest Cato publications, reports, newsletters, and invitations to Cato events. You aren't merely supporting our mission, you become a part of Cato.

Please click here to become a Cato Sponsor today.

Your contribution helps support...



The Cato Institute stands in defense of the traditional American principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace. Cato's scholars emphasize the due influence the Declaration of Independence and Constitution should have in the public policy debate and the importance of preserving the basic liberties that are the foundation of a free society.




For more than a quarter century, the Cato Institute has been the most effective voice in Washington, D.C., advocating a smaller, less intrusive federal government. From media appearances, policy studies, and book publishing to Capitol Hill visits, conferences, and outreach to college students, the Cato Institute is America's leading voice for individual liberty and limited government.




The Cato Institute provides the only consistent voice for individual liberty and limited government in the Washington policy arena. Thanks to Cato's work, journalists and policymakers understand that the ideals that animated the American Revolution are alive today, and that substantial numbers of Americans believe in those principles. Since 1977, Cato scholars have been influential in a range of policy debates, including
Social Security reform

The point is which you continue to ignore is what happens when people get to keep more of what they earn and the reality that tax revenue increased AFTER the Reagan Tax cuts and in fact doubled. How can that happen and how can tax cuts that double revenue cause deficits?
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
107,596
Reaction score
51,456
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The point is which you continue to ignore is what happens when people get to keep more of what they earn and the reality that tax revenue increased AFTER the Reagan Tax cuts and in fact doubled. How can that happen and how can tax cuts that double revenue cause deficits?

And again, you are assuming cause and effect when it may not(and probably isn't) there. Once again, I ask you to prove that the tax cuts doubled revenue.
 

Cecil James

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
156
Reaction score
71
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Look, you don't want to answer the question, don't blame you. How many businesses moved out of New York to keep from paying higher taxes? Is it human behavior to spend more money when their taxes go up? All I see from you are diversions from the tough question because you know the answer and just cannot admit it.

People have a choice and it is human behavior that liberals ignore. How many projections has Obama made that have come true? Show me a chart on BLS that shows jobs saved? Show me the 4%+ economic growth that Obama projected? Show me any chart on bea.gov that shows what the economy would be today had we not passed the stimulus plan? You buy rhetoric and ignore substance as well as human behavior.

The keeper of the economic data is bea.gov, the keeper of employment/unemployment data is bls, the keeper of the checkbook of the U.S. is the Treasury Dept. None show what Krugman is claiming and like all liberals it is about taxing the rich. Well, the rich are people and their behavior changes when they have more money taken from them. They have the options the workers do not have, they can leave and will.

I ignore nothing and that is why I posted actual data from the non partisan sites. You can claim that Cato is partisan just like I can claim that Krugman is partisan but what you cannot claim is that bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S. Treasury data is partisan. Liberals claim that tax cuts cause deficits yet the numbers show govt. revenue going up AFTER tax rate cuts. You claim it was due to coming out of a recession yet you ignore why we came out of that recession. You deny what all liberals deny, human behavior that happens when people keep more of what they earn.

" Show me the 4%+ economic growth that Obama projected?"

chart_gdp_012810.top.gif


GDP report: Best growth in six years - Jan. 29, 2010
 

Cecil James

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
156
Reaction score
71
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The point is which you continue to ignore is what happens when people get to keep more of what they earn and the reality that tax revenue increased AFTER the Reagan Tax cuts and in fact doubled. How can that happen and how can tax cuts that double revenue cause deficits?

I've explained all of this in my initial post.
 

Conservative

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
108,013
Reaction score
9,826
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
" Show me the 4%+ economic growth that Obama projected?"

chart_gdp_012810.top.gif


GDP report: Best growth in six years - Jan. 29, 2010

I cannot believe you are so naive and gullible buying what you are told. I do apologize for the mistake, according to BEA we did have a 5% growth in the fourth qtr of 2009 but a little research shows why, cash for clunkers and first time home buyer credits. all led to the current results, revision downward after spending trillions. Kind of like having a sale and then after the sale not having anyone show up. I really suggest you learn the components of GDP and find out where the growth occurred.

GDP Growth percentage

I 2009 -4.9
II 2009 -.7
III 2009 1.6
IV 2009 5.0
I 2010 3.7
II 2010 2.4

The projection was that Obama would have 4% economic growth yearly for the next two years. That isn't going to happen.
 
Top Bottom