"Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves"

[ugonow]

and Reagan proved it.We hear that, often, including from Pawlenty recently. Reagans economic advisor doesn't seem to think that is true----capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/2276/no-gov-pawlenty-tax-cuts-dont-pay-themselves

[Deleted]

A tax rate of 70% is on the other side of the curve... it is a curve however, and not a one/one correlation...

And Reagan also closed tax loopholes, or INCREASED taxes, in like 11 other cases...

[ugonow]

Of course we heard the vice president claim a few years ago that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" also.......

[Deleted]

He certainly did run up a big one... Republicans often do...

[Deleted]

Jun 21, 2011 9:09:31 GMT -5 oped said:

He certainly did run up a big one... Republicans often do...

It's only a Republican thing? Interesting. How's that current deficit doing for you under a Democrat?

[magichat]

Jun 21, 2011 9:09:31 GMT -5 oped said:

He certainly did run up a big one... Presidents often do...

Fixed it for you.

[Deleted]

Jun 21, 2011 9:14:24 GMT -5 @magichat said:

Jun 21, 2011 9:09:31 GMT -5 oped said:

He certainly did run up a big one... Presidents often do...

Fixed it for you.

That one is much better. As if spending is relegated to one side over the other?

[Deleted]

He certainly did run up a big one... Republicans often do...
It's only a Republican thing? Interesting. How's that current deficit doing for you under a Democrat?

Again deficits are blamed not on Congress (who spends the money) but on the President (who just might have a congress of a different political party running Congress). Put the blame on the people who spend the money, please?

I would also point out that many times Congress is controlled by a different party than the President. So a lot of the "wonderful" jobs that presidents have done, they weren't responsible for.

[Deleted]

Jun 21, 2011 9:48:54 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

He certainly did run up a big one... Republicans often do...
It's only a Republican thing? Interesting. How's that current deficit doing for you under a Democrat?

Again deficits are blamed not on Congress (who spends the money) but on the President (who just might have a congress of a different political party running Congress). Put the blame on the people who spend the money, please?

The President puts forward their budget and then Congress and the Senate go from there. While Congress and the Senate are to blame, so is the President (regardless of party affiliation).

I'm just tired of the Republicans vs Democrats spending dispute. Both parties suck at cost-cutting and reigning in spending.

[Deleted]

good point tex that its not a single person...

[bubblyandblue]

A good president is one who happens to be on the job when you are having a run of good luck.

[Bluerobin]

Let's Bush cut taxes during a war, to stimulate the economy and we got a recession. Yep, tax cuts do stimulate things!

[ugonow]

A good president is one who happens to be on the job when you are having a run of good luck.

..I agree. A president fortunate enough to be seated during a time of the upswing in credit buying,debt amassing, unchecked spending,of the people, risky investments,unbridaled speculations, and is lucky enough to get out before the consequences hit the fan is a good one. It is boom and bust.

[Deleted]

Let's Bush cut taxes during a war, to stimulate the economy and we got a recession. Yep, tax cuts do stimulate things!

Bluerobin just to point out President Bush was in office 8 years. Just for the fun of it why not do the research on-line for recessions or down US economic cycles & post them. (I won't because then the info would be tainted because no liberal would agree with anything a conservative posted). Also post when the last one was before President Bush took office. I think that you will find that we had a longer than average time period while President Bush was in office (longer than normal).

Oh & of course the housing mess made it worse which was caused by the Democrats (trying to make it possible for people that couldn't afford houses to buy them, which they did & look at the result. As far as I'm concerned that change in lending standards resulted in the biggest RAPE of the poor of any law since I have been alive).

[djAdvocate]

Jun 21, 2011 8:34:21 GMT -5 ugonow said:

and Reagan proved it.We hear that, often, including from Pawlenty recently. Reagans economic advisor doesn't seem to think that is true----capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/2276/no-gov-pawlenty-tax-cuts-dont-pay-themselves

there are higher authorities than Reagan's economic advisors, that is for sure.

personally, my favourite source for information on the impact of taxes on revenue is the non-partisan quasi governmental agency that was set up to monitor precisely that: the Office of Tax Analysis under the Department of the Treasury. the periodically updated OTA Paper 81 was revised during the Bush administration by a Republican congress, and determined unequivocally that the effect of reducing taxes on the deficit is precisely the OPPOSITE of what supply siders have been claiming for the last two decades:

www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/.../ota81.pdf

[safeharbor37]

www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

[djAdvocate]

nice opinion piece. however, it doesn't address deficits (wisely). nor does it bother to compare the tax decreases of the 80's to similar tax increased that took place in the 40's, 50's, and 90's. when that is done, it can readily be shown that the growth rate for the 5 year period following the three largest tax increases and the three largest tax decreases since WW2 is identical.

it is really easy to cherry pick data to support invalid conclusions. it is much tougher to have an open mind and look at ALL data rather than that which supports the conclusion.

my money goes with OTA Paper 81. did you read it?

[ugonow]

there are higher authorities than Reagan's economic advisors, that is for sure.

personally, my favourite source for information on the impact of taxes on revenue is the non-partisan quasi governmental agency that was set up to monitor precisely that: the Office of Tax Analysis under the Department of the Treasury. the periodically updated OTA Paper 81 was revised during the Bush administration by a Republican congress, and determined unequivocally that the effect of reducing taxes on the deficit is precisely the OPPOSITE of what supply siders have been claiming for the last two decades:

www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/.../ota81.pdf

He has worked for the treasury Bush,Reagan, Cato, Heratige Foundation, not exactly a leftie....

[Bluerobin]

oldtex, you will have to find a lib to do the research. I am a rep, but this present group that caters solely to the lunatic fringe of the party is scary. Bush did manage to screw up a rather robust economy. His tax cuts did nothing to stimulate the economy. We are still suffering from the mess he made.
I absolutely hate incompetence, no matter which party is involved. It took years for Bush to replace Carter as #1 on my list of worst presidents ever. At present, Barry is in the top 3.

[Deleted]

Bush did manage to screw up a rather robust economy. His tax cuts did nothing to stimulate the economy. We are still suffering from the mess he made.
I absolutely hate incompetence, no matter which party is involved. It took years for Bush to replace Carter as #1 on my list of worst presidents ever. At present, Barry is in the top 3.

It sound like we agree on a lot of stuff. The best thing about President Carter was his brother (& of course billy beer) who, at least you could laugh at. Nothing President Carter did was either good or laughable. Sadly President Carter for me could be the poster child for liberals. Well meaning, probably smart, but not grounded in the real world.

I did a quick check on recessions on line & found that the cause of our recent recession was listed as a burst of the housing bubble. I don't know if that is mostly true or not because there were (I think) a lot of economic things going on at that time. I do find it interesting that it was viewed as the cause. That leads straight to the answer as to who caused it (Democrats). I'm a little surprised that Republicans didn't oppose the bill stronger but I think that nobody saw the extent that lowering credit standards would have in the long run. I think (could be wrong) that they didn't get it because most members of congress are older & just never thought that someone would buy something that they couldn't afford (I wouldn't have thought of that either).

As for President Bush. I don't know how bad he was. That's because the perception was that he was a bad president (which was greatly helped along by his lack of being able to talk). I think history will show him to be adequate but he was perceived as being a bumbling fool. Many times perceptions carry more weight than facts. Sounds odd but it's true.

[Bluerobin]

Oldtex, I think the recession was caused by a number of things, including cutting taxes, when we needed revenue to fight two wars. You never cut taxes during a war. Oh, yes, the tax cuts failed to produce jobs as promised.
Other factors were the housing bubble, lack of financial regulation, lax banking oversight and lack of vision from our politicians. Bush gets the blame, but Congress should share a large portion of it.
No matter how cheaply you can make it in China, it does no good is people at home are not working and cannot afford to buy. Oops! Someone did nothing to stimulate the domestic economy. We should have and still should concentrate on helping domestic businesses.
Another problem is that when we couldn't outsource certain jobs, we insourced the labor, by letting illegals flood through our borders. Stupidity and greed caused the recession.

[ugonow]

IMO, one of the leading factors in the cause of the recession was Phil Gramm and Jim Leach's bill to repeal Glass Stegal. Without this wall seperating banks from risky gambeling it allowed the floor to drop out.