Why do Republicans continue to lie about Trickle Down neo-liberal economics?
- Thread starter Amadeus
- Start date
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
middle class income tax payers don't have 50,000 a year in interest payments.......
first of all, the average middle income tax payer isn't on Medicare.......secondly tax cuts are not Medicare cuts.....
/shrugs.....100% is 100%......what would you propose to do to make it more than 100%.....
Dear lunatic, the FACTS are clear. If you weren't such a brain dead moron, you could find them in historical budget tables included in every annual budget.
But alas, you're a dumbfuck on steroids and are fed your talking points from MSNBC and Politico.
What part of "corporations don't pay taxes" did you fail to comprehend? YOU and I pay those taxes you idiot. Corporations are merely tax collectors.
It is the definition of irony when lying leftist idiots call others dumb.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
taxes are so racist......
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
can you give us an example of such a "middle out" plan?.....
cawacko
Well-known member
Taxes are extremely racist and therefore marxists want them eliminated and total government ownership of all means of production and output
cawacko
Well-known member
Yes, I'm familiar with Bartlett and shocking a Keynesian doesn't approve of Reagan even if he was a part of it originally.
evince
Truthmatters
it doesnt work wack
ONLY libertarians jsut keep lying about it
Its why they hate the math all the other schools of economics do
evince
Truthmatters
He saw the light!
Four decades ago, while working for Rep. Jack Kemp (R-N.Y.), I had a hand in creating the Republican tax myth. Of course, it didn't seem like a myth at that time — taxes were rising rapidly because of inflation and bracket creep, the top tax rate was 70 percent and the economy seemed trapped in stagflation with no way out. Tax cuts, at that time, were an appropriate remedy for the economy's ills. By the time Ronald Reagan was president, Republican tax gospel went something like this:
- The tax system has an enormously powerful effect on economic growth and employment.
- High taxes and tax rates were largely responsible for stagflation in the 1970s.
- Reagan’s 1981 tax cut, which was based a bill, co-sponsored by Kemp and Sen. William Roth (R-Del.), that I helped design, unleashed the American economy and led to an abundance of growth.
That's wishful thinking. So is most Republican rhetoric around tax cutting. In reality, there's no evidence that a tax cut now would spur growth.
The Reagan tax cut did have a positive effect on the economy, but the prosperity of the '80s is overrated in the Republican mind. In fact, aggregate real gross domestic product growth was higher in the '70s — 37.2 percent vs. 35.9 percent.
Moreover, GOP tax mythology usually leaves out other factors that also contributed to growth in the 1980s: First was the sharp reduction in interest rates by the Federal Reserve. The fed funds rate fell by more than half, from about 19 percent in July 1981 to about 9 percent in November 1982. Second, Reagan's defense buildup and highway construction programs greatly increased the federal government's purchases of goods and services. This is textbook Keynesian economics.
Related: [Why would anyone in Puerto Rico want a hurricane? Because someone will get rich.]
Third, there was the simple bounce-back from the recession of 1981-82. Recoveries in the postwar era tended to be V-shaped — they were as sharp as the downturns they followed. The deeper the recession, the more robust the recovery.
Finally, I'm not sure how many Republicans even know anymore that Reagan raised taxes several times after 1981. His last budget showed that as of 1988, the aggregate, cumulative revenue loss from the 1981 tax cut was $264 billion and legislated tax increases brought about half of that back.
Today, Republicans extol the virtues of lowering marginal tax rates, citing as their model the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which lowered the top individual income tax rate to just 28 percent from 50 percent, and the corporate tax rate to 34 percent from 46 percent. What follows, they say, would be an economic boon. Indeed, textbook tax theory says that lowering marginal tax rates while holding revenue constant unambiguously raises growth.
But there is no evidence showing a boost in growth from the 1986 act. The economy remained on the same track, with huge stock market crashes — 1987's "Black Monday," 1989's Friday the 13th "mini-crash" and a recession beginning in 1990. Real wages fell.
Strenuous efforts by economists to find any growth effect from the 1986 act have failed to find much. The most thorough analysis, by economists Alan Auerbach and Joel Slemrod, found only a shifting of income due to tax reform, no growth effects: "The aggregate values of labor supply and saving apparently responded very little," they concluded.
The flip-side of tax cut mythology is the notion that tax increases are an economic disaster — the reason, in theory, every Republican in Congress voted against the tax increase proposed by Bill Clinton in 1993. Yet the 1990s was the most prosperous decade in recent memory. At 37.3 percent, aggregate real GDP growth in the 1990s exceeded that in the 1980s.
Despite huge tax cuts almost annually during the George W. Bush administration that cost the Treasury trillions in revenue, according to the Congressional Budget Office, growth collapsed in the first decade of the 2000s. Real GDP rose just 19.5 percent, well below its '90s rate.
We saw another test of the Republican tax myth in 2013, after President Barack Obama allowed some of the Bush tax cuts to expire, raising the top income tax rate to its current 39.6 percent from 35 percent. The economy grew nicely afterward and the stock market has boomed — up around 10,000 points over the past five years.
Now, Republicans propose cutting the top individual rate to 35 percent, despite lacking evidence that this lower rate led to growth during the Bush years, and a drop in the corporate tax rate to just 20 percent from 35 percent. Unlike 1986, however, this $1.5 trillion cut over the next decade will only be paid for partially by closing tax loopholes.
Republicans' various claims are irreconcilable. One is that the rich will not benefit even though it is practically impossible for them not to — those paying the most taxes already will necessarily benefit the most from a large tax cut. And there aren't enough tax deductions, exclusions and credits benefiting the rich that could be abolished to offset a cut in the top rate.
Related: [Trump promised black voters equal justice. That’s all Kaepernick wants.]
Even if they had released a complete plan — not just the woefully incomplete nine-page outline released Wednesday — Republicans have failed to make a sound case that it's time to cut taxes.
Republicans on Sept. 27 introduced a tax proposal that would deeply cut taxes but would also likely add to the national debt. (Danielle Kunitz, Bastien Inzaurralde/The Washington Post)Nor have they signaled that they'll commit to a viable process. It's worth remembering that the first version of the '81 tax cut was introduced in 1977 and underwent thorough analysis by the CBO and other organizations, and was subject to comprehensive public hearings. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 grew out of a detailed Treasury studyand took over two years to complete.
Rushing through a half-baked tax plan, in the same manner Republicans tried (and failed) to do with health-care reform, should be rejected out of hand. As Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has repeatedly and correctly said, successful legislating requires a return to the "regular order." That means a detailed proposal with proper revenue estimates and distribution tables from the Joint Committee on Taxation, hearings and analysis by the nation's best tax experts, markups and amendments in the tax-writing committees, and an open process in the House of Representatives and Senate.
There are good arguments for a proper tax reform even if it won't raise GDP growth. It may improve economic efficiency, administration and fairness. But getting from here to there requires heavy lifting that this Republican Congress has yet to demonstrate. If they again look for a quick, easy victory, they risk a replay of the Obamacare repeal fight that wasted so much time and yielded so little.
Bruce Bartlett was a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan. He is the author of “The Benefit and the Burden: Tax Reform — Why We Need It and What It Will
It's not just Bartlett, bro. David Stockman, Raygun's budget director looked back in hindsight and saw that Reaganomics was horseshit.
I voted for Reagan, lived through it, and observed the early 1980s.
Cawacko, all you really know about it is the mythology you read that was created by the rightwing media.
evince
Truthmatters
awesome laffer himself
I have heard him say similar things long ago
But then his napkin he wrote this on seems to fade from his memory at times.
Worked great under JFK as well.
evince
Truthmatters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_are_all_Keynesians_now
"We are all Keynesians now" is a famous phrase coined by Milton Friedman and attributed to U.S. president Richard Nixon. It is popularly associated with the reluctant embrace in a time of financial crisis of Keynesian economics by individuals such as Nixon who had formerly favored less interventionist policies.
History of the phrase and variations[edit]
Carl Turner in his 1969 book[1] cites a Russian article by I.G. Blyumin from 1947, referring to what was already the 'famous remark'. The phrase was later attributed to Milton Friedman in the December 31, 1965, edition of Time magazine.[2] In the February 4, 1966, edition, Friedman wrote a letter clarifying that his original statement had been "In one sense, we are all Keynesians now; in another, nobody is any longer a Keynesian."[3]
Friedman's expression was purportedly a rejoinder to the 1888 claim of British politician William Vernon Harcourt that "We are all socialists now";[4] a declaration that was reprinted for a Newsweek magazine cover story in 2009.[5]
In 1971, after taking the United States off the gold standard,[6] Nixon was quoted as saying "I am now a Keynesian in economics",[7] which became popularly associated with Friedman's phrase.
In 2002, Peter Mandelson wrote an article in The Times declaring "we are all Thatcherites now", referring to the acceptance among the other political parties of Margaret Thatcher's economic policies.[8]
The phrase gained new life in the midst of the global financial crisis of 2008, when economists called for massive investment in infrastructure and job creation as a means of economic stimulation.[
"We are all Keynesians now" is a famous phrase coined by Milton Friedman and attributed to U.S. president Richard Nixon. It is popularly associated with the reluctant embrace in a time of financial crisis of Keynesian economics by individuals such as Nixon who had formerly favored less interventionist policies.
History of the phrase and variations[edit]
Carl Turner in his 1969 book[1] cites a Russian article by I.G. Blyumin from 1947, referring to what was already the 'famous remark'. The phrase was later attributed to Milton Friedman in the December 31, 1965, edition of Time magazine.[2] In the February 4, 1966, edition, Friedman wrote a letter clarifying that his original statement had been "In one sense, we are all Keynesians now; in another, nobody is any longer a Keynesian."[3]
Friedman's expression was purportedly a rejoinder to the 1888 claim of British politician William Vernon Harcourt that "We are all socialists now";[4] a declaration that was reprinted for a Newsweek magazine cover story in 2009.[5]
In 1971, after taking the United States off the gold standard,[6] Nixon was quoted as saying "I am now a Keynesian in economics",[7] which became popularly associated with Friedman's phrase.
In 2002, Peter Mandelson wrote an article in The Times declaring "we are all Thatcherites now", referring to the acceptance among the other political parties of Margaret Thatcher's economic policies.[8]
The phrase gained new life in the midst of the global financial crisis of 2008, when economists called for massive investment in infrastructure and job creation as a means of economic stimulation.[
Another rightwing myth. Is that what Boss Limbaugh instructed you to believe?
JFK never had any tax cuts passed.
JFK was dead before any tax cuts were passed.
The tax cuts you are referring were passed by the Democratic congress, and Lyndon Johnson. Though when JFK was alive he purportedly advocated for them.
JFK and LBJ were mainstream keynsian advocates.
I understand the rightwing desire to piggy back on a great Democratic president, JFK.
But the mid-60s tax cuts were intended to roll back some of the ridiculously high marginal tax rates that were implemented to help pay for world war two, a legacy of defeating the Nazis. They were not intended to last forever.
cawacko
Well-known member
They are referred to as JFK's tax cuts because he was the one promoting them. And they were supply side. George W. Bush claimed to be a supply sider yet his refund checks were straight Keynesian. Point being what one considers themselves economically and their policies don't always match up.