The litany of why I (or anyone here) thinks Obama should not get another four years is long... very long. Save your brother the hassle and simply send him the link to this page. Jeez... why make the boy work for it?
Now, would it be rude of me to ask for a response to my earlier post?
I ask (again) for this response because it is still pertinent to the subject. Today, while picking up my son from school, I listened to Ingraham on the radio. She had nearly an hour of discussion (far more rational than Levin's) about why Romney is avoiding the topic of reduced taxes should he win the White House. The example her and her guests kept using was Reagan's reduction of taxes once he won in 1980.
My question (should you have missed it) is: Reagan only lowered taxes in 1981/82... he raised them again in 1983, and by 1987, they were back to 88% of what they were for everyone earning less than $200,000 under Carter, while those earning more than $200k were paying only 33% of what they were under Carter. If Reagan's paradigm WORKED (and I maintain it did), then why wouldn't we follow it WITHOUT the empty promise of lower taxes for EVERYONE? WHY is there this blatant false understanding of exactly what Reagan did and didn't do? Why this insistence on making it seem like he slashed taxes and never raised them again? There is NO empirical evidence that shows that government revenues went UP in 1981/82 (that I can find anyway)... the revenues went UP after 1985... once taxes were raised (for the second time) and the capital gains tax was back in place. Yes, ALL taxes were lowered, especially initially in 1981... and he did deliver on his promise with that reduction... but by 1984, they were up again and would rise two more times before he left office.
The genius of Reagan's plans was that he had finally figured out what J. M. Keynes had been saying since the 1920s... finding a balanced budget doesn't depend on the percentage of taxes levied by the government, but by the number of taxpayers contributing to the bill. More people paying in, the less each individual has to contribute to meet the same revenue threshold. I readily admit that NO PRESIDENT prior to Reagan had this understanding, especially FDR. No President after Reagan managed it either... which is worse, since they had his example to follow.
So, Reagan lowered taxes to jump-start the economy. Nothing happened, and Fed revenues took a nosedive. Deficits were through the roof... literally. Then, he raised taxes (slowly) over six years, while also reducing spending by the government. By the end of his second term, spending was down more than 12% and the rate at which government grew was reduced to the lowest it had been since before Teddy Roosevelt. There were still deficits... he never managed to balance the budget... but they were a far smaller percentage of our GNP than anything we had seen in the forty years prior to his terms.
Could it be that Romney is avoiding the topic of tax reductions because he and Ryan finally understand this as well? Could we finally see real "Reagan Republicans" running for office? If that is true, then they need to sing it from the highest mountain tops because THAT is what is going to get them elected.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Im in my phone, & for some reason I can only respond oi n the comment section, which is fine for what I have to say ... Im not being difficult, but Im going to need the link to your sources on Reaganomics. To flatly say "Reagan raised taxes in 1986", for example, strikes me as grossly over simplifying what happened. 86' was a compromise with Gephart, so Reagan could get defense spending he wanted. And Reagan didn't simply "raise and lower" taxes. In some instances he eliminated them all together, such as the windfall profits tax on oil. There was also massive deregulation, a reduction in capital gains & corporate tax, etc. I don't think we can have a proper discussion on "Reaganomics" & what aspects of it jump started the economy if we simply define it as the raising & lowering of personal income tax rates, which is the way I read your posts. lets get a common definition of Reaganomics first.
By the way, Im not disputing that Reagan signed legislation that raised payroll taxes. Im simply want us to be on the same page as to the difference of Reaganomics as he advocated as an economic policy, and what actually happened. In other words, if he compromised on taxes in 86' because he made the executive calculation that the USSR was now a greater threat than the once faltering/now recovered US economy, then that makes his decision part of history, but not necessarily part of Reaganomics. See what I mean? Im not looking to start a beef, but if we're trying to gauge whether Romney is looking to Reaganomics, we need to establish whether we mean Reaganomics the theory, as articulated by Reagan, or the reality of what legislation was produced post political compromise, because "supply side" is traditionally thought of as the polar political/economic opposite.of Keynsian, and Reagan's ideology is certainly one of a supply sider.
Post a Comment