PDA

View Full Version : Environment The CBO Report, and Why Tax Cuts Won't Fix The Economy


Direckshun
12-02-2009, 06:05 PM
I'm not opposed to tax cuts. That's one of the reasons I supported Obama's stimulus package, which was the single largest tax cut ever, and could only be topped with both of Bush's tax cuts are put together. Moreover, I really like Obama's tax cuts in the stimulus package because they went, mostly, to the middle and lower classes, with the higher classes getting the best deal from Bush, by far.

But tax cuts, as has been proven time and again, simply cannot fix the economy by themselves. I remember hearing I-can't-tell-you-how-many times from Hannity that we should simply get a one-year tax holiday, and that the extra funds from that will help fix the economy.

But that is not what we see with the multiplier effect -- otherwise known as the "bang" we get for our stimulus buck. If a stimulus dollar spent equalled two dollars more into the GDP, that dollar had a multplier of "2," meaning it had twice as big a "bang" for its buck.

The CBO released a chart on page 13 of its report (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10682/11-30-ARRA.pdf) detailing the multiplier effect from all the stimulus' expenditures so far. The chart is included at the bottom of this post.

What it shows is that we are getting negative bang for our buck with the tax cuts -- and especially when we talk about tax cuts for the rich, we get so little bang that the bang almost seems to disappear with the GDP feeling virtually no impact whatsoever. It rivals the first-time home-buyer credit in terms of economic uselessness.

Towards the top of the chart are all the liberal agenda items that were so heavily criticized as being the black hole, when in fact the tax cuts seem to be much closer to that. The liberal agenda items such as direct government investments from anything from energy to building efficiency to highway reconstruction to state relief to environmental policy. These have done far more (at times the bangs doubling the original bucks) to grow our GDP.

Tax cuts help us in the immediate-term, but in the long term they simply don't register. They are band-aids, and the higher class the recipients, the lower the impact. Alone, tax cuts can't heal the economy.

HonestChieffan
12-02-2009, 06:11 PM
Who advocates tax cuts by themselves can fix the economy?

BigRedChief
12-02-2009, 07:05 PM
Who advocates tax cuts by themselves can fix the economy?A bunch of Republicans

HonestChieffan
12-02-2009, 07:10 PM
who?

I cant think of any who would say that a tax cut and only a tax cut is going to "fix the economy". That is absurd.

RINGLEADER
12-03-2009, 08:22 AM
Who advocates tax cuts by themselves can fix the economy?

Obama doesn't seem to understand the connection between tax policy (especially within the private sector) and economic growth. That's why he wasted hundreds of billions of dollars on programs that have little long-term impact on job creation and does virtually nothing to encourage an influx of capital into small business or other engines that do generate jobs (and, by extension, tax revenue, consumer spending, etc., etc.).

It would help if he had a few more people around with some kind of understanding of the private sector. Instead he's surrounded by liberals who believe funding government jobs is the way to address unemployment.

wild1
12-03-2009, 08:29 AM
Common sense: To create jobs, you have to create wealth that those who do hiring (businesses) can put to use in expansion.

Taxation does nothing but retard that process.

KC native
12-03-2009, 08:34 AM
Obama doesn't seem to understand the connection between tax policy (especially within the private sector) and economic growth. That's why he wasted hundreds of billions of dollars on programs that have little long-term impact on job creation and does virtually nothing to encourage an influx of capital into small business or other engines that do generate jobs (and, by extension, tax revenue, consumer spending, etc., etc.).

It would help if he had a few more people around with some kind of understanding of the private sector. Instead he's surrounded by liberals who believe funding government jobs is the way to address unemployment.

Supply side economics doesn't work. We've had real life experiments under Bush and Reagan and neither produced the desired effects.

Royal Fanatic
12-03-2009, 08:56 AM
Supply side economics doesn't work. We've had real life experiments under Bush and Reagan and neither produced the desired effects.
Are you kidding? Were you around in the late 1970s and early 1980s? If so, were you paying attention?

You couldn't have been.

The top tax rate was 70% when Reagan took office. He got it cut in half to 35%. At the same time, he eliminated many tax shelters that the rich routinely relied on to avoid paying taxes altogether, forcing them to invest in the free market and actually pay taxes. Shortly after the tax cuts were enacted, the economy took off for an unprecedented period of peacetime growth. Unemployment fell, inflation slowed, and interest rates dropped, leading to a seven-year boom that the liberal media cynically dubbed "the decade of greed."

Supply-side economics saved the economy in the 1980s. It's a shame that so many people refuse to see that.

Royal Fanatic
12-03-2009, 08:58 AM
Nobody wants THEIR taxes increased. Everybody just wants to stick it to "the rich".

If the Obamabots get their way, pretty soon there won't be any rich people.

Chief Henry
12-03-2009, 09:05 AM
Are you kidding? Were you around in the late 1970s and early 1980s? If so, were you paying attention?

You couldn't have been.

The top tax rate was 70% when Reagan took office. He got it cut in half to 35%. At the same time, he eliminated many tax shelters that the rich routinely relied on to avoid paying taxes altogether, forcing them to invest in the free market and actually pay taxes. Shortly after the tax cuts were enacted, the economy took off for an unprecedented period of peacetime growth. Unemployment fell, inflation slowed, and interest rates dropped, leading to a seven-year boom that the liberal media cynically dubbed "the decade of greed."

Supply-side economics saved the economy in the 1980s. It's a shame that so many people refuse to see that.

Reagan sat MANY economist down infront of the congress and the senate.
Those economist explained to both houses that the best way to get the economy going again was to let the American people KEEP more of what they make. The congress and the senate passed tax cuts..........voila, the economy rebounded and the stock market broke out of a 20-25 year FUNK.

God Bless President Ronald Reagan.

petegz28
12-03-2009, 09:09 AM
Well, lets see....

Higher taxes on individuals=less disposable income
Higher taxes on corporations=increased costs of products and overhead


I can't for the life of me figure out why lower taxes would help anyone?

Royal Fanatic
12-03-2009, 09:09 AM
Reagan sat MANY economist down infront of the congress and the senate.
Those economist explained to both houses that the best way to get the economy going again was to let the American people KEEP more of what they make. The congress and the senate passed tax cuts..........voila, the economy rebounded and the stock market broke out of a 20-25 year FUNK.

God Bless President Ronald Reagan.
And yet we still have people who insist the supply side economics is a failure and that we can tax our way to prosperity.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Chief Henry
12-03-2009, 09:21 AM
Bsn. owners will not start hiring people until they know how much its going to cost them for health care, cap and trade and taxes.

Washington DC is really screwing with our economy.

KC native
12-03-2009, 09:22 AM
Are you kidding? Were you around in the late 1970s and early 1980s? If so, were you paying attention?

You couldn't have been.

The top tax rate was 70% when Reagan took office. He got it cut in half to 35%. At the same time, he eliminated many tax shelters that the rich routinely relied on to avoid paying taxes altogether, forcing them to invest in the free market and actually pay taxes. Shortly after the tax cuts were enacted, the economy took off for an unprecedented period of peacetime growth. Unemployment fell, inflation slowed, and interest rates dropped, leading to a seven-year boom that the liberal media cynically dubbed "the decade of greed."

Supply-side economics saved the economy in the 1980s. It's a shame that so many people refuse to see that.

Perhaps you should go back and look at the data because that's not how it happened.

The growth in the early 80's was spurred by Volker (fed chair at the time and last good one) breaking the back of the pernicious inflation that dogged the US economy from the mid '70's. Once he finally killed off the stagflation of the late '70's, the economy returned to growth in 1982. It's kind of hard to give Raygun's tax cuts credit for growth when the economy was already growing by the time they were passed. Raygun was like Bill Clinton, in the right place at the right time.

Also, Raygun ended his term with the beginnings of the S&L crisis and a recession (remember 1987?). To say that Raygun's tax credits spurred an unprecedented peace time growth is nonsense. He was elected during a recession/stagflation and left under a recession. Once again he is no different than any other president who had very little effect on the economy. The presidents that have had a real discernible effect on the economy are few and far between (IMO there's only one and that's Hoover and his tariffs which sparked a trade war that made the Great Depression worse).

KC native
12-03-2009, 09:23 AM
Reagan sat MANY economist down infront of the congress and the senate.
Those economist explained to both houses that the best way to get the economy going again was to let the American people KEEP more of what they make. The congress and the senate passed tax cuts..........voila, the economy rebounded and the stock market broke out of a 20-25 year FUNK.

God Bless President Ronald Reagan.

:rolleyes: Yea I saw this when you posted it yesterday. You have zero idea of what you're talking about. The economy was growing again before Raygun's tax cuts.

Chief Henry
12-03-2009, 09:26 AM
:rolleyes: Yea I saw this when you posted it yesterday. You have zero idea of what you're talking about. The economy was growing again before Raygun's tax cuts.

You are the clueless one - it shows daily.

KC native
12-03-2009, 09:26 AM
And yet we still have people who insist the supply side economics is a failure and that we can tax our way to prosperity.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Where did I say we could tax our way to prosperity? Extremely high tax rates are punitive and can choke off growth but 35-45% marginal tax rates isn't in the punitive zone.

Taco John
12-03-2009, 09:27 AM
Direckshun you're learning! Good for you!

Tax cuts without spending cuts aren't going to help much. Well, they'll help you and I in our pocket to be sure. But they're not a silver bullet. You have to scale back all these harmful and counter-productive services.

Glad to see our resident socialists coming to their senses.

KC native
12-03-2009, 09:27 AM
You are the clueless one - it shows daily.

ROFL Where was the proof for your statements again? Oh that's right, all in your head.

BucEyedPea
12-03-2009, 09:28 AM
Cutting govt spending will help the economy.

Chief Henry
12-03-2009, 09:31 AM
ROFL Where was the proof for your statements again? Oh that's right, all in your head.

The history is the proof numnuts. You should stop making a fool out of yourself.

Taco John
12-03-2009, 09:32 AM
I hope others of our resident socialists take this giant leap along with Direckshun and recognize the folly of their arguments. Tax cuts aren't the only solution. You have to cut government spending to heal the economy. And that's not to mention the cuts that need to made at the level of the Federal Reserve. We can't just keep printing money.

But this is a great first step. I'm proud of you Direckshun! You're moving in the right "direckshun" with this thread.

KC native
12-03-2009, 09:34 AM
The history is the proof numnuts. You should stop making a fool out of yourself.

Do yourself a favor and pull GDP numbers from 1980-1989

Taco John
12-03-2009, 09:34 AM
of course, you're thread still celebrates class warfare, which is something that you should work on. But baby steps. Getting pointed in the right direction is most definitely a worthwhile accomplishment. Kudos!

Royal Fanatic
12-03-2009, 09:42 AM
Do yourself a favor and pull GDP numbers from 1980-1989
These are the historical GDP numbers. The GDP was not going up prior to the Reagan tax cuts. But then something pretty dramatic happened around 1982. I wonder what that could have been?

http://www.valueinvest.org/27_files/image006.gif

KC native
12-03-2009, 09:47 AM
These are the historical GDP numbers. The GDP was not going up prior to the Reagan tax cuts. But then something pretty dramatic happened around 1982. I wonder what that could have been?

http://www.valueinvest.org/27_files/image006.gif

First off it's normalized but doesn't say how they did normalized it. Second, you need to learn how to read a chart. 1982 marks the bottom of the dip from 1978-1982. You see it hits that low and then rockets off of it during 1982. There's a term for that. It's growth.

You should pull the numerical series as it's much easier to read.

HonestChieffan
12-03-2009, 09:48 AM
Quarter Nominal Adjusted(Real Dollars 2000)
1980 Q1 $2,725.3 $5,221.3
1980 Q2 $2,729.3 $5,115.9
1980 Q3 $2,786.6 $5,107.4
1980 Q4 $2,916.9 $5,202.1
1981 Q1 $3,052.7 $5,307.5
1981 Q2 $3,085.9 $5,266.1
1981 Q3 $3,178.7 $5,329.8
1981 Q4 $3,196.4 $5,263.4
1982 Q1 $3,186.8 $5,177.1
1982 Q2 $3,242.7 $5,204.9
1982 Q3 $3,276.2 $5,185.2
1982 Q4 $3,314.4 $5,189.8
1983 Q1 $3,382.9 $5,253.8
1983 Q2 $3,484.1 $5,372.3
1983 Q3 $3,589.3 $5,478.4
1983 Q4 $3,690.4 $5,590.5
1984 Q1 $3,809.6 $5,699.8
1984 Q2 $3,908.6 $5,797.9
1984 Q3 $3,978.2 $5,854.3
1984 Q4 $4,036.3 $5,902.4
1985 Q1 $4,119.5 $5,956.9
1985 Q2 $4,178.4 $6,007.8
1985 Q3 $4,261.3 $6,101.7
1985 Q4 $4,321.8 $6,148.6
1986 Q1 $4,385.6 $6,207.4
1986 Q2 $4,425.7 $6,232.0
1986 Q3 $4,493.9 $6,291.7
1986 Q4 $4,546.1 $6,323.4
1987 Q1 $4,613.8 $6,365.0
1987 Q2 $4,690.0 $6,435.0
1987 Q3 $4,767.8 $6,493.4
1987 Q4 $4,886.3 $6,606.8
1988 Q1 $4,951.9 $6,639.1
1988 Q2 $5,062.8 $6,723.5
1988 Q3 $5,146.6 $6,759.4
1988 Q4 $5,253.7 $6,848.6
1989 Q1 $5,367.1 $6,918.1
1989 Q2 $5,454.1 $6,963.5

KC native
12-03-2009, 09:50 AM
Quarter Nominal Adjusted(Real Dollars 2000)
1980 Q1 $2,725.3 $5,221.3
1980 Q2 $2,729.3 $5,115.9
1980 Q3 $2,786.6 $5,107.4
1980 Q4 $2,916.9 $5,202.1
1981 Q1 $3,052.7 $5,307.5
1981 Q2 $3,085.9 $5,266.1
1981 Q3 $3,178.7 $5,329.8
1981 Q4 $3,196.4 $5,263.4
1982 Q1 $3,186.8 $5,177.1
1982 Q2 $3,242.7 $5,204.9
1982 Q3 $3,276.2 $5,185.2
1982 Q4 $3,314.4 $5,189.8
1983 Q1 $3,382.9 $5,253.8
1983 Q2 $3,484.1 $5,372.3
1983 Q3 $3,589.3 $5,478.4
1983 Q4 $3,690.4 $5,590.5
1984 Q1 $3,809.6 $5,699.8
1984 Q2 $3,908.6 $5,797.9
1984 Q3 $3,978.2 $5,854.3
1984 Q4 $4,036.3 $5,902.4
1985 Q1 $4,119.5 $5,956.9
1985 Q2 $4,178.4 $6,007.8
1985 Q3 $4,261.3 $6,101.7
1985 Q4 $4,321.8 $6,148.6
1986 Q1 $4,385.6 $6,207.4
1986 Q2 $4,425.7 $6,232.0
1986 Q3 $4,493.9 $6,291.7
1986 Q4 $4,546.1 $6,323.4
1987 Q1 $4,613.8 $6,365.0
1987 Q2 $4,690.0 $6,435.0
1987 Q3 $4,767.8 $6,493.4
1987 Q4 $4,886.3 $6,606.8
1988 Q1 $4,951.9 $6,639.1
1988 Q2 $5,062.8 $6,723.5
1988 Q3 $5,146.6 $6,759.4
1988 Q4 $5,253.7 $6,848.6
1989 Q1 $5,367.1 $6,918.1
1989 Q2 $5,454.1 $6,963.5

JFC you guys need a class in how to present data. WTF would you pull quarterly numbers when we are clearly interested in the annuals in this case.

Royal Fanatic
12-03-2009, 09:58 AM
First off it's normalized but doesn't say how they did normalized it. Second, you need to learn how to read a chart. 1982 marks the bottom of the dip from 1978-1982. You see it hits that low and then rockets off of it during 1982. There's a term for that. It's growth.

You should pull the numerical series as it's much easier to read.
Yes. Growth caused by the Reagan tax cuts. Thanks for making my point for me.

You really should learn how to read history books. The first Reagan tax cuts were enacted in 1981 with the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. Then, to use your own words, GDP "rockets off during 1982".

It's really not that hard to understand.

HonestChieffan
12-03-2009, 10:03 AM
JFC you guys need a class in how to present data. WTF would you pull quarterly numbers when we are clearly interested in the annuals in this case.

You are aware annual is sum of each Q beginning with q1 and ending with q4?

KC native
12-03-2009, 10:14 AM
Yes. Growth caused by the Reagan tax cuts. Thanks for making my point for me.

You really should learn how to read history books. The first Reagan tax cuts were enacted in 1981 with the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. Then, to use your own words, GDP "rockets off during 1982".

It's really not that hard to understand.

JFC you really are a blind partisan huh? Most of those tax cuts were phased in over 3 years and you're trying to give them credit for an economy that had just been through stagflation (about 72-79 and then severe recession from 80-82) and was bound to increase regardless of what Raygun did. Again, right place right time. Giving credit to tax cuts, that weren't even fully implemented, when our economy was due to revert to the mean and return to cyclical growth is nonsense.

If supply side economics was such a sure fire thing, why didn't it work under Shrub Jr?

KC native
12-03-2009, 10:15 AM
You are aware annual is sum of each Q beginning with q1 and ending with q4?

Why should I have to sum it when it's just as easy to pull the annual numbers?

Royal Fanatic
12-03-2009, 11:35 AM
JFC you really are a blind partisan huh? Most of those tax cuts were phased in over 3 years and you're trying to give them credit for an economy that had just been through stagflation (about 72-79 and then severe recession from 80-82) and was bound to increase regardless of what Raygun did. Again, right place right time. Giving credit to tax cuts, that weren't even fully implemented, when our economy was due to revert to the mean and return to cyclical growth is nonsense.

If supply side economics was such a sure fire thing, why didn't it work under Shrub Jr?
Given your insistence on spelling Reagan as "Raygun" and referring to GW Bush as "Shrub Jr", it's pretty obvious who the blind partisan is.

You asked us to look up the GDP numbers: I did it. You then complained that the data is in graph format, so HonestChiefFan provided a table. Then you bitched because the table shows quarterly totals instead of annual totals.

It's also pretty obvious that even when we spoon-feed the information to you, you either don't comprehend it or you refuse to acknowledge it. Why is that? Are you just stupid, or are you unwilling to admit it when you're wrong. Either way, you're getting pwned in this discussion.

I'd try to explain the difference between the Reagan tax cuts and the Bush tax cuts to you, but I'm starting to suspect that it's a waste of time.

Oh what the hell, I'll give it a shot.

There is an optimum tax rate that maximizes revenues. If you're at the optimum rate, then any change in the tax rate, positive OR negative, decreases revenues. If you decrease the tax rate when you're already at the optimum rate, the resulting expansion in economic activity is too small to make up for the lower tax rates, and tax revenues fall. If you increase taxes when you're already at the optimum rate, the reduction in economic activity also results in lower tax revenues.

This was described by Arthur Laffer and depicted as the Laffer Curve (see diagram).

<a href="http://i.investopedia.com/inv/dictionary/terms/laffercurve.gif" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" src="http://i.investopedia.com/inv/dictionary/terms/laffercurve.gif" style="cursor: pointer; width: 250px;" /></a>
It all really boils down to where you are on the curve when you decide to cut the tax rate. If you are to the right of the apex of the curve and you cut the tax rate, revenues will go up. When Reagan cut the tax rates in the 1980s, we were to the right of the apex of the curve. As the tax rates went down, tax revenues went up.

If you're to the left of the apex (or on the apex), tax revenues will go down as tax rates go down. That is where we were when Bush cut the tax rates in the early 2000s, which is why the Bush tax cuts didn't stimulate the economy any where near the amount that the Reagan tax cuts did.

It's really not that hard to understand if you would just open your mind and stop insisting that Republican=bad and Democrat=good.

HonestChieffan
12-03-2009, 11:41 AM
After 77 posts you are about to enter the twighlight zone.

I'd suggest a change of clothes, some bottled water, and a exit strategy. Don't drink the water down there unless you take it and do not plan to find any intellect once you arrive.

Good luck soldier.

KC native
12-03-2009, 11:54 AM
Given your insistence on spelling Reagan as "Raygun" and referring to GW Bush as "Shrub Jr", it's pretty obvious who the blind partisan is.

You asked us to look up the GDP numbers: I did it. You then complained that the data is in graph format, so HonestChiefFan provided a table. Then you bitched because the table shows quarterly totals instead of annual totals.

It's also pretty obvious that even when we spoon-feed the information to you, you either don't comprehend it or you refuse to acknowledge it. Why is that? Are you just stupid, or are you unwilling to admit it when you're wrong. Either way, you're getting pwned in this discussion.

I'd try to explain the difference between the Reagan tax cuts and the Bush tax cuts to you, but I'm starting to suspect that it's a waste of time.

Oh what the hell, I'll give it a shot.

There is an optimum tax rate that maximizes revenues. If you're at the optimum rate, then any change in the tax rate, positive OR negative, decreases revenues. If you decrease the tax rate when you're already at the optimum rate, the resulting expansion in economic activity is too small to make up for the lower tax rates, and tax revenues fall. If you increase taxes when you're already at the optimum rate, the reduction in economic activity also results in lower tax revenues.

This was described by Arthur Laffer and depicted as the Laffer Curve (see diagram).

<a href="http://i.investopedia.com/inv/dictionary/terms/laffercurve.gif" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" src="http://i.investopedia.com/inv/dictionary/terms/laffercurve.gif" style="cursor: pointer; width: 250px;" /></a>
It all really boils down to where you are on the curve when you decide to cut the tax rate. If you are to the right of the apex of the curve and you cut the tax rate, revenues will go up. When Reagan cut the tax rates in the 1980s, we were to the right of the apex of the curve. As the tax rates went down, tax revenues went up.

If you're to the left of the apex (or on the apex), tax revenues will go down as tax rates go down. That is where we were when Bush cut the tax rates in the early 2000s, which is why the Bush tax cuts didn't stimulate the economy any where near the amount that the Reagan tax cuts did.

It's really not that hard to understand if you would just open your mind and stop insisting that Republican=bad and Democrat=good.

Are you serious? You're trying to post a primer on supply side economics? I've already given you the context of what was going on at the time and you guys refuse to acknowledge the economic realities at the time. Instead of recognizing what the actual conditions of the economy were and observing things such as reversion to the mean, you want to attribute it to tax cuts without any justification. Economics isn't something you can look at in a vacuum and almost never can you point to one cause or condition for an event. Again we get to another concept that you are ignoring. Correlation doesn't equal causation. When you or anyone can prove that the tax cuts led to the growth of the 80's and not the other things I've mentioned then you might have a case (as of now, no one has proven that which is why supply side has been written off by most economists).

The fact of the matter is that both the Raygun and Shrub tax cuts were both cut from the supply side cloth. Neither one of them did what was promised.

googlegoogle
12-03-2009, 01:10 PM
Jobs are created by investors , NOT GOVERNMENT.

Dummycrats want to take AWAY investing profits by higher taxes.

Why would any business want to expand.

googlegoogle
12-03-2009, 01:13 PM
Are you serious? You're trying to post a primer on supply side economics? I've already given you the context of what was going on at the time and you guys refuse to acknowledge the economic realities at the time. Instead of recognizing what the actual conditions of the economy were and observing things such as reversion to the mean, you want to attribute it to tax cuts without any justification. Economics isn't something you can look at in a vacuum and almost never can you point to one cause or condition for an event. Again we get to another concept that you are ignoring. Correlation doesn't equal causation. When you or anyone can prove that the tax cuts led to the growth of the 80's and not the other things I've mentioned then you might have a case (as of now, no one has proven that which is why supply side has been written off by most economists).

The fact of the matter is that both the Raygun and Shrub tax cuts were both cut from the supply side cloth. Neither one of them did what was promised.

Your comment attacking tax cuts and Reagan = ROFL

Obama = Jimmy Carter.

googlegoogle
12-03-2009, 01:15 PM
A bunch of Republicans

Republicans = investors =businesses = jobs.

SmallReddickChief = communist.

Iowanian
12-03-2009, 01:15 PM
If the fed would let me keep more of MY money....not asking for any of yours, I'd have more profit/funds to purchase equipment, add services and create a job or two in an economically depressed area.

Royal Fanatic
12-03-2009, 01:16 PM
The fact of the matter is that both the Raygun and Shrub tax cuts were both cut from the supply side cloth. Neither one of them did what was promised.
Again with the "Raygun" and "Shrub" pejoratives. Your argument would be more effective if you'd leave your obvious bias out of it.

The real fact of the matter is that the Reagan tax cuts did exactly as promised.

I'll ask again: were you around then?

mlyonsd
12-03-2009, 01:18 PM
The left trying to impose cap and trade policies at this point in our economical situation is proof positive they don't know WTF they're talking about. Period.

Royal Fanatic
12-03-2009, 01:24 PM
The left trying to impose cap and trade policies at this point in our economical situation is proof positive they don't know WTF they're talking about. Period.
THANK YOU! Cap and Trade is the stupidest f*cking piece of legislation in our lifetimes.

How long before KC native tells us that it's going to save the planet?

wild1
12-03-2009, 01:29 PM
THANK YOU! Cap and Trade is the stupidest f*cking piece of legislation in our lifetimes.

How long before KC native tells us that it's going to save the planet?

Since it's a massive tax, they probably would say "What? this is a jobs bill!"

Royal Fanatic
12-03-2009, 01:33 PM
Since it's a massive tax, they probably would say "What? this is a jobs bill!"
They'll also tell us that it will reduce the deficit by ZILLIONS of dollars.

HonestChieffan
12-03-2009, 01:42 PM
Since it's a massive tax, they probably would say "What? this is a jobs bill!"

Go back and see if you can find the presser Pelosi did when it passed. She said exactly that....it is a jobs bill.

its insane

KC native
12-03-2009, 03:23 PM
Again with the "Raygun" and "Shrub" pejoratives. Your argument would be more effective if you'd leave your obvious bias out of it.

The real fact of the matter is that the Reagan tax cuts did exactly as promised.

I'll ask again: were you around then?

I have a disdain for most politicians especially when it comes to economic and financial matters. You assumed I'm a democrat because I labeled Raygun and Shrub as such. You couldn't be more off base if you tried. I'm steadfastly against the two party system and think it breeds nothing but corruption and the illusion of choice.

Your assumptions are no good because if you go back and look at my posting history I have been very critical of how this crisis has been handled by both Bush and Obama.

The matter of whether I was around then has no bearing on my argument. I noticed you failed to rebut anything that I wrote so it's safe to say at this point you can recite the supply sider talking points but once it gets past the surface and you have to actually look at the whole picture you begin to fall short. If you can move past attacking the messenger and focus on what I wrote then we can continue that discussion. Until then you will remain a blind partisan in my book that can follow talking points but is ultimately clueless when it comes to actual economic analysis.

So, in closing, what exactly the Raygun tax cuts delivered?

petegz28
12-03-2009, 03:38 PM
Go back and see if you can find the presser Pelosi did when it passed. She said exactly that....it is a jobs bill.

its insane

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, Jobs

googlegoogle
12-04-2009, 02:29 AM
Supply side economics doesn't work. We've had real life experiments under Bush and Reagan and neither produced the desired effects.

except record growth rates. :clap:

googlegoogle
12-04-2009, 02:30 AM
I have a disdain for most politicians especially when it comes to economic and financial matters. You assumed I'm a democrat because I labeled Raygun and Shrub as such. You couldn't be more off base if you tried. I'm steadfastly against the two party system and think it breeds nothing but corruption and the illusion of choice.

Your assumptions are no good because if you go back and look at my posting history I have been very critical of how this crisis has been handled by both Bush and Obama.

The matter of whether I was around then has no bearing on my argument. I noticed you failed to rebut anything that I wrote so it's safe to say at this point you can recite the supply sider talking points but once it gets past the surface and you have to actually look at the whole picture you begin to fall short. If you can move past attacking the messenger and focus on what I wrote then we can continue that discussion. Until then you will remain a blind partisan in my book that can follow talking points but is ultimately clueless when it comes to actual economic analysis.

So, in closing, what exactly the Raygun tax cuts delivered?

He asked you a question and you DODGED. :doh!:


YOU DON'T KNOW SHIT OBAMA BOY.

JUST A CHILD.

:cuss:

Royal Fanatic
12-04-2009, 12:25 PM
I have a disdain for most politicians especially when it comes to economic and financial matters. You assumed I'm a democrat because I labeled Raygun and Shrub as such. You couldn't be more off base if you tried. I'm steadfastly against the two party system and think it breeds nothing but corruption and the illusion of choice.

Your assumptions are no good because if you go back and look at my posting history I have been very critical of how this crisis has been handled by both Bush and Obama.

The matter of whether I was around then has no bearing on my argument. I noticed you failed to rebut anything that I wrote so it's safe to say at this point you can recite the supply sider talking points but once it gets past the surface and you have to actually look at the whole picture you begin to fall short. If you can move past attacking the messenger and focus on what I wrote then we can continue that discussion. Until then you will remain a blind partisan in my book that can follow talking points but is ultimately clueless when it comes to actual economic analysis.

So, in closing, what exactly the Raygun tax cuts delivered?
Failed to rebut anything you wrote? You are SO full of shit.

Go back and re-read this thread. I (and others) have posted yearly GDP totals in both graph and table form. The data shows a clear spike immediately after Reagan's initial tax cuts. Your initial responses were to whine that the graphs were hard for you to read, and then to whine because the table data showed quarterly results rather than annual results. Then finally you offered the incredibly lame response that the spike in GDP was just part of the normal business cycle and had nothing to do with the tax cuts. Of course, you offered ZERO evidence to support your position. You simply made an assertion without proof.

Provide some evidence to back up your claim that supply-side economics has never delivered, and this discussion can continue. Otherwise, I'm done.

KC native
12-04-2009, 12:52 PM
Failed to rebut anything you wrote? You are SO full of shit.

Go back and re-read this thread. I (and others) have posted yearly GDP totals in both graph and table form. The data shows a clear spike immediately after Reagan's initial tax cuts. Your initial responses were to whine that the graphs were hard for you to read, and then to whine because the table data showed quarterly results rather than annual results. Then finally you offered the incredibly lame response that the spike in GDP was just part of the normal business cycle and had nothing to do with the tax cuts. Of course, you offered ZERO evidence to support your position. You simply made an assertion without proof.

Provide some evidence to back up your claim that supply-side economics has never delivered, and this discussion can continue. Otherwise, I'm done.

No you didn't rebut anything I said. When I gave you the entire economic background for the time and gave you the reasons for the economy to return you growth, you decided it was time to attack the messenger instead of look at the big picture and what actually happened versus political talking points.

It's nice to know that I can write you off when it comes to economics and objectivity. Like I said, when you can prove that RAYGUN'S TAX CUTS spurred our economy's growth instead of the normal business cycle and Volker's breaking of inflation then you may have something. As of yet, no one has proven that so good luck.

Edit: As far as rebuttal, I would like to see you address the concept of reversion to the mean and how that in coming out of the 80-82 recession that it didn't effect GDP and our economy. Also, and here's the biggie and it's relevant to my last paragraph, please address how the correlation of two contemporaneous events equals causation.

Direckshun
12-04-2009, 01:21 PM
From Forbes magazine.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/03/tax-cuts-stimulus-jobs-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html

The CBO also looked at the stimulative effect of various parts of the stimulus package. It found that purchases of goods and services by the federal government--such as for public works--had the largest bang for the buck, raising GDP by $2.50 for each $1 spent. Transfer payments had a lesser impact, but were still significantly more stimulative than tax cuts. Moreover, tax cuts of the sort favored by Republicans have the least impact. According to the CBO, tax cuts for low-income individuals raise GDP by as much as $1.70 for every $1 of revenue loss, while those for the rich and for corporations raised GDP by at most 50 cents for every $1 of revenue loss.

Lest one suspect the CBO of bias, private economists have also found that tax cuts are far less stimulative than spending under current economic conditions. Mark Zandi of Moody's ( MCO - news - people ) Economy.com, an advisor to John McCain last year, recently testified before the Joint Economic Committee of Congress that the Republicans' favorite tax proposals--making all the Bush tax cuts permanent and cutting the corporate tax rate--would raise GDP by at most 37 cents for each $1 of revenue loss. By contrast, increased outlays for infrastructure, aid to state and local governments and extended unemployment benefits increase GDP by between $1.41 and $1.57 for every $1 spent.