The ultimate vindication of Republican supply-side economics

[IndependntLogic]

independent ?

this means independent of brains so you cant decide between two opposite philosophies and so flip flop like a jelly fish. You were for it before you were against it, but even lack the brains to know that much. At least Kerry knew it. Sorry

Ah. Petty insults. Not unusual from well, people like you. Whereas you blindly follow a party / ideology, I make my decisions for myself. So show me where I have "flip-flopped" on any issue. You can't? You mean you're just lying? Well yeah, we knew that.
Here, I'll help you! Unlike you, I have an open mind and am able to at least consider any well-reasoned and logical position forwarded. I used to be pretty sure Global Warming was a man-made thing. Then a guy (who is NOT a whackjob) made some excellent points. Now my position is that it is possible that we have had something to do with it but definitely not a certainty.
Whereas you?
Pick a current event that you haven't posted on yet and I'll be happy to tell you your opinion on it. That's easy to do with mindless drones.

Oh and btw, YOU flip-flopped on this thread At first you stated unequivocally (if that word is too big, find a Liberal Elitist to explain it to you) that by simply lowering corporate tax rates alone, an economic boom would be created.
Now that you realize how stupid that is and have been spanked on it, you've flip-flopped and re-stated it as "Well it's a factor!". Which of course no one ever disputed.

My work is done here. Glad I could help. I'm a helper. It's what I do. I help.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Now that I've got some time, let's go down the list of ideas and information that you've added which help illuminate the functioning of the economy as it relates to the OP "vindication of supply side economics".

---

1: We have the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world. You don't blame Ireland's unemployment on the low corporate tax, do you?
2: It does? I think you're mixing supply side with the Laffer Curve.....
3: Yeah, you make life easier for suppliers, they increase supply. That says nothing about lower rates increasing tax revenues
4: Link?
5: You provided a link to the Heritage Foundation claiming the Bush tax cuts would eliminate the national debt by 2010? I must have missed it. Could you provide the link again?
6: You really think tax hikes increase economic activity?
7: What was their unemployment and growth rate before they lowered their taxes? GDP per capita before they lowered taxes? GDP per capita now?
8: What happens to the taxes? Usually they're wasted. At what point in the cycle do you feel a tax hike increases economic activity? Do you really feel government spending is a more effective way to improve things?
9: What happens to the taxes? Usually they're wasted. At what point in the cycle do you feel a tax hike increases economic activity? Do you really feel government spending is a more effective way to improve things?
10: Huh? And careful with the quote function.
11: You and Ifitzme think that the Theory of Relativity means "all space-time observations previously since the beginning of time are imprecise and completely disagree with reality"? You didn't take very many science classes, did you?
12: Yes!
13: At what point in the cycle do you feel a tax hike increases economic activity? Do you really feel government spending is a more effective way to improve things?
14: Toro said that, I agreed. Just to be clear.
15: post #73. The ultimate vindication of Republican supply-side economics
16: The Newtonian measurement of my yardstick does not disagree with reality because of the Theory of Relativity.
17: That's good. Because those claims are just stupid. You think you showed that? LOL! That's funny.
18: No problem
19: Not on Earth it isn't. Glad we agree

-----------

That is nineteen posts. In that, two sentences that might be considered contain information, "We have the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world", "I think you're mixing supply side with the Laffer Curve". Beyond that, twenty one questions, half of them having nothing to do with the post your replying to. Oh, the one that says it the best, "Huh? It fits your picture. Maybe you might try "Doh!"

At least others actually put in the effort to find actual data and the balls to commit to a conclusion. At the least someone else bothers to go look up the current tax rates for Ireland.

Let us see how other posts compare.

-------------------------

Flopper: "In recent decades, corporate tax revenue has plunged, falling from about 6 percent of gross domestic product in the 1950′s to less than 2 percent today, due to a proliferation of corporate tax breaks and the use of offshore tax havens. According to the Congressional Budget Office, in fact, corporate tax receipts as a share of corporate profits have hit their lowest point in 40 years:
U.S. Corporate Tax Rate Plunges To 40 Year Low Of 12.1 Percent | ThinkProgress The real problem is not the rates. It's a combination of high rates with a slew of credits and deductions that lower the actual tax. Large multinationals often pay no tax while small businesses get screwed. Cut the rates and eliminate some of the credits and deductions."

Rabbi: "Corp tax receipts have varied from 6.8% in 1940 to 20.9 in 1944 (and were 20.6 in 2000), to 14% in 2008. So your thesis is undermined by your faulty information. That's what you get for citing Think Progress and other brain-dead leftist institutions. Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary"

-------------------------

In one post each, there are two sets of date and values. It includes a link to that info and the authors interpretation. The second contains four sets of date and values along with a link. That is two comments and they managed to pack in more than eight pieces of information. You did two in 19 posts. And that is being generous in comparing "mixing supply side..." with "6.8% in 1940"

For better or worse, at least they give others some information to work with.

There is this engineering measure of information entropy. We can take that concept and use it here as a ratio of the amount of information per post. Your number 2/19 = 0.11. That is an expectation of 0.11 pieces of information per post. Their number 8/2 = 4. That is an expectation of four pieces of information per post. They present 36 times the amount of information.

Are you just high?

Wow, you're creepy. And an idiot.

 

[regent]

Simple, Reagan was the beginning of much of today's debt problems.

actually Republicans have introduced 30 Balanced Budget Amendments since Jefferson. Liberals killed everyone one of them.

A child should know this.

So why didn't Republicans introduce those balanced budget amendments when they had some power? liberals introduced a number of amendments and got them passed and added to the Constitution. Well conservatives did get the 22nd passed.
No balanced budget Amendment is going to pass in our lifetime.
The only time the debt has been paid off was under a Democratic president.

 

[The Rabbi]

Give it up DSGE. This blithering idiot is too stupid to realize taxes alone don't it. He's been Cut & Running from this little fact (from the same source), during the whole thread:

"The 1990s boom in the United States of America was an extended period of economic prosperity, during which GDP increased continuously for almost ten years (the longest recorded expansion in the history of the United States). It commenced with the end of the early 1990s recession in March 1991, and ended with the early 2000s recession, which started in March 2001. The boom largely coincided with the presidency of President Bill Clinton."

And we had higher taxes then! Therefore higher taxes must lead to a boom!

Rabbi will now dodge this like the pudgy kid in gym class during a game of .... dodgeball.

There is no dodge, idiot. Did you miss the dot-com boom? Were you alive then? And with Ireland we are discussing corporate taxes. Willy raised them on individuals.
And we ended up with a recession in 2001 so I guess higher taxes did lead to a bust.
And you've never answered why Ireland boomed if it were not for their tax cuts.

Ah so we still had those high corporate tax rates during our booms? Yup. Why? Like I said, nice dodge.
Only a fool thinks the sole reason for a major economy is based on tax rates alone.

No, idiot. We had the boom. And then Clinton raised taxes. The recession of 2001 was the result.
Get it right.
You can't answer a question. Hell, you can't ask a question. You can't read and you can't respond. What fucking good are you?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Ah. Petty insults.

why is it petty to say you have to be an independent fool to flip flop between two opposites: liberals and conservatives???

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So why didn't Republicans introduce those balanced budget amendments when they had some power?

they did silly goose, 30 times starting with Jefferson, and liberals killed everyone of them

No balanced budget Amendment is going to pass in our lifetime.

yes so you admit liberals are irresponsible and should be outlawed as the Constitution intended before they destroy the greatest country in human history.

 

[regent]

So why didn't Republicans introduce those balanced budget amendments when they had some power?

they did silly goose, 30 times starting with Jefferson, and liberals killed everyone of them

No balanced budget Amendment is going to pass in our lifetime.

yes so you admit liberals are irresponsible and should be outlawed as the Constitution intended before they destroy the greatest country in human history.

Yep it takes liberals to get amenments drawn up properly and passed, I should count the liberal amendments sometime, have ten right off the bat.
An amendment for balanced budgets will never pass because the thing is all political show and Republicans know it, plus they would have to make so many exceptions that the single amendment would be longer than the entire document. But as I say it's good political show.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Yep it takes liberals to get amenments drawn up properly and passed, I should count the liberal amendments sometime, have ten right off the bat.

of course as a liberal you are sadly 100% brain dead. The Bill of Rights was passed by Republicans who wanted to limit government

An amendment for balanced budgets will never pass because the thing is all political show and Republicans know it,

Newts passed the house and failed in the Senate by one vote. Today the debt would be $0, not $16 trillion. Why not make liberals illegal as the Constitution intended? Why do you think the liberals spied for Stalin? How is it the BO has two communist parents and then voted to the left of Bernie Sanders?

 

[itfitzme]

No, idiot. We had the boom. And then Clinton raised taxes. The recession of 2001 was the result.
Get it right.
You can't answer a question. Hell, you can't ask a question. You can't read and you can't respond. What fucking good are you?

No he didn't. You are either a liar, you have been duped, or your convinced they must have because it "explains things".

Where do you get your information because it is clearly wrong. You don't look things up before you make a statement. I have to look up everything. You are always wrong. What fucking good are you?

Individual income taxes remained the same.

Effective capital gains taxes went up by 1.8% from 1993 to 1996 then were lowered by 7.4 % through 2001.

Max Capital gains taxes were lowered by 8% in 1998. Corporate top marginal rate was the same all years except it went down by 1% in 2001

Here is the data. Didn't have time for a graph.

And, Clinton paid down the debt and deficit. The reason that the capital gains tax was lowered was because the government was running a surplus. The "recession" of 2000 was not a two consecutive quarter recession, but was two separate quarters with one increasing GDP in between. As recessions go, it was meaningless.


Year LegYear President

1993 1994 Bill Clinton
1994 1995 Bill Clinton
1995 1996 Bill Clinton
1996 1997 Bill Clinton
1997 1998 Bill Clinton
1998 1999 Bill Clinton
1999 2000 Bill Clinton
2000 2001 Bill Clinton



income Taxes All Clinton Years

Marginal
Tax Rate
15.0%
28.0%
31.0%
36.0%
39.6%

Capital Gains Taxes have fallen since 1996
Year Eff Max
1993 23.7 29.19
1994 23.7 29.19
1995 24.6 29.19
1996 25.5 29.19
1997 21.7 29.19
1998 19.6 21.19
1999 20.2 21.19
2000 19.8 21.19
2001 18.18 21.17


Corporate Rates Top Marginal Rate

1993 39.6
1994 39.6
1995 39.6
1996 39.6
1997 39.6
1998 39.6
1999 39.6
2000 39.6
2001 38.6

 

[Foxfyre]

No, idiot. We had the boom. And then Clinton raised taxes. The recession of 2001 was the result.
Get it right.
You can't answer a question. Hell, you can't ask a question. You can't read and you can't respond. What fucking good are you?

No he didn't. You are either a liar, you have been duped, or your convinced they must have because it "explains things".

Where do you get your information because it is clearly wrong. You don't look things up before you make a statement. I have to look up everything. You are always wrong. What fucking good are you?

Individual income taxes remained the same.

Effective capital gains taxes went up by 1.8% from 1993 to 1996 then were lowered by 7.4 % through 2001.

Max Capital gains taxes were lowered by 8% in 1998. Corporate top marginal rate

Here is the data. Didn't have time for a graph.

And, Clinton paid down the debt and deficit. The "recession" of 2000 was not a two consecutive quarter recession, but was two seperate quarters with one increasing GDP in between. As recessions go, it was meaningless.


Year LegYear President

1993 1994 Bill Clinton
1994 1995 Bill Clinton
1995 1996 Bill Clinton
1996 1997 Bill Clinton
1997 1998 Bill Clinton
1998 1999 Bill Clinton
1999 2000 Bill Clinton
2000 2001 Bill Clinton



income Taxes All Clinton Years

Marginal
Tax Rate
15.0%
28.0%
31.0%
36.0%
39.6%

Capital Gains Taxes have fallen since 1996
Year Eff Max
1993 23.7 29.19
1994 23.7 29.19
1995 24.6 29.19
1996 25.5 29.19
1997 21.7 29.19
1998 19.6 21.19
1999 20.2 21.19
2000 19.8 21.19
2001 18.18 21.17


Corporate Rates Top Marginal Rate

1993 39.6
1994 39.6
1995 39.6
1996 39.6
1997 39.6
1998 39.6
1999 39.6
2000 39.6
2001 38.6

Yes, unless one is certain of what he or she is talking about, it is good to look things up begfore making grand pronouncements:

In 1993, President Clinton ushered through Congress a large package of tax increases, which included the following:[2]

An increase in the individual income tax rate to 36 percent and a 10 percent surcharge for the highest earners, thereby effectively creating a top rate of 39.6 percent.

Repeal of the income cap on Medicare taxes. This provision made the 2.9 percent
Medicare payroll tax apply to all wage income. Like the Social Security payroll tax base today, the Medicare tax base was capped at a certain level of wage income prior to 1993.

A 4.3 cent per gallon increase in transportation fuel taxes.

An increase in the taxable portion of Social Security benefits.

A permanent extension of the phase-out of personal exemptions and the phase-down of the deduction for itemized expenses.
Tax Cuts, Not the Clinton Tax Hike, Produced the 1990s Boom

It was the following tax cuts, however, not the tax hikes, that produced the Clinton years economic boom. There is an excellent analysis for the rationale for that and the net effects at the link provided.

 

[itfitzme]

Individual income taxes remained the same.

Effective capital gains taxes went up by 1.8% from 1993 to 1996 then were lowered by 7.4 % through 2001.

Max Capital gains taxes were lowered by 8% in 1998. Corporate top marginal rate ...

Yes, unless one is certain of what he or she is talking about, it is good to look things up begfore making grand pronouncements:

In 1993, President Clinton ushered through Congress a large package of tax increases, which included the following:[2]

An increase in the individual income tax rate to 36 percent and a 10 percent surcharge for the highest earners, thereby effectively creating a top rate of 39.6 percent.

Repeal of the income cap on Medicare taxes. This provision made the 2.9 percent
Medicare payroll tax apply to all wage income. Like the Social Security payroll tax base today, the Medicare tax base was capped at a certain level of wage income prior to 1993.

A 4.3 cent per gallon increase in transportation fuel taxes.

An increase in the taxable portion of Social Security benefits.

A permanent extension of the phase-out of personal exemptions and the phase-down of the deduction for itemized expenses.
Tax Cuts, Not the Clinton Tax Hike, Produced the 1990s Boom

It was the following tax cuts, however, not the tax hikes, that produced the Clinton years economic boom. There is an excellent analysis for the rationale for that and the net effects at the link provided.

Well, I was very excited to see some actual data. Then I checked the link and it's the Heritage Foundation. I hate to be a stick in the mud, but that particular organization has this history of being wrong and not providing references. They are like Ann Coulter.

Maybe they made a mistake, in this case, and it happens to be correct but it would have to be verified independently. My experience is that they could, they know better, and they don't intentionally. There is no excuse for it. If they say it, it's probably false.

How about Wikipedia list of legislation passed by Congress. Perhaps the 1993 Congressional record has something.

The data I provided is from the Tax Policy Center home.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/Excel/toprate_historical.xls
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/Excel/source_historical_cg.xls
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/fed_individual_rate_history_nominal&adjusted-20110909.xls

We could track back that taxpolicycenter to the source, just to be sure, but they don't have a history of misreporting. We can verify them against the IRS at SOI Tax Stats - Historical Data Tables

 

[The Rabbi]

So IOW you wont accept the evidence, even though it's been handed to you.
Typical. If Heritage is wrong here, it would be easy to spot. Go for it.

 

[ERGO]

There is no dodge, idiot. Did you miss the dot-com boom? Were you alive then? And with Ireland we are discussing corporate taxes. Willy raised them on individuals.
And we ended up with a recession in 2001 so I guess higher taxes did lead to a bust.
And you've never answered why Ireland boomed if it were not for their tax cuts.

Ah so we still had those high corporate tax rates during our booms? Yup. Why? Like I said, nice dodge.
Only a fool thinks the sole reason for a major economy is based on tax rates alone.

No, idiot. We had the boom. And then Clinton raised taxes. The recession of 2001 was the result.
Get it right.
You can't answer a question. Hell, you can't ask a question. You can't read and you can't respond. What fucking good are you?

The recession of 2001 had four causes. First, there was the technology boom of the 1990s, which got carried to unsustainable speculative heights. Second, there was a gush of money created by the Federal Reserve Fund which became channeled into higher asset prices (stocks and real estate) rather than the price of consumer goods. Third was the fraud and abuse of corporations, stock brokers, mutual fund companies, and stock exchanges, a systematic corruption of the financial markets rather than merely isolated cases. Fourth was the September 11 attacks, with its devastating losses, followed by the costly War on Terror.

 

[itfitzme]

So IOW you wont accept the evidence, even though it's been handed to you.
Typical. If Heritage is wrong here, it would be easy to spot. Go for it.

It's not my fault if the Heritage Foundation has been wrong. I read an article from them, they made a claim, it was false. Done deal. That is why science insist on that whole peer reviewed process. Unfortunately for us, getting a hold of peer reviewed papers costs money. And if research and economic proof was easy, everyone would be doing it.

IRS Tax forms are evidence. The tax rate is the tax rate.

Treasury Department data is evidence. BEA and BLS is evidence. Heritage Foundation is hearsay.

You said, Clinton raised taxes. What do you think that means? Oh, you didn't mean income, corporate, or capital gains taxes, you meant FICA taxes.

What, you think everyone is a fucking moron?

 

[The Rabbi]

So IOW you wont accept the evidence, even though it's been handed to you.
Typical. If Heritage is wrong here, it would be easy to spot. Go for it.

It's not my fault if the Heritage Foundation has been wrong. I read an article from them, they made a claim, it was false. Done deal. That is why science insist on that whole peer reviewed process. Unfortunately for us, getting a hold of peer reviewed papers costs money. And if research and economic proof was easy, everyone would be doing it.

IRS Tax forms are evidence. The tax rate is the tax rate.

Treasury Department data is evidence. BEA and BLS is evidence. Heritage Foundation is hearsay.

You said, Clinton raised taxes. What do you think that means? Oh, you didn't mean income, corporate, or capital gains taxes, you meant FICA taxes.

What, you think everyone is a fucking moron?

No, just you. Heritage got one fact wrong once in one article out of the hundreds they produce a year and suddenly nothing they write is correct. And that's assuming you are even correct on the one fact.
That makes you an idiot.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ah so we still had those high corporate tax rates during our booms? Yup. Why? Like I said, nice dodge.
Only a fool thinks the sole reason for a major economy is based on tax rates alone.

No, idiot. We had the boom. And then Clinton raised taxes. The recession of 2001 was the result.
Get it right.
You can't answer a question. Hell, you can't ask a question. You can't read and you can't respond. What fucking good are you?

The recession of 2001 had four causes. First, there was the technology boom of the 1990s, which got carried to unsustainable speculative heights. Second, there was a gush of money created by the Federal Reserve Fund which became channeled into higher asset prices (stocks and real estate) rather than the price of consumer goods. Third was the fraud and abuse of corporations, stock brokers, mutual fund companies, and stock exchanges, a systematic corruption of the financial markets rather than merely isolated cases. Fourth was the September 11 attacks, with its devastating losses, followed by the costly War on Terror.

We can't see causality

 

[itfitzme]

So IOW you wont accept the evidence, even though it's been handed to you.
Typical. If Heritage is wrong here, it would be easy to spot. Go for it.

Here we go, now this is verifiable

IRS

1993

Marginal
Tax Rate
15.0%
28.0%
31.0%
36.0%
39.6%


1992

Marginal
Tax Rate
15.0%
28.0%
31.0%


Wikipedia;

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (or OBRA-93[1]) was federal law that was enacted by the 103rd United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. It has also been referred to, unofficially, as the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993. Part XIII, which dealt with taxes, is also called the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993.

* It created 36 percent and 39.6 income tax rates for individuals in the top 1.2% of the wage earners.[2]
* It created a 35 percent income tax rate for corporations.
* The cap on Medicare taxes was repealed.
* Transportation fuels taxes were raised by 4.3 cents per gallon.
* The taxable portion of Social Security benefits was raised.
* The phase-out of the personal exemption and limit on itemized deductions were permanently extended.
* Part IV Section 14131: Expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and added inflation adjustments

Ultimately every Republican in Congress voted against the bill, as did a number of Democrats. Vice President Al Gore broke a tie in the Senate on both the Senate bill and the conference report. The House bill passed 219-213.[1] The House passed the conference report on Thursday, August 5, 1993, by a vote of 218 to 216 (217 Democrats and 1 independent (Sanders (VT-I)) voting in favor; 41 Democrats and 175 Republicans voting against), and the Senate passed the conference report on the last day before their month's vacation, on Friday, August 6, 1993, by a vote of 51 to 50 (50 Democrats plus Vice President Gore voting in favor, 6 Democrats (Lautenberg (D-NJ), Bryan (D-NV), Nunn (D-GA), Johnston (D-LA), Boren (D-OK), and Shelby (D-AL) now (R-AL)) and 44 Republicans voting against). President Clinton signed the bill on August 10, 1993."

and

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/ota81.pdf


That is a start

 

[regent]

Yep it takes liberals to get amenments drawn up properly and passed, I should count the liberal amendments sometime, have ten right off the bat.

of course as a liberal you are sadly 100% brain dead. The Bill of Rights was passed by Republicans who wanted to limit government

An amendment for balanced budgets will never pass because the thing is all political show and Republicans know it,

Newts passed the house and failed in the Senate by one vote. Today the debt would be $0, not $16 trillion. Why not make liberals illegal as the Constitution intended? Why do you think the liberals spied for Stalin? How is it the BO has two communist parents and then voted to the left of Bernie Sanders?

This is a put-on, right?

 

[itfitzme]

So, here is the tax cuts and increases for Clinton and Bush.

Clinton Tax Increase 1993:

Decline in GDP followed by an increase in GDP
Decline in unemployment

Clinton Capital Gains Cuts 1996:

Steady GDP (usual quarterly variance)
Decline in unemployment

Bush Tax Cuts 2001:

Decline in GDP
Increase in Unemployment

Bush Tax Cuts 2003

Decline in GDP
Decrease in Unemployment

Year Dir GDP Unem
1993 Up Dn/Up Dn
1996 Dn --- Dn
2001 Dn --- Up
2003 Dn Dn Dn

For the most part, there isn't jack. Tax cuts and increases, GDP up or down, unemployment up or down. It doesn't look like it really matters. Not with this level of data.

If you want to make more out of it, you have to be consistent in interpreting the cuts and increases for 93,96,01, and 03.

What's the difference? You say "blah blah blah" but got nothing to back it. Why the fuck should anyone believe you?

I say, "blah blah blah" and there is the data. Did I say "up" and the data says "down"? There it is, nothing hidden.

You see a pattern in that? I sure don't, not anything important.

You see some pattern? You see patterns in tea leaves too?

Any body see anything significant?



(Sorry for the language.)

 

[itfitzme]

We can't see causality

Is that the majestic "We" or are the voices in your head telling you?

The recession of 2001 had four causes.

The 2001 recession was so minor, it's hard to really call it a recession. The definition is two consecutive quarters of declining GDP. 2000 didn't have two consecutive quarters. The NBER decided to classify it as one anyways.

First, there was the technology boom of the 1990s, which got carried to unsustainable speculative heights.

Absolutely. It is the number one cause of business cycles. Everyone jumps on the band wagon. A bubble forms. The bubble bursts. The economy goes into a recession. How big and how long depends on dozens of other things.

That one might even be demonstratable from the NIPA or EDD data.

This same thing happens at local, national and global levels.

Fourth was the September 11 attacks, with its devastating losses, followed by the costly War on Terror.

Absolutely. It scared people. According to some, it was a minor effect though, and the "recession" may not have even occurred if not for it.

-----

Don't know about the other two. Enron was revealed in October of 2001. It nearly killed the California economy, and someone's grandma.