Asymmetrical Information

I think they're referring to things like:

November 13: Bush: "Well, we have a deficit because tax revenues are down. Make no mistake about it, the tax relief package that we passed -- that should be permanent, by the way -- has helped the economy, and that the deficit would have been bigger without the tax relief package."

January 8: Fleischer: "The entire package the President does believe will lead to growth, which will over time grow the economy, create additional revenues for the federal government and pay for itself."

January 30: Cheney: "The President's proposals will reduce the tax burden on the American people by $670 billion over the next 10 years. By leaving more money in the hands of the people who earn it, people who will spend and invest and save and add momentum to our recovery, we'll help create more jobs and ultimately increase tax revenues for the government."

But aren't those things true as long as your time frame is long enough? If you believe in supply side stimulus, that is.

Perhaps if the President's proposals included reductions in spending as well as tax cuts the deficits would disappear. But the Democrats will fight that tooth and nail, not only because they want the Government to have more of our money, but because they need a deficit to beat Bush over the head with. Deficits are win/win for them.

But the general point does stand,does it not, that tax cuts which lead to economic growth will, "ultimately" or "over time" produce more tax revenue because if taxes are left at the present level, not only would there be no growth, but there could well be contraction? Don't tax revenues decline during a contraction? So the future state of lower tax revenues because of a contraction is being compared to a future state of even moderate growth, which will produce, certainly, more tax revenues than would be produced during a contraction. So is this not tax cuts producing an increase in future tax revenues?

Tax revenues are always relative to economi growth, ergo anything that stimulates economic growth also boosts tax revenues. Jane is right that given a long enough period of time tax cuts will always pay for themselves, theoretically speaking. The problem is that the supply side argument is that deficit are not a problem because the lower tax rate will yield enough revenue to pay them down in the future. This would only be true were the taxcuts the only thing contributing to the deficits, which is of course not the case.

The Bush administration is appealing to supply-siders without making an explicitly supply-side argument. Bush hopes that he can constrain spending and devote future revenue to the deficits but understands that it is unlikely and is therefore trying not to paint himself into the supply-side corner.

I admire the Democrats and their consistent dedication to the prnciple that all problems are equal and every one of them can be solved by tax increases.

From Saturday's boston Globe:

''The only way to get out of the deficits is to get the economy moving,'' said Trent Duffy, spokesman for the White House budget office. ''And that's why Congress must pass the president's jobs and growth plan.''

What can this mean except that tax cuts will eliminate the deficit?

The first comment quoted by DeLong, the one by Bush, says nothing about a long time frame. It says the deficits "would have been bigger" but for the tax cuts. So he's talking about the current situation, and claiming the cuts reduced the size of the deficit.

Sorry Jane but the wacky ones are those who do not believe in supply side economics.

During the Reagan years, after the tax cut, tax revenues doubled. The problem was the Democrats who controlled the spending made expenditures triple during those same years.

I still remember a press conference in the 80’s with a herd of Democrats standing on a stage in front of the TV cameras. Reagan had just submitted a balanced budget to Congress. The Democrats ripped his budget books up and threw them on the floor in front of the TV cameras. Then all Democrats and all the reporters laughed and laughed. The Democrats then continued their reckless spending. I fault Reagan for not standing up to those rats.

Clinton was running deficits until the capital gains tax cut was passed. The very next year the budget went into surplus just as supply siders said it would. The surpluses continued until the recession hit in late 99.

Jake wrote:

"During the Reagan years, after the tax cut, tax revenues doubled. The problem was the Democrats who controlled the spending made expenditures triple during those same years."

Wasn't there also a tax increase (after Reagan's initial tax cut) prior to the increase in tax revenue and might we not attribute the increase in tax revenue to the tax increase?

Wow. Usually it takes a litle more than just one post to show that Jane's point (in this case that nowhere have I found the Republicans saying "Don't worry about those tax cuts -- we'll raise more revenue than we lost through new economic activity." BDL had 3 examples from just the last couple of months!) is factually wrong.

Is this a new record?

it is not true at the levels and structure of taxation that we have here in the United States

With all due respect, I think that it probably is true, in a literal sense, that we are close to the point at which our current levels and structure of taxation are above what would be optimal for even short-term revenue generation. This is a complex subject, but I can point out one factor which implies that US taxes are too high.

The evidence is that rich people, and corporate HQs, are leaving the US, paying (lower) taxes to their new homes, and (no to little) taxes to the US.

It is indisputable that the US has lost tax revenue by driving away rich people including J. Mark Mobius (Mobius Investments), Kenneth Dart (Dart Container), Ted Arison (founder of Carnival Cruises), John Templeton (Templeton, Galbraith and Hansberger), and others. It is also indisputable that the US has lost revenue by driving away corporate headquarters like Tyco and others.

The US beaureau of consular affairs estimates 1M known US expats in 1998; most expats probably don't notify the US when they leave the country, so that estimate is probably very low. Further, the IRS got only ~275,000 expat returns in 1994, implying that most expats stop filing with the US.

The high wealth of some of the expats we do know about, combined with the large numbers of expats about whom we have only aggregate guesses, implies that US tax rates are driving out at least some people and organizations with money. That reduces the net income to the US governement, even in the short term. In the long term, of course, it reduces net income to the government even more.

I don't know the net effect of (driving out rich people) + (raising taxes on everyone left behind), but that's not what I'm trying to figure out. All I'm saying is that our high tax rates and bizzre tax structure already have substantial negative effects, which implies that we may be close to the inflection point where lower taxes may actually generate more revenue.

GT: Only if you never look beyond the first post in the thread. The second one, Jane's, makes your point one of context or conclusion, not fact.

"It's just a useful club. What they really care about is that the Federal government is reducing what they consider to be its rightful take."

Jane Galt has hit the nail on the head. Also, these folks find this line of argumentation as “a useful club” to deploy on the Bush administration. Last but not least, Brad DeLong post is outright embarrassing. His examples actually support the main thesis of Ms. Galt. Professor Long would be wise to learn how to control his visceral contempt for George W. Bush. He is literally coming across as nothing more than a Liberal Democrat partisan hack.

"The evidence is that rich people, and corporate HQs, are leaving the US, paying (lower) taxes to their new homes, and (no to little) taxes to the US."

That is a very good point. Wealth has always moved around the United States depending upon the tax structure of the individual states. The quintessential example that comes to my mind is the devastation caused to Louisiana's economy after the Long brothers came to power. Even today that Southern state is only a few economic steps ahead of a banana republic. We now live in a global village where it is increasingly easier to travel and transfer money.

Thorley:

Actually, the tax increase passed in the 1986 (I think) decreased revenues. The main provision was to eliminate the tax shelter available for buildings.

This stopped construction in its tracks which then caused the failure of the Savings and Loan system. This cost the taxpayers $150 billion dollars and caused the recession during the Bush years.

I am still right.

However, the elimination of building tax shelters was a good thing. Many buildings were built for tax reasons and not for business reasons. The tax change made the real estate market more rational.
But it did dramatically reduce our tax revenues.

May I simplify the three quotes offered by DeLong, and the one I providedj ust a bit, without, I think, distorting them.

Bush: “..the deficit would have been bigger without the tax relief package."

Fleischer: "The entire package ..will over time … pay for itself."

Cheney: "The President's proposals will….. ultimately increase tax revenues for the government."

Duffy: ''The only way to get out of the deficits is to ... pass the president's jobs and growth plan.''

Jane,

You may well believe these statements are true, but they very clearly say, as you put it,

“Don’t worry about those tax cuts – we’ll raise more revenue than we lost through new economic activity.”

Sorry Tom as Bernard well put it Jane's second pots changes nothing. Even if you agree that what the Bushies have said is true they are still saying what Jane told us NOBODY had said.

Jane's point was that those ever-so-boring Dems were accusing the Bushies of saying something they never did. As she put it It kind of kills any incentive I have to listen to anything else they have to say.

Poor, poor Jane.

Except that it turns out they did say that as BDL showed. In other words Jane was factually wrong.

I admire the Republicans and their consistent dedication to the prnciple that all problems are equal and every one of them can be solved by tax cuts.

Btw, who is it who is in control and proposing a huge increase in deficit spending again? It wouldn't be those paragons of morality, humility, and honesty - the Republicans - now, would it?

"The entire package ..will over time … pay for itself."

And what is your point? A realistic economic policy over time will indeed "pay for itself." The above cited sentence provides no evidence whatsoever that the Bush administration is foolishly promising instant results. You will have to do better than that to prove "Jane was factually wrong."

"I admire the Republicans and their consistent dedication to the principle that all problems are equal and every one of them can be solved by tax cuts."

Not all problems can be solved merely by tax cuts, but ultimately many of them can. It is ludicrous to hand over any money to the inherent more wasteful public sector than we absolutely have to. Every dime the politicians waste weakens our nation.

Jane are you arguing somehow that money is more efficiently used if it is first taxed then redistributed? The reality is that we're going to run a deficit no matter what because even at previous tax levels there isn't enough money coming in. So why not do what is most efficient for the economy and not collect the higher tax in the first place?

The only people who are saying deficits matter are the Rubinomics acolytes who somehow suggest that if the government hogs the market for debt, that it'll raise interest rates because the supply of money is somehow static.

You all are forgetting one thing - interest on the accumulated deficit. It's not a big deal right now (with the prime rate almost 0), but when the economy picks up and interest rates get back to normal, interest payments will be one of the larger items in the Federal budget. Also, doesn't Federal debt compete with businesses for investors' money?

IIRC, most of the time the interest has been larger than the current deficit - that is, without the burden of paying for past borrowing, the gov't could have been running a surplus most years. (Yeah, it's far more likely the Congresscritters would have just passed out more pork...) The only peace-time exception I recall since WWII was a few years after Reagan's tax cuts. France once (approximately 1925) put itself in the position where the interest on the national debt exceeded anything they could possibly collect in taxes. (They got out of that by a revaluation of the Franc that, if I understand this correctly, chopped most Frenchmens' retirement funds by 90%.)

The Reagan administration left such a big deficit, and such high interest rates, that it would have been quite possible for the same thing to happen here - except the Soviet collapse made it possible to cut the military budget drastically, and then the economy took off while interest rates dropped. The Soviet collapse was clearly related to Reagan's heavy military spending, and it's possible that the economic runup of the 90's was the effect of the Reagan tax cuts delayed 10 years. So maybe Reagan's policies worked in the long run, although such a long run that Bush I and Clinton got the credit. But there's a big risk there, too; if instead of Gorbachev the Soviet leader had been some hardliner who kept the system going until there was nothing left to confiscate, the US might have gone bankrupt too.

The question is not whether lowering tax revenues grow the economy, although that question is considerably more complicated than the strong version of the supply side argument makes out; the question is whether or not lowering tax rates grows tax revenue, which it doesn't at the current level and structure of US taxation. That's an empirical question to which the answer is, unequivocally, no.

GT, my post was not "factually incorrect" -- what I said was that I hadn't seen any such quotations. This is factually correct, making your comment factually wrong. When Brad provided them, I posted an update saying as much on the original post.

"GT, my post was not "factually incorrect" -- what I said was that I hadn't seen any such quotations."

Now that you have seen that prominent Republicans are indeed making such ridiculous claims, are you any more inclined to listen to what their critics have to say?

Jane, is it not logical that if a given tax policy produces economic growth that the same tax policy would also increase taxable income? I find it hard to understand why would you agree with one thing (lower taxes = economic growth) and simultaneously disagree with the other (lower taxes != greater tax revenue)

You've said twice now that "at the current level and structure of US taxation" the Bush tax policy would not increase tax revenue.

Can you elaborate specifically what the problem is with the "current level and structure?"

"When Brad provided them, I posted an update saying as much on the original post."

Please carefully reread Brad DeLong's post. He does not in any way provide evidence that the hard-liners like Arthur Laffler dictate economic policy for the Bush administration. These quotes are rather ambivalent and can be interpreted to support either the expected short term or long term benefits of tax breaks. The key question is how rapid does one think the economy will improve by allowing the citizens to keep more of their own money. The Lafflers argue that the results will be nearly instantaneous---and others believe it will take a little while before the benefits become widely apparent.

GT, any reason why you don't make equally insightful posts as Jane's on your own blog, and mostly just show up here to sneer? Or is it easier to let someone else do the research and set up the argument, and then just periodically try to shoot them down?

For example, since you clearly disagree, I would think this to be a great opportunity to post a response on your blog, along with DeLong's quotes, and then perhaps some examples of how the tax-cut-incentive point of view has historically not held up.

GT,

It would appear that Jane was taking the current administration to task for not aggressively selling its plan (as compared let's say to Reagan) or going after the Dems absurd recommendations.

Notwithstanding BDL's comments, it's apparent that Bush's current political capital capital is being expended on other material issues and will revert to its tax plan upon the successful war with Iraq. Certainly doesn't want to find himself, in the same position as his "old man".

If it had been a hardliner instead of Gorbachev the collapse could easily have come sooner. There would just have been a lot more corpses produced in the process.

I had a professor who taught a rather free-form class on roughly whatever he thought was desparately lacking from our public school educations such as critical thinking. He's the sort who has a good time debating opposite Creationists. By and large not a Reaganite and I wouldn't be surprised if to this day he didn't give Reagan any credit.

Just the same in that 1982 semester he predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union with remarkable accuracy as to time frame and contibuting factors but claiming that his estimate was rooted in biology. He made a pretty good case that the veterans of Afghanistan were a powder keg waiting to go off in any hardliner's face and such a leader would only make things worse in a North Korea fashion.

"These quotes are rather ambivalent and can be interpreted to support either the expected short term or long term benefits of tax breaks."

George W. Bush's statement that "the deficit would have been bigger without the tax relief package" is unambiguous. He is claiming that his lower taxes increased government revenues.

A slightly older quotation comes from Mitch Daniels' performance on the Charlie Rose show last August. This was right after the OMB (run by Daniels) said that the (first) tax cut was responsible for 40% of the deterioration in the 10 year projected budget:

Rose: How much do you believe the tax cut will contribute to the [long run] deficit?

Daniels': If [the tax cut] contributes to greater economic growth, it will be a positive factor.... Surpluses don't produce good economies, good economies produce surpluses...

(Stolen from Delong's blog)

All of these arguments contain- whether for or against the tax cuts, that less government involvement is good for eventual growth. While the simplistic Macro growth models (even if they do need complicated differentials, they are still grossly simplified) do not consider the possibility of government expenditure boosting economic growth through infrastructure improvements, education etc... The question is not just how much government revenue, but how it is being used. If govenment expenditure were reduced to zero, there would probably be little growth. In fact, you might be guarding your patch of vegetables with a shotgun right now, instead of Blogging on a high speed connection.

Orbitron wrote:

"George W. Bush's statement that "the deficit would have been bigger without the tax relief package" is unambiguous. He is claiming that his lower taxes increased government revenues."

Or he could have also been saying that had we not cut taxes, the federal government would have increased spending by an even greater amount than it has (e.g. "free" prescription drugs, increased Social Security benefits, etc.) which could have also lead to a bigger deficit.

There's more than one way to read the supposedly "unambiguous comment."

That alternate interpretation doesn't make much sense either, Thorley. For the deficit to have been bigger without the tax cut, spending woudl have had to go up by an amount *larger* than the tax cut. Which seems a bit unlikely.

Jason McCullough wrote:

"That alternate interpretation doesn't make much sense either, Thorley. For the deficit to have been bigger without the tax cut, spending woudl have had to go up by an amount *larger* than the tax cut. Which seems a bit unlikely."

Why would that seem "unlikely" given that the tax cut is so small relative to how much the federal government is spending?

Or Bush could have meant that without his tax cut, the economy would have noseived into a depression, in which case the federal government would have had no choice but massively increased deficit spending.

Yep, you're right, he could have meant anything at all.

Has anyone broken down the $7.4 trillion reversal of fortune in our 10-year CBO estimates (by spending, taxes/revenues) that has taken place over the last 2 years? Isn't that slightly worrying?

“He is claiming that his lower taxes increased government revenues.”

The Bush administration is definitely saying that lower taxes will result in a healthier economy, and this should result ultimately in increased government revenues. There is no question about this fact. The question remains, though, is whether the Bush people adhere to the exaggerated hopes of the Arthur Lafflers. I still see no unambiguous evidence whatsoever that this is the case.

More importantly, what in hell are we talking about? We do not live in a dictatorship and the President never has the authority to unilaterally dictate economic policy. Thus, a Laffer type of approach hasn’t a snow ball’s chance in hell of ever being implemented. Brad DeLong, Paul Krugman, and the rest of their ilk are simply indulging in their normal visceral contempt towards George W. Bush. John Podhoretz and I agree completely that the Bush haters have turned psychotic similar to the right wing nut balls who despised Bill Clinton. They have allowed their emotions to hinder their ability to think clearly and dispassionately. You might find it of value to read Podhoretz’s latest column:

“I know this political psychosis well, because I have seen it at work in conservative ideological quarters during the Clinton years. Many Clinton-haters would believe anything, literally anything, about Bill Clinton. They wanted to believe it. They wanted to believe he wasn't just a harasser but a rapist. They wanted to believe he was somehow responsible for the murders of two kids at the Mena airstrip in Arkansas.

Most astounding of all, they wanted to believe Clinton was trying to install a far-left-wing government even as he was governing very firmly in the center. And when Clinton said and did conservative things (like signing welfare reform), his actions enraged them even more because he was "coopting" their ideas.

This political psychosis destroyed careers and entire institutions. The wonderful little magazine that gave me my start as a young writer, The American Spectator, was ruined and finally shattered by its psychotic obsession with Clinton's evil ways.

Clinton could do no right. Any policy with which he was associated was immediately soiled and ruined in their eyes.”

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/70383.htm

I am astonished that no one here talks numbers.

For example, in the first year of the Bush tax cuts, the exact hit from lowered tax rates was $40 billion. That same year we went from a $160 billion surplus to a significant deficit. Anyone who blames the deficit on a tax cut cannot do basic math. To whatever extent it contributed, it is not the main factor, and we don't know what, if any, stimulative effect those cuts had to offset revenue losses.

If we look at the 1980s, here's what tax revenues looked like:

1980: 956 billion
1981: 1,005 billion
1982: 967.4 billion
1983: 8.99 billion
1984: 950.4 billion
1985: 1,012 billion
1986: 1,035 billion
1987: 1,118.7 billion
1988: 1,154 billion
1989: 1,213 billion
1990: 1,222 billion

The tax decreases of the early 80s were followed by short-term drops in revenues, long-term increases. The tax increase of 1986 also increased revenues, although it should be noted that those increases were nowhere near as massive as the decreases just a few years before. Similarly, Clinton's changes to tax policy did not restore the rates to anywhere near as high on the top end as they were after Reagan cut them.

Bottom line: there is some validity to some supply side arguments, although it remains to be proven just how effective they are, real world figures being what they are. What we can say definitively, however, is that the notion that deficits in the 1980s were caused by tax cuts is categorically false.

By the way, since when is Arthur Laffer a "hard liner?" The man's worked for most of his life with Democrats. The Laffer Curve is not even disputed by most serious economists so far as I know. Indeed, Laffer will state freely that it shouldn't be called the Laffer Curve because all he did was rediscovery something that was in most economics textbooks all along. It's simply a variation on the law of diminishing returns. Nowhere does he propose that all tax cuts will result in increased revenue.

Although we should note that Keynes, the man who the left worships as the God of all sound economic policy, always agreed that cutting taxes was good policy during a recession. The problem with today's Democrats is that they don't really believe anything anymore when it comes to tax policy, which is both a source of irritation and a benefit. They don't have to be pinned down on much of anything, except that Bush's plans suck. It's always easier to criticize than propose alternatives, y'know?

Dean, I couldn't agree more -- but with one exception: your assertion that Democrats don't believe in anything anymore. Not entirely true.

- Democrats believe in declining worker productivity (which is they think we need to raise taxes now so we can get while the getting is good).

- Democrats believe in Rubinomics which states that deficits produce higher interest rates (a notion that is completely invalidated by reality -- ie, historically there has been no correlation between deficits and interest rates. Even today we are running a deficit and currently have an extremely low interest rate).

Frankly, Rubinomics is a sham, created out of junk science, to give Democrats a fiscal justification for raising taxes to cover mythical shortfalls in social policy spending in 2075.

It's nothing more than a justification of long held Democratic desire to emulate Europeans by transforming the Republic into the Socialist Republic.

Given Dreck's previous posts in 2002 regarding the sick state of affairs in social welfare funding in France and Germany, I hardly think this is a model that we should pursue.

Ultimately the question is this: do we believe that worker productivity in the US is going to continue to increase? If yes, then the best policy is to reduce taxes.

"We do not live in a dictatorship and the President never has the authority to unilaterally dictate economic policy"

That is beside the point. The topic at hand is Jane's statement that, since she had not heard the Bush administration make the claim that its tax cuts would pay for themselves, she was disinclined to listen to anything the administration's critics had to say.

The number one and two men in the Bush administration, as well as a host of others, have in fact made such claims.

“The number one and two men in the Bush administration, as well as a host of others, have in fact made such claims.”

Once again, I’m forced to disagree with your conclusion. The quotes that you cite are ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations. Last but not least, the proof is in the pudding. Both Glen Hubbard and Gregory Mankiew reject the hard line supply side arguments---and the White House has picked them for top jobs within the Bush administration!

Everybody who is half way sane is something of a supply sider. It's merely a question of how far one pushes this economic doctrine.

David Thomson wrote (quoting John Podhoretz):

“I know this political psychosis well, because I have seen it at work in conservative ideological quarters during the Clinton years. Many Clinton-haters would believe anything, literally anything, about Bill Clinton. They wanted to believe it. They wanted to believe he wasn't just a harasser but a rapist.They wanted to believe he was somehow responsible for the murders of two kids at the Mena airstrip in Arkansas."

I watched the nationally televised interview with Juanita Broderick in which she described in detail how then Arkansas Attorney General Bill Clinton forced himself on her and found her story credible. Did Mr. Podhoretz not watch the interview (much like most of the Democratic Senators who refused to avail themselves of the exculpatory information before casting their vote and then VP Gore) in which a citizen publicly accused a sitting POTUS of having once raped her? If so, did he have reason to doubt her and what did he think of the non-denial from Mr. Clinton?

http://members.cox.net/cjacobs5/politics/rape.htm

I agree that there are kooks on either side of the aisle who might believe the worst rumors about the either guy, but this is not the same thing as someone writing a book quoting "anonymous well-placed sources." This was someone who publicly put herself out on the line and has never been refuted by anyone to my knowledge.

So yes, I believe Bill Clinton is a harasser and rapist but I don't necessarily believe he was a murderer.

"Most astounding of all, they wanted to believe Clinton was trying to install a far-left-wing government even as he was governing very firmly in the center. And when Clinton said and did conservative things (like signing welfare reform), his actions enraged them even more because he was "coopting" their ideas."

As far as the charge that Bill Clinton was trying to install a "far-left-wing government," the fact that Clinton attempted to nationalize one-seventh of the US economy under the guise of "health care reform" is certainly a sign of a "far-left-wing government" IMNHO.

It is true that after the public backlash resulted in a GOP House and Senate, he was pretty much relegated to the status of a caretaker POTUS and not able to carry out many of the policies but that would largely be due to his ability to morph into whatever he believed he needed to be in order to survive politically.

As far as the other charge, other than signing welfare reform (on the third attempt after watering it down in an election year) and NAFTA/GATT, please list some of the other "conservative things" that Bill Clinton did which he didn't later attempt to undo.

GT, my post was not "factually incorrect" -- what I said was that I hadn't seen any such quotations. This is factually correct, making your comment factually wrong. When Brad provided them, I posted an update saying as much on the original post.

Touche.

You got me there.

But that also means that your whole post turns out to be, what´s the word, irrelevant? Based on a premise we now know not to be true?

"please list some of the other "conservative things" that Bill Clinton did which he didn't later attempt to undo."

Balanced the budget.

RE: the idea that Tax cuts caused the economic growth in the 80's. It should also be noted that there were so many factors that contributed to economic growth in the 80's that to ascribe it all to Regan's tax cuts is ludicrous on the face of it. Here are just a few things that I can come up with off the top of my head.

1. World oil prices collapsed between a high of 39 dollars a barrel in 1981 to 12 dollars in 1986. This fact alone is better explanations for growth (and higher revenues) in the 80’s then tax cuts.

2. Massive government spending primarily the defense sector returned millions in tax revenues.

3. Marginal tax rates were reduced but a number of middleclass deductions muted their effect such as elimination of the state sales tax deduction and the credit card interest deduction (that was a huge one and almost negated the effect of the tax cut for many)

4. Payroll taxes went up 52% from 1981 to 1988.

5. Married women entered the workforce and made a close to 40% jump from 1979 until 1986 fueling both revenues to government and increase in consumer spending.

Now if you all want to repeate the mantra that Reagan's tax cuts did more to fuel growth in the 80's then the things I just mentined, fine, but I don't think the facts will support that idea.

Rick,

You might add that the Fed's attack on inflation helped quite a bit. This was the work of Paul Volcker, a Carter appointee.

"Bottom line: there is some validity to some supply side arguments, although it remains to be proven just how effective they are, real world figures being what they are. What we can say definitively, however, is that the notion that deficits in the 1980s were caused by tax cuts is categorically false."

Where'd you get those numbers? Are they inflation-adjusted? How much economic growth would have happened anyway without the tax cuts?

The 1980s resulted roughly the same trendline growth as the 1970s. If the deficit-financed tax cuts resulted in an increase in the growth rate, it's extremely subtle.

i've been researching. A&E documentary stated bombings and hidden agendas of mormon church.
how much of or how many persons does the mormon church have in high government positions?
HOW MANY HANSBERGER, MILLER, SMITH, ROBERTSON, ROBINSON, MARTIN, JONES, LEWIS, FORREST OR FORRESTER IN GOVERNMENT POSITIONS? HOW MUCH PROPERTY AND BANKING DOES MORMON CHURCH AND CATHOLIC CHURCH OWN UNDER NON-PROFIT?
HOW MUCH MONEY HAS BEEN REDIRECTED FROM FEMA, TO FLOOD CONTROL, BARK BEETLE, AND FORESTRY PROBLEMS ?
HOW MUCH OF THE PRESIDENTIAL SET ASIDE FORESTS AND LANDS BURNED?
HOW MUCH IS NOW BEING DEVELOPED UNDER PHONEY CALIFORNIA OR OTHER STATE CODE THAT STATE YOU CAN'T PUT A POLITICIANS NAME OR ADDRESS OR HIS CHILDREN'S ON THE INTERNET.
HOW MUCH OF AMERICAN SOIL AND LAND LAKES AND STREAMS IS DEVELOPED BY FOREIGN BANKS? WHY DID BUSH MEET SAN BERNARDINO POLITICIANS RECENTLY?

i've been researching. A&E documentary stated bombings and hidden agendas of mormon church.
how much of or how many persons does the mormon church have in high government positions?
HOW MANY HANSBERGER, MILLER, SMITH, ROBERTSON, ROBINSON, MARTIN, JONES, LEWIS, FORREST OR FORRESTER IN GOVERNMENT POSITIONS? HOW MUCH PROPERTY AND BANKING DOES MORMON CHURCH AND CATHOLIC CHURCH OWN UNDER NON-PROFIT?
HOW MUCH MONEY HAS BEEN REDIRECTED FROM FEMA, TO FLOOD CONTROL, BARK BEETLE, AND FORESTRY PROBLEMS ?
HOW MUCH OF THE PRESIDENTIAL SET ASIDE FORESTS AND LANDS BURNED?
HOW MUCH IS NOW BEING DEVELOPED UNDER PHONEY CALIFORNIA OR OTHER STATE CODE THAT STATE YOU CAN'T PUT A POLITICIANS NAME OR ADDRESS OR HIS CHILDREN'S ON THE INTERNET.
HOW MUCH OF AMERICAN SOIL AND LAND LAKES AND STREAMS IS DEVELOPED BY FOREIGN BANKS? WHY DID BUSH MEET SAN BERNARDINO POLITICIANS RECENTLY?

i've been researching. A&E documentary stated bombings and hidden agendas of mormon church.
how much of or how many persons does the mormon church have in high government positions?
HOW MANY HANSBERGER, MILLER, SMITH, ROBERTSON, ROBINSON, MARTIN, JONES, LEWIS, FORREST OR FORRESTER IN GOVERNMENT POSITIONS? HOW MUCH PROPERTY AND BANKING DOES MORMON CHURCH AND CATHOLIC CHURCH OWN UNDER NON-PROFIT?
HOW MUCH MONEY HAS BEEN REDIRECTED FROM FEMA, TO FLOOD CONTROL, BARK BEETLE, AND FORESTRY PROBLEMS ?
HOW MUCH OF THE PRESIDENTIAL SET ASIDE FORESTS AND LANDS BURNED?
HOW MUCH IS NOW BEING DEVELOPED UNDER PHONEY CALIFORNIA OR OTHER STATE CODE THAT STATE YOU CAN'T PUT A POLITICIANS NAME OR ADDRESS OR HIS CHILDREN'S ON THE INTERNET.
HOW MUCH OF AMERICAN SOIL AND LAND LAKES AND STREAMS IS DEVELOPED BY FOREIGN BANKS? WHY DID BUSH MEET SAN BERNARDINO POLITICIANS RECENTLY?

i've been researching. A&E documentary stated bombings and hidden agendas of mormon church.
how much of or how many persons does the mormon church have in high government positions?
HOW MANY HANSBERGER, MILLER, SMITH, ROBERTSON, ROBINSON, MARTIN, JONES, LEWIS, FORREST OR FORRESTER IN GOVERNMENT POSITIONS? HOW MUCH PROPERTY AND BANKING DOES MORMON CHURCH AND CATHOLIC CHURCH OWN UNDER NON-PROFIT?
HOW MUCH MONEY HAS BEEN REDIRECTED FROM FEMA, TO FLOOD CONTROL, BARK BEETLE, AND FORESTRY PROBLEMS ?
HOW MUCH OF THE PRESIDENTIAL SET ASIDE FORESTS AND LANDS BURNED?
HOW MUCH IS NOW BEING DEVELOPED UNDER PHONEY CALIFORNIA OR OTHER STATE CODE THAT STATE YOU CAN'T PUT A POLITICIANS NAME OR ADDRESS OR HIS CHILDREN'S ON THE INTERNET.
HOW MUCH OF AMERICAN SOIL AND LAND LAKES AND STREAMS IS DEVELOPED BY FOREIGN BANKS? WHY DID BUSH MEET SAN BERNARDINO POLITICIANS RECENTLY?

i've been researching. A&E documentary stated bombings and hidden agendas of mormon church.
how much of or how many persons does the mormon church have in high government positions?
HOW MANY HANSBERGER, MILLER, SMITH, ROBERTSON, ROBINSON, MARTIN, JONES, LEWIS, FORREST OR FORRESTER IN GOVERNMENT POSITIONS? HOW MUCH PROPERTY AND BANKING DOES MORMON CHURCH AND CATHOLIC CHURCH OWN UNDER NON-PROFIT?
HOW MUCH MONEY HAS BEEN REDIRECTED FROM FEMA, TO FLOOD CONTROL, BARK BEETLE, AND FORESTRY PROBLEMS ?
HOW MUCH OF THE PRESIDENTIAL SET ASIDE FORESTS AND LANDS BURNED?
HOW MUCH IS NOW BEING DEVELOPED UNDER PHONEY CALIFORNIA OR OTHER STATE CODE THAT STATE YOU CAN'T PUT A POLITICIANS NAME OR ADDRESS OR HIS CHILDREN'S ON THE INTERNET.
HOW MUCH OF AMERICAN SOIL AND LAND LAKES AND STREAMS IS DEVELOPED BY FOREIGN BANKS? WHY DID BUSH MEET SAN BERNARDINO POLITICIANS RECENTLY?

i've been researching. A&E documentary stated bombings and hidden agendas of mormon church.
how much of or how many persons does the mormon church have in high government positions?
HOW MANY HANSBERGER, MILLER, SMITH, ROBERTSON, ROBINSON, MARTIN, JONES, LEWIS, FORREST OR FORRESTER IN GOVERNMENT POSITIONS? HOW MUCH PROPERTY AND BANKING DOES MORMON CHURCH AND CATHOLIC CHURCH OWN UNDER NON-PROFIT?
HOW MUCH MONEY HAS BEEN REDIRECTED FROM FEMA, TO FLOOD CONTROL, BARK BEETLE, AND FORESTRY PROBLEMS ?
HOW MUCH OF THE PRESIDENTIAL SET ASIDE FORESTS AND LANDS BURNED?
HOW MUCH IS NOW BEING DEVELOPED UNDER PHONEY CALIFORNIA OR OTHER STATE CODE THAT STATE YOU CAN'T PUT A POLITICIANS NAME OR ADDRESS OR HIS CHILDREN'S ON THE INTERNET.
HOW MUCH OF AMERICAN SOIL AND LAND LAKES AND STREAMS IS DEVELOPED BY FOREIGN BANKS? WHY DID BUSH MEET SAN BERNARDINO POLITICIANS RECENTLY?

Comments are Closed.