Republicans Have No Plan to Fix Inflation

[HenryBHough]

Any future investigations on the Bidens has nothing to do with inflation, and we never claimed they would.

Stop rampant spending, stop printing money, and end the Fed. That might help inflation to come down.

But please, inflation must not abate between now and November!

Then, come January, it'll all start mending though undoing a couple years of unfettered rush to the left and poverty will take more than a few days.

 

[Nostra]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjT56TegL_4AhVil2oFHWquADYQFnoECA4QAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanprogress.org%2Farticle%2Fthese-top-5-oil-companies-just-raked-in-35-billion-while-americans-pay-more-at-the-pump%2F&usg=AOvVaw2MwNLMnir87I-uEyPg5m9_

Exxon Mobil Profit Margin (Quarterly) Trends | YCharts

In depth view into Exxon Mobil Profit Margin (Quarterly) including historical data from 1972, charts and stats.

ycharts.com

 

[Nostra]

What Reagan did basically was to cut taxes on the wealthy from 70-50% Went on a spending spree that tripled the budget deficit and as is always the case with the GOP, He attacked the poor and the elderly and the disabled by cutting deeply into social programs. Look it up! He also increased defense spending and that practice has become a staple for every GOP President. Econ 101. You can't cut taxes and increase spending without either increasing deficit spending or cutting programs that serve the working class. Because the GOP would never consider increasing taxes and raising revenue by making the wealthiest pay a fair share.

HOW DID THE REAGAN TAX CUTS AFFECT THE U.S. TREASURY?​

Many critics of reducing taxes claim that the Reagan tax cuts drained the U.S. Treasury. The reality is that federal revenues increased significantly between 1980 and 1990:

• Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.3
• As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), federal revenues declined only slightly from 18.9 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 1990.4
• Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990.5 In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase.

HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT FEDERAL SPENDING?​

Although critics continue to focus on President Reagan's budget "cuts," federal spending rose significantly during the 1980s:

• Federal spending more than doubled, growing from almost $591 billion in 1980 to $1.25 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was an increase of 35.8 percent.6
• As a percentage of GDP, federal expenditures grew slightly from 21.6 percent in 1980 to 21.8 percent in 1990.7
• Contrary to popular myth, while inflation-adjusted defense spending increased by 50 percent between 1980 and 1989, it was curtailed when the Cold War ended and fell by 15 percent between 1989 and 1993. However, means-tested entitlements, which do not include Social Security or Medicare, rose by over 102 percent between 1980 and 1993, and they have continued climbing ever since.8
• Total spending on all national security programs never equaled domestic spending, even when Social Security, Medicare, and net interest are excluded from domestic totals. In addition, national security spending fell during the Administration of the senior President Bush, while domestic spending increased in both mandatory and discretionary accounts.9 (See Chart 1.)

HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT ECONOMIC GROWTH?​

Despite the steep recession in 1982--brought on by tight money policies that were instituted to squeeze out the historic inflation level of the late 1970s--by 1983, the Reagan policies of reducing taxes, spending, regulation, and inflation were in place. The result was unprecedented economic growth:

• This economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II.10
• The American economy grew by about one-third in real inflation-adjusted terms. This was the equivalent of adding the entire economy of East and West Germany or two-thirds of Japan's economy to the U.S. economy.11
• From 1950 to 1973, real economic growth in the U.S. economy averaged 3.6 percent per year. From 1973 to 1982, it averaged only 1.6 percent. The Reagan economic boom restored the more usual growth rate as the economy averaged 3.5 percent in real growth from the beginning of 1983 to the end of 1990.12

HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT THE FEDERAL TAX BURDEN?​

Perhaps the greatest myth concerning the 1980s is that Ronald Reagan slashed taxes so dramatically for the rich that they no longer have paid their fair share. The flaw in this myth is that it mixes tax rates with taxes actually paid and ignores the real trend of taxation:

• In 1991, after the Reagan rate cuts were well in place, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in income paid 25 percent of all income taxes; the top 5 percent paid 43 percent; and the bottom 50 percent paid only 5 percent.13 To suggest that this distribution is unfair because it is too easy on upper-income groups is nothing less than absurd.
• The proportion of total income taxes paid by the top 1 percent rose sharply under President Reagan, from 18 percent in 1981 to 28 percent in 1988.14
• Average effective income tax rates were cut even more for lower-income groups than for higher-income groups. While the average effective tax rate for the top 1 percent fell by 30 percent between 1980 and 1992, and by 35 percent for the top 20 percent of income earners, it fell by 44 percent for the second-highest quintile, 46 percent for the middle quintile, 64 percent for the second-lowest quintile, and 263 percent for the bottom quintile.15
• These reductions for the lowest-income groups were so large because President Reagan doubled the personal exemption, increased the standard deduction, and tripled the earned income tax credit (EITC), which provides net cash for single-parent families with children at the lowest income levels. These changes eliminated income tax liability altogether for over 4 million lower-income families.16

Critics often add in the Social Security payroll tax and argue that the total federal tax burden shifted more to lower-income groups and away from upper-income groups; but President Reagan's changes were in the income tax, not in the Social Security payroll tax. The payroll tax was imposed by proponents of big government over the past 50 years, and it is they, not Ronald Reagan, who should be held accountable for its distributional effects.

Nevertheless, even if one counts the Social Security payroll tax, the share of total federal taxes increased between 1980 and 1989 for the following groups:

• For the top 1 percent of taxpayers, from 12.9 percent in 1980 to 15.4 percent in 1989;
• For the top 5 percent of taxpayers, from 27.3 percent in 1980 to 30.4 percent in 1989; and
• For the top 20 percent of taxpayers, from 56.1 percent in 1980 to 58.6 percent in 1989.

On the other hand, the share of total federal taxes, if one includes the Social Security payroll tax, declined for four groups:

• For the second-highest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 22.2 percent in 1980 to 20.8 percent in 1989;
• For the middle 20 percent of taxpayers, from 13.2 percent in 1980 to 12.5 percent in 1989;
• For the second-lowest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 6.9 percent in 1980 to 6.4 percent in 1989; and
• For the lowest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 1.6 percent in 1980 to 1.5 percent in 1989.17

CONCLUSION​

No matter how advocates of big government try to rewrite history, Ronald Reagan's record of fiscal responsibility continues to stand as the most successful economic policy of the 20th century. His tax reforms triggered an economic expansion that continues to this day. His investments in national security ended the Cold War and made possible the subsequent defense spending reductions that are largely responsible for the current federal surpluses. His efforts to restrain the expansion of federal government helped to limit the growth of domestic spending.

If Reagan's critics had been willing to work with him to limit domestic spending even further and to control the growth of entitlements, the budget would have been balanced five to ten years sooner and without the massive tax increase imposed in 1993. Today, Members of Congress from across the political spectrum should stand on the evidence and defend the Reagan record.

To the extent that President Bush's proposals mirror those of Ronald Reagan, his plan should be a welcome strategy to lower the tax burden on Americans and to make the system more responsible. If the advocates of big government in Congress cooperate with President Bush rather than merely continuing to fund obsolete, wasteful, and redundant programs, there is no limit to the prosperity that Americans can generate.

Peter Sperry is the Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

 

[Wickerthing]

Wow, government school graduates. Google Tip O'Neal and stop making yourself look so stupid

Okay Junior. When you wake up there will be pablum for ya!

 

[Wickerthing]

But please, inflation must not abate between now and November!

Then, come January, it'll all start mending though undoing a couple years of unfettered rush to the left and poverty will take more than a few days.

WTF??

 

[kaz]

Okay Junior. When you wake up there will be pablum for ya!

Do you write anything else? Ever? I'm guessing no given all your racist drivel

 

[jc456]

I'm republican and I know how to end it quickly.

 

[Flash]

What Reagan did basically was to cut taxes on the wealthy from 70-50% Went on a spending spree that tripled the budget deficit and as is always the case with the GOP, He attacked the poor and the elderly and the disabled by cutting deeply into social programs. Look it up! He also increased defense spending and that practice has become a staple for every GOP President. Econ 101. You can't cut taxes and increase spending without either increasing deficit spending or cutting programs that serve the working class. Because the GOP would never consider increasing taxes and raising revenue by making the wealthiest pay a fair share.

Reagan fixed Carter's inflation and that resulted in a 17 year economic boom that even kept Slick Willy afloat with his filthy ass tax increase.

 

[Wickerthing]

More bullshit from you with nothing to refute a single data point in my link.

You are a joke, Clown.

As much as I hate to respond to a fool like you I think it needs to be done. This is what the Heritage Foundation and Reaganomics were all about. Spend like drunken sailors and then blame the working man for inflation and deficit spending. The pipe bomb that was hiding in plain sight was this paragraph that signaled the start of the income gap and became the religion of the right.

If Reagan's critics had been willing to work with him to limit domestic spending even further and to control the growth of entitlements, the budget would have been balanced five to ten years sooner and without the massive tax increase imposed in 1993. Today, Members of Congress from across the political spectrum should stand on the evidence and defend the Reagan record.

To the extent that President Bush's proposals mirror those of Ronald Reagan, his plan should be a welcome strategy to lower the tax burden on Americans and to make the system more responsible. If the advocates of big government in Congress cooperate with President Bush rather than merely continuing to fund obsolete, wasteful, and redundant programs, there is no limit to the prosperity that Americans can generate.

Peter Sperry is the Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. This was the basis of supply side and future spending sprees. Pay for it all through robbing social programs and any spending that benefited the working class.

 

[Wickerthing]

Reagan fixed Carter's inflation and that resulted in a 17 year economic boom that even kept Slick Willy afloat with his filthy ass tax increase.

Another victim of elite-speak. And another example of the roots of the income gap.

 

[Wickerthing]

Do you write anything else? Ever? I'm guessing no given all your racist drivel

Silly Goose.

 

[Flash]

Another victim of elite-speak. And another example of the roots of the income gap.

Democrats are the most destructive force in the US.

They fuck up everything they touch. Just look at the damage Potatohead did to this country in less than two years.

They would turn this country into a Socialist shithole if they could get away with it.

Reagan's economic boom got us out of the Carter disaster and lasted long enough to give Slick Willy the growth that kept his filthy ass tax increase from furthering fucking up the country, like he wanted it to do.

It is sickening to see you dumbass Libtards always bitch about tax decreases. You little shitheads are as ignorant of basic Economics as you are of Biology, History, Climate Science, Ethics and the Constitution.

 

[jc456]

Another victim of elite-speak. And another example of the roots of the income gap.

what income gap?

 

[Nostra]

As much as I hate to respond to a fool like you I think it needs to be done. This is what the Heritage Foundation and Reaganomics were all about. Spend like drunken sailors and then blame the working man for inflation and deficit spending. The pipe bomb that was hiding in plain sight was this paragraph that signaled the start of the income gap and became the religion of the right.

If Reagan's critics had been willing to work with him to limit domestic spending even further and to control the growth of entitlements, the budget would have been balanced five to ten years sooner and without the massive tax increase imposed in 1993. Today, Members of Congress from across the political spectrum should stand on the evidence and defend the Reagan record.

To the extent that President Bush's proposals mirror those of Ronald Reagan, his plan should be a welcome strategy to lower the tax burden on Americans and to make the system more responsible. If the advocates of big government in Congress cooperate with President Bush rather than merely continuing to fund obsolete, wasteful, and redundant programs, there is no limit to the prosperity that Americans can generate.

Peter Sperry is the Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. This was the basis of supply side and future spending sprees. Pay for it all through robbing social programs and any spending that benefited the working class.

Number of links you have provided: ZERO.

HOW DID THE REAGAN TAX CUTS AFFECT THE U.S. TREASURY?​

Many critics of reducing taxes claim that the Reagan tax cuts drained the U.S. Treasury. The reality is that federal revenues increased significantly between 1980 and 1990:

• Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.3
• As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), federal revenues declined only slightly from 18.9 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 1990.4
• Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990.5 In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase.

HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT FEDERAL SPENDING?​

Although critics continue to focus on President Reagan's budget "cuts," federal spending rose significantly during the 1980s:

• Federal spending more than doubled, growing from almost $591 billion in 1980 to $1.25 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was an increase of 35.8 percent.6
• As a percentage of GDP, federal expenditures grew slightly from 21.6 percent in 1980 to 21.8 percent in 1990.7
• Contrary to popular myth, while inflation-adjusted defense spending increased by 50 percent between 1980 and 1989, it was curtailed when the Cold War ended and fell by 15 percent between 1989 and 1993. However, means-tested entitlements, which do not include Social Security or Medicare, rose by over 102 percent between 1980 and 1993, and they have continued climbing ever since.8
• Total spending on all national security programs never equaled domestic spending, even when Social Security, Medicare, and net interest are excluded from domestic totals. In addition, national security spending fell during the Administration of the senior President Bush, while domestic spending increased in both mandatory and discretionary accounts.9 (See Chart 1.)

HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT ECONOMIC GROWTH?​

Despite the steep recession in 1982--brought on by tight money policies that were instituted to squeeze out the historic inflation level of the late 1970s--by 1983, the Reagan policies of reducing taxes, spending, regulation, and inflation were in place. The result was unprecedented economic growth:

• This economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II.10
• The American economy grew by about one-third in real inflation-adjusted terms. This was the equivalent of adding the entire economy of East and West Germany or two-thirds of Japan's economy to the U.S. economy.11
• From 1950 to 1973, real economic growth in the U.S. economy averaged 3.6 percent per year. From 1973 to 1982, it averaged only 1.6 percent. The Reagan economic boom restored the more usual growth rate as the economy averaged 3.5 percent in real growth from the beginning of 1983 to the end of 1990.12

HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT THE FEDERAL TAX BURDEN?​

Perhaps the greatest myth concerning the 1980s is that Ronald Reagan slashed taxes so dramatically for the rich that they no longer have paid their fair share. The flaw in this myth is that it mixes tax rates with taxes actually paid and ignores the real trend of taxation:

• In 1991, after the Reagan rate cuts were well in place, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in income paid 25 percent of all income taxes; the top 5 percent paid 43 percent; and the bottom 50 percent paid only 5 percent.13 To suggest that this distribution is unfair because it is too easy on upper-income groups is nothing less than absurd.
• The proportion of total income taxes paid by the top 1 percent rose sharply under President Reagan, from 18 percent in 1981 to 28 percent in 1988.14
• Average effective income tax rates were cut even more for lower-income groups than for higher-income groups. While the average effective tax rate for the top 1 percent fell by 30 percent between 1980 and 1992, and by 35 percent for the top 20 percent of income earners, it fell by 44 percent for the second-highest quintile, 46 percent for the middle quintile, 64 percent for the second-lowest quintile, and 263 percent for the bottom quintile.15
• These reductions for the lowest-income groups were so large because President Reagan doubled the personal exemption, increased the standard deduction, and tripled the earned income tax credit (EITC), which provides net cash for single-parent families with children at the lowest income levels. These changes eliminated income tax liability altogether for over 4 million lower-income families.16

Critics often add in the Social Security payroll tax and argue that the total federal tax burden shifted more to lower-income groups and away from upper-income groups; but President Reagan's changes were in the income tax, not in the Social Security payroll tax. The payroll tax was imposed by proponents of big government over the past 50 years, and it is they, not Ronald Reagan, who should be held accountable for its distributional effects.

Nevertheless, even if one counts the Social Security payroll tax, the share of total federal taxes increased between 1980 and 1989 for the following groups:

• For the top 1 percent of taxpayers, from 12.9 percent in 1980 to 15.4 percent in 1989;
• For the top 5 percent of taxpayers, from 27.3 percent in 1980 to 30.4 percent in 1989; and
• For the top 20 percent of taxpayers, from 56.1 percent in 1980 to 58.6 percent in 1989.

On the other hand, the share of total federal taxes, if one includes the Social Security payroll tax, declined for four groups:

• For the second-highest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 22.2 percent in 1980 to 20.8 percent in 1989;
• For the middle 20 percent of taxpayers, from 13.2 percent in 1980 to 12.5 percent in 1989;
• For the second-lowest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 6.9 percent in 1980 to 6.4 percent in 1989; and
• For the lowest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 1.6 percent in 1980 to 1.5 percent in 1989.17

CONCLUSION​

No matter how advocates of big government try to rewrite history, Ronald Reagan's record of fiscal responsibility continues to stand as the most successful economic policy of the 20th century. His tax reforms triggered an economic expansion that continues to this day. His investments in national security ended the Cold War and made possible the subsequent defense spending reductions that are largely responsible for the current federal surpluses. His efforts to restrain the expansion of federal government helped to limit the growth of domestic spending.

If Reagan's critics had been willing to work with him to limit domestic spending even further and to control the growth of entitlements, the budget would have been balanced five to ten years sooner and without the massive tax increase imposed in 1993. Today, Members of Congress from across the political spectrum should stand on the evidence and defend the Reagan record.

To the extent that President Bush's proposals mirror those of Ronald Reagan, his plan should be a welcome strategy to lower the tax burden on Americans and to make the system more responsible. If the advocates of big government in Congress cooperate with President Bush rather than merely continuing to fund obsolete, wasteful, and redundant programs, there is no limit to the prosperity that Americans can generate.

Peter Sperry is the Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

 

[jc456]

Democrats are the most destructive force in the US.

They fuck up everything they touch. Just look at the damage Potatohead did to this country in less than two years.

They would turn this country into a Socialist shithole if they could get away with it.

Reagan's economic boom got us out of the Carter disaster and lasted long enough to give Slick Willy the growth that kept his filthy ass tax increase from furthering fucking up the country, like he wanted it to do.

It is sickening to see you dumbass Libtards always bitch about tax decreases. You little shitheads are as ignorant of basic Economics as you are of Biology, History, Climate Science, Ethics and the Constitution.

yep, want death and destruction, call a demofk.

Antifa and BLM are registered gangsters and can create havoc without even trying. Knowing they will never get into any trouble. when one owns the court system huh?

Bad gas prices, lines at the pumps and no one taking credit for it. Like they all of a sudden forgot what they are doing.

Look over there, where?

 

[Paleman]

We read and hear all the disinformed talking crazy about Biden, but they have no plan to stop inflation. If they had one, they would have presented it to congress. Because if they had one and it worked, they would most certainly assure themselves the majority. Instead it's been about obstruction and the idiocy of Big Money Manchin and Corporate Slave Sinema.

I say they have no plan because spending by trump contributed to the inflation.

Facts First: While some economists say the stimulus packages passed in response to the Covid-19 pandemic are having an impact on inflation, it's misleading to suggest that's the only explanation for the recent rise in inflation. Blaming it exclusively on Democratic spending proposals misrepresents what's actually been passed, and ignores the trillions of dollars in spending passed last year supported by Republicans and signed by then-President Donald Trump which economists say have also contributed to inflation.

Last year, Congress passed two bills totaling around $3 trillion in Covid relief spending -- the $2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act passed in March 2020, and the $900 billion pandemic relief bill passed in December 2020. Both were signed by Trump and supported by Republicans.

Fact-checking Republican attempts to blame inflation on Democrats

As the US economy gradually recovers from the coronavirus pandemic, prices are rising across the board with inflation exceeding the Federal Reserve's 2% target and reaching a 13-year high in June. Republicans have turned that jump in inflation into a political talking point, trying to place the...

www.cnn.com

And Rick Scotts tax increase for all is not the answer. So the Republican plan is to get the majority and start bogus investigations on Hunter Biden and attempt to impeach Biden, then Harris. If they appoint trump to speaker, understand that is the first move to the attempt to reinstall him as president. Sane Americans cannot continue falling for disinformation. Biden is not the reason that supply chains have been hampered, COVID is. And we were negatively affected by COVID due to the incompetence of a republican president. We cannot afford to have crazies running our government.

I can live with the Repubs not having the solution to a crisis created by your dumb ass Biden. I have absolutely no patience or respect for the fool (Biden) that created the problem.

 

[jc456]

I can live with the Repubs not having the solution to a crisis created by your dumb ass Biden. I have absolutely no patience or respect for the fool (Biden) that created the problem.

Again, create a crisis and blame others

 

[jc456]

Again, create a crisis and blame others

Far too many stupid demofks

 

[Wickerthing]

Democrats are the most destructive force in the US.

They fuck up everything they touch. Just look at the damage Potatohead did to this country in less than two years.

They would turn this country into a Socialist shithole if they could get away with it.

Reagan's economic boom got us out of the Carter disaster and lasted long enough to give Slick Willy the growth that kept his filthy ass tax increase from furthering fucking up the country, like he wanted it to do.

It is sickening to see you dumbass Libtards always bitch about tax decreases. You little shitheads are as ignorant of basic Economics as you are of Biology, History, Climate Science, Ethics and the Constitution.

Shithole? Do you ever have any thoughts of your own that aren't just regurgitated Trump-speak? BTW I'll match my knowledge of any subject against your Trump U. education. Anyone who could fall for an obvious and in your face conman can't be very bright. Someday you'll come to understand that and if you have the balls you'll admit it to yourself. Then think about what was said here and try to explain away your naivete.

 

[Wickerthing]

what income gap?

LOL!