FOX:Are Reagan Republicans Aptly Named?

[Riggo-toni]

Are Reagan Republicans Aptly Named?

Wednesday, June 09, 2004

WASHINGTON — Republican lawmakers have taken to the floor this week over and over again to praise Ronald Reagan's (search) vision, but many might argue the current set of Reagan Republicans serving in Congress aren't actually pursuing his goals.

Reagan did see many of his domestic dreams achieved — a Congress ruled by Republicans, as well as a conservative-leaning Supreme Court and Federal Reserve (search).

"There are probably close to 100 congressmen who consider themselves part of the Reagan legacy today," said Texas Rep. Joe Barton.

But Reagan's goal of reversing the growth of government has taken an unexpected turn. Non-defense spending under the GOP has risen 20 percent in three years. Reagan cut that spending 13 percent even with a Democratic-run House.

Republicans have followed his path when it comes to welfare reform and ballistic missile defense, but they will debate whether the giant Medicare (search) reform bill that passed last year could be chalked up as winning one for the "Gipper."

[NavyDave]

I would say yes during the 93- 97 period during the contract with America.

Nowadays we have RINOs and the country club Republican types offsetting the Reagan Democrats and Republicans.

There is pork barrell spending on bothsides though maybe the GOP is trying to out liberal the democrats on domestic spending to grab votes but its not the way to go about it.

[Oldskool]

Originally posted by NavyDave

I would say yes during the 93- 97 period during the contract with America.

Nowadays we have RINOs and the country club Republican types offsetting the Reagan Democrats and Republicans.

There is pork barrell spending on bothsides though maybe the GOP is trying to out liberal the democrats on domestic spending to grab votes but its not the way to go about it.

Agreed. Regan Republicans are a sect of the party that are going the way of the dinosaurs. And thats a shame.

[Riggo-toni]

It's sort of one of the great ironies of modern politics that the "Reagan Revolution" was actually realised during the Clinton Presidency. As you stated ND, 93-97 when Gingrich was House Leader, per capita spending per GDP adjusted for inflation actually decreased for the first time since Eisenhower, and a sharp cut in the capital gains tax actually brought in SIGNIFICANTLY more revenue, producing a budget surplus. Supply Side Economics at its finest. Sadly, the Hastert Republicans have completely abandoned the approach that brought so much prosperity in the 90s.

[NavyDave]

I agree to an extent on that riggo.

Can you imagine if we had the contract with american and the Gingrich led House and those GOPers with President Reagan back then?

Social Security partially privatised and retirees with a significantly larger return.

And a stronger moral and patriotic foundation than we have today

[Duncan]

Originally posted by riggo-toni

It's sort of one of the great ironies of modern politics that the "Reagan Revolution" was actually realised during the Clinton Presidency. As you stated ND, 93-97 when Gingrich was House Leader, per capita spending per GDP adjusted for inflation actually decreased for the first time since Eisenhower, and a sharp cut in the capital gains tax actually brought in SIGNIFICANTLY more revenue, producing a budget surplus. Supply Side Economics at its finest. Sadly, the Hastert Republicans have completely abandoned the approach that brought so much prosperity in the 90s.

That’s exactly right riggo. Clinton, despite the shutdown, actually passed a lot of the republican agenda. He was forced to after the midterm elections. He would have been a one term president if Dick Morris had not convinced him to adopt the triangulation strategy.

The capital gains tax cut was meaningful and generated a ton of revenue to the treasury. That, along with Newt and Kasich holding the line on spending, produced the surpluses.

The current congress is a disgrace.

[NavyDave]

Duncan thats an understatement

[chomerics]

Originally posted by riggo-toni

It's sort of one of the great ironies of modern politics that the "Reagan Revolution" was actually realised during the Clinton Presidency. As you stated ND, 93-97 when Gingrich was House Leader, per capita spending per GDP adjusted for inflation actually decreased for the first time since Eisenhower, and a sharp cut in the capital gains tax actually brought in SIGNIFICANTLY more revenue, producing a budget surplus. Supply Side Economics at its finest. Sadly, the Hastert Republicans have completely abandoned the approach that brought so much prosperity in the 90s.

Not supply side Riggo, because remember, Income taxes increased during the time span. Also, supply side doesn't coinside necessarily with a decrease in spending, but a properly timed tax cut does.

You also have to take into account the growth in the economy due to NAFTA and the opening up of borders, that generated outrageous profits, Greenspan lowering the interest rates to promote business spending, all were mitigating factors that increased the government surplus.

As far as Clinton's ploicies, he's probably the POTUS which represents my beliefs the closest. He was very conservative on budgets and democratic on social programs, the enviornment etc. He knew how to toe the line and play the game, something Dubya is sorely lacking.

We're in a supply side economy right now with the tax cuts, but it isn't working. It's a failed theory and all it does is promote a balances of taxes from the ultra wealthy to the poor.

[Duncan]

Originally posted by chomerics

Not supply side Riggo, because remember, Income taxes increased during the time span. Also, supply side doesn't coinside necessarily with a decrease in spending, but a properly timed tax cut does.

You also have to take into account the growth in the economy due to NAFTA and the opening up of borders, that generated outrageous profits, Greenspan lowering the interest rates to promote business spending, all were mitigating factors that increased the government surplus.

As far as Clinton's ploicies, he's probably the POTUS which represents my beliefs the closest. He was very conservative on budgets and democratic on social programs, the enviornment etc. He knew how to toe the line and play the game, something Dubya is sorely lacking.

We're in a supply side economy right now with the tax cuts, but it isn't working. It's a failed theory and all it does is promote a balances of taxes from the ultra wealthy to the poor.

Clinton was very conservative on budgeting? Your joking, right Mike? His first two budgets contained billion dollar deficits. The proposed government takeover of 1/7 of the nations economy, remember that little gem. Certainly you remember Clinton holding up the "health care security" card. Yep, that was a "very conservative on budgets". Thank God that one fell through. Signing the Republican welfare reform bill, and then apologizing and telling the everyone he will fix it, was democratic on social spending? If you are going to debate you need to get your facts straight.

Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming to balance the budget.

"I think we can balance the budget in 12 years"

"We can do that in 10 years"

"We can do it in 7 years."

"OK,OK, we can balance the budget in 6 years”

So we are in a failed economy? You can’t be that obtuse Mike. After the current "failed" supply side economic policies we are back to 4% growth in GDP (one quarter of 8%, close to an all time high), less that 6% unemployment, historically low fed funds rates, no inflation. What fantasy land do you live in? Oh that's right you are in a fantasy land - academia.

In the words of the great one himself, from Reagan in his own words:

"A friend of mine was asked to a costume ball a short time ago. He slapped some egg on his face and went as a liberal economist."

"We do not have a trillion dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough. We have a trillion dollar debt because we spend too much."

[thew]

Gee Neo Conservitives aren't new and they certainly aren't conservatives.... It's like you guys have never heard that before.... Currently 1 out of five conservatives are not supporting Bush for reelection. Reagan Republicans will vote Kerry because it's our only hope for fiscal sanity.

[Sarge]

Originally posted by thew

Gee Neo Conservitives aren't new and they certainly aren't conservatives.... It's like you guys have never heard that before.... Currently 1 out of five conservatives are not supporting Bush for reelection. Reagan Republicans will vote Kerry because it's our only hope for fiscal sanity.

No true conservative would ever vote for kerry, the most liberal senator in the Senate. They probably just won't vote.

[TankRizzo]

Originally posted by thew

Gee Neo Conservitives aren't new and they certainly aren't conservatives.... It's like you guys have never heard that before.... Currently 1 out of five conservatives are not supporting Bush for reelection. Reagan Republicans will vote Kerry because it's our only hope for fiscal sanity.

I'd hardly consider voting for Kerry simply because of the looming across the board tax hike that would come post election if he wins. But then again I can not stand the spending Bush is doing. I 100% back the actions taken in Iraq, but he did a horrid job at presenting his case and the evidence we have. There's a mountain of reasoning for the invasion but he put all of his eggs in one basket and it back fired. Either way, I'm not thrilled with our options at all and am considering just writing in for McCain...seeing as how MD will overwhelmingly vote for kerry (thanks Baltimore ).

[Tarhog]

Originally posted by thew

Reagan Republicans will vote Kerry because it's our only hope for fiscal sanity.

Come on Thew...thats the kind of post that just totally destroys any credibility you might have. No true conservative is going to vote for Kerry. They might well vote for a McCain or a Buchanon were they running, but they aren't going to vote for Kerry because Bush has outspent some of his previous Republican predecessors.

[atloldskin]

Congress controls all spending, not the President. Reagan did not have a Republican Senate and House during his eight years. That is why he always wanted the line item veto.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by atloldskin

Congress controls all spending, not the President. Reagan did not have a Republican Senate and House during his eight years. That is why he always wanted the line item veto.

And your excuse now is???

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Duncan

Clinton was very conservative on budgeting? Your joking, right Mike? His first two budgets contained billion dollar deficits.

The proposed government takeover of 1/7 of the nations economy, remember that little gem. Certainly you remember Clinton holding up the "health care security" card. Yep, that was a "very conservative on budgets". Thank God that one fell through. Signing the Republican welfare reform bill, and then apologizing and telling the everyone he will fix it, was democratic on social spending? If you are going to debate you need to get your facts straight.

Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming to balance the budget.

"I think we can balance the budget in 12 years"

"We can do that in 10 years"

"We can do it in 7 years."

"OK,OK, we can balance the budget in 6 years”

So we are in a failed economy? You can’t be that obtuse Mike. After the current "failed" supply side economic policies we are back to 4% growth in GDP (one quarter of 8%, close to an all time high), less that 6% unemployment, historically low fed funds rates, no inflation. What fantasy land do you live in? Oh that's right you are in a fantasy land - academia.

In the words of the great one himself, from Reagan in his own words:

"A friend of mine was asked to a costume ball a short time ago. He slapped some egg on his face and went as a liberal economist."

"We do not have a trillion dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough. We have a trillion dollar debt because we spend too much."

You not only don't listen, you don't learn either. I have continued to trash you in supply side theory showing how it's a failed theory. You end up just letting posts die because you have nothing to back up your idiotic belief that supply side economics works.

Now Duncan, let me ask you what has changed from when Clinton was in office??? I'll give you a hint, it's the guy running the country. Our Congress is the same as when Clinton was president.

So, now we have 8 years of growth under Clinton AND we also had a balanced budget. Well Clinton leaves office and good ol' Dubya takes office. Now, tell me how the hell is it the democrats fault for big spending??? How did the democrats, who don't have a m,ajority in the House, or the Senate and they don't controll the Presedency.

From the looks of it, over the past 20 years, the Democrats have been the ones for fiscal frugality and the Republicans have been for big spending. Do I need to bring up governmenmt programs under Bush and Reagan to make my point, or will you just go away now and make it easier on both of us.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by TankRizzo

I'd hardly consider voting for Kerry simply because of the looming across the board tax hike that would come post election if he wins. But then again I can not stand the spending Bush is doing. I 100% back the actions taken in Iraq, but he did a horrid job at presenting his case and the evidence we have. There's a mountain of reasoning for the invasion but he put all of his eggs in one basket and it back fired. Either way, I'm not thrilled with our options at all and am considering just writing in for McCain...seeing as how MD will overwhelmingly vote for kerry (thanks Baltimore ).

Taxing the top 2% of Americans isn't a "across the board" increase. It would only effect the people earning over 200K.

[Nerm]

Originally posted by Tarhog

Come on Thew...thats the kind of post that just totally destroys any credibility you might have. No true conservative is going to vote for Kerry. They might well vote for a McCain or a Buchanon were they running, but they aren't going to vote for Kerry because Bush has outspent some of his previous Republican predecessors.

As a guy who is most interested in lower taxes and spending at the federal level, I wouldn’t mind if Kerry won. Obviously Kerry is a tax and spend liberal, but the congress would actually oppose his policies. Now they just sign off on any spending Bush wants.

I want to see less government spending. I know Kerry WANTS to spend more than Bush, but I don’t think a Republican Congress would let Kerry spend as much as Bush is spending.

I wouldn’t mind seeing Kerry as president even though I think his voting record on the issues I care most about is laughable.

[Thiebear]

Nice Chomerics.. As long as its not you right?

[Duncan]

Originally posted by chomerics

You not only don't listen, you don't learn either. I have continued to trash you in supply side theory showing how it's a failed theory. You end up just letting posts die because you have nothing to back up your idiotic belief that supply side economics works.

Now Duncan, let me ask you what has changed from when Clinton was in office??? I'll give you a hint, it's the guy running the country. Our Congress is the same as when Clinton was president.

So, now we have 8 years of growth under Clinton AND we also had a balanced budget. Well Clinton leaves office and good ol' Dubya takes office. Now, tell me how the hell is it the democrats fault for big spending??? How did the democrats, who don't have a m,ajority in the House, or the Senate and they don't controll the Presedency.

From the looks of it, over the past 20 years, the Democrats have been the ones for fiscal frugality and the Republicans have been for big spending. Do I need to bring up governmenmt programs under Bush and Reagan to make my point, or will you just go away now and make it easier on both of us.

I clearly stated that this congress is a disgrace, did I not?

You have not “proven” a thing about supply side economics. You incorrectly claim that supply side theory is to cut taxes and increase spending. That was never the theory, yet you have written page after page claiming you are correct and have won the debate. I stopped responding because it’s like arguing with my wife about not needing another pair of shoes. You have become so tiresome Mike and you think because you can ramble on the longest you have won the debate. I suppose you have a lot of extra time at your job.

Again, supply side calls for cutting taxes and holding the line on spending, adjusted to inflation of course. Every single time taxes have been significantly cut the economy has grown dramatically. It worked for JFK, Reagan and now Bush. You can’t deny it. There is irrefutable evidence that cutting taxes stimulates the economy and increases revenue to the treasury. The fact that the congress fails to control spending does not prove the theory wrong. Like riggins stated, the Clinton years were a great example of supply side economics.

The top tax rates under Clinton were actually LOWER than they were under Reagan.

The highest tax rate for individuals and corporations until 1986 was 50%. During the 1990s the highest rate for individuals was 39.6% and 35% for corporations. In the 1980s the capital gains tax was 28 percent. Clinton signed an 8% reduction in capital gains to 20%.

The low taxes in the 1990s coupled with a congress that finally showed some fiscal discipline is the reason we had a balanced budget. THAT IS SUPPLY SIDE THEORY.

You never addressed the current amazing economic numbers in my previous post because, quite frankly, there is nothing you can say. Here they are again: 4% growth in GDP (one quarter of 8%, close to an all time high), less that 6% unemployment, historically low fed funds rates, no inflation. How is this a failed economy?

You never addressed the first two years of Clintons term where he proposed deficit spending and socialized medicine because, quite frankly, it goes against your view of the man. And now you will ignore the FACTS about tax rates during the 1980s and 1990s because, quite frankly, it defeats your petty arguments against supply side economics.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Thiebear

Nice Chomerics.. As long as its not you right?

Pretty damn close, I'm in the top 5%, not the top 2. I actually wouldn't object if it was the top 5%, my savings wasn't that much and I think a few grand can go towards things like more troops, I don't have a problem with that.

It's the ultra welthy, Bush's base that have the problem.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Duncan

I clearly stated that this congress is a disgrace, did I not?

You have not “proven” a thing about supply side economics. You incorrectly claim that supply side theory is to cut taxes and increase spending. That was never the theory, yet you have written page after page claiming you are correct and have won the debate. I stopped responding because it’s like arguing with my wife about not needing another pair of shoes. You have become so tiresome Mike and you think because you can ramble on the longest you have won the debate. I suppose you have a lot of extra time at your job.

Again, supply side calls for cutting taxes and holding the line on spending, adjusted to inflation of course. Every single time taxes have been significantly cut the economy has grown dramatically. It worked for JFK, Reagan and now Bush. You can’t deny it. There is irrefutable evidence that cutting taxes stimulates the economy and increases revenue to the treasury. The fact that the congress fails to control spending does not prove the theory wrong. Like riggins stated, the Clinton years were a great example of supply side economics.

The top tax rates under Clinton were actually LOWER than they were under Reagan.

The highest tax rate for individuals and corporations until 1986 was 50%. During the 1990s the highest rate for individuals was 39.6% and 35% for corporations. In the 1980s the capital gains tax was 28 percent. Clinton signed an 8% reduction in capital gains to 20%.

The low taxes in the 1990s coupled with a congress that finally showed some fiscal discipline is the reason we had a balanced budget. THAT IS SUPPLY SIDE THEORY.

You never addressed the current amazing economic numbers in my previous post because, quite frankly, there is nothing you can say. Here they are again: 4% growth in GDP (one quarter of 8%, close to an all time high), less that 6% unemployment, historically low fed funds rates, no inflation. How is this a failed economy?

You never addressed the first two years of Clintons term where he proposed deficit spending and socialized medicine because, quite frankly, it goes against your view of the man. And now you will ignore the FACTS about tax rates during the 1980s and 1990s because, quite frankly, it defeats your petty arguments against supply side economics.

Cutting taxes is NOT supply side theory. You have a masters in economics, whay am I defining supply side theory? I've posted all the numbers before for you, when you are proven wrong you disappear, you will do it again.

Here's the definiton of supply side theory

"Supply side theory states that you cut taxes no matter what. The corresponding increase in revenue will be so large, because the economy will grow so much, that you will have more tax revenues (based on dollars, not %'s) than what you started with. "

It is a false theory and it has been proven false twice in the past 20 years. It's a tax leverage tool used by ultra wealthy to switch the tax burden from the rich to the poor.

Now, during the early Reagan years, taxes were cut, but we never had the corresponding growth predicted by supply side theory and our federal deficit shot up SO fast, our only hope at containing it was to RAISE taxes. Do you remember the tax reform bill of 85'? It essentially took away the supply side economy and taxed the system. This was done to curb the defict growth.

So we have from 81-85 a supply side economy. Our deficit increased almost 100% and our GDP only grew along the national averare. This isn't a working system. To top it all off, we never reaccumulated the initial government revenues predicted by supply side theory . . . It failed, plain and simple.

Now, we revisited the theory again. So tell me, how have we done? Well, let be tell you, we've done crap. We've increased spending again (why? because is masks the fact that supply side theory doesn't work by pumping additional gavernment dollars into the economy). and our deficit has gone up at an alarming rate again. We will soon be fored to raise taxes to cut the deficit increase.

Now lets look at GDP growth during upply side times. . .

Looking at the above graph where is the growth predicted by supply side? It isn't there. All we ended up doing was increasing the deficit, which in the long run, will end up hurting the economy. If you look at Reagan 1, we grew a total of 2.9%. It's average growth over the past 50 years, espically if you factor in the eonomic cycling that goes on. His second term was better, but that was AFTER he raised taxes!!! It goes directly against supply side thoery.

Now lwts look at Clintons term. In his first term, he grew at 3.2%, his second term was at 4.1%. He RAISED taxes during the span and out economy actually INCREASED!!! Do you know what that means? We were to the left of the Laffer Curve. We weren't at maximum value. We increased taxes, and the economy grew.

Now lets look at Bush again. He decreases taxes and our revenue goes down. Wait, how does this make sense? How does this work? I'll tell you, it works because supply side is a failed theory in practice. It doesn't work, it increases our federal deficit exponentially, so we have to raise taxes in the long run.

As for the Bush's tax cuts, he got VERY LUCKY. Do you remember how he was going to pay for the cuts? He was predicting the record growth during the Clinton Administration would continue for another 10 years, it was complete and utter BS.

Now, here's where he got lucky. By the time his tax cuts became effective, the economy was in the recession. THIS is when you cut taxes!!! When you bottom out, a tax cut can stimulate growth (assuming it's executed properly.) He managed to time the tax break right, alkong witht the increase of governmant spending. He pumped an extra 2 Trillion dollars into the economy at the bottom of the recession. It's econimics 101, and it wouked to a T, but the reasons for putting in the tax cut were not correct. Supply side theory is not correct and being lucky doesn't make you good.

For all the reasons listed, it's a failed theory.

[Sarge]

Now, during the early Reagan years, taxes were cut, but we never had the corresponding growth predicted by supply side theory and our federal deficit shot up SO fast, our only hope at containing it was to RAISE taxes.

ANd I don't suppose the continued spending of the Dem Congress had anything to do with the deficit?

It is a false theory and it has been proven false twice in the past 20 years. It's a tax leverage tool used by ultra wealthy to switch the tax burden from the rich to the poor.

The poor don't pay taxes. They get an earned income tax credit

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Sarge

ANd I don't suppose the continued spending of the Dem Congress had anything to do with the deficit?

Hmmm a convienient explination which fails to look at the facts. Look at the OMB data from 81-85. Reagan had all the powere and congress had crap. If you remember, Reagan called out congress and dared them to veto his tax cut, they blinked and the rest is history. ALSO, look at where the increase in spending went, to the defense industry. Programs like Star Wars and what not, they weren't liberal programs. Therefor, when you say "don't you think the dem congress had anything to do with it," I say no.

The poor don't pay taxes. They get an earned income tax credit

Keep thinking that Sarge. Well, lets look at the latest round of tax cuts. The average AMerican in the bottom 25% actually saw a tax increase because of the tax cuts. How's that you ask? Well, Sarge, I'll tell you. Did SSI get cut, how about state taxes, how about sales tax? You are only focusing on INCOME tax, not the tax revenue streams as a whole.

What the latest round of tax cuts did was cut INCOME tax and other non-working forms of income tax. The lower class Americans had to spend MORE money to recoup the same serveces that were available before the tax cut went into effect.

From Kerry

The Middle Class Squeeze under George Bush

George W. Bush likes to talk about tax cuts. But the truth is since George W. Bush took office, families have been taxed far more than ever before –they are paying higher college tuition higher health care costs, and higher prices for gasoline – and they are receiving lower incomes. They are also paying more in state, local, and property taxes.

· Income Decrease: $1,462. Under President Clinton, family income increased $7,202 from 1992 to 2000. Under President Bush family income has declined $1,462 from 2000 to 2002. [source: U.S. Census Bureau]

· Tuition Increase: $1,032. Nationally, four-year public college tuition and fees increased by an average of $1,032 since Bush took office, a 28 percent increase, the highest three-year increase on record. [source: The College Board, Trends in College Pricing 2003-04 compared to 2000-01]

· Health Increase: $793. Health care costs have increased by an average of $793 since Bush took office, a stunning 49 percent increase. [source: Kaiser Family Foundation, Employer Health Benefits Survey 2000 and 2003, www.kff.org]

· Gas Increase: $245. The average U.S. household has seen an increase of $245 annually in gasoline prices and an average household with children has seen an increase of $289 in gasoline prices since Bush came into office. [source: Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration]

· State and Local Tax Increases. Since the beginning of the Bush administration 32 states have been forced to raise taxes and fees by a total of $16.2 billion. At the local level, county and city governments have been raising taxes as well. In 2002, property tax collections were rising more than 10 percent. [source: Blueprint Magazine, “Bush’s Tax Shakedown,” June 30, 2003]

BUSH TAX: AT LEAST $3,532

This is how supply side theory is used as a tax tool to change the burden of tax from the rich to the poor. They take a large tax, say income, cut it, yet take the money away from goods and serveces to the states. They allow the states to raise their taxes to balance their budgets because they are no longer recieving federal money. Depending on your state, you could end up paying a whole lot more than the tax cut amount.

Any other questions?

[Duncan]

You have not addressed Clinton’s proposed health care plan before the republicans swept congress, so I’ll take that as an admission that he was not "very conservative on budgets".

Originally posted by chomerics

Cutting taxes is NOT supply side theory. You have a masters in economics, whay am I defining supply side theory? I've posted all the numbers before for you, when you are proven wrong you disappear, you will do it again.

Here's the definiton of supply side theory

"Supply side theory states that you cut taxes no matter what. The corresponding increase in revenue will be so large, because the economy will grow so much, that you will have more tax revenues (based on dollars, not %'s) than what you started with. " .

You can quote partisan congressman Scott all you want, but that is not the definition of supply side. It never says you cut taxes no matter what. I told you the theory 3 times yet you continue to define it as such to fit your arguement. The only thing you have proven is that you love to type.

PART OF SUPPLY SIDE THEORY IS THE CONTROL GOVERNMENT SPENDING. ARE YOU LISTENING?

Originally posted by chomerics

It is a false theory and it has been proven false twice in the past 20 years. It's a tax leverage tool used by ultra wealthy to switch the tax burden from the rich to the poor.

Now, during the early Reagan years, taxes were cut, but we never had the corresponding growth predicted by supply side theory and our federal deficit shot up SO fast, our only hope at containing it was to RAISE taxes. Do you remember the tax reform bill of 85'? It essentially took away the supply side economy and taxed the system. This was done to curb the defict growth. .

First of all the poor don’t pay taxes in this country, the middle and upper class pay taxes. There is no shifting of any burden when the poor pay nothing.

Revenues to the treasury increased 300 billion during Reagan’s 8 years. 300 billion increase in revenue after slashing taxes across the board, and we had the longest economic expansion in history (at the time). Spending outpaced the 300 billion in revenue growth. That’s a spending problem. Revenues did not shrink.

Originally posted by chomerics

So we have from 81-85 a supply side economy. Our deficit increased almost 100% and our GDP only grew along the national averare. This isn't a working system. To top it all off, we never reaccumulated the initial government revenues predicted by supply side theory . . . It failed, plain and simple.

Now, we revisited the theory again. So tell me, how have we done? Well, let be tell you, we've done crap. We've increased spending again (why? because is masks the fact that supply side theory doesn't work by pumping additional gavernment dollars into the economy). and our deficit has gone up at an alarming rate again. We will soon be fored to raise taxes to cut the deficit increase.

Now lets look at GDP growth during upply side times. . .

Looking at the above graph where is the growth predicted by supply side? It isn't there. All we ended up doing was increasing the deficit, which in the long run, will end up hurting the economy. If you look at Reagan 1, we grew a total of 2.9%. It's average growth over the past 50 years, espically if you factor in the eonomic cycling that goes on. His second term was better, but that was AFTER he raised taxes!!! It goes directly against supply side thoery. .

Reagan inherited double digit inflation (13%), double digit unemployment (10%) and double digit interest rates (21%!!). To claim that his economic policies did not help the economy is just plain ignorant, or partisan. I guess the prosperity in the 1980s was a right-wing media fabrication? The biggest electoral landslide in the history of US politics was because his economic policies were a failure? The folks in the 49 states that he won must have been suffering under his economic plan. Didn’t your boy say “it’s the economy stupid?” The country was not longing for a return to the Carter days my friend.

Now, I could grab a graph off Tom Delay’s website with different “real” GDP growth, but I’ll use the CBO numbers. You are going to have to come up with better numbers than those posted by a partisan congressman. CBO now forecasts real GDP growth of 4.8 percent in 2004, up from the prior projection of 3.8 percent. (CBO also raised its forecast of GDP growth in 2005 by a similar amount.) Here is another chart from the US Department of Commerce clearly showing the moment the tax cuts kicked in the economy took off. (http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/gdp.htm). Quite frankly your chart showing 1.5% GDP growth under Bush is fraudulant.

Originally posted by chomerics

Now lwts look at Clintons term. In his first term, he grew at 3.2%, his second term was at 4.1%. He RAISED taxes during the span and out economy actually INCREASED!!! Do you know what that means? We were to the left of the Laffer Curve. We weren't at maximum value. We increased taxez, and the economy grew. .

I’ve never argued that raising taxes automatically reduces economic growth. The amazing thing is that Clinton, despite his rhetoric bashing the economy during the campaign, actually inherited a growing economy from Bush Sr., it’s a fact. (http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/charter.exe/nipa/T1t1t6l1q). This page lets you play with the numbers - knock yourself out.

As I mentioned in the previous post, the capital gain tax was slashed almost 10% in Clintons second term. If supply side is such a failure why not return the tax rates to pre-Reagan levels (75% on capital gains). No democrat would because it would ruin the economy.

I repeat, Clinton slashed the tax on the evil unearned income you harp about all the time, and the republican congress held the line on spending. It’s a fact. It’s a magical thing how supply side works if you just index spending to inflation.

Again, capital gains tax rates were lower under Clinton in the 1990s. Clinton rode the supply side gravy train for two terms as president. He raised taxes a little but nowhere near the level where you can credibly say he REVERSED supply side economics, thus refuting the theory. It’s a bogus argument. Now if Clinton had returned the tax rates to pre-Reagan levels and the economy still grew at 4% you would be right. But he didn’t and you are not.

Originally posted by chomerics

Now lets look at Bush again. He decreases taxes and our revenue goes down. Wait, how does this make sense? How does this work? I'll tell you, it works because supply side is a failed theory in practice. It doesn't work, it increases our federal deficit exponentially, yet is does very little to stimulate the economy.

OK, let’s look at Bush again. After inheriting a recession (please tell me you are not going to dispute that), and a stock market collapse (again, his fault?), corporate scandals (they were inherited despite constantly bringing up Enron) and then 911 (you consistently underestimate the affect this had on the economy), Bush and congress passed the tax cuts. Since then the economy has taken off. All the economic indicators point to robust growth, even the recent jobs numbers.

Originally posted by chomerics

As for the Bush's tax cuts, he got VERY LUCKY. Do you remember how he was going to pay for the cuts? He was predicting the record growth during the Clinton Administration would continue for another 10 years, it was complete and utter BS.

Now, here's where he got lucky. By the time his tax cuts became effective, the economy was in the recession. THIS is when you cut taxes!!! When you bottom out, a tax cut can stimulate growth (assuming it's executed properly.) He managed to time the tax break right, alkong witht the increase of governmant spending. He pumped an extra 2 Trillion dollars into the economy at the bottom of the recession. It's econimics 101, and it wouked to a T, but the reasons for putting in the tax cut were not correct. Supply side theory is not correct and being lucky doesn't make you good.

For all the reasons listed, it's a failed theory.

I couldn’t stop laughing when I read these two paragraphs. “Now, here is where he got lucky” :laugh: You have to be kidding me. Bush inherited a sh!t storm his first couple years in office and you call him lucky.

So you argue that tax cuts work to grow the economy but Bush was lucky in the timing? That’s a new one. You still have not addressed the great economic numbers or disproved supply side. "He was lucky" is not going to cut it.