Shit, they have been getting that one by me for years on message boards. I never knew this and I never checked. And I of all people know that you have to check every single word a Republican utters, including 'and" and "the".
Reagan's Boom
- Thread starter Topspin
- Start date
Shit, they have been getting that one by me for years on message boards. I never knew this and I never checked. And I of all people know that you have to check every single word a Republican utters, including 'and" and "the".
No, no one ever does talk about those, and they have dropped Bush 1 out of their narrative all together. It's as if those four years never occurred at all in their world!
This is about the same thing as saying you can't measure how a tax cut creates a raise. It was cause and effect, after the tax rise the growth slowed for a measurable period. It was still growth and that is good. Also, it isn't necessarily a bad thing. If the growth continued at the rate it was going would the bubble have burst beforehand? We can't know that for sure, but we can see a measurable difference in the growth after the tax rise.
Definitely. Yet we can see a measurable rise after the rates did pass. I don't know if they could have passed without the events that led to LBJ's becoming President. It was an unpopular idea.
uscitizen
Villified User
Some people seem to think the economy rises and falls based on some strange time frame effect. It has been up for X quarters so it is due to fall, etc.
everything has a cause an effect. Measuring the effects of the causes now is the difficult part as the causes are many and convoluted.
everything has a cause an effect. Measuring the effects of the causes now is the difficult part as the causes are many and convoluted.
Believe me, I was suckered by the myth of the "JFK taxcuts" for years, until I did ten minutes of my own research.
JFK proposed them, but they weren't passed unitl 1964 by LBJ.
Meaning, they couldn't have had any measurable impact on the economy until 1965 or later into the late 1960s.
The economic boom in the early to mid 1960s had nothing to do with "JFKs tax cuts". I got sucker punched by that lie for years too.
so, don't feel bad
Top, don't have a stroke.
You call me names everytime you come in here, and guess what? That makes you a dick. The fact that you go sideways when someone calls you a name in return, makes you a sissyman.
Believe me, I was suckered by the myth of the "JFK taxcuts" for years, until I did ten minutes of my own research.
JFK proposed them, but they weren't passed unitl 1964 by LBJ.
Meaning, they couldn't have had any measurable impact on the economy until 1965 or later into the late 1960s.
The economic boom in the early to mid 1960s had nothing to do with "JFKs tax cuts". I got sucker punched by that lie for years too.
so, don't feel bad
It just points out to me how pervasive this revisionist history is. I'm glad to know this now though.
The lesson here is never believe what a Republican says.
Wise words my friend. I fell for the lie about the JFK tax cuts for years.
I'm sure every republican poster in cyberspace believes this lie. Rush limabaugh has spent a generation, implying that the JFK tax cuts "in 1961" caused the economic boom that started at the dawn of the 1960s.
uscitizen
Villified User
Rush is a big fat liar.
And I never even read the book. At least I think someone wrote a book by that title.
He needt to just take his viagra and permanently move to the Dominican republic.
He is just like Bush, born with a silver foot in his mouth. His dad owned Radio stations.
Rush was a failure at everything else but lying so the rest is history.
And I never even read the book. At least I think someone wrote a book by that title.
He needt to just take his viagra and permanently move to the Dominican republic.
He is just like Bush, born with a silver foot in his mouth. His dad owned Radio stations.
Rush was a failure at everything else but lying so the rest is history.
A fascinating article on Kennedy and Tax Cuts...
http://www.slate.com/id/2093947/
**** Warning. The article makes it pretty clear this magnificent growth reported in 1961 to 1963 wasn't all that magnificent and there was a reason for the tax cuts, it also admits that the cuts did spur the economy... Also Conservatives should be warned that it talks about the fact that Kennedy was far more in favor of government spending than in tax cuts to get the economy growing, it is a myth that he was ever a kin to Supply-siders...
http://www.slate.com/id/2093947/
**** Warning. The article makes it pretty clear this magnificent growth reported in 1961 to 1963 wasn't all that magnificent and there was a reason for the tax cuts, it also admits that the cuts did spur the economy... Also Conservatives should be warned that it talks about the fact that Kennedy was far more in favor of government spending than in tax cuts to get the economy growing, it is a myth that he was ever a kin to Supply-siders...
Ted Haggard
Verified User
Young man, don't you think this was a little over the line?
You appear to have some deep-seated anger issues towards women. Especially women, who aren't barefoot and staying in the kitchen.
May I suggest some male companionship, to ease those tensions towards women? It really works. I'm visiting a male massage therapist in New Orleans tonight....care to join me???
Warmest Regards,
Ted
I did call him a dick first Ted. 12 times being told i was in a "circle jerk", when I don't even have the proper equipment for such a thing, annoyed me.
However, I have remained calm. That's my personality. Wouldn't it be funny if I flipped out, and we can be certain from Top's reaction, that he is already flipped out, and then we would could have one of those brawls that some of the men have here sometimes.
I was thinking of doing that, just out of boredom, but I took pity on Top. He wouldn't stand a chance.
Great call damo. I've read up on the "JFK" tax cuts (actually, the Tax cuts LBJ passed), and they weren't strictly akin to classic "supply side" economics. There was a Keynsian element to the JFK and LBJ policies.
And we must remember, that the Reagan 1981 tax cuts, were actually follwed by a recession. The boom didn't really start until 1984 and after, after Reagan had begun wildly RAISING taxes, beginning in 1982. I posted the massive reagan tax increases yesterday.
So, it's far more complicated than saying supply side tax cuts caused the booms in the 1960s and 1980s. In fact, Cons have been getting the facts and timing wrong on the "JFK tax cuts" for years, before I caught them.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Cypress... got me too.... I knew Kennedy had fought for the tax cuts in 62-63 and simply assumed that was when they were passed.
That said, the whole notion that Democrats do better or worse than Republicans is simply partisan crap. Reagan did well. Clinton did well. Reagan had a predominantly Dem led Congress. Clinton predominantly Republican. NO budget is created and signed by one person. It is the combo of the two branches that create the tax cuts/increases, that create the deficits or the deficits (no other option since politicians in DC have no clue how to actually reduce our debt).
Don't fall for the political bs.
That said, the whole notion that Democrats do better or worse than Republicans is simply partisan crap. Reagan did well. Clinton did well. Reagan had a predominantly Dem led Congress. Clinton predominantly Republican. NO budget is created and signed by one person. It is the combo of the two branches that create the tax cuts/increases, that create the deficits or the deficits (no other option since politicians in DC have no clue how to actually reduce our debt).
Don't fall for the political bs.