US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[Oldstyle]

Bill Clinton got reined in by Newt Gingrich and the GOP's Contract With America,

More like Clinton reined the GOP Congress since only changing Clinton with Bush and the same GOP Congress replaced surpluses with deficits as far as the eye can see!

The "surpluses" only occurred because of the Gingrich led Congress cutting spending...while the Dot Com Boom greatly increased revenues. At the end of the Clinton Presidency...the Dot Com Boom was OVER and so were the surpluses. Within weeks of Bush being sworn in we were officially in a recession.

The increased revenue was actually due to Clinton's tax increase on the rich which Bush ended as soon as he took over and the surpluses disappeared immediately, replaced by permanent deficits.

Wake up and smell the coffee, Ed! The reason you can increase taxes is BECAUSE of the Dot Com Boom! The liberal narrative that increasing taxes is what led to increased revenues is laughably simplistic yet you people keep trotting it out as "gospel"!

 

[edthecynic]

Bill Clinton got reined in by Newt Gingrich and the GOP's Contract With America,

More like Clinton reined the GOP Congress since only changing Clinton with Bush and the same GOP Congress replaced surpluses with deficits as far as the eye can see!

The "surpluses" only occurred because of the Gingrich led Congress cutting spending...while the Dot Com Boom greatly increased revenues. At the end of the Clinton Presidency...the Dot Com Boom was OVER and so were the surpluses. Within weeks of Bush being sworn in we were officially in a recession.

The increased revenue was actually due to Clinton's tax increase on the rich which Bush ended as soon as he took over and the surpluses disappeared immediately, replaced by permanent deficits.

Wake up and smell the coffee, Ed! The reason you can increase taxes is BECAUSE of the Dot Com Boom! The liberal narrative that increasing taxes is what led to increased revenues is laughably simplistic yet you people keep trotting it out as "gospel"!

Revenue began increasing right after the 1993 tax increases, but the dot com boom didn't even begin until 1995 and wasn't really booming until 1997.

 

[Rshermr]

Bill Clinton got reined in by Newt Gingrich and the GOP's Contract With America,

More like Clinton reined the GOP Congress since only changing Clinton with Bush and the same GOP Congress replaced surpluses with deficits as far as the eye can see!

The "surpluses" only occurred because of the Gingrich led Congress cutting spending...while the Dot Com Boom greatly increased revenues. At the end of the Clinton Presidency...the Dot Com Boom was OVER and so were the surpluses. Within weeks of Bush being sworn in we were officially in a recession.

The increased revenue was actually due to Clinton's tax increase on the rich which Bush ended as soon as he took over and the surpluses disappeared immediately, replaced by permanent deficits.

Wake up and smell the coffee, Ed! The reason you can increase taxes is BECAUSE of the Dot Com Boom! The liberal narrative that increasing taxes is what led to increased revenues is laughably simplistic yet you people keep trotting it out as "gospel"!

You must want others to smell the coffee because you can not, me boy. Or are you simply repeating the right wing economic plan. Decrease taxes, decrease taxes. Of course you are.
Problem is, me boy, that you can not show a single time when decreasing taxes in a bad economy has ever worked. But the rational world can show when it did not help, and when it generally hurt the economy. Not, me boy, because taxes went down. Now try to follow this, because generally this is where cons loose the argument. Because the rational plan has more than one component.
While you say, over and over, decrease taxes and the economy gets better, there is NO history to point to that backs it up. What rational people say is: If you increase taxes, it will do no real good, and some marginal BAD. Not enough to worry about, but a little. What will happen (now try to stay tuned in here, me boy) is that thinking people will suggest you increase SPENDING. Since politicians are pushed to try to not increase the national debt, they need to raise money to spend stimulativly via taxes. So, they see more than one component of the move (which is too complex for cons) and take the rational next (second) step and spend stimulatively. And the result, always, is increased employment and a better economy. Always.
So, there you go. I know you will be unable to comprehend this two part argument, and you will want to stay with the republican economic plan, which is decrease taxes. It is so simple, and you have been told it works. But, of course, it has not. And can not. But you are told what to believe, and you are NOT a rational organism. Rather, you are a con tool.
So, me boy, consider the next (untrue) republican talking point. If you increase taxes and spend, you will increase the national debt. Why does that never occur?? Again, you will have to make a heroic effort to follow this multi part argument. Again, you believe the one part argument provided you by the republican thought developers: If you increase spending, you will increase the national debt. So why is that a stupid and incorrect argument? For three reasons:
1. Because historically it has not increased the national debt.
2. Because stimulative spending causes increases in employment and decreases in unemployment.
3. Because increased employment increases incoming gov revenues which decreases the national debt.
Now, again, I know this is not what you have been told to believe. But it is true. And if you had a rational mind, you would check it out: THE NATIONAL DEBT ALWAYS INCREASES GREATLY WHEN UNEMPLOYMENT IS HIGH, AND DECREASES WHEN UNEMPLOYMENT IS LOW. ALWAYS.

I know. I know. Two part arguments are way to complex for the con mind, which causes you a major head ache. But truth is truth, me boy. And that is the truth. And what you are pushing is the great republican lie.
Do they pay you to post your drivel, or do you do it for free, me boy?

 

[Oldstyle]

Bill Clinton got reined in by Newt Gingrich and the GOP's Contract With America,

More like Clinton reined the GOP Congress since only changing Clinton with Bush and the same GOP Congress replaced surpluses with deficits as far as the eye can see!

The "surpluses" only occurred because of the Gingrich led Congress cutting spending...while the Dot Com Boom greatly increased revenues. At the end of the Clinton Presidency...the Dot Com Boom was OVER and so were the surpluses. Within weeks of Bush being sworn in we were officially in a recession.

The increased revenue was actually due to Clinton's tax increase on the rich which Bush ended as soon as he took over and the surpluses disappeared immediately, replaced by permanent deficits.

Wake up and smell the coffee, Ed! The reason you can increase taxes is BECAUSE of the Dot Com Boom! The liberal narrative that increasing taxes is what led to increased revenues is laughably simplistic yet you people keep trotting it out as "gospel"!

You must want others to smell the coffee because you can not, me boy. Or are you simply repeating the right wing economic plan. Decrease taxes, decrease taxes. Of course you are.
Problem is, me boy, that you can not show a single time when decreasing taxes in a bad economy has ever worked. But the rational world can show when it did not help, and when it generally hurt the economy. Not, me boy, because taxes went down. Now try to follow this, because generally this is where cons loose the argument. Because the rational plan has more than one component.
While you say, over and over, decrease taxes and the economy gets better, there is NO history to point to that backs it up. What rational people say is: If you increase taxes, it will do no real good, and some marginal BAD. Not enough to worry about, but a little. What will happen (now try to stay tuned in here, me boy) is that thinking people will suggest you increase SPENDING. Since politicians are pushed to try to not increase the national debt, they need to raise money to spend stimulativly via taxes. So, they see more than one component of the move (which is too complex for cons) and take the rational next (second) step and spend stimulatively. And the result, always, is increased employment and a better economy. Always.
So, there you go. I know you will be unable to comprehend this two part argument, and you will want to stay with the republican economic plan, which is decrease taxes. It is so simple, and you have been told it works. But, of course, it has not. And can not. But you are told what to believe, and you are NOT a rational organism. Rather, you are a con tool.
So, me boy, consider the next (untrue) republican talking point. If you increase taxes and spend, you will increase the national debt. Why does that never occur?? Again, you will have to make a heroic effort to follow this multi part argument. Again, you believe the one part argument provided you by the republican thought developers: If you increase spending, you will increase the national debt. So why is that a stupid and incorrect argument? For three reasons:
1. Because historically it has not increased the national debt.
2. Because stimulative spending causes increases in employment and decreases in unemployment.
3. Because increased employment increases incoming gov revenues which decreases the national debt.
Now, again, I know this is not what you have been told to believe. But it is true. And if you had a rational mind, you would check it out: THE NATIONAL DEBT ALWAYS INCREASES GREATLY WHEN UNEMPLOYMENT IS HIGH, AND DECREASES WHEN UNEMPLOYMENT IS LOW. ALWAYS.

I know. I know. Two part arguments are way to complex for the con mind, which causes you a major head ache. But truth is truth, me boy. And that is the truth. And what you are pushing is the great republican lie.
Do they pay you to post your drivel, or do you do it for free, me boy?

So when John F. Kennedy called for tax cuts back in the 1960's...that was a "right wing economic plan"?

You know what's amusing about you, Rshermr! You actually think when you come on here and lecture about economics that you sound like you know what you're talking about...when in fact you ALWAYS make an ass of yourself!

 

[Rshermr]

More like Clinton reined the GOP Congress since only changing Clinton with Bush and the same GOP Congress replaced surpluses with deficits as far as the eye can see!

The "surpluses" only occurred because of the Gingrich led Congress cutting spending...while the Dot Com Boom greatly increased revenues. At the end of the Clinton Presidency...the Dot Com Boom was OVER and so were the surpluses. Within weeks of Bush being sworn in we were officially in a recession.

The increased revenue was actually due to Clinton's tax increase on the rich which Bush ended as soon as he took over and the surpluses disappeared immediately, replaced by permanent deficits.

Wake up and smell the coffee, Ed! The reason you can increase taxes is BECAUSE of the Dot Com Boom! The liberal narrative that increasing taxes is what led to increased revenues is laughably simplistic yet you people keep trotting it out as "gospel"!

You must want others to smell the coffee because you can not, me boy. Or are you simply repeating the right wing economic plan. Decrease taxes, decrease taxes. Of course you are.
Problem is, me boy, that you can not show a single time when decreasing taxes in a bad economy has ever worked. But the rational world can show when it did not help, and when it generally hurt the economy. Not, me boy, because taxes went down. Now try to follow this, because generally this is where cons loose the argument. Because the rational plan has more than one component.
While you say, over and over, decrease taxes and the economy gets better, there is NO history to point to that backs it up. What rational people say is: If you increase taxes, it will do no real good, and some marginal BAD. Not enough to worry about, but a little. What will happen (now try to stay tuned in here, me boy) is that thinking people will suggest you increase SPENDING. Since politicians are pushed to try to not increase the national debt, they need to raise money to spend stimulativly via taxes. So, they see more than one component of the move (which is too complex for cons) and take the rational next (second) step and spend stimulatively. And the result, always, is increased employment and a better economy. Always.
So, there you go. I know you will be unable to comprehend this two part argument, and you will want to stay with the republican economic plan, which is decrease taxes. It is so simple, and you have been told it works. But, of course, it has not. And can not. But you are told what to believe, and you are NOT a rational organism. Rather, you are a con tool.
So, me boy, consider the next (untrue) republican talking point. If you increase taxes and spend, you will increase the national debt. Why does that never occur?? Again, you will have to make a heroic effort to follow this multi part argument. Again, you believe the one part argument provided you by the republican thought developers: If you increase spending, you will increase the national debt. So why is that a stupid and incorrect argument? For three reasons:
1. Because historically it has not increased the national debt.
2. Because stimulative spending causes increases in employment and decreases in unemployment.
3. Because increased employment increases incoming gov revenues which decreases the national debt.
Now, again, I know this is not what you have been told to believe. But it is true. And if you had a rational mind, you would check it out: THE NATIONAL DEBT ALWAYS INCREASES GREATLY WHEN UNEMPLOYMENT IS HIGH, AND DECREASES WHEN UNEMPLOYMENT IS LOW. ALWAYS.

I know. I know. Two part arguments are way to complex for the con mind, which causes you a major head ache. But truth is truth, me boy. And that is the truth. And what you are pushing is the great republican lie.
Do they pay you to post your drivel, or do you do it for free, me boy?

So when John F. Kennedy called for tax cuts back in the 1960's...that was a "right wing economic plan"?

You know what's amusing about you, Rshermr! You actually think when you come on here and lecture about economics that you sound like you know what you're talking about...when in fact you ALWAYS make an ass of yourself!

You know what is amusing about you, me boy? You do not know how to read, or to think, apparently. I did not say there was a problem with lowering taxes, me boy. Not in general Now, PAY ATTENTION. I said, me boy, that you should not cut taxes in a BAD ECONOMY. See the difference//
In the case of Kennedy, there was never a problem with lowering taxes because the economy was....now, wait for it, me boy....GOOD. Unemployment was not high.
Now, see if you can follow this, me boy. Your favorite person of all time, Ronald Reagan. He had a somewhat bad economy. about 7.2% unemployment when he took office in January of 1981. So, being a supply side economist big time, and his economic team believing in the economic theory of supply side, he lowered taxes right away. And what do you suppose happened. Good things like in Kennedy's economy? Of course not. The unemployment shot up over the next 21 months to over 10.8%. SECOND HIGHEST IN OUR HISTORY. So, with a big recession on hand, what did ronnie do? Actually what did his team do? Why, they raised taxes 11 times, me boy. Note, I said RAISED. And spent like a drunken sailor. Tripled the national debt. Spent more than all the US presidents in the history of the US COMBINRD. And the economy thrived based on his hew found Keynesian economic principles. Thrived, me boy. Even though he was a supply side guy (can you say Reaganomics?) he used democratic Keynesian principles to fix his mess.
You are welcome, me boy. Let me know if you need more lessons.

 

[Oldstyle]

The "surpluses" only occurred because of the Gingrich led Congress cutting spending...while the Dot Com Boom greatly increased revenues. At the end of the Clinton Presidency...the Dot Com Boom was OVER and so were the surpluses. Within weeks of Bush being sworn in we were officially in a recession.

The increased revenue was actually due to Clinton's tax increase on the rich which Bush ended as soon as he took over and the surpluses disappeared immediately, replaced by permanent deficits.

Wake up and smell the coffee, Ed! The reason you can increase taxes is BECAUSE of the Dot Com Boom! The liberal narrative that increasing taxes is what led to increased revenues is laughably simplistic yet you people keep trotting it out as "gospel"!

You must want others to smell the coffee because you can not, me boy. Or are you simply repeating the right wing economic plan. Decrease taxes, decrease taxes. Of course you are.
Problem is, me boy, that you can not show a single time when decreasing taxes in a bad economy has ever worked. But the rational world can show when it did not help, and when it generally hurt the economy. Not, me boy, because taxes went down. Now try to follow this, because generally this is where cons loose the argument. Because the rational plan has more than one component.
While you say, over and over, decrease taxes and the economy gets better, there is NO history to point to that backs it up. What rational people say is: If you increase taxes, it will do no real good, and some marginal BAD. Not enough to worry about, but a little. What will happen (now try to stay tuned in here, me boy) is that thinking people will suggest you increase SPENDING. Since politicians are pushed to try to not increase the national debt, they need to raise money to spend stimulativly via taxes. So, they see more than one component of the move (which is too complex for cons) and take the rational next (second) step and spend stimulatively. And the result, always, is increased employment and a better economy. Always.
So, there you go. I know you will be unable to comprehend this two part argument, and you will want to stay with the republican economic plan, which is decrease taxes. It is so simple, and you have been told it works. But, of course, it has not. And can not. But you are told what to believe, and you are NOT a rational organism. Rather, you are a con tool.
So, me boy, consider the next (untrue) republican talking point. If you increase taxes and spend, you will increase the national debt. Why does that never occur?? Again, you will have to make a heroic effort to follow this multi part argument. Again, you believe the one part argument provided you by the republican thought developers: If you increase spending, you will increase the national debt. So why is that a stupid and incorrect argument? For three reasons:
1. Because historically it has not increased the national debt.
2. Because stimulative spending causes increases in employment and decreases in unemployment.
3. Because increased employment increases incoming gov revenues which decreases the national debt.
Now, again, I know this is not what you have been told to believe. But it is true. And if you had a rational mind, you would check it out: THE NATIONAL DEBT ALWAYS INCREASES GREATLY WHEN UNEMPLOYMENT IS HIGH, AND DECREASES WHEN UNEMPLOYMENT IS LOW. ALWAYS.

I know. I know. Two part arguments are way to complex for the con mind, which causes you a major head ache. But truth is truth, me boy. And that is the truth. And what you are pushing is the great republican lie.
Do they pay you to post your drivel, or do you do it for free, me boy?

So when John F. Kennedy called for tax cuts back in the 1960's...that was a "right wing economic plan"?

You know what's amusing about you, Rshermr! You actually think when you come on here and lecture about economics that you sound like you know what you're talking about...when in fact you ALWAYS make an ass of yourself!

You know what is amusing about you, me boy? You do not know how to read, or to think, apparently. I did not say there was a problem with lowering prices, me boy. Not in general Now, PAY ATTENTION. I said, me boy, that you should ot cut taxes in a BAD ECONOMY. See the difference//
In the case of Kennedy, there was never a problem with lowering prices because the economy was....now, wait for it, me boy....GOOD. Unemployment was not high.
Now, see if you can follow this, me boy. Your favorite person of all time, Ronald Reagan. He had a somewhat bad economy. about 7.2$ unemployment when he took office in January of 1981. So, being a supply side economist big time, and his economic team believing in the economic theory of supply side, he lowered taxes right away. And what do you suppose happened. Good things like in Kennedy's economy? Of course not. The unemployment shot up over the next 21 months to over 10.8%. SECOND HIGHEST IN OUR HISTORY. So, with a big recession on hand, what did ronnie do? Actually what did his team do? Why, they raised taxes 11 times, me boy. Note, I said RAISED. And spent like a drunken sailor. Trippled the national debt. Spent more than all the US presidents in the history of the US Combined. And the economy thrived based on his hew found Keynesian economic principles. Thrived, me boy. Even though he was a supply side guy (can you say Reaganomics?) he used democratic Keynesian principles to fix his mess.
You are welcome, me boy. Let me know if you need more lessons.

You really are determined to show how little you know about economics...aren't you!

If the economy was "GOOD" under Kennedy...then kindly explain why a Democratic icon like him was calling for tax cuts?

What Reagan inherited wasn't a "somewhat bad economy"...what he inherited was full blown Stagflation.

As for the liberal myth that Reagan was really a tax raiser? Yes, he raised taxes 11 times during his two terms in office but anyone with half a brain who looks at those 11 tax increases and compares them to the tax cuts that Reagan made would never arrive at the conclusion that Reagan grew the economy because he increased taxes. One who also knew the history of those tax cuts would also know that one of those tax increases...the Tax Equity and Financial Responsibility Act of 1982...was a deal between Reagan and Tip O'Neal where Reagan would sign off on raising taxes if Democrats in Congress would cut spending. Reagan kept his end of the bargain...the Democrats did not. As for the other tax increases? Most of them were increases of consumption taxes on things like cigarettes and gasoline...tax increases that pale in comparison to the tax cuts that he made to American's income taxes.

 

[edthecynic]

One who also knew the history of those tax cuts would also know that one of those tax increases...the Tax Equity and Financial Responsibility Act of 1982...was a deal between Reagan and Tip O'Neal where Reagan would sign off on raising taxes if Democrats in Congress would cut spending. Reagan kept his end of the bargain...the Democrats did not.

LIAR!
Tip O'Neil and GOP Senate leader Bob Dole reached a spending cut deal and it was REAGAN who torpedoed it, because it made tiny cuts to St Ronnie's Star Wars slush fund pork barrel money laundering scam!!!!!

 

[Rshermr]

The increased revenue was actually due to Clinton's tax increase on the rich which Bush ended as soon as he took over and the surpluses disappeared immediately, replaced by permanent deficits.

Wake up and smell the coffee, Ed! The reason you can increase taxes is BECAUSE of the Dot Com Boom! The liberal narrative that increasing taxes is what led to increased revenues is laughably simplistic yet you people keep trotting it out as "gospel"!

You must want others to smell the coffee because you can not, me boy. Or are you simply repeating the right wing economic plan. Decrease taxes, decrease taxes. Of course you are.
Problem is, me boy, that you can not show a single time when decreasing taxes in a bad economy has ever worked. But the rational world can show when it did not help, and when it generally hurt the economy. Not, me boy, because taxes went down. Now try to follow this, because generally this is where cons loose the argument. Because the rational plan has more than one component.
While you say, over and over, decrease taxes and the economy gets better, there is NO history to point to that backs it up. What rational people say is: If you increase taxes, it will do no real good, and some marginal BAD. Not enough to worry about, but a little. What will happen (now try to stay tuned in here, me boy) is that thinking people will suggest you increase SPENDING. Since politicians are pushed to try to not increase the national debt, they need to raise money to spend stimulativly via taxes. So, they see more than one component of the move (which is too complex for cons) and take the rational next (second) step and spend stimulatively. And the result, always, is increased employment and a better economy. Always.
So, there you go. I know you will be unable to comprehend this two part argument, and you will want to stay with the republican economic plan, which is decrease taxes. It is so simple, and you have been told it works. But, of course, it has not. And can not. But you are told what to believe, and you are NOT a rational organism. Rather, you are a con tool.
So, me boy, consider the next (untrue) republican talking point. If you increase taxes and spend, you will increase the national debt. Why does that never occur?? Again, you will have to make a heroic effort to follow this multi part argument. Again, you believe the one part argument provided you by the republican thought developers: If you increase spending, you will increase the national debt. So why is that a stupid and incorrect argument? For three reasons:
1. Because historically it has not increased the national debt.
2. Because stimulative spending causes increases in employment and decreases in unemployment.
3. Because increased employment increases incoming gov revenues which decreases the national debt.
Now, again, I know this is not what you have been told to believe. But it is true. And if you had a rational mind, you would check it out: THE NATIONAL DEBT ALWAYS INCREASES GREATLY WHEN UNEMPLOYMENT IS HIGH, AND DECREASES WHEN UNEMPLOYMENT IS LOW. ALWAYS.

I know. I know. Two part arguments are way to complex for the con mind, which causes you a major head ache. But truth is truth, me boy. And that is the truth. And what you are pushing is the great republican lie.
Do they pay you to post your drivel, or do you do it for free, me boy?

So when John F. Kennedy called for tax cuts back in the 1960's...that was a "right wing economic plan"?

You know what's amusing about you, Rshermr! You actually think when you come on here and lecture about economics that you sound like you know what you're talking about...when in fact you ALWAYS make an ass of yourself!

You know what is amusing about you, me boy? You do not know how to read, or to think, apparently. I did not say there was a problem with lowering prices, me boy. Not in general Now, PAY ATTENTION. I said, me boy, that you should ot cut taxes in a BAD ECONOMY. See the difference//
In the case of Kennedy, there was never a problem with lowering prices because the economy was....now, wait for it, me boy....GOOD. Unemployment was not high.
Now, see if you can follow this, me boy. Your favorite person of all time, Ronald Reagan. He had a somewhat bad economy. about 7.2$ unemployment when he took office in January of 1981. So, being a supply side economist big time, and his economic team believing in the economic theory of supply side, he lowered taxes right away. And what do you suppose happened. Good things like in Kennedy's economy? Of course not. The unemployment shot up over the next 21 months to over 10.8%. SECOND HIGHEST IN OUR HISTORY. So, with a big recession on hand, what did ronnie do? Actually what did his team do? Why, they raised taxes 11 times, me boy. Note, I said RAISED. And spent like a drunken sailor. Trippled the national debt. Spent more than all the US presidents in the history of the US Combined. And the economy thrived based on his hew found Keynesian economic principles. Thrived, me boy. Even though he was a supply side guy (can you say Reaganomics?) he used democratic Keynesian principles to fix his mess.
You are welcome, me boy. Let me know if you need more lessons.

You really are determined to show how little you know about economics...aren't you!

If the economy was "GOOD" under Kennedy...then kindly explain why a Democratic icon like him was calling for tax cuts?

What Reagan inherited wasn't a "somewhat bad economy"...what he inherited was full blown Stagflation.

As for the liberal myth that Reagan was really a tax raiser? Yes, he raised taxes 11 times during his two terms in office but anyone with half a brain who looks at those 11 tax increases and compares them to the tax cuts that Reagan made would never arrive at the conclusion that Reagan grew the economy because he increased taxes. One who also knew the history of those tax cuts would also know that one of those tax increases...the Tax Equity and Financial Responsibility Act of 1982...was a deal between Reagan and Tip O'Neal where Reagan would sign off on raising taxes if Democrats in Congress would cut spending. Reagan kept his end of the bargain...the Democrats did not. As for the other tax increases? Most of them were increases of consumption taxes on things like cigarettes and gasoline...tax increases that pale in comparison to the tax cuts that he made to American's income taxes.

Me boy, me boy. You are so ignorant. I know, you just do not have the time or interest in the truth. The ue rate at the time was about 5.5% The top tax rate was 70% Under such circumstances, me boy, no one has a problem with tax cuts. So, again, the concept is YOU DO NOT LOWER TAX RATES WHEN THE ECONOMY IS BAD. BAD, me boy. Nice try, but another miss.
Relative to Reagan:
No one said, me boy, that reagan saved the economy because he raised taxes. What allowed the economy to get out of the mess he had created was simple: He spent like a drunken sailor. Do you really need me to explain that again, me boy??
So again, let me try to explain to you. It was not that he lowered and then raised taxes. IT WAS THAT HE SPENT LIKE A DRUNKEN SAILOR. And please do not blame it on the dems. Ronnie spent and spent and spent. And the economy took off. As for the tax cuts, me boy, let me again explain. Tax cuts are tax cuts. They all provide revenue for the fed gov. And that revenue was used to SPEND.
What you need to ask yourself, of course, is simple to a thinking person. If tax cuts and Reaganomics worked as he said they did, WHY DID REAGAN AND HIS ECONOMIC TEAM FOLLOW KEYESIAN RULES ONCE HIS ECONOMY WAS AWFULL? AND WHY DID THOSE PRINCIPLES WORK?
Again, as I keep trying to educate you about, it is not RAISING TAXES, or lowering taxes.
Really, your attempt to revise history by lying about what your hero did is tacky.

 

[Oldstyle]

Wake up and smell the coffee, Ed! The reason you can increase taxes is BECAUSE of the Dot Com Boom! The liberal narrative that increasing taxes is what led to increased revenues is laughably simplistic yet you people keep trotting it out as "gospel"!

You must want others to smell the coffee because you can not, me boy. Or are you simply repeating the right wing economic plan. Decrease taxes, decrease taxes. Of course you are.
Problem is, me boy, that you can not show a single time when decreasing taxes in a bad economy has ever worked. But the rational world can show when it did not help, and when it generally hurt the economy. Not, me boy, because taxes went down. Now try to follow this, because generally this is where cons loose the argument. Because the rational plan has more than one component.
While you say, over and over, decrease taxes and the economy gets better, there is NO history to point to that backs it up. What rational people say is: If you increase taxes, it will do no real good, and some marginal BAD. Not enough to worry about, but a little. What will happen (now try to stay tuned in here, me boy) is that thinking people will suggest you increase SPENDING. Since politicians are pushed to try to not increase the national debt, they need to raise money to spend stimulativly via taxes. So, they see more than one component of the move (which is too complex for cons) and take the rational next (second) step and spend stimulatively. And the result, always, is increased employment and a better economy. Always.
So, there you go. I know you will be unable to comprehend this two part argument, and you will want to stay with the republican economic plan, which is decrease taxes. It is so simple, and you have been told it works. But, of course, it has not. And can not. But you are told what to believe, and you are NOT a rational organism. Rather, you are a con tool.
So, me boy, consider the next (untrue) republican talking point. If you increase taxes and spend, you will increase the national debt. Why does that never occur?? Again, you will have to make a heroic effort to follow this multi part argument. Again, you believe the one part argument provided you by the republican thought developers: If you increase spending, you will increase the national debt. So why is that a stupid and incorrect argument? For three reasons:
1. Because historically it has not increased the national debt.
2. Because stimulative spending causes increases in employment and decreases in unemployment.
3. Because increased employment increases incoming gov revenues which decreases the national debt.
Now, again, I know this is not what you have been told to believe. But it is true. And if you had a rational mind, you would check it out: THE NATIONAL DEBT ALWAYS INCREASES GREATLY WHEN UNEMPLOYMENT IS HIGH, AND DECREASES WHEN UNEMPLOYMENT IS LOW. ALWAYS.

I know. I know. Two part arguments are way to complex for the con mind, which causes you a major head ache. But truth is truth, me boy. And that is the truth. And what you are pushing is the great republican lie.
Do they pay you to post your drivel, or do you do it for free, me boy?

So when John F. Kennedy called for tax cuts back in the 1960's...that was a "right wing economic plan"?

You know what's amusing about you, Rshermr! You actually think when you come on here and lecture about economics that you sound like you know what you're talking about...when in fact you ALWAYS make an ass of yourself!

You know what is amusing about you, me boy? You do not know how to read, or to think, apparently. I did not say there was a problem with lowering prices, me boy. Not in general Now, PAY ATTENTION. I said, me boy, that you should ot cut taxes in a BAD ECONOMY. See the difference//
In the case of Kennedy, there was never a problem with lowering prices because the economy was....now, wait for it, me boy....GOOD. Unemployment was not high.
Now, see if you can follow this, me boy. Your favorite person of all time, Ronald Reagan. He had a somewhat bad economy. about 7.2$ unemployment when he took office in January of 1981. So, being a supply side economist big time, and his economic team believing in the economic theory of supply side, he lowered taxes right away. And what do you suppose happened. Good things like in Kennedy's economy? Of course not. The unemployment shot up over the next 21 months to over 10.8%. SECOND HIGHEST IN OUR HISTORY. So, with a big recession on hand, what did ronnie do? Actually what did his team do? Why, they raised taxes 11 times, me boy. Note, I said RAISED. And spent like a drunken sailor. Trippled the national debt. Spent more than all the US presidents in the history of the US Combined. And the economy thrived based on his hew found Keynesian economic principles. Thrived, me boy. Even though he was a supply side guy (can you say Reaganomics?) he used democratic Keynesian principles to fix his mess.
You are welcome, me boy. Let me know if you need more lessons.

You really are determined to show how little you know about economics...aren't you!

If the economy was "GOOD" under Kennedy...then kindly explain why a Democratic icon like him was calling for tax cuts?

What Reagan inherited wasn't a "somewhat bad economy"...what he inherited was full blown Stagflation.

As for the liberal myth that Reagan was really a tax raiser? Yes, he raised taxes 11 times during his two terms in office but anyone with half a brain who looks at those 11 tax increases and compares them to the tax cuts that Reagan made would never arrive at the conclusion that Reagan grew the economy because he increased taxes. One who also knew the history of those tax cuts would also know that one of those tax increases...the Tax Equity and Financial Responsibility Act of 1982...was a deal between Reagan and Tip O'Neal where Reagan would sign off on raising taxes if Democrats in Congress would cut spending. Reagan kept his end of the bargain...the Democrats did not. As for the other tax increases? Most of them were increases of consumption taxes on things like cigarettes and gasoline...tax increases that pale in comparison to the tax cuts that he made to American's income taxes.

Me boy, me boy. You are so ignorant. I know, you just do not have the time or interest in the truth. The ue rate at the time was about 5.5% The top tax rate was 70% Under such circumstances, me boy, no one has a problem with tax cuts. So, again, the concept is YOU DO NOT LOWER TAX RATES WHEN THE ECONOMY IS BAD. BAD, me boy. Nice try, but another miss.
Relative to Reagan:
No one said, me boy, that reagan saved the economy because he raised taxes. What allowed the economy to get out of the mess he had created was simple: He spent like a drunken sailor. Do you really need me to explain that again, me boy??
So again, let me try to explain to you. It was not that he lowered and then raised taxes. IT WAS THAT HE SPENT LIKE A DRUNKEN SAILOR. And please do not blame it on the dems. Ronnie spent and spent and spent. And the economy took off. As for the tax cuts, me boy, let me again explain. Tax cuts are tax cuts. They all provide revenue for the fed gov. And that revenue was used to SPEND.
What you need to ask yourself, of course, is simple to a thinking person. If tax cuts and Reaganomics worked as he said they did, WHY DID REAGAN AND HIS ECONOMIC TEAM FOLLOW KEYESIAN RULES ONCE HIS ECONOMY WAS AWFULL? AND WHY DID THOSE PRINCIPLES WORK?
Again, as I keep trying to educate you about, it is not RAISING TAXES, or lowering taxes.
Really, your attempt to revise history by lying about what your hero did is tacky.

So spending like a "drunken sailor" is the key? Gee, then why hasn't the economy gotten better with Barack Obama spending more in his time in office than almost all the other Presidents combined? Hmmm...it seems that higher taxes coupled with higher spending doesn't work.

And as for who gets blamed for spending? Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Congress control the "purse strings" in our system of government? Wasn't Tip O'Neal...a Democrat...Speaker of the House? So are you claiming that Dutch Reagan figured out some way to circumvent that?

As usual, Rshermr...your attempts to explain economics and our government fall flat on their face.

 

[Oldstyle]

And I notice that you didn't even attempt to explain Kennedy's call for tax cuts! Typical for you...

Once you've responded to that...then you can attempt to explain why even Bill Clinton is now calling for tax cuts to stimulate the economy!

 

[Rshermr]

And I notice that you didn't even attempt to explain Kennedy's call for tax cuts! Typical for you...

Once you've responded to that...then you can attempt to explain why even Bill Clinton is now calling for tax cuts to stimulate the economy!

And I notice that you didn't even attempt to explain Kennedy's call for tax cuts! Typical for you...

Once you've responded to that...then you can attempt to explain why even Bill Clinton is now calling for tax cuts to stimulate the economy!

Me boy, me boy. I did explain the Kennedy tax cuts to you. Are you incompetent, or just a liar?? I explained it in detail, dipshit.

Is bill clinton president?? Did you notice that no one is listening to him??

 

[Oldstyle]

Did you seriously post that? That Bill Clinton's opinion shouldn't be listened to? So let me see if I've got this straight...

You on the left constantly hold up Bill Clinton's tax raises as an example of proper fiscal policy...but when that same Bill Clinton calls for tax cuts...we shouldn't listen because he's not President any more? God but you're an imbecile!

 

[Oldstyle]

And your "explanation" of why Kennedy called for tax cuts then simply underscored why tax cuts are being called for by Bill Clinton now and why it isn't a far right position only pushed by conservatives!

 

[Rshermr]

You must want others to smell the coffee because you can not, me boy. Or are you simply repeating the right wing economic plan. Decrease taxes, decrease taxes. Of course you are.
Problem is, me boy, that you can not show a single time when decreasing taxes in a bad economy has ever worked. But the rational world can show when it did not help, and when it generally hurt the economy. Not, me boy, because taxes went down. Now try to follow this, because generally this is where cons loose the argument. Because the rational plan has more than one component.
While you say, over and over, decrease taxes and the economy gets better, there is NO history to point to that backs it up. What rational people say is: If you increase taxes, it will do no real good, and some marginal BAD. Not enough to worry about, but a little. What will happen (now try to stay tuned in here, me boy) is that thinking people will suggest you increase SPENDING. Since politicians are pushed to try to not increase the national debt, they need to raise money to spend stimulativly via taxes. So, they see more than one component of the move (which is too complex for cons) and take the rational next (second) step and spend stimulatively. And the result, always, is increased employment and a better economy. Always.
So, there you go. I know you will be unable to comprehend this two part argument, and you will want to stay with the republican economic plan, which is decrease taxes. It is so simple, and you have been told it works. But, of course, it has not. And can not. But you are told what to believe, and you are NOT a rational organism. Rather, you are a con tool.
So, me boy, consider the next (untrue) republican talking point. If you increase taxes and spend, you will increase the national debt. Why does that never occur?? Again, you will have to make a heroic effort to follow this multi part argument. Again, you believe the one part argument provided you by the republican thought developers: If you increase spending, you will increase the national debt. So why is that a stupid and incorrect argument? For three reasons:
1. Because historically it has not increased the national debt.
2. Because stimulative spending causes increases in employment and decreases in unemployment.
3. Because increased employment increases incoming gov revenues which decreases the national debt.
Now, again, I know this is not what you have been told to believe. But it is true. And if you had a rational mind, you would check it out: THE NATIONAL DEBT ALWAYS INCREASES GREATLY WHEN UNEMPLOYMENT IS HIGH, AND DECREASES WHEN UNEMPLOYMENT IS LOW. ALWAYS.

I know. I know. Two part arguments are way to complex for the con mind, which causes you a major head ache. But truth is truth, me boy. And that is the truth. And what you are pushing is the great republican lie.
Do they pay you to post your drivel, or do you do it for free, me boy?

So when John F. Kennedy called for tax cuts back in the 1960's...that was a "right wing economic plan"?

You know what's amusing about you, Rshermr! You actually think when you come on here and lecture about economics that you sound like you know what you're talking about...when in fact you ALWAYS make an ass of yourself!

You know what is amusing about you, me boy? You do not know how to read, or to think, apparently. I did not say there was a problem with lowering prices, me boy. Not in general Now, PAY ATTENTION. I said, me boy, that you should ot cut taxes in a BAD ECONOMY. See the difference//
In the case of Kennedy, there was never a problem with lowering prices because the economy was....now, wait for it, me boy....GOOD. Unemployment was not high.
Now, see if you can follow this, me boy. Your favorite person of all time, Ronald Reagan. He had a somewhat bad economy. about 7.2$ unemployment when he took office in January of 1981. So, being a supply side economist big time, and his economic team believing in the economic theory of supply side, he lowered taxes right away. And what do you suppose happened. Good things like in Kennedy's economy? Of course not. The unemployment shot up over the next 21 months to over 10.8%. SECOND HIGHEST IN OUR HISTORY. So, with a big recession on hand, what did ronnie do? Actually what did his team do? Why, they raised taxes 11 times, me boy. Note, I said RAISED. And spent like a drunken sailor. Trippled the national debt. Spent more than all the US presidents in the history of the US Combined. And the economy thrived based on his hew found Keynesian economic principles. Thrived, me boy. Even though he was a supply side guy (can you say Reaganomics?) he used democratic Keynesian principles to fix his mess.
You are welcome, me boy. Let me know if you need more lessons.

You really are determined to show how little you know about economics...aren't you!

If the economy was "GOOD" under Kennedy...then kindly explain why a Democratic icon like him was calling for tax cuts?

What Reagan inherited wasn't a "somewhat bad economy"...what he inherited was full blown Stagflation.

As for the liberal myth that Reagan was really a tax raiser? Yes, he raised taxes 11 times during his two terms in office but anyone with half a brain who looks at those 11 tax increases and compares them to the tax cuts that Reagan made would never arrive at the conclusion that Reagan grew the economy because he increased taxes. One who also knew the history of those tax cuts would also know that one of those tax increases...the Tax Equity and Financial Responsibility Act of 1982...was a deal between Reagan and Tip O'Neal where Reagan would sign off on raising taxes if Democrats in Congress would cut spending. Reagan kept his end of the bargain...the Democrats did not. As for the other tax increases? Most of them were increases of consumption taxes on things like cigarettes and gasoline...tax increases that pale in comparison to the tax cuts that he made to American's income taxes.

Me boy, me boy. You are so ignorant. I know, you just do not have the time or interest in the truth. The ue rate at the time was about 5.5% The top tax rate was 70% Under such circumstances, me boy, no one has a problem with tax cuts. So, again, the concept is YOU DO NOT LOWER TAX RATES WHEN THE ECONOMY IS BAD. BAD, me boy. Nice try, but another miss.
Relative to Reagan:
No one said, me boy, that reagan saved the economy because he raised taxes. What allowed the economy to get out of the mess he had created was simple: He spent like a drunken sailor. Do you really need me to explain that again, me boy??
So again, let me try to explain to you. It was not that he lowered and then raised taxes. IT WAS THAT HE SPENT LIKE A DRUNKEN SAILOR. And please do not blame it on the dems. Ronnie spent and spent and spent. And the economy took off. As for the tax cuts, me boy, let me again explain. Tax cuts are tax cuts. They all provide revenue for the fed gov. And that revenue was used to SPEND.
What you need to ask yourself, of course, is simple to a thinking person. If tax cuts and Reaganomics worked as he said they did, WHY DID REAGAN AND HIS ECONOMIC TEAM FOLLOW KEYESIAN RULES ONCE HIS ECONOMY WAS AWFULL? AND WHY DID THOSE PRINCIPLES WORK?
Again, as I keep trying to educate you about, it is not RAISING TAXES, or lowering taxes.
Really, your attempt to revise history by lying about what your hero did is tacky.

So spending like a "drunken sailor" is the key? Gee, then why hasn't the economy gotten better with Barack Obama spending more in his time in office than almost all the other Presidents combined? BECAUSE, OF COURSE, HE DID NOT NEARLY TRIPLE THE NATIONAL DEBT. AND HE HAD A NEAR DEPRESSION. CHECK WITH THE CBO, DIPSHIT. Hmmm...it seems that higher taxes coupled with higher spending doesn't work.
ME BOY, ME BOY. TAX RATES ARE LOWER THAN AT ANY TIME SINCE THE 1950'S. YOU NEED TO STOP READING THOSE CONSERVATIVE TALKING POINTS. AND SPENDING HAS BEEN GOING DOWN FOR YEARS. AGAIN, ME BOY, FACTS JUST ARE NOT YOUR THING, ARE THEY.

And as for who gets blamed for spending? Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Congress control the "purse strings" in our system of government? Wasn't Tip O'Neal...a Democrat...Speaker of the House? So are you claiming that Dutch Reagan figured out some way to circumvent that?
NO, I AM CLAIMING NOTHING. O'NEAL AND THE DEMS, AT THAT TIME, DID WHAT CONGRESS USED TO DO AND ALLOWED THE SITTING PRESIDENT TO DO WHAT HE WANTED. YOU NEED TO GET OUT OF THOSE BAT SHIT CRAZY CON WEB SITES, DIPSHIT.
As usual, Rshermr...your attempts to explain economics and our government fall flat on their face.

ME BOY, ME BOY. I HAVE DESTROYED EVERY "ARGUMENT" YOU HAVE MADE. YOU ARE WITHOUT QUESTION DELUSIONAL. YOU ARE POSTING CONSERVATIVE TALKING POINTS, NOT ECONOMIC ARGUMENTS. TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE.

 

[Rshermr]

Did you seriously post that? That Bill Clinton's opinion shouldn't be listened to? So let me see if I've got this straight...

You on the left constantly hold up Bill Clinton's tax raises as an example of proper fiscal policy...but when that same Bill Clinton calls for tax cuts...we shouldn't listen because he's not President any more? God but you're an imbecile!

I DID NOT SAY YOU SHOULD NOT LISTEN. BUT NO ONE MUCH TAKES HIM SERIOUSLY. HE IS, ME BOY, A POLITICIAN. TRYING TO GET HIS WIFE ELECTED. BUT THE CONCEPT OF LOWERING ALREADY HISTORICALLY LOW TAX RATES IS STUPID, IN MY OPINION. By the way, provide me a link to him saying he suggests lowering taxes.
And no, me lying con tool, I do not hold up bill clinton as an example. He had a great run, but I do not believe he is an economic expert.
And again, as in the past, I keep trying to educate you to understand that I do not think tax increases are a solution to anything. Though they provide a source of revenue for what does help: STIMULUS SPENDING.
So, you are a con tool stating con talking points, not at all capable of conversation. I have never said raising taxes helps the economy. I have said, over and over, that stimulus spending does help the economy. And that raising taxes simply provides revenue to stimulate the economy in a revenue neutral manner. Which is what politicians want. There are other ways of providing revenue to fund stimulus spending, of course.
Now, me boy, back to the bat shit crazy con web sites for you.

 

[Rshermr]

And your "explanation" of why Kennedy called for tax cuts then simply underscored why tax cuts are being called for by Bill Clinton now and why it isn't a far right position only pushed by conservatives!

lowering taxes is the conservative economic plan. Period. As I clealy stated, Kennedy was not trying to fix a bad economy. Kennedy did not have a bad economy. He had a good economy, me boy. Which means that tax decreases made sense.
Now, since you want to simply post conservative talking points, and since you are incapable of trying to understand what I say to you, and since you are completely incapable of economic argument, and because you are a lying con tool, I am putting you on ignore.
Ignorance is your thing. I can not help you.

 

[Faun]

Translation: you can't answer the question, What tools did Obama have at his disposal to combat the Great Recession, either.

Thanks for that utterly useless post.

He could have disbanded and nationalized the Federal Reserve Bank and sign an executive order to have a top to bottom audit of the Fed. He could have done what Kennedy did and have silver backed currency printed because that Executive order of Kennedy's was never rescinded...just the money was taken out of circulation. Barrypuppet's masters at the Federal Reserve introduced the QE program where they dumped cheap money on Wall Street to keep it propped up. But Barry just does as he is told because he was groomed to be the CEO of this massive corporate entity and they own him. So much that you don't know and so much that you lack the ability to understand. The bottom line is that we are going to have an economic event that is going to make 2008 seem like a walk in the park. It's not a matter if if it's going to happen but rather when....

Sorry, but you're too fucking demented. QE started under Bush.

Bushpuppet was president in 2009? You are the one that is demented and totally blinded by an ideology and political party that doesn't give a fuck about you...but yet you cling too and defend the indefensible because you are so dug .

What the fuck is wrong with you? Do you not understand English? I didn't say Bush was president in 2009. I said QE started while Bush was president.

QE1 started in December of 2008

Actually, it started in November of 2008...

Financial Crisis Timeline: Collapse and Bailout | Bankrate.com

But at least we're in agreement that it started under Bush, not Obama.

 

[Dale Smith]

He could have disbanded and nationalized the Federal Reserve Bank and sign an executive order to have a top to bottom audit of the Fed. He could have done what Kennedy did and have silver backed currency printed because that Executive order of Kennedy's was never rescinded...just the money was taken out of circulation. Barrypuppet's masters at the Federal Reserve introduced the QE program where they dumped cheap money on Wall Street to keep it propped up. But Barry just does as he is told because he was groomed to be the CEO of this massive corporate entity and they own him. So much that you don't know and so much that you lack the ability to understand. The bottom line is that we are going to have an economic event that is going to make 2008 seem like a walk in the park. It's not a matter if if it's going to happen but rather when....

Sorry, but you're too fucking demented. QE started under Bush.

Bushpuppet was president in 2009? You are the one that is demented and totally blinded by an ideology and political party that doesn't give a fuck about you...but yet you cling too and defend the indefensible because you are so dug .

What the fuck is wrong with you? Do you not understand English? I didn't say Bush was president in 2009. I said QE started while Bush was president.

QE1 started in December of 2008

Actually, it started in November of 2008...

Financial Crisis Timeline: Collapse and Bailout | Bankrate.com

But at least we're in agreement that it started under Bush, not Obama.

[/QUOTE
Doesn't matter if it was November or December, whomever was president benefited from this theft with the appearance of a stable stock market of which Barrypuppet and his minions took credit for.

 

[Oldstyle]

And your "explanation" of why Kennedy called for tax cuts then simply underscored why tax cuts are being called for by Bill Clinton now and why it isn't a far right position only pushed by conservatives!

lowering taxes is the conservative economic plan. Period. As I clealy stated, Kennedy was not trying to fix a bad economy. Kennedy did not have a bad economy. He had a good economy, me boy. Which means that tax decreases made sense.
Now, since you want to simply post conservative talking points, and since you are incapable of trying to understand what I say to you, and since you are completely incapable of economic argument, and because you are a lying con tool, I am putting you on ignore.
Ignorance is your thing. I can not help you.

Time for you to run away? Typical...

If Kennedy really did have a good economy (which he didn't) then why would he be seeking tax cuts? Tax increases make sense in an overheated economy like Clinton had during the Dot Com Boom...tax cuts make sense when an economy is stumbling. Bill Clinton understands that. It's why he now will admit that he shouldn't have raised taxes as much as he did back when he was President and why he advocates tax cuts now.

Here's how it works...you raise taxes and interest rates in an economic boom to cool things off...you lower taxes and interest rates in an economy that is losing steam. If you really WERE an econ major you'd understand this kind of thing...but you're an econ POSER...who thinks that the Chicago School is a college in Illinois!

 

[Rshermr]

And your "explanation" of why Kennedy called for tax cuts then simply underscored why tax cuts are being called for by Bill Clinton now and why it isn't a far right position only pushed by conservatives!

lowering taxes is the conservative economic plan. Period. As I clealy stated, Kennedy was not trying to fix a bad economy. Kennedy did not have a bad economy. He had a good economy, me boy. Which means that tax decreases made sense.
Now, since you want to simply post conservative talking points, and since you are incapable of trying to understand what I say to you, and since you are completely incapable of economic argument, and because you are a lying con tool, I am putting you on ignore.
Ignorance is your thing. I can not help you.

Time for you to run away? Typical...

If Kennedy really did have a good economy (which he didn't) then why would he be seeking tax cuts? Tax increases make sense in an overheated economy like Clinton had during the Dot Com Boom...tax cuts make sense when an economy is stumbling. Bill Clinton understands that. It's why he now will admit that he shouldn't have raised taxes as much as he did back when he was President and why he advocates tax cuts now.

Here's how it works...you raise taxes and interest rates in an economic boom to cool things off...you lower taxes and interest rates in an economy that is losing steam. If you really WERE an econ major you'd understand this kind of thing...but you're an econ POSER...who thinks that the Chicago School is a college in Illinois!

You have it backwards, but exactly in line with the bat shit crazy con web sites, dipshit.
If you are correct, show me a time when, during a bad economy, lowering tax rates has helped. An actual time, me boy. But then, you can not. There is no time in history when the income was bad that lowering tax rates has helped.
How, I know you say I am wrong. But if I were wrong, you could pick a bad economy when lowering taxes helped. And, me poor ignorant con tool, you can not.
Kennedy, me boy, was president during three years of the 1960's when the economy was relatively GOOD. What you ignore, purposefully, of course, is that:
1. The unemployment rate was about 5.5%, which is good.
2. Upper tax rates were at 90%, which was nuts.
So, no, it was not a bad economy.
It was, in fact, pretty good. His tax decreases could not have failed to make the economy somewhat better than it was at the time. But you are trying to spread untruth. What I have been saying is that tax changes during bad economic times have little effect. But stimulative spending is the answer.
Now, I know you will spend your time ignoring this, and stating the con dogma. Because that is your job. Which, me boy, makes you useless.
So, let me help you. Your hero lowered taxes in a high unemployment time, and made things REALLY, REALLY bad. Then, when he was faced with a really really bad economy, he raised taxes and spent like crazy. And it worked.