Need some help with a repuke

[4MoreYearsOfHell]

who is spouting off about how tax cuts bring more revenue. He has a chart compiled by the Heritage (barf) Foundation

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm182.cfm

that shows tax revenue growth thru the Ray-gun years. What I need to know is

1) When did Ronnie's tax-cuts go into effect?

2) Did he not in fact raise taxes in 1982 or thereabouts?

3) How would the inflation rate at that time have effected the revenue.

Any help would be appreciated...thanks in advance

[liberalitch]

1. Oh, i thought you meant like help....

with burying the body.
One thing about Ray-Gun Economics is that even Daddy Bush called supply side economics VooDoo economics....
Tax Cuts for the Rich didn't work for Hoover, Ray-Gun and they aren't working for the winged monkey

[MrMonk]

2. Yes, he did!

This NRO article addresses your question directly.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp

[wryter2000]

4. Awesome!

That link more than paid for all my contributions to DU! I could crawl through my computer and kiss you!

:yourock:

[Wapsie B]

3. Sorry

but I don't know any good deprogrammers around.

[Ready4Change]

5. Just me, or faulty math in chart?

I like to look at the facts directly. Here's that chart I think you're looking at?



Now, I'm no accountant, but column B (Total Revenues) lists $956.0 billion in 1980 and $1,221.7 billion in 1990. So to me that indicates an increase of $265 billion. But the chart title says "Government revenues increased over $1 trillion dollars in 10 years following 1981-1983 tax cut." 265 billion is a tad shy of 1 trillion.

Second, the chart only shows up to 1990. 10 years after 1981-83 tax cuts would need to show up to 1993, I'd think.

What I think it's trying to say is that, had there been no economic growth during that period, the government would have had taken in 1 trillion less over those 10 years. Well, that seems like a no brainer. Has there been a 10 year period since WWII without the US experiencing that kind of growth?

And I can't help but wonder what that same figure would be for the 10 years after Clinton took office?

[zbdent]

6. Try a copy of "The Triumph of Politics" by Stockman

where he details that Reagan stood around making promises that directly contradicted his policies, and how Stockman had to come up with amazing tales of accounting science fiction to help make it all come together.

The fact that the defense budget was already promised a good increase by Carter, and, unaware of this, Stockman went in and promised even more. Just one of the many blunders which immediately screwed up any plan.

[leftyandproud]

7. It's true...ABSOLUTE revenue went up in the 80's...BUT

adjust the numbers for inflation, and federal revenues were basically flat

[Grins]

8. This help?

I don't have all your answers or the time to do it, but here are a couple of things from my "notes".

I have to apologize for not recording the source, but from my reading the following, it is an excerpt from the DAILY HOWLER. I liked it because it contains an interview with Jonathan Chait of the New Republic who often writes on economics and budgets. When you read the following, compare your 'repuke" to the rants of the Limbaugh's and Hannity's of the RW that keep pushing this crap. (Highlights are mine.)


CHAIT CHAT (PART 2): We began our review with that Culture of Lying - the culture that now surrounds Bush (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 6/2/03). But Jonathan Chait had a different idea; in his TNR cover piece, he started with Reagan’s tax cuts. As the talk-show right has come to rule our deeply troubled public discourse, a Culture of Foolishness has taken hold; absurd accounts of Reagan’s work now play a key role in that discourse. Turn on talk radio and you will hear them - iconic accounts of his budget achievements. Reagan cut taxes and revenues soared - this well-spun tale is bruited daily. But this silly account has gone unchallenged by “good guy” pundits who snore inside logs. Many conservatives believe these stories, and indeed, why wouldn’t they do so? After all, Sean and Rush keep reciting the tales - and Big Mainstream Pundits just sit on the side, too effete to engage the real discourse.

That’s why we were mightily pleased to see Chait’s useful opening. It’s a very rare day when American citizens are asked to consider these facts:

CHAIT (from pgh 1): In truth, Reagan reacted to the consequences of his 1981 tax cuts in a way that would have put him far out of step with Bush’s Republican Party. When the scope of the budget deficit (caused by his tax cut) became apparent, Reagan acceded to a series of tax increases in 1982 (in the midst of a severe recession, no less), 1983, and 1984. In 1986, reacting to complaints that his 1981 tax cuts opened too many loopholes for the rich, Reagan enacted a sweeping tax reform that liberals, including this magazine (TNR), hailed for making the tax code more progressive. Reagan’s record on taxes, in short, consisted of one year of unvarnished conservative ideological warfare followed by seven years of retreat and consolidation.”

Those are facts which talk-show listeners never hear. For that reason, those are facts which you must learn - and recite, applying as needed.

Reagan cut taxes - and revenues soared. This silly tale is spun many ways. Fantasists like to ignore basic facts - that federal revenues almost always go up because of population growth and inflation. And they like to look at all federal revenues - adding in those payroll taxes, which Reagan actually raised. (Duh! We wonder why those “revenues soared.”) Meanwhile, snoring “liberals” don’t dirty their hands engaging in this crucial discourse. Sean and Rush keep pounding the piffle. Richard and William sleep in their logs. At THE HOWLER, we’re sick of this inane, corrupt culture. We were pleased to see Chait’s basic facts.

CHAIT CHAT (PART 3): What happens when the federal government cuts taxes? Duh! In almost all instances, revenues decline from where they would have been if tax rates had stayed the same. But over the course of the past quarter-century, the talk-show right has been fed some pure cant - cutting taxes increases revenues! This dogma makes little sense on its face. After all, if cutting the top rate to 33 percent increases revenue, why not cut it to 30 instead? But our discourse thrives on spin, lies and fable. And Bush likes to tell this tale too.

[King Coal]

9. Here is the thing

If a democratic administration has anything good happen, it is because of a previous republican administration. So, why wait four years? Elect a democrat now and let the republican good things kick in early.

[4MoreYearsOfHell]

10. Thanks to everybody...

for the help

here is my response to the chart...

Hard facts indeed...Read the following that will show that Reagan raised taxes significantly in 1982 and in most of the years of his presidency...

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp

So much for baseless rhetoric...

What is really appalling that under predominantly the Reagan and Bush* admins the federal debt has ballooned to the point that it is today. Those of you who say "deficits don't matter" should do a serious reality check. Yeah, I know, those awful Dems just would not quit spending - But the guy who has to sign the spending bills resided in the oval office - probably under a sign that read "the buck stops THERE". And, the spending under Reagan increased mostly due to the huge defense ramp-up - remember the $600 toilet seats? Or was that hammers?

Bush* will have the highest deficit ever - twice as much as the previous amount of $290 billion. One thing he has consistently accomplished in life is FAILURE - at everything.

At least he hasn't lied about his cocaine use - he just ducks the questions.

"I kind of like ducking questions"
-- at the Associated Press luncheon, Washington, DC, April 21, 2004

[TexasSissy]

11. I'll try to look later. Reagan's cuts failed, which is why Bush Sr.

called his economic policies "voodoo economics." Remember that?

There is info floating around out there about Reagan's policies that tries to rewrite history. I've seen some of it. But it's not true in large part. And they try, I think, to assign Reagan economics to some good things that happened AFTER Reagan left office. You know...just like they like to blame current problems on Clinton and Carter.

But I don't have time to look now. I'll look later & see what I can find.