If you can't [deficit] spend your way to prosperity

[Toro]

Reagan did some good things. He flattened the tax code. He deregulated parts of the economy. He expanded free trade.

However, tax cuts without spending cuts is merely Keynesianism in drag. Taxes were cut during Reagan's tenure but spending rose and thusly Reagan presided over the biggest deficits during peacetime in the history of the nation until that time.

 

[The Rabbi]

Not really.
Specific kinds of tax cuts encourage production at the margin. So it is not "putting more money in people's hands" which would be a kind of Keynesianism. It is changing the calculus of work and saving,encouraging more of both of those.

 

[Toro]

Not really.
Specific kinds of tax cuts encourage production at the margin. So it is not "putting more money in people's hands" which would be a kind of Keynesianism. It is changing the calculus of work and saving,encouraging more of both of those.

Maybe, but deficit financing is deficit financing. The differences are on the margin.

 

[The Rabbi]

Not really.
Specific kinds of tax cuts encourage production at the margin. So it is not "putting more money in people's hands" which would be a kind of Keynesianism. It is changing the calculus of work and saving,encouraging more of both of those.

Maybe, but deficit financing is deficit financing. The differences are on the margin.

the differences are the effect on the economy. Make up a stimulus program and it has to be paid for somehow. It is merely taking money from one place in the economy and putting it somewhere else. No new spending is created because every dollar spent in Stimulus Program A is taken from taxpayer B.
Make it more attractive to work an extra hour or week, or more attractive to expand a business or start one, and the economy grows.

 

[kiwiman127]

Maybe I missed something when I was reading the posts in this thread. I kept on reading Reagan had cut taxes and that's why our economy grew, but there were also six tax increases during Reagan's eight years.
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010

When Reagan took over the DOW was under 800.

Try to imagine how hard it was for any business to get going under that circumstance.

When he left it was over 11,000.

That's 13.75 times more.

Technology sprouted to life and laid the ground work for the NASDAK.

you all can keep saying it didn't work, or he did this or he did that, all you want.

But you can't say it didn't work. unless you like lying.

Now why would I post the fact that taxes went up under Reagan? One reason, you folks fall for the myth and ignore the facts. Repeatly, as demostrated in a few posts in this thread, posters proclaimed Reagan lowered taxes and thusly are telling half of the story. Taxes were raised under Reagan for specifics reasons, that's fact over myth.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Reagan did some good things. He flattened the tax code. He deregulated parts of the economy. He expanded free trade.

However, tax cuts without spending cuts is merely Keynesianism in drag. Taxes were cut during Reagan's tenure but spending rose and thusly Reagan presided over the biggest deficits during peacetime in the history of the nation until that time.

a. Even though Reagan hated large portions of the Great Society programs, he decided that, politically, reforming Medicare- the most expensive of LBJ’s initiatives– was too risky. In 1981 he accomplished $35 billion in domestic spending cuts, including the elimination of the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA). Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 102.

b.The Democratic Congress offered this deal: For every dollar you raise taxes, we’ll cut three dollars in spending. On that basis he signed the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. How did that work out? From Ronald Reagan’s WSJ op-ed:

“Despite the “assurances,” “promises,” “pledges” and “commitments” you
are given, the spending cuts have a way of being forgotten or quietly lobbied out of future budgets. But the tax increases are as certain to come
as, well, death and taxes.
In 1982, Congress wanted to raise taxes. It promised it would cut federal
spending by $3 for every $1 in new taxes. Being a new kid in town, I agreed
to this. Unfortunately, although the new taxes went into effect, Congress never cut spending by even a penny.” (Reagan 1993)
http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_12_01_01_bartlett.pdf

c. And the press and media portrayed any, even minor, cuts as a savage attack on the poor, and even Reagan’s own cabinet and party members fought to protect ‘their turf’ against budget cuts. David Frum, “Dead Right,” p. 42.

d. "Reagan presided over the biggest deficits during peacetime..."
Possibly you were skiing in Canada during the time and missed what we refer to, here, as the Cold War, eh?

Winning said war is the major reason that the Clinton record looks as good as it does.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Maybe I missed something when I was reading the posts in this thread. I kept on reading Reagan had cut taxes and that's why our economy grew, but there were also six tax increases during Reagan's eight years.
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010

When Reagan took over the DOW was under 800.

Try to imagine how hard it was for any business to get going under that circumstance.

When he left it was over 11,000.

That's 13.75 times more.

Technology sprouted to life and laid the ground work for the NASDAK.

you all can keep saying it didn't work, or he did this or he did that, all you want.

But you can't say it didn't work. unless you like lying.

Now why would I post the fact that taxes went up under Reagan? One reason, you folks fall for the myth and ignore the facts. Repeatly, as demostrated in a few posts in this thread, posters proclaimed Reagan lowered taxes and thusly are telling half of the story. Taxes were raised under Reagan for specifics reasons, that's fact over myth.

He raised and he cut, but overall, his increase in the were the lowest of any modern President:
1. Average Annual Spending Increases (excluding interest)
a. JFK 4.6%
b. LBJ 5.7%
c. Nixon 2.9%
d. Ford 2.7%
e. Carter 3.2%
f. Reagan 1.9%
g. BushI 2.0%
h. Clinton 1.9%
i. BushII 5.6%
Historical Tables | The White House


Since you are not questioning that the economy soared as a result of Reaan's policies, your point is a distinction without a difference.

And since you have made no point in terms of fiscal policy, is your point simply that you are not a Reagan fan???

 

[Toro]

Reagan did some good things. He flattened the tax code. He deregulated parts of the economy. He expanded free trade.

However, tax cuts without spending cuts is merely Keynesianism in drag. Taxes were cut during Reagan's tenure but spending rose and thusly Reagan presided over the biggest deficits during peacetime in the history of the nation until that time.

a. Even though Reagan hated large portions of the Great Society programs, he decided that, politically, reforming Medicare- the most expensive of LBJ’s initiatives– was too risky. In 1981 he accomplished $35 billion in domestic spending cuts, including the elimination of the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA). Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 102.

b.The Democratic Congress offered this deal: For every dollar you raise taxes, we’ll cut three dollars in spending. On that basis he signed the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. How did that work out? From Ronald Reagan’s WSJ op-ed:

“Despite the “assurances,” “promises,” “pledges” and “commitments” you
are given, the spending cuts have a way of being forgotten or quietly lobbied out of future budgets. But the tax increases are as certain to come
as, well, death and taxes.
In 1982, Congress wanted to raise taxes. It promised it would cut federal
spending by $3 for every $1 in new taxes. Being a new kid in town, I agreed
to this. Unfortunately, although the new taxes went into effect, Congress never cut spending by even a penny.” (Reagan 1993)
http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_12_01_01_bartlett.pdf

c. And the press and media portrayed any, even minor, cuts as a savage attack on the poor, and even Reagan’s own cabinet and party members fought to protect ‘their turf’ against budget cuts. David Frum, “Dead Right,” p. 42.

d. "Reagan presided over the biggest deficits during peacetime..."
Possibly you were skiing in Canada during the time and missed what we refer to, here, as the Cold War, eh?

Winning said war is the major reason that the Clinton record looks as good as it does.

George HW Bush raising taxes has more to do with Clinton looking good than Reagan.

 

[Toro]

Not really.
Specific kinds of tax cuts encourage production at the margin. So it is not "putting more money in people's hands" which would be a kind of Keynesianism. It is changing the calculus of work and saving,encouraging more of both of those.

Maybe, but deficit financing is deficit financing. The differences are on the margin.

the differences are the effect on the economy. Make up a stimulus program and it has to be paid for somehow. It is merely taking money from one place in the economy and putting it somewhere else. No new spending is created because every dollar spent in Stimulus Program A is taken from taxpayer B.
Make it more attractive to work an extra hour or week, or more attractive to expand a business or start one, and the economy grows.

Here is a pop quiz in macroeconomics. There are two scenarios

A.) Government spending and taxes are 30% of GDP and the budget is in balance. The government increases spending to 40%, creating a deficit of 10%.
B.) Government spending and taxes are 40% of GDP and the budget is in balance. The government cuts taxes to 30%, creating a deficit of 10%.

All else being equal, which scenario will result in higher long-term growth in the future?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Reagan did some good things. He flattened the tax code. He deregulated parts of the economy. He expanded free trade.

However, tax cuts without spending cuts is merely Keynesianism in drag. Taxes were cut during Reagan's tenure but spending rose and thusly Reagan presided over the biggest deficits during peacetime in the history of the nation until that time.

a. Even though Reagan hated large portions of the Great Society programs, he decided that, politically, reforming Medicare- the most expensive of LBJ’s initiatives– was too risky. In 1981 he accomplished $35 billion in domestic spending cuts, including the elimination of the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA). Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 102.

b.The Democratic Congress offered this deal: For every dollar you raise taxes, we’ll cut three dollars in spending. On that basis he signed the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. How did that work out? From Ronald Reagan’s WSJ op-ed:

“Despite the “assurances,” “promises,” “pledges” and “commitments” you
are given, the spending cuts have a way of being forgotten or quietly lobbied out of future budgets. But the tax increases are as certain to come
as, well, death and taxes.
In 1982, Congress wanted to raise taxes. It promised it would cut federal
spending by $3 for every $1 in new taxes. Being a new kid in town, I agreed
to this. Unfortunately, although the new taxes went into effect, Congress never cut spending by even a penny.” (Reagan 1993)
http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_12_01_01_bartlett.pdf

c. And the press and media portrayed any, even minor, cuts as a savage attack on the poor, and even Reagan’s own cabinet and party members fought to protect ‘their turf’ against budget cuts. David Frum, “Dead Right,” p. 42.

d. "Reagan presided over the biggest deficits during peacetime..."
Possibly you were skiing in Canada during the time and missed what we refer to, here, as the Cold War, eh?

Winning said war is the major reason that the Clinton record looks as good as it does.

George HW Bush raising taxes has more to do with Clinton looking good than Reagan.

I'll stick with post #19...

waiting to see your exegesis...

 

[uscitizen]

Concentrating on that spending increase huh?

compare the debt % increase under Reagan if you dare.
He obviously spent far more than the govt took in.