your ignorance of economic history is quite staggering. Jfk did not seek tax cuts because the economy was "good"...he raised them because it was anything but good. The following is from kennedy's state of the union address in jan. Of 1961...
"the present state of our economy is disturbing. We take office in the wake of seven months of recession, three and one-half years of slack, seven years of diminished economic growth, and nine years of falling farm income.
Business bankruptcies have reached their highest level since the great depression. Since 1951 farm income has been squeezed down by 25 percent. Save for a brief period in 1958, insured unemployment is at the highest peak in our history. Of some five and one-half million americans who are without jobs, more than one million have been searching for work for more than four months. And during each month, some 150,000 workers are exhausting their already meager jobless benefit rights...."
gee, does that sound "good" to you? Why do you continue to embarrass yourself in this manner? It's quite obvious that you know next to nothing about the history of the us...especially in regards to economics.
As for reagan? The reason that unemployment went to 10% wasn't because of supply side economics...it was because reagan had the fed tighten up the money supply in order to get inflation under control.
if you are saying that kennedy had a tax decrease in 61, perhaps you had better determine who is ignorant. There was no tax decrease in 61. The kennedy admin. Had a tax decrease only once, and it was in 64 well after his death. I know you believe you are an economic genius but you should really check your google results better.
I would expect a person with integrity to apologize for the insults you sent my way based on your flawed information, but obviously i will not expect it from you. By the way, the economy was good in 64.
You should really stop all this chest thumping stuff. You claim to be an economics expert. I do not. I have some background, but there are many out there with much more than i.
So, you said:
as for reagan? The reason that unemployment went to 10% wasn't because of supply side economics...it was because reagan had the fed tighten up the money supply in order to get inflation under control. if that were true, you would have to explain why the increase happened when it did, beginning right after the big tax decrease. And why, afterward, reagan borrowed enough to triple the national debt and initiated 11 tax increases. Why all this and the deficit spending if the tax cuts were such a success?? Does not make any sense, obviously. You need to quit with the tortured responses to simple questions. They are obviously wrong, and show that you will do anything to get people to believe your statements, which are wrong.
So, no, i do not feel embarrassed. Do you???
You just finished telling me that Kennedy lowered taxes in a "GOOD" economy and I just showed you that the economy was far from "GOOD" using Kennedy's own words from his first State of the Union address. But you can't admit that...can you?
But, of course, you lie. *There was no General tax cut prior to 64. *Unemployment was at 6.6%, not really bad. *So, you turn this into a case where unemployment was bad, and a point tax decrease caused unemployment to decrease. *Sorry, bozo, *You need to prove that one. *However there were strong efforts at stimulus spending. *So no, and I think you will find it extremely unlikely that you will ever see an economist say that there was recovery based on that small tax decrease.
Jere are tax rates for a year at the time of Kennedy's inauguration.
January 1961 - 6.6%
February 1961 - 6.9%
March 1961 - 6.9%
April 1961 - 7%
May 1961 - 7.1%
June 1961 - 6.9%
July 1961 - 7%
August 1961 - 6.6%
September 1961 - 6.7%
October 1961 - 6.5%
November 1961 - 6.1%
December 1961 - 6%
So, what did Kennedy do to pull the economy out of the recession??
The need was to get money into the economy fast. Kennedy directed all Federal agencies to accelerate their procurement and construction. He released over a billion dollars in state highway aid funds ahead of schedule, raised farm price supports and advanced their payment, speeded up the distribution of tax refunds and GI life insurance dividends. He created a "pilot" Food Ste amp program for the needy and expanded US Employment Offices. Finally, he encouraged the Federal Reserve Board to help keep long-term interest rates low through the purchase of long-term bonds.
While most of Kennedy's administrative moves added to the deficit--some by billions of dollars--none of them had to wait for legislation or appropriations. The money was paid out when the economy needed it most. He made clear--and this may have had the most important effect of all--that he would not cut back Federal spending when the recession reduced Federal revenues, or permit a tightening of credit when recovery began.
Source: "Kennedy" by Ted Sorensen, p. 397-398 , Jan 1, 1965
So, Bozo, no. You did not find a time when income tax rates were reduced and unemployment improved in an economy with high unemployment. Good try, but no cigar.
Here is some info on how Kennedy
Kennedy's tax cuts didn't go until after his assassination.
Nor, of course, did I suggest that his death changed anything. But nice try to say I did. anges the reasons why he ought them, nor does it change the fact that a Democratic administration successfully used tax cuts to stimulate a weak economy. So again, you are trying to be dishonest, and get away with it. You seem unable to remember the question, which was when did a president use a tax cut to reduce the unemployment rate during a bad unemployment economy. Try to keep that in mind. Which again is why 1964 is irrelevant. Because the unemployment rate in 64 was about 5,1%, and trending down from the beginning of the year, and ranging from 4.8 to 5.6%, the 64 tax cut does not answer a question relative to how such a decrease would affect unemployment in bad economic times.
let's talk about Reagan..says bozo..
Reagan's "big tax decrease" did not happen at the same time as he tightened up the money supply.
Ah, but it did. As I told you before, Reagan chose to attack the stagflation that Jimmy Carter left him by first addressing inflation...which he did by tightening up the money supply and THEN he cut taxes. The increase in unemployment was brought on by the increased costs toy, borrow money that tightening up the money supply created. That's basic economics but you don't understand basic economics...do you?
Yes, I do indeed. *And what you just said is pure bs. It is the new Oldstyle theory. And we should all believe you because you are such an economic expert. Show me some proof. Which of course you can not. His economy went south as a result of tax cuts initiated in 82. Easy to read about in impartial economic writings, should you wish to. But then, it does not agree with your supply side economics, so you try the "tightening the money supply" angle.
As for why Reagan initiated 11 tax increases during his eight year period in office? If you'll look at when those tax increases occurred you'll find that they were in the latter part of his administration, when the economy had recovered and was growing rapidly. ]
Sorry, you are wrong again. Maybe lying again, or maybe just ignorant. His tax increases started in 81 with the first major increase in mid 82, As I said before, Ronald Reagan understood Keynesian economics better as a supply-sider than Barack Obama does as (supposedly) a Keynesian.
Wow, itÂ’s the my pop is tougher than your pop argument. *No proof needed, just need to be adolescent.
What both Reagan and Kennedy prove is that the proper time to cut taxes is in an economic downturn but of course reagans tax decrease failed miserably and Kennedys only overall tax cut was during a good economy and the proper time to raise them is when the economy is booming. But you still can't admit that...can you? By the way, I never claimed to be an economics "expert" but I do claim to understand the subject because I took it in college and actually learned something in the process. You on the other hand don't even seem to grasp the basics of Keynesian economics even though you like to use Keynesian principles as the basis for demanding additional spending by the Federal Government.
Again, I will keep your criticism in mind, since I respect your opinion so much!!! Problem is, I taught students like you and recognize the mental anguish you face when having to look at actual economic occurrences. My condolences. Must be tough.
So, you have admitted that Reagan did indeed raise taxes 11 times. *Good for you. Admission can be cathartic. Problem is, you do not say why. Why did he do it, if tax decreases were the answer? So, here is the conundrum. If he used tax increases, then he is admitting that tax decreases are not the answer.
Then, the other part of my question that you decided to ignore, was why did he triple the national debt by borrowing more money than all the prior presidents combined?? The answer is easy, he did it for the same reason he raised taxes. To bring money into the gov. Because tax cuts did not work. So, since the national debt expanded by three times, where did the money go?? So, easy enough. The size of the gov was increased during reagans reign. Reagan used the money from borrowing Not to pay off gov debt, but to stimulate the economy. I know you are proud that he understood keynsian econ, but then, most rational people do. But, what it also showed was that he could not get the bad economy resulting from his tax cuts back in line without using stimulus spending. Which was a very good thing. And fully supported by the congress at the time.
