It sounds like you're holding him to a much higher standard. Do you think anything Reagan or Bush II said came from themselves? (Besides the malapropisms, of course. And Clinton did write a lot of his speeches.)
I don't care that it came from Carville. I was just responding to Jimmac who thought Clinton came up with the saying.
That does sound familure now that you mention Carville.
I'm willing to concede that I was wrong about this one small point. Do you have a reference?
However actions speak louder than words and I believe the U.S., the world itself, was a much better place with Clinton.
Yes I know you think things are better now with dubbya.
Despite the fact that we are just coming out of a bad economic situation ( which conservatives ignoring the facts say " wasn't that bad " ). Much of the rest of the world is now wary of us for our actions ( to which the conservatives say " who cares " ). We have a president who almost certainly lied to us about a situation so we could go to war ( even though the stubborn Bush supporters repeat the mantra " There's no proof of that " ). He says his war on terrorism is a success yet the facts don't support that and we really aren't any safer. And the middle american is poised to be squeezed even harder for the sake of the rich and big business ( to which the Bush supporters reply " His policies will benifit all americans. You'll see " ).
Well alot of people disagree with that as you'll find out in November.
Besides considering everything that's happened in the last 4 years history might look at Bush in the same light as Nixon.
They got killed, in part, because of the GAP between what Clinton supposedly stood for during the the '92 election and the way he actually governed. During the campaign Clinton promised a middle class tax cut. Once elected he pushed through the largest tax increase in history. Hillary's health care plan wasn't part of the debate in '92. Nor was the issue of gays in the military.
I don't think the gap was as large as you suggest. He expanded the EITC and the child tax credit, and raised the upper rates. That wasn't too far off from what he proposed. And Reagan's 1982 tax increase was actually the largest increase in modern history by any legitimate measure. From what I recall, gays in the military and health care reform were proposals he made in the campaign, but they weren't made into as big issues as they were when they were proposed. He lost those battles (at least health care, arguably gays in the military); so be it. Part of the evaluation of him as prez concerns whether he was effective, and he certainly wasn't on those specific proposals, but part is whether he was right or wrong, and that comes down to values/ideology/opinion. I happen to think he was right on those issues and his opponents were wrong, so I have no problem with him proposing them and losing.
Quote:
And after the tax bill was passed and after Hillarycare went down in flames, Clinton DIDN'T propose anything ambitious. He became a master of small gestures. What he stood for was "triangulation".
I agree with that. But that also means he didn't propose anything that had the potential to majorly screw things up. After Bush's two main issues, the budget - huge decreases in taxes accompanied by huge increases in spending - and pre-emptive war, I think we need some small gestures.
One of the blogs I read (by a former Dean strategist) said the other day that Clinton "triangulated [democrats] to the edge of a cliff."
It's worth thinking about whether or not he sacrificed core liberal values with all of that triangulation (NAFTA comes to mind).
If you have to judge who went off the cliff, I'd say it was Dean, not Clinton. What sent the Dems packing in 1994 was a conservative sweep based on a rejection of liberal proposals like health care reform, and egged on by a fantastic national strategy by Gingrich. It wasn't triangulation. Triangulation was the basis of his popularity. I really don't think NAFTA was triangulation - I think Clinton genuine believed in it and believed it would be good for the economy.
Rush Limbaugh has guided the swing towards the right since early in Clinton's existence . . . you cannot overestimate his sway on the misguided perceptions of today.
We can no longer even imagine a civilization that has concern for its infrastructure, its cultural base, education, its lowest common denominator in terms of wealth . . . in short a civilized civilization.
To even consider, with a sidelong glance, systems that seem to keep people 'happier' and healthy and better educated and relatively safe, such as many European countries, is to risk being labeled a commie-pinko.
Meanwhile we slide backward into Dickensian bleakness: unfettered and untouchable power players and poverty, even working poverty, ensconced in decaying infrastructure enamored with and enslaved to the dying beast of the automobile . . . blah . . I am babbling . .or rather 'prattling', and its been said better in other places
But unfortunately, the left today has reason to be weary of ideological visions: just look at what the right has wrought with such visions, , a party that was 'anti-ideology' has become completely blinded by its ugliest ideals, or the left historically . . . and these days the left is aware of that possibility . . . and therefor its reticence in the face of vulgar mudslinging a la Limbaugh . .
maybe the days of reticence are over . . . I don't know . .. either way, if Kerry were to take Dean I'd solidly back them
Hell . . . if he were to take Hunter S Thompson I'd still back him against bush . . .
Rush Limbaugh has guided the swing towards the right since early in Clinton's existence . . . you cannot overestimate his sway. . .
Yes you can and you just did. Limbaugh provided a morale boost for the right and that's about it. The real intellectual heavy-lifting is done elsewhere.
Quote:
We can no longer even imagine a civilization that has concern for its infrastructure, its cultural base, education, its lowest common denominator in terms of wealth . . . in short a civilized civilization.
To even consider, with a sidelong glance, systems that seem to keep people 'happier' and healthy and better educated and relatively safe, such as many European countries, is to risk being labeled a commie-pinko.
Meanwhile we slide backward into Dickensian bleakness. . .
I don't think the gap was as large as you suggest. He expanded the EITC and the child tax credit, and raised the upper rates. That wasn't too far off from what he proposed. And Reagan's 1982 tax increase was actually the largest increase in modern history by any legitimate measure. . .
So the deficits of the '80s WEREN'T caused by Reagan's tax cuts! Hopefully, the left will now finally discard that phony argument. As for describing the Clinton tax increase as the largest in history, that was Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
We can no longer even imagine a civilization that has concern for its infrastructure, its cultural base, education, its lowest common denominator in terms of wealth . . . in short a civilized civilization.
To even consider, with a sidelong glance, systems that seem to keep people 'happier' and healthy and better educated and relatively safe, such as many European countries, is to risk being labeled a commie-pinko.
Meanwhile we slide backward into Dickensian bleakness: unfettered and untouchable power players and poverty, even working poverty, ensconced in decaying infrastructure enamored with and enslaved to the dying beast of the automobile . . . blah . . I am babbling . .or rather 'prattling', and its been said better in other places
Pfflam, sometimes I have trouble following you, like when you go off on some deep philosophical tangent, but those paragraphs above are so evocative and thought-provoking. Only few have said it better. But has anyone said it so succinctly?
Pfflam, sometimes I have trouble following you, like when you go off on some deep philosophical tangent, but those paragraphs above are so evocative and thought-provoking. Only few have said it better. But has anyone said it so succinctly?
America doesn't look anything like pfflam's "Dickensian bleakness". This isn't thinking. It's a substitute for thinking. He's like a Limbaugh of the left (without the microphone). The US spends more per child than almost any country in the world and he can't imagine a civilization being concerned about education. Or one that's concerned about the lowest common denominator in terms of wealth. . .
Quote:
. . . in the U.S. a large 45.9% of the "poor" own their homes, 72.8% have a car and almost 77% have air conditioning, which remains a luxury in most of Western Europe. The average living space for poor American households is 1,200 square feet. In Europe, the average space for all households, not just the poor, is 1,000 square feet. . . link
Or concern for infrastructure - who's fault is that? Americans send trillions of tax dollars each year to their local, state and federal governments. If the infrastructure is crumbling, maybe it's time we stopped looking to government for the answers and instead look more and more to the private sector. But you already know what pfflam thinks of that idea.
So the deficits of the '80s WEREN'T caused by Reagan's tax cuts! Hopefully, the left will now finally discard that phony argument.
His 1982 tax increase didn't make up for the lost revenue of the 1981 tax cut. Sure, he also increased gov't spending. Which caused the deficits, the tax cuts or the spending increases? It's like asking, of 2 + 2 = 4, which 2 caused the 4 more, the first or second. Both taxes and spending play a role. If you think it's a phony argument, why did Reagan's economic program result in such huge deficits? Why didn't the supposedly incredible Reagan economy result in budget surplus, like they claimed it would?
Quote:
As for describing the Clinton tax increase as the largest in history, that was Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
Plenty of Republicans have said it too. In any case, the truth of the statement obviously is not dependent on who said it.
You're right . . I was overcome by a rhetoric sneeze fit . . . I was outlining the imagined resulting conditions of a right-wing success rather than present real conditions . . . back to earth now . . . ahhh . . . its all so gooood
You're right . . I was overcome by a rhetoric sneeze fit . . . I was outlining the imagined resulting conditions of a right-wing success rather than present real conditions . . . back to earth now . . . ahhh . . . its all so gooood
\
One good point, however, came out of your post:
No matter who wins the election, the political climate doesn't seem to be ready to get any less vitriolic anytime soon, and the polarization that's in place now will most likely be exacerbated.
Secondarily, I have been arguing for a while now that much of conservative economic theory is a desperate attempt to get back to the good old days of the 18th and early 19th centuries.
To say that people in America are paid a decent wage or that children don't labor away in factories overlooks the fact that the only reason this is so is because liberals imposed limitations on what the private sector could do. How many conservatives want to do away with the minimum wage, after all? And how many more would like to see the minimum working age lowered?
No matter who wins the election, the political climate doesn't seem to be ready to get any less vitriolic anytime soon, and the polarization that's in place now will most likely be exacerbated.
Secondarily, I have been arguing for a while now that much of conservative economic theory is a desperate attempt to get back to the good old days of the 18th and early 19th centuries.
To say that people in America are paid a decent wage or that children don't labor away in factories overlooks the fact that the only reason this is so is because liberals imposed limitations on what the private sector could do. How many conservatives want to do away with the minimum wage, after all? And how many more would like to see the minimum working age lowered?
Add to that getting rid of overtime pay for hourly workers.
His 1982 tax increase didn't make up for the lost revenue of the 1981 tax cut. . .
So Reagan's largest tax increase in history still left us with LOWER taxes. . . okay. . .
Quote:
. . . Why didn't the supposedly incredible Reagan economy result in budget surplus, like they claimed it would?
Taxes were cut and revenues rose. Spending rose faster. It's not complicated. Reagan wanted an increase in defense spending but in order to get his spending priorities through Congress he had to play ball with the Dems.
Quote:
. . . In any case, the truth of the statement obviously is not dependent on who said it.
Moynihan was always a straight shooter and being a liberal Democrat who voted for Clinton's tax bill, he had no interest in exaggerating the size of the tax increase.
So Reagan's largest tax increase in history still left us with LOWER taxes. . . okay. . .
Yes. What specific contention do you disagree with, that Reagan's 1981 tax cut was larger than his 1982 tax increase, or that Reagan's 1982 tax increase was larger than Clinton's 1993 tax increase?
Quote:
Taxes were cut and revenues rose. Spending rose faster. It's not complicated. Reagan wanted an increase in defense spending but in order to get his spending priorities through Congress he had to play ball with the Dems.
Did the tax cuts cause revenues to increase? Is that really plausible? Does anyone believe that anymore? Revenue increased as it always does as the economy grew. We took in less revenue than we would have if we hadn't had the tax cuts. That's why Reagan increased taxes in 1982 - due to the revenue shortfall.
As for playing ball with those big-spending Dems, domestic discretionary spending was cut by 1% or so during the Reagan years (in real dollars). Entitlement spending increased, but no one voted on that. And defense spending increased a lot. That resulted in a large net increase in gov't spending. It might have been the kind of spending you like, but it was spending nonetheless. Combine those spending increases with the tax cuts, and you get deficits.
Quote:
Moynihan was always a straight shooter and being a liberal Democrat who voted for Clinton's tax bill, he had no interest in exaggerating the size of the tax increase.
He's still wrong. Clinton's tax increase was larger than Reagan's in unadjusted dollars. But using appropriate measures, Reagan's was bigger. The fact is, neither of them were that big. Clinton's raised the very top rate and some gas tax, but also cut some taxes. Reagan's increase fiddled with some deductions and corporate rates I think.
Did the tax cuts cause revenues to increase? Is that really plausible? Does anyone believe that anymore?
Lower taxes caused the economic growth which caused the increased revenue. Democrats used to understand this. That's what JFK did during his presidency.
Quote:
We took in less revenue than we would have if we hadn't had the tax cuts. That's why Reagan increased taxes in 1982 - due to the revenue shortfall.
Funny how your analysis of the economy at that time leaves out the double digit unemployment and inflation rates we were experiencing at the time. We took in less revenue because the economy was flat on it's freaking back.
Lower taxes caused the economic growth which caused the increased revenue. Democrats used to understand this. That's what JFK did during his presidency.
There was no more growth in the 1980s than during any other cyclical recovery we've had, and no more increase in revenues.
Quote:
Funny how your analysis of the economy at that time leaves out the double digit unemployment and inflation rates we were experiencing at the time. We took in less revenue because the economy was flat on it's freaking back.
Do you know the only other time revenues have actually fallen since 1982? They didn't fall for the 1991 recession. They fell in 2001, 2002, & 2003. That's the only time revenues have fallen three years in a row, AFAIK. Maybe the 2001 & 2002 revenue drops could have been caused by the recession, but supposedly the economy has been just great since 2002. So why did revenues fall in 2003?
Comments
Originally posted by ShawnJ
It sounds like you're holding him to a much higher standard. Do you think anything Reagan or Bush II said came from themselves?
I don't care that it came from Carville. I was just responding to Jimmac who thought Clinton came up with the saying.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
It sounds like you're holding him to a much higher standard. Do you think anything Reagan or Bush II said came from themselves? (Besides the malapropisms, of course. And Clinton did write a lot of his speeches.)
We'll smok'em out.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
I don't care that it came from Carville. I was just responding to Jimmac who thought Clinton came up with the saying.
That does sound familure now that you mention Carville.
I'm willing to concede that I was wrong about this one small point. Do you have a reference?
However actions speak louder than words and I believe the U.S., the world itself, was a much better place with Clinton.
Yes I know you think things are better now with dubbya.
Despite the fact that we are just coming out of a bad economic situation ( which conservatives ignoring the facts say " wasn't that bad " ). Much of the rest of the world is now wary of us for our actions ( to which the conservatives say " who cares " ). We have a president who almost certainly lied to us about a situation so we could go to war ( even though the stubborn Bush supporters repeat the mantra " There's no proof of that " ). He says his war on terrorism is a success yet the facts don't support that and we really aren't any safer. And the middle american is poised to be squeezed even harder for the sake of the rich and big business ( to which the Bush supporters reply " His policies will benifit all americans. You'll see " ).
Well alot of people disagree with that as you'll find out in November.
Besides considering everything that's happened in the last 4 years history might look at Bush in the same light as Nixon.
Despite what he says.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
They got killed, in part, because of the GAP between what Clinton supposedly stood for during the the '92 election and the way he actually governed. During the campaign Clinton promised a middle class tax cut. Once elected he pushed through the largest tax increase in history. Hillary's health care plan wasn't part of the debate in '92. Nor was the issue of gays in the military.
I don't think the gap was as large as you suggest. He expanded the EITC and the child tax credit, and raised the upper rates. That wasn't too far off from what he proposed. And Reagan's 1982 tax increase was actually the largest increase in modern history by any legitimate measure. From what I recall, gays in the military and health care reform were proposals he made in the campaign, but they weren't made into as big issues as they were when they were proposed. He lost those battles (at least health care, arguably gays in the military); so be it. Part of the evaluation of him as prez concerns whether he was effective, and he certainly wasn't on those specific proposals, but part is whether he was right or wrong, and that comes down to values/ideology/opinion. I happen to think he was right on those issues and his opponents were wrong, so I have no problem with him proposing them and losing.
And after the tax bill was passed and after Hillarycare went down in flames, Clinton DIDN'T propose anything ambitious. He became a master of small gestures. What he stood for was "triangulation".
I agree with that. But that also means he didn't propose anything that had the potential to majorly screw things up. After Bush's two main issues, the budget - huge decreases in taxes accompanied by huge increases in spending - and pre-emptive war, I think we need some small gestures.
It's worth thinking about whether or not he sacrificed core liberal values with all of that triangulation (NAFTA comes to mind).
Originally posted by midwinter
One of the blogs I read (by a former Dean strategist) said the other day that Clinton "triangulated [democrats] to the edge of a cliff."
It's worth thinking about whether or not he sacrificed core liberal values with all of that triangulation (NAFTA comes to mind).
If you have to judge who went off the cliff, I'd say it was Dean, not Clinton.
We can no longer even imagine a civilization that has concern for its infrastructure, its cultural base, education, its lowest common denominator in terms of wealth . . . in short a civilized civilization.
To even consider, with a sidelong glance, systems that seem to keep people 'happier' and healthy and better educated and relatively safe, such as many European countries, is to risk being labeled a commie-pinko.
Meanwhile we slide backward into Dickensian bleakness: unfettered and untouchable power players and poverty, even working poverty, ensconced in decaying infrastructure enamored with and enslaved to the dying beast of the automobile . . . blah . . I am babbling . .or rather 'prattling', and its been said better in other places
But unfortunately, the left today has reason to be weary of ideological visions: just look at what the right has wrought with such visions, , a party that was 'anti-ideology' has become completely blinded by its ugliest ideals, or the left historically . . . and these days the left is aware of that possibility . . . and therefor its reticence in the face of vulgar mudslinging a la Limbaugh . .
maybe the days of reticence are over . . . I don't know . .. either way, if Kerry were to take Dean I'd solidly back them
Hell . . . if he were to take Hunter S Thompson I'd still back him against bush . . .
Originally posted by pfflam
Rush Limbaugh has guided the swing towards the right since early in Clinton's existence . . . you cannot overestimate his sway. . .
Yes you can and you just did. Limbaugh provided a morale boost for the right and that's about it. The real intellectual heavy-lifting is done elsewhere.
We can no longer even imagine a civilization that has concern for its infrastructure, its cultural base, education, its lowest common denominator in terms of wealth . . . in short a civilized civilization.
To even consider, with a sidelong glance, systems that seem to keep people 'happier' and healthy and better educated and relatively safe, such as many European countries, is to risk being labeled a commie-pinko.
Meanwhile we slide backward into Dickensian bleakness. . .
You write bad fiction.
Originally posted by BRussell
I don't think the gap was as large as you suggest. He expanded the EITC and the child tax credit, and raised the upper rates. That wasn't too far off from what he proposed. And Reagan's 1982 tax increase was actually the largest increase in modern history by any legitimate measure. . .
So the deficits of the '80s WEREN'T caused by Reagan's tax cuts! Hopefully, the left will now finally discard that phony argument. As for describing the Clinton tax increase as the largest in history, that was Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
Originally posted by pfflam
We can no longer even imagine a civilization that has concern for its infrastructure, its cultural base, education, its lowest common denominator in terms of wealth . . . in short a civilized civilization.
To even consider, with a sidelong glance, systems that seem to keep people 'happier' and healthy and better educated and relatively safe, such as many European countries, is to risk being labeled a commie-pinko.
Meanwhile we slide backward into Dickensian bleakness: unfettered and untouchable power players and poverty, even working poverty, ensconced in decaying infrastructure enamored with and enslaved to the dying beast of the automobile . . . blah . . I am babbling . .or rather 'prattling', and its been said better in other places
Pfflam, sometimes I have trouble following you, like when you go off on some deep philosophical tangent, but those paragraphs above are so evocative and thought-provoking. Only few have said it better. But has anyone said it so succinctly?
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Pfflam, sometimes I have trouble following you, like when you go off on some deep philosophical tangent, but those paragraphs above are so evocative and thought-provoking. Only few have said it better. But has anyone said it so succinctly?
America doesn't look anything like pfflam's "Dickensian bleakness". This isn't thinking. It's a substitute for thinking. He's like a Limbaugh of the left (without the microphone). The US spends more per child than almost any country in the world and he can't imagine a civilization being concerned about education. Or one that's concerned about the lowest common denominator in terms of wealth. . .
. . . in the U.S. a large 45.9% of the "poor" own their homes, 72.8% have a car and almost 77% have air conditioning, which remains a luxury in most of Western Europe. The average living space for poor American households is 1,200 square feet. In Europe, the average space for all households, not just the poor, is 1,000 square feet. . . link
Or concern for infrastructure - who's fault is that? Americans send trillions of tax dollars each year to their local, state and federal governments. If the infrastructure is crumbling, maybe it's time we stopped looking to government for the answers and instead look more and more to the private sector. But you already know what pfflam thinks of that idea.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
So the deficits of the '80s WEREN'T caused by Reagan's tax cuts! Hopefully, the left will now finally discard that phony argument.
His 1982 tax increase didn't make up for the lost revenue of the 1981 tax cut. Sure, he also increased gov't spending. Which caused the deficits, the tax cuts or the spending increases? It's like asking, of 2 + 2 = 4, which 2 caused the 4 more, the first or second. Both taxes and spending play a role. If you think it's a phony argument, why did Reagan's economic program result in such huge deficits? Why didn't the supposedly incredible Reagan economy result in budget surplus, like they claimed it would?
As for describing the Clinton tax increase as the largest in history, that was Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
Plenty of Republicans have said it too. In any case, the truth of the statement obviously is not dependent on who said it.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
You're right . . I was overcome by a rhetoric sneeze fit . . . I was outlining the imagined resulting conditions of a right-wing success rather than present real conditions . . . back to earth now . . . ahhh . . . its all so gooood
Originally posted by pfflam
You're right . . I was overcome by a rhetoric sneeze fit . . . I was outlining the imagined resulting conditions of a right-wing success rather than present real conditions . . . back to earth now . . . ahhh . . . its all so gooood
One good point, however, came out of your post:
No matter who wins the election, the political climate doesn't seem to be ready to get any less vitriolic anytime soon, and the polarization that's in place now will most likely be exacerbated.
Secondarily, I have been arguing for a while now that much of conservative economic theory is a desperate attempt to get back to the good old days of the 18th and early 19th centuries.
To say that people in America are paid a decent wage or that children don't labor away in factories overlooks the fact that the only reason this is so is because liberals imposed limitations on what the private sector could do. How many conservatives want to do away with the minimum wage, after all? And how many more would like to see the minimum working age lowered?
Originally posted by midwinter
One good point, however, came out of your post:
No matter who wins the election, the political climate doesn't seem to be ready to get any less vitriolic anytime soon, and the polarization that's in place now will most likely be exacerbated.
Secondarily, I have been arguing for a while now that much of conservative economic theory is a desperate attempt to get back to the good old days of the 18th and early 19th centuries.
To say that people in America are paid a decent wage or that children don't labor away in factories overlooks the fact that the only reason this is so is because liberals imposed limitations on what the private sector could do. How many conservatives want to do away with the minimum wage, after all? And how many more would like to see the minimum working age lowered?
Add to that getting rid of overtime pay for hourly workers.
http://www.aflcio.org/yourjobeconomy...nderattack.cfm
It sounds like to me they want to undo everything unions accomplished in the early 20th century.
Originally posted by jimmac
Add to that getting rid of overtime pay for hourly workers.
It sounds like to me they want to undo everything unions accomplished in the early 20th century.
And the 19th.
Originally posted by BRussell
His 1982 tax increase didn't make up for the lost revenue of the 1981 tax cut. . .
So Reagan's largest tax increase in history still left us with LOWER taxes. . . okay. . .
. . . Why didn't the supposedly incredible Reagan economy result in budget surplus, like they claimed it would?
Taxes were cut and revenues rose. Spending rose faster. It's not complicated. Reagan wanted an increase in defense spending but in order to get his spending priorities through Congress he had to play ball with the Dems.
. . . In any case, the truth of the statement obviously is not dependent on who said it.
Moynihan was always a straight shooter and being a liberal Democrat who voted for Clinton's tax bill, he had no interest in exaggerating the size of the tax increase.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
So Reagan's largest tax increase in history still left us with LOWER taxes. . . okay. . .
Yes. What specific contention do you disagree with, that Reagan's 1981 tax cut was larger than his 1982 tax increase, or that Reagan's 1982 tax increase was larger than Clinton's 1993 tax increase?
Taxes were cut and revenues rose. Spending rose faster. It's not complicated. Reagan wanted an increase in defense spending but in order to get his spending priorities through Congress he had to play ball with the Dems.
Did the tax cuts cause revenues to increase? Is that really plausible? Does anyone believe that anymore? Revenue increased as it always does as the economy grew. We took in less revenue than we would have if we hadn't had the tax cuts. That's why Reagan increased taxes in 1982 - due to the revenue shortfall.
As for playing ball with those big-spending Dems, domestic discretionary spending was cut by 1% or so during the Reagan years (in real dollars). Entitlement spending increased, but no one voted on that. And defense spending increased a lot. That resulted in a large net increase in gov't spending. It might have been the kind of spending you like, but it was spending nonetheless. Combine those spending increases with the tax cuts, and you get deficits.
Moynihan was always a straight shooter and being a liberal Democrat who voted for Clinton's tax bill, he had no interest in exaggerating the size of the tax increase.
He's still wrong. Clinton's tax increase was larger than Reagan's in unadjusted dollars. But using appropriate measures, Reagan's was bigger. The fact is, neither of them were that big. Clinton's raised the very top rate and some gas tax, but also cut some taxes. Reagan's increase fiddled with some deductions and corporate rates I think.
Originally posted by BRussell
Did the tax cuts cause revenues to increase? Is that really plausible? Does anyone believe that anymore?
Lower taxes caused the economic growth which caused the increased revenue. Democrats used to understand this. That's what JFK did during his presidency.
We took in less revenue than we would have if we hadn't had the tax cuts. That's why Reagan increased taxes in 1982 - due to the revenue shortfall.
Funny how your analysis of the economy at that time leaves out the double digit unemployment and inflation rates we were experiencing at the time. We took in less revenue because the economy was flat on it's freaking back.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Lower taxes caused the economic growth which caused the increased revenue. Democrats used to understand this. That's what JFK did during his presidency.
There was no more growth in the 1980s than during any other cyclical recovery we've had, and no more increase in revenues.
Funny how your analysis of the economy at that time leaves out the double digit unemployment and inflation rates we were experiencing at the time. We took in less revenue because the economy was flat on it's freaking back.
Do you know the only other time revenues have actually fallen since 1982? They didn't fall for the 1991 recession. They fell in 2001, 2002, & 2003. That's the only time revenues have fallen three years in a row, AFAIK. Maybe the 2001 & 2002 revenue drops could have been caused by the recession, but supposedly the economy has been just great since 2002. So why did revenues fall in 2003?
(A good link with lots of historical budget data.)