The Failure Of “Trickle Down”, and The Generation That Understands This

[mamooth]

Yep. Even the Republicans have admitted the supply-side experiment in Kansas was a catastrophic failure. It just gave Kansas massive deficits and slower growth than the rest of the nation.

Naturally, the supply-side cultists here won't care. It's just the real world, and they've never let the real world influence their fantasies before. In the mind of a supply side cultist, supply side economics can not fail, it can only be failed. If supply-side economics fails, it's because it wasn't _true_ supply side economics, and because the people didn't have enough faith in it.

In that respect, supply-side cultists are identical to hard core communists who say that _true_ communism can't fail.

And before you supply-side cultists cry at me (you know you want to), first explain why the Kansas economy cratered under your supply-side policies. It should be amusing to watch you try.

 

[The Derp]

Dude, Are you laboring under the delusion that facts have ANY effect on The Myth?

I'm a masochist, what can I say?

I find this whole thing useful to sharpen my arguments. And boy are they sharp.

 

[IcebergSlim]

As for Reagan, what you fail to recognize are all the time Reagan raised taxes, the Fed lowered interest rates, and Congress increased spending. You talk about how much revenue grew, but do you bother to say how much spending grew?

Reagan didn't raise taxes. What you are calling "raising taxes" was a part of the Reagan tax plan which broadened the tax base. After dropping the top marginal tax rates and generating new investment capital which created thousands of new jobs, Reagan came back with a bill that broadened the tax base to include many of the new taxpayers.

What the Fed did and how much spending we did, has not a damn thing to do with tax revenues generated by top marginal tax rate cuts. You continue to try and muddy the waters with obfuscation and diversion. This has been going on since 1983.

Reagan signed into law the LARGEST tax increase ever (measured in real terms) in 1982......a distinction, I believe, he also retains at the state level.

and then kept going


Reagan's Forgotten Tax Record, by Bruce Bartlett | Ronald Reagan | Taxes

 

[Boss]

Reagan didn't raise taxes. What you are calling "raising taxes" was a part of the Reagan tax plan which broadened the tax base

Just curious, what tax plan was that? Because it wasn't the tax plan that was passed in 1981. Those tax increases, which did happen beginning in 1982, didn't broaden the tax base at all. In fact, the tax base was narrowed as more people didn't pay income taxes because their taxes were cut! Isn't that what you all complain about today endlessly? How the wealthy pay an unfair tax burden? Why do you think that is? Not because the tax base was broadened, but because the base was narrowed. If what you said was true, then the burden the wealthy pay would be lower, not higher.

And did it unleash spending? Nope. What grew Reagan's economy were two things: housing and defense spending. One of those two things would result in an economic collapse, recession, and the largest taxpayer-funded bailout of all time (S&L Scandal)...until the one Bush had to do in 2008.

After dropping the top marginal tax rates and generating new investment capital which created thousands of new jobs, Reagan came back with a bill that broadened the tax base to include many of the new taxpayers.

Bullshit. Reagan's tax cut was signed into law August 1981. From August 1981 - December 1982, the unemployment rate would grow from 7.4% all the way up to 10.8%. That's with the Reagan Tax Cuts in effect for 12 months, and having been signed into law for 18 months. So what grew the economy beginning in 1983? Two things; the Fed's newly-reduced interest rates and Congress increasing spending. As we saw in the data, Reagan grew spending by more than he grew revenues. That would mean that spending, not tax cuts, were what was driving the growth!

So now you want to leap back and forth from "reagan tax increases" to "reagan tax cuts " and look at unemployment rates during the recession of 1981 which was the result of Carter's failed economic policies. You're a fucking joke!

When Reagan broadened the tax base, unemployment had begun to decline and new jobs were being created as a result of his tax cuts. We weren't having a debate about growth... economic growth was the result of SEVERAL things. Our debate was regarding top marginal tax rate cuts producing more tax revenue.

You're like trying to debate with a little ball of mercury... just impossible to nail you down to one topic.... you want to jump around from this to that, cherry pick here and there... dance around with your diversionary tactics and keep the waters muddy as you pontificate your socialist nonsense.


I've got better shit to do with my time dude.

 

[The Derp]

If supply-side economics fails, it's because it wasn't _true_ supply side economics, and because the people didn't have enough faith in it..

And you get to the root of it there. It's all about faith with those people. Their entire governing economic ideology relies on faith. And you're right...they constantly move the goalposts and redefine parameters when policy after policy fails. Every. Single. Time.

And before you supply-side cultists cry at me (you know you want to), first explain why the Kansas economy cratered under your supply-side policies. It should be amusing to watch you try.

They pretend it doesn't matter.

 

[JBond]

So you have "Narratives" to compensate for your lack of data....

Don't see a lot of that.....You must be one of them Recidivist Supply Side Voting Imbeciles I've been reading about....

Wow, not many quislings admit they read propaganda. Good for you!

The data is historic record, there is plenty of it. For starters, a record-setting 97 consecutive months of economic growth. That's nearly an entire decade and it follows a period of recession as miserable as anything since the Great Depression, aka: The Carter Malaise.

Do you have ANYTHING to back up the claim of "97 months"? Cause, even before seeing it, I'm calling TOTAL BULLSHIT on it....

and it follows a period of recession as miserable as anything since the Great Depression, aka: The Carter Malaise

​

What are you, 4? You're not even close....

Graphing the Recession’s Impact

It's a matter of public record. At the time, it was the longest period of peacetime prosperity in American history. It came on the heels of the Carter Malaise where we had rampant inflation, double-digit inflation... skyrocketing interest rates, peaking at around 21% prime. You literally couldn't afford to take out a home loan. People were suffering across America and that's why Carter lost in a landslide. I didn't read about it in an op-ed from Bloomberg, I lived through it.

Tha gas lines were fun, at least on the days when the government allowed you to buy gas.

Uhm... Gas rationing was way before Reagan.

Umm ... I agree. I was adding to your list of Democrat successes.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Dude, Are you laboring under the delusion that facts have ANY effect on The Myth?

I'm a masochist, what can I say?

I find this whole thing useful to sharpen my arguments. And boy are they sharp.

It's all relative, right?

I keep hoping these idiots will find their Golden Child and bring it...

 

[JBond]

Yep. Even the Republicans have admitted the supply-side experiment in Kansas was a catastrophic failure. It just gave Kansas massive deficits and slower growth than the rest of the nation.

Naturally, the supply-side cultists here won't care. It's just the real world, and they've never let the real world influence their fantasies before. In the mind of a supply side cultist, supply side economics can not fail, it can only be failed. If supply-side economics fails, it's because it wasn't _true_ supply side economics, and because the people didn't have enough faith in it.

In that respect, supply-side cultists are identical to hard core communists who say that _true_ communism can't fail.

And before you supply-side cultists cry at me (you know you want to), first explain why the Kansas economy cratered under your supply-side policies. It should be amusing to watch you try.

The Kansas shortfall has nothing to do with income tax rates, and anyone claiming it does is a liar. I have clearly explained what happened in that thread.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Wow, not many quislings admit they read propaganda. Good for you!

The data is historic record, there is plenty of it. For starters, a record-setting 97 consecutive months of economic growth. That's nearly an entire decade and it follows a period of recession as miserable as anything since the Great Depression, aka: The Carter Malaise.

Do you have ANYTHING to back up the claim of "97 months"? Cause, even before seeing it, I'm calling TOTAL BULLSHIT on it....

and it follows a period of recession as miserable as anything since the Great Depression, aka: The Carter Malaise

​

What are you, 4? You're not even close....

Graphing the Recession’s Impact

It's a matter of public record. At the time, it was the longest period of peacetime prosperity in American history. It came on the heels of the Carter Malaise where we had rampant inflation, double-digit inflation... skyrocketing interest rates, peaking at around 21% prime. You literally couldn't afford to take out a home loan. People were suffering across America and that's why Carter lost in a landslide. I didn't read about it in an op-ed from Bloomberg, I lived through it.

Tha gas lines were fun, at least on the days when the government allowed you to buy gas.

Uhm... Gas rationing was way before Reagan.

Umm ... I agree. I was adding to your list of Democrat successes.

Check your calendar....

Many politicians proposed gas rationing; one such proponent was Harry Hughes, Governor of Maryland, who proposed odd-even rationing (only people with an odd-numbered license plate could purchase gas on an odd-numbered day), as was used during the 1973 Oil Crisis. Several states actually implemented odd-even gas rationing, including California, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Oregon, and Texas. Coupons for gasoline rationing were printed but were never actually used during the 1979 crisis.[14]

 

[IcebergSlim]

Yep. Even the Republicans have admitted the supply-side experiment in Kansas was a catastrophic failure. It just gave Kansas massive deficits and slower growth than the rest of the nation.

Naturally, the supply-side cultists here won't care. It's just the real world, and they've never let the real world influence their fantasies before. In the mind of a supply side cultist, supply side economics can not fail, it can only be failed. If supply-side economics fails, it's because it wasn't _true_ supply side economics, and because the people didn't have enough faith in it.

In that respect, supply-side cultists are identical to hard core communists who say that _true_ communism can't fail.

And before you supply-side cultists cry at me (you know you want to), first explain why the Kansas economy cratered under your supply-side policies. It should be amusing to watch you try.

The Kansas shortfall has nothing to do with income tax rates, and anyone claiming it does is a liar. I have clearly explained what happened in that thread.

So Brownback, on the advice of Artie Laffer CUTS taxes in Kansas, and revenues plummet.........but the fiscal mess is NOT the consequence of cutting taxes?

Let me guess....another home ec grad with a checking account.

 

[The Derp]

So now you want to leap back and forth from "reagan tax increases" to "reagan tax cuts " and look at unemployment rates during the recession of 1981 which was the result of Carter's failed economic policies. You're a fucking joke!

The 1981 recession didn't start until July 1981, 6 months after Carter left office. Carter actually created more jobs in his 4 years than Reagan created in his first four. While true we were experiencing stagflation at the end of Carter's term, stagflation is different from a recession. Mostly what caused stagflation were sky-high interest rates, a holdover from Nixonian Fed Policy.

When Reagan broadened the tax base, unemployment had begun to decline and new jobs were being created as a result of his tax cuts. We weren't having a debate about growth... economic growth was the result of SEVERAL things. Our debate was regarding top marginal tax rate cuts producing more tax revenue.

So you say Reagan broadened the tax base, yet the tax burden grew on the wealthy as more folks didn't make enough to pay income taxes, and the EITC was expanded. There is no argument that lowering top marginal rates leads to revenue growth. The wealthy save their tax cuts, they don't spend them. So it's impossible to see revenue growth from tax cuts if those tax cuts are not being spent, right? These are what the facts show. Moody's Analytics specifically looked at the rate of spending increases for the wealthy following tax cuts. Their conclusion? There isn't one.

You're like trying to debate with a little ball of mercury... just impossible to nail you down to one topic.... you want to jump around from this to that, cherry pick here and there... dance around with your diversionary tactics and keep the waters muddy as you pontificate your socialist nonsense.

I haven't cherry-picked anything. You're the one doing the cherry picking by ignoring increased government spending, analysis by Moody's on how tax cuts are spent, and general revenue numbers over the last 37 years.

I've got better shit to do with my time dude.

Looks to me like you're searching for an out in this debate. I'm, of course happy to debate this subject till the cows come home. I have facts to back me up, all you have is faith and theory.

 

[The Derp]

The Kansas shortfall has nothing to do with income tax rates, and anyone claiming it does is a liar. I have clearly explained what happened in that thread.

No you haven't. There's this that clearly shows the shortfall is directly caused by the tax cuts:

SB 30 is a repeal of the Brownback Tax Cuts. See how you go from deficit to surplus?

 

[JoeMoma]

I started my career within 2 weeks of Reagan taking office. I came from a lower middle class family with no money and lots of debt. Mortgage interest rates were 18% car loans were over 20% thanks to Carternomics. 8 years later I was kicking ass and taking names thanks to the turnaround Reagan brought about. Call it whatever you want, Reaganomics worked for anyone willing to work.

Bump.

Liberals like to repeat over and over that "Trickle down" doesn't work. Well it set us up for economic prosperity for many years.

 

[Iceweasel]

So you say Reagan broadened the tax base, yet the tax burden grew on the wealthy as more folks didn't make enough to pay income taxes, and the EITC was expanded. There is no argument that lowering top marginal rates leads to revenue growth. The wealthy save their tax cuts, they don't spend them. So it's impossible to see revenue growth from tax cuts if those tax cuts are not being spent, right? These are what the facts show. Moody's Analytics specifically looked at the rate of spending increases for the wealthy following tax cuts. Their conclusion? There isn't one.

Doesn't make sense. The rich not increasing spending with tax cuts means the tax base was not broadened? Odd that someone would argue against the economy in the Reagan years. Started my business then and saw things first hand. And with Obama. I don't need someone on the internet to redefine reality.

 

[Iceweasel]

I started my career within 2 weeks of Reagan taking office. I came from a lower middle class family with no money and lots of debt. Mortgage interest rates were 18% car loans were over 20% thanks to Carternomics. 8 years later I was kicking ass and taking names thanks to the turnaround Reagan brought about. Call it whatever you want, Reaganomics worked for anyone willing to work.

Bump.

Liberals like to repeat over and over that "Trickle down" doesn't work. Well it set us up for economic prosperity for many years.

Libs do it to smear capitalism. And they do it because socialist have taken over the movement. All this noise boils down to capitalism vs. socialism and Trump is the personification of how evil capitalism is.

 

[IcebergSlim]

I started my career within 2 weeks of Reagan taking office. I came from a lower middle class family with no money and lots of debt. Mortgage interest rates were 18% car loans were over 20% thanks to Carternomics. 8 years later I was kicking ass and taking names thanks to the turnaround Reagan brought about. Call it whatever you want, Reaganomics worked for anyone willing to work.

Bump.

Liberals like to repeat over and over that "Trickle down" doesn't work. Well it set us up for economic prosperity for many years.

Actually, I DEMONSTRATE - using the data - that Supply Side is a hoax.

You ankle up with your Bold Assertions....

You are WAAAAYYYYYYY out of your league here, boy........

Run along.

 

[IcebergSlim]

So you say Reagan broadened the tax base, yet the tax burden grew on the wealthy as more folks didn't make enough to pay income taxes, and the EITC was expanded. There is no argument that lowering top marginal rates leads to revenue growth. The wealthy save their tax cuts, they don't spend them. So it's impossible to see revenue growth from tax cuts if those tax cuts are not being spent, right? These are what the facts show. Moody's Analytics specifically looked at the rate of spending increases for the wealthy following tax cuts. Their conclusion? There isn't one.

Doesn't make sense. The rich not increasing spending with tax cuts means the tax base was not broadened? Odd that someone would argue against the economy in the Reagan years. Started my business then and saw things first hand. And with Obama. I don't need someone on the internet to redefine reality.

Ice...remember how I have consistently pointed out that you are a dumb fuck?

You represent a sample of one.......This fails to rise to Statistical Insignificance.

The simple fact is that, for all the hoopla, the Reagan profligacy resulted in lower GDP and employment growth than we saw under Carter and Clinton.

Them's the facts, the rest is wishful thinking.

 

[sartre play]

I have to go to work, some one please look up and post about Kansas, the gov said he would make his state the poster child for "real live experiment in conservative policy" check out the results. trickle down at its finest.

 

[JoeMoma]

I started my career within 2 weeks of Reagan taking office. I came from a lower middle class family with no money and lots of debt. Mortgage interest rates were 18% car loans were over 20% thanks to Carternomics. 8 years later I was kicking ass and taking names thanks to the turnaround Reagan brought about. Call it whatever you want, Reaganomics worked for anyone willing to work.

Bump.

Liberals like to repeat over and over that "Trickle down" doesn't work. Well it set us up for economic prosperity for many years.

Actually, I DEMONSTRATE - using the data - that Supply Side is a hoax.

You ankle up with your Bold Assertions....

You are WAAAAYYYYYYY out of your league here, boy........

Run along.

I confess to jumping into this thread kind of late. I skimmed the first 50 or so posts and failed to find your demonstration using data.

 

[IcebergSlim]

I started my career within 2 weeks of Reagan taking office. I came from a lower middle class family with no money and lots of debt. Mortgage interest rates were 18% car loans were over 20% thanks to Carternomics. 8 years later I was kicking ass and taking names thanks to the turnaround Reagan brought about. Call it whatever you want, Reaganomics worked for anyone willing to work.

Bump.

Liberals like to repeat over and over that "Trickle down" doesn't work. Well it set us up for economic prosperity for many years.

Actually, I DEMONSTRATE - using the data - that Supply Side is a hoax.

You ankle up with your Bold Assertions....

You are WAAAAYYYYYYY out of your league here, boy........

Run along.

I confess to jumping into this thread kind of late. I skimmed the first 50 or so posts and failed to find your demonstration using data.

That might apply had I used the past tense......I didn't....

But I'm more than happy to help you out...

where would you like to start, with the effect on Revenues?

Would you like me to show you how the two Supply Side regimes were also the most fiscally profligate EVER?