Quote Originally Posted by stephen
i know you're expecting people to dis-credit your source or whatever...so i'll just dis-credit you with facts.

1. a lot of your right-wingers like to talk about "reaganomics" without even having a full understanding as to what REALLY happened. yes...reagan cut EVERYONE'S TAXES....but HE ALSO RAISED TAXES 6 TIMES. not to mention, the last time he raised taxes, he raised PAYROLL TAXES FOR CORPORATIONS...YES HE TAXED THE HARDWORKING BUSINESSES!

2. true, obama wants to tax the "wealthy," but the increase will be the same PERCENTAGE as it was under reagan and clinton...

3. let me explain, YET AGAIN, how the bush tax cuts effect the middle class more than the wealthy. the problem within the past 8yrs is wages haven't changed, government spending has increased, and lastly...INFLATION. people don't seem to understand that the cost of living is an INCREASING NUMBER. $1 won't get you what it used to get 8yrs ago...and we all know that. when someone makes $30k for 8yrs, how do you think that affects their savings? as the cost of living goes up (roughly 3% every year), that's less money they have to save...right? now take someone who makes $300k a year. they're able to maintain money for their savings, and they can also invest into hedge funds. hedge fund aren't affected by inflation. these same folks have more tax avoidance possiblities. this is why people say tax cuts benefit the "rich." it's not the fact that it "intentionally" leaves one group out...they just have MORE TO GAIN, while the lower income ppl still suffer THE SAME PROBLEM.

4. if decreasing taxes has BEEN SOOO GREAT, then how come under reagan we the country was in such severe debt, and the same under bush? not to mention, when reagan increased taxes on the wealthy (his final year in office), the government gained MORE REVENUE than under his INITIAL TAX CUT.

anyhow...you folks need to just go out and vote...get it all out of your system.



I don't think I'm done with your flawed logic and incorrect statistics yet. Here's a snippet from a great article dissecting the criticism of supply side economics:

Federal tax revenue did in fact increase during the Reagan years, as no less a liberal authority than Media Matters acknowledged:

According to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), when adjusted for inflation to constant fiscal year 2000 dollars, receipts (revenues) grew only () from $1.077 trillion to $1.236 trillion during Reagan's term in office.

http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2...326130059.aspx



Hear that stephen? Someone's numbers are wrong. These numbers explain that even when adjusted for inflation, a tax cut in the top marginal rate from 70%, to 50%...to 28%..."only" resulted in an increase from 1.077 trillion to 1.236 trillion dollars! Only! How did an increase in tax revenues take place by cutting taxes 66%? Hm? I've explained that clearly already.

Your "facts" attempt to claim that tax revenues shrunk in constant dollars during Reagan's term. I just showed you evidence that your numbers are incorrect. Where is your link citing the source of your numbers/facts?

Mine are from the Office of Management and Budget through the Heritage Foundation.

Some facts, and perhaps the reason your source was able to fool you (was it taking these numbers as a whole of GDP?):

HOW DID THE REAGAN TAX CUTS AFFECT THE U.S. TREASURY?

Many critics of reducing taxes claim that the Reagan tax cuts drained the U.S. Treasury. The reality is that federal revenues increased significantly between 1980 and 1990:

Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.3

As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), federal revenues declined only slightly from 18.9 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 1990.4

Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990.5 In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase.


HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT FEDERAL SPENDING?

Although critics continue to focus on President Reagan's budget "cuts," federal spending rose significantly during the 1980s:

Federal spending more than doubled, growing from almost $591 billion in 1980 to $1.25 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was an increase of 35.8 percent.6 <---bad, and a consequence of Democrats attempting to laden Reagan's tax cut bill with enough Pork to get Reagan to veto his own bill. That was during the argument over Line Item Veto, an argument broached over this very issue. Reagan understood - as I do, and you don't - that lowering taxes creates enough economic vitality to pay for nearly anything.

As a percentage of GDP, federal expenditures grew slightly from 21.6 percent in 1980 to 21.8 percent in 1990.7

Contrary to popular myth, while inflation-adjusted defense spending increased by 50 percent between 1980 and 1989, it was curtailed when the Cold War ended and fell by 15 percent between 1989 and 1993. However, means-tested entitlements, which do not include Social Security or Medicare, rose by over 102 percent between 1980 and 1993, and they have continued climbing ever since.8 <---again bad, and Democrats are to blame. Imagine our growth had spending not been so insane!


Total spending on all national security programs never equaled domestic spending, even when Social Security, Medicare, and net interest are excluded from domestic totals. In addition, national security spending fell during the Administration of the senior President Bush, while domestic spending increased in both mandatory and discretionary accounts.9 (See Chart 1.)
That should put this issue to rest for you. You have fallen victim to a liberal economist fucking with the numbers to attempt to besmirch the sound concepts within supply side economics.