Economics 101

[Indeependent]

This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.

Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101

Which has led to how many Stock Markets crashes?
Too many.

This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.

Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101

Which has led to how many Stock Markets crashes?
Too many.

Are you suggesting that Socialist countries do not suffer stock market crashes?

I'm stating that our current Economic and Fiscal Policy is not as perfect as Greeditarians would have us believe.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What happened was that budgets were cut across the board, with exceptions.

So you can show a year over year drop in spending in Reagan's first term, before the recession?

Would you like me to wash your car for you, too??? No. Because it takes more time than I am willing to give you. What occurred, in general, was spending was cut to non military areas, and increased in military areas. A major shock occurred that caused unemployment spikes. And a 10.8% ue rate, and a lot of pissed off unemployed. Made the administration about as popular as a fart in church.

One of the more telling things was, when things got really bad and the ue rate went through the roof, reagan did not cut taxes to fix the problem. Reaganomics suddenly went out the window.

Because the reason for the jump in unemployment was clearly not the tax cuts or the supposed spending cuts that I'll wait for you to prove actually happened

I and his budget director beg to differ.

.

What occurred, in general, was spending was cut to non military areas, and increased in military areas.

In general, baloney.
Prove it, me boy. Spending started to increase by the first part of '82. And taxes were increased to raise revenue. No baloney there, me boy. Only baloney is you trying as hard as you can to rewrite history.

A major shock occurred that caused unemployment spikes.

A major shock? Can you be more specific?

What they said, if I can believe their lying eyes, was revenue decreasing in real terms, and unemployment going through the roof. Did you notice?? So, me boy, they had two options: 1. Lower interest rates.
2. Reaganomic proceedures, lower taxes and decrease spending.
3. RAISE TAXES, SPEND STIMULATIVELY.
Now, being supply side guys, and having tried that in early to mid 1981, what did they do to attack the rapidly rising unemployment and increasing deficit?

Spending started to increase by the first part of '82. And taxes were increased to raise revenue.

Spending definitely increased in 82. Also in 81 and 80. Because it was never cut.

Yes, well, Reagan was not president in 1980, and his policies did not take effect until mid 1981,

The 81 tax cuts were phased in. Which taxes do you think were raised? By how much?
There were several. Here, me boy.
1982: The most significant tax increase Reagan signed was also the first. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (yes, another law with a very sexy name) increased taxes by almost 1 percent of GDP.

The 1982 tax increase was "probably the largest peacetime tax increase in American history," said economist Bruce Bartlett, who advised Reagan on domestic policy and then worked as Treasury deputy assistant secretary for economic policy in the George H.W. Bush administration. (An analysis by Jerry Tempalski, an analyst in the Office of Tax Analysis with the U.S. Department of the Treasury, agrees.)

This law was driven by pressure to attack the federal budget deficit, as well as the impression that Reagan’s tax-cutting was partially responsible for lower-than-expected tax revenues.

Bartlett, who reviewed Reagan’s tax record for Tax Notes in 2011, cited a Treasury estimate that the 1982 law raised taxes by almost 1 percent of GDP, or about $150 billion in modern dollars.

was revenue decreasing in real terms


When?

If decreased revenue hits increased spending, deficits would rise.
We should all agree that happened.
Yes, indeed, it did. And that was part of the shock.

What was the major shock?
For con tools, there was no shock. For the politicians who wanted to be re-elected, and for the unemployed, it was the skyrocketing ue rate. Funny, the workers do not like being unemployed and do not reelect politicians in charge.

So, we can agree that the ue rate was heading up quickly, that the electorate were unhappy, and that the deficit was a BIG problem. So, what did Reagan do???

Yes, well, Reagan was not president in 1980, and his policies did not take effect until mid 1981,

Great, so show me his spending cuts. Oh, right, spending wasn't cut.

1982: The most significant tax increase Reagan signed was also the first. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (yes, another law with a very sexy name) increased taxes by almost 1 percent of GDP.


In 1988, libertarian political writer Sheldon Richman described TEFRA as "the largest tax increase in American history." In 2003, former Reagan adviser Bruce Bartlett wrote in National Review that "TEFRA raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year", elaborating, "according to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history."[10] However, this "increase" was achieved primarily through the cancellation of future tax cuts scheduled by ERTA the year before that had yet to take effect at the time of TEFRA's passage.[11] Taxpayers still receive $375 billion in tax cuts in the 3 years following TEFRA.[11]

For con tools, there was no shock. For the politicians who wanted to be re-elected, and for the unemployed, it was the skyrocketing ue rate.

You said a major shock caused unemployment spikes. Now you say the shock was the spike? LOL!

So he cut taxes and didn't cut spending, so how did Reagan cause unemployment to spike?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What does cutting taxes cause?

Economic growth.

Not for Reagan. As you can see from the chart, GDP fell from St Ronnie's 1981tax cuts and rose after Reagan started raising taxes in 1982.

Following enactment in August 1981, the first 5% of the 25% total cuts took place beginning in October. An additional 10% began in July 1982, followed by a third decrease of 10% beginning in July 1983.[4]

Thanks. I always enjoy it when liberals post the refutations of their own claims.

Can you post the chart that shows 7% GDP growth after Obama raised rates?

Can you post the chart that shows that you have gone and fucked yourself??
You are trying, as hard as you can, to rewrite history with cherry picked data. Not going to work for you, me boy.
Can you tell us why, after trying to lower taxes and decrease spending on non military items, and creating a 10.8% ue rate, they did not attack the problem with more supply side measures?
Explain why raising taxes, spending like a drunken sailor, nearly tripling the national debt, and increasing the size of the federal governor helped the economy so much??

You are trying, as hard as you can, to rewrite history with cherry picked data.

That's Ed's chart.

You still don't know why unemployment spiked in 1982? Are you 20 years old?
I wish. I do, you are the one who is not explaining why you think it was going up in 1982.

Explain why raising taxes

Which taxes? How much?

Told, you, If you can not use google, I am not interested in training you. If you can not read my posts, I am not going to help you learn to read.

you are the one who is not explaining why you think it was going up in 1982.

When you finally explain the cause, I'll give you the real cause.

Told, you,

Yes, his tax hikes were cancelling some of his future cuts.
Was that a bad idea? Should he have cut even more?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.

Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101

Which has led to how many Stock Markets crashes?
Too many.

This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.

Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101

Which has led to how many Stock Markets crashes?
Too many.

Are you suggesting that Socialist countries do not suffer stock market crashes?

I'm stating that our current Economic and Fiscal Policy is not as perfect as Greeditarians would have us believe.

Wow, really going out a limb, our system is not perfect. Thanks for the insight.

 

[P@triot]

This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.

Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101

Which has led to how many Stock Markets crashes?
Too many.

This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.

Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101

Which has led to how many Stock Markets crashes?
Too many.

Are you suggesting that Socialist countries do not suffer stock market crashes?

I'm stating that our current Economic and Fiscal Policy is not as perfect as Greeditarians would have us believe.

You know why? Because ignorant liberal socialism has mucked up at least 70% of our "free-market". Guess what would happen if we returned to a true free-market, Dumbocrat-free? We'd see significant prosperity instead of this partial prosperity, partial poverty nonsense that liberals keep handing us.

 

[Rshermr]

What occurred, in general, was spending was cut to non military areas, and increased in military areas.

In general, baloney.
Prove it, me boy. Spending started to increase by the first part of '82. And taxes were increased to raise revenue. No baloney there, me boy. Only baloney is you trying as hard as you can to rewrite history.

A major shock occurred that caused unemployment spikes.

A major shock? Can you be more specific?

What they said, if I can believe their lying eyes, was revenue decreasing in real terms, and unemployment going through the roof. Did you notice?? So, me boy, they had two options: 1. Lower interest rates.
2. Reaganomic proceedures, lower taxes and decrease spending.
3. RAISE TAXES, SPEND STIMULATIVELY.
Now, being supply side guys, and having tried that in early to mid 1981, what did they do to attack the rapidly rising unemployment and increasing deficit?

Spending started to increase by the first part of '82. And taxes were increased to raise revenue.

Spending definitely increased in 82. Also in 81 and 80. Because it was never cut.

Yes, well, Reagan was not president in 1980, and his policies did not take effect until mid 1981,

The 81 tax cuts were phased in. Which taxes do you think were raised? By how much?
There were several. Here, me boy.
1982: The most significant tax increase Reagan signed was also the first. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (yes, another law with a very sexy name) increased taxes by almost 1 percent of GDP.

The 1982 tax increase was "probably the largest peacetime tax increase in American history," said economist Bruce Bartlett, who advised Reagan on domestic policy and then worked as Treasury deputy assistant secretary for economic policy in the George H.W. Bush administration. (An analysis by Jerry Tempalski, an analyst in the Office of Tax Analysis with the U.S. Department of the Treasury, agrees.)

This law was driven by pressure to attack the federal budget deficit, as well as the impression that Reagan’s tax-cutting was partially responsible for lower-than-expected tax revenues.

Bartlett, who reviewed Reagan’s tax record for Tax Notes in 2011, cited a Treasury estimate that the 1982 law raised taxes by almost 1 percent of GDP, or about $150 billion in modern dollars.

was revenue decreasing in real terms


When?

If decreased revenue hits increased spending, deficits would rise.
We should all agree that happened.
Yes, indeed, it did. And that was part of the shock.

What was the major shock?
For con tools, there was no shock. For the politicians who wanted to be re-elected, and for the unemployed, it was the skyrocketing ue rate. Funny, the workers do not like being unemployed and do not reelect politicians in charge.

So, we can agree that the ue rate was heading up quickly, that the electorate were unhappy, and that the deficit was a BIG problem. So, what did Reagan do???

Yes, well, Reagan was not president in 1980, and his policies did not take effect until mid 1981,

Great, so show me his spending cuts. Oh, right, spending wasn't cut.
So, you have to get away from the con tool mind set to understand what was going on. The us economy is not like a mom and pop store, where you buy it and come in and start spending. See, you are trying to pretend you are ignorant. Or, maybe you are. But there was a budget for 1981 that he came in to, and a budget he was responsible for in 1982. So, SURPRISE, me boy. The spending cuts started in 1982. As part of his FIRST budget. And as a result, there was the following, as I have been saying, and you are trying to say did not happen:

"the fiscal 1982 budget that was proposed by Reagan represented a.reduction of $44 billion, or 5.7%, and all categories except national defense were reduced.' Over half of the $44 billion budget reduction came from two areas: income security; and education, training, employment, and social services. . "
Error 404 – File Not Found | Institute for Research on Poverty | University of Wisconsin–Madison

1982: The most significant tax increase Reagan signed was also the first. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (yes, another law with a very sexy name) increased taxes by almost 1 percent of GDP.


In 1988, libertarian political writer Sheldon Richman described TEFRA as "the largest tax increase in American history." In 2003, former Reagan adviser Bruce Bartlett wrote in National Review that "TEFRA raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year", elaborating, "according to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history."[10] However, this "increase" was achieved primarily through the cancellation of future tax cuts scheduled by ERTA the year before that had yet to take effect at the time of TEFRA's passage.[11] Taxpayers still receive $375 billion in tax cuts in the 3 years following TEFRA.[11]
Got a link???

Yes, as I stated, the tax increases were substantial though no one said that they were as big as the cuts. And, me boy, it makes no difference what the tax increases were. They were increases. They were meant to raise revenue. And they did. Next.

For con tools, there was no shock. For the politicians who wanted to be re-elected, and for the unemployed, it was the skyrocketing ue rate.

You said a major shock caused unemployment spikes. Now you say the shock was the spike? LOL!
Watch that laughing, it is often a symptom of the condition known as congenital idiocy. Because, me boy, what I said was rational. Look below, and see if you see a spike in unemployment that those that were unemployed DID see.
The shock was, again, to the american public. It was the result PRIMARILY of the ue rate going through the roof fast. During Reagans first budget year.

"Unemployment Rates in 1982
January 1982 - 8.6%
February 1982 - 8.9%
March 1982 - 9%
April 1982 - 9.3%
May 1982 - 9.4%
June 1982 - 9.6%
July 1982 - 9.8%
August 1982 - 9.8%
September 1982 - 10.1%
October 1982 - 10.4%
November 1982 - 10.8%
December 1982 - 10.8%"
Unemployment Rates in the United States Since 1948

So he cut taxes and didn't cut spending, so how did Reagan cause unemployment to spike?
This is the final attempt to explain this to you. It is obvious that you do not want to know the answer. Being a con tool, you have been told what to believe. So, again, different areas. Read my first linked article. It states he cut spending on non military areas, and spent more on military areas. Now, me con tool, it is not as simple as the ma and pa store you envision. Takes a bit of time. Months usually, unless you are spending on the MILITARY. Then it takes a long time. So, cuts in spending had immediate impact. Military spending would have had less impact. Sending money to Iran would not have had any ue impact, for instance. Making holes in the ground in some desert, little impact. Get it yet?? First impact was cutting civilian jobs, which caused problems that included the second highest ue rate since and including the great depression.
But, me boy (now pay attention) that brought about measures to end the ue problem and the problem with the national debt. He solved the first by blowing up the second. Because he loved military spending and spending in general.

 

[edthecynic]

Reagan dropped tax rates. Why do you feel that caused unemployment?

Probably because unemployment INCREASED dramatically right after the tax cuts started, and unemployment DECREASED right after Reagan began his multiple tax increases and massive spending increases.

Probably because unemployment INCREASED dramatically right after the tax cuts started

Why?

Same reason unemployment decreased when Reagan began his multiple tax increases.

 

[Rshermr]

Reagan dropped tax rates. Why do you feel that caused unemployment?

Probably because unemployment INCREASED dramatically right after the tax cuts started, and unemployment DECREASED right after Reagan began his multiple tax increases and massive spending increases.

Probably because unemployment INCREASED dramatically right after the tax cuts started

Why?

Same reason unemployment decreased when Reagan began his multiple tax increases.

Yes, but ed, you are logical. You are following the process with an open mind. Tax increases were to provide revenue to halt the out of control deficit. Problem was, for the debt at least, reagan spent more tnan the taxes brought in. But on the good side, the spending was stimulative.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What occurred, in general, was spending was cut to non military areas, and increased in military areas.

In general, baloney.
Prove it, me boy. Spending started to increase by the first part of '82. And taxes were increased to raise revenue. No baloney there, me boy. Only baloney is you trying as hard as you can to rewrite history.

A major shock occurred that caused unemployment spikes.

A major shock? Can you be more specific?

What they said, if I can believe their lying eyes, was revenue decreasing in real terms, and unemployment going through the roof. Did you notice?? So, me boy, they had two options: 1. Lower interest rates.
2. Reaganomic proceedures, lower taxes and decrease spending.
3. RAISE TAXES, SPEND STIMULATIVELY.
Now, being supply side guys, and having tried that in early to mid 1981, what did they do to attack the rapidly rising unemployment and increasing deficit?

Spending started to increase by the first part of '82. And taxes were increased to raise revenue.

Spending definitely increased in 82. Also in 81 and 80. Because it was never cut.

Yes, well, Reagan was not president in 1980, and his policies did not take effect until mid 1981,

The 81 tax cuts were phased in. Which taxes do you think were raised? By how much?
There were several. Here, me boy.
1982: The most significant tax increase Reagan signed was also the first. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (yes, another law with a very sexy name) increased taxes by almost 1 percent of GDP.

The 1982 tax increase was "probably the largest peacetime tax increase in American history," said economist Bruce Bartlett, who advised Reagan on domestic policy and then worked as Treasury deputy assistant secretary for economic policy in the George H.W. Bush administration. (An analysis by Jerry Tempalski, an analyst in the Office of Tax Analysis with the U.S. Department of the Treasury, agrees.)

This law was driven by pressure to attack the federal budget deficit, as well as the impression that Reagan’s tax-cutting was partially responsible for lower-than-expected tax revenues.

Bartlett, who reviewed Reagan’s tax record for Tax Notes in 2011, cited a Treasury estimate that the 1982 law raised taxes by almost 1 percent of GDP, or about $150 billion in modern dollars.

was revenue decreasing in real terms


When?

If decreased revenue hits increased spending, deficits would rise.
We should all agree that happened.
Yes, indeed, it did. And that was part of the shock.

What was the major shock?
For con tools, there was no shock. For the politicians who wanted to be re-elected, and for the unemployed, it was the skyrocketing ue rate. Funny, the workers do not like being unemployed and do not reelect politicians in charge.

So, we can agree that the ue rate was heading up quickly, that the electorate were unhappy, and that the deficit was a BIG problem. So, what did Reagan do???

Yes, well, Reagan was not president in 1980, and his policies did not take effect until mid 1981,

Great, so show me his spending cuts. Oh, right, spending wasn't cut.
So, you have to get away from the con tool mind set to understand what was going on. The us economy is not like a mom and pop store, where you buy it and come in and start spending. See, you are trying to pretend you are ignorant. Or, maybe you are. But there was a budget for 1981 that he came in to, and a budget he was responsible for in 1982. So, SURPRISE, me boy. The spending cuts started in 1982. As part of his FIRST budget. And as a result, there was the following, as I have been saying, and you are trying to say did not happen:

"the fiscal 1982 budget that was proposed by Reagan represented a.reduction of $44 billion, or 5.7%, and all categories except national defense were reduced.' Over half of the $44 billion budget reduction came from two areas: income security; and education, training, employment, and social services. . "
Error 404 – File Not Found | Institute for Research on Poverty | University of Wisconsin–Madison

1982: The most significant tax increase Reagan signed was also the first. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (yes, another law with a very sexy name) increased taxes by almost 1 percent of GDP.


In 1988, libertarian political writer Sheldon Richman described TEFRA as "the largest tax increase in American history." In 2003, former Reagan adviser Bruce Bartlett wrote in National Review that "TEFRA raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year", elaborating, "according to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history."[10] However, this "increase" was achieved primarily through the cancellation of future tax cuts scheduled by ERTA the year before that had yet to take effect at the time of TEFRA's passage.[11] Taxpayers still receive $375 billion in tax cuts in the 3 years following TEFRA.[11]
Got a link???

Yes, as I stated, the tax increases were substantial though no one said that they were as big as the cuts. And, me boy, it makes no difference what the tax increases were. They were increases. They were meant to raise revenue. And they did. Next.

For con tools, there was no shock. For the politicians who wanted to be re-elected, and for the unemployed, it was the skyrocketing ue rate.

You said a major shock caused unemployment spikes. Now you say the shock was the spike? LOL!
Watch that laughing, it is often a symptom of the condition known as congenital idiocy. Because, me boy, what I said was rational. Look below, and see if you see a spike in unemployment that those that were unemployed DID see.
The shock was, again, to the american public. It was the result PRIMARILY of the ue rate going through the roof fast. During Reagans first budget year.

"Unemployment Rates in 1982
January 1982 - 8.6%
February 1982 - 8.9%
March 1982 - 9%
April 1982 - 9.3%
May 1982 - 9.4%
June 1982 - 9.6%
July 1982 - 9.8%
August 1982 - 9.8%
September 1982 - 10.1%
October 1982 - 10.4%
November 1982 - 10.8%
December 1982 - 10.8%"
Unemployment Rates in the United States Since 1948

So he cut taxes and didn't cut spending, so how did Reagan cause unemployment to spike?
This is the final attempt to explain this to you. It is obvious that you do not want to know the answer. Being a con tool, you have been told what to believe. So, again, different areas. Read my first linked article. It states he cut spending on non military areas, and spent more on military areas. Now, me con tool, it is not as simple as the ma and pa store you envision. Takes a bit of time. Months usually, unless you are spending on the MILITARY. Then it takes a long time. So, cuts in spending had immediate impact. Military spending would have had less impact. Sending money to Iran would not have had any ue impact, for instance. Making holes in the ground in some desert, little impact. Get it yet?? First impact was cutting civilian jobs, which caused problems that included the second highest ue rate since and including the great depression.
But, me boy (now pay attention) that brought about measures to end the ue problem and the problem with the national debt. He solved the first by blowing up the second. Because he loved military spending and spending in general.

"the fiscal 1982 budget that was proposed by Reagan represented a.reduction of $44 billion, or 5.7%, and all categories except national defense were reduced.' Over half of the $44 billion budget reduction came from two areas: income security; and education, training, employment, and social services. . "
That's awful. Do you think the Congress passed Reagan's budget with cuts?

Yes, as I stated, the tax increases were substantial though

Right. So instead of taxes going down from 10 to 8, they only went down to 9.

Is that what caused unemployment to drop?

it makes no difference what the tax increases were. They were increases.

Right, and people still saw a bigger paycheck the next year.

Watch that laughing, it is often a symptom of the condition known as congenital idiocy.

In this case, it's cause by your idiocy.

It states he cut spending on non military areas, and spent more on military areas.

You need to reread your article. It said that was what he desired. You've posted no proof of what he did.

The shock was, again, to the american public.

Yes, the jump in unemployment was shocking.
Still funny to see you claim it jumped because people had higher take home pay and because Reagan proposed, but never got, large spending cuts.

 

[edthecynic]

What does cutting taxes cause?

Economic growth.

Not for Reagan. As you can see from the chart, GDP fell from St Ronnie's 1981tax cuts and rose after Reagan started raising taxes in 1982.

Following enactment in August 1981, the first 5% of the 25% total cuts took place beginning in October. An additional 10% began in July 1982, followed by a third decrease of 10% beginning in July 1983.[4]

Thanks. I always enjoy it when liberals post the refutations of their own claims.

Can you post the chart that shows 7% GDP growth after Obama raised rates?

And I always love it when CON$ lie about what others post. I posted no such thing, YOU did and Reagan's tax cuts never followed that projected schedule.

Following the 1981 tax cuts, as the economy was mired in recession and the federal deficit was spiraling out of control, even groups such as the Business Roundtable lobbied Reagan to raise taxes. And he did:
The first Reagan tax increase came in 1982. By then it was clear that the budget projections used to justify the 1981 tax cut were wildly optimistic. In response, Mr. Reagan agreed to a sharp rollback of corporate tax cuts, and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. Over all, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Reagan dropped tax rates. Why do you feel that caused unemployment?

Probably because unemployment INCREASED dramatically right after the tax cuts started, and unemployment DECREASED right after Reagan began his multiple tax increases and massive spending increases.

Probably because unemployment INCREASED dramatically right after the tax cuts started

Why?

Same reason unemployment decreased when Reagan began his multiple tax increases.

Yes, your fertile imagination is noted.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What does cutting taxes cause?

Economic growth.

Not for Reagan. As you can see from the chart, GDP fell from St Ronnie's 1981tax cuts and rose after Reagan started raising taxes in 1982.

Following enactment in August 1981, the first 5% of the 25% total cuts took place beginning in October. An additional 10% began in July 1982, followed by a third decrease of 10% beginning in July 1983.[4]

Thanks. I always enjoy it when liberals post the refutations of their own claims.

Can you post the chart that shows 7% GDP growth after Obama raised rates?

And I always love it when CON$ lie about what others post. I posted no such thing, YOU did and Reagan's tax cuts never followed that projected schedule.

Following the 1981 tax cuts, as the economy was mired in recession and the federal deficit was spiraling out of control, even groups such as the Business Roundtable lobbied Reagan to raise taxes. And he did:
The first Reagan tax increase came in 1982. By then it was clear that the budget projections used to justify the 1981 tax cut were wildly optimistic. In response, Mr. Reagan agreed to a sharp rollback of corporate tax cuts, and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. Over all, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut.

When Obama raised taxes, why didn't he achieve the same GDP growth as Reagan?
Obama's should have been higher, because he's so much smarter than Reagan, so what happened?
Why did Obama have so much fail compared to so much Reagan success?

 

[edthecynic]

Following enactment in August 1981, the first 5% of the 25% total cuts took place beginning in October. An additional 10% began in July 1982, followed by a third decrease of 10% beginning in July 1983.[4]

Thanks. I always enjoy it when liberals post the refutations of their own claims.

In 1988, libertarian political writer Sheldon Richman described TEFRA as "the largest tax increase in American history." In 2003, former Reagan adviser Bruce Bartlett wrote in National Review that "TEFRA raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year", elaborating, "according to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history."[10] However, this "increase" was achieved primarily through the cancellation of future tax cuts scheduled by ERTA the year before that had yet to take effect at the time of TEFRA's passage.[11] Taxpayers still receive $375 billion in tax cuts in the 3 years following TEFRA.[11]

And I love it when the CON$ post contradicting claims that end up proving the Libs correct!!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What does cutting taxes cause?

Economic growth.

Not for Reagan. As you can see from the chart, GDP fell from St Ronnie's 1981tax cuts and rose after Reagan started raising taxes in 1982.

Following enactment in August 1981, the first 5% of the 25% total cuts took place beginning in October. An additional 10% began in July 1982, followed by a third decrease of 10% beginning in July 1983.[4]

Thanks. I always enjoy it when liberals post the refutations of their own claims.

Can you post the chart that shows 7% GDP growth after Obama raised rates?

And I always love it when CON$ lie about what others post. I posted no such thing, YOU did and Reagan's tax cuts never followed that projected schedule.

Following the 1981 tax cuts, as the economy was mired in recession and the federal deficit was spiraling out of control, even groups such as the Business Roundtable lobbied Reagan to raise taxes. And he did:
The first Reagan tax increase came in 1982. By then it was clear that the budget projections used to justify the 1981 tax cut were wildly optimistic. In response, Mr. Reagan agreed to a sharp rollback of corporate tax cuts, and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. Over all, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut.

Liberals love to forget that interest rates were 20% when Reagan began, thus causing a recession. When the rates were dropped the economy boomed. The period was not remotely comparable to other periods in terms of critical monetary policy. And that is not to mention that China did not exist then as a exporter and Japan had just begun to export cars here seriously.

 

[P@triot]

What does cutting taxes cause?

Economic growth.

Not for Reagan. As you can see from the chart, GDP fell from St Ronnie's 1981tax cuts and rose after Reagan started raising taxes in 1982.

Following enactment in August 1981, the first 5% of the 25% total cuts took place beginning in October. An additional 10% began in July 1982, followed by a third decrease of 10% beginning in July 1983.[4]

Thanks. I always enjoy it when liberals post the refutations of their own claims.

Can you post the chart that shows 7% GDP growth after Obama raised rates?

And I always love it when CON$ lie about what others post. I posted no such thing, YOU did and Reagan's tax cuts never followed that projected schedule.

Following the 1981 tax cuts, as the economy was mired in recession and the federal deficit was spiraling out of control, even groups such as the Business Roundtable lobbied Reagan to raise taxes. And he did:
The first Reagan tax increase came in 1982. By then it was clear that the budget projections used to justify the 1981 tax cut were wildly optimistic. In response, Mr. Reagan agreed to a sharp rollback of corporate tax cuts, and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. Over all, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut.

So you still have 66% of the original tax cuts in place. And the problem was not the tax cuts - it was the panic. If you think 8 months is enough time to correct the problems created by Dumbocrats like Jimmy Carter, you're an epic fool. At the end of the day, the Reagan economy (when taken into context with the Jimmy Carter disaster) is probably the single greatest economy in U.S. history. We went from the second worst economy ever to one of the best economies ever. It's not rocket science. It just requires one to accept reality over there ideology. Something liberals (like Ed) refuse to do sadly.

 

[edthecynic]

When Obama raised taxes, why didn't he achieve the same GDP growth as Reagan?

Obama didn't raise taxes at first but continued the Bush tax cuts. GDP languished. Finally he let most of the Bush tax cuts expire and GDP grew.

 

[edthecynic]

Liberals love to forget that interest rates were 20% when Reagan began, thus causing a recession.

Liar!
Rates did not reach 20% until Reagan.

 

[edthecynic]

At the end of the day, the Reagan economy (when taken into context with the Jimmy Carter disaster) is probably the single greatest economy in U.S. history.

Unemployment was higher under Reagan, Interest rates were higher under Reagan and the Reagan Recession was the second longest in history and the Carter recession was one of the shortest in history.

 

[P@triot]

At the end of the day, the Reagan economy (when taken into context with the Jimmy Carter disaster) is probably the single greatest economy in U.S. history.

Unemployment was higher under Reagan, Interest rates were higher under Reagan and the Reagan Recession was the second longest in history and the Carter recession was one of the shortest in history.

Yeah....the Carter recession was one of the "shortest in history" because Reagan ended it with strong economic policy.

 

[Indeependent]

At the end of the day, the Reagan economy (when taken into context with the Jimmy Carter disaster) is probably the single greatest economy in U.S. history.

Unemployment was higher under Reagan, Interest rates were higher under Reagan and the Reagan Recession was the second longest in history and the Carter recession was one of the shortest in history.

Yeah....the Carter recession was one of the "shortest in history" because Reagan ended it with strong economic policy.

Reagan benefitted from Carter's policies.