Interesting facts about supply-side economics:

[Zynx]

To defeat the Republicans, we need fast, ready to deploy data points that people don't have to spend a life time sifting through to figure them out. Here are some brief numbers I have been working on:

*Under Ronald Reagan, his huge tax cut plan was passed in August of 1981 when unemployment was 7.4%. Four years later, in August of 1985, unemployment was 7.1%: http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp

*Both Reagan and Bush passed significant supply-side tax cuts. Supply-side tax cuts are designed to spur the investment side of the economy under the theory that future growth will be stronger with more investment and the best way of doing this is to cut tax rates on the owners of capital. Funny thing is that Gross Private Domestic Investment grew by the following rates:

Bush: 0.8% per year
Reagan: 4.7% per year
vs.
Clinton: 8.8% per year
LBJ: 6.3% per year
and even Nixon: 4.5% per year

As such, even the part of the economy that was supposed to be stimulated by their policies either didn't grow or grew less than presidents without supply-side policies, on average.

FDR, just for shits and giggles, had Gross Private Domestic Investment growth of 35.8% per year for the years 1933-1941. So much for the argument he constrained investment. Granted, it was coming off of a low base, but still.

*Average GDP growth rates:
Bush, once 2008 is fully revised by March, will likely have had the slowest GDP growth rates since Herbert Hoover:
(Average GDP growth rates by president as of 2007)
JFK: 4.3%
LBJ: 5.2%
Nixon: 2.9%
Ford: 2.5%
Carter: 3.3%
Reagan: 3.5%
H.W. Bush: 2.2%
Clinton: 3.7%
W: 2.3%

Reagan grew by less than Clinton, LBJ, and JFK and not appreciably faster than Carter. Bush grew far slower than almost all presidents except his father and Ford.

*Federal Revenue Growth:
Supply-siders contend that you get more revenue than you otherwise would have had as the result of supply-side tax cuts. Well, here is the comparison of Federal Income Tax revenue as January of last year(so Bush's numbers are actually worse than this):

Clinton Years
Receipts 1993: $842 billion
Receipts 2001: $1.483 trillion
Growth: 76%

Bush Jr. Years
Receipts 2001: $1.483 trillion
Expected 2009: $ 2.086 trillion
Growth: 40.6%

Reagan Years
Receipts 1981: $469 billion
Receipts 1989: $727 billion
Growth: 55%

These are all two term presidents who implemented significant tax policy changes. Clinton had the fastest economic and revenue growth of them all. Bush, with the most decidedly supply-side policies, had the slowest economic and revenue growth. Clinton also beat the crap out of Reagan with an exactly opposite tax strategy. These numbers exclude Social Security and Medicare tax revenues, but the story is precisely the same.

This is my first crack at this sort of comparison in this particular debate. Feel free to use these numbers.

-Zynx

[Zynx]

1. I realized I put a wrong link in there. I changed that now.

[AllentownJake]

2. You are going to use Facts and Numbers !#$$(@*#

Everyone knows facts and numbers have a liberal bias.

[Zynx]

3. They usually do, especially these days.

[Champion Jack]

4. Good work!

[Zynx]

7. I try my best!

:-)

[Doremus]

5. I've been collecting a few stats too.

Supply siders like to repeat ad nauseum that top earners pay more taxes than the middle class. They trot out stats from the Tax Policy Center that "prove" the upper 20% pay 70% of all income taxes, that their effective tax rates are 30%+ and other lies.

The new IRS data released this week reveals the bull hockey for what it is.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/06intop400.pdf

Just a few interesting facts:

1. Of the top 400 wage earners, more than HALF pay less than 20%.
2. Incredibly, 31 of the top earners in the US pay UNDER 10%!
3. NONE of the top 400 earners paid more than 34%.

Lots more info in the IRS charts.

Here's another tidbit to keep in mind when pukes say we need lower capital gains tax "for the good of the economy":

90% of all stock is owned by the top 20% richest people.

Amazing!

Oh, and Monkey Boy and his Dick are right up there with their rich buds in the top 1%. Their effective tax rates are in the low-mid 20%s.

[Zynx]

6. Good work. I have been slowly collecting income statistics as well.