Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Let’s get some facts straight. Predictably, liberals are repeating all kinds of myths and distortions about the Bush and Reagan tax cuts in their baffling effort to ignore the numerous positive aspects of the Trump tax cuts. Of course, our resident liberals are saying next to nothing about the Harding, JFK, and Clinton tax cuts, all of which were followed by sizable increases in federal revenue (and did not result in increased deficits and debt). Anyway, here are some bullet points to refute the liberal falsehoods and distortions that we have been seeing in this forum for the last two weeks (I expand on these points in an article I just web-published: Setting the Record Straight About the Bush and Reagan Tax Cuts).
Bush
* The Bush tax cuts came in two bills, the first signed in June 2001 and the second signed in May 2003. The 2001 bill reduced personal income taxes—however, these cuts were to be phased in over eight years and were not to be fully implemented until 2009.
* The 2003 bill accelerated the personal income tax cuts in the 2001 bill and added several business tax cuts. So by the end of 2002, only a fraction of the Bush personal income tax cuts had taken affect, and the business tax cuts had not yet been passed. Thus, we cannot judge the Bush tax cuts by federal revenue in 2001 and 2002.
* The Bush tax cuts—personal and business—really began in 2003 with the passage of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (JGTRRA) in May 2003. As mentioned, the 2003 bill accelerated the personal income tax cuts in the 2001 bill. Financial expert Kimberly Amadeo explains some of the positive impacts of the JGTRRA:
JGTRRA helped the economy out of recession by putting more dollars into the pockets of businesses and investors, and ultimately consumers. It encouraged investment in the stock market by decreasing capital gains and dividend taxes.
By reducing the cost of buying stocks, JGTRRA made them more attractive than bonds. That put $9.2 billion more into the pockets of stockholders in just the first year.
As dividend-paying stocks become more popular, companies issue more of them instead of bonds. Their financing became more reliant on bonds than stocks. That helps companies in a downturn because they are less likely to default on bond payments, which are fixed. It reduces the risk of corporate bankruptcies.
JGTRRA also encouraged companies to increase dividend payment. More than 200 companies, most notably Target, Citigroup, and Walgreen, announced dividend increases by July 2003.
Many companies, most notably Microsoft, started issuing dividends for the first time. Much of executive compensation is paid in stocks and stock options. This form of payment became even more popular when the tax burden on dividends was lessened for high-income earners.
As a result of JGTRRA, total dividend payments increased 20 percent from 2003 - 2012. For the previous 20 years, they had declined. (JGTRRA: The Tax Cut to Help Wall Street After 9/11)
* Federal revenue rose substantially after the 2003 tax cuts, going from $1.78 trillion to $2.56 trillion from 2003 to 2007, an increase of 43%.
* Total federal revenue for 2008 dropped slightly, down to $2.52 trillion, because a recession started that year, but revenue was still substantially higher than it was in 2003 or 2004.
* During the same period, 2003-2007, personal income tax revenue rose dramatically, going from $925 billion in 2003 to $1.53 trillion in 2007.
* Even in 2009, when the recession neared depression territory and remained severe throughout the year, total federal revenue was $2.10 trillion, which, even adjusted for inflation, was very close to total federal revenue for the boom years of 2005 and 2006.
* If Congress had not gone on a reckless spending spree, we would have kept the budget balanced and continued to pay down the debt.
Reagan
* Reagan did in fact agree to four tax hikes, in 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1986. The 1983 “tax increase” was an increase in the payroll tax (i.e., the Social Security tax) that was part of a bipartisan bill to keep SS solvent. It seems a bit unfair to call this a “tax hike” when it was really just increasing the amount that taxpayers had to contribute to a fund from which they would later draw. The 1982, 1984, and 1986 tax hikes involved business taxes, tax loopholes, and the capital gains tax. Those tax hikes did not affect personal income tax rates, and Reagan cut taxes again in 1986.
* Reagan slashed personal income tax rates and the capital gains tax rate for individuals. My article includes tax tables from tax years 1980 and 1988 so that anyone can look and see for themselves just how much Reagan cut income tax rates.
* Federal revenue rose substantially after the Reagan tax cuts. Revenue rose by over 50% from 1983 to 1988, going from $326 billion to $549 billion. In 1989, the last year that a Reagan budget was in operation, revenue rose a whopping $53 billion, an increase of 10% from the previous year.
* But those huge boosts in revenue were more than offset by staggering spending hikes passed by Congress year after year. The Democrats started bundling spending bills into one giant omnibus spending bill, which left Reagan with two choices: sign them or shut down the government. If the government had restrained spending, the deficit would have been reduced, and the budget could have been balanced by 1986 or 1987.
* Economists William Niskanen and Stephen Moore on the impact of Reagan’s economic policies:
Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.
Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency. (Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record)
Economist Dr. William Niskanen:
Real GDP per working-age adult, which had increased at only a 0.8 annual rate during the Carter administration, increased at a 1.8 percent rate during the Reagan administration. The increase in productivity growth was even higher: output per hour in the business sector, which had been roughly constant in the Carter years, increased at a 1.4 percent rate in the Reagan years. Productivity in the manufacturing sector increased at a 3.8 percent annual rate, a record for peacetime.
Most other economic conditions also improved. The unemployment rate declined from 7.0 percent in 1980 to 5.4 percent in 1988. The inflation rate declined from 10.4 percent in 1980 to 4.2 percent in 1988. (Reaganomics, by William A. Niskanen: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty)
Again, for more information on these issues, see:
Setting the Record Straight About the Bush and Reagan Tax Cuts
The Facts About Tax Cuts, Revenue, and Growth (new edition)
We have massive debt not massive surpluses; that is the economic reality.I want to see you refute this thread. If you got differing facts share them.Well, isn't it interesting that there are no replies, much less admissions of error, from the liberals who have been repeating these myths about the Bush and Reagan tax cuts for the last two weeks in several threads? Where are they?
You want us to repost all the demolitions of your nonsense that you put in your last thread on this same exact topic?
Right wingers have WikiLeaks, not excuses.And I bet the "people" don't even know what's actually in the bill or how it will affect them personally by a 3 to 1 margin.The only opinions that count are the American people and they resoundingly hate the tax scam law by a 2-1 margin. They see it was a huge giveaway by the pussygrabber to his 1% friends. He even told them last week,” I just made you a LOT richer.”Let’s get some facts straight. Predictably, liberals are repeating all kinds of myths and distortions about the Bush and Reagan tax cuts in their baffling effort to ignore the numerous positive aspects of the Trump tax cuts. Of course, our resident liberals are saying next to nothing about the Harding, JFK, and Clinton tax cuts, all of which were followed by sizable increases in federal revenue (and did not result in increased deficits and debt). Anyway, here are some bullet points to refute the liberal falsehoods and distortions that we have been seeing in this forum for the last two weeks (I expand on these points in an article I just web-published: Setting the Record Straight About the Bush and Reagan Tax Cuts).
Bush
* The Bush tax cuts came in two bills, the first signed in June 2001 and the second signed in May 2003. The 2001 bill reduced personal income taxes—however, these cuts were to be phased in over eight years and were not to be fully implemented until 2009.
* The 2003 bill accelerated the personal income tax cuts in the 2001 bill and added several business tax cuts. So by the end of 2002, only a fraction of the Bush personal income tax cuts had taken affect, and the business tax cuts had not yet been passed. Thus, we cannot judge the Bush tax cuts by federal revenue in 2001 and 2002.
* The Bush tax cuts—personal and business—really began in 2003 with the passage of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (JGTRRA) in May 2003. As mentioned, the 2003 bill accelerated the personal income tax cuts in the 2001 bill. Financial expert Kimberly Amadeo explains some of the positive impacts of the JGTRRA:
JGTRRA helped the economy out of recession by putting more dollars into the pockets of businesses and investors, and ultimately consumers. It encouraged investment in the stock market by decreasing capital gains and dividend taxes.
By reducing the cost of buying stocks, JGTRRA made them more attractive than bonds. That put $9.2 billion more into the pockets of stockholders in just the first year.
As dividend-paying stocks become more popular, companies issue more of them instead of bonds. Their financing became more reliant on bonds than stocks. That helps companies in a downturn because they are less likely to default on bond payments, which are fixed. It reduces the risk of corporate bankruptcies.
JGTRRA also encouraged companies to increase dividend payment. More than 200 companies, most notably Target, Citigroup, and Walgreen, announced dividend increases by July 2003.
Many companies, most notably Microsoft, started issuing dividends for the first time. Much of executive compensation is paid in stocks and stock options. This form of payment became even more popular when the tax burden on dividends was lessened for high-income earners.
As a result of JGTRRA, total dividend payments increased 20 percent from 2003 - 2012. For the previous 20 years, they had declined. (JGTRRA: The Tax Cut to Help Wall Street After 9/11)
* Federal revenue rose substantially after the 2003 tax cuts, going from $1.78 trillion to $2.56 trillion from 2003 to 2007, an increase of 43%.
* Total federal revenue for 2008 dropped slightly, down to $2.52 trillion, because a recession started that year, but revenue was still substantially higher than it was in 2003 or 2004.
* During the same period, 2003-2007, personal income tax revenue rose dramatically, going from $925 billion in 2003 to $1.53 trillion in 2007.
* Even in 2009, when the recession neared depression territory and remained severe throughout the year, total federal revenue was $2.10 trillion, which, even adjusted for inflation, was very close to total federal revenue for the boom years of 2005 and 2006.
* If Congress had not gone on a reckless spending spree, we would have kept the budget balanced and continued to pay down the debt.
Reagan
* Reagan did in fact agree to four tax hikes, in 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1986. The 1983 “tax increase” was an increase in the payroll tax (i.e., the Social Security tax) that was part of a bipartisan bill to keep SS solvent. It seems a bit unfair to call this a “tax hike” when it was really just increasing the amount that taxpayers had to contribute to a fund from which they would later draw. The 1982, 1984, and 1986 tax hikes involved business taxes, tax loopholes, and the capital gains tax. Those tax hikes did not affect personal income tax rates, and Reagan cut taxes again in 1986.
* Reagan slashed personal income tax rates and the capital gains tax rate for individuals. My article includes tax tables from tax years 1980 and 1988 so that anyone can look and see for themselves just how much Reagan cut income tax rates.
* Federal revenue rose substantially after the Reagan tax cuts. Revenue rose by over 50% from 1983 to 1988, going from $326 billion to $549 billion. In 1989, the last year that a Reagan budget was in operation, revenue rose a whopping $53 billion, an increase of 10% from the previous year.
* But those huge boosts in revenue were more than offset by staggering spending hikes passed by Congress year after year. The Democrats started bundling spending bills into one giant omnibus spending bill, which left Reagan with two choices: sign them or shut down the government. If the government had restrained spending, the deficit would have been reduced, and the budget could have been balanced by 1986 or 1987.
* Economists William Niskanen and Stephen Moore on the impact of Reagan’s economic policies:
Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.
Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency. (Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record)
Economist Dr. William Niskanen:
Real GDP per working-age adult, which had increased at only a 0.8 annual rate during the Carter administration, increased at a 1.8 percent rate during the Reagan administration. The increase in productivity growth was even higher: output per hour in the business sector, which had been roughly constant in the Carter years, increased at a 1.4 percent rate in the Reagan years. Productivity in the manufacturing sector increased at a 3.8 percent annual rate, a record for peacetime.
Most other economic conditions also improved. The unemployment rate declined from 7.0 percent in 1980 to 5.4 percent in 1988. The inflation rate declined from 10.4 percent in 1980 to 4.2 percent in 1988. (Reaganomics, by William A. Niskanen: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty)
Again, for more information on these issues, see:
Setting the Record Straight About the Bush and Reagan Tax Cuts
The Facts About Tax Cuts, Revenue, and Growth (new edition)
But all the middle class got was crumbs. You’ve been duped again by your carnival barker and you don’t even see it.
Our media is not honest enough for them to be fully informed.
Healthcare reform and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage!$1.5 trillion added to the debt!
What a great victory ( to no one)
The money wasted on padding the pockets of people who don’t need it could have been spent on infrastructure, education, lunch programs, free day care etc.
Typical republicans. Always taking care of the rich and sticking it to the poor and middle class.
The Dems 2018 ads will write themselves since this scam is historically unpopular but the traitors passed it anyway.
Well, isn't it interesting that there are no replies, much less admissions of error, from the liberals who have been repeating these myths about the Bush and Reagan tax cuts for the last two weeks in several threads? Where are they?
You want us to repost all the demolitions of your nonsense that you put in your last thread on this same exact topic?
Yeah, let's see those "demolitions" that address, not to mention refute, the facts in my OP. Your "demolitions" usually consist of you repeating liberal myths and then declaring yourself the winner. But, yeah, let's see those "demolitions."
Still waiting. . . .
Trigger alert. Trigger alert. Facts are about to be presented.Let’s get some facts straight. Predictably, liberals are repeating all kinds of myths and distortions about the Bush and Reagan tax cuts in their baffling effort to ignore the numerous positive aspects of the Trump tax cuts. Of course, our resident liberals are saying next to nothing about the Harding, JFK, and Clinton tax cuts, all of which were followed by sizable increases in federal revenue (and did not result in increased deficits and debt). Anyway, here are some bullet points to refute the liberal falsehoods and distortions that we have been seeing in this forum for the last two weeks (I expand on these points in an article I just web-published: Setting the Record Straight About the Bush and Reagan Tax Cuts).
Bush
* The Bush tax cuts came in two bills, the first signed in June 2001 and the second signed in May 2003. The 2001 bill reduced personal income taxes—however, these cuts were to be phased in over eight years and were not to be fully implemented until 2009.
* The 2003 bill accelerated the personal income tax cuts in the 2001 bill and added several business tax cuts. So by the end of 2002, only a fraction of the Bush personal income tax cuts had taken affect, and the business tax cuts had not yet been passed. Thus, we cannot judge the Bush tax cuts by federal revenue in 2001 and 2002.
* The Bush tax cuts—personal and business—really began in 2003 with the passage of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (JGTRRA) in May 2003. As mentioned, the 2003 bill accelerated the personal income tax cuts in the 2001 bill. Financial expert Kimberly Amadeo explains some of the positive impacts of the JGTRRA:
JGTRRA helped the economy out of recession by putting more dollars into the pockets of businesses and investors, and ultimately consumers. It encouraged investment in the stock market by decreasing capital gains and dividend taxes.
By reducing the cost of buying stocks, JGTRRA made them more attractive than bonds. That put $9.2 billion more into the pockets of stockholders in just the first year.
As dividend-paying stocks become more popular, companies issue more of them instead of bonds. Their financing became more reliant on bonds than stocks. That helps companies in a downturn because they are less likely to default on bond payments, which are fixed. It reduces the risk of corporate bankruptcies.
JGTRRA also encouraged companies to increase dividend payment. More than 200 companies, most notably Target, Citigroup, and Walgreen, announced dividend increases by July 2003.
Many companies, most notably Microsoft, started issuing dividends for the first time. Much of executive compensation is paid in stocks and stock options. This form of payment became even more popular when the tax burden on dividends was lessened for high-income earners.
As a result of JGTRRA, total dividend payments increased 20 percent from 2003 - 2012. For the previous 20 years, they had declined. (JGTRRA: The Tax Cut to Help Wall Street After 9/11)
* Federal revenue rose substantially after the 2003 tax cuts, going from $1.78 trillion to $2.56 trillion from 2003 to 2007, an increase of 43%.
* Total federal revenue for 2008 dropped slightly, down to $2.52 trillion, because a recession started that year, but revenue was still substantially higher than it was in 2003 or 2004.
* During the same period, 2003-2007, personal income tax revenue rose dramatically, going from $925 billion in 2003 to $1.53 trillion in 2007.
* Even in 2009, when the recession neared depression territory and remained severe throughout the year, total federal revenue was $2.10 trillion, which, even adjusted for inflation, was very close to total federal revenue for the boom years of 2005 and 2006.
* If Congress had not gone on a reckless spending spree, we would have kept the budget balanced and continued to pay down the debt.
Reagan
* Reagan did in fact agree to four tax hikes, in 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1986. The 1983 “tax increase” was an increase in the payroll tax (i.e., the Social Security tax) that was part of a bipartisan bill to keep SS solvent. It seems a bit unfair to call this a “tax hike” when it was really just increasing the amount that taxpayers had to contribute to a fund from which they would later draw. The 1982, 1984, and 1986 tax hikes involved business taxes, tax loopholes, and the capital gains tax. Those tax hikes did not affect personal income tax rates, and Reagan cut taxes again in 1986.
* Reagan slashed personal income tax rates and the capital gains tax rate for individuals. My article includes tax tables from tax years 1980 and 1988 so that anyone can look and see for themselves just how much Reagan cut income tax rates.
* Federal revenue rose substantially after the Reagan tax cuts. Revenue rose by over 50% from 1983 to 1988, going from $326 billion to $549 billion. In 1989, the last year that a Reagan budget was in operation, revenue rose a whopping $53 billion, an increase of 10% from the previous year.
* But those huge boosts in revenue were more than offset by staggering spending hikes passed by Congress year after year. The Democrats started bundling spending bills into one giant omnibus spending bill, which left Reagan with two choices: sign them or shut down the government. If the government had restrained spending, the deficit would have been reduced, and the budget could have been balanced by 1986 or 1987.
* Economists William Niskanen and Stephen Moore on the impact of Reagan’s economic policies:
Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.
Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency. (Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record)
Economist Dr. William Niskanen:
Real GDP per working-age adult, which had increased at only a 0.8 annual rate during the Carter administration, increased at a 1.8 percent rate during the Reagan administration. The increase in productivity growth was even higher: output per hour in the business sector, which had been roughly constant in the Carter years, increased at a 1.4 percent rate in the Reagan years. Productivity in the manufacturing sector increased at a 3.8 percent annual rate, a record for peacetime.
Most other economic conditions also improved. The unemployment rate declined from 7.0 percent in 1980 to 5.4 percent in 1988. The inflation rate declined from 10.4 percent in 1980 to 4.2 percent in 1988. (Reaganomics, by William A. Niskanen: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty)
Again, for more information on these issues, see:
Setting the Record Straight About the Bush and Reagan Tax Cuts
The Facts About Tax Cuts, Revenue, and Growth (new edition)
Let’s get some facts straight. Predictably, liberals are repeating all kinds of myths and distortions about the Bush and Reagan tax cuts in their baffling effort to ignore the numerous positive aspects of the Trump tax cuts. Of course, our resident liberals are saying next to nothing about the Harding, JFK, and Clinton tax cuts, all of which were followed by sizable increases in federal revenue (and did not result in increased deficits and debt). Anyway, here are some bullet points to refute the liberal falsehoods and distortions that we have been seeing in this forum for the last two weeks (I expand on these points in an article I just web-published: Setting the Record Straight About the Bush and Reagan Tax Cuts).
Bush
* The Bush tax cuts came in two bills, the first signed in June 2001 and the second signed in May 2003. The 2001 bill reduced personal income taxes—however, these cuts were to be phased in over eight years and were not to be fully implemented until 2009.
* The 2003 bill accelerated the personal income tax cuts in the 2001 bill and added several business tax cuts. So by the end of 2002, only a fraction of the Bush personal income tax cuts had taken affect, and the business tax cuts had not yet been passed. Thus, we cannot judge the Bush tax cuts by federal revenue in 2001 and 2002.
* The Bush tax cuts—personal and business—really began in 2003 with the passage of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (JGTRRA) in May 2003. As mentioned, the 2003 bill accelerated the personal income tax cuts in the 2001 bill. Financial expert Kimberly Amadeo explains some of the positive impacts of the JGTRRA:
JGTRRA helped the economy out of recession by putting more dollars into the pockets of businesses and investors, and ultimately consumers. It encouraged investment in the stock market by decreasing capital gains and dividend taxes.
By reducing the cost of buying stocks, JGTRRA made them more attractive than bonds. That put $9.2 billion more into the pockets of stockholders in just the first year.
As dividend-paying stocks become more popular, companies issue more of them instead of bonds. Their financing became more reliant on bonds than stocks. That helps companies in a downturn because they are less likely to default on bond payments, which are fixed. It reduces the risk of corporate bankruptcies.
JGTRRA also encouraged companies to increase dividend payment. More than 200 companies, most notably Target, Citigroup, and Walgreen, announced dividend increases by July 2003.
Many companies, most notably Microsoft, started issuing dividends for the first time. Much of executive compensation is paid in stocks and stock options. This form of payment became even more popular when the tax burden on dividends was lessened for high-income earners.
As a result of JGTRRA, total dividend payments increased 20 percent from 2003 - 2012. For the previous 20 years, they had declined. (JGTRRA: The Tax Cut to Help Wall Street After 9/11)
* Federal revenue rose substantially after the 2003 tax cuts, going from $1.78 trillion to $2.56 trillion from 2003 to 2007, an increase of 43%.
* Total federal revenue for 2008 dropped slightly, down to $2.52 trillion, because a recession started that year, but revenue was still substantially higher than it was in 2003 or 2004.
* During the same period, 2003-2007, personal income tax revenue rose dramatically, going from $925 billion in 2003 to $1.53 trillion in 2007.
* Even in 2009, when the recession neared depression territory and remained severe throughout the year, total federal revenue was $2.10 trillion, which, even adjusted for inflation, was very close to total federal revenue for the boom years of 2005 and 2006.
* If Congress had not gone on a reckless spending spree, we would have kept the budget balanced and continued to pay down the debt.
Reagan
* Reagan did in fact agree to four tax hikes, in 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1986. The 1983 “tax increase” was an increase in the payroll tax (i.e., the Social Security tax) that was part of a bipartisan bill to keep SS solvent. It seems a bit unfair to call this a “tax hike” when it was really just increasing the amount that taxpayers had to contribute to a fund from which they would later draw. The 1982, 1984, and 1986 tax hikes involved business taxes, tax loopholes, and the capital gains tax. Those tax hikes did not affect personal income tax rates, and Reagan cut taxes again in 1986.
* Reagan slashed personal income tax rates and the capital gains tax rate for individuals. My article includes tax tables from tax years 1980 and 1988 so that anyone can look and see for themselves just how much Reagan cut income tax rates.
* Federal revenue rose substantially after the Reagan tax cuts. Revenue rose by over 50% from 1983 to 1988, going from $326 billion to $549 billion. In 1989, the last year that a Reagan budget was in operation, revenue rose a whopping $53 billion, an increase of 10% from the previous year.
* But those huge boosts in revenue were more than offset by staggering spending hikes passed by Congress year after year. The Democrats started bundling spending bills into one giant omnibus spending bill, which left Reagan with two choices: sign them or shut down the government. If the government had restrained spending, the deficit would have been reduced, and the budget could have been balanced by 1986 or 1987.
* Economists William Niskanen and Stephen Moore on the impact of Reagan’s economic policies:
Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.
Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency. (Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record)
Economist Dr. William Niskanen:
Real GDP per working-age adult, which had increased at only a 0.8 annual rate during the Carter administration, increased at a 1.8 percent rate during the Reagan administration. The increase in productivity growth was even higher: output per hour in the business sector, which had been roughly constant in the Carter years, increased at a 1.4 percent rate in the Reagan years. Productivity in the manufacturing sector increased at a 3.8 percent annual rate, a record for peacetime.
Most other economic conditions also improved. The unemployment rate declined from 7.0 percent in 1980 to 5.4 percent in 1988. The inflation rate declined from 10.4 percent in 1980 to 4.2 percent in 1988. (Reaganomics, by William A. Niskanen: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty)
Again, for more information on these issues, see:
Setting the Record Straight About the Bush and Reagan Tax Cuts
The Facts About Tax Cuts, Revenue, and Growth (new edition)
Notice how Reagan tax INCREASES became tax CUTS when revenue increased after the tax hikes!!!!!* Reagan did in fact agree to four tax hikes, in 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1986.
* Federal revenue rose substantially after the Reagan tax cuts. Revenue rose by over 50% from 1983 to 1988, going from $326 billion to $549 billion.
No they didn't!!!So what have we learned so far, kids?
When Reagan cut taxes, revenues went up, and so did deficits.
The sum total of Reagan's cuts and hikes was a net cut.No they didn't!!!So what have we learned so far, kids?
When Reagan cut taxes, revenues went up, and so did deficits.
When Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and 1982 revenue went DOWN, way DOWN. Revenue did not go up until Reagan RAISED tax after tax beginning 1983.
So what have we learned so far, kids?
When Reagan cut taxes, revenues went up, and so did deficits.
When Clinton raised taxes, revenues went up, and deficits went down.
When Bush cut taxes, revenues went up, and so did deficits.
The guy who RAISED taxes saw the biggest jobs growth of all the modern presidents.
The deficit rose under Reagan because he submitted massive spending bills. He was the first President to submit a trillion dollar budget.So what have we learned so far, kids?
When Reagan cut taxes, revenues went up, and so did deficits.
When Clinton raised taxes, revenues went up, and deficits went down.
When Bush cut taxes, revenues went up, and so did deficits.
The guy who RAISED taxes saw the biggest jobs growth of all the modern presidents.
FACT ALERT, FACT ALERT!
Revenue has NOTHING to do with deficits, as long as the revenue rises. It has to do with SPENDING!
QUESTIONS------->
1. Who controls spending via the purse? ANSWER-------->congress does, specifically the House of Representatives.
2. Who controlled the House of Representatives when Clinton came CLOSE to balancing the budget? ANSWER---------> Republicans!
So does that mean that Republicans are the end all, be all? Hell no! They suck almost as much as the Democrats do! But what Mike has pointed out so succinctly is----------> following a tax cut agenda DOES increase the revenue to the treasury. On the other hand, the more that the treasury takes in, the more congress wants to spend. The President then either shuts down the government as Reagan did on numerous occasions, and even if he does, he/she is still hostage to congress.
No matter how leftists want to paint it, always remember----------> unless congress shirks it's responsibility, they are the ones who decide how much money is spent, period! And yes, we know that this congress has gone pretty goofy. And yet each and everytime they even infer they might cut something, the left comes on here crying, whining, bitching, and moaning about what they might cut; then the very next day all get together and cry about the deficit!
Now I know, we know, that is called politics. But because we all know that it is politics, it gives us the werewithall, with a very straight face, to call each and every one of you............phony-baloneys!
The deficit rose under Reagan because he submitted massive spending bills. He was the first President to submit a trillion dollar budget.So what have we learned so far, kids?
When Reagan cut taxes, revenues went up, and so did deficits.
When Clinton raised taxes, revenues went up, and deficits went down.
When Bush cut taxes, revenues went up, and so did deficits.
The guy who RAISED taxes saw the biggest jobs growth of all the modern presidents.
FACT ALERT, FACT ALERT!
Revenue has NOTHING to do with deficits, as long as the revenue rises. It has to do with SPENDING!
QUESTIONS------->
1. Who controls spending via the purse? ANSWER-------->congress does, specifically the House of Representatives.
2. Who controlled the House of Representatives when Clinton came CLOSE to balancing the budget? ANSWER---------> Republicans!
So does that mean that Republicans are the end all, be all? Hell no! They suck almost as much as the Democrats do! But what Mike has pointed out so succinctly is----------> following a tax cut agenda DOES increase the revenue to the treasury. On the other hand, the more that the treasury takes in, the more congress wants to spend. The President then either shuts down the government as Reagan did on numerous occasions, and even if he does, he/she is still hostage to congress.
No matter how leftists want to paint it, always remember----------> unless congress shirks it's responsibility, they are the ones who decide how much money is spent, period! And yes, we know that this congress has gone pretty goofy. And yet each and everytime they even infer they might cut something, the left comes on here crying, whining, bitching, and moaning about what they might cut; then the very next day all get together and cry about the deficit!
Now I know, we know, that is called politics. But because we all know that it is politics, it gives us the werewithall, with a very straight face, to call each and every one of you............phony-baloneys!
It amuses me that when Obama was President, the pseudocons blamed Obama for the climbing debt, but now they mewl like little babies about "who controls the purse strings", forgetting that the Republicans controlled Congress for most of Obama's regime during all that time they had veins popping out of their heads over OBAMA's debt.
I am so sick and tired of this fucking hypocrisy.
