Yeah, he signed them. Big deal. The point is, government revenue went up, period. Tax cuts produce more revenue and they have every time it's been tried. Worked for Reagan, worked for JFK, etc. The fact that income and expenditures are completely independent of one another in government is a separate issue. Tax cuts only effect the income side of the equation, so claiming they caused the deficit is foolish. Government revenue went up and the politicians blew all of that and 38% more. That's what caused the deficits, not the tax cuts.
MTK, can you (or anyone else) direct me to source(s) that support the theory that reducing taxes increases government revenue? I know that there must be studies to support this and I'd like to read them. Thanks. Rodger
Yeah, the Congressional Budget Office. Look up government revenues after Reagan's and JFK's marginal tax rate cuts. They went up. How much more proof do you need?
Ok I can be lazy too. Lets say I looked them up. After the tax cuts, revenues went down. Need more proof?
Here's some data but I'm not sure if this is the stuff one needs to argue one way or the other: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table11 This kind of stuff gives me a headache!!! MTK? Anyone? Where is the info? Thanks. Rodger
From your link: Year Revenue (other stuff I didn't note) 1980 517.1 590.9 -72.7 -1.1 n.a. -73.8 711.9 1981 599.3 678.2 -73.9 -5.0 n.a. -79.0 789.4 1982 617.8 745.7 -120.0 -7.9 n.a. -128.0 924.6 1983 600.6 808.4 -208.0 0.2 n.a. -207.8 1,137.3 1984 666.5 851.9 -185.6 0.3 n.a. -185.4 1,307.0 1985 734.1 946.4 -221.7 9.4 n.a. -212.3 1,507.3 1986 769.2 990.4 -237.9 16.7 n.a. -221.2 1,740.6 1987 854.4 1,004.1 -169.3 19.6 n.a. -149.7 1,889.8 1988 909.3 1,064.5 -194.0 38.8 n.a. -155.2 2,051.6 Reagan took office in 1980. Revenues were $517B. In his last term, revenues were $909B, or almost 100% higher. Marginal tax rate cuts produce more revenue. The chart doesn't go back to before JFK's term so a similar comparison can't be made.
MTK those figures refer only to Revenues, Outlays Surplus/Deficit and Debt Held by the Public. How does this prove your theory? I'm sure that the proof is there (or at least enough proof to at least make your argument plausible) but so what if revenues increase? they have done so every yearuntil Bush II took over. And if you look at the clinton years you'll see that revenues almost doubled then too. I'm not saying that you are wrong, I'm just trying to understand. isn't there some kind of supply-side/trickle-down economic think tank that has this stuff? Rodger
me too, and if my fractured memory serves me right, isn't the reagan years when we had the Gawd-awful inflation? I think that was the period I recall when retailers had to jump prices on an almost weekly basis (before scanners--I recall re-pricing stock with three and four prices tags, one on top of another, to keep up with the increases). Wouldn't that inflation have produced increased tax revenue?
and the big recession....was who??? my favorite, reagan cut pell grants in the eighties. but thank god we recommisioned the Iowa class battleships...and funded SDI.... the baby of the same missile defense shield we are still funding.
I don't know what planet you live on, but there certainly wasn't a recession under Reagan, at least in this country. And so what if he cut Pell grants? If you want an education, get off your ass and pay for it. You're not entitled to a college education so don't expect the rest of us to pay for yours.
Battleships are cool, I'd rather pay for one of those than social programs, for damn sure. Ron was slick enough to trick the Ruskies into thinking SDI would work, then they went bankrupt trying to answer it. Ronnie won the cold war as a result.
Ron was slick enough to trick the Ruskies into thinking SDI would work, then they went bankrupt trying to answer it And who pray, is GW trying to bankrupt with development of a newer version of SDI?
20 years later dude. Technology has taken leaps and bounds since Reagan. Imagine where the RD today will lead us 20 years down the road. You and I still have to worry about someone dropping a missile on our heads, but your kids might not have to worry about it due to what what Reagan started and GW2 continued. Interesting hun?
sorry dave k, missile defense shield with never work....and lookie here, ole wolfie boy wants to do away with senate defense oversight committee... so we are building a defense program that doesn't have to meet any performance criteria. guaranteed to make defence contractors rich and US tax payers holding a flaming pile. BTW....missile defense shield has been funded every year after Reagan. I don’t understand the notion that fighting low-tech terrorists, requires more B-2 bombers or the so-called of missile defense shields. All it takes is ground troops. It was cool how the soviet union collapsed, and CIA knew nothing about it, but yet Reagan is taking credit for the collapse?? I’m confused Reagan decided to cut pell grants after spring break, look at all of those college kids fu<king off with the government's money, he said. I wasn't.... I had a work study job...making a whopping $3.35 an hour. The rest was made up with student loans. a pell grant sure could of helped.
North Korea? PRC? India? Iran? A France that has swung to the left through a coup? Don't know and don't really care if it bankrupts any of the US's adversaries. As long as my Kids won't have to worry about a Nuke landing on them. Chuck, I'm all for a senate oversite commision that holds the defense suppliers and military to a performance standard. But they are as much driven by partisan politics and jockeying for a little more stroke in the political game. No we don't need any more B1 bombers, but we could use a few more B52's. An arclight strike will do wonders to motivate the unfriendlys.
