Job Killing Taxes

[Rshermr]

Well, Wiseacre, I can either believe you or the most renounced economists. And you can't even find evidence to refute what I have said.

Saying that high taxes make an economy grow is like saying that pricking a hole in a balloon will make the balloon grow or expand.

If it was true the idea would not seem stupid and absurd and there would be an explanation of how or why it happened.

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow?

Well, ed, slow to me is someone who can not understand a simple two part argument, like you, apparently. As I said, it is not the tax increase, ed. Try to understand that. It is how the revenue is spent to create demand.

And ed, you are still unable to show me where a bad economy has suffered as a result of a tax increase. The tax increase done in the Clinton provided for a great economy. Reagan increased taxes 11 times to help overcome his original tax decrease, which tubed the economy.

So, tell me again why you think liberals are slow. You really impress me with that. Or lets see you find some proof of your statements. Tool.

 

[Wiseacre]

Well, Wiseacre, I can either believe you or the most renounced economists. And you can't even find evidence to refute what I have said.

Saying that high taxes make an economy grow is like saying that pricking a hole in a balloon will make the balloon grow or expand.

If it was true the idea would not seem stupid and absurd and there would be an explanation of how or why it happened.

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow?

Well, ed, slow to me is someone who can not understand a simple two part argument, like you, apparently. As I said, it is not the tax increase, ed. Try to understand that. It is how the revenue is spent to create demand.

And ed, you are still unable to show me where a bad economy has suffered as a result of a tax increase. The tax increase done in the Clinton provided for a great economy. Reagan increased taxes 11 times to help overcome his original tax decrease, which tubed the economy.

So, tell me again why you think liberals are slow. You really impress me with that. Or lets see you find some proof of your statements. Tool.

There are those who think the Clinton tax increase had nothing at all to do with the economic internet boom that started in the early 90s. Some think that the tax cuts under the Gingrich-led Congress lead to greater growth in the back half of the Clinton Admin. And there are those who think the Reagan cuts were the main drivers of the expansion of the 80s; most of those 11? Reagan increases were fairly non-consequential. If you think the original Reagan tax cut tubed the economy, you are indeed an ideological fool.

 

[Rshermr]

Saying that high taxes make an economy grow is like saying that pricking a hole in a balloon will make the balloon grow or expand.

If it was true the idea would not seem stupid and absurd and there would be an explanation of how or why it happened.

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow?

Well, ed, slow to me is someone who can not understand a simple two part argument, like you, apparently. As I said, it is not the tax increase, ed. Try to understand that. It is how the revenue is spent to create demand.

And ed, you are still unable to show me where a bad economy has suffered as a result of a tax increase. The tax increase done in the Clinton provided for a great economy. Reagan increased taxes 11 times to help overcome his original tax decrease, which tubed the economy.

So, tell me again why you think liberals are slow. You really impress me with that. Or lets see you find some proof of your statements. Tool.

There are those who think the Clinton tax increase had nothing at all to do with the economic internet boom that started in the early 90s. Some think that the tax cuts under the Gingrich-led Congress lead to greater growth in the back half of the Clinton Admin. And there are those who think the Reagan cuts were the main drivers of the expansion of the 80s; most of those 11? Reagan increases were fairly non-consequential. If you think the original Reagan tax cut tubed the economy, you are indeed an ideological fool.

Before calling someone a fool, you should definately look at what you are saying. For instance:
You should first understand that the economy was extremely good after the tax increases of Clinton, which occurred in the second year of his presidency. And, you should actually check your facts before making a claim, such as the "Gingrich tax cuts" in the back half of the clinton admin. Because, Wiseacre, there were NO TAX DECREASES in the back half of the Clinton Administration.

See National Taxpayers Union - History of Federal Individual Income Bottom and Top Bracket Rates for some basic education on the subject. Or any of several thousand other sources that will tell you the same thing.

then you say: And there are those who think the Reagan cuts were the main drivers of the expansion of the 80s; most of those 11? Reagan increases were fairly non-consequential.

Problem here is that within 12 months after his tax cut, which was monumental, the unemployment rate was near 11% and the deficit was going through the roof. Republicans were in a panic. They did the correct thing to fix the economy. They did indeed increase taxes 11 times, some of which were indeed minor, but it total the made up about half of Reagan's original tax decrease. And then again, he did not simply increase taxes to generate revenue, he also borrowed enough to triple the national debt.

And, I am not an ideological fool. If you care to criticize any democratic president, please feel free as long as you are truthful. I have plenty of issues with every democratic president that has been elected, but it seems more so of republicans. In general, I just like the truth. If you have a problem with calling the Reagan's economy being tubed after the first year or so, then you are not paying much attention to history. Where DO you get yur ideas???? As Bush 1 so rightly said, reaganomics was voodoo economics.
And don't get in a war of wits when you are short on amunition.

 

[Wiseacre]

" You should first understand that the economy was extremely good after the tax increases of Clinton, which occurred in the second year of his presidency. And, you should actually check your facts before making a claim, such as the "Gingrich tax cuts" in the back half of the clinton admin. Because, Wiseacre, there were NO TAX DECREASES in the back half of the Clinton Administration. "


The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (Pub.L. 105-34, H.R. 2014, 111 Stat. 787, enacted August 5, 1997) reduced several federal taxes in the United States.
Subject to certain phase-in rules, the top capital gains rate fell from 28% to 20%. The 15% bracket was lowered to 10%.
Starting in 1998, a $400 tax credit for each child under age 17 was introduced, which was increased to $500 in 1999. This credit was phased out for high income families.
The act exempted from taxation the profits on the sale of a personal residence of up to $500,000 for married couples filing jointly and $250,000 for singles. This is for residences that were lived in for at least 2 years over the last 5 (ref).
The $600,000 estate tax exemption was to increase gradually to $1 million by the year 2006.
Family farms and small businesses could qualify for an exemption of $1.3 million, effective 1998. Starting in 1999, the $10,000 annual gift tax exclusion was to be corrected for inflation.
The act also provided tax relief for retirement accounts as well as education savings in the Hope Scholarship Credit and Lifetime Learning Credits. Some expiring business tax provisions were extended.

Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Wiseacre]

" Problem here is that within 12 months after his tax cut, which was monumental, the unemployment rate was near 11% and the deficit was going through the roof. Republicans were in a panic. They did the correct thing to fix the economy. They did indeed increase taxes 11 times, some of which were indeed minor, but it total the made up about half of Reagan's original tax decrease. And then again, he did not simply increase taxes to generate revenue, he also borrowed enough to triple the national debt. "


You are aware that Reagan's marginal 1981 tax hike was phased in over 3 years? And some of it didn't take effect until 1985? You also know that Reagan bargained with the democrats to raise taxes if they would cut spending? He did, they didn't; so IMHO the deficits piled up during his admin are more due to the democrats than Reagan.


The Office of Tax Analysis of the United States Department of the Treasury summarized the tax changes as follows:
phased-in 23% cut in individual tax rates over 3 years; top rate dropped from 70% to 50%
accelerated depreciation deductions; replaced depreciation system with ACRS
indexed individual income tax parameters (beginning in 1985)
created 10% exclusion on income for two-earner married couples ($3,000 cap)
phased-in increase in estate tax exemption from $175,625 to $600,000 in 1987
reduced windfall profit taxes
allowed all working taxpayers to establish IRAs
expanded provisions for employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs)
replaced $200 interest exclusion with 15% net interest exclusion ($900 cap) (begin in 1985)

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Office of Tax Analysis of the United States Department of the Treasury summarized the tax changes as follows:
phased-in 23% cut in individual tax rates over 3 years; top rate dropped from 70% to 50%
accelerated depreciation deductions; replaced depreciation system with ACRS
indexed individual income tax parameters (beginning in 1985)
created 10% exclusion on income for two-earner married couples ($3,000 cap)
phased-in increase in estate tax exemption from $175,625 to $600,000 in 1987
reduced windfall profit taxes
allowed all working taxpayers to establish IRAs
expanded provisions for employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs)
replaced $200 interest exclusion with 15% net interest exclusion ($900 cap) (begin in 1985)

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Wiseacre]

" If you have a problem with calling the Reagan's economy being tubed after the first year or so, then you are not paying much attention to history. "


You oughta look at the GDP numbers for Reagan's time in office; not too shabby, considering the sorry state the economy was in thanks to Carter. And the UE rate? It was 7.4 when Reagan took office, 5.4 when he left. True, UE got up to about 11% in 1982, but he had it down to 7.4 at the beginning of his 2nd term. A lot better than Obama has done to date.

 

[Rshermr]

" Problem here is that within 12 months after his tax cut, which was monumental, the unemployment rate was near 11% and the deficit was going through the roof. Republicans were in a panic. They did the correct thing to fix the economy. They did indeed increase taxes 11 times, some of which were indeed minor, but it total the made up about half of Reagan's original tax decrease. And then again, he did not simply increase taxes to generate revenue, he also borrowed enough to triple the national debt. "


You are aware that Reagan's marginal 1981 tax hike was phased in over 3 years? And some of it didn't take effect until 1985? You also know that Reagan bargained with the democrats to raise taxes if they would cut spending? He did, they didn't; so IMHO the deficits piled up during his admin are more due to the democrats than Reagan.


The Office of Tax Analysis of the United States Department of the Treasury summarized the tax changes as follows:
phased-in 23% cut in individual tax rates over 3 years; top rate dropped from 70% to 50%
accelerated depreciation deductions; replaced depreciation system with ACRS
indexed individual income tax parameters (beginning in 1985)
created 10% exclusion on income for two-earner married couples ($3,000 cap)
phased-in increase in estate tax exemption from $175,625 to $600,000 in 1987
reduced windfall profit taxes
allowed all working taxpayers to establish IRAs
expanded provisions for employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs)
replaced $200 interest exclusion with 15% net interest exclusion ($900 cap) (begin in 1985)

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Office of Tax Analysis of the United States Department of the Treasury summarized the tax changes as follows:
phased-in 23% cut in individual tax rates over 3 years; top rate dropped from 70% to 50%
accelerated depreciation deductions; replaced depreciation system with ACRS
indexed individual income tax parameters (beginning in 1985)
created 10% exclusion on income for two-earner married couples ($3,000 cap)
phased-in increase in estate tax exemption from $175,625 to $600,000 in 1987
reduced windfall profit taxes
allowed all working taxpayers to establish IRAs
expanded provisions for employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs)
replaced $200 interest exclusion with 15% net interest exclusion ($900 cap) (begin in 1985)

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Top tax rates dropped from 70% to 50% in ONE year, that is, 1982. Revenue inflow dropped immediately at that point. Your blame of the democrats is poorly documented, and certainly does not appear to be in any magnitude to induce the kind of economic problems that you would like to link it to. In fact, Politifact regards the charge as totally false. PolitiFact | Ron Paul ad says Democrats only want tax increases

the tax decreases during the clinton administration that you show are a group of point taxes. Made during times of a good economy. And that is when tax decreases should happen. there was no need for stimulus at that time, and they had no stimulative effect.

 

[Rshermr]

" If you have a problem with calling the Reagan's economy being tubed after the first year or so, then you are not paying much attention to history. "


You oughta look at the GDP numbers for Reagan's time in office; not too shabby, considering the sorry state the economy was in thanks to Carter. And the UE rate? It was 7.4 when Reagan took office, 5.4 when he left. True, UE got up to about 11% in 1982, but he had it down to 7.4 at the beginning of his 2nd term. A lot better than Obama has done to date.

Here is the thing, wieacre. And it is obvious if you are actually looking for facts.

Yes, the unemployment rate went from 7.4 to 10.8, and you think that is not bad. And it was not, if you don't mind an 11% rate. But, he did it all on his own. Easy to understand if you are aware of the effects of cutting taxes and thereby cutting jobs and the related multiplier effect. Now, given that he had such a problem (assuming that you believe that such a ue rate is a problem and soaring debt is a problem) you could, if you wanted the truth, ask what he did next. And what he did next is increase taxes which helped some, and borrowed like crazy which helped a lot. So what did he do with those $. Why, surprisingly enough, he spent those $. Which is why, by the way, the national debt tripled. Now, contrast that with the current presidency. How much of either tax increases or deficit spending has been allowed by our republican congress and filibustering senate.
GDP was ok, but not anything to write home about, on average.

If you are objective, you will see the logic. If you prefer to believe right wing talking points, you will not.

 

[expat_panama]

...the UE rate? It was 7.4 when Reagan took office, 5.4 when he left...

...the unemployment rate went from 7.4 to 10.8, and you think that is not bad. And it was not, if you don't mind an 11% rate...

Unemployment for Reagan and Obama started out about the same and---

--while Reagan's rate went higher Obama's soared faster and stayed high. There's more--

--Obama's taxes lowered employment while Reagan's tax-cuts had employment soaring.

...if you are aware of the effects of cutting taxes and thereby cutting jobs and the related multiplier effect. Now, given that he had such a problem (assuming that you believe that such a ue rate is a problem and soaring debt is a problem) ...

A look at the first three budgets each President signed show that Reagan increased revenue by cutting taxes. When he submitted a balanced budget the Democrats laughed calling it 'dead on arrival' and spending out leaped revenue.

Obama's tax-hikes kept revenue low for a far greater deficit.

 

[Rshermr]

...the UE rate? It was 7.4 when Reagan took office, 5.4 when he left...

...the unemployment rate went from 7.4 to 10.8, and you think that is not bad. And it was not, if you don't mind an 11% rate...

Unemployment for Reagan and Obama started out about the same and---

--while Reagan's rate went higher Obama's soared faster and stayed high. There's more--

--Obama's taxes lowered employment while Reagan's tax-cuts had employment soaring.

...if you are aware of the effects of cutting taxes and thereby cutting jobs and the related multiplier effect. Now, given that he had such a problem (assuming that you believe that such a ue rate is a problem and soaring debt is a problem) ...

A look at the first three budgets each President signed show that Reagan increased revenue by cutting taxes. When he submitted a balanced budget the Democrats laughed calling it 'dead on arrival' and spending out leaped revenue.

Obama's tax-hikes kept revenue low for a far greater deficit.

Nice try, expat, but:
Reagan came into an economy that was improving, and an economy that was not terrible. If you want to get great results, he stepped in at about the rite time. Obama came in at the beginning of the worst economy since the great depression.

Reagan created his own problems, by decreasing taxes and revenue so greatly that he needed to do something, and he did. He quickly began raising taxes (11 times) and borrowed enough to triple the national debt. Things the republicans have not allowed obama to do. If obama had a cooperative congress, as did reagan, and been able to follow those same principles, the results would be much different.

expat says: Obama's taxes lowered employment while Reagan's tax-cuts had employment soaring"
Which tax increases of Obama's are you talking about. At any tax rate, in the US, federal income taxes are the lowest since the very early 1950's. Perhaps you can clarify??
And, if you look at your chart, you may notice that you somehow missed the first full year of reagan's presidency. And, that revenue declined until some time in 1983. So, you attribute the raise in unemployment in Reagan's year after lowering taxes to what?? And you attribute increases in revenue to decreased tax rates, but again, tax revenue did not increase until reagan began to borrow at a rate faster than all of the past presidents COMBINED. You need to be a little more honest in your analysis.

 

[JoeNormal]

...instantaneous growth changes related to tax rate changes. I call this "juicing the economy". It's a temporary quick fix of the type that our political and corporate leaders have taken...

--or so the party line goes. The actual record of rate changes with tax receipts show the opposite. For example, a rate hike will in fact see a short term increase in revenue while the market readjusts. Likewise, sustainable long term revenue increases follow rate cuts only after a lag time of say, 6 months to a year.


It's all there at Treasury.gov and whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals. Let me know how your perusal goes.

There's a lot there. So much in fact that anyone with other things to do wouldn't have the time to find what they're looking for. A search on the Treasury site of 'historical tax rates' yielded 79 results, none of which appeared to be general, individual historical tax rates. I couldn't find what I was looking for on the White House site either.

 

[JoeNormal]

...instantaneous growth changes related to tax rate changes. I call this "juicing the economy". It's a temporary quick fix of the type that our political and corporate leaders have taken...

--or so the party line goes. The actual record of rate changes with tax receipts show the opposite. For example, a rate hike will in fact see a short term increase in revenue while the market readjusts. Likewise, sustainable long term revenue increases follow rate cuts only after a lag time of say, 6 months to a year.


It's all there at Treasury.gov and whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals. Let me know how your perusal goes.

So expat, now that I'm past my crisis du jour and have a little time to delve into raw data, would you care to show me how I can find historical tax rates and growth from the sites you've pointed me to?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Well, Wiseacre, I can either believe you or the most renounced economists. And you can't even find evidence to refute what I have said.

Saying that high taxes make an economy grow is like saying that pricking a hole in a balloon will make the balloon grow or expand.

If it was true the idea would not seem stupid and absurd and there would be an explanation of how or why it happened.

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow?

Bad analogy. The economy is neither passive nor homogeneous. If anything, it's more like an intelligent power grid or ecosystem.

so then why be so afraid to explain how pricking a hole in the private economy with higher taxes can make the economy grow rather than recess??????????????????????????

 

[expat_panama]

...the unemployment rate went from 7.4 to 10.8, and you think that is not bad. And it was not, if you don't mind an 11% rate...

Unemployment for Reagan and Obama started out about the same and---

--while Reagan's rate went higher Obama's soared faster and stayed high. There's more--

--Obama's taxes lowered employment while Reagan's tax-cuts had employment soaring.

...if you are aware of the effects of cutting taxes and thereby cutting jobs and the related multiplier effect. Now, given that he had such a problem (assuming that you believe that such a ue rate is a problem and soaring debt is a problem) ...

A look at the first three budgets each President signed show that Reagan increased revenue by cutting taxes. When he submitted a balanced budget the Democrats laughed calling it 'dead on arrival' and spending out leaped revenue.

Obama's tax-hikes kept revenue low for a far greater deficit.

Nice try, expat, but...

OK, fun's over. This is a good example of a bad example, why political discourse with the bonkers left isn't a good idea as they invariably switch from issues to snarky gripefests. Right out of the current administration's Rules for Radicals numbers 4 and 5:

RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)​

 

[JoeNormal]

Saying that high taxes make an economy grow is like saying that pricking a hole in a balloon will make the balloon grow or expand.

If it was true the idea would not seem stupid and absurd and there would be an explanation of how or why it happened.

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow?

Bad analogy. The economy is neither passive nor homogeneous. If anything, it's more like an intelligent power grid or ecosystem.

so then why be so afraid to explain how pricking a hole in the private economy with higher taxes can make the economy grow rather than recess??????????????????????????

Well, if you want to use the ecosystem analogy, taxes are like using weed killer to keep the overly aggressive non-producers from taking over. The intelligent grid turns off a/c that runs all the time, saving the system as a whole.

 

[Rshermr]

Unemployment for Reagan and Obama started out about the same and---

--while Reagan's rate went higher Obama's soared faster and stayed high. There's more--

--Obama's taxes lowered employment while Reagan's tax-cuts had employment soaring.A look at the first three budgets each President signed show that Reagan increased revenue by cutting taxes. When he submitted a balanced budget the Democrats laughed calling it 'dead on arrival' and spending out leaped revenue.

Obama's tax-hikes kept revenue low for a far greater deficit.

Nice try, expat, but...

OK, fun's over. This is a good example of a bad example, why political discourse with the bonkers left isn't a good idea as they invariably switch from issues to snarky gripefests. Right out of the current administration's Rules for Radicals numbers 4 and 5:

RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)​

Expat,
what is true is that you are unable to carry on a conversation based on rational discussion. Just as always, when you are at an end of your ability to discuss data, you start to shoot insults. Tacky.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The chart below puts the lie to the Republican mantra that high marginal tax rates on the wealthiest among us kill economic growth. In fact-----in fact the empirical evidence shows; just the opposite is true, high marginal tax rates on the wealthiest among us equals economic growth.




Back in the 1950s, when the top marginal tax rate was more than 90 percent, real annual growth averaged more than 4 percent. During the last eight years, when the top marginal rate was just 35 percent, real growth was less than half that. Altogether, in years when the top marginal rate was lower than 39.6 percent — the top rate during the 1990s — annual real growth averaged 2.1 percent. In years when the rate was 39.6 percent or higher, real growth averaged 3.8 percent. The pattern is the same regardless of threshold. Take 50 percent, for example. Growth in years when the tax rate was less than 50 percent averaged 2.7 percent. In years with tax rates at or more than 50 percent, growth was 3.7 percent.

As Linden put it, “these numbers do not mean that higher rates necessarily lead to higher growth. But the central tenet of modern conservative economics is that a lower top marginal tax rate will result in more growth, and these numbers do show conclusively that history has not been kind to that theory.” Indeed, these numbers put the lie to the common Republican refrain that Obama and Democrats in Congress are trying to implement a “job-killing tax hike” by putting the top tax rate back to where it was under President Clinton.

You're arguing with facts. That won't get you anywhere with the right wing.

I predict they will construct a straw man, strike him down, and leave him at that. They will probably point - truthfully - that the 90% rates in the 50's weren't really 90% because there were more loopholes back then. They will ignore the fact that even with the loopholes the upper tax rate was higher back then and will certainly ignore the fact that the economy did fine - in fact - great - under the tax rates of the Clinton era.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Correlation does not imply causation.

The OP is pointing out a LACK of correlation.

And actually the OP says that the chart doesn't mean high tax rates cause growth. Can you read or are you a moron?

But I say lets do it. Lets tax the 200K plus crowd at 90% and see what happens. If tax revenue goes down and more jobs leave the country, you LOLberals morons have to agree to leave the country for good.

Liberals don't want a top tax rate of 90%. But hey, don't let our actual desired policies get in the way of shooting down the policies you pretend we have. Good job! You've beaten a non-existent opponent in a debate!

 

[expat_panama]

...the central tenet of modern conservative economics is that a lower top marginal tax rate will result in more growth, and these numbers do show conclusively that history has not been kind to that theory...

...That won't get you anywhere with the right wing...

Agreed, because the central tenet of modern conservative economics is that a lower top marginal tax rate occurs with more economic activity, and that's what the record does in fact show...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

illiterate liberal strikes again. Ireland dropped taxes and the whole world flooded there to build businesses.

Canada drops taxes on motion picture production and tons of new movies get made there.

Liberals put luxury tax on Yachts and the industry dries up, until tax is repealed .


USA has lowest taxes and is wealthiest country in human history

That 30 year period after Reagan's tax cuts...no growth there

After JFK's tax cuts...economic decline???

My goodness this one is ignorant!

Well, eflat, another stupid tea bagger to be educated. You could at least post something that had some real meaning. but this is embarrassing, eflat..

Reagan: Speaking of ignorant, were you aware that within 12 months after the great reagan tax decrease, unemployment had gone upward from 7% to over 10.5%? Bet your educators forgot to fill you in on this one.
And did they also fail to tell you, that in response to unemployment and the spiraling national debt that resulted from his great tax decrease, Reagan increased taxes 11 times?
And, did they also fail to mention that the great tax decrease caused Reagan to borrow more money than all of the presidents up till his time COMBINED? He tripled the national debt.

So, eflat, it appears to me that calling someone other than yourself ignorant is really a stupid thing to do.

JFK? JFK decreased taxes in GOOD economic times. That has been done before. It was not to provide an economic stimulus. By the way, eflat, I am NOT against tax decreases. I just happen to not be among those ignorant souls who are ignorant enough to believe that a tax decrease to the wealthy is a stimulus of any kind.

Reagan: Speaking of ignorant, were you aware that within 12 months after the great reagan tax decrease, unemployment had gone upward from 7% to over 10.5%?

What happened to interest rates over that 12 months?
What happened to unemployment 24 months later? 36? 48?

And, did they also fail to mention that the great tax decrease caused Reagan to borrow more money

Really? Tax receipts decreased? I'm pretty sure income tax receipts went from $286 billion in 1981 to $445 billion in 1989. While the top rate went from 70% to 28%.