Interesting Chart on US Debt history

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, the Toddster wanted to see the revenue decreases that resulted from the 1981 tax decrease under Reagan. So I provided the following for him, which he appa ently is unable to understand. I suspect unwilling would be more likely.
So, toddster, maybe you color oriented, so I will color code the relevent part below:

MAJOR TAX BILLS ENACTED UNDER REAGAN

The Office of Tax Analysis of the U.S. Treasury Department has put out a paper titled Revenue Effects of Major Tax Bills. The following estimate of the revenue effects of all major tax bills enacted under Reagan is taken from Table 2 of that document:

REVENUE EFFECTS OF MAJOR TAX BILLS ENACTED UNDER REAGAN (as percentage of GDP)

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981............... Year 1 -1.21 Year 2 -2.60 Year 3 -3.58 Year 4 -4.15 Average first 2 years -1.91 Average 4 years -2.89

Source: OTA Working Paper 81, Table 2, Office of Tax Analysis, U.S. Treasury Dept
online at http://www.treasury.gov/resource-cen...ents/ota81.pdf
Effect of the Reagan, Kennedy, and Bush Tax Cuts
Having read, or not read, what was provided so nicely for him, by myself, the toddster stupidly states:
"So you're not going to show me the revenue drop from the Reagan tax cuts that caused the drop in Federal employment which then caused the recession?

I'm shocked!!"
The shock, me boy, is that you can be this stupid. Is it congenital??
Here is a hint. The minus signs in front of the percentages of gdp change in Revenue were to let you know that the following number was a DECREASE.

It is ok, me boy. Stupidity is not your fault. It is congenital, I am sure. Just bad luck.

Historical Tables | The White House

Table 1.1

Please show when these 1981 tax cuts caused revenue to decrease.

 

[Rshermr]

So, the Toddster wanted to see the revenue decreases that resulted from the 1981 tax decrease under Reagan. So I provided the following for him, which he appa ently is unable to understand. I suspect unwilling would be more likely.
So, toddster, maybe you color oriented, so I will color code the relevent part below:

MAJOR TAX BILLS ENACTED UNDER REAGAN

The Office of Tax Analysis of the U.S. Treasury Department has put out a paper titled Revenue Effects of Major Tax Bills. The following estimate of the revenue effects of all major tax bills enacted under Reagan is taken from Table 2 of that document:

REVENUE EFFECTS OF MAJOR TAX BILLS ENACTED UNDER REAGAN (as percentage of GDP)

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981............... Year 1 -1.21 Year 2 -2.60 Year 3 -3.58 Year 4 -4.15 Average first 2 years -1.91 Average 4 years -2.89

Source: OTA Working Paper 81, Table 2, Office of Tax Analysis, U.S. Treasury Dept
online at http://www.treasury.gov/resource-cen...ents/ota81.pdf
Effect of the Reagan, Kennedy, and Bush Tax Cuts
Having read, or not read, what was provided so nicely for him, by myself, the toddster stupidly states:
"So you're not going to show me the revenue drop from the Reagan tax cuts that caused the drop in Federal employment which then caused the recession?

I'm shocked!!"
The shock, me boy, is that you can be this stupid. Is it congenital??
Here is a hint. The minus signs in front of the percentages of gdp change in Revenue were to let you know that the following number was a DECREASE.

It is ok, me boy. Stupidity is not your fault. It is congenital, I am sure. Just bad luck.

Historical Tables | The White House

Table 1.1

Please show when these 1981 tax cuts caused revenue to decrease.

Done. Take your head out of your ass, look at this post and find the red print, dipshit. If you are simply trying to prove you you are stupid, you have accomplished your purpose.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, the Toddster wanted to see the revenue decreases that resulted from the 1981 tax decrease under Reagan. So I provided the following for him, which he appa ently is unable to understand. I suspect unwilling would be more likely.
So, toddster, maybe you color oriented, so I will color code the relevent part below:

MAJOR TAX BILLS ENACTED UNDER REAGAN

The Office of Tax Analysis of the U.S. Treasury Department has put out a paper titled Revenue Effects of Major Tax Bills. The following estimate of the revenue effects of all major tax bills enacted under Reagan is taken from Table 2 of that document:

REVENUE EFFECTS OF MAJOR TAX BILLS ENACTED UNDER REAGAN (as percentage of GDP)

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981............... Year 1 -1.21 Year 2 -2.60 Year 3 -3.58 Year 4 -4.15 Average first 2 years -1.91 Average 4 years -2.89

Source: OTA Working Paper 81, Table 2, Office of Tax Analysis, U.S. Treasury Dept
online at http://www.treasury.gov/resource-cen...ents/ota81.pdf
Effect of the Reagan, Kennedy, and Bush Tax Cuts
Having read, or not read, what was provided so nicely for him, by myself, the toddster stupidly states:
"So you're not going to show me the revenue drop from the Reagan tax cuts that caused the drop in Federal employment which then caused the recession?

I'm shocked!!"
The shock, me boy, is that you can be this stupid. Is it congenital??
Here is a hint. The minus signs in front of the percentages of gdp change in Revenue were to let you know that the following number was a DECREASE.

It is ok, me boy. Stupidity is not your fault. It is congenital, I am sure. Just bad luck.

Historical Tables | The White House

Table 1.1

Please show when these 1981 tax cuts caused revenue to decrease.

Done. Take your head out of your ass, look at this post and find the red print, dipshit. If you are simply trying to prove you you are stupid, you have accomplished your purpose.

Look at Table 1.1, in my link, and show when these 1981 tax cuts caused revenue to decrease. Dipshit.

Or are the numbers too big for you to understand?

 

[Rshermr]

So, we have established that you are incapable of looking at the data I have provided you, which proves in detail how the tax decreases of Reagan in 1981 decreased tax revenue in succeeding years.
So you want me to prove the data from a source that will simply show revenue, without attributing it to any source. Now, that would be a waste of time.
My source proved what all rational economists know. I owe you nothing more. Being a con tool, you will believe what you want to believe, evidence be damned. Nothing new there. Which makes conversation with you impossible, of course. Much like when you have had debates with the fellow inmates of the home for congenital idiots you reside in. Just a waste of time.
Which is why you can not prove your point, me boy. And why you spend your time trying to get others to educate you. Dipshit.

 

[Dad2three]

Historical Tables | The White House

Table 1.1

Please show when these 1981 tax cuts caused revenue to decrease.

Done. Take your head out of your ass, look at this post and find the red print, dipshit. If you are simply trying to prove you you are stupid, you have accomplished your purpose.

Look at Table 1.1, in my link, and show when these 1981 tax cuts caused revenue to decrease. Dipshit.

Or are the numbers too big for you to understand?

Static dollars? lol... Rushblow is that you?


Economists measure GDP for a purpose dummy, to take out inflation and population growth, I think until Dubya's great inflation revenues increased every year but 2 since 1960, UNLESS you adjust for inflation...


Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich, did cost the US treasury revenues, that's why he increased revenues via his tax increases on the workers!

 

[Rshermr]

Done. Take your head out of your ass, look at this post and find the red print, dipshit. If you are simply trying to prove you you are stupid, you have accomplished your purpose.

Look at Table 1.1, in my link, and show when these 1981 tax cuts caused revenue to decrease. Dipshit.

Or are the numbers too big for you to understand?

Static dollars? lol... Rushblow is that you?


Economists measure GDP for a purpose dummy, to take out inflation and population growth, I think until Dubya's great inflation revenues increased every year but 2 since 1960, UNLESS you adjust for inflation...


Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich, did cost the US treasury revenues, that's why he increased revenues via his tax increases on the workers!

Con's simply go to their favorite bat shit crazy con web site. Say redstate.com, or one of a hundred others. They then look for the argument subject. Simple. Then they stay on that point, which is, normally, bullshit. And that is as far as they go. No rationality of any sort. Just agenda driven drivel.

So, you provide proof of your point from an impartial source, and they simply ignore it. That is normal for tools like the Toddster. You can not expect rational argument from him, or others like him. He is here to post agenda, and nothing more. How he, or others like him, live with themselves is a mystery to those of us who live in the rational world.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Look at Table 1.1, in my link, and show when these 1981 tax cuts caused revenue to decrease. Dipshit.

Or are the numbers too big for you to understand?

Static dollars? lol... Rushblow is that you?


Economists measure GDP for a purpose dummy, to take out inflation and population growth, I think until Dubya's great inflation revenues increased every year but 2 since 1960, UNLESS you adjust for inflation...


Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich, did cost the US treasury revenues, that's why he increased revenues via his tax increases on the workers!

Con's simply go to their favorite bat shit crazy con web site. Say redstate.com, or one of a hundred others. They then look for the argument subject. Simple. Then they stay on that point, which is, normally, bullshit. And that is as far as they go. No rationality of any sort. Just agenda driven drivel.

So, you provide proof of your point from an impartial source, and they simply ignore it. That is normal for tools like the Toddster. You can not expect rational argument from him, or others like him. He is here to post agenda, and nothing more. How he, or others like him, live with themselves is a mystery to those of us who live in the rational world.

Con's simply go to their favorite bat shit crazy con web site. Say redstate.com, or one of a hundred others.

Historical Tables | The White House

whitehouse.gov? Dude!

 

[Rshermr]

Static dollars? lol... Rushblow is that you?


Economists measure GDP for a purpose dummy, to take out inflation and population growth, I think until Dubya's great inflation revenues increased every year but 2 since 1960, UNLESS you adjust for inflation...


Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich, did cost the US treasury revenues, that's why he increased revenues via his tax increases on the workers!

Con's simply go to their favorite bat shit crazy con web site. Say redstate.com, or one of a hundred others. They then look for the argument subject. Simple. Then they stay on that point, which is, normally, bullshit. And that is as far as they go. No rationality of any sort. Just agenda driven drivel.

So, you provide proof of your point from an impartial source, and they simply ignore it. That is normal for tools like the Toddster. You can not expect rational argument from him, or others like him. He is here to post agenda, and nothing more. How he, or others like him, live with themselves is a mystery to those of us who live in the rational world.

Con's simply go to their favorite bat shit crazy con web site. Say redstate.com, or one of a hundred others.

Historical Tables | The White House

whitehouse.gov? Dude!

The point to which I was refering was the idea that the reagan tax cut did not reduce revenue, which you have been pushing. Your link to a gov web site showing revenue numbers does not show what the effects of the 1981 tax cuts was. That was more complex, which I know is not a word that neocons like. Complex, that is. But then, that is what economists are for, to help the simple minded (as in neocons like yourself) understand the world. Now, I know you have NO intent in honest discussion, or debate. You simply push agenda. But for the rational world, here is a source that is completely un-impeachable. Totally impartial. And honest.
It is an analysis by the Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, Office of Tax Analysis, Department of the Treasury. Go take a look, me boy. And then ignore it:
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/ota81.pdf

TABLE 2 - REVENUE EFFECTS OF MAJOR BILLS ENACTED SINCE 1968
Page 16, Line 9
Year 2 (1982), was a $53.3B lost as a result of the act.

Siimple enough to understand if you are not a neocon. Impossible for you to understand if you are the Toddster.

 

[Dad2three]

Static dollars? lol... Rushblow is that you?


Economists measure GDP for a purpose dummy, to take out inflation and population growth, I think until Dubya's great inflation revenues increased every year but 2 since 1960, UNLESS you adjust for inflation...


Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich, did cost the US treasury revenues, that's why he increased revenues via his tax increases on the workers!

Con's simply go to their favorite bat shit crazy con web site. Say redstate.com, or one of a hundred others. They then look for the argument subject. Simple. Then they stay on that point, which is, normally, bullshit. And that is as far as they go. No rationality of any sort. Just agenda driven drivel.

So, you provide proof of your point from an impartial source, and they simply ignore it. That is normal for tools like the Toddster. You can not expect rational argument from him, or others like him. He is here to post agenda, and nothing more. How he, or others like him, live with themselves is a mystery to those of us who live in the rational world.

Con's simply go to their favorite bat shit crazy con web site. Say redstate.com, or one of a hundred others.

Historical Tables | The White House

whitehouse.gov? Dude!

Inflation-adjusted federal tax revenues???? LOL


Once you take out the effects of inflation, you see that for 5 years, all the increase in revenues was solely because of inflation.

You see the same effect when you compare revenues to GDP:




Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Real revenues under Reagan fell for a number of years and lagged behind GDP. There was no relative increase at all.

However, Reagan raised taxes a number of times which offset the damage to revenues of his tax cuts.

The Bush tax cuts are even more pronounced in their damage to revenues




Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

 

[Rshermr]

Con's simply go to their favorite bat shit crazy con web site. Say redstate.com, or one of a hundred others. They then look for the argument subject. Simple. Then they stay on that point, which is, normally, bullshit. And that is as far as they go. No rationality of any sort. Just agenda driven drivel.

So, you provide proof of your point from an impartial source, and they simply ignore it. That is normal for tools like the Toddster. You can not expect rational argument from him, or others like him. He is here to post agenda, and nothing more. How he, or others like him, live with themselves is a mystery to those of us who live in the rational world.

Con's simply go to their favorite bat shit crazy con web site. Say redstate.com, or one of a hundred others.

Historical Tables | The White House

whitehouse.gov? Dude!

Inflation-adjusted federal tax revenues???? LOL


Once you take out the effects of inflation, you see that for 5 years, all the increase in revenues was solely because of inflation.

You see the same effect when you compare revenues to GDP:




Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Real revenues under Reagan fell for a number of years and lagged behind GDP. There was no relative increase at all.

However, Reagan raised taxes a number of times which offset the damage to revenues of his tax cuts.

The Bush tax cuts are even more pronounced in their damage to revenues




Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Yes, but neocons WANT to believe that tax cuts increase tax revenue. And that is what, therefore, that they WILL believe.
The conservative talk machine TELLS them what they want to believe. And it just happens to be what is wanted by those in charge of the conservative talk machine. Less taxes for the wealthy = more profit for the wealthy. Tell the neocons it is a good thing, the neocon is stupid, and the neocon believes what they are told. Ergo the toddster and his ilk. No surprise there. That is what the nose ring you see on the neocon is for.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Con's simply go to their favorite bat shit crazy con web site. Say redstate.com, or one of a hundred others. They then look for the argument subject. Simple. Then they stay on that point, which is, normally, bullshit. And that is as far as they go. No rationality of any sort. Just agenda driven drivel.

So, you provide proof of your point from an impartial source, and they simply ignore it. That is normal for tools like the Toddster. You can not expect rational argument from him, or others like him. He is here to post agenda, and nothing more. How he, or others like him, live with themselves is a mystery to those of us who live in the rational world.

Con's simply go to their favorite bat shit crazy con web site. Say redstate.com, or one of a hundred others.

Historical Tables | The White House

whitehouse.gov? Dude!

The point to which I was refering was the idea that the reagan tax cut did not reduce revenue, which you have been pushing. Your link to a gov web site showing revenue numbers does not show what the effects of the 1981 tax cuts was. That was more complex, which I know is not a word that neocons like. Complex, that is. But then, that is what economists are for, to help the simple minded (as in neocons like yourself) understand the world. Now, I know you have NO intent in honest discussion, or debate. You simply push agenda. But for the rational world, here is a source that is completely un-impeachable. Totally impartial. And honest.
It is an analysis by the Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, Office of Tax Analysis, Department of the Treasury. Go take a look, me boy. And then ignore it:
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/ota81.pdf

TABLE 2 - REVENUE EFFECTS OF MAJOR BILLS ENACTED SINCE 1968
Page 16, Line 9
Year 2 (1982), was a $53.3B lost as a result of the act.

Siimple enough to understand if you are not a neocon. Impossible for you to understand if you are the Toddster.

The point to which I was refering was the idea that the reagan tax cut did not reduce revenue, which you have been pushing.

No, your point was that Reagan's tax cuts led to reduced government revenue which led to reduced government employment which led to the recession.

That has to be the dumbest theory I've ever heard. And I've heard lots of stupid liberal theories.

 

[Dad2three]

Con's simply go to their favorite bat shit crazy con web site. Say redstate.com, or one of a hundred others.

Historical Tables | The White House

whitehouse.gov? Dude!

The point to which I was refering was the idea that the reagan tax cut did not reduce revenue, which you have been pushing. Your link to a gov web site showing revenue numbers does not show what the effects of the 1981 tax cuts was. That was more complex, which I know is not a word that neocons like. Complex, that is. But then, that is what economists are for, to help the simple minded (as in neocons like yourself) understand the world. Now, I know you have NO intent in honest discussion, or debate. You simply push agenda. But for the rational world, here is a source that is completely un-impeachable. Totally impartial. And honest.
It is an analysis by the Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, Office of Tax Analysis, Department of the Treasury. Go take a look, me boy. And then ignore it:
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/ota81.pdf

TABLE 2 - REVENUE EFFECTS OF MAJOR BILLS ENACTED SINCE 1968
Page 16, Line 9
Year 2 (1982), was a $53.3B lost as a result of the act.

Siimple enough to understand if you are not a neocon. Impossible for you to understand if you are the Toddster.

The point to which I was refering was the idea that the reagan tax cut did not reduce revenue, which you have been pushing.

No, your point was that Reagan's tax cuts led to reduced government revenue which led to reduced government employment which led to the recession.

That has to be the dumbest theory I've ever heard. And I've heard lots of stupid liberal theories.

"No, your point was that Reagan's tax cuts led to reduced government revenue which led to reduced government employment which led to the recession."

False premises, distortions and LIES the only thing right wingers EVER have


Rshermr wrote

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...-chart-on-us-debt-history-15.html#post9394314
MAJOR TAX BILLS ENACTED UNDER REAGAN

The Office of Tax Analysis of the U.S. Treasury Department has put out a paper titled Revenue Effects of Major Tax Bills. The following estimate of the revenue effects of all major tax bills enacted under Reagan is taken from Table 2 of that document:

REVENUE EFFECTS OF MAJOR TAX BILLS ENACTED UNDER REAGAN (as percentage of GDP)

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981............... Year 1 -1.21 Year 2 -2.60 Year 3 -3.58 Year 4 -4.15 Average first 2 years -1.91 Average 4 years -2.89


Rshermr Wrote

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...-chart-on-us-debt-history-14.html#post9392423

So the toddster makes this profound statement:
"In this imaginary world of yours, how many government jobs "were no longer funded due to lack of tax revenues"?"
The problem was, of course, in the time just after the great reagan tax decrease, which happened in early 1981. Simple answer was that not just gov jobs were lost. The loss in gov jobs created a recession that caused private jobs also to be lost.


Unemployment in the public sector continued down through 1982 with losses of 175,000 public sector jobs.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1983/02/art1full.pdf

 

[Rshermr]

The point to which I was refering was the idea that the reagan tax cut did not reduce revenue, which you have been pushing. Your link to a gov web site showing revenue numbers does not show what the effects of the 1981 tax cuts was. That was more complex, which I know is not a word that neocons like. Complex, that is. But then, that is what economists are for, to help the simple minded (as in neocons like yourself) understand the world. Now, I know you have NO intent in honest discussion, or debate. You simply push agenda. But for the rational world, here is a source that is completely un-impeachable. Totally impartial. And honest.
It is an analysis by the Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, Office of Tax Analysis, Department of the Treasury. Go take a look, me boy. And then ignore it:
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/ota81.pdf

TABLE 2 - REVENUE EFFECTS OF MAJOR BILLS ENACTED SINCE 1968
Page 16, Line 9
Year 2 (1982), was a $53.3B lost as a result of the act.

Siimple enough to understand if you are not a neocon. Impossible for you to understand if you are the Toddster.

The point to which I was refering was the idea that the reagan tax cut did not reduce revenue, which you have been pushing.

No, your point was that Reagan's tax cuts led to reduced government revenue which led to reduced government employment which led to the recession.

That has to be the dumbest theory I've ever heard. And I've heard lots of stupid liberal theories.

"No, your point was that Reagan's tax cuts led to reduced government revenue which led to reduced government employment which led to the recession."

False premises, distortions and LIES the only thing right wingers EVER have


Rshermr wrote

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...-chart-on-us-debt-history-15.html#post9394314
MAJOR TAX BILLS ENACTED UNDER REAGAN

The Office of Tax Analysis of the U.S. Treasury Department has put out a paper titled Revenue Effects of Major Tax Bills. The following estimate of the revenue effects of all major tax bills enacted under Reagan is taken from Table 2 of that document:

REVENUE EFFECTS OF MAJOR TAX BILLS ENACTED UNDER REAGAN (as percentage of GDP)

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981............... Year 1 -1.21 Year 2 -2.60 Year 3 -3.58 Year 4 -4.15 Average first 2 years -1.91 Average 4 years -2.89


Rshermr Wrote

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...-chart-on-us-debt-history-14.html#post9392423

So the toddster makes this profound statement:
"In this imaginary world of yours, how many government jobs "were no longer funded due to lack of tax revenues"?"
The problem was, of course, in the time just after the great reagan tax decrease, which happened in early 1981. Simple answer was that not just gov jobs were lost. The loss in gov jobs created a recession that caused private jobs also to be lost.


Unemployment in the public sector continued down through 1982 with losses of 175,000 public sector jobs.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1983/02/art1full.pdf

It is a tough thing for the toddster. He does not read about actual history, or economic history in particular. Rather, the toddster spends his time in bat shit crazy con web sites. And there, reagan is their hero. Always. And he could not possibly be responsible for what he did.
Now the toddster believes reducing gov revenue is free. Jobs do not go away as a result. Rather, workers work for free, as he always thought they should. And, no recession occurred. That 10.8% unemployment rate was just a figment of the liberal mind for the toddster. Poor ignorant tool.
Though the toddster appears totally ignorant, it is hard to tell. It may well be that he is paid to post conservative dogma. But without question, he enjoys his ignorance, and is not going to learn anything. The toddster is proof that ignorance is bliss.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The point to which I was refering was the idea that the reagan tax cut did not reduce revenue, which you have been pushing. Your link to a gov web site showing revenue numbers does not show what the effects of the 1981 tax cuts was. That was more complex, which I know is not a word that neocons like. Complex, that is. But then, that is what economists are for, to help the simple minded (as in neocons like yourself) understand the world. Now, I know you have NO intent in honest discussion, or debate. You simply push agenda. But for the rational world, here is a source that is completely un-impeachable. Totally impartial. And honest.
It is an analysis by the Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, Office of Tax Analysis, Department of the Treasury. Go take a look, me boy. And then ignore it:
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/ota81.pdf

TABLE 2 - REVENUE EFFECTS OF MAJOR BILLS ENACTED SINCE 1968
Page 16, Line 9
Year 2 (1982), was a $53.3B lost as a result of the act.

Siimple enough to understand if you are not a neocon. Impossible for you to understand if you are the Toddster.

The point to which I was refering was the idea that the reagan tax cut did not reduce revenue, which you have been pushing.

No, your point was that Reagan's tax cuts led to reduced government revenue which led to reduced government employment which led to the recession.

That has to be the dumbest theory I've ever heard. And I've heard lots of stupid liberal theories.

"No, your point was that Reagan's tax cuts led to reduced government revenue which led to reduced government employment which led to the recession."

False premises, distortions and LIES the only thing right wingers EVER have


Rshermr wrote

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...-chart-on-us-debt-history-15.html#post9394314
MAJOR TAX BILLS ENACTED UNDER REAGAN

The Office of Tax Analysis of the U.S. Treasury Department has put out a paper titled Revenue Effects of Major Tax Bills. The following estimate of the revenue effects of all major tax bills enacted under Reagan is taken from Table 2 of that document:

REVENUE EFFECTS OF MAJOR TAX BILLS ENACTED UNDER REAGAN (as percentage of GDP)

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981............... Year 1 -1.21 Year 2 -2.60 Year 3 -3.58 Year 4 -4.15 Average first 2 years -1.91 Average 4 years -2.89


Rshermr Wrote

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...-chart-on-us-debt-history-14.html#post9392423

So the toddster makes this profound statement:
"In this imaginary world of yours, how many government jobs "were no longer funded due to lack of tax revenues"?"
The problem was, of course, in the time just after the great reagan tax decrease, which happened in early 1981. Simple answer was that not just gov jobs were lost. The loss in gov jobs created a recession that caused private jobs also to be lost.


Unemployment in the public sector continued down through 1982 with losses of 175,000 public sector jobs.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1983/02/art1full.pdf

The problem was, of course, in the time just after the great reagan tax decrease, which happened in early 1981. Simple answer was that not just gov jobs were lost. The loss in gov jobs created a recession that caused private jobs also to be lost.

Hilarious!

Ignore the spike in interest rates Volcker created to kill inflation. Idiot.

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981............... Year 1 -1.21 Year 2 -2.60 Year 3 -3.58 Year 4 -4.15 Average first 2 years -1.91 Average 4 years -2.89

You mean by the 4th year, Americans were keeping an additional 4.15% of GDP?
No wonder why the economy did so well.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The point to which I was refering was the idea that the reagan tax cut did not reduce revenue, which you have been pushing. Your link to a gov web site showing revenue numbers does not show what the effects of the 1981 tax cuts was. That was more complex, which I know is not a word that neocons like. Complex, that is. But then, that is what economists are for, to help the simple minded (as in neocons like yourself) understand the world. Now, I know you have NO intent in honest discussion, or debate. You simply push agenda. But for the rational world, here is a source that is completely un-impeachable. Totally impartial. And honest.
It is an analysis by the Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, Office of Tax Analysis, Department of the Treasury. Go take a look, me boy. And then ignore it:
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/ota81.pdf

TABLE 2 - REVENUE EFFECTS OF MAJOR BILLS ENACTED SINCE 1968
Page 16, Line 9
Year 2 (1982), was a $53.3B lost as a result of the act.

Siimple enough to understand if you are not a neocon. Impossible for you to understand if you are the Toddster.

The point to which I was refering was the idea that the reagan tax cut did not reduce revenue, which you have been pushing.

No, your point was that Reagan's tax cuts led to reduced government revenue which led to reduced government employment which led to the recession.

That has to be the dumbest theory I've ever heard. And I've heard lots of stupid liberal theories.

"No, your point was that Reagan's tax cuts led to reduced government revenue which led to reduced government employment which led to the recession."

False premises, distortions and LIES the only thing right wingers EVER have


Rshermr wrote

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...-chart-on-us-debt-history-15.html#post9394314
MAJOR TAX BILLS ENACTED UNDER REAGAN

The Office of Tax Analysis of the U.S. Treasury Department has put out a paper titled Revenue Effects of Major Tax Bills. The following estimate of the revenue effects of all major tax bills enacted under Reagan is taken from Table 2 of that document:

REVENUE EFFECTS OF MAJOR TAX BILLS ENACTED UNDER REAGAN (as percentage of GDP)

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981............... Year 1 -1.21 Year 2 -2.60 Year 3 -3.58 Year 4 -4.15 Average first 2 years -1.91 Average 4 years -2.89


Rshermr Wrote

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...-chart-on-us-debt-history-14.html#post9392423

So the toddster makes this profound statement:
"In this imaginary world of yours, how many government jobs "were no longer funded due to lack of tax revenues"?"
The problem was, of course, in the time just after the great reagan tax decrease, which happened in early 1981. Simple answer was that not just gov jobs were lost. The loss in gov jobs created a recession that caused private jobs also to be lost.


Unemployment in the public sector continued down through 1982 with losses of 175,000 public sector jobs.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1983/02/art1full.pdf

Employment in the public sector failed to provide the
stability it has historically shown during periods of economic
downturn. Government employment dropped by
more than 175,000 in 1982, continuing the declines that
began in mid-1980. The decrease was primarily in State
and local government, stemming largely from severe
budgetary problems and smaller school enrollments.

I guess your idiot friend will explain how the Reagan tax cuts reduced revenue for state and local government.

 

[Dad2three]

The point to which I was refering was the idea that the reagan tax cut did not reduce revenue, which you have been pushing.

No, your point was that Reagan's tax cuts led to reduced government revenue which led to reduced government employment which led to the recession.

That has to be the dumbest theory I've ever heard. And I've heard lots of stupid liberal theories.

"No, your point was that Reagan's tax cuts led to reduced government revenue which led to reduced government employment which led to the recession."

False premises, distortions and LIES the only thing right wingers EVER have


Rshermr wrote

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...-chart-on-us-debt-history-15.html#post9394314
MAJOR TAX BILLS ENACTED UNDER REAGAN

The Office of Tax Analysis of the U.S. Treasury Department has put out a paper titled Revenue Effects of Major Tax Bills. The following estimate of the revenue effects of all major tax bills enacted under Reagan is taken from Table 2 of that document:

REVENUE EFFECTS OF MAJOR TAX BILLS ENACTED UNDER REAGAN (as percentage of GDP)

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981............... Year 1 -1.21 Year 2 -2.60 Year 3 -3.58 Year 4 -4.15 Average first 2 years -1.91 Average 4 years -2.89


Rshermr Wrote

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...-chart-on-us-debt-history-14.html#post9392423

So the toddster makes this profound statement:
"In this imaginary world of yours, how many government jobs "were no longer funded due to lack of tax revenues"?"
The problem was, of course, in the time just after the great reagan tax decrease, which happened in early 1981. Simple answer was that not just gov jobs were lost. The loss in gov jobs created a recession that caused private jobs also to be lost.


Unemployment in the public sector continued down through 1982 with losses of 175,000 public sector jobs.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1983/02/art1full.pdf

The problem was, of course, in the time just after the great reagan tax decrease, which happened in early 1981. Simple answer was that not just gov jobs were lost. The loss in gov jobs created a recession that caused private jobs also to be lost.

Hilarious!

Ignore the spike in interest rates Volcker created to kill inflation. Idiot.

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981............... Year 1 -1.21 Year 2 -2.60 Year 3 -3.58 Year 4 -4.15 Average first 2 years -1.91 Average 4 years -2.89

You mean by the 4th year, Americans were keeping an additional 4.15% of GDP?
No wonder why the economy did so well.

Sure, I think Volker killing Nixon's/Fords price and wage controls that created the inflation (mainly), helped create the Reagan recession, just like his gutting Gov't workers did, and weird how unemployment spiked AS he cut taxes, the opposite of what GOPers said would happen right?

Glad you FINALLY agree, Reagan's tax cuts for the rich cost the US treasury revenues as he tripled US debt


The Myths of Reaganomics


It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.


The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

 

[Dad2three]

The point to which I was refering was the idea that the reagan tax cut did not reduce revenue, which you have been pushing.

No, your point was that Reagan's tax cuts led to reduced government revenue which led to reduced government employment which led to the recession.

That has to be the dumbest theory I've ever heard. And I've heard lots of stupid liberal theories.

"No, your point was that Reagan's tax cuts led to reduced government revenue which led to reduced government employment which led to the recession."

False premises, distortions and LIES the only thing right wingers EVER have


Rshermr wrote

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...-chart-on-us-debt-history-15.html#post9394314
MAJOR TAX BILLS ENACTED UNDER REAGAN

The Office of Tax Analysis of the U.S. Treasury Department has put out a paper titled Revenue Effects of Major Tax Bills. The following estimate of the revenue effects of all major tax bills enacted under Reagan is taken from Table 2 of that document:

REVENUE EFFECTS OF MAJOR TAX BILLS ENACTED UNDER REAGAN (as percentage of GDP)

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981............... Year 1 -1.21 Year 2 -2.60 Year 3 -3.58 Year 4 -4.15 Average first 2 years -1.91 Average 4 years -2.89


Rshermr Wrote

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...-chart-on-us-debt-history-14.html#post9392423

So the toddster makes this profound statement:
"In this imaginary world of yours, how many government jobs "were no longer funded due to lack of tax revenues"?"
The problem was, of course, in the time just after the great reagan tax decrease, which happened in early 1981. Simple answer was that not just gov jobs were lost. The loss in gov jobs created a recession that caused private jobs also to be lost.


Unemployment in the public sector continued down through 1982 with losses of 175,000 public sector jobs.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1983/02/art1full.pdf

Employment in the public sector failed to provide the
stability it has historically shown during periods of economic
downturn. Government employment dropped by
more than 175,000 in 1982, continuing the declines that
began in mid-1980. The decrease was primarily in State
and local government, stemming largely from severe
budgetary problems and smaller school enrollments.

I guess your idiot friend will explain how the Reagan tax cuts reduced revenue for state and local government.

"how the Reagan tax cuts reduced revenue for state and local government"

By the end of Reagan’s term in office federal assistance to local governments was cut 60 percent. Reagan eliminated general revenue sharing to cities, slashed funding for public service jobs and job training, almost dismantled federally funded legal services for the poor, cut the anti-poverty Community Development Block Grant program and reduced funds for public transit. The only “urban” program that survived the cuts was federal aid for highways – which primarily benefited suburbs, not cities.

These cutbacks had a disastrous effect on cities with high levels of poverty and limited property tax bases, many of which depended on federal aid. In 1980 federal dollars accounted for 22 percent of big city budgets. By the end of Reagan’s second term, federal aid was only 6 percent.

Reagan's Legacy: Homelessness in America

Anything else you need, just ask Bubba

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"No, your point was that Reagan's tax cuts led to reduced government revenue which led to reduced government employment which led to the recession."

False premises, distortions and LIES the only thing right wingers EVER have


Rshermr wrote

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...-chart-on-us-debt-history-15.html#post9394314
MAJOR TAX BILLS ENACTED UNDER REAGAN

The Office of Tax Analysis of the U.S. Treasury Department has put out a paper titled Revenue Effects of Major Tax Bills. The following estimate of the revenue effects of all major tax bills enacted under Reagan is taken from Table 2 of that document:

REVENUE EFFECTS OF MAJOR TAX BILLS ENACTED UNDER REAGAN (as percentage of GDP)

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981............... Year 1 -1.21 Year 2 -2.60 Year 3 -3.58 Year 4 -4.15 Average first 2 years -1.91 Average 4 years -2.89


Rshermr Wrote

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...-chart-on-us-debt-history-14.html#post9392423

So the toddster makes this profound statement:
"In this imaginary world of yours, how many government jobs "were no longer funded due to lack of tax revenues"?"
The problem was, of course, in the time just after the great reagan tax decrease, which happened in early 1981. Simple answer was that not just gov jobs were lost. The loss in gov jobs created a recession that caused private jobs also to be lost.


Unemployment in the public sector continued down through 1982 with losses of 175,000 public sector jobs.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1983/02/art1full.pdf

The problem was, of course, in the time just after the great reagan tax decrease, which happened in early 1981. Simple answer was that not just gov jobs were lost. The loss in gov jobs created a recession that caused private jobs also to be lost.

Hilarious!

Ignore the spike in interest rates Volcker created to kill inflation. Idiot.

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981............... Year 1 -1.21 Year 2 -2.60 Year 3 -3.58 Year 4 -4.15 Average first 2 years -1.91 Average 4 years -2.89

You mean by the 4th year, Americans were keeping an additional 4.15% of GDP?
No wonder why the economy did so well.

Sure, I think Volker killing Nixon's/Fords price and wage controls that created the inflation (mainly), helped create the Reagan recession, just like his gutting Gov't workers did, and weird how unemployment spiked AS he cut taxes, the opposite of what GOPers said would happen right?

Glad you FINALLY agree, Reagan's tax cuts for the rich cost the US treasury revenues as he tripled US debt


The Myths of Reaganomics


It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.


The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

weird how unemployment spiked AS he cut taxes, the opposite of what GOPers said would happen right?

Weird how unemployment spiked as Volcker hiked Fed Funds to 19%.
As mortgage rates topped 18%.
And how quickly employment and revenues recovered once rates could come back down.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"No, your point was that Reagan's tax cuts led to reduced government revenue which led to reduced government employment which led to the recession."

False premises, distortions and LIES the only thing right wingers EVER have


Rshermr wrote

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...-chart-on-us-debt-history-15.html#post9394314
MAJOR TAX BILLS ENACTED UNDER REAGAN

The Office of Tax Analysis of the U.S. Treasury Department has put out a paper titled Revenue Effects of Major Tax Bills. The following estimate of the revenue effects of all major tax bills enacted under Reagan is taken from Table 2 of that document:

REVENUE EFFECTS OF MAJOR TAX BILLS ENACTED UNDER REAGAN (as percentage of GDP)

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981............... Year 1 -1.21 Year 2 -2.60 Year 3 -3.58 Year 4 -4.15 Average first 2 years -1.91 Average 4 years -2.89


Rshermr Wrote

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...-chart-on-us-debt-history-14.html#post9392423

So the toddster makes this profound statement:
"In this imaginary world of yours, how many government jobs "were no longer funded due to lack of tax revenues"?"
The problem was, of course, in the time just after the great reagan tax decrease, which happened in early 1981. Simple answer was that not just gov jobs were lost. The loss in gov jobs created a recession that caused private jobs also to be lost.


Unemployment in the public sector continued down through 1982 with losses of 175,000 public sector jobs.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1983/02/art1full.pdf

Employment in the public sector failed to provide the
stability it has historically shown during periods of economic
downturn. Government employment dropped by
more than 175,000 in 1982, continuing the declines that
began in mid-1980. The decrease was primarily in State
and local government, stemming largely from severe
budgetary problems and smaller school enrollments.

I guess your idiot friend will explain how the Reagan tax cuts reduced revenue for state and local government.

"how the Reagan tax cuts reduced revenue for state and local government"

By the end of Reagan’s term in office federal assistance to local governments was cut 60 percent. Reagan eliminated general revenue sharing to cities, slashed funding for public service jobs and job training, almost dismantled federally funded legal services for the poor, cut the anti-poverty Community Development Block Grant program and reduced funds for public transit. The only “urban” program that survived the cuts was federal aid for highways – which primarily benefited suburbs, not cities.

These cutbacks had a disastrous effect on cities with high levels of poverty and limited property tax bases, many of which depended on federal aid. In 1980 federal dollars accounted for 22 percent of big city budgets. By the end of Reagan’s second term, federal aid was only 6 percent.

Reagan's Legacy: Homelessness in America

Anything else you need, just ask Bubba

By the end of Reagan’s term in office federal assistance to local governments was cut 60 percent.

Hey, snapperhead, we're talking about 1981. Stay focused.

 

[Rshermr]

The problem was, of course, in the time just after the great reagan tax decrease, which happened in early 1981. Simple answer was that not just gov jobs were lost. The loss in gov jobs created a recession that caused private jobs also to be lost.

Hilarious!

Ignore the spike in interest rates Volcker created to kill inflation. Idiot.

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981............... Year 1 -1.21 Year 2 -2.60 Year 3 -3.58 Year 4 -4.15 Average first 2 years -1.91 Average 4 years -2.89

You mean by the 4th year, Americans were keeping an additional 4.15% of GDP?
No wonder why the economy did so well.

Sure, I think Volker killing Nixon's/Fords price and wage controls that created the inflation (mainly), helped create the Reagan recession, just like his gutting Gov't workers did, and weird how unemployment spiked AS he cut taxes, the opposite of what GOPers said would happen right?

Glad you FINALLY agree, Reagan's tax cuts for the rich cost the US treasury revenues as he tripled US debt


The Myths of Reaganomics


It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.


The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

weird how unemployment spiked AS he cut taxes, the opposite of what GOPers said would happen right?

Weird how unemployment spiked as Volcker hiked Fed Funds to 19%.
As mortgage rates topped 18%.
And how quickly employment and revenues recovered once rates could come back down.

Sorry, me boy. That had happened under the prior administration.