Refuting Liberal Falsehoods and Distortions About Tax Cuts and Revenue

[g5000]

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.

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.

You didn't pay close attention to what I said Guno--------------> as long as the CONGRESSS doesn't SHIRK its' responsibility. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with revenues, it has to do with congress, does it not!

Because congress is a bunch of fools, does NOT mean we should NOT increase revenues to our treasury, does it?

Just like the President, it is our job to elect, or throw out the people who are doing this to us. Their hat is not important! But to say we should NOT increase cash flow to the treasury, is akin to cutting off our nose, to spite our face.

One thing at a time; although I am sure we both agree, time is running short before it becomes to late.

Allow me to bitch slap you with your own words, hypocrite:

Well then Sladester, let ME put it this way------------> who is the only person in government who could have vetoed the spending, and forced a 2/3rds congressional over ride to shine the light on who/whom it was, spending all the do-rae-mi? So when you say he DID NOT do it, technically you are correct. But when we say--------> he must have LIKED it because he did NOT try and stop it, we are correct too!

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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.

You didn't pay close attention to what I said Guno--------------> as long as the CONGRESSS doesn't SHIRK its' responsibility. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with revenues, it has to do with congress, does it not!

Because congress is a bunch of fools, does NOT mean we should NOT increase revenues to our treasury, does it?

Just like the President, it is our job to elect, or throw out the people who are doing this to us. Their hat is not important! But to say we should NOT increase cash flow to the treasury, is akin to cutting off our nose, to spite our face.

One thing at a time; although I am sure we both agree, time is running short before it becomes to late.

Regardless, right wing public policies add to the debt, not the surplus.

Why not healthcare reform and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, instead?

 

[g5000]

The last time we had a GOP Congress and a GOP President, the debt skyrocketed.

Just like last time, the GOP has controlled Congress for years before we got the current GOP President.

And they are already rushing to skyrocket the debt even more.

That is a fact. And facts are neither liberal nor conservative. They are just facts.

But the pseudocons avert their eyes from the facts which contradict their self-deluded, willfully stupid mental constructs which have been deliberately installed in their feeble brains by their propagandists. Propagandists who teach them to defend the fuckers who are robbing them blind.

 

[g5000]

The last time the GOP controlled all three branches of government, they created a massive Cabinet level police department to spy on and control the American people.

And this current Emperor loves the idea of a police state. He literally EMBRACES the idea.

]

 

[imawhosure]

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.

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.

You didn't pay close attention to what I said Guno--------------> as long as the CONGRESSS doesn't SHIRK its' responsibility. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with revenues, it has to do with congress, does it not!

Because congress is a bunch of fools, does NOT mean we should NOT increase revenues to our treasury, does it?

Just like the President, it is our job to elect, or throw out the people who are doing this to us. Their hat is not important! But to say we should NOT increase cash flow to the treasury, is akin to cutting off our nose, to spite our face.

One thing at a time; although I am sure we both agree, time is running short before it becomes to late.

Allow me to bitch slap you with your own words, hypocrite:

Well then Sladester, let ME put it this way------------> who is the only person in government who could have vetoed the spending, and forced a 2/3rds congressional over ride to shine the light on who/whom it was, spending all the do-rae-mi? So when you say he DID NOT do it, technically you are correct. But when we say--------> he must have LIKED it because he did NOT try and stop it, we are correct too!

And so, has a budget been submitted to Trump yet he could veto?

 

[g5000]

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.

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.

You didn't pay close attention to what I said Guno--------------> as long as the CONGRESSS doesn't SHIRK its' responsibility. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with revenues, it has to do with congress, does it not!

Because congress is a bunch of fools, does NOT mean we should NOT increase revenues to our treasury, does it?

Just like the President, it is our job to elect, or throw out the people who are doing this to us. Their hat is not important! But to say we should NOT increase cash flow to the treasury, is akin to cutting off our nose, to spite our face.

One thing at a time; although I am sure we both agree, time is running short before it becomes to late.

Allow me to bitch slap you with your own words, hypocrite:

Well then Sladester, let ME put it this way------------> who is the only person in government who could have vetoed the spending, and forced a 2/3rds congressional over ride to shine the light on who/whom it was, spending all the do-rae-mi? So when you say he DID NOT do it, technically you are correct. But when we say--------> he must have LIKED it because he did NOT try and stop it, we are correct too!

And so, has a budget been submitted to Trump yet he could veto?

Ah, thank you so much for demonstrating my point.

Trump has signed off on at least three continuing resolutions and hikes in the national debt ceiling since taking office.

And you have just proven you had no idea.

Funny that. Whenever Obama signed off on more spending and more debt, this board was inundated with topics about it.

You see, you rubes only parrot what you are told to parrot. And your propagandists deliberately went radio silent when Trump signed off on more debt and more spending, which means you parroting tards were not given instructions to say anything.

And you didn't even notice.

That's how dumbed down your masters have made you. That's how manipulated you are. You are so willfully stupid, you don't even notice you are being managed.

 

[g5000]

Not one word.

Not one word from the parrots when Trump signed bills for more deficit spending.

Not one word from the parrots when Trupm signed bills to raise the debt ceiling.

Not one word when our debt shot past the significant $20 trillion milestone!

Not one fucking word from these fucking brain dead parroting rubes.

 

[g5000]

Here's the best part.

Trump and the tards brag on how many bills Trump has signed this year.

The tards never even noticed that quite a few of those bills were big spending and debt ceiling hike bills.

So in effect, the tards were actually BOASTING about being CLUELESS HYPOCRITES!

 

[danielpalos]

Here's the best part.

Trump and the tards brag on how many bills Trump has signed this year.

The tards never even noticed that quite a few of those bills were big spending and debt ceiling hike bills.

So in effect, the tards were actually BOASTING about being CLUELESS HYPOCRITES!

Just a bunch of socialists and don't know it.

 

[g5000]

Here's the best part.

Trump and the tards brag on how many bills Trump has signed this year.

The tards never even noticed that quite a few of those bills were big spending and debt ceiling hike bills.

So in effect, the tards were actually BOASTING about being CLUELESS HYPOCRITES!

Just a bunch of socialists and don't know it.

That is more true than you realize.

The pseudocons believe in wealth redistribution. They also sound just like 60s hippies more and more every day. Whining about "The Establishment", lusting after a KGB thug, demanding their government gifts, etc, etc.


Democrats: Tax and spend.
Republicans: Borrow and spend.

 

[nat4900]

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."

Nitwit.......why don't you explain WHY Reagan was forced to raise taxes ELEVEN times in his 2 terms.....???

 

[mikegriffith1]

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."

Nitwit.......why don't you explain WHY Reagan was forced to raise taxes ELEVEN times in his 2 terms.....???

WHY didn't you read the OP? If you had, you would know that I discuss Reagan's tax hikes, and you would also know that he cut taxes much more than he raised them. I even include a link that shows that tax tables before his tax cuts and after his tax cuts, so that people like you can see with your own eyes that, after all was said and done, tax rates were still far lower at the end of Reagan's presidency than they were before he took office.

Free your mind and go look at those tax tables. Trigger alert. Trigger alert: They will debunk the lies you've been told about Reagan's tax cuts.

 

[mikegriffith1]

The tards think tax cuts lead to higher revenues, and ignore the effect on the debt. They only care about debt when someone with a D after his name is in office.

If tax cuts lead to higher revenues, why don't we cut the tax rate to ZERO?

If tax hikes increase revenues, why don't we raise the tax rate to 100 percent?

Pondering these two questions leads to something which has completely evaded the tards. There is obviously a happy medium which generates the maximum amount of revenues, job growth, and minimal deficits.

The current tax "reform" increases our debt by another $1.5 trillion. This is NOT good for the economy.

Here's another thing. $1.3 trillion of that additional debt is due to the cut in the corporate tax rate.

That's because they cut the tax rate without eliminating all the thieving tax expenditures which drove the corporate tax rate so high to begin with!

Is this really your reply to the OP? Seriously? You didn't actually bother to read the OP, did you?

As for your silly argument about cutting taxes to zero, obviously you have not heard of the Laffer Curve, have you? Obviously, there would be a point below which we could not cut taxes without reducing revenue, but we are nowhere near that point.

Again, read the OP.

 

[mikegriffith1]

So what have we learned so far, kids?

You obviously have learned nothing but are still repeating liberal distortions and half-truths and avoiding the facts of the matter.

When Reagan cut taxes, revenues went up, and so did deficits.

You again ignore the fact that deficits rose because the government increased spending so much that it cancelled out and overtook the increase in revenue. Are you just mentally incapable of processing this basic fact? As you said, revenue rose after the Reagan tax cuts, yet the deficit grew. Why? Because the government failed to hold spending at or below revenue, even though revenue rose substantially.

When Clinton raised taxes, revenues went up, and deficits went down.

Are you really this dumb/juvenile/dense? As I point in the OP, the deficit dropped after Clinton's tax cuts because Clinton restrained the growth in federal spending. So, again, we see that tax cuts do not cause deficits--overspending causes deficits--and that when spending is held at or below revenue after a revenue boost from tax cuts, we balance the budget and start paying down debt.

Doesn't your personal budget work like this too? Then why do you seem incapable of processing this basic fact of math?

When Bush cut taxes, revenues went up, and so did deficits.

Wow, again with this nonsense?! WHY did the deficit go up even though there was a huge boost in revenue? Because Congress went on a reckless spending spree that cancelled out and overtook the huge boost in revenue. Again, are you just incapable of processing this basic fact?

The guy who RAISED taxes saw the biggest jobs growth of all the modern presidents.

You can't be this dumb. No one can be this dumb. Or are you?

The guy who kept taxes far, far below their 1979 levels; the guy who then signed a tax-cut bill that included the biggest cut in the capital gains tax rate in history up to that point; and the guy who held spending to its slowest growth rate since the early 1960s--that's the guy who saw the best growth of any president since JFK.

 

[nat4900]

They will debunk the lies you've been told about Reagan's tax cuts.

The unemployment rate under Reaganomics crept up to over 10.8% in his second term (when Nancy was running the country......)

 

[danielpalos]

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."

Nitwit.......why don't you explain WHY Reagan was forced to raise taxes ELEVEN times in his 2 terms.....???

WHY didn't you read the OP? If you had, you would know that I discuss Reagan's tax hikes, and you would also know that he cut taxes much more than he raised them. I even include a link that shows that tax tables before his tax cuts and after his tax cuts, so that people like you can see with your own eyes that, after all was said and done, tax rates were still far lower at the end of Reagan's presidency than they were before he took office.

Free your mind and go look at those tax tables. Trigger alert. Trigger alert: They will debunk the lies you've been told about Reagan's tax cuts.

Means nothing if it was insufficient to run a surplus; just lousy capital management, that is all.

 

[g5000]

The tards think tax cuts lead to higher revenues, and ignore the effect on the debt. They only care about debt when someone with a D after his name is in office.

If tax cuts lead to higher revenues, why don't we cut the tax rate to ZERO?

If tax hikes increase revenues, why don't we raise the tax rate to 100 percent?

Pondering these two questions leads to something which has completely evaded the tards. There is obviously a happy medium which generates the maximum amount of revenues, job growth, and minimal deficits.

The current tax "reform" increases our debt by another $1.5 trillion. This is NOT good for the economy.

Here's another thing. $1.3 trillion of that additional debt is due to the cut in the corporate tax rate.

That's because they cut the tax rate without eliminating all the thieving tax expenditures which drove the corporate tax rate so high to begin with!

Is this really your reply to the OP? Seriously? You didn't actually bother to read the OP, did you?

As for your silly argument about cutting taxes to zero, obviously you have not heard of the Laffer Curve, have you? Obviously, there would be a point below which we could not cut taxes without reducing revenue, but we are nowhere near that point.

Again, read the OP.

The tax bill INCREASES OUR DEBT, retard.

Read that again and again until you get it.

Dumbass.

 

[busybee01]

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)

Here is the problem with those comparisons. The other tax cuts were across the board. The Trump tax cuts are supposed to be reform. It actually looks more like the Republicans wanted to get even with their enemies and that is where this comes from. It essentially raises taxes on 1 group and lowers it on another.

The comparison should be with the Reagan tax reform effort in 1986. He closed loopholes that the rich used in return for lower taxes. He consulted outside economists in crafting the plan. He also took his time and did not do it in a few weeks. He also compromised with Democrats to get a deal.

There are several problems with this tax bill. It gets even with the people Republicans hate. It is no coincidence that capping state and tax deductions will hurt people who live in blue states. Also it retains breaks for the rich such as the carried interest deduction and creates new breaks such as pass-through income and a new break for real estate trusts.

Also Trump and Republicans benefit strongly from this bill. Trump, Ryan, and Corker who changed his vote from no to yes have interests in real estate trusts that will benefit from this last minute provision. The pass-through provision also provides a look into Republican thinking. If you are a entrepreneur and work in the pass-through, you will be able to have 20% of your income taxed at the lower rate. However if you invest in a pass-through entity, you get all your income taxed at a lower rate.

Also another difference is that Reagan had no business interests at the time. Bush disposed of his business interests before he entered politics. Trump benefits greatly from this tax bill.

 

[busybee01]

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)

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.”
But all the middle class got was crumbs. You’ve been duped again by your carnival barker and you don’t even see it.

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.

Our media is not honest enough for them to be fully informed.

People are a lot smarter than you think they are. This tax bill is a fraud and they know it.

 

[busybee01]

So what have we learned so far, kids?

When Reagan cut taxes, revenues went up, and so did deficits.

No they didn't!!!
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.

The Reagan tax cuts were not fully implemented until 1983. That is when the economy started improving. That suggests the tax cuts should have been implemented at once rather than over 3 years.