What is "Trickle Down Economics"?

[Dad2three]

Here, allow me to educate the brainwashed and indoctrinated who've bought into complete revisionist history.

You know, the way inmates do.

Inflation rates were in double digits during Carter. As high as 19%.

Unemployment rates were in double digits, as high as 12%.

Interest rates were double digit. Close to 20% at times.


Now for those who are NOT paid by unions to come here and pretend the Soviet Union beat the U.S. and Reagan destroyed the economy...but are just not old enough to know the real history....what Reagan did was bring all those rates down to single digits.

Quiz for the liberal LIARS: When you bring rates from double digits for interest rates, unemployment rates, and inflation rates down to single digits, does this impact the average American in the middle class in a POSITIVE WAY or NEGATIVE WAY?

Anyone that says negative will be too stupid to be debated with again.

So how bout it? I'm waiting for the idiots who try to spin that bringing inflation, unemployment and interest rates way down is bad for the middle class. But I'm sure we'll have some.

19%?

12%?

LOL

Carter 1977

Jan 7.5%
Feb 7.6
March 7.4
April 7.2
May 7.0
June 7.2
July 6.9
Aug 7.0
Sept 6.8
Oct 6.8
Nov 6.8
Dec 6.4

1978
Jan 6.4
Feb 6.3
March 6.3
Apr 6.1
May 6.0
Jun 5.9
July 6.2
Aug 5.9
Sep 6.0
Oct 5.8
Nov 5.9
Dec 6.0

1979
Jan 5.9
Feb 5.9
Mar 5.8
Apr 5.8
May 5.6
Jun 5.7
Jul 5.7
Aug 6.0
Sept 5.9
Oct 6.0
Nov 5.9
Dec 6.0

1980
Jan 6.3
Feb 6.3
Mar 6.3
Apr 6.9
May 7.5
Jun 7.6
Jul 7.8 CARTER'S PEAK
Aug 7.7
Sept 7.5
Oct 7.5
Nov 7.5
Dec 7.2

01/1981 - Unemployment rate 7.5% …. Reagan sworn in.
02/1981 - 7.4%
03/1981 - 7.4%
04/1981 - 7.2%
05/1981 - 7.5%
06/1981 - 7.5%
07/1981 - 7.2%
08/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.
09/1981 - 7.6%
10/1981 - 7.9%
11/1981 - 8.3%
12/1981 - 8.5%

01/1982 - 8.6%
02/1982 - 8.9%
03/1982 - 9.0%
04/1982 - 9.3%
05/1982 - 9.4%
06/1982 - 9.6%
07/1982 - 9.8%
08/1982 - 9.8%
09/1982 - 10.1%
10/1982 - 10.4%
11/1982 - 10.8% * Unemployment HITS a post WW2 RECORD of 10.8%.
12/1982 - 10.8%

01/1983 - 10.4%
02/1983 - 10.4%
03/1983 - 10.3%
04/1983 - 10.3%
05/1983 - 10.1%
06/1983 - 10.1%
07/1983 - 9.4%
06/1983 - 9.5%
07/1983 - 9.4%
08/1983 - 9.5%
09/1983 - 9.2%
10/1983 - 8.8%
11/1983 - 8.5%
12/1983 - 8.3%

01/1984 - 8.0%
02/1984 - 7.8%


It took Reagan 28 MONTHS to get unemployment rate back down below 8 percent.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


AGAIN, CARTER HAD 9+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS GROWTH IN 4 YEARS VERSUS 14 MILLION FOR REAGAN'S 8

 

[RKMBrown]

The lefties here frequently mock "trickle down economics" as the cause of our slow economy. So what is trickle down economics? I want to hear an explanation. Snarky responses like "it's what the GOP believes" will be thrashed soundly.

Trickle-down economic theory in the nutshell basically asserts that tax breaks for the wealthy will eventually benefit the poor by improving the economy as a whole as well as the additional idea/theory (unproven in any and every real world test) that the tax cuts will eventually pay for themselves.

Nonsense. The alternative, which is socialism has been proven to never work. Free market capitalism resulted in the largest economy on the planet. That would be US. Socialism is killing it. Even ex communist nations are improving after they switched from socialism to free market capitalism. Look at Russia and China.

One would have to be a complete imbecile to think high tax rates used to fund welfare and crony capitalism would ever work.

 

[EconChick]

LMAO, quoting Warren Buffett???

Buffett came from THE most liberal school out there.....he got his Keynesian indoctrination while at Columbia. You know, the school where even Socialists are considered not liberal enough.

Buffett was also part of Obama's original brain trust on the economy. And look at what a disaster.

Buffett needs to stick to making money in the stock market and STFU about the overall economy.

Methinks you ought to take your own advice and "STFU about the overall economy". But then we need people like you and PoliticalChic to offer ad hominem 'arguments', it is so much fun to see so many words used to prove nothing.

That's the problem; you're thinking.

I'm in the middle of an econ doctoral thesis, genius. What could I possibly know about the subject.

You on the other hand, keep spouting Union talking points.

Can you think for yourself?

Can you think on behalf of all 350 Americans instead of just the union position?

Don't answer that. We already know you can't. You wouldn't understand a market economy if your life depended on it.

 

[rightwinger]

@ Green Bean - your graphs don't contradict rightwingers. They are graphing different data.

True - but mine are not are based on a fantasy. I would like to know the source of the graphic - as I don't find it on Google Images

In addition - if you note what he posted - the first [1947-79] deletes the upper 1 % Arrow and adds it only to the second [1979 - 2009] for dramatic and distortional effects.

You are free to post data from your own source showing that income growth has been evenly distributed since the Reagan tax cuts

Boy will I be embarassed

 

[Dad2three]

"Trickle down economics" is a disparaging description of economic policies designed to enhance the overall level of prosperity in the country (e.g., a tax cut - which, of mathmatical necessity, would go mainly to high-earners). According to critics, the only way "the common man" would benefit from such a measure would be when The Rich spend their additional take-home income on services and locally-manufactured goods, vacation homes and whatnot, thereby creating employment for The Common Man.

Progressives, on the other hand, favor policies whereby The Common Man is empowered to demand more from The Rich and from Corporate America - increases in the Minimum Wage, increased unionization, greater public and quasi-public employment.

Allow me to speak for all Progressives (which is arrogant, but since you did...) and edit your remarks:

The Common Man has the right to end the exploitation of his/her labor by demanding an increase in the Minimum Wage, the right to organize and join with others to earn fair wages and benefits, and to strike for the same while petitioning the support of the public and his and her's political representatives.

Raise minimum wage to what? 100 bucks an hour 1000 bucks an hour? Why limit your goals to what amounts to petty change?

I have a question. Why are you working minimum wage? Around here we don't even pay high school kids minimum wage. Minimum wage means you are not worth more than the absolute minimum. It means you are taking the least valuable job around. It usually means that either something is wrong with you, that or you've never worked before and have to prove you are worth more than the minimum, which normally should only take a day or two. Of course if you raise minimum wage those useless people will get fired.

" Of course if you raise minimum wage those useless people will get fired."

YES, BECAUSE 'JOB CREATORS' CAN ONLY WASTE SO MUCH MONEY, AFTER IT GETS TO A CERTAIN POINT, IT'S NOT DEMAND THAT KEEPS THE EMPLOYEE, IT'S HOW MUCH MONEY THE 'JOB CREATOR' SPENDS ON WAGES *shaking head*

 

[The Rabbi]

Responded with a cartoon or its equivalence!
Did I call it or what?

Sorry Rabbi

But your threads warrant little more than cartoons
Here is another one that shoots down your beloved "Trickle Down"

See, the Left can only "argue" by posting bumper sticker quotes and cartoons. They think they win if they post the cleverest, or the most or something.

 

[The Rabbi]

I can't believe some moron started this thread.

I cant believe some moron is so low information he had to recycle a clever pic from another poster on the same thread. WHy can't you get your own material?

 

[rightwinger]

Responded with a cartoon or its equivalence!
Did I call it or what?

Sorry Rabbi

But your threads warrant little more than cartoons
Here is another one that shoots down your beloved "Trickle Down"

See, the Left can only "argue" by posting bumper sticker quotes and cartoons. They think they win if they post the cleverest, or the most or something.

I have yet to see you argue anything yet Rabbi

Come on, it is your thread. Dazzle us with your brilliance
Give us some of that Rabbi perspective on trickle down

 

[EconChick]

The lefties here frequently mock "trickle down economics" as the cause of our slow economy. So what is trickle down economics? I want to hear an explanation. Snarky responses like "it's what the GOP believes" will be thrashed soundly.

Trickle-down economic theory in the nutshell basically asserts that tax breaks for the wealthy will eventually benefit the poor by improving the economy as a whole as well as the additional idea/theory (unproven in any and every real world test) that the tax cuts will eventually pay for themselves.

Nonsense. The alternative, which is socialism has been proven to never work. Free market capitalism resulted in the largest economy on the planet. That would be US. Socialism is killing it. Even ex communist nations are improving after they switched from socialism to free market capitalism. Look at Russia and China.

One would have to be a complete imbecile to think high tax rates used to fund welfare and crony capitalism would ever work.

I love how you keep talking big picture. What's sad is how the liberals on his thread show just how fucked up our educational system has become.

 

[The Rabbi]

any attempt to stimulate economic growth by cutting taxes for the rich will do nothing -- it hasn't worked over the past 50 years.


next question.

Except when it did, like under Kennedy, Reagan, and the beginning of Bush's term.
Next.

 

[Dad2three]

Here, allow me to educate the brainwashed and indoctrinated who've bought into complete revisionist history.

You know, the way inmates do.

Inflation rates were in double digits during Carter. As high as 19%.

Unemployment rates were in double digits, as high as 12%.

Interest rates were double digit. Close to 20% at times.


Now for those who are NOT paid by unions to come here and pretend the Soviet Union beat the U.S. and Reagan destroyed the economy...but are just not old enough to know the real history....what Reagan did was bring all those rates down to single digits.

Quiz for the liberal LIARS: When you bring rates from double digits for interest rates, unemployment rates, and inflation rates down to single digits, does this impact the average American in the middle class in a POSITIVE WAY or NEGATIVE WAY?

Anyone that says negative will be too stupid to be debated with again.

So how bout it? I'm waiting for the idiots who try to spin that bringing inflation, unemployment and interest rates way down is bad for the middle class. But I'm sure we'll have some.

cp


It is true that growth increased drastically after the 1982 tax cut, reaching as high as 7.3% in 1984. However, as the Reagan-Bush, Sr. administrations went on and taxes for the rich were slashed even further, growth fell to negative levels during 1991, at the heart of the last recession. And, two of the three years with the highest growth were during the 1950s, when the top tax rate was 91%. Overall, there seems to be no close relationship between the top tax rate and the GDP growth rate, and statistical analysis backs this up: the correlation coefficient between the two variables is 0.03, meaning that there is essentially no connection. (If tax cuts were strongly related to GDP growth, we would see a coefficient close to -1.)

Yeah, and the Soviet Union beat the U.S. too, didn't you know?

I notice you didn't source the liberal rag you got that from.

I personally think we need to start taking revisionists to the guillotine knowing how dangerous it is to our Republic that so many gullible dumbasses slurp it up. I think I could make the case for treason if given enough time.

"I think"

NO, you don't as you have repeatedly shown

 

[RKMBrown]

Here, allow me to educate the brainwashed and indoctrinated who've bought into complete revisionist history.

You know, the way inmates do.

Inflation rates were in double digits during Carter. As high as 19%.

Unemployment rates were in double digits, as high as 12%.

Interest rates were double digit. Close to 20% at times.


Now for those who are NOT paid by unions to come here and pretend the Soviet Union beat the U.S. and Reagan destroyed the economy...but are just not old enough to know the real history....what Reagan did was bring all those rates down to single digits.

Quiz for the liberal LIARS: When you bring rates from double digits for interest rates, unemployment rates, and inflation rates down to single digits, does this impact the average American in the middle class in a POSITIVE WAY or NEGATIVE WAY?

Anyone that says negative will be too stupid to be debated with again.

So how bout it? I'm waiting for the idiots who try to spin that bringing inflation, unemployment and interest rates way down is bad for the middle class. But I'm sure we'll have some.

19%?

12%?

LOL

Carter 1977

Jan 7.5%
Feb 7.6
March 7.4
April 7.2
May 7.0
June 7.2
July 6.9
Aug 7.0
Sept 6.8
Oct 6.8
Nov 6.8
Dec 6.4

1978
Jan 6.4
Feb 6.3
March 6.3
Apr 6.1
May 6.0
Jun 5.9
July 6.2
Aug 5.9
Sep 6.0
Oct 5.8
Nov 5.9
Dec 6.0

1979
Jan 5.9
Feb 5.9
Mar 5.8
Apr 5.8
May 5.6
Jun 5.7
Jul 5.7
Aug 6.0
Sept 5.9
Oct 6.0
Nov 5.9
Dec 6.0

1980
Jan 6.3
Feb 6.3
Mar 6.3
Apr 6.9
May 7.5
Jun 7.6
Jul 7.8 CARTER'S PEAK
Aug 7.7
Sept 7.5
Oct 7.5
Nov 7.5
Dec 7.2

01/1981 - Unemployment rate 7.5% …. Reagan sworn in.
02/1981 - 7.4%
03/1981 - 7.4%
04/1981 - 7.2%
05/1981 - 7.5%
06/1981 - 7.5%
07/1981 - 7.2%
08/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.
09/1981 - 7.6%
10/1981 - 7.9%
11/1981 - 8.3%
12/1981 - 8.5%

01/1982 - 8.6%
02/1982 - 8.9%
03/1982 - 9.0%
04/1982 - 9.3%
05/1982 - 9.4%
06/1982 - 9.6%
07/1982 - 9.8%
08/1982 - 9.8%
09/1982 - 10.1%
10/1982 - 10.4%
11/1982 - 10.8% * Unemployment HITS a post WW2 RECORD of 10.8%.
12/1982 - 10.8%

01/1983 - 10.4%
02/1983 - 10.4%
03/1983 - 10.3%
04/1983 - 10.3%
05/1983 - 10.1%
06/1983 - 10.1%
07/1983 - 9.4%
06/1983 - 9.5%
07/1983 - 9.4%
08/1983 - 9.5%
09/1983 - 9.2%
10/1983 - 8.8%
11/1983 - 8.5%
12/1983 - 8.3%

01/1984 - 8.0%
02/1984 - 7.8%


It took Reagan 28 MONTHS to get unemployment rate back down below 8 percent.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


AGAIN, CARTER HAD 9+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS GROWTH IN 4 YEARS VERSUS 14 MILLION FOR REAGAN'S 8

The mistake most assholes make is assuming the POTUS's policies are the primary driver of the economy.

The primary drivers of the economy are the welfare programs (incentive to not work), business, and other stuff like wars. The tech boom drove unemployment down in the 70s this was a bubble. The tech boom bubble popped while Regan was president. The dot com boom drove a big bubble during the Clinton years. The dot com bubble popped as Bush was entering office. Then the realestate bubble popped. Bubbles come and go. That's why we call them bubbles. Bush's economic screw ups were expanding welfare and starting needless wars.

 

[The Rabbi]

"Trickle Down" refers to stimulating the economy by pouring resources into the top economic strata with the belief that it will "trickle down" until it provides benefits for all.

It's a flawed theory.

Yeah except that isnt what it is. That is the leftist Democratic caricature version of what it is. And fools like you fall for it. Because you are low information.

 

[Siete]

Responded with a cartoon or its equivalence!
Did I call it or what?

Sorry Rabbi

But your threads warrant little more than cartoons
Here is another one that shoots down your beloved "Trickle Down"

See, the Left can only "argue" by posting bumper sticker quotes and cartoons. They think they win if they post the cleverest, or the most or something.

is that why you can't refute the cartoons and post factual evidence that supports your theory ?

ok, you win dumbest poster award

Too Dumb To Refute Cartoons !

 

[Dad2three]

You don't know what you're talking about. "trickle down" is just a leftwing pejorative for "capitalism." Anyone who uses the term hates capitalism. When they object to what the call "trickle down" they are objecting to the normal workings of the market economy.

I'm a 4th year political science student. We actually study this shit.

Garbage in, garbage out. That also applies to education.

Trickle down economics is a pejorative term for the adage that a rising tide lifts all boats, large and small. Also used to denigrate the idea that tax cuts are viable tools for creating a more favorable economic environment that helps grow an economy.

The small minded liberal/socialists cannot get beyond the idea that those who pay the most in taxes get the largest cuts. They like the idea of the 'fair share' when taxes go up, but not so much as taxes come down.

Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomics that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services as well as invest in capital.


In 2003, Alan Murray, who at the time was Washington bureau chief for CNBC and a co-host of the television program Capital Report, declared the debate over supply-side economics to have ended "with a whimper" after extensive modeling performed by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicted that the revenue generating effects of the specific tax cuts examined would be, in his words, "relatively small."




For years, advocates of supply-side economics have justified repeated calls for tax cuts for high earners by arguing the cuts will pay for themselves by dramatically boosting economic growth and thus tax revenues. They have just as adamantly insisted that if only Capitol Hill's official arbiter of the budgets, the Congressional Budget Office, would evaluate tax cuts through the prism of "dynamic scoring" -- which projects the macroeconomic impact of tax cuts as well as the lost revenues they produce -- their point of view would be vindicated.

Well, CBO has done just that with President Bush's budget, and guess what? In a report prepared under the supervision of a supply-side economist handpicked by the White House and published last week, CBO concluded the president's budget would make long-term budget deficits worse rather than better.

It's taking a while to sink in, but that CBO document pretty much pronounced the death of the supply-side economics.



The Death of Supply-Side Economics (printable version)

 

[The Rabbi]

Exactly. Economic statistics have proven that. Economic growth has been higher when taxes were higher.

The economy stagnated for 12 years under high taxes during the depression.

bbbaaaawwwwwhahahahaha

the economy was a blank page BECAUSE of the depression, tax rates DID NOT cause the depression.

Are you actually that stupid that you think his post suggested high taxes caused the Depression?

 

[RKMBrown]

I'm a 4th year political science student. We actually study this shit.

Garbage in, garbage out. That also applies to education.

Trickle down economics is a pejorative term for the adage that a rising tide lifts all boats, large and small. Also used to denigrate the idea that tax cuts are viable tools for creating a more favorable economic environment that helps grow an economy.

The small minded liberal/socialists cannot get beyond the idea that those who pay the most in taxes get the largest cuts. They like the idea of the 'fair share' when taxes go up, but not so much as taxes come down.

Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomics that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services as well as invest in capital.


In 2003, Alan Murray, who at the time was Washington bureau chief for CNBC and a co-host of the television program Capital Report, declared the debate over supply-side economics to have ended "with a whimper" after extensive modeling performed by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicted that the revenue generating effects of the specific tax cuts examined would be, in his words, "relatively small."




For years, advocates of supply-side economics have justified repeated calls for tax cuts for high earners by arguing the cuts will pay for themselves by dramatically boosting economic growth and thus tax revenues. They have just as adamantly insisted that if only Capitol Hill's official arbiter of the budgets, the Congressional Budget Office, would evaluate tax cuts through the prism of "dynamic scoring" -- which projects the macroeconomic impact of tax cuts as well as the lost revenues they produce -- their point of view would be vindicated.

Well, CBO has done just that with President Bush's budget, and guess what? In a report prepared under the supervision of a supply-side economist handpicked by the White House and published last week, CBO concluded the president's budget would make long-term budget deficits worse rather than better.

It's taking a while to sink in, but that CBO document pretty much pronounced the death of the supply-side economics.



The Death of Supply-Side Economics (printable version)

This is the same CBO that insisted that Obama Care would reduce the deficit right?

 

[Erand7899]

Whenever I hear "trickle down economics", I am reminded of the famous Cross of Gold speech by William Jennings Bryan. I think a lot of people would be surprised to learn just how long the trickle down theory has been around.

Here's the relevant part of that speech:

There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.

You come to us and tell us that the great cities are in favor of the gold standard. I tell you that the great cities rest upon these broad and fertile prairies. Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic. But destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country.

The first statement would have validity, if government could legislate to make the masses prosperous. If that was possible, I believe we would all be in favor of doing so. If that was possible, it would already have been done. Alas, and alack, governments are all out of pixie dust.

 

[Dad2three]

Here, allow me to educate the brainwashed and indoctrinated who've bought into complete revisionist history.

You know, the way inmates do.

Inflation rates were in double digits during Carter. As high as 19%.

Unemployment rates were in double digits, as high as 12%.

Interest rates were double digit. Close to 20% at times.


Now for those who are NOT paid by unions to come here and pretend the Soviet Union beat the U.S. and Reagan destroyed the economy...but are just not old enough to know the real history....what Reagan did was bring all those rates down to single digits.

Quiz for the liberal LIARS: When you bring rates from double digits for interest rates, unemployment rates, and inflation rates down to single digits, does this impact the average American in the middle class in a POSITIVE WAY or NEGATIVE WAY?

Anyone that says negative will be too stupid to be debated with again.

So how bout it? I'm waiting for the idiots who try to spin that bringing inflation, unemployment and interest rates way down is bad for the middle class. But I'm sure we'll have some.

19%?

12%?

LOL

Carter 1977

Jan 7.5%
Feb 7.6
March 7.4
April 7.2
May 7.0
June 7.2
July 6.9
Aug 7.0
Sept 6.8
Oct 6.8
Nov 6.8
Dec 6.4

1978
Jan 6.4
Feb 6.3
March 6.3
Apr 6.1
May 6.0
Jun 5.9
July 6.2
Aug 5.9
Sep 6.0
Oct 5.8
Nov 5.9
Dec 6.0

1979
Jan 5.9
Feb 5.9
Mar 5.8
Apr 5.8
May 5.6
Jun 5.7
Jul 5.7
Aug 6.0
Sept 5.9
Oct 6.0
Nov 5.9
Dec 6.0

1980
Jan 6.3
Feb 6.3
Mar 6.3
Apr 6.9
May 7.5
Jun 7.6
Jul 7.8 CARTER'S PEAK
Aug 7.7
Sept 7.5
Oct 7.5
Nov 7.5
Dec 7.2

01/1981 - Unemployment rate 7.5% …. Reagan sworn in.
02/1981 - 7.4%
03/1981 - 7.4%
04/1981 - 7.2%
05/1981 - 7.5%
06/1981 - 7.5%
07/1981 - 7.2%
08/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.
09/1981 - 7.6%
10/1981 - 7.9%
11/1981 - 8.3%
12/1981 - 8.5%

01/1982 - 8.6%
02/1982 - 8.9%
03/1982 - 9.0%
04/1982 - 9.3%
05/1982 - 9.4%
06/1982 - 9.6%
07/1982 - 9.8%
08/1982 - 9.8%
09/1982 - 10.1%
10/1982 - 10.4%
11/1982 - 10.8% * Unemployment HITS a post WW2 RECORD of 10.8%.
12/1982 - 10.8%

01/1983 - 10.4%
02/1983 - 10.4%
03/1983 - 10.3%
04/1983 - 10.3%
05/1983 - 10.1%
06/1983 - 10.1%
07/1983 - 9.4%
06/1983 - 9.5%
07/1983 - 9.4%
08/1983 - 9.5%
09/1983 - 9.2%
10/1983 - 8.8%
11/1983 - 8.5%
12/1983 - 8.3%

01/1984 - 8.0%
02/1984 - 7.8%


It took Reagan 28 MONTHS to get unemployment rate back down below 8 percent.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


AGAIN, CARTER HAD 9+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS GROWTH IN 4 YEARS VERSUS 14 MILLION FOR REAGAN'S 8

The mistake most assholes make is assuming the POTUS's policies are the primary driver of the economy.

The primary drivers of the economy are the welfare programs (incentive to not work), business, and other stuff like wars. The tech boom drove unemployment down in the 70s this was a bubble. The tech boom bubble popped while Regan was president. The dot com boom drove a big bubble during the Clinton years. The dot com bubble popped as Bush was entering office. Then the realestate bubble popped. Bubbles come and go. That's why we call them bubbles. Bush's economic screw ups were expanding welfare and starting needless wars.

Weird, so Dubya taking US to less than 15% of GDP revenues didn't hurt US after Clinton took Reagan's revenues back to Carters 20%+

NOR Dubya ignoring regulator warnings and cheering on the Bankster bubble?

Incentives NOT to work? Hell I though the LOWEST SUSTAINED TAX BURDEN IN 80 YEARS, JOBS WOULD BE ALL OVER THE PLACE? WHAT HAPPENED?

The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it.
P. J. O'Rourke

 

[The Rabbi]

Here, allow me to educate the brainwashed and indoctrinated who've bought into complete revisionist history.

You know, the way inmates do.

Inflation rates were in double digits during Carter. As high as 19%.

Unemployment rates were in double digits, as high as 12%.

Interest rates were double digit. Close to 20% at times.


Now for those who are NOT paid by unions to come here and pretend the Soviet Union beat the U.S. and Reagan destroyed the economy...but are just not old enough to know the real history....what Reagan did was bring all those rates down to single digits.

Quiz for the liberal LIARS: When you bring rates from double digits for interest rates, unemployment rates, and inflation rates down to single digits, does this impact the average American in the middle class in a POSITIVE WAY or NEGATIVE WAY?

Anyone that says negative will be too stupid to be debated with again.

So how bout it? I'm waiting for the idiots who try to spin that bringing inflation, unemployment and interest rates way down is bad for the middle class. But I'm sure we'll have some.

cp


It is true that growth increased drastically after the 1982 tax cut, reaching as high as 7.3% in 1984. However, as the Reagan-Bush, Sr. administrations went on and taxes for the rich were slashed even further, growth fell to negative levels during 1991, at the heart of the last recession. And, two of the three years with the highest growth were during the 1950s, when the top tax rate was 91%. Overall, there seems to be no close relationship between the top tax rate and the GDP growth rate, and statistical analysis backs this up: the correlation coefficient between the two variables is 0.03, meaning that there is essentially no connection. (If tax cuts were strongly related to GDP growth, we would see a coefficient close to -1.)

So cuts in tax rates that you agree caused growth we sure havent seen in this recovery somehow is responsible for a recession 7 years later?? Seriously? That's your view.
Then again you probably think repealing Glass-Steagal in 1997 caused the recession in 2008.