The Election Autopsy

That is the convoluted, misleading and vague argument of someone trying to wish away the reality that after all 4 major tax cuts... tax revenues went up.

So what are the ills of supply side you speak of? Is it your claim that borrowed money causes the massive inflation we experienced.

as far as income tax revenues to the government... look at how they grew...




1983 -- $326 billion

1984 -- $355 billion

1985 -- $396 billion

1986 -- $412 billion

1987 -- $476 billion

1988 -- $496 billion

1989 -- $549 billion

Critics point out that Reagan also signed a few tax increases. However, the fact remains that the total tax burden was far, far lower when Reagan left office than when he took office. In other words, even counting the two tax increases that Reagan signed, taxes overall were still much lower in Reagan’s last year than they were in his first year. For example, when Reagan became president in January 1981, the top marginal tax rate was 70%--yes, 70%--but by the last month of his presidency in January 1989, it was 28%. (Furthermore, Reagan signed those tax increases with the understanding that there would be spending cuts later on, but Congress broke its word and never passed the promised spending cuts.)

As a result of the Reagan tax cuts, tax payments and the share of income taxes paid by the top 1% climbed sharply. For example, in 1981 the top 1% paid 17.6% of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5%, a 10 percentage point increase. The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10% of taxpayers increased from 48.0% in 1981 to 57.2% in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50% of taxpayers dropped from 7.5% in 1981 to 5.7% in 1988.

The economy grew impressively during Reagan’s presidency. The economic expansion of the Reagan years is particularly impressive when we remember that Reagan inherited a weak and staggering economy. In January 1981 the unemployment rate was 7.4% and was on its way to climbing to over 10%. Double-digit inflation had pushed interest rates into the high double-digit range. Real pre-tax income of the average American family had been dropping since 1976, and after-tax income was falling even faster. With these facts in mind, the Reagan economic record seems especially praiseworthy. Economists William Niskanen and Stephen Moore:

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.






this is a point we have never disagreed on despite your insistence that we have. What we have always disagreed on is the cause of the revenue increase.

I would point out that after the drastic Reagan tax cuts -- and can you believe the man had the nerve to raise the tax rate in the lowest bracket!!!? -- the nation transitioned from the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation. This was caused by tremendous spending on stimulus, military and domestic, and lower revenue than the administration had predicted,** despite a rise in revenue due to the stimulus spending. The marvelous revenue increases caused by, in your opinion, the tax cuts were not sufficient to prevent a gigantic, super colossal deficit. But what is extremely odd, but only if one reasons as you do, is why did the same administration undue some of the cuts and raise taxes. If these cuts were so effective in raising revenue, why would they kill, or in this case wound, the goose that laid the golden egg? I don't suppose you have ever thought about that.

By the time of the drastic Reagan cuts the top marginal rate was obviously --we know from the results-- below the maximum in Art Laffer's curve --malattributed to him, by the way-- and the brackets below, that were collapsed into one ridiculously low bracket, were therefore nowhere near the maximum! (By the way, one, but not you obviously, can make an argument that these drastic tax cuts produce less of a revenue loss when combined with other supply side initiatives, but it seems a hollow argument. For the excess money left with the already wealthy is not spent, but invested. Whereupon its returns are taxed at a lower rate than had the money been left in the middle class as regular income to be spent!)

The overall long term effect of supply side economics is very, very damaging to an economy. And you see the ironic evidence of THAT in the Trump victory!
___________________________
** Hayek, who was smarter than all of them combined, said it was unwise to spend the 'extra' money expected from your tax cuts before it materialized! They should have listened to Hayek.
this is a point we have never disagreed on despite your insistence that we have. What we have always disagreed on is the cause of the revenue increase.

I would point out that after the drastic Reagan tax cuts -- and can you believe the man had the nerve to raise the tax rate in the lowest bracket!!!? -- the nation transitioned from the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation. This was caused by tremendous spending on stimulus, military and domestic, and lower revenue than the administration had predicted,** despite a rise in revenue due to the stimulus spending. The marvelous revenue increases caused by, in your opinion, the tax cuts were not sufficient to prevent a gigantic, super colossal deficit. But what is extremely odd, but only if one reasons as you do, is why did the same administration undue some of the cuts and raise taxes. If these cuts were so effective in raising revenue, why would they kill, or in this case wound, the goose that laid the golden egg? I don't suppose you have ever thought about that.

By the time of the drastic Reagan cuts the top marginal rate was obviously --we know from the results-- below the maximum in Art Laffer's curve --malattributed to him, by the way-- and the brackets below, that were collapsed into one ridiculously low bracket, were therefore nowhere near the maximum! (By the way, one, but not you obviously, can make an argument that these drastic tax cuts produce less of a revenue loss when combined with other supply side initiatives, but it seems a hollow argument. For the excess money left with the already wealthy is not spent, but invested. Whereupon its returns are taxed at a lower rate than had the money been left in the middle class as regular income to be spent!)

The overall long term effect of supply side economics is very, very damaging to an economy. And you see the ironic evidence of THAT in the Trump victory!
___________________________
** Hayek, who was smarter than all of them combined, said it was unwise to spend the 'extra' money expected from your tax cuts before it materialized! They should have listened to Hayek.
 
I did not say there were no costs. there are significant cost to future generations.

But... I argue that when our govt borrows what it spends it would not create the 700 percent inflation we experienced the last 50 years. Borrowing means the govt did not increase the money supply. So govt caused inflation might hit in some items but it would not be massive and system wide.

700 percent inflation we experienced system wide was because the FED electronically created trillions and trillions of dollars. 700 percent inflation drained the wealth out of the middle class and in part transferred it to elites doing business with the Federal Reserve.

Now as far as your insults go. Perhaps you should learn to think and read and understand the other sides argument before you make such stupid arguments.

Yeah, borrowing money has no cost.

Do you even listen to yourself crazy man?
 
People don't know it yet, but not Trump, not Clinton, not even Bernie (although Bernie would ease the pain of the transition) will save them. The only thing that can transition poor rural areas is the only thing that has reliably brought people out of poverty: Technology.

You can thank the incredible greed in Silicon Valley real estate for this exodus. The best cure for Capitalism is greed? Strange aye?

To the hillbillies (in the elegy): Learn to program and leave the farm. Then, protect your jobs from Indians and other cheap labor. I know it is hard, but I don't know if anything else can help.

Everyone promises manufacturing, big infrastructural fiscal help, but it is all a short term illusion. You will be better off for a while, only to spiral down again.

These Midwest towns are starting to rival Silicon Valley
Victor Hwang, vice president of entrepreneurship at the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation
3 Hours AgoCNBC.com

104097103-GettyImages-200369954-001.530x298.jpg

Walter Bibikow | Getty Images
St. Louis, Missouri

The frustrations evident in the 2016 presidential campaign season were largely fueled by an economy that is leaving too many Americans without employment or sufficient income. And the election was sadly short on real solutions. So what can we do about that?

The only way to address those frustrations on a large enough scale is through an approach that can literally reach every community in the nation. Fortunately, a grassroots movement is sweeping the country that can do just that — transform how Americans grow our local economies through building robust entrepreneurial ecosystems. With Global Entrepreneurship Week approaching, I'm embarking on a four-state Midwest road tour Friday to better understand the opportunities and potential....


http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/11/these-midwest-towns-are-starting-to-rival-silicon-valley.html
 
Last edited:
The center is done. If people want the center to come back, you have to have a middle class that doesn't live in NY, Chicago, LA, DC etc...

I have been saying this for years, which is exactly why I told you and your million "Trump is done" posts over the past year were dead wrong.
 
So in other words.... everything the left spends 24 hours per day doing.
Of the new 7 deadly sins, I definitely put

  • Arrogance
  • Lethargy
  • Greed

In the "left" category. We are real champions of those, boy are we. But I think Trump supporters have every one beat on the rest. We are all certainly guilty of them all to some extent.

I think it is unproductive to break it down as left/right. I mean it to apply to all human beings, just like the original 7DS did.

The question is, do you see yourself (ourselves) in that list? And is it time to heal away from it?
 
Of the new 7 deadly sins, I definitely put

  • Arrogance
  • Lethargy
  • Greed

In the "left" category. We are real champions of those, boy are we. But I think Trump supporters have every one beat on the rest. We are all certainly guilty of them all to some extent.

I think it is unproductive to break it down as left/right. I mean it to apply to all human beings, just like the original 7DS did.

The question is, do you see yourself (ourselves) in that list? And is it time to heal away from it?

Fair enough. There is some degree of the items in this list within most people. In fact these are the "sins" that politicians on both sides of aisle exploit to get elected.
 
Fair enough. There is some degree of the items in this list within most people. In fact these are the "sins" that politicians on both sides of aisle exploit to get elected.
Same old for thousands of years.

I am an optimist at heart. But will we ever learn? When does humanity evict this malevolence from its collective consciousness? :(
 
Back
Top