Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101

[LA RAM FAN]

UOTE=Dad2three;9413985]

How do you take people seriously who tell you "Reagan gutted revenues"? How?

Gutted?

Huh?

Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenues? No, Tax cuts do not Increase Revenue


The argument that tax cuts create or increase revenue is an old myth that simply refuses to go away.


Business Cycles: GDP and Revenues

Generally speaking, when GDP grows or shrinks, revenues grow or shrink along with it ( since the income or earnings being taxed are proportional to GDP). So while revenues fall when the economy is in a slump or recession, they increase when the economy is in a recovery and certainly during a boom in economic growth. This happens regardless of the tax rates.








Correlating Tax Increases and Decreases with Revenue

By conveniently pointing to places where tax cuts were enacted at or around the time of a recovery or boom, tax cut advocates argue that tax cuts increase revenue. The problem with this is that the revenue increases following the Bush and Reagan tax cuts are dwarfed by the revenue increase following Bill Clinton’s tax increase on the wealthiest Americans. In fact, as a percentage of GDP, post-Reagan & Bush tax cut revenue falls below the 1965-2005 average. In other words, revenue increased because the economy was recovering/growing, and the tax cuts have little (probably nothing) to do with growth in GDP. if anything, these tax cuts actually lowered revenue increased from what they would have been otherwise. So the real question to ask is this: how much revenue did these tax cuts cost us?


Reagan Tax Cuts: The Facts


Many Reagan apologists claim that these tax cuts created the robust economy that followed. However this ignores ignores the effects of the Federal Reserve’s lowering of interest rates. Reagan also increased military spending and ran up the federal deficit (the combined effect of tax cuts and increased spending). In other words, Reagan did exactly what Republican pundits who praise him are currently criticizing Obama for. Reagan advocates claim his tax cuts bolstered the economy while ignoring the lowered interest rates and increased deficit spending (kind of like an ongoing stimulus package).

In other words, trickle-down economics (the basis for Reagonomics) is a fallacy. The wealth does not trickle down but rather t coagulates at the top. Hence the applicability of this mocking of Reaganomics.


Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenues? No, Tax cuts do not Increase Revenue - Bush Tax Cuts & Reagan Tax Cuts - Facts | Fact and Myth

[/QUOTE]

theres reagan laughing at his cousin frank and the other gullible worshippers of him that have been drugged up by the lies of the CIA spun mainstream media.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

as always,you took them to school.

 

[Jroc]

When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009. Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%. At the same time America suffered roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years). The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped, at least not without a calamitous economic collapse.

All of the above was accompanied by double -igit interest rates, with the prime rate peaking at 21.5% in 1980. The poverty rate started increasing in 1978, eventually climbing by an astounding 33%, from 11.4% to 15.2%. A fall in real median family income that began in 1978 snowballed to a decline of almost 10% by 1982. In addition, from 1968 to 1982, the Dow Jones industrial average lost 70% of its real value, reflecting an overall collapse of stocks.

President Reagan campaigned on an explicitly articulated, four-point economic program to reverse this slow motion collapse of the American economy:

1. Cut tax rates to restore incentives for economic growth, which was implemented first with a reduction in the top income tax rate of 70% down to 50%, and then a 25% across-the-board reduction in income tax rates for everyone. The 1986 tax reform then reduced tax rates further, leaving just two rates, 28% and 15%.

2. Spending reductions, including a $31 billion cut in spending in 1981, close to 5% of the federal budget then, or the equivalent of about $175 billion in spending cuts for the year today. In constant dollars, nondefense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover, in constant dollars, this nondefense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan’s two terms! Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War without firing a shot, total federal spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989. That’s a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%.

3. Anti-inflation monetary policy restraining money supply growth compared to demand, to maintain a stronger, more stable dollar value.

4. Deregulation, which saved consumers an estimated $100 billion per year in lower prices. Reagan’s first executive order, in fact, eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas. Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%.

These economic policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history. The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990, when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it. This set a new record for the longest peacetime expansion ever, the previous high in peacetime being 58 months.

During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy. In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.

Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes

 

[Dad2three]

How do you take people seriously who tell you "Reagan gutted revenues"? How?

Gutted?

Huh?

Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenues? No, Tax cuts do not Increase Revenue


The argument that tax cuts create or increase revenue is an old myth that simply refuses to go away.


Business Cycles: GDP and Revenues

Generally speaking, when GDP grows or shrinks, revenues grow or shrink along with it ( since the income or earnings being taxed are proportional to GDP). So while revenues fall when the economy is in a slump or recession, they increase when the economy is in a recovery and certainly during a boom in economic growth. This happens regardless of the tax rates.








Correlating Tax Increases and Decreases with Revenue

By conveniently pointing to places where tax cuts were enacted at or around the time of a recovery or boom, tax cut advocates argue that tax cuts increase revenue. The problem with this is that the revenue increases following the Bush and Reagan tax cuts are dwarfed by the revenue increase following Bill Clinton’s tax increase on the wealthiest Americans. In fact, as a percentage of GDP, post-Reagan & Bush tax cut revenue falls below the 1965-2005 average. In other words, revenue increased because the economy was recovering/growing, and the tax cuts have little (probably nothing) to do with growth in GDP. if anything, these tax cuts actually lowered revenue increased from what they would have been otherwise. So the real question to ask is this: how much revenue did these tax cuts cost us?


Reagan Tax Cuts: The Facts


Many Reagan apologists claim that these tax cuts created the robust economy that followed. However this ignores ignores the effects of the Federal Reserve’s lowering of interest rates. Reagan also increased military spending and ran up the federal deficit (the combined effect of tax cuts and increased spending). In other words, Reagan did exactly what Republican pundits who praise him are currently criticizing Obama for. Reagan advocates claim his tax cuts bolstered the economy while ignoring the lowered interest rates and increased deficit spending (kind of like an ongoing stimulus package).

In other words, trickle-down economics (the basis for Reagonomics) is a fallacy. The wealth does not trickle down but rather t coagulates at the top. Hence the applicability of this mocking of Reaganomics.


Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenues? No, Tax cuts do not Increase Revenue - Bush Tax Cuts & Reagan Tax Cuts - Facts | Fact and Myth

Revenues are generally neutral with tax cuts ...People get to keep more of their money, with the same revenue coming in

"Revenues are generally neutral with tax cuts ."

NO SERIOUS ECONOMISTS THINKS THAT'S TRUE. None. There is a Left and Right of Laffer's Curve. Neither Reagan Nor Dubya were on the right side of it...

 

[Dad2three]

When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009. Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%. At the same time America suffered roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years). The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped, at least not without a calamitous economic collapse.

All of the above was accompanied by double -igit interest rates, with the prime rate peaking at 21.5% in 1980. The poverty rate started increasing in 1978, eventually climbing by an astounding 33%, from 11.4% to 15.2%. A fall in real median family income that began in 1978 snowballed to a decline of almost 10% by 1982. In addition, from 1968 to 1982, the Dow Jones industrial average lost 70% of its real value, reflecting an overall collapse of stocks.

President Reagan campaigned on an explicitly articulated, four-point economic program to reverse this slow motion collapse of the American economy:

1. Cut tax rates to restore incentives for economic growth, which was implemented first with a reduction in the top income tax rate of 70% down to 50%, and then a 25% across-the-board reduction in income tax rates for everyone. The 1986 tax reform then reduced tax rates further, leaving just two rates, 28% and 15%.

2. Spending reductions, including a $31 billion cut in spending in 1981, close to 5% of the federal budget then, or the equivalent of about $175 billion in spending cuts for the year today. In constant dollars, nondefense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover, in constant dollars, this nondefense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan’s two terms! Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War without firing a shot, total federal spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989. That’s a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%.

3. Anti-inflation monetary policy restraining money supply growth compared to demand, to maintain a stronger, more stable dollar value.

4. Deregulation, which saved consumers an estimated $100 billion per year in lower prices. Reagan’s first executive order, in fact, eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas. Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%.

These economic policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history. The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990, when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it. This set a new record for the longest peacetime expansion ever, the previous high in peacetime being 58 months.

During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy. In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.

Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes

Reagan's Great Recession didn't begin until summer 81... 7 MONTHS after he took office. Obama walked into an economy that had dumped 700,000+ jobs the previous month AND had contracted 9%+. Everything else is right wing CRAP

One of the realities of economics,Bubba is the lag factor. When one begins with a big hole to fill, it takes time and resources to fill it before you get to start with level ground.


Weird how the right wingers LOVED Reagan blowing up the deficits via his tax cuts for the rich and GREATLY increasing spending (see stimulus effect)....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Reagan with bin Laden

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight, don't believe the actual, broad economic growth that occurred under Reagan, follow some cartoon instead.

Don't believe the people from Eastern Europe who admire Reagan for freeing them from Communism, listen to the little Commie Wannbes.

LOL

 

[CrusaderFrank]

UOTE=Dad2three;9413985]

How do you take people seriously who tell you "Reagan gutted revenues"? How?

Gutted?

Huh?

Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenues? No, Tax cuts do not Increase Revenue


The argument that tax cuts create or increase revenue is an old myth that simply refuses to go away.


Business Cycles: GDP and Revenues

Generally speaking, when GDP grows or shrinks, revenues grow or shrink along with it ( since the income or earnings being taxed are proportional to GDP). So while revenues fall when the economy is in a slump or recession, they increase when the economy is in a recovery and certainly during a boom in economic growth. This happens regardless of the tax rates.








Correlating Tax Increases and Decreases with Revenue

By conveniently pointing to places where tax cuts were enacted at or around the time of a recovery or boom, tax cut advocates argue that tax cuts increase revenue. The problem with this is that the revenue increases following the Bush and Reagan tax cuts are dwarfed by the revenue increase following Bill Clinton’s tax increase on the wealthiest Americans. In fact, as a percentage of GDP, post-Reagan & Bush tax cut revenue falls below the 1965-2005 average. In other words, revenue increased because the economy was recovering/growing, and the tax cuts have little (probably nothing) to do with growth in GDP. if anything, these tax cuts actually lowered revenue increased from what they would have been otherwise. So the real question to ask is this: how much revenue did these tax cuts cost us?


Reagan Tax Cuts: The Facts


Many Reagan apologists claim that these tax cuts created the robust economy that followed. However this ignores ignores the effects of the Federal Reserve’s lowering of interest rates. Reagan also increased military spending and ran up the federal deficit (the combined effect of tax cuts and increased spending). In other words, Reagan did exactly what Republican pundits who praise him are currently criticizing Obama for. Reagan advocates claim his tax cuts bolstered the economy while ignoring the lowered interest rates and increased deficit spending (kind of like an ongoing stimulus package).

In other words, trickle-down economics (the basis for Reagonomics) is a fallacy. The wealth does not trickle down but rather t coagulates at the top. Hence the applicability of this mocking of Reaganomics.


Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenues? No, Tax cuts do not Increase Revenue - Bush Tax Cuts & Reagan Tax Cuts - Facts | Fact and Myth

theres reagan laughing at his cousin frank and the other gullible worshippers of him that have been drugged up by the lies of the CIA spun mainstream media.[/QUOTE]

^ Works for HW Bush

 

[JoeB131]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight, don't believe the actual, broad economic growth that occurred under Reagan, follow some cartoon instead.

Don't believe the people from Eastern Europe who admire Reagan for freeing them from Communism, listen to the little Commie Wannbes.

LOL

Why is Eastern Europe our problem?

Frankly, I could care less what happens to the EuroTrash, I'd just like to get back the middle class in this country Reagan gutted.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well, see Reagan tax cuts only gutted revenues because they would have gone up anyway and the tax cuts, (follow this logic) kept revenue away from government (see, the Reagan haters have to take the position that the money all belongs to the government anyway) so actually the tax cuts that boosted the US economy and lead to a nearly doubling of government receipts actually hurt the economy (Try standing on your head it might make sense)

Remember, Gorby was going to tear down the wall anyway and the revenues would ahve nearly doubled anyway, Reagan was like Chauncy Gardner and really lucky all this just happened during his Presidency

Reagan and bin Laden

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight, don't believe the actual, broad economic growth that occurred under Reagan, follow some cartoon instead.

Don't believe the people from Eastern Europe who admire Reagan for freeing them from Communism, listen to the little Commie Wannbes.

LOL

Why is Eastern Europe our problem?

Frankly, I could care less what happens to the EuroTrash, I'd just like to get back the middle class in this country Reagan gutted.

Ahh Joe, it sucks for you that Reagan demolished the Soviet empire and freed Eastern Europe from the dehumanizing oppression you want to bring here.

Sucks to be you. It really does.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

[


You worked for the GOP?

I worked on Republican Campaigns in 1980, 1984, 1998, 2004 and 2006.

In fact, the only time I voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate was in 2012, and that was because I don't trust the Mormon Church and would never support a Mormon.

I did vote for McCain in 2008, because I felt he was more qualified and he was probably the last chance the GOP had to keep the crazies from taking over.

That said, though. My experience at my previous job, where my boss who thought Romney was the best thing since sliced bread because he'd make life better for people like him, told me that while neither party really has my back, the Republicans are the ones trying to stick knives in it.

It wasn't always this way. Ike, Nixon and I would even argue Reagan, understood there needed to be a balance between the interests of working folks and business.

But the GOP has become rich people manipulating working folks by playing on issues like Abortion, Guns, gays and other stuff the rich don't care about, but are happy to use.

reagan of course was the first politican to get abortions going as proved earlier in this thread and the reagan nut trolls can only sling shit in defeat like the trolls they are.

HW Bush's personal disinformation troll doesn't know Roe v Wade was decided in 1973

Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dad2three]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight, don't believe the actual, broad economic growth that occurred under Reagan, follow some cartoon instead.

Don't believe the people from Eastern Europe who admire Reagan for freeing them from Communism, listen to the little Commie Wannbes.

LOL

Weird you can't grasp business cycles

 

[Dad2three]

Well, see Reagan tax cuts only gutted revenues because they would have gone up anyway and the tax cuts, (follow this logic) kept revenue away from government (see, the Reagan haters have to take the position that the money all belongs to the government anyway) so actually the tax cuts that boosted the US economy and lead to a nearly doubling of government receipts actually hurt the economy (Try standing on your head it might make sense)

Remember, Gorby was going to tear down the wall anyway and the revenues would ahve nearly doubled anyway, Reagan was like Chauncy Gardner and really lucky all this just happened during his Presidency

Reagan and bin Laden

The fact is that the only metric that really matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagan’s policies.

This is not surprising given that no one in the Reagan administration ever claimed that his 1981 tax cut would pay for itself or that it did. Reagan economists Bill Niskanen and Martin Anderson have written extensively on this oft-repeated myth. Conservative economist Lawrence Lindsey made a thorough effort to calculate the feedback effect in his 1990 book, The Growth Experiment. He concluded that the behavioral and macroeconomic effects of the 1981 tax cut, resulting from both supply-side and demand-side effects, recouped about a third of the static revenue loss.



No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves | Stan Collender's Capital Gains and Games

 

[Meathead]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight, don't believe the actual, broad economic growth that occurred under Reagan, follow some cartoon instead.

Don't believe the people from Eastern Europe who admire Reagan for freeing them from Communism, listen to the little Commie Wannbes.

LOL

Weird you can't grasp business cycles

Yeah, after 70 years the business cycle would have swung for the first time to communism.

If only they had had more time!

 

[Dad2three]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight, don't believe the actual, broad economic growth that occurred under Reagan, follow some cartoon instead.

Don't believe the people from Eastern Europe who admire Reagan for freeing them from Communism, listen to the little Commie Wannbes.

LOL

Why is Eastern Europe our problem?

Frankly, I could care less what happens to the EuroTrash, I'd just like to get back the middle class in this country Reagan gutted.

Ahh Joe, it sucks for you that Reagan demolished the Soviet empire and freed Eastern Europe from the dehumanizing oppression you want to bring here.

Sucks to be you. It really does.

PLEASE, Please make up your mind? Is communism a failed ideology or did Ronnie cause it to crash?


Did Reagan end the Cold War? Immediately after the Berlin Wall fell, a USA Today survey found that only 14% of respondents believed that. Historians mostly credit forty years of “Containment” by eight U.S. presidents. As Tony Judt’s Postwar concluded: “…Washington did not ‘bring down’ Communism – Communism imploded of its own accord.” I served in the USSR during perestroika and glasnost and later, in Russia after the breakup, and can attest to that; Gorbachev tried to reform a repressive, dysfunctional system and lost control of the process.



Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan

 

[Dad2three]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight, don't believe the actual, broad economic growth that occurred under Reagan, follow some cartoon instead.

Don't believe the people from Eastern Europe who admire Reagan for freeing them from Communism, listen to the little Commie Wannbes.

LOL

Weird you can't grasp business cycles

Yeah, after 70 years the business cycle would have swung for the first time to communism.

If only they had had more time!

So you want to conflate Reagan's economy with Europe. Ok, And?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight, don't believe the actual, broad economic growth that occurred under Reagan, follow some cartoon instead.

Don't believe the people from Eastern Europe who admire Reagan for freeing them from Communism, listen to the little Commie Wannbes.

LOL

Weird you can't grasp business cycles

Yeah, that's the problem. My complete inability to accept your bullshit

 

[Dad2three]

I worked on Republican Campaigns in 1980, 1984, 1998, 2004 and 2006.

In fact, the only time I voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate was in 2012, and that was because I don't trust the Mormon Church and would never support a Mormon.

I did vote for McCain in 2008, because I felt he was more qualified and he was probably the last chance the GOP had to keep the crazies from taking over.

That said, though. My experience at my previous job, where my boss who thought Romney was the best thing since sliced bread because he'd make life better for people like him, told me that while neither party really has my back, the Republicans are the ones trying to stick knives in it.

It wasn't always this way. Ike, Nixon and I would even argue Reagan, understood there needed to be a balance between the interests of working folks and business.

But the GOP has become rich people manipulating working folks by playing on issues like Abortion, Guns, gays and other stuff the rich don't care about, but are happy to use.

reagan of course was the first politican to get abortions going as proved earlier in this thread and the reagan nut trolls can only sling shit in defeat like the trolls they are.

HW Bush's personal disinformation troll doesn't know Roe v Wade was decided in 1973

Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As governor of California in 1967, Reagan signed a bill to liberalize the state's abortion laws that "resulted in more than a million abortions." When Reagan ran for president, he advocated a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited all abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother, but once in office, he "never seriously pursued" curbing choice.

Ten reasons why Ronald Reagan would be persona non grata at CPAC 2013

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well, see Reagan tax cuts only gutted revenues because they would have gone up anyway and the tax cuts, (follow this logic) kept revenue away from government (see, the Reagan haters have to take the position that the money all belongs to the government anyway) so actually the tax cuts that boosted the US economy and lead to a nearly doubling of government receipts actually hurt the economy (Try standing on your head it might make sense)

Remember, Gorby was going to tear down the wall anyway and the revenues would ahve nearly doubled anyway, Reagan was like Chauncy Gardner and really lucky all this just happened during his Presidency

Reagan and bin Laden

The fact is that the only metric that really matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagan’s policies.

This is not surprising given that no one in the Reagan administration ever claimed that his 1981 tax cut would pay for itself or that it did. Reagan economists Bill Niskanen and Martin Anderson have written extensively on this oft-repeated myth. Conservative economist Lawrence Lindsey made a thorough effort to calculate the feedback effect in his 1990 book, The Growth Experiment. He concluded that the behavioral and macroeconomic effects of the 1981 tax cut, resulting from both supply-side and demand-side effects, recouped about a third of the static revenue loss.



No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves | Stan Collender's Capital Gains and Games

You can tell the other side is crushed and defeated when they're making up phony, irrelevant metrics to prove their "point"

The point of the Reagan tax cuts was to STIMULATE THE US ECONOMY!!! It was not to stimulate government collections

Progs (Commie Wannabes) labor under the delusion that the Federal Government and US economy are one in the same