Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Jack Kemp :: Townhall.com Columnist
What would Ronald Reagan do?
by Jack Kemp
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


As the Republican candidates all gather at the Reagan Library for their first debate of the presidential campaign, what follows is my advice on "what would Ronald Reagan do?" I'll start with the economy and follow with foreign policy in next week's column.

In giving thought to what Reagan would do about tax and budget policy, we must never forget the times in which he led our nation.

When he was first sworn in in 1981, Reagan faced a divided government, an economy in deep recession with rising prices and a rapidly falling dollar. The country had begun to experience what economists said was impossible, i.e. rising unemployment and accelerating inflation, which came to be called "stagflation." The so-called "misery index" was at an all-time high, and the morale of the American people was at a record low, except for the Depression.

Conventional economists were calling for a tax increase to dampen inflation and for the Fed to use monetary policy to offset the fiscal drag to prevent a recession. Income tax rates were 70 percent at the top and 20 percent at the bottom.

Reagan moved decisively to cut tax rates by 25 percent across the board, and he supported Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volker's tight monetary policy, thus strengthening the dollar while wringing inflation out of the economy. These bold steps, along with lowering the trade and regulatory barriers, helped the U.S. economy grow well over 4.5 percent while unemployment dropped below 5 percent for the first time in two decades.

As the economy grew, revenues increased, and the wealth of our nation began to produce the jobs that took unemployment from more than 6.5 percent down to 4.5 percent, all with price stability. This was something the Keynesian economists (and some conservatives, as well) said couldn't happen. Indeed it's happening now under President Bush, with unemployment at 4.4 percent, thanks in large part to the Bush tax rate cuts.

Reagan would not only defend the Bush tax-rate cuts, he'd have more in store for us. He'd not only support making them permanent, but he'd offer up a tax-reform agenda that would cut the top tax rate to 20 percent, lower the payroll taxes on working families and allow workers to put at least half of their payroll taxes into IRAs so as to get a much better rate of return.

Reagan also believed in a zero capital gains tax on those who'd put their surplus capital at risk in enterprise zones, also known as empowerment zones. These special zones throughout urban and rural America would help to create more jobs for minorities and those living in poverty while creating access to capital and credit for low-income people.

He would tell us that it is absolutely possible to reduce the debt burden, fix Social Security and cut tax rates, all at the same time. Anyone who doesn't believe it doesn't comprehend the hypothesis put forth by President Kennedy in 1961 and '62 and confirmed by Reagan in the '80s: "The purpose of cutting taxes now is ... to achieve a more prosperous and expanding economy. The soundest way to raise tax revenues in the long run is to cut the tax rates now."

So, Republican candidates, here's a "Kempian" plan to memorize in the days and months ahead as you give a "Reaganesque" answer as to how to keep growing our American economy:

"My fellow Americans, I'm a spending hawk and a tax-cutter. We must adopt good economic policies - less spending, lower tax rates, a simpler tax code - and then let the economy work by unleashing the dynamics of the American worker, investor and entrepreneur. Someone will try to say that this won't reduce the deficit, and I challenge them on that. They don't know. They are still using computer models that have never worked in the past. You just can't predict the deficit with any precision.

"We're talking $2.4 trillion of taxes and more than $2.6 trillion in outlays in 2006, and the deficit is less than 2 percent of our GDP, which is more than $13 trillion. I respectfully disagree with anyone who thinks they can forecast precise estimates out into the future. It depends on economic growth.

"The economy will grow faster if we have open trade, a better tax code and restraint of spending. The growth of our economy is just not counted in the computer models, so we have to discount those models and use our best judgment about what's good for the country, the economy and the Free World. And that's exactly what I plan to do when I take office!"

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Jack Kemp is Founder and Chairman of Kemp Partners and a contributing columnist to Townhall.com.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Jack Kemp's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Do Republicans believe in any taxes?
When Reagan came into office, the top marginal rate was 70% and was clearly acting as a drag on the economy. He cut it substantially. It's never risen much above 40% ever since, even during Democratic administrations.

Yet Mr. Kemp proposes to cut taxes again. And again. Even though there is little evidence that excessive taxation today are what is dragging down the economy. It appears much more than rising costs, such as the rising cost of health care and energy, are what is dragging down the economy today. As the baby-boomer population continues to age, cutting their taxes isn't going to compensate for their health care costs.

What level of taxes above zero does Mr. Kemp think is necessary and sufficient?

He's Dead, so he'd be decaying today
First he's dead and he had the affects of alzheimer's disease in his last years in office.

I know conservatives wax poetic about Reagan, but he was NOT that good of a President. In fact he was pretty middle of the road as historians have noted.

End of cold war? He was lucky to be in office when that happened. He gets some credit, but the cold war was going for 30 years. Previous presidents, including Carter deserves credit as well. (I know that will make you mad but I don't care. It is true.)

Reagan was a man of his time, a figure head that looked good speaking his Hollywood lines (that he confused with reality in his later term sometimes. Heck they did not even wake him up when crisis's happened around the world.) Reagan invoked confidence and sounded and looked presidential, what a leader should do. However Reagan had great people around him, unlike the clowns Bush has chosen to surround him like dysfunctional enablers! OMG. Now look at Bush and his leadership...........makes you want to cry.

To be serious Reagan would do the opposite of what ever Bush has done or is doing, because no one is that dumb, I mean incompetent. I am sure Bush is brilliant, but being a drunk till age 40 (recipient of a DUI) tends to kill brain cells. As a tribute to Reagan, I'd rather a Reagan with Alzheimer's than Bush with his alleged "full mental facilities".

Jet-pilot
You are one bitter individual. I have not even read the column, but I see you have no respect for anything or anyone. I didn't like Bill Clinton and I still don't...But I wouldn'd stomp on his grave and make nasty remarks. People are human, they make mistakes.(Both Presidents)It must be nice way up there on your throne of perfection. Not to mention lonely.

Sounds like Fair tax...
Ah, so the article is about tax-cuts...well, as we already know, they work. They worked under Reagan and Bush. Contrary to what the dems believe, I mean. Still, the dems would have more taxes and the use of OPM rather than work for a living or re-invest their profits. That would mean they are capitalists. I guess they just work to give it away, right? Go read that book by Neal Boortz....

Nee
The only problem with that is that today, our dollar is being severely inflated to help cover the spending habits of this Congress and administration. The money has to come from SOMEWHERE and right now, it's coming from the Federal Reserve increasing the money supply and "loaning" it to our government, and from foreign countries still buying our debt. The latter is changing however, as they are losing confidence in our dollar, as we ship more of our manufacturing base and jobs overseas.

Kemp calls what we are doing... "open trade", but not free trade. The reason is because NAFTA, etc. ARE NOT free trade. In reality, they are nothing more than MANAGED TRADE, designed to benefit select international companies in addition to setting up the WTO to rule over our own Congress with regards to trade issues. This managed trade is hurting our economy very badly. Free trade is good; managed trade is horrible. Remember Ross Perot talking about the "giant sucking sound" that we would hear if NAFTA was passed? Seems like he was right, don't you think?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZnnotyoKY&eurl=

This is a good article from the Mises Institute describing the difference between our current trade agreements, such as NAFTA, CAFTA, etc. and real free trade.
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=189&sortorder=articledate

Radlad
Sure there is. However Ron Paul would actually DO a lot of the things that Ronald Reagan only talked about.

Ron Paul for President '08

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
http://www.youtube.com/RonPaul2008dotcom
http://www.myspace.com/ronpaul2008
http://www.myspace.com/congressmanronpaul
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

His new book on foreign policy:
http://www.mises.org/store/Foreign-Policy-of-Freedom-A-P359C0.aspx?AFID=2

"There is one and only one voice in Congress for a foreign policy of freedom, and it belongs to Ron Paul, who has stood alone for freedom for many years. Ron is the seemingly impossible: a voice for reason and truth in a den of thieves." -- the Mises Institute

Not today
The tax cuts happened in 2003. Inflation is not an issue today. It is not inflation that is making the dollar fall, but a huge trade deficit.

By the way, Volker and his tight monetary policy was Carter's idea. Kemp is praising Reagan for continuing what essentially was Carter's policy. Is it too much to ask for him to credit Carter?

Out of 10 comments to Kemp's essay:
4 were obvious leftists

1 was a libertarian

2 were obvious right-wing posters


(It doesn't add up to 10 because some posted more than one comment)

Has TH.com suddenly become a beacon in the night for socialists?

What would Reagan Do?
All the time I keep hearing about what would Ron, Bill, etc. do? When are we going to get someone who can think for himself? Ever wonder what thjose guys were thinking? I doubt they were thinking, "Wonder what what , whomever, would do. Doesn`t anybody think for themselves anymore? If anyone does, I will vote for them.

Communists, Leftinistas, Liberalcrats
Why are so many of the aforementioned on Townhall? Go back to Moveon.org, The Daily Kos and other Communist, Crybaby, Cowardice-Spewing, Liberal stinkholes and tell lies to your heart's content!
J. Allen Frye

Keep up the "cheerleading" Jack!
Why not throw your presidental hat back into the ring... and be our QB! Keep on keeping on Jack, in this arena called "politics as usual"!

MayDay! MayDay! WWRD?
I remember clearly when President Reagen locked out the striking airport traffic controllers.

He did not reward the activities of Socialists and Commies.

If our President wants to be like Ronald Reagan, he would be sure the Pinko demonstrators who are taking off on May Day are not allowed to return to their jobs.

They should instead be sent immediatly to the other side of the border, without passing "GO!"

Our government should be in the business of showing foreign nationals that they have no right to dictate OUR public policy.

If these Bozos want to get involved in government, let them go back where they came from and fix those corrupt governments!!!

The lefty posters
attack Reagan as an actor reading lines. (Of course, dems always said that Reagan, Eisenhower, Bush were dumb. If you are republcan it follows that you are dumb according to their thinking.) In fact, Reagans papers, hand written, revealed that he had done a lot of very serious analytical thinking about the issues of the day. Have you noticed also that when the driveby media writes about Thompson they lead off with "the actor: Thompson and conviently omit his long rather illustrious career in government?

loco
The leftist mewlers are still mad that Reagan punked out their boy Ol Swamp Wabbit Karter. I remember when the liberal bedwetters cried that we're gonna get nuked when Reagan walked away from the SALT talks in Iceland a few months later, Gorbie and the USSR began to give up the ghost.

Guess Reagan was smarter than the libstains after all.

liberalgoodman
Nah, the ONLY thing Karter should get credit for is losing Iran to the Islamofascists and for screwing the USA up during his pathetic reign.

He sure was tough when Russian invaded Afghanistan. Punishing the US Olympians by preventing them from competing was simply a stroke of genius.

jetpilot
Try reading some of his speeches and radio addresses that HE WROTE. Reagan was far smarter and a better POTUS than anything the libscum have foisted on us.

Bubba Klintoon and his co-president Hitlary would not have made a pimple of Reagan's azz.

Now buzz off and fly your r/c plane little boy, the adults are talking.

A better question...

...is: What would Barak Obama do if he was Ronald Reagan?

wwrrd?
ronnie would crack a stoopid joke
ronnie would wait for 'mommie' to tell him what to say
ronnie would tell another tall story, i.e., LIE
ronnie would fall asleep

chuckle, chuckle!!

SteveL:
You don't get it. Cutting taxes (and regulation, for that matter) will make healthcare and energy more accessible since people will have more money to spend.

If healthcare providers are taxed less, they can make their product cheaper.

I can't say the same for gasoline, however it should be said that the government has made 8-10 times the revenue off of gasoline than the actual oil companies have in the last 30 years.

What less taxation does, SteveL, is make the dollar stronger. If a provider is taxed less, the service price decreases. When the price of service or product decreases, you get more of that service or product for each dollar you spend.

I was talking to my neighbors the other day. I asked them what they would do if their tax burden was suddenly dropped by $500 a month and was guaranteed to stay there for the next ten years. Suddenly, talk erupted of what new toys they would buy. These were all men, after all. Had the conversation been nationwide, you would have seen Bayliner, Harley Davidson, Ford, General Motors, Chrysler, and Carnival Cruise Lines go into hiring sprees, and there would be a whole lot less talk of doom and gloom and soupline America.

Well, I'm sure all the neo commies would complain.


Another Reagan?
The problem in our politics is not that we need another Reagan, what we need is wholesale change. The propaganda put out by BOTH Democrats & Republicans is that they alone are worthy of rule, that they alone have the wisdom and knowledge to govern this nation, when in fact they are all incompetent.
The only goal either party seeks is to gain and hold power. To ensure that they do, they have rigged the election process so that in every election, we have only the choice of the lesser of two evils. We have abdicated our responsibility and given away the authority that we recieived from our founding fathers to this elite group of politicians.
In the absence of true accountability due to this "non-choice", there is no leadership in Washington. The politicians have substituted partisanship in its place and yet somehow, still convinced us to vote for them. This insanity must stop and we must break this cycle of continual power in the hands of an elite group that no longer respects the Constitution, the rule of law, or the will of the people. We are bought off by their pork barrell legislation that tosses out a bunch of freebies and allowed them to stay in power.
I must ask you, the American voter and citizen of this great country, "Just how long are weu going to put these people back in power? How long are we going to give them the authority that is ours to do as they please? How long are we going accept their propaganda and sell out our birthright for convenience? How long are we going to ignore our job to govern ourselves and allow these do nothing, let's get re-elected power hungry partisans to control the future? HOW LONG??"
I am a candidate for President and I ask you to check out my website, joeolivaforpresident.org. There must be a change and we can do it if we have faith in ourselves and not this select group to govern this great country. Check it out, you won't be disappointed. Thanks, Joe

Dissenter57:
While I agree that it would be nice for the Bush twins to enter service, I must say that by your reasoning Chelsea CLinton and the Kerry daughters should be "sent" also if the Bush twins are.

However, the reason I support sending them is because I know that if the Bush twins climb into a Humvee and take a tour of Fallujah, there will be nothing and nobody breathing in that town by the time they get there.

Let's have them tour the whole dang country.... it'll be a deserted wasteland by the time they're through.

SteveL ... L for LIBERAL MORON
A better question is what level of taxes below 100% would liberals consider sufficient? We know it's not 91 - 92% as that was the level before JFK cut taxes ... the liberal congress was perfectly willing to accept that. In England, the top end rate was an ASTOUNDING 97% ... and resulted in half the talent in England leaving the country! Imagine ... you get to keep 3 cents out of every dollar you earn ... wonder why nobody wants to work and invest? You liberal fools are just incredibly ignorant!

You fools can't cut it without government holding your hand ... you'd be better off if you were forced to make it in the private sector!

Liberals
Whenever liberals are in complete control they run that government into the ground ... as they did during the Carter administration ... and as they did in New York, Massachusetts, and California. All of those ultra liberal hellholes elected Republican governors after the left had destroyed the economies of those states! Look it up ... and that's typical of socialist governments everywhere!

DavidMac
I am guessing that you are attempting to categorize my comment as "libertarian". It's interesting, because I have never been a libertarian. The thing is that I happen to be one who remembers the traditional conservative principles. If you'll recall, these are the very same things of which Reagan often spoke.

- limited constitutional government
- personal privacy
- personal responsibility
- strong national defense
- fiscally responsible government
- individual liberty

Have people forgotten?

Now, apply these principles to the current crop of candidates and judge for yourself how each lines up.

He also quoted Bastiat quite frequently. Here's a short book by him (originally published as a pamphlet) in case you're interested. It is called, "The Law":
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

Selective Memory
Kemp wrote:

"Reagan... supported Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volker's tight monetary policy, thus strengthening the dollar while wringing inflation out of the economy. These bold steps... helped the U.S. economy grow well over 4.5 percent while unemployment dropped below 5 percent for the first time in two decades."

First off, Kemp's employment statistics are just flat wrong. Unemployment averaged 4.9% in 1970. It didn't fall under 5% again until 1997.

Secondly, what does "the U.S. economy [grew] well over 4.5%" mean?

"...unemployment from more than 6.5 percent down to 4.5 percent..."

Unemployment reached 4.5% in 1998. Which had more of an impact on hitting this milestone, Kemp-Roth in 1983 or the Clinton tax increase of 1993?

"This was something the Keynesian economists (and some conservatives, as well) said couldn't happen."

Not true. Keynesian theory says that when unemployment falls below the "full employment" level, inflation will inevitably occur. As the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has estimated full employment to be 4-6.5%, that moving from 6.5% unemployment to 4.5% unemployment without inflation is not contrary to Keynesian theory.

"Indeed it's happening now under President Bush, with unemployment at 4.4 percent, thanks in large part to the Bush tax rate cuts."

Too bad Kemp didn't try to justify this statement with analysis. I wonder how he would explain unemployment reaching 4% in 2000 - was that thanks in large part to the Clinton tax rate increase?

"Reagan would not only defend the Bush tax-rate cuts, he'd have more in store for us. He'd... cut the top tax rate to 20 percent, lower the payroll taxes..."

But Reagan would not decrease spending; indeed, Kemp doesn't even suggest he would. Where is the Conservatism? Why is the focus of modern-day Conservatism on cutting taxes today, damn the consequences tomorrow?

"He would tell us that it is absolutely possible to reduce the debt burden, fix Social Security and cut tax rates, all at the same time."

Probably. Reagan was a modern-day Hans Christian Andersen.

"Anyone who doesn't believe it doesn't comprehend the hypothesis put forth by President Kennedy in 1961 and '62..."

Please read this: http://www.slate.com/id/2093947/

"...and confirmed by Reagan in the '80s: 'The purpose of cutting taxes now is ... to achieve a more prosperous and expanding economy. The soundest way to raise tax revenues in the long run is to cut the tax rates now.'"

One has only to recall that the top tax rate in 1962 was 91% to realize that this idea has little relevance in our economy, with tax rates where they are now. Please look at some of the modern research on the effects of tax rate cuts: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/14/AR2006051400806.html

"Someone will try to say that this won't reduce the deficit, and I challenge them on that. They don't know. They are still using computer models that have never worked in the past. You just can't predict the deficit with any precision."

But we don't need precision; we need to understand the direction of the effect. Cutting tax rates leads to less revenue, period.

"I respectfully disagree with anyone who thinks they can forecast precise estimates out into the future.

This is word-parsing BS. What does "precise" mean? I don't really think that Kemp believes economic forecasting to be no more valuable than reading tea leaves.

"It depends on economic growth."

Of course it does. And there are lots of variables. And there is not a lot of evidence now that minor tax rate cuts have much of an impact on economic growth.

"The economy will grow faster if we have open trade, a better tax code and restraint of spending."

Yes and no. Open trade, sure. A "better tax code," without definition can't tell. Restraint of spending, it depends. Higher spending (with the same revenue) should cause increased economic growth in the short run, but the increased borrowing (or decreased debt reduction) should cause slower economic growth in the future.

"The growth of our economy is just not counted in the computer models, so we have to discount those models and use our best judgment..."

Okay, this is just unbelievable BS. Take a look at Economic Report of the President table B-78, which shows Federal Government receipts and outlays for 1940-2008, including two years of forecasts. The far right column shows GDP, which is forecast to grow 5.4% in 2007 and 5.5% in 2008.

Seriously, Kemp thinks economists don't realize that the economy grows, and don't build estimates of future growth into their models? What kind of moron is he?

.

SteveL
...DOESN'T get it. There is no "optimum" level of taxes. Taxes are a drain on private economic activity, period. Some government services are necessary, and best organized by the state -- national defense, interstate highways -- and the point of taxes is to PAY FOR THEM, not to massage the economy.

So the first question is what should we really be paying for the state to do, and how much does it cost. After that, we can say how much revenue the government needs.

Taxing percentages of income is pernicious and invidious. There is no valid basis for saying the corporate tax rate "should" be 40%, or any other number. Tax rates determined independently of revenue requirements are a factor that dangerously distorts not just our economy, but all social interaction, and the very way we think about government, each other, and life on earth.

dyerje wrote:

"Some government services are necessary, and best organized by the state -- national defense, interstate highways -- and the point of taxes is to PAY FOR THEM, not to massage the economy."

Could be. But before WWII, before Roosevelt, before the rise of Keynesian theory, economic depressions were regular occurrences, as government did not interfere in the business cycle. Since then, our recessions have been shallow and short-lived. Coincidence? No. Are we better off than we would have been otherwise? Don't know.

.

BS Detector
Better apply your handle to yourself ... liberal FOOL! You employ several of the favorite tricks of the liberals ... throw out a ton of BS and then when your opponent refutes that, throw out another ton on another irrelevant subject ... then, there's the lie by omission ... and the lie by selection of data with no context!

Example: "Cutting tax rates leads to less revenue, period." Reagan cut tax rates considerably and yet in the eight years of his administration tax receipts increased from about 400 to over 800 billion ... a growth rate of about 9% per year ... FAR faster than the growth of the economy during that period or any other period before or since! But maybe to you liberal idiots, 800 billion is less than 400 billion? Not only did tax revenues NOT GO DOWN, they increased far faster than the economy as a whole! The problem with you liberals is that you would rather everybody be miserable than enjoy the fruits of a growing economy!

We can trace the recovery of the Bush economy TO THE DAY that the full Bush tax cuts went into effect! Coincidence ... only to you liberal morons!

True conservative
Wish I'd said that!!

TrueConservative is a sad example

Since you didn't cite your source, I'll assume you pulled these numbers straight from your rectum. Let's see how many things you get wrong (source is Economic Report of the President Table B-78 and B-80 until otherwise noted).

"[I]n the eight years of [Reagan's] administration tax receipts increased from about 400..."

1. Individual and corporate income tax receipts in 1981 (Carter's last budget): $347 billion

"...to over 800 billion..."

2. Receipts in 1989 (Reagan's last budget): $549 billion

"...a growth rate of about 9% per year..."

3. Since your numbers are wrong, your rate is wrong. The real rate's about 6%.

"FAR faster than the growth of the economy during that period..."

4. GDP grew from $3.1 trillion in 1981 to 5.4 trillion in 1989, a growth rate of 7.2%, as compared to the growth of tax revenues, 6%.

"Not only did tax revenues NOT GO DOWN, they increased far faster than the economy as a whole!"

5. Wrong, as noted above.

"We can trace the recovery of the Bush economy TO THE DAY that the full Bush tax cuts went into effect!"

6. The recession of 2001 ended in November 2001 (nber.org). The full Bush tax cuts took effect with JGTRRA on May 27, 2003.

Let's see - did you say anything that was factually accurate? Nope.

By the way, income tax revenues during the Clinton years (93-01)increased at a rate of 7.8% per year. Why so much higher than the 6% of the Reagan years? I'll give you one guess.

Seriously, you call yourself TrueConservative, but few conservatives are as stupid or unpleasant as you seem to be. Sit down, have a drink, and leave the analytical work to us morons.

.

BS detector
... says "government did not interfere in the business cycle" before WWII.

Of course it did. The combination of a 91% marginal income tax rate and comprehensive tariff wars with Europe -- both measures representing interference by the government -- dramatically amplified and extended the impact of the 1929 stock market crash.

The US government has interfered in the economy since our nation's inception, through taxation, tariffs, subsidies, and monetary policy. It has also done so through settlement policies (farm your quarter-section successfully for a certain number of years, and keep it), and the regularization of policies on real property (how ownership is obtained, demonstrated, and legally used to back loans).

Government is always there interfering in the economy. It is erroneous to say that we only started doing it after people read Keynes. Rather, people started thinking they could literally regulate macroeconomic outcomes with the rise of Keynesian "managerialism" (James Burnham's excellent formulation).

Because all other things -- technology, population, trade levels -- have not remained equal since Western Europe and the US began trying Keynesian experiments, it would be invalid to attribute the lack of a 1930s-level Great Depression in the last 60 years to "Keynesian" ideas. The fact that Keynesian ideas had the intention of regulating the economy doesn't mean that they have succeeded. They didn't operate in a vacuum, and never do.

There are numerous other factors to look at, including tax and tariff policies much more favorable than in the 1920s and 1930s, along with the rise of individual debt-financing, technological advances, and faster population growth, which allow generations to postpone and dilute some of the economic consequences that came home to roost in the 1930s (e.g., the fact that so much wealth was held in the form of farm property, which lost 90% of its value when it didn't perform for even two consecutive years).

Technology and the private use of credit have transcended Keynes' primitive, Age of the Proletariat ideas on "managing" economies. Meanwhile, governments continue to interfere in the economy, as they always have and always will.

BS Detector ... Proving You are a MORON!
It took me exactly 10 seconds to Google "US Government Tax Receipts" and what did I find ...

TOTAL tax receipts [not just income taxes which I did NOT restrict my analysis to - your lie by misrepresentation] increased from 1978 to 1988 [the approximate period of Reagan's term] from 446.5 billion to 997.2 billion ... MORE than doubling. But your argument was that cutting taxes NEVER increases revenues which your own rebuttal refutes [you said income taxes rose from 347 to 549 billion - which is still a very good rate of growth over 8 years!

A trademark of liberalism is to take such a stupidly erroneous position they refute themselves, often within the same SENTENCE!. Now these are just numbers, put out by your precious government, so maybe YOUR dreams are better numbers than the actual facts.

So, EVERY word I wrote is in fact, TRUE, and every word you wrote, a liberal, lying deception!

The moron call still stands and now I'll add FOOL to it!

BS Emitter [aka BS Detector]
I don't suppose the "income" tax revenue increases during the Clinton administration had anything to do with the ENORMOUS stock market bubble and the huge taxable gains that were realized until the bubble burst? Nahhhh, that would be a SECOND level effect and you liberals can NEVER see beyond the first, most obvious effect of a policy. That's why liberal policies inevitably lead to CATASTROPHE!

Wait til your kids hunt you down in the streets for saddling them with the liberal Ponzi Social Security scheme!

And a bit of advice, don't go into an arguement intellectually unarmed!

dyerje wrote:

"BS detector says 'government did not interfere in the business cycle' before WWII."

Not what I said. I said "before WWII... economic depressions were regular occurrences, as government did not interfere in the business cycle." Now, perhaps the word "as" was poorly chosen, as it ascribes more importance to the government's role than I believe.

We have a basic agreement here, that government action is by definition interference. What I would argue is that prior to the Great Depression, government did not act to intentionally counter the negative effects of the business cycle, and that since then, it has - quite effectively.

And so my point is that yes, part of the role of government is to provide for the common defense, it is also appropriate for the government to promote the general Welfare, and that part of this is to undertake policies with the intent of influencing the economy.

.

TrueConservative compounds his errors

TrueConservative wrote:

"TOTAL tax receipts [not just income taxes which I did NOT restrict my analysis to - your lie by misrepresentation]..."

1. Hardly, since I was talking about tax rate CUTS. Payroll taxes were INCREASED significantly under Reagan, from 6.13% in 1980 to 7.15% in 1987. This was done to - wait for it - INCREASE the size of the "trust fund." Why, if tax rate cuts cause revenues to increase, did they not decrease these tax rates? Hey, maybe we could have solved the social security "problem" by cutting the taxes to zero!

"...increased from 1978 to 1988 [the approximate period of Reagan's term]..."

2. BUZZZZZZ! I'm sorry, you're taking 1978 as your base year for Reagan's term? And you call me a liar. What kind of moron are you? Do you really think that any "analysis" you provide following this little nugget has any validity? Note, I could just as easily have used 2000, since that would have made my numbers more dramatic, but something called intellectual honesty gets in the way.

You should bow down and thank God that the "true Conservatives" aren't as stupid and/or dishonest as you.

"...from 446.5 billion to 997.2 billion..."

3. Where are you getting your (incorrect) information? Federal revenue in 1978 - $399.6 billion; in 1988 - $909.3 billion. You can't even seem to get the most basic facts straight. Wait, I see - you're using inflation-adjusted numbers. I'll forgive you this one, since I'm guessing you just don't know the difference.

"But your argument was that cutting taxes NEVER increases revenues which your own rebuttal refutes [you said income taxes rose from 347 to 549 billion"

3. What you don't seem to fathom is that the economy - and therefore tax revenue - grows, with or without tax rate cuts. Reagan cut taxes, the economy and revenues grew. Clinton raised taxes, the economy and revenues grew. I said "cutting tax rates leads to less revenue, period," which is absolutely true: tax cuts lead to less revenue than would have been collected absent tax cuts. What's so hard to understand?

"The moron call still stands."

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

"I don't suppose the 'income' tax revenue increases during the Clinton administration had anything to do with the ENORMOUS stock market bubble and the huge taxable gains that were realized until the bubble burst?"

Conservatives without much intellect often say that the robust economy of the 1990s was illusory. Naturally, and again, you're wrong. In 2000, the year with the highest capital gains tax receipts, they amounted to $119 billion dollars - about 9.8% of income tax receipts. Let's say that half of this was "bubble-caused," (which seems to be reasonable looking at the data - http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/70xx/doc7047/02-23-CapitalGains.pdf). So 5% of tax revenue in 2000 was caused by stock market speculation. And in 2001, knocking half the $100B of capital gains tax out of the equation, that number drops to 4.4%. Impact on overall income tax revenue growth during Clinton? From 7.8% to 7.2%. How wholely unexciting.

But let's go ahead and look at this revenue growth issue in a bit more detail. Careful, TrueConservativeMoron, you might learn something.

If we look at the real growth of income tax revenue, growth under Clinton was, unsurprisingly to those who use brains, much more robust than under Reagan. Here are the important numbers:

CPI (broad measure of prices)
1981: 90.9
1989: 124.0
Difference: 36%

1993: 144.5
2001: 177.1
Difference: 23%

Income tax revenues (individual and corporate - note that *duh* I'm not using inflation-adjusted numbers here)
1981: $347B
1989: $539B
Difference: 58%

1993: $627B
2001: $1,145B
Difference: 83%

Adjusting for inflation, real income tax revenue growth:

1981-1989: 16%
1993-2001: 49%

Gee, I wonder why? Real GDP growth was virtually identical during these time periods (3.5% per year). Could it be because tax rates were increased under Clinton, and decreased under Reagan? Of course. Only a great fool would think otherwise.

Now, a wise debater might bring up the fact that GDP and income tax are imperfectly matched, that national income would be a better measure. And by that measure, the Reagan economy was a bit better: 3.2% to 3.0%. But that, of course, proves my point even better.

But I'm sure you're not a wise debater. A masturbater, sure. But not a wise debater.

"And a bit of advice, don't go into an arguement [sic] intellectually unarmed!"

Sure thing, Noah Webster.

.

Mountain Rose
You have to keep your dates straight. May i (May Day) was the communist celebration. Mexico celebrates May 5th which commerates a victory in their struggle for freedom. The two have nothing to do with each other.

Ken- Excuse me but the marchers today
are celebrating MAY DAY.

On Saturday they will celebrate Cinco De Mayo, which is just an excuse to get even more drunk than usual.

I would be happy if all these jerks were celebrating was Cinco de Mayo, which I equate with St Patrick's Day.

MayDay, on the other hand, is a Commie holiday, and the orgainzers of this march are Communists. There are a lot of Central American subversives who have come here with the specific mission to organize the rally.

Incidently, we have MANY illegal aliens in Los Angeles who are NOT from Mexico, which is the only country that celebrates Cinco De Mayo.

I had an aggitator in one of my college classes last year. I wrote to Homeland Security about her, but never received a reply.

I am hoping that they listened, and perhaps they did because the rally is much much smaller this year, and the Mayor is saying that the smaller numbers is due to the fact that the organization effort is not there. I am hoping that was code for saying that the government stopped the Commie from coming across the border this year.

BS Detector, and TrueConservative
Whatever numbers you two finally disagree on, some simple facts will remain:

Reagan was right, and the naysayers were wrong.

Reagan did the exact opposite of what the liberals, the Democrats, and what many leading economists wanted to do.

For being more perceptive than the many of the leading economists of his day, Reagan gets no credit from liberals. Heck, Liberalgoodman wants to give credit for the Reagan Recovery to Jimmeny Carter!

---

Also note, it is almost impossible to educate a liberal in the field of economics. Liberals have fundamentally flawed ideas on how the world works, which results in them being economically illiterate, and terminally so.

For crying out loud, many of them are half a step away from being classifiable as socialists, and communists!

How would you begin to convince Hillary Kitten that "taking the oil companies profits" is stupid beyond description.

Even the language is different. Wealth isn't "created" but "distributed." A "tax expenditure" is your own money that the government lets you keep.

Reality and Presidents

Steve O wrote:

"Reagan was right, and the naysayers were wrong. Reagan did the exact opposite of what the liberals, the Democrats, and what many leading economists wanted to do. For being more perceptive than the many of the leading economists of his day, Reagan gets no credit from liberals. Heck, Liberalgoodman wants to give credit for the Reagan Recovery to Jimmeny [sic] Carter!"

It is true that Paul Volcker's Fed wielded the weapons that brought the end to the inflation of the 1970's, and laid the foundation for the economic growth of the 1980s. It is also true that Volcker was Carter's choice to lead the Fed. It is further true that it was universally understood by economists that the Fed's actions were going to cause a significant recession, and there were very public condemnations of Volcker as this occurred. But he was right, and it worked; inflation peaked in 1981 at 13.5%; in two years it had fallen to 3.5%.

What would have happened then without Reagan's tax cuts? Most likely a long period of sustained economic growth, not very different from what actually happened. This is how business cycles work. And because we had a particularly bad, and extended, recessionary period, the following lengthy expansion was almost inevitable.

Just look at the "Reagan expansion" and the "Clinton expansion." In 1981, at the bottom of the recession, Reagan cut income tax rates. In 1993, just after the recession, Clinton raised income tax rates. Both actions were followed by extended periods of economic growth. Why, if Reagan's tax cuts caused the roaring economy of the 1980's, did Clinton's tax increase not tank the economy of the 1990s?

There's a very simple answer - small changes to tax rates in our economy (as opposed to the 50%+ rates of 50 years ago), doesn't have nearly the economic impact the cut-taxes-at-any-cost crew would have you believe.

.

Oh, and Steve O-

"Also note, it is almost impossible to educate a liberal in the field of economics. Liberals have fundamentally flawed ideas on how the world works, which results in them being economically illiterate, and terminally so."

Interesting, as it's Conservatives who so much more frequently illustrate a lack of understanding of basic economic principles on this site.

"For crying out loud, many of them are half a step away from being classifiable as socialists, and communists!"

Laughable, as would be the notion that "many" Conservatives are "half a step away from being classifiable as" anarchists.

"Even the language is different. Wealth isn't 'created' but 'distributed.' A 'tax expenditure' is your own money that the government lets you keep."

Or at least it's different in the make-believe world you describe. Please offer some evidence that this is how "liberals" define these terms.

.

BS Emitter
Apparently you have much time on your hands ... NOT WORKING and living on the government dole or just bitching about the "unfairness" of life that the "talents" of a stupid dilettante like you aren't recognized and compensated for thinking great liberal thoughts.

Lets get back to YOUR original statement without all the obbuscating b*llsh*t tossed in:

"Cutting tax rates leads to less revenue, period."

The fact is, BY YOUR OWN NUMBERS, even though you carefully selected what numbers you wanted to use STILL SHOW AN INCREASE IN INCOME TAX REVENUES! A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE!

Your next excuse for that was:

"What you don't seem to fathom is that the economy - and therefore tax revenue - grows, with or without tax rate cuts."

Although this attempt to avoid the issue by changing the subject not only does not work, it makes my next point ... liberals never understand that a growing economy always throws off higher tax revenues than a stagnant economy crippled by high taxes! Liberals never understand what business does ... that cutting taxes to invest [or in this case, let the economy use for better purposes] produces higher profits in the future ... otherwise, business would NEVER forgo current profits to invest in expansion to gain even greater profits in the future ... the same applies to taxes ... only a complete FOOL can't get this thru their thick skull to a locked down liberal mind! Liberals are always so damn anxious to spend today, they will forgo greater revenues tomorrow!

Also, don't bother throwing out the liberal BS that conservatives want a zero tax rate ... we never say that, but understand the Laffer curve [which you liberal fools clearly do NOT], and we want no more taxes burdening the economy than necessary for vital government programs ... and that doesn't include spending on every crazy damn thing liberals can come up with or massive income redistribution far beyond any "safety net"!

Finally, your pathetic nitpicking of numbers ... is it 909 billion or 910 billion [a little exaggeration their to make my point] ... the point is the overall trend is NOT AFFECTED YOU IDIOT! You're trying the time honored liberal tactic to confuse the issue with irrelevant details and ignore the F'ing trend!

Get a life and learn to think, not just regurgitate some numbers you find!

BS Emitter
One more thing, since you brought it up even though I never mentioned the economy under Clinton ... there's far more reason to believe he enjoyed the aftermath of the Reagan tax cuts STILL pushing the economy even though he raised taxes, but not quite back to their former economy strangling level! It could also be said that he enjoyed a burgeoning economy driven largly by a huge expansion in the tech sector [which Clinton had absolutely nothing to do with], especially the internet, which collapsed just as slick, immoral Willie left office leaving GWB with a recession to deal with!

If this is TrueConservatism...

...the rest of you should be very, very afraid.

I'm sorry that your lack of understanding of economics is so complete.


"Lets get back to YOUR original statement without all the obbuscating [sic] b*llsh*t tossed in...

"The fact is, BY YOUR OWN NUMBERS, even though you carefully selected what numbers you wanted to use STILL SHOW AN INCREASE IN INCOME TAX REVENUES!"

"Although this attempt to avoid the issue by changing the subject not only does not work, it makes my next point ... liberals never understand that a growing economy always throws off higher tax revenues than a stagnant economy crippled by high taxes!"

How strange that the growth of the economy during the "high tax" 1990s was so similar to that of the "low tax 1980s. How inconvenient for you.

"Liberals never understand what business does ... that cutting taxes to invest [or in this case, let the economy use for better purposes] produces higher profits in the future ... otherwise, business would NEVER forgo current profits to invest in expansion to gain even greater profits in the future ... the same applies to taxes ... only a complete FOOL can't get this thru their thick skull to a locked down liberal mind!"

Whew! Slow down, take a pill, and try to put together a cogent argument. And work on your reading comprehension, too. If you look back at what I've written here, I believe you'll find that I've said that taxes are a burden on the economy, and that higher taxes should lead to slower growth (and the contrary, that lower taxes should lead to a higher rate of growth). But the point I'm making is that this change is small for the rate changes that we're talking about; the influence on the economy of these kinds of rate changes is massively overstated by conservatives.

What I and so many economists of note agree on is this: cutting tax rates in our economy simply do not cause a large enough increase in economic growth to recoup the lost revenue through taxes on new growth. I know you don't believe me, that's why you should look at the studies performed by economists such as Mankiw.

If you understood the Laffer curve as well as you seem to think, you'd realize that the fact that lowering tax rates leads to lower overall revenue collections is clear evidence that currently we are to the left of the peak.

"Liberals are always so damn anxious to spend today, they will forgo greater revenues tomorrow!"

I've said nothing at all about spending, so I wonder who you're ranting about. However, recall that it's Conservatives who have been running the government these last five years, accumulating more than $1,500,000,000,000 in new debt that will have to paid through - you guessed it - higher taxes in the future.

"Also, don't bother throwing out the liberal BS that conservatives want a zero tax rate..."

For those taking notes, please add "sarcasm" to the list of concepts this bozo doesn't understand.

But you didn't answer that question - if lower tax rates cause increased revenue, why then did the Reagan administration continue to increase Social Security tax rates? And why, if lowering taxes increases revenue collections, did Social Security revenues grow so much faster than income tax revenues during the Reagan administration?

"[Conservatives] want no more taxes burdening the economy than necessary for vital government programs ... and that doesn't include spending on every crazy damn thing liberals can come up with or massive income redistribution far beyond any 'safety net'!"

Since 2001, non-defense spending (not including debt service) has increased 41%. Conservatives have controlled every aspect of the budget for five years, and we've seen an incredible decline in the Federal Government's fiscal well-being.

"Finally, your pathetic nitpicking of numbers..."

That you tried to use 1978 as a baseline year for the Reagan administration is no big deal, right? Look, loser, you obviously have no clue when it comes to economic analysis. You should stick to blind rage-filled ranting - that's what you seem to be best at.

"There's far more reason to believe he enjoyed the aftermath of the Reagan tax cuts STILL pushing the economy even though he raised taxes, but not quite back to their former economy strangling level!"

You should be committed, you're so delusional. Why, if Reagan should get credit for growth in the mid-1990s, should not Carter get credit for growth in the mid-1980s? This is one of the most lame-brained claims I've ever seen here.

"It could also be said that he enjoyed a burgeoning economy driven largly by a huge expansion in the tech sector [which Clinton had absolutely nothing to do with], especially the internet, which collapsed just as slick, immoral Willie left office leaving GWB with a recession to deal with!"

Sure, and it could be said that Reagan enjoyed an expansion fueled by a return to reasonable inflation levels [which Reagan had absolutely nothing to do with] and primed by an economy that had just been through the worst recession since the Great Depression.

As for the "collapse" and 2001 recession, do you not know anything about business cycles? What am I saying, of course you don't.

.

BS Emitter
It's clear you're just full of Sh*t and it's impossible to reach you, but then, I'm not writing to reach a liberal fool which is impossible!

Yeah, why NOT give Carter credit ... he only had the economy [and the country] so F'ed up only a liberal could argue otherwise ... but the people weren't fooled, electing Reagan by enormous electoral landslides for two terms where he proceeded to turn the country around. Deny it, try to give the credit elsewhere; but you just confirm what a bitter damn fool you are!

As for conservatives spending like crazy ... unfortunately, you are correct on that one; but I never denied it [this is just another attempt of yours when losing to change the subject or refute a "straw man" I never mentioned, let alone supported. However, we would be a hell of a lot worse off if without the Bush tax cuts!

As to your latest denial in this series:

"How strange that the growth of the economy during the "high tax" 1990s was so similar to that of the "low tax 1980s. How inconvenient for you."

That's exactly why I made the point about the Reagan tax cuts CONTINUTING to fuel a vibrant economy even into the Clinton administration! HOWEVER, you still do not answer the point YOUR OWN NUMBERS STILL SHOW AN INCREASE IN INCOME TAX REVENUES!" which makes your precious liberal B*llsh*t "Cutting tax rates leads to less revenue, period." WRONG, YOU F'ING IDIOT. THAT'S what I've said all along and like all liberals when caught with contrary facts you simple deny, change the subject, and otherwise argue like the a**hole you are when you are beaten!

TrueConservative
1. Doesn't understand basic economics.

2. Doesn't understand the Laffer curve.

3. Doesn't understand the business cycle.

4. Can't provide any evidence refuting the incredibly simple assertion that lower tax rates lead to lower tax revenue.

5. Thinks 1978 is a good baseline year for Reagan's term.

6. Doesn't understand sarcasm.

Look, FalseConservativeSinceConservativesHaveBrains, I'm sorry that you're so angry. I'm sorry that your lack of logical capabilities leads you to curse and insult rather than make and back assertions. I'm sorry that you're not capable of backing down when demonstrably wrong. I'm sorry you think 1978 is a good year to baseline the economy during Reagan's tenure.

But I'm not sorry I've shown you to be such a wrong-thinking fool. Real conservatives will read your words and wish you had just kept your piehole shut, since you've done such a poor job arguing their side.

Go back to school, get some education, learn to reason, then come back. Maybe then you won't be such an embarrassment to your cause.

Bye bye, little moron.

.

BS Emitter
Well, you've clearly revealed who you are ... just another hate-filled, whining, liberal idiot while [in typical liberal fashion] asserting your own shortcomings to your adversary!

As for the 1978 ... that ten year period STARTING in 1978 was what I found in 10 seconds via Google. Since that 10 year period is MOSTLY Reagan's term, the general trend was CORRECT during that time ... probably made worse by the few years of Carter's hellish administration included in it. But then, you wouldn't understand the idea of a "trend"! But keep on dwelling on the irrelevancy of "1978" and ignore the 8 out of 10 years [that's 80% of that period] that WERE in Reagan's term! Who knows, maybe everybody else will focus on that and forget the big picture here!

Fact is, FOOL, you cut your own throat with your own data [income tax revenues in last year of Carter - $347 billion, income tax revenues last year of Reagen $549 billion ... my source: YOU, you f'ing MORON] refuted your own statement about "tax cuts NEVER increase revenue, period!" You even threw in the "period" to emphasize the NEVERNESS of your idiotic argument!
Now by my math [careful, this requires a 5th grade education], that's a simple INCREASE of 58% ... or does INCREASE have a different definition to liberal morons ... get it, 549 IS larger than 347 ... in fact, it's 58% larger or without compounding a simple 7.25% annual GROWTH IN REVENUE on the average [divide 58 by the 8 years in the Reagan administration ... and that's not taking away the time lost and wasted before the liberal congress could be forced to pass his tax cuts]! So your statement that "tax cuts NEVER increase revenue, period!" is patently BU**SH*T ... not by my say so, but by your own numbers! Read the words carefully ... remember "NEVER" means not ever, can't happen, "increase" means to make LARGER as in a bigger amount than previously ... maybe it's the two syllable words that are throwing you??? But, keep coming back with your pathetic attempts to obscure the truth here ... you're only revealing what you are ... and it's sad indeed!

If you were serious about your argument you might argue that in the short term ... maybe for a few years even, tax revenues might be decreased; but like a company using current profits to finance future growth for far greater profits, you liberals assume that condition is forever. In the Reagan case, I'm not sure tax revenues dropped for even ONE year, and certainly by the end of the term were UP [INCREASED] substantially [that 58% makes it's ugly appearance again, Mr. BS Emitter]! I may be a pathetic moron, but I DO understand simple math and do not get confused by the concept that 549 is LARGER than 347 [and I am quite good at math as that was one of my majors so long ago now]! Since that concept baffles you, what does it make YOU ... a complete and hopeless IDIOT?

So dream on about who is showing who to be the fool ... that's what liberalism is all about ... dreaming, and not reality!

MoronConservative

This is so easy.

"who you are... another hate-filled, whining, liberal idiot..."

I'll leave it to the readers to determine which of us appears to be more hate-filled, more of a whiner, and more of an idiot.

"As for the 1978 ... that ten year period STARTING in 1978 was what I found in 10 seconds via Google."

Perhaps you should take more than ten seconds to formulate your posts. You might be more coherent and appear to be less stupid.

"Since that 10 year period is MOSTLY Reagan's term, the general trend was CORRECT during that time..."

What a great argument! Even now you can't admit that this was a mistake. How pathetic you show yourself to be.

"...keep on dwelling on the irrelevancy of "1978" and ignore the 8 out of 10 years [that's 80% of that period] that WERE in Reagan's term!"

Psst... moron... 1981 was Carter's year, not Reagan's, unless you want to say that Reagan had some responsibility for the budget signed by Carter in the fall of 1980. Yet another example of your ignorance of economics and government finance.

"Fact is, FOOL, you cut your own throat with your own data [income tax revenues in last year of Carter - $347 billion, income tax revenues last year of Reagen [sic] $549 billion ... my source: YOU, you f'ing MORON] refuted your own statement about 'tax cuts NEVER increase revenue, period!'"

Again, the non-moron readers will determine who was correct and who was the abusive, childish, brainless moron.

"Now by my math... that's a simple INCREASE of 58%... without compounding a simple 7.25% annual GROWTH IN REVENUE on the average [divide 58 by the 8 years"

What's the matter? Is determining the actual growth rate too difficult for you? It doesn't take a math major to figure it out. It's 5.9%, which of course you would know from a previous post of mine if you could pay attention long enough to follow an argument.

"If you were serious about your argument you might argue that in the short term ... maybe for a few years even, tax revenues might be decreased..."

Hey! A moment of clarity! Now, take that little tiny blip of cognitive thought, and GO READ SOME ECONOMICS! Please, please try to find ANY economic study that backs up your central assertion, which is that lowering tax rates causes increased revenue. Wait, let me help you:

Mankiw and Weinzierl, "Dynamic Scoring: A Back-of-the-Envelope Guide," 12/05: http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/mankiw/papers/dynamicscoring_05-1212.pdf.

Mankiw was the Chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisors, and he says - whoops - that just over half of a tax cut on capital is "paid for" through taxes on increased growth.

Congressional Budget Office, "Analyzing the Economic and Budgetary Effects of a 10 Percent Cut in Income Tax Rates," 12/05: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6908/12-01-10PercentTaxCut.pdf

Holtz-Eakin was a Bush White House economist who then ran the CBO for the Republican Congress. The CBO study found that a 10% personal income tax rate cut could recover only 55% of lost revenue, using the most incredibly optimistic assumptions, over ten years.

So, hello moron, it's not just me, it's conservative economists who have done actual work in this area and agree that no tax rate cut in our economy will lead to higher revenue, ever. We all agree that tax rate cuts lead to slightly higher economic growth. As I said before, some conservatives massively and ignorantly overstate the impact.

"I may be a pathetic moron..."

The moment of clarity continues!

"...but I DO understand... that 549 is LARGER than 347 [and I am quite good at math as that was one of my majors so long ago now]!"

Wow. You were a math major and yet you didn't figure out that an 8-year 58% gain corresponds to an annual increase of 5.9% rather than 7.25%? And people say that our educational system is bad NOW. But let's just give you some of the praise you so obviously crave: you are able to divide a two-digit number by a one-digit number (though I'm surprised you didn't say "7 with a remainder of 2"). Congratulations.

Now, why don't you leave the field of economics to those who have some knowledge there? Or how about this - spend some time trying to learn, unless your brain is full. Do some research. Gain some understanding of economic fundamentals - I'd recommend Alan Blinder to start with. Read the papers to which I've linked. Then come back.

Until then, please start taking your medication again.

Bye bye, he of little brain.

.

BS EMITTER
Thanks for proving ALL my points about liberal idiots! You are so f'ing pathetic ... your little bit about the difference between 7.25% and 5.9% [simple growth vs. compounded growth] is illustrative of your dwelling on irrelevancies. I didn't say I couldn't figure it out ... I just didn't bother since the general trend was WELL INDICATED by the 7.25% number ... you IDIOT, we're not debating some miniscule difference in magnitude but whether there was an INCREASE at all ... but try to change the subject as much as you want, it keeps coming back to you insisting on proving you're a fool and IDIOT [by the way, I try to use correct terminology here as, I'm recalling from memory here, the diagnostic criteria for an IDIOT is an IQ of 20 to 40 whereas a MORON has more going for him with an IQ of 40 to 60! But, "you da big debater" ... riiiiiggghhhhhtttt!

And, IDIOT, you apparently still can't grasp that 549 is larger than 347 ... so we lost[?] revenues, but revenues INCREASED to 549 billion - maybe you should take some English classes so you can learn the meaning of words. My poor departed dog was one hell of lot smarter than you! He could actually REASON ... but then, he wasn't a dumb liberal!

As for economics, I'll go with Sowell, Williams, and the supply side Nobel winners ... I suppose you'll go with the discredited Keynesians and maybe the fully foolish Galbraith? PS - I won't get my research from a liberal rag like the Washington Post, either ... you couldn't trust them to report whether it was sunny or cloudy ... much like all your lying drivel!

Reagan was a Great American OK, geeee
Nee writes: "Jet-pilot I wouldn't stomp on his grave and make nasty remarks. People are human, they make mistakes.(Both Presidents)It must be nice way up there on your throne of perfection. Not to mention lonely."
***********************************************

First I apologize if I offended you or you THINK the late President, BUT I DID NOT SAY ANYTHING BUT FACTS AND POPULAR OPINION OF AMERICA; MY POINT IS REAGAN IS DEAD, MOVE ON. Yes he was great but he gets greater every year well past reality.

-Reagan IS DEAD, God Bless, RIP and everything. Time to look forward. Frankly the new Rove Neo-Con would not allow a Reagan in the party today; he would be too liberal and is not a hateful, stubborn jerk. The NEO-CON agenda is not to win, but scorched earth distruction of the other party. This DEATH TO ALL THAT DISAGREE approach to government has hurt us. Reagan is TOO NICE TO BE IN TODAYS GOP.

-Did not bring up Clinton you did, but like Reagan they where successful!

-Bush is not successful and is in over his head. That we are all human and make mistakes is nice. However Bush is past that and his enablers have allowed him, encourage or formed failed policy. THE BIGGEST POINT IS NO ONE SPEAKS UP. This DON'T QUESTION is what go us in trouble and is basically communism. Reagan would never encourage and design all this Lock-Step party partisanship. He put the nation before his party. Bush and company are UBER political as seen from his terrible appointments and the constant "Loyalty" that trumps common sense and speaking up for the TRUTH. YOU KNOW IT.

As far as HATE, your buddies take no missed opportunity to Bash Clinton or Carter, both who have done great things for America.

I know conservatives love the former president and Hollywood actor for "Bed Time for Bonzo" and he was a great guy. He loved his wife and he could inspire. Two things I admire.

Sorry you think I am XYZ, but you don't know me; life must go on. All this blind loyalty and party lock-stepping is dangerous, and I will not be shamed for speaking to what 60% to 70% of America knows. Bush and his policies and leadership has been a disaster for America and the world. He is a Republican. Sorry for your parties LOSS, but Iraq is 100% Bush's and thus the Republicans at great political loss. THIS IS NO SECRET.

Morons make me tired

because it's impossible to make them understand basic concepts. One last try.

"IDIOT, you apparently still can't grasp that 549 is larger than 347..."

Strange, I've not once claimed otherwise.

"...so we lost[?] revenues, but revenues INCREASED to 549 billion..."

That's right. Because without the tax cuts, revenue would have been higher. Get it? Let me make it as simple as possible, so that you might understand. Imagine a world where taxable income is 100 and the economy grows at a fixed rate of 10%. Suppose taxes are cut from 20% to 18% (a 10% cut). Tax revenue in year zero will be 20 (100*20%). In year one following the tax cut, tax revenue will be 19.8, which is slightly lower than it was in year zero (20), but even more below what it would have been without the tax cut (22). In year two, tax revenue will be 21.78, and the moron conservative will say - "lookee! the tax cuts caused tax revenue to go up!" without noticing that revenue without the tax cut would have been 24.2.

See? The tax cut did not CAUSE revenues to increase. The growth in the economy did that.

Now, the real question is how much of a positive impact on the economy a tax cut will have. That's where economists, such as Mankiw and the CBO, have found that tax cuts in our economy can never cause enough growth to increase revenue over what it would have been without the tax cuts. EVER.

This is so intuitively obvious to the casual observer, it's only the true moron who can't understand it.

"...maybe you should take some English classes so you can learn the meaning of words. My poor departed dog... could actually REASON"

I guess all doubt is removed. You truly have shown your brilliance with this statement. You might want to look up the word "reason" and reflect on what you just said. Wait, you might need to look up the word "reflect" to understand what I'm saying.

"As for economics, I'll go with Sowell, Williams, and the supply side Nobel winners..."

First off, why not name the "supply side Nobel winners" to whom you listen? Easy - you can't name a Nobel-winning supply-sider. I can think of only one who fits the description, though I'm pretty sure no Nobel has been awarded for work in supply-side theory. Did you get that? Please go try to prove me wrong. I'll say it again just in case that will help it get through your dementia-induced fog: no Nobel has been awarded for supply-side theory.

That's not to say that there's no merit to supply-side theory. You might want to read this:
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02252006.html

By the way, has Sowell or Williams done any work that specifically and statistically addresses the question of tax revenues and tax cuts? I'd be happy to hear about it if they have.

"PS - I won't get my research from a liberal rag like the Washington Post, either..."

Interesting - I provided direct links to the studies by conservative economists, and you think what, that the links are wrong because they appeared in a Washington Post opinion column?

Of course, you won't get any research from anywhere, since you won't be able to find any to support your misguided view. Except, of course, for the research you'll do on your rectum, from which almost everything you've said has issued forth.

Bye bye, pathetic, sad, bitter, moronic old man of wee deteriorating brain.

.

BS Emitter and Horse's Patoo
"See? The tax cut did not CAUSE revenues to increase. The growth in the economy did that."

Here's where you have your head so far up your a$$ that you have to open your mouth to see! WHAT CAUSED THE EXTRA GROWTH IN THE ECONOMY? This is where IDIOT liberals can NEVER see second level effects, let alone third or fourth level effects - Sowell has a name for you economic idiots from a recent book, although it eludes me now, but "liberal" is a synonym.

Reagan cut rates rather substantially - the top end from 70% to, what was it, I believe, 28%. This was a cut so severe that SURELY, absolute reductions in tax revenues would have plagued us for generations; yet in well under eight years revenue [by your numbers, including ONLY income taxes, was UP by 58% ... by YOUR numbers, a 5.9% compounded rate of GROWTH]. These cuts caused not only huge growth in the economy, it also caused more productive growth by pulling money out of tax shelters to where people were willing to put it to use and take risks with it again! YOU, like the fools in the CBO [that's Congressional Budget Office] who make "static" revenue projections based on straight linear algorithms simply don't grasp human nature and that economic BEHAVIOR ALSO CHANGES when incentives change ... it's NOT LINEAR, IDIOT!!!! And, it's been demonstrated a number of times now ... like whenever there's been a substantial tax cut!

Your position that tax revenues would have been even higher [which is not what you said, you said, and I quote again, "Cutting tax rates leads to less revenue, period.", which in plain English means a SMALLER amount, NOT a smaller amount than it hypothetically could have been! And the hypothetical is the best you have since you and nobody else, including Mankiw do not know what could have happened had incentives remained as atrociously bad as they were ... remember, IDIOT, the Carter economy was the worst since the GREAT depression and could have gotten even worse given another four years of liberal incompetence in service to their socialist instincts so tax revenues had things continued could have been worse so your hypothetical is just a bleeping wild-a$$ guess [By the way, the Carter economic debacle is a typical example of what happens when liberals control all three branches of government ... in ONLY four years, Carter and his liberal allies in the Congress had the country on the ropes ... economically, militarily, and culturally! [Note: I AM the source since I lived thru that sorry period and being more aware than a rock - something that you are apparently NOT - I know what the effects were!] Also, I notice you HAD to cite the CBO as a great source of knowledge - as I said before, those FOOLS continue to make static projections ... for which they would have flunked any of my science or math classes ... but that's because it benefits the f'ing LIBERAL tax and spend agenda. So now, you've laid your political agenda transparently bare! You're just another liberal fool who uses as a tactic spewing large quantities of irrelevant numbers and irrelevant sources trying to deceive your adversaries ... sorry, FOOL, it didn't work this time!

Finally, you don't need Nobel level research to grasp the simplest economic concepts ... that's just more bullsh*t from you and your liberal buddies. All your bullsh*t about "reducing" revenues flies in the face of common corporate practice of "reducing" current profits to invest in greater returns in the future ... another concept you, and the CBO REFUSE to grasp ... or maybe your just too damn dumb to get it?

TrueMoron

First you quote me, then you say “WHAT CAUSED THE EXTRA GROWTH IN THE ECONOMY?"

If your reading comprehension was above the 2nd grade level, you would have seen that in my example growth was fixed at 10% - there was no extra growth. Or maybe you just can't tell the difference between an example, reality, and that bizarre delusion you've got going on.

“This is where IDIOT liberals can NEVER see second level effects…”

If your reading comprehension was above the 2nd grade level, you would have seen my VERY NEXT paragraph: “[T]he real question is how much of a positive impact on the economy a tax cut will have.” And I point you to actual studies of the matter by respected economists. Tell me, have you read these papers? Why not?

“Reagan cut rates rather substantially - the top end from 70% to, what was it, I believe, 28%.”

No. The Reagan tax cut (ERTA of 1981 – really Kemp-Roth) cut the top rate (among others) from 70% to 50%. The 1986 tax reform was architected by Bill Bradley, and while it cut the top rate on earnings to 28%, it also increased taxes on most capital gains to the same as ordinary income, with some taxable at 33% (reversing part of the Reagan cuts in this area), and closed many loopholes used by wealthy taxpayers to avoid paying tax. This reform simplified the tax code dramatically, and eliminated bracket creep. But more important than all of this, the 1986 reform increased taxes on corporations so that it would be revenue-neutral.

“This was a cut so severe that SURELY, absolute reductions in tax revenues would have plagued us for generations…”

Several mitigating factors here.

“These cuts caused… huge growth in the economy...”

No. The huge amount of excess capacity in the economy following the worst recession since the 1930s and the normalization of price inflation combined in an unprecedented way to spur the economy to record growth. Would the economy have grown without the Reagan tax cuts? Absolutely – there’s no way it couldn’t. Would it have grown as fast? Probably not – lower taxes mean less burden on the economy. But the difference is difficult to estimate. That’s why economists create models that try to estimate the effects of policy changes.

“YOU, like the fools in the CBO [that's Congressional Budget Office] who make "static" revenue projections based on straight linear algorithms simply don't grasp human nature and that economic BEHAVIOR ALSO CHANGES when incentives change ... it's NOT LINEAR, IDIOT!!!!”

My goodness, but you’re sure of yourself. And naturally, wrong as usual. First off, I don’t think you have any idea what economists actually do. I mean, you think that we don’t understand that decision-making is affected by changes in policy? Perhaps you should look into the work of Lucas, or Kahneman, or even Nash. Secondly, note that the “fools” running the CBO are Republicans, and even they couldn’t find enough favorable assumptions to actually make your argument work. What, you think they weren’t inclined to find your position true? Third, did you read even the TITLE of Mankiw’s paper, you pathetic waste of space? Mankiw was the standard-bearer of “dynamic scoring” long before you ever heard of it. And according to his study, using “dynamic scoring,” a tax cut on capital in our economy would “pay for” just over half of its cost in the long run. [Sorry, again, for using terms with which I shouldn’t expect a tyro like you to be familiar. The “long run” is FOREVER.] A rate cut on labor would only make up 15% of its cost in the long run. [Oh, and a "tyro" is a novice.]

I know you know you’re wrong. I’m sorry your pride is such that you can’t just admit it. What a sad little person you are.

“you said, and I quote again, "Cutting tax rates leads to less revenue, period.", which in plain English means a SMALLER amount, NOT a smaller amount than it hypothetically could have been!”

Sigh. Let me ask you something. I’ll use small words. I would also say that in our economy, increasing tax rates leads to more revenue, period. You would say this is also categorically wrong, correct? (“Categorically” means absolutely.)

“And the hypothetical is the best you have since you and nobody else, including Mankiw do not know [sic - nice grammar there] what could have happened had incentives remained as atrociously bad as they were...”

Or how much higher revenues would have been without the tax cuts. Tell me, how were “incentives” different in 1977-1980 from, say, 1956-1959? When were taxes higher? And which period had greater economic prosperity? Here’s a hint – the answers don’t help you.

I’m sorry reality is so inconvenient for you.

“[By the way, the Carter economic debacle is a typical example of what happens when liberals control all three branches of government ... in ONLY four years, Carter and his liberal allies in the Congress had the country on the ropes ... economically, militarily, and culturally! [Note: I AM the source since I lived thru that sorry period and being more aware than a rock - something that you are apparently NOT - I know what the effects were!]”

Talk about your irrelevant sources! I guess you remember 1973-1977 fondly? Unprecedented inflation, Watergate, a recession that lasted two years and was the worst since the Great Depression, the fall of Vietnam, and the emergence of disco! As for the military, Carter reversed an eight year trend of declining military spending (which began as an appropriate response to the end of the Vietnam war). In real terms military spending was 6.5% higher in Carter’s final budget than it was in the budget that preceded him. Do you recall that mandatory registration for the draft was discontinued in 1975, and re-instated by Carter?

“Also, I notice you HAD to cite the CBO as a great source of knowledge - as I said before, those FOOLS continue to make static projections… but that's because it benefits the f'ing LIBERAL tax and spend agenda.”

You mean the CBO that was under Republican control for the five years before the study was published? Yes, I’m sure they were interested in benefiting a liberal agenda. What a moron you are.

“You're just another liberal fool who uses as a tactic spewing large quantities of irrelevant numbers and irrelevant sources trying to deceive your adversaries ... sorry, FOOL, it didn't work this time!”

Yes, God forbid facts get in the way of the ravings of a lunatic. You know, “irrelevant sources” such as actual economists who’ve studied the issue. Rant on!

“Finally, you don't need Nobel level research to grasp the simplest economic concepts... that's just more bullsh*t from you and your liberal buddies.”

Um, no, you said you would listen to Williams, Sowell, and the Nobel-winning supply-siders. I declined to respond to two invitations, which were to (1) name a Nobel-winning supply-sider and (2) to cite any economic study that refutes my so-basic-anybody-with-a-brain can get it assertion: in our economy, lower tax rates lead to lower tax revenues. Talk about simple concepts that all but the most feeble-minded can grasp.

“All your bullsh*t about "reducing" revenues flies in the face of common corporate practice of "reducing" current profits to invest in greater returns in the future...”

This is not at all an apt comparison, though I understand why someone as simple as you might think it is, however.

Look, this is getting really boring, and I doubt anybody else is going to wade through all of your ranting to get down here. You won’t think about the theory, you won’t look at the evidence, you’ve made up your half-witted mind and there’s nothing I can do to help you, so I’ll be leaving now. I’ll check back to see if you’re willing to answer any of these unanswered questions, but otherwise, the last word is all yours.

1. Why, if tax rate cuts cause revenues to increase, did the Reagan administration increase rather than decrease Social Security tax rates?

2. Why, if tax rate cuts cause revenues to increase, did Social Security revenues grow so much faster under Reagan than did income tax revenues?

3. Why do you think that tax cuts (Reagan) have such tremendous impacts, but tax increases (Clinton) have such negligible ones?

4. Can you name these supply side Nobel prize winners to whom you listen?

5. If not, how can you tell when you’re listening to them?

6. Has Sowell or Williams done any work that specifically and statistically addresses the question of tax revenues and tax cuts?

7. What kind of a moron are you?


And just for the record:

1. Everything you wrote in your original post was factually wrong.

2. In our economy, tax cuts will never make up for lost revenue through additional tax collected on tax cut-generated growth. Still waiting for any evidence otherwise.

Goodbye, he of the rapidly deteriorating cognitive ability. I hope you can find something in life that gives you the happiness you are so obviously lacking.

.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.