The graph Rachel was so excited about

[Winterblues]

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2010/03/what_are_these_1.html



The first bar is the impact on the unified budget balance of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA) of 2001. The second is the impact on the budget balance of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (JGTRRA) of 2003. The third bar is the CBO estimated impact on the deficit of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act proposed in the Senate on November 19, for 2010-2019.

Tells the story...."Big Time"

The first bar is Bush*'s first tax cut, the second bar is Bush*'s second tax cut, the third bar is the Senate's version of Health care Reform

[Dappleganger]

1. K&R

[HughMoran]

2. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Bunning

You voted for more budget busting crap than any Democrat alive - HAHAHAHAHA!!! Fucking Republican.

[Lasher]

3. Interesting debate at the linked website.

One post there:

For people who hold to the supply-side and neoclassical view I would like some explanation and evidence regarding the following facts.

1. Why was the U.S. job, income, and net worth growth from 2001-2010 was the lowest since WWII given the two supply-side tax cuts of 2001 and 2003? Why was economic growth lower in 2001-2010 time period then any other decade since 1940 despite the low taxes, the WTO free trade agreement and the admission to China to the WTO,, and the most deregulated economy since the 1920s?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2010/01/01/GR2010010101478.html

2. Why was economic and jog growth so much better in the 1940s through 1970s, despite marginal income tax rates of 70%, at times 90%, for those in the highest income brakets?

3. Is there any evidence that tax rates, and only tax rates, are key factor for growth in developed and near developed countries? Despite the conservative meme, why has America's and Japan's growth, despite lower taxes, been less than Europe during the 2001-2010 period (although all three have become excruitiatingly slow or recessionary at the moment).

4. Why has the United States, at the periods of its highest income inequality (the 1920s and now) has had major financial crisises followed by deep recessions and prolonged high unemployment?

5. Please define "producer" clases? Are they banks CEOs and traders, stock brokers, investment bankers, deal makers, private equity groups, and all the other manipulators of capital? Are they CEOs and and upper management who have driven so many companies into the ground the last 30 years? Are they the ones protected by ferociously enforced Government monopolies call patents, copyrights, trademarks, and professional licensing? Who is in this class because of actual talent and hard work or have become "producers" due to birth, personal friendships, and political manuvering within institutions?

6. Why should the average person support a regime that means his or her increasing odds of immiseration with the only hope becoming hitting it rich in the lottery?

[hootinholler]

4. Those are some outstanding questions! n/t

[Lasher]

5. I thought so.

Like I said it's a pretty good debate, although one sided. But what else can you expect? Supply siders really have nothing left to say.