Interesting Chart on US Debt history

[Rshermr]

Are you ONLY interested in 1981.

Yes, because of your silly claim about the 1981 tax cuts causing the recession.

Federal Grants to State and Local Governments - CBO

OMG! A cut of less than $6.6 billion is your favored cause of the recession?
That's hilarious!

MOST of the reduction in state revenue happened by 1982.

Yes, deep recessions tend to reduce state tax receipts. Idiot.

First, me poor ignorant con tool, it is good to see that you now understand that state and local receipts do come from federal receipts, among other sources. See, you ARE learning something from my teachings. And no me boy, it was not just local and state receipts that decreased. And also, my poor ignorant con tool, yes indeed, there is this thing called INFLATION. A few billion in 1981 was indeed a big deal. And no, it was Not just 1981, dipshit. It was several years, most notably 1982 that was most affected by tax receipt decreases.
Your great concern over a couple of points higher federal funds rate is funny. A very short lived increase indeed over the already high rates of the prior administration. Thanks for proving my point.

At any rate, talking with you with your head up your ass is getting boring. I have some salmon fishing to do, with no possibility or interest in dealing with you till I get back. In the interim, I am sure that others that will be happy to show you your errant ways.

Yeah, tell me again how the Reagan tax cuts caused government employment to drop which caused a recession. That one never gets old!!

Your great concern over a couple of points higher federal funds rate is funny.

A couple of points? Imagine Obama's unemployment numbers if the Fed Funds rate was double digits today.

Even morons like you would stop defending him.

I do not defend obama. You, being a con tool, attack him constantly. Which I find funny. 24/7 attacking of any president just does not pass the giggle test, me boy.

 

[Rshermr]

Are you ONLY interested in 1981.

Yes, because of your silly claim about the 1981 tax cuts causing the recession.

Federal Grants to State and Local Governments - CBO

OMG! A cut of less than $6.6 billion is your favored cause of the recession?
That's hilarious!

MOST of the reduction in state revenue happened by 1982.

Yes, deep recessions tend to reduce state tax receipts. Idiot.

First, me poor ignorant con tool, it is good to see that you now understand that state and local receipts do come from federal receipts, among other sources. See, you ARE learning something from my teachings. And no me boy, it was not just local and state receipts that decreased. And also, my poor ignorant con tool, yes indeed, there is this thing called INFLATION. A few billion in 1981 was indeed a big deal. And no, it was Not just 1981, dipshit. It was several years, most notably 1982 that was most affected by tax receipt decreases.
Your great concern over a couple of points higher federal funds rate is funny. A very short lived increase indeed over the already high rates of the prior administration. Thanks for proving my point.

At any rate, talking with you with your head up your ass is getting boring. I have some salmon fishing to do, with no possibility or interest in dealing with you till I get back. In the interim, I am sure that others that will be happy to show you your errant ways.

Yeah, tell me again how the Reagan tax cuts caused government employment to drop which caused a recession. That one never gets old!!

Your great concern over a couple of points higher federal funds rate is funny.

A couple of points? Imagine Obama's unemployment numbers if the Fed Funds rate was double digits today.

Even morons like you would stop defending him.

Did show you. It is no one's fault that you are a congenital idiot, and a congenital con tool. You really can not help yourself.
So here is the only questions that really matter:
1. Why did reagan lower taxes with the results that receipts decreased and unemployment went through the ceiling.
2. Why if cutting taxes was such a great idea did reagan raise taxes 11 times and NOT lower them when the ue rate was going through the roof.
3. Why did ronnie spend like a drunken sailor to the point that he tripled the national debt after he lowered taxes and raised the ue rate to the highest since the great republican recession of 1929
You see, me boy, reaganomics states you LOWER taxes when the economy is bad.

Now, Toddster, we can believe you or we could believe David Stockman, who was the Director of Management and Budget from Reagan's inauguration until 1985. Or we could believe a con tool like yourself. I think I would take the big guy, Stockman, myself:

On ABC’s This Week today, Reagan’s own budget director, David Stockman, exposed the GOP tax cut “theology” for the ahistorical sham it is. Asked by Reuter’s Chrystia Freeland if the economy could “sustain” a tax increase, Stockman said “absolutely,” noting that the economy only recovered under Reagan once he raised taxes in 1982 after “cut[ting] taxes too much” the year before:
FREELAND: You worked for Ronald Reagan. Do you think the American economy — so you’re, like, a red-blooded capitalist — could it sustain higher taxes than it has now?
STOCKMAN: Absolutely. In 1982, we were looking at the jaws of the worst recession since the 1930s. We overdid it in 1981, cut taxes too much. We came back with a big deficit reduction plan in 1982. Unemployment’s at 10 percent, the economy is in dire shape, and we raise taxes by 1.2 percent of GDP, which would be $150 billion a year right now — not 10 years down the road — but right now.
Reagan Budget Director: 'Absolutely' Raise Taxes, Just Like Reagan Did | ThinkProgress

So, there you have it. Stockman, having knowledge of economics and having been part of the economic decisions at that time tells the unvarnished truth. Kind of refreshing after your pained attempts at lying.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

First, me poor ignorant con tool, it is good to see that you now understand that state and local receipts do come from federal receipts, among other sources. See, you ARE learning something from my teachings. And no me boy, it was not just local and state receipts that decreased. And also, my poor ignorant con tool, yes indeed, there is this thing called INFLATION. A few billion in 1981 was indeed a big deal. And no, it was Not just 1981, dipshit. It was several years, most notably 1982 that was most affected by tax receipt decreases.
Your great concern over a couple of points higher federal funds rate is funny. A very short lived increase indeed over the already high rates of the prior administration. Thanks for proving my point.

At any rate, talking with you with your head up your ass is getting boring. I have some salmon fishing to do, with no possibility or interest in dealing with you till I get back. In the interim, I am sure that others that will be happy to show you your errant ways.

Yeah, tell me again how the Reagan tax cuts caused government employment to drop which caused a recession. That one never gets old!!

Your great concern over a couple of points higher federal funds rate is funny.

A couple of points? Imagine Obama's unemployment numbers if the Fed Funds rate was double digits today.

Even morons like you would stop defending him.

Did show you. It is no one's fault that you are a congenital idiot, and a congenital con tool. You really can not help yourself.
So here is the only questions that really matter:
1. Why did reagan lower taxes with the results that receipts decreased and unemployment went through the ceiling.
2. Why if cutting taxes was such a great idea did reagan raise taxes 11 times and NOT lower them when the ue rate was going through the roof.
3. Why did ronnie spend like a drunken sailor to the point that he tripled the national debt after he lowered taxes and raised the ue rate to the highest since the great republican recession of 1929
You see, me boy, reaganomics states you LOWER taxes when the economy is bad.

Now, Toddster, we can believe you or we could believe David Stockman, who was the Director of Management and Budget from Reagan's inauguration until 1985. Or we could believe a con tool like yourself. I think I would take the big guy, Stockman, myself:

On ABC’s This Week today, Reagan’s own budget director, David Stockman, exposed the GOP tax cut “theology” for the ahistorical sham it is. Asked by Reuter’s Chrystia Freeland if the economy could “sustain” a tax increase, Stockman said “absolutely,” noting that the economy only recovered under Reagan once he raised taxes in 1982 after “cut[ting] taxes too much” the year before:
FREELAND: You worked for Ronald Reagan. Do you think the American economy — so you’re, like, a red-blooded capitalist — could it sustain higher taxes than it has now?
STOCKMAN: Absolutely. In 1982, we were looking at the jaws of the worst recession since the 1930s. We overdid it in 1981, cut taxes too much. We came back with a big deficit reduction plan in 1982. Unemployment’s at 10 percent, the economy is in dire shape, and we raise taxes by 1.2 percent of GDP, which would be $150 billion a year right now — not 10 years down the road — but right now.
Reagan Budget Director: 'Absolutely' Raise Taxes, Just Like Reagan Did | ThinkProgress

So, there you have it. Stockman, having knowledge of economics and having been part of the economic decisions at that time tells the unvarnished truth. Kind of refreshing after your pained attempts at lying.

Why did reagan lower taxes with the results that receipts decreased and unemployment went through the ceiling.

Why does cutting taxes cause unemployment to go through the ceiling?
It allows people to keep more of their own money. They have more to spend.
How does that cause a recession?

 

[Rshermr]

Yeah, tell me again how the Reagan tax cuts caused government employment to drop which caused a recession. That one never gets old!!

Your great concern over a couple of points higher federal funds rate is funny.

A couple of points? Imagine Obama's unemployment numbers if the Fed Funds rate was double digits today.

Even morons like you would stop defending him.

Did show you. It is no one's fault that you are a congenital idiot, and a congenital con tool. You really can not help yourself.
So here is the only questions that really matter:
1. Why did reagan lower taxes with the results that receipts decreased and unemployment went through the ceiling.
2. Why if cutting taxes was such a great idea did reagan raise taxes 11 times and NOT lower them when the ue rate was going through the roof.
3. Why did ronnie spend like a drunken sailor to the point that he tripled the national debt after he lowered taxes and raised the ue rate to the highest since the great republican recession of 1929
You see, me boy, reaganomics states you LOWER taxes when the economy is bad.

Now, Toddster, we can believe you or we could believe David Stockman, who was the Director of Management and Budget from Reagan's inauguration until 1985. Or we could believe a con tool like yourself. I think I would take the big guy, Stockman, myself:

On ABC’s This Week today, Reagan’s own budget director, David Stockman, exposed the GOP tax cut “theology” for the ahistorical sham it is. Asked by Reuter’s Chrystia Freeland if the economy could “sustain” a tax increase, Stockman said “absolutely,” noting that the economy only recovered under Reagan once he raised taxes in 1982 after “cut[ting] taxes too much” the year before:
FREELAND: You worked for Ronald Reagan. Do you think the American economy — so you’re, like, a red-blooded capitalist — could it sustain higher taxes than it has now?
STOCKMAN: Absolutely. In 1982, we were looking at the jaws of the worst recession since the 1930s. We overdid it in 1981, cut taxes too much. We came back with a big deficit reduction plan in 1982. Unemployment’s at 10 percent, the economy is in dire shape, and we raise taxes by 1.2 percent of GDP, which would be $150 billion a year right now — not 10 years down the road — but right now.
Reagan Budget Director: 'Absolutely' Raise Taxes, Just Like Reagan Did | ThinkProgress

So, there you have it. Stockman, having knowledge of economics and having been part of the economic decisions at that time tells the unvarnished truth. Kind of refreshing after your pained attempts at lying.

Why did reagan lower taxes with the results that receipts decreased and unemployment went through the ceiling.

Why does cutting taxes cause unemployment to go through the ceiling?
It allows people to keep more of their own money. They have more to spend.
How does that cause a recession?

When the economy is bad it always does, me boy. Always. Which is why it did in this case. Really, your great hero, reagan, found out. Created the highest unemployment since the great republican depression. Then, he saw his very own problem. As Stockman stated, they raised taxes too much and, as he said, were looking in the face of the worst recession since the great depression. So, they RAISED TAXES and spent like a drunken sailor. Tripled the national debt. Simple to verify. Here. Try again. It is really very simple for those of us in the rational world to understand. More difficult if you are a delusional con tool, as you are:

STOCKMAN: Absolutely. In 1982, we were looking at the jaws of the worst recession since the 1930s. We overdid it in 1981, cut taxes too much. We came back with a big deficit reduction plan in 1982. Unemployment’s at 10 percent, the economy is in dire shape, and we raise taxes by 1.2 percent of GDP, which would be $150 billion a year right now — not 10 years down the road — but right now.
Reagan Budget Director: 'Absolutely' Raise Taxes, Just Like Reagan Did | ThinkProgress

Again, we could believe you (a con tool) or Stockman, the Director of Office and Budget for Regan. Who do you think everyone believes, me boy???

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Did show you. It is no one's fault that you are a congenital idiot, and a congenital con tool. You really can not help yourself.
So here is the only questions that really matter:
1. Why did reagan lower taxes with the results that receipts decreased and unemployment went through the ceiling.
2. Why if cutting taxes was such a great idea did reagan raise taxes 11 times and NOT lower them when the ue rate was going through the roof.
3. Why did ronnie spend like a drunken sailor to the point that he tripled the national debt after he lowered taxes and raised the ue rate to the highest since the great republican recession of 1929
You see, me boy, reaganomics states you LOWER taxes when the economy is bad.

Now, Toddster, we can believe you or we could believe David Stockman, who was the Director of Management and Budget from Reagan's inauguration until 1985. Or we could believe a con tool like yourself. I think I would take the big guy, Stockman, myself:

So, there you have it. Stockman, having knowledge of economics and having been part of the economic decisions at that time tells the unvarnished truth. Kind of refreshing after your pained attempts at lying.

Why did reagan lower taxes with the results that receipts decreased and unemployment went through the ceiling.

Why does cutting taxes cause unemployment to go through the ceiling?
It allows people to keep more of their own money. They have more to spend.
How does that cause a recession?

When the economy is bad it always does, me boy. Always. Which is why it did in this case. Really, your great hero, reagan, found out. Created the highest unemployment since the great republican depression. Then, he saw his very own problem. As Stockman stated, they raised taxes too much and, as he said, were looking in the face of the worst recession since the great depression. So, they RAISED TAXES and spent like a drunken sailor. Tripled the national debt. Simple to verify. Here. Try again. It is really very simple for those of us in the rational world to understand. More difficult if you are a delusional con tool, as you are:

STOCKMAN: Absolutely. In 1982, we were looking at the jaws of the worst recession since the 1930s. We overdid it in 1981, cut taxes too much. We came back with a big deficit reduction plan in 1982. Unemployment’s at 10 percent, the economy is in dire shape, and we raise taxes by 1.2 percent of GDP, which would be $150 billion a year right now — not 10 years down the road — but right now.
Reagan Budget Director: 'Absolutely' Raise Taxes, Just Like Reagan Did | ThinkProgress

Again, we could believe you (a con tool) or Stockman, the Director of Office and Budget for Regan. Who do you think everyone believes, me boy???

When the economy is bad it always does,

When the economy is bad, tax cuts always cause unemployment to go through the ceiling?

You still haven't explained why.

 

[Rshermr]

Why did reagan lower taxes with the results that receipts decreased and unemployment went through the ceiling.

Why does cutting taxes cause unemployment to go through the ceiling?
It allows people to keep more of their own money. They have more to spend.
How does that cause a recession?

When the economy is bad it always does, me boy. Always. Which is why it did in this case. Really, your great hero, reagan, found out. Created the highest unemployment since the great republican depression. Then, he saw his very own problem. As Stockman stated, they raised taxes too much and, as he said, were looking in the face of the worst recession since the great depression. So, they RAISED TAXES and spent like a drunken sailor. Tripled the national debt. Simple to verify. Here. Try again. It is really very simple for those of us in the rational world to understand. More difficult if you are a delusional con tool, as you are:

STOCKMAN: Absolutely. In 1982, we were looking at the jaws of the worst recession since the 1930s. We overdid it in 1981, cut taxes too much. We came back with a big deficit reduction plan in 1982. Unemployment’s at 10 percent, the economy is in dire shape, and we raise taxes by 1.2 percent of GDP, which would be $150 billion a year right now — not 10 years down the road — but right now.
Reagan Budget Director: 'Absolutely' Raise Taxes, Just Like Reagan Did | ThinkProgress

Again, we could believe you (a con tool) or Stockman, the Director of Office and Budget for Regan. Who do you think everyone believes, me boy???

When the economy is bad it always does,

When the economy is bad, tax cuts always cause unemployment to go through the ceiling?

You still haven't explained why.

Yes, I did, And I posted economic analysis by economists to help you to understand. Then, now pay attention, I gave you analysis by David Stockman, the Director, Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Me poor ignorant con: This is so simple that even a NORMAL congenital idiot could be taught the reasoning. Now, the fact that you can not is both funny, and sad. Makes you an advanced congenital idiot.
Maybe you are there for simple comic relief. Is that it, toddster. Are you trying to be funny.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When the economy is bad it always does, me boy. Always. Which is why it did in this case. Really, your great hero, reagan, found out. Created the highest unemployment since the great republican depression. Then, he saw his very own problem. As Stockman stated, they raised taxes too much and, as he said, were looking in the face of the worst recession since the great depression. So, they RAISED TAXES and spent like a drunken sailor. Tripled the national debt. Simple to verify. Here. Try again. It is really very simple for those of us in the rational world to understand. More difficult if you are a delusional con tool, as you are:


Again, we could believe you (a con tool) or Stockman, the Director of Office and Budget for Regan. Who do you think everyone believes, me boy???

When the economy is bad it always does,

When the economy is bad, tax cuts always cause unemployment to go through the ceiling?

You still haven't explained why.

Yes, I did, And I posted economic analysis by economists to help you to understand. Then, now pay attention, I gave you analysis by David Stockman, the Director, Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Me poor ignorant con: This is so simple that even a NORMAL congenital idiot could be taught the reasoning. Now, the fact that you can not is both funny, and sad. Makes you an advanced congenital idiot.
Maybe you are there for simple comic relief. Is that it, toddster. Are you trying to be funny.

Yes, I did,

No you didn't. You need to show the chain of events.

I can show why tax cuts help the economy.
Businesses are more likely to open and more likely to expand.
People keep more of their own money.
Work is better rewarded, so people who didn't work are more likely to work part time.
Part time workers are more likely to work full time.

Now you do the same to show how tax cuts cause a recession.
Should be good for a laugh.

I gave you analysis by David Stockman, the Director, Office of Management and Budget

You think Stockman claimed that tax cuts caused a recession?
I know that he's been a whiny bitch since Reagan canned him, but that's hilarious!

 

[kaz]

What I find telling is where we see the largest increases and it seems to contradict certain long held arguments regarding spending.

National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tell me again how Obama's not responsible for the economy because he inherited it from W?

So by current liberal logic where 5+ years after taking office the President isn't responsible for the economy, the clear interpretation of this chart is that Republicans fix the economy, Democrats get elected and screw it up, Republicans get elected and fix it, ...

 

[Rshermr]

So the toddster, getting really, really desperate, says:

No you didn't. You need to show the chain of events.

I do not "need" to show you anything, me poor ignorant con tool. Because, of course, that is impossible. You can not be "shown" anything since you have an agenda and a closed mind. But, since you say doing nothing but lowering taxes will get us out of a recession, you do need to show a time in history when it worked. Which, of course, you can not. For Reagan (your hero) lowered taxes when the rate of unemployment was 7.3% in 1981 and it went to the highest rate in US history with the exception of the great depression. That was 10.8% should you have forgotten. Or H. Hoover, who did nothing but lower taxes from 1929 until 1933, and watched the unemployment rate go from 5% to over 24%. Nice.
Now, big talker, where is that example of a high unemployment economy where lowering taxes helped.

I can show why tax cuts help the economy.
Businesses are more likely to open and more likely to expand.
People keep more of their own money.
Work is better rewarded, so people who didn't work are more likely to work part time.
Part time workers are more likely to work full time.

No, you can not. What you can show is your opinion. And you know how much I value your opinion. Now, where is that example of where it worked, dipshit?

Now you do the same to show how tax cuts cause a recession.
Should be good for a laugh.

Reagan. 7.3% to 10.8% 1981 through 1983. Like a rocket.
Or h. hoover. 5% to 24% 1929 through 1933. Like a multiple stage rocket.
History, me boy. The why is part of economic theory. Well known to those who something about economics. Leaves you out, of course.
You raise taxes, me boy, to generate revenue for stimulative spending. Works every time. Sorry you never got the advantage of a good macro economics class. You would understand.


I gave you analysis by David Stockman, the Director, Office of Management and Budget

You think Stockman claimed that tax cuts caused a recession?

Yes. And if you cared to read what I provided you in his quotes, you would see he did indeed believe that the tax cuts in 1981 by Reagan and his economic team(which included Stockman prominently) caused a recession, and nearly a catastrophic recession/depression. And that raising taxes brought them back from the brink.

I know that he's been a whiny bitch since Reagan canned him, but that's hilarious!

Hilarious only to con tools with agendas. Like you, me boy. Stockton was honest, which is a very dangerous political trait.

What is funny, though, is you. Funny how fast you can turn on a solid republican who tells the truth as he know it. Funny how hard you follow the bat shit crazy con sites you frequent. Sad being a agenda driven political tool. But that is you.

Should you try independent sources of research, you could learn something. Let me try to educate you again (yes, I do know that you do not WANT to be educated, as you prefer your agenda):

Once enacted, the 1981 tax cuts opened up wide budget deficits (6% of gross domestic product, the largest peacetime deficit in history), leading Congress and the president to agree to substantially increase taxes on corporations in 1982 and on payrolls in 1983. Although those measures helped to narrow the budget deficit, large deficits persisted
http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_06162004/

And, me boy, in the end, reagan spent stimulatively enough to triple the national debt. Increased the national debt more than all previous presidents COMBINED. AND, of course, that stimulative spending WORKED. And it was (now pay attention, dipshit) by TAX INCREASES.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So the toddster, getting really, really desperate, says:
Yes, I did,

No you didn't. You need to show the chain of events.

I do not "need" to show you anything, me poor ignorant con tool. Because, of course, that is impossible. You can not be "shown" anything. But, since say doing nothing but lowering taxes will get us out of a recession, you do need to show a time in history when it worked. Which, of course, you can not. For Reagan (your hero) lowered taxes when the rate of unemployment was 7.3% and it went to the highest rate in US history with the exception of the great depression. That was 10.8% should you have forgotten. Or H. Hoover, who did nothing but lower taxes from 1929 until 1933, and watched the unemployment rate go from 5% to over 24%. Nice.
Now, big talker, where is that example of a high unemployment economy where lowering taxes helped.

I can show why tax cuts help the economy.
Businesses are more likely to open and more likely to expand.
People keep more of their own money.
Work is better rewarded, so people who didn't work are more likely to work part time.
Part time workers are more likely to work full time.

No, you can not. What you can show is your opinion. And you know how much I value your opinion. Now, where is that example of where it worked, dipshit.


Reagan. 7.3% to 10.8%. Like a rocket.
Or h. hoover. 5% to 24%. Like a multiple stage rocket.
History, me boy. The why is part of economic theory. Well known to those who know it.
You raise taxes, me boy, to generate revenue for stimulative spending. Works every time. Sorry you never got the advantage of a good macro economics class. You would understand.


I gave you analysis by David Stockman, the Director, Office of Management and Budget

You think Stockman claimed that tax cuts caused a recession?

Yes. And if you cared to read what I provided you in his quotes, you would see he did indeed believe that the tax cuts in 1981 by Reagan and his economic team caused a recession, and nearly a catastrophic recession/depression. And that raising taxes brought them back from the brink.

I know that he's been a whiny bitch since Reagan canned him, but that's hilarious!

Hilarious only to con tools with agendas. Like you, me boy. Stockton was honest, which is a very dangerous political trait.

What is funny, though, is you. Funny how fast you can turn on a solid republican who tells the truth as he know it. Funny how hard you follow the bat shit crazy con sites you frequent. Sad being a agenda driven political tool. But that is you.

I do not "need" to show you anything

Because you can't.

you would see he did indeed believe that the tax cuts in 1981 by Reagan and his economic team caused a recession,

Wow! Your ignorance extends beyond economics, all the way into basic reading comprehension.

 

[Rshermr]

Now, now toddster. Changing my words to what you would like them to be is dishonest. Again proving that you are a liar. And desperate:

I do not "need" to show you anything

Because you can't.

Let's see what I said in actuality, as opposed to your lie above. I said:
"I do not "need" to show you anything, me poor ignorant con tool. Because, of course, that is impossible. You can not be "shown" anything since you have an agenda and a closed mind. But, since you say doing nothing but lowering taxes will get us out of a recession, you do need to show a time in history when it worked. Which, of course, you can not. For Reagan (your hero) lowered taxes when the rate of unemployment was 7.3% in 1981 and it went to the highest rate in US history with the exception of the great depression. That was 10.8% should you have forgotten. Or H. Hoover, who did nothing but lower taxes from 1929 until 1933, and watched the unemployment rate go from 5% to over 24%. Nice.
Now, big talker, where is that example of a high unemployment economy where lowering taxes helped. "
So, dipshit, where is that example I asked for. You have none??? How about that, dipshit. Why do you think you can find no example???? Could it be, dipshit, because it NEVER works. Eh, dipshit?

I said:
you would see he did indeed believe that the tax cuts in 1981 by Reagan and his economic team caused a recession,

And you said:
Wow! Your ignorance extends beyond economics, all the way into basic reading comprehension.

So, me lying con tool, let's see what I pasted from my source in post number 262 above.

On ABC’s This Week today, Reagan’s own budget director, David Stockman, exposed the GOP tax cut “theology” for the a historical sham it is. Asked by Reuter’s Chrystia Freeland if the economy could “sustain” a tax increase, Stockman said “absolutely,” noting that the economy only recovered under Reagan once he raised taxes in 1982 after “cut[ting] taxes too much” the year before:
FREELAND: You worked for Ronald Reagan. Do you think the American economy — so you’re, like, a red-blooded capitalist — could it sustain higher taxes than it has now?
STOCKMAN: Absolutely. In 1982, we were looking at the jaws of the worst recession since the 1930s. We overdid it in 1981, cut taxes too much. We came back with a big deficit reduction plan in 1982. Unemployment’s at 10 percent, the economy is in dire shape, and we raise taxes by 1.2 percent of GDP, which would be $150 billion a year right now — not 10 years down the road — but right now.
Reagan Budget Director: 'Absolutely' Raise Taxes, Just Like Reagan Did | ThinkProgress

So, I hope the red color helps you read and comprehend. You should really stop lying. Your lack of credibility is embarasing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Now, now toddster. Changing my words to what you would like them to be is dishonest. Again proving that you are a liar. And desperate:

I do not "need" to show you anything

Because you can't.

Let's see what I said in actuality, as opposed to your lie above. I said:
"I do not "need" to show you anything, me poor ignorant con tool. Because, of course, that is impossible. You can not be "shown" anything since you have an agenda and a closed mind. But, since you say doing nothing but lowering taxes will get us out of a recession, you do need to show a time in history when it worked. Which, of course, you can not. For Reagan (your hero) lowered taxes when the rate of unemployment was 7.3% in 1981 and it went to the highest rate in US history with the exception of the great depression. That was 10.8% should you have forgotten. Or H. Hoover, who did nothing but lower taxes from 1929 until 1933, and watched the unemployment rate go from 5% to over 24%. Nice.
Now, big talker, where is that example of a high unemployment economy where lowering taxes helped. "
So, dipshit, where is that example I asked for. You have none??? How about that, dipshit. Why do you think you can find no example???? Could it be, dipshit, because it NEVER works. Eh, dipshit?

I said:
you would see he did indeed believe that the tax cuts in 1981 by Reagan and his economic team caused a recession,

And you said:
Wow! Your ignorance extends beyond economics, all the way into basic reading comprehension.

So, me lying con tool, let's see what I pasted from my source in post number 262 above.

On ABC’s This Week today, Reagan’s own budget director, David Stockman, exposed the GOP tax cut “theology” for the a historical sham it is. Asked by Reuter’s Chrystia Freeland if the economy could “sustain” a tax increase, Stockman said “absolutely,” noting that the economy only recovered under Reagan once he raised taxes in 1982 after “cut[ting] taxes too much” the year before:
FREELAND: You worked for Ronald Reagan. Do you think the American economy — so you’re, like, a red-blooded capitalist — could it sustain higher taxes than it has now?
STOCKMAN: Absolutely. In 1982, we were looking at the jaws of the worst recession since the 1930s. We overdid it in 1981, cut taxes too much. We came back with a big deficit reduction plan in 1982. Unemployment’s at 10 percent, the economy is in dire shape, and we raise taxes by 1.2 percent of GDP, which would be $150 billion a year right now — not 10 years down the road — but right now.
Reagan Budget Director: 'Absolutely' Raise Taxes, Just Like Reagan Did | ThinkProgress

So, I hope the red color helps you read and comprehend. You should really stop lying. Your lack of credibility is embarasing.

In 1982, we were looking at the jaws of the worst recession since the 1930s. We overdid it in 1981, cut taxes too much.

You'll notice, I mean you would if you weren't so stupid, that he didn't blame the recession on the tax cuts.

We came back with a big deficit reduction plan in 1982.

See? He didn't say, we came back with a tax hike to help the economy.

Keep trying, there might be hope for you yet.......not really.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Reagan??

OF course its 100% dishonest to discuss early 80's recession without mentioning that there was "blood on the streets" ,to use Volker's words, thanks to Fed rate hikes( highest in 100 years) that caused the huge recession. Recession ended when rates dropped and had little to do with fiscal policy. Hate to rock your world. Also, Stockman is a quack going around for the last 3 years proclaiming financial doomsday is upon us.

 

[Rshermr]

So now, the toddster, being a con tool and stupid (sorry, that is redundant I know) says:

You'll notice, I mean you would if you weren't so stupid, that he didn't blame the recession on the tax cuts.
Yes, he did. Read the following AGAIN.
Do you think that the exact term of reducing taxes too much does not indicate that he was saying that the tax increase was the problem???? Dipshit. Here. Read the quote AGAIN.
In 1982, we were looking at the jaws of the worst recession since the 1930s. We overdid it in 1981, cut taxes too much. So, since you can not understand a simple sentence, please tell us what you think Mr. Stockman did blame the recession on in this paragraph. I can't wait.

Then, in an effort to prove he is an economic idiot, the toddster makes this profound statement

We came back with a big deficit reduction plan in 1982.

See? He didn't say, we came back with a tax hike to help the economy.

You are again lying, of course. The rest of the paragraph includes:

and we raise taxes by 1.2 percent of GDP

It is ok, me con tool. You have lied so much you have no shred of integrity left.

A "deficit reduction plan" provides no information on how the deficit was to be reduced. You see, me poor ignorant tool, you can reduce deficits in two ways. You can increase taxes, which they did several times. Or they could reduce spending, which they did not do. Instead, they spent like crazy based on both borrowed money and new tax revenues. New taxes that hey levied to try to fix the lack or revenue from their 1982 tax decreases.


Again, the point is, when he drove the economy to a 10.8% unemployment rate and a major recession, reagan did not follow his plan to lower taxes. He instead raised taxes and gov spending.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So now, the toddster, being a con tool and stupid (sorry, that is redundant I know) says:

You'll notice, I mean you would if you weren't so stupid, that he didn't blame the recession on the tax cuts.
Yes, he did. Read the following AGAIN.
Do you think that the exact term of reducing taxes too much does not indicate that he was saying that the tax increase was the problem???? Dipshit. Here. Read the quote AGAIN.
In 1982, we were looking at the jaws of the worst recession since the 1930s. We overdid it in 1981, cut taxes too much. So, since you can not understand a simple sentence, please tell us what you think Mr. Stockman did blame the recession on in this paragraph. I can't wait.

Then, in an effort to prove he is an economic idiot, the toddster makes this profound statement

We came back with a big deficit reduction plan in 1982.

See? He didn't say, we came back with a tax hike to help the economy.

You are again lying, of course. The rest of the paragraph includes:

and we raise taxes by 1.2 percent of GDP

It is ok, me con tool. You have lied so much you have no shred of integrity left.

A "deficit reduction plan" provides no information on how the deficit was to be reduced. You see, me poor ignorant tool, you can reduce deficits in two ways. You can increase taxes, which they did several times. Or they could reduce spending, which they did not do. Instead, they spent like crazy based on both borrowed money and new tax revenues. New taxes that hey levied to try to fix the lack or revenue from their 1982 tax decreases.


Again, the point is, when he drove the economy to a 10.8% unemployment rate and a major recession, reagan did not follow his plan to lower taxes. He instead raised taxes and gov spending.

actually it was the Fed that drove unemployment to 10.8% Sorry to rock your world.

Wiki: The Federal Reserve board led by Volcker raised the federal funds rate, which had averaged 11.2% in 1979, to a peak of 20% in June 1981. The prime rate rose to 21.5% in 1981 as well. Thus, the unemployment rate climbed up over 10%.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So now, the toddster, being a con tool and stupid (sorry, that is redundant I know) says:

You'll notice, I mean you would if you weren't so stupid, that he didn't blame the recession on the tax cuts.
Yes, he did. Read the following AGAIN.
Do you think that the exact term of reducing taxes too much does not indicate that he was saying that the tax increase was the problem???? Dipshit. Here. Read the quote AGAIN.
In 1982, we were looking at the jaws of the worst recession since the 1930s. We overdid it in 1981, cut taxes too much. So, since you can not understand a simple sentence, please tell us what you think Mr. Stockman did blame the recession on in this paragraph. I can't wait.

Then, in an effort to prove he is an economic idiot, the toddster makes this profound statement

We came back with a big deficit reduction plan in 1982.

See? He didn't say, we came back with a tax hike to help the economy.

You are again lying, of course. The rest of the paragraph includes:

and we raise taxes by 1.2 percent of GDP

It is ok, me con tool. You have lied so much you have no shred of integrity left.

A "deficit reduction plan" provides no information on how the deficit was to be reduced. You see, me poor ignorant tool, you can reduce deficits in two ways. You can increase taxes, which they did several times. Or they could reduce spending, which they did not do. Instead, they spent like crazy based on both borrowed money and new tax revenues. New taxes that hey levied to try to fix the lack or revenue from their 1982 tax decreases.


Again, the point is, when he drove the economy to a 10.8% unemployment rate and a major recession, reagan did not follow his plan to lower taxes. He instead raised taxes and gov spending.

In 1982, we were looking at the jaws of the worst recession since the 1930s. We overdid it in 1981, cut taxes too much

If only he had said, In 1982, we were looking at the jaws of the worst recession since the 1930s BECAUSE We overdid it in 1981, cut taxes too much

Then, you might have a claim. Keep trying.

If you're right, he must have made the same claim dozens of times.

I'll be here, waiting, laughing.

 

[Rshermr]

So now, the toddster, being a con tool and stupid (sorry, that is redundant I know) says:

You'll notice, I mean you would if you weren't so stupid, that he didn't blame the recession on the tax cuts.
Yes, he did. Read the following AGAIN.
Do you think that the exact term of reducing taxes too much does not indicate that he was saying that the tax increase was the problem???? Dipshit. Here. Read the quote AGAIN.
In 1982, we were looking at the jaws of the worst recession since the 1930s. We overdid it in 1981, cut taxes too much. So, since you can not understand a simple sentence, please tell us what you think Mr. Stockman did blame the recession on in this paragraph. I can't wait.

Then, in an effort to prove he is an economic idiot, the toddster makes this profound statement

We came back with a big deficit reduction plan in 1982.

See? He didn't say, we came back with a tax hike to help the economy.

You are again lying, of course. The rest of the paragraph includes:

and we raise taxes by 1.2 percent of GDP

It is ok, me con tool. You have lied so much you have no shred of integrity left.

A "deficit reduction plan" provides no information on how the deficit was to be reduced. You see, me poor ignorant tool, you can reduce deficits in two ways. You can increase taxes, which they did several times. Or they could reduce spending, which they did not do. Instead, they spent like crazy based on both borrowed money and new tax revenues. New taxes that hey levied to try to fix the lack or revenue from their 1982 tax decreases.


Again, the point is, when he drove the economy to a 10.8% unemployment rate and a major recession, reagan did not follow his plan to lower taxes. He instead raised taxes and gov spending.

In 1982, we were looking at the jaws of the worst recession since the 1930s. We overdid it in 1981, cut taxes too much

If only he had said, In 1982, we were looking at the jaws of the worst recession since the 1930s BECAUSE We overdid it in 1981, cut taxes too much

Then, you might have a claim. Keep trying.

If you're right, he must have made the same claim dozens of times.

I'll be here, waiting, laughing.

That is exactly what he is saying. And you know it. Nice try, con tool.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So now, the toddster, being a con tool and stupid (sorry, that is redundant I know) says:

You'll notice, I mean you would if you weren't so stupid, that he didn't blame the recession on the tax cuts.
Yes, he did. Read the following AGAIN.
Do you think that the exact term of reducing taxes too much does not indicate that he was saying that the tax increase was the problem???? Dipshit. Here. Read the quote AGAIN.
In 1982, we were looking at the jaws of the worst recession since the 1930s. We overdid it in 1981, cut taxes too much. So, since you can not understand a simple sentence, please tell us what you think Mr. Stockman did blame the recession on in this paragraph. I can't wait.

Then, in an effort to prove he is an economic idiot, the toddster makes this profound statement

You are again lying, of course. The rest of the paragraph includes:

It is ok, me con tool. You have lied so much you have no shred of integrity left.

A "deficit reduction plan" provides no information on how the deficit was to be reduced. You see, me poor ignorant tool, you can reduce deficits in two ways. You can increase taxes, which they did several times. Or they could reduce spending, which they did not do. Instead, they spent like crazy based on both borrowed money and new tax revenues. New taxes that hey levied to try to fix the lack or revenue from their 1982 tax decreases.


Again, the point is, when he drove the economy to a 10.8% unemployment rate and a major recession, reagan did not follow his plan to lower taxes. He instead raised taxes and gov spending.

In 1982, we were looking at the jaws of the worst recession since the 1930s. We overdid it in 1981, cut taxes too much

If only he had said, In 1982, we were looking at the jaws of the worst recession since the 1930s BECAUSE We overdid it in 1981, cut taxes too much

Then, you might have a claim. Keep trying.

If you're right, he must have made the same claim dozens of times.

I'll be here, waiting, laughing.

That is exactly what he is saying. And you know it. Nice try, con tool.

You are literally the only person I've ever seen dumb enough to blame the Reagan tax cuts, while also completely ignoring Volcker's interest rate hikes, for the 1982 recession.
Bravo!

 

[Rennie]

Thank you for the quotes.

 

[Rennie]

Yes, I remember going thru those decades. In the 1970's I started making almost too much money. I decided to help with a government contract *AHES* Area Health Education System in 1981. Problem was that because of too much spending (government spent 20%, people 80%), [See Heilbroner), the advice for both Democrats and Republicans was that "we need to sacrifice." That is exactly what Reagan did. He had enough guts to get rid of jobs. People, especially government jobs stopped having jobs, that trickled into private businesses (I saw grown men cry who had sucessful decades of business). No longer was there enough circulation of gnp in certain sectors. One could see less people, as though the business streets were immobile. The circulation was so slow, but there was the same and growing gnp. The redistribution of wealth was swift and those with it can keep getting what they wanted. Unfortunately, the "nothing wrong with making money" meant too bad for you.

The next step was to redistribute wealth thru the tax codes. Then the best advice was to save whatever monies you could accumulate and not spend it. But that really cut Inflation. Anyone
now that made an annual income of 250,000 had the ability to create jobs and trickle down the profits, or to grab as much loot as possible. "What's wrong with making money, aye?"

The next advice in the 1980's was to work with the Chinese Island, at the time free from Chinese rule so that we can increase our loot. That really helped. Check the charts from 1980's and see the changes of redistribution of income from the 1960's till now. Of course, the real middle earnings are not depicted on IRS charts, publicly only going up to $2 million annual income. If the masses could focus on that, the middle class falls around $150, 000 - 250,000 people think. But that is not how the per capita is measured. The world believes that the American per capita income is number one. But if you get those that make more than a few hundred million a year pissed and they moved to another country and nothing else changes, we might measure about 10th, even if you made a few thousand more per year.

Those that now make over 2 million a year have 80% of the loot, but pay only about 12-15% back into the system, probably less if they are corporations, that means that their 80% is paying 60% percent, while the other 20% has to pay 40% to "help" the government run the infrastructures. This translates into a government that can't operate at 20% (coincidence: they just said "20%" on tv), and must go into debt unless those social agendas stop believing they are more entitled.

Because the government representatives (mostly Republicans but some Democrats like Rostenkowski),
proclaimed that the job was done, the people sacrificed, inflation is no longer a problem, so because
"We are the real American people, we deserve a raise."

So, now, it seems that the younger minds don't have to think about that. They just have to follow their masters. Now, any change in taxes is a "redistribution of wealth" and "You don't believe in redistributing wealth, do you?" Doublethink is the ability to hold two contradictory thoughts at the same time (not to be confused with anatomic thinking).

The tail is the losers whining about how the head should look to the world. Imagine what this group wants the world to think about the U.S? When Americans are divided, it creates confusion and adversity and undermines the United States. Warriors depend upon solidarity. Sharing responsibility is simply as pointing at what you did to promote what image. Did your projection provide a smirk from some Napoleon to nod that perhaps the United is not as strong as the world thinks? Bring down Obama, the chants from dumb masses. Who is more apt to make this oath, Democrats or Republicans:

I pledge allegiance to unregulated free market multi-national corporations under no nation foreign nor domestic.

The spirit of man is no better than the spirit of a beast (Ecc 3:18)