Come on ten guy......everything tim wrote was history...some of it I remember...most of it is true...

 

Economic growth under Republicans and Democrats

The following chart is presented by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. It shows fluctuations in the per capita gross domestic product adjusted to 1996 dollars.
*not_secure_link*www.singularity.com/charts/page99.html

When you look at it, you can see that there has nearly always been more economic growth under Democrat presidents. This is even true if you compare the pre Depression growth rate under Republican presidents Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge, with the pre World War II growth rate under Franklin Roosevelt.

Harding entered office in 1921. Coolidge left office in 1929. During that time the per capita GDP grew from $5,758 to $6,752. This represents a increase in $994.

Roosevelt entered office in 1933. His second term ended in 1941. During this time the per capita GDP grew from $4,901 to $8,612. This represents an increase in $3,808.

Of course, if we include in our calculations the stock market crash, which happened in 1929 when the Republicans had the White House, and both houses of Congress, and the Second World War, which happened when the Democrats had the White House, and both houses of Congress, the difference in Republican and Democrat growth rates is even more impressive.

With few exceptions this pattern holds true from 1921 to 2001.

 

Saying that my points are irrelevant is not the same as proving it. You have never proved it, tenguy. I know what I am talking about. I back up my assertions with facts that I document. You blow hot air.

 

I do not dispute that it is history and for the most part quite correct, however, it has absolutely nothing to do with the article that was linked in the OP. Everyone goes off on a tangent trying to discredit Laffer and his theories on supply side economics. No one really examined what he said here.

 

WTF are you talking about. Go read the fucking article, then see how relevant your "history" is.

 

Do you mean this article:

*not_secure_link*www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/laffer-jobless-economy-taxes/2010/07/08/id/364078

I already read it. It contained nothing but unfounded assertions by a voodoo economist whose fantasies have been disproved in the past.

I proved here:

that raising the top tax rate nearly always generates much more tax revenue than cutting it.

 

How are you going to cut federal revenues by $2.4 trillion? Does Laffer advocate that we slash the defense budget and lose the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? If he does, I missed it. If he advocates that we cut domestic spending, I missed an itemized list of the programs he advocates we cut.

It is not possible to cut domestic spending, tenguy. Thirty years after the election of Ronald Reagan, and ten years after the election of George W. Bush it is time for Republicans to stop lying about this. The reason it is not possible is not because of Congressional resistance. It is not because of Democrat resistance. It is because the voters will not allow it to happen.

 

You are far too young to be so blind.

You never fucking read even what I posted, he did not say to cut domestic spending, he never said to cut defense. Revenues are not expenses, revenues are income, which we routinely ignore when Congress writes checks.

What he said is, you are borrowing money to pay for these things now, so why not let the public keep their money for 18 months, leave it in the economy to work for us.

Why can you not read what he said?

 

If anyone stayed on topic around here I would probably die of a heart attack............sure I remember Art and I remember a lot of other economist that whatever president that was in office would try their plan and most of the time it did not work.

After dealing with the macroeconomics of this country the last 40 years I really am thinking a lot of this is just trial and error. This is not a science.

Now on the Hill they are talking about not letting the Bush tax cuts expire but I fear it is not what they think is best for the country but is what is best to keep their jobs and donations.

Rome's greatness only lasted 400 years and we are getting close to that.

If I cared to type I would jump in more in these topics but I dont....I do enjoy reading most of what you and others here debate.

The bottom line for me in the past and now is that whatever is going on I have to figure it out fast....get out in front of it....make the best of it before it changes again.

The problem right now is it is changing way to slow to make plans. The current administration needs to get its ass in gear change what they can and let it stay in place long enough to plot a course.

 

Why can't you understand what I read. This is what he advocated, "cutting federal revenues by $2.4 trillion a year."

How are you going do that without cutting military spending, domestic spending, raising the national debt, two of those, or all three?

Republicans pretend to be concerned with the national debt. Then they come up with these grotesque economic theories.

When Dick Cheney said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter," he expressed what Republicans really believe.

 

The reason it is more revenue was because it is in inflated dollars....

Raising taxes raises inflation because those at the top pass it on with increases in price on goods and services....then they add another markup because they know it is creating inflation and their earnings would be less in real dollars.

 

From 1931 to 1940 the top tax rate increased from $25% to 81%. This was a time of deflation. President Clinton raised the top tax rate from 31% to 39.6%. The Clinton administration was a time of low inflation.
*not_secure_link*www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

From 1973 to 1980 the top tax rate was 70%. Inflation during this time was caused by increases in the price of petroleum that followed the Yom Kipper War of 1973 and the Iranian Revolution of 1979.

 

Economics is the least scientific science. There are far too many emotional reactions by the players for it to be predictable. Best advise I ever got on investing was, do not invest in the makers of durable goods, invest in the makers and purveyors of consumables, preferably consumers commodities.

Ketchup and toilet paper makers are better investments than Sunbeam mixers.

 

That was very good advice....

 

Actually, what gets in the way of the science in economics is usually politics and profit. Too many people have too much to gain or lose from economic policy, and they have a vested interest in distorting economic reality.

You're a perfect example.

 

The link provided had nothing to do with inflation........

as tim said before the top tax rate means nothing...it is the rate after the loopholes and deductions...at one time all and any interest paid was deducted...........hell dad wrote off a lake house cause he used it to entertain customers....our home expenses were written off because mom was a vice president of the corp and she used that money to pay bills....

only idiots paid the top rate....I made good money in the 70's by specializing in selling tax sheltered real estate deals.........

*not_secure_link*mykindred.com/cloud/TX/Documents/dollar/

 

A high tax rate still gives the government considerable control over how the rich spend and invest their money.

 

Wow kimi called me perfect, swoon.

Kimi why is it when I state economic opinion it is distortion, when one of your kindred spirits does the same it is factual?

Are you not playing the game that you accuse me of?

 

so where is the free market when the gov is running people to the tax breaks.....is that what you want the gov running everything for you....but none the less the top rate is not paid........

have you looked for a job with gov....sure seems it would fit you...