Works for me. In both cases tax cuts began the boom.
Reagan's Boom
- Thread starter Topspin
- Start date
uscitizen
Villified User
Of course he was weak, no disagreement here.
He was weak because he was a rare thing, an honest politician. Both parties are full of corruption and feared him and would not support him.
uscitizen
Villified User
You are a republican at heart Spin. Why browse and quote Rep sites and such if not. To you credit I don't think I have seen you type "turbo lib" in a month or so though. May be hope for you yet
That's true, but tax cuts didn't kick off the one under Clinton. Since as we are constantly being reminded, he raised taxes and the economy did well.
Income inequality began its rise in the 1970's and increased under Reagan, and of course we see where we are now. Which is personally, what I would rather talk about, because all of this other stuff is nonsense to me, but, trying to claim that Reagan is responsible for anything good that happened after his presidency is just right wing hogwash. And they always skip right over the bush I years, where the guy, saddled with a recession and a crushing deficit, had to raise taxes to be responsible, and frankly to clean up Reagan's mess. And promptly got voted out of office largely because of that.
It must kill some that a dem didn't win that election. Oh, how much easier their revisionist history would be written then.
Two quarters is how the NBER defines one, yes. It seems that a lot of economists do define it as three quarters. I don't know why the difference.
Darla, haven't you learned yet?
If the economy performs well under a Democrat, its either because he got lucky, or because of some previous republican policy. Got it now???
Never mind that actual empirical data for the last 60 years, that shows the economy, on average, performs much better under Democratic presidents than republican ones - as measured by stock market, GDP, employment, poverty, economic growth, etc.
Well, that's because, just the Republicans luck, the benefits of their economic policies don't kick in until after they are out of office, and a Dem is in. It's so unfair that it worked out that way.
The party of Personal Responsibility, folks.
Bingo!!!
You got it. That's exactly how it works. And its a flexible logic: one day you can claim Clinton just got lucky, because of a tech boom. And the very next day, you can say the booming 1990s economy was because of a republican congress, and because of Ronald Reagan.
It's fun! A new reason, for each day of the week!
Ahhh... But the rise in taxes created the slowest portion of the boom. It would be historically inaccurate to say that there was no negative effect on the economy from the rise. Thankfully for us at the time the boom was stronger than the negative effect and that too passed. I often wonder how huge the boom would have been without that particular slowdown.
uscitizen
Villified User
This is edging into good terroritory. The great economy pro tax cuts types ignore these aspects.
You know what? I can't answer this post without calling you a dick. Really, I tried. Dick kept coming out.
So I'll skip it, because I don't like to call people dicks, even if i am talking to a dick.
I don't see how you can prove that the tax increases caused a slowdown in a boom, when you have no way of measuring how that boom would have been affected by no tax cuts. This sounds to me like something you believe rather than historical accuracy.
There's a lot of misinformation among Cons about the "JFK tax cuts".
Listen very carefully: JFK NEVER passed any tax cuts.
That's right. You've been spoon fed a myth by Rush Limbaugh for years.
The Tax cuts JFK proposed but never passed, weren't even passed and enacted until 1964 by LBJ. LBJ got the tax cuts passed.
Consequently, those tax cuts couldn't possibly have had any significant impact on the economy until 1965 at the earliest.
*Which leaves a rush limbaugh fan, to explain how the "JFK taxcuts", caused the economic boom that started in 1961