Who Here Believes in the Tax Faery?

[J.T]

[R]evenue dropped after Reagan’s tax cut, and went back up after Reagan raised taxes (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/02/05/142288/reagan-centennial/) in the face of an ugly deficit. Revenues also fell for two years (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals) following the Kennedy tax cut (enacted after his death). As Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman wrote, “The revenue track under Reagan looks a lot like the track under Bush: a drop in revenues, then a resumption of growth, but no return to the previous trend (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/carter-reagan-revenue/). This is exactly what you would expect to see if supply-side economics were just plain wrong

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/14/245504/cain-tax-fairy-revenues-lie/

[fj1200]

Who here believes j.t is desperate to rewrite history?

[raises hand]

[J.T]

Wow, the reagan cult is avoiding the fats like the plague on this one

[fj1200]

Who's avoiding? Krugman is a hack and it's nothing special to note that revenues fall during a recession. Why do you hate Keynes?

[logroller]

faeries? The only thing farcical is JT's debate style.

(JT quickly grabs his magic 8-ball for a response)

[logroller]

2466

[Little-Acorn]

Who here believes j.t is desperate to rewrite history?

[raises hand]

Who here bothers to read jt's threads at all?

(besides his usual groupies logroller and fj, of course)

[logroller]

Who here bothers to read jt's threads at all?

(besides his usual groupies logroller and fj, of course)

Well since you've posted on this thread~ it appears you do too; that or you're just trolling.:poke:

[Little-Acorn]

Well since you've posted on this thread~ it appears you do too; that or you're just trolling.:poke:

There's a chance that I'm pointing out that jt's threads are seldom worth replying to... which is why I usually don't. Offered as advice to those who do anyway.

[logroller]

There's a chance that I'm pointing out that jt's threads are seldom worth replying to... which is why I usually don't. Offered as advice to those who do anyway.

I know what you meant; I was a little miffed over the "groupie" comment-- so I was compelled to point out the irony.

[fj1200]

There's a chance that I'm pointing out that jt's threads are seldom worth replying to... which is why I usually don't. Offered as advice to those who do anyway.

They're not. As you can see I didn't put much effort into this one because it's generally not required with his brand of "logic."

[Psychoblues]

Well since you've posted on this thread~ it appears you do too; that or you're just trolling.:poke:

LA trolling? Oh, the horror!!!! :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

The facts regarding the Reagan tax cuts





On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.

Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.

Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.

Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.

The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1120