The Laffer Curve in real life

Ever since the Reagan administration, supply-side economics has been at the core of Republican economic philosophy. Every GOP candidate, at every level of politics, has to swear allegiance to the theory if he or she hopes to retain credibility with the party base.

In a post yesterday, we took a look at the theory as it illustrated in the Laffer Curve. Now it’s time to look at how the theory has worked in practice, focusing on the two separate experiments with supply-side economics that we’ve run in the past 30 years.

The first began with the Reagan tax cuts in 1981 and ran to 1993. The second began in 2001, with passage of the Bush tax cuts. And in between of course, we had the Clinton administration, which took a very different approach. In 1993, President Clinton pushed a major tax hike into law in order to close the deficit, the very antithesis of supply-side theory. And by the end of his term, the deficit had indeed been eliminated, if only temporarily?

So how do we gauge the effectiveness of supply-side theory in practice? I propose we look at three specific measures:

  • The core claim of supply-siders is that tax cuts spur investment, so we’ll look at growth in private investment;
  • Supply-side theory also claims that tax cuts increase government revenue, so we’ll look at whether that actually occurred;
  • And since growth in gross domestic product is the ultimate aim of any economic policy, we’ll include that in the analysis as well.
  • (Note: All data below have been adjusted to account for inflation.)

    Private investment:

    After the ‘81 Reagan tax cuts, private nonresidential investment over the next seven years grew at an annual rate of 2.8 percent.
    After the ‘93 Clinton tax hike, private investment over the next seven years grew annually at 10.2 percent.
    After the 2001 Bush tax cut, private investment grew annually at 2.7 percent.
    (Data source: CAP/EPI study, Sept. 2008,, based on Bureau of Economic Analysis data.)

    Federal revenue:

    From 1981-1993, federal revenue increased by 20.7 percent over 12 years.
    From 1993-2001, federal revenue grew by 46.6 percent over 8 years.
    From 2001-2009, federal revenue decreased by 13.9 percent. (Even if you don’t include the deep recession year of 2009 — you might say we’re invoking the mercy rule — revenue increased just 3.3 percent over the eight years of Bush’s presidency.

    (Source: OMB Historical Table 1.2)

    GDP growth

    From 1981-1993, real GDP grew by an annual average of 2.97 percent.
    From 1993-2001, real GDP grew by an annual average of 3.56 percent.
    From 2001-2009, real GDP grew by an annual average of 1.56 percent.
    (Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis)

    In conclusion, in all three categories central to the claim of supply-side proponents, the economy performed significantly better in the wake of tax increases than it did in the wake of major tax cuts.

    Confronted with such data, the first word out of a supply-sider’s mouth is usually “But ….,” followed by a series of rationalizations for why the economy didn’t perform in real life as supply-side theory dictates it should have. Some of those excuses, such as the fact that the economy under Clinton benefited by the high-tech boom, are legitimate. Others, such as the claim that Bush had to deal with the economic fallout of Sept. 11, are not. There was no major economic fallout in the wake of the terror attacks.

    And the excuses themselves, whether lame or legitimate, further undercut the lofty claims of supply-side advocates. If the economic benefit of major tax cuts is so weak that it can be washed away by larger trends, to the point that you can find no real evidence of it in the data, and if the economic damage of tax increases is so minor that it too can’t be found in the data, then what exactly is this supply-side theory about in the first place?

    I mean, other than to serve as a handy rationalization for perpetual tax cuts.

    367 comments Add your comment

    Del

    September 15th, 2010
    4:02 pm

    paleo,

    Correction on my last, Robert Gibbs Press Secretary. Thank you

    Moderate Line

    September 15th, 2010
    4:02 pm

    Confronted with such data, the first word out of a supply-sider’s mouth is usually “But ….,” followed by a series of rationalizations for why the economy didn’t perform in real life as supply-side theory dictates it should have.
    ++++++++++++
    “But….” Could I not make the same statement about stimulus spending. The problem with stimulus spending and tax cuts is there is no way to control for outside factors other than stimulus spending and tax cuts. What the data presented shows is the most important thing in growing revenue is a growing economy. How to achieve a growing economy is open for debate.

    For example, the first year of Bill Clinton taking over the economy grew at 5.1% while the first year of Bush was 3.4%. Clearly Clinton had a healthier economy. By 2004 and 2005 the economy under Bush was growing at 6.4% plus rate higher than any year under Clinton. How do you control for such factors? Both supporters of stimulus spending and tax cuts over emphasize the facts that support them and deemphasize or dismiss the facts do not.

    The only thing I can conclude from this is that tax cuts will not prevent a collapse of the economy and tax increase will not precipitate an economic collapse.

    Del

    September 15th, 2010
    4:03 pm

    Jackie,

    Salute back to you.

    Moderate Line

    September 15th, 2010
    4:04 pm

    Wahoo

    September 15th, 2010
    4:05 pm

    Jackie,

    “Now, you indicated there are lots of things that you would cut from the Federal budget; could you name your top 3?”

    I will be brief since I actually have some things to get done this afternoon.
    Department of Defense – we don’t need to fight two wars anymore
    Social Security – probably should be needs based to some degree and IMO there should definitely be an increase in the age at which one can draw full benefits.
    Medicare – repeal or phase out Part D. But do something with it quickly because it’s a fiscal disaster of epic proportions.

    “As for our personal budgets, many folks get into economic difficulties because of diminished employment.”

    No doubt. But this is why it is incumbent upon each of us to spend within our means and save money for a rainy day. Sorry to say it, but personal liberty comes with responsibility. One of my biggest laments about the educational system in our country is the lack of personal finance teaching in school.

    paleo-neo-Carlinist

    September 15th, 2010
    4:05 pm

    forget about Robert Gibbs or Joe Gibbs, did anyone see that Bush forfeited his 2005 Heisman Trophy? Didn’t read the whole article, but I did see the words New Orleans, so maybe it has something to do with Katrina.

    Del

    September 15th, 2010
    4:15 pm

    Have to step out for awhile. Maybe back later. Y’all play fair now.

    Moderate Line

    September 15th, 2010
    4:17 pm

    AmVet

    September 15th, 2010
    4:00 pm

    Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere. ~Benito Mussolini
    ++++++++
    The liberalism that Benito is referring to is classical liberalism which is not the same as the term used in American politcs. It is closer to what the Liberal Party in the UK practices. In the United State each party has adopted differents parts of classical liberalism.

    -Classical liberalism is a political ideology that developed in the nineteenth century in Western
    -Europe, and the Americas. It was committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of
    -individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets. It drew on the
    -economics of Adam Smith, a psychological understanding of individual liberty, natural law and
    -utilitarianism, and a belief in progress. Classical liberals established political parties that were
    -called “liberal”, although in the United States classical liberalism came to dominate both existing
    -major political parties.[1]

    This a common error.

    http://www.google.com/books?id=sq-1z8VMhDEC&lpg=PP1&dq=Modern%20Political%20Philosophy&pg=PA37#v=onepage&q&f=false
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

    Jefferson

    September 15th, 2010
    4:17 pm

    Look at the economy at the end of the Bush years, yep he fumbles….

    StJ

    September 15th, 2010
    4:19 pm

    “the economy performed significantly better in the wake of tax increases than it did in the wake of major tax cuts.”

    Well that solves it then. Increase taxes to 100% and we’ll be swimming in propsperity. Why don’t you e-mail Imam Obama with your data and suggest that to him.

    Jackie

    September 15th, 2010
    4:20 pm

    @Wahoo

    Stopping the two wars would raise the ire of those in Congress that support the Defense-Industrial complex. They do not want to be thought of as not “protecting the country from terrorists.”

    Phase D of Medicare is a give-away to the drug companies. We can get drugs much cheaper if the law was changed.

    Social Security does not contribute to the deficit. Even if nothing is done between now and 2037, Social Security would still pay out 70% of statutory requirements. As long as we have an economy, those that are working will still continue to contribute to the fund.

    Just don’t believe the politicians will allow your first two choices to come to fruition.

    Dave

    September 15th, 2010
    4:21 pm

    “Confronted with such data, the first word out of a Keynsian’s mouth is usually “But ….,” followed by a series of rationalizations for why the economy didn’t perform in real life (or a series of lies stating that it actually is) as Keynsian theory dictates it should have.”

    There… fyt…

    AmVet

    September 15th, 2010
    4:22 pm

    Moderate line, I found it more relevant to the fiscal liberalism in this country of the past thirty years or so.

    (As opposed to the canard called “fiscal conservatism” touted by the GOP that never existed…)

    Abrazos

    September 15th, 2010
    4:24 pm

    StJ 4:19 pm”Increase taxes to 100% and we’ll be swimming in propsperity. Why don’t you e-mail Imam Obama with your data and suggest that to him.”

    School must’ve just let out. Hey, Mom’s got some delicious Jeno’s pizza rolls ready for ya!

    andygrd

    September 15th, 2010
    4:34 pm

    Under the Republicans, my net worth has increased. Under the Democrats, my net worth decreased or is about to decrease (redistribution of wealth).

    For you see, I work for a living. I am not protected by, nor do I require the protection of a union. I am not in academia, I apply the theories and postulates, not talk about them.

    A home in DC and one in South Carolina….. If you work hard, the policies can work for you…. But when things do go bad, I don’t whine…. I just do what I have to do…. If you did not plan your life, not my fault.

    hehehehe… I love the good life……

    Paul

    September 15th, 2010
    4:36 pm

    Jackie 2:57

    “the growth of disposable income, of which poor and middle-income people had very little of.”

    That’s a fair point in regards to the Laffer Curve. It’s also why I’m for our progressive tax system and am not too inclined (and I haven’t looked into it all that deeply) – my gut reaction’s against – a fair or flat tax. Seems to me once we’re done all the ‘deduct this’ and ‘exempt that’ stuff we’re about back where we began.

    At least our progressive tax system recognizes people of higher means have higher disposable incomes and people of minimum to moderate means don’t have all that much disposable income.

    The Leg Lamp is a "major award", much like Cynthia Tucker's Pulitzer and Obama's Nobel

    September 15th, 2010
    4:37 pm

    “POLL: Europe cools towards Obama… ”

    Could this be categorized as “climate change”?

    Bosch

    September 15th, 2010
    4:38 pm

    Good Lord, what a crazy day! So, did I miss anything fun?

    Pogo

    September 15th, 2010
    4:45 pm

    Methinks Jay has become obsessed with raising taxes on us all. Wonder why he never addresses that his and his ilk’s beloved Keynesian Economics model, most recently applied in Obama’s trillion dollars worth of worthless spending called “the Stimulus”, didn’t work? That was a trillion dollars of taxpayer money (OK, I’ll give them a +/- 200 bil swag on that one, the jury is still out). Or, maybe it wasn’t a trillion dollars of taxpayer money. Maybe it was a trillion dollars worth of future servitude to China, who buys our debt.

    The “dinosaur” Alan Greenspan spoke today and said that the Keynesian model and government intervention have not worked. Now, I am no fan of Greenspan (for a multitude of reasons) but he was on the money on this. Let the free market do its thing without government intervention and to hell with Keynes. Keynes was a socialist idiot but boy was he attractive darling to the progressive/marxist crowd, but I digress. Greenspan, on the other hand, was also in favor of raising taxes and letting the Bush taxcuts expire, which I personnally think is stupid without severe cuts in federal spending. Without cuts in government spending, raising taxes is a fruitless effort. Though learned economists and pols can argue back and forth about who is right the simple truth is that there can not be enough tax increases to ANY economic class of American people now to pay for what has been needlessly spent in the last 6 years (and especially in the last four). It just does not add up. I don’t understand that what is so plainly obvious to the average American is just ignored by Jay, Cynthia and the progressives. I guess it is because the average American has to balance their checkbooks every week and they know the deal. It is basic mathematics and it is basic economics.

    I am beginning to think Jay and Cynthia are paid by the DNC and not the AJC. Their blog topics are bordering on the ridiculous in their unwavering one-sidedness and their blindness to what the Democrats are doing to this country. The Democrats are in control now and they have made a mess in just 4 short years. Bush hurt us but he is gone and to that I say good riddance to bad rubbish. J&C (has a nice ring to it doesn’t it?) have obviously abandoned any empathy for the mess our country is in because of their beloved political ideologies. Maybe the worst thing of all is, they’re SOOOO predictable. People are now priding themselves on predicting exactly which progressive/liberal talking point these two will comment on the next day! And most are right! They seem to be wrapped in some weird liberal universe which has no introspection at all and which runs counter to what the majority of the country inately knows.

    Another thing, “USinUK” sits and smuggly writes tidbits of liberal gibberish while he/she espouses to work in “The City” in the UK. Now what kind of job can you have in the financial market, even in the foundering pseudo-socialist Great Britain, that you can spend all 8 hours of your supposed working time blogging on an insignificant blog originating in Atlanta Ga? Methinks we have a loser who probably really resides in South Fulton! Or maybe all of us should move to GB and take advantage of their liberal stupidity.

    I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...

    September 15th, 2010
    4:46 pm

    Oh yeah, a “professional” “journalist” probably wouldn’t know what factors the end of the cold war, the 9/11 attacks, the Afghanistan war, the Dhimmi Karter recovery from disaster, a couple of hurricanes and all the other things Klinton didn’t have to deal with, played a role in the final numbers.

    Cherry picking for the white house, what a stooge.

    AmVet

    September 15th, 2010
    4:48 pm

    Bosch, not really. Just the usual leg-humping and self-made millionaires telling us all how to get rich…

    The Leg Lamp is a "major award", much like Cynthia Tucker's Pulitzer and Obama's Nobel

    September 15th, 2010
    4:50 pm

    Meanwhile, back on the job front….

    “Are poll workers being used to inflate jobs totals? “

    The Leg Lamp is a "major award", much like Cynthia Tucker's Pulitzer and Obama's Nobel

    September 15th, 2010
    4:52 pm

    Meanwhile, back on the war front….

    “US troops continue combat missions in Iraq, despite Obama’s end-of-war speech… “

    The Leg Lamp is a "major award", much like Cynthia Tucker's Pulitzer and Obama's Nobel

    September 15th, 2010
    4:53 pm

    Meanwhile, back on the “racist tea partiers” front,…,

    “‘Tea party’ favorites score in DE, NY…
    Establishment Freaks…
    ‘One nation under revolt’…
    Christine Smacks Rove: ‘So-Called Political Guru’…
    CASH POURS IN FOR O’DONNELL; $500,000 IN ONE DAY…”

    The Leg Lamp is a "major award", much like Cynthia Tucker's Pulitzer and Obama's Nobel

    September 15th, 2010
    4:55 pm

    Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. I thought there were more than 25% who depended on the gubmint for their income.

    “POLL: Only 25% of public trusts gov’t…”

    The Leg Lamp is a "major award", much like Cynthia Tucker's Pulitzer and Obama's Nobel

    September 15th, 2010
    4:56 pm

    Meanwhile, back on the bailout front…

    “Gov’t say banks should share FANNIE, FREDDIE costs… “

    AmVet

    September 15th, 2010
    4:57 pm

    “POLL: Only 25% of public trusts gov’t…”

    Which I believe is nearly double the percentage who trust big business…

    tm

    September 15th, 2010
    4:57 pm

    I am for repealling ALL of the Bush tax cuts, Then the middle and lower classes can find out that Bush did do something good for them. No need to start a class warfare, Jay can you imagine the amount of our money the feds would have if all the tax cuts expire. I keep seeing your charts and numbers about the over 250k group, but what if we included everyone I bet we could get that deficit down in no time..

    The Leg Lamp is a "major award", much like Cynthia Tucker's Pulitzer and Obama's Nobel

    September 15th, 2010
    4:58 pm

    AmVet
    September 15th, 2010
    4:57 pm

    As you like to say, where’s the poll, link, etc, that supports your claim?

    AmVet

    September 15th, 2010
    5:04 pm

    In the same locale as yours?

    LOL…

    @@

    September 15th, 2010
    5:04 pm

    HEY! Midori never came back to tell me what purpose she served?

    Imagine that!

    Must have gone somewhere to brainstorm.

    schnirt

    Grumpy

    September 15th, 2010
    5:07 pm

    “There was no major economic fallout in the wake of the terror attacks.”

    You’re joking, right?

    Jefferson

    September 15th, 2010
    5:10 pm

    If the tax cuts expire, it will be the wealthy that would cry the most, but still have the most.

    Th for the big one

    September 15th, 2010
    5:11 pm

    Pick different years to stop and start …get different results to your “analysis”.
    Yawn.

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    5:15 pm

    Jay,

    I do humbly submit my apology for yesterday’s post advising against a “Part Deux.” Though the charts from yesterday were a bit ponderous (especially so late in the day),this post pulls it together rather nicely.

    Thank you.

    Wahoo

    September 15th, 2010
    5:15 pm

    Jackie – you asked what I would cut from the Federal budget and I responded. I would be repeating myself to say that I don’t think politicians have the political will to make the tough changes.

    As for SS, in my opinion, when you overspend your income by a trillion bucks, everything you spend money on contributes to the deficit. Even if it pays for itself today, if expenditures for SS are reduced (today), that frees up cash to be applied elsewhere to drive down the deficit. Somewhere, I remember reading that money is fungible.

    “Even if nothing is done between now and 2037, Social Security would still pay out 70% of statutory requirements.”

    I think you mean 70% from 2037 going forward. I hear that statistic a lot in defense of SS. I take no comfort in it and to me, it is a laughable stat. I don’t know about you but I wouldn’t be satisfied receiving 70% of what I am owed and I still won’t be 62 by the time 2037 rolls around.

    @@

    September 15th, 2010
    5:18 pm

    Bank of America will charge clients new monthly fees if their accounts do not meet a minimum balance, the bank’s CEO Brian Moynihan said on Tuesday.

    “We will increase the account balance minimums or charge monthly fees in lieu thereof, which is the choice of the customer,” Moynihan said at a Barclays Capital conference in New York.

    These and other measures will allow the bank to compensate for revenue lost due to new regulations put in place following the 2008 financial crisis that led the US government to salvage many bank with massive bailouts, he said.

    Huh? Weren’t they one of the banks we bailed out?

    Talk about getting trickled on!!!

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    5:18 pm

    angrygrd,

    “If you work hard, the policies can work for you…. ”

    Then why did your net worth go down?

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    5:22 pm

    tm,

    “Then the middle and lower classes can find out that Bush did do something good for them. ”

    No one disputes the Bush tax cuts helped middle and lower classes to a degree. The issue the out-sized benefit for the upper income classes was completely out of proportion to any others benefit.

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    5:23 pm

    Bosch,

    “Good Lord, what a crazy day! So, did I miss anything fun?”

    Our sun must be in the same orbit…I just arrive here after a truly crazy day. But I was oh so productive!

    Pogo

    September 15th, 2010
    5:24 pm

    “Anti-business” is so passe and it is a remnant of the 1960’s crowd in this country. It is only being touted now by those that don’t have to work and compete in todays workforce. Without business, American’s don’t have jobs and there is nothing else to be said. This lesson is being driven home to Obama and his ideological brethren more and more each day and it is really going to really be driven home to them in November. Try talking the “anti-business” talk to the rest of the worlds non-European citizens. Even Europe is now coming to reality and it has implemented austerity measures but it will be a painful withdrawal for it’s socialized workers (reference the strikes and shutdowns of hospitals and transit in France by government employees). Socialists are like addicts; they are addicted to the easy money provided by government programs but when they are taken off of it, they raise hell. The same will happen here but thankfully, the hospitals and transit have yet to be taken over by the socialists (no thanks to Obama and his union payoffs at taxpayers expense).

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    5:27 pm

    Pogo,

    “Methinks we have a loser who probably really resides in South Fulton! ”

    You mean those dark lazy ones in South Fulton vs. those hard working light ones in North Fulton?

    MPercy

    September 15th, 2010
    5:30 pm

    Deep Throat, Part Deux @2:14 pm “I think Obama could buy a lot more votes with an offering of a tax cut for 97 to 98 percent of US households”

    You mean 97-98% of taxpaying households? Because we already have something around 45% of American household that aren’t paying any income taxes. And we have about 12% that aren’t paying any income tax *or* payroll taxes.

    Remember, “cutting taxes” for someone who isn’t paying taxes is impossible, unless you resort to semantic nonsense like increasing refundable credits. In many cases the so-called EITC is nothing short of a welfare check.

    The top 2% (about 2.8M households) earned 27.95% of the nation’s total AGI, but paid 48.68% of all the income taxes. But they’re not paying their “fair share” are they? Hell, if the top 2% all decided to take one year off, which they presumably could easily afford and would be perfectly legal, the whole government would come to a halt–that’s how much of the load they’re carrying, but their not paying their “fair share”?

    Dusty

    September 15th, 2010
    5:31 pm

    I don’t know about the Laffer curve but I surely do “laff” ever time I read this blog. You can’t beat it.

    I mean we got truthers, tea partiers, humpers, gurus, vets, religionists and the smartest people in the whole wide world who want to tell you about it. That on top of the world’s greatest neo-journalist. who doesn’t even seem to know that Reagan is dead. The very first line here contains REAGAN. Hot dog!! Prop him up again!!!

    I must stick to the subject. Yes! The Laffer Curve!! I predict it will soon drop. It’s latitude is far too high for its longitude. My generous tax reduction made it dip into recession of the greatest mobility seen since Geroge Washignton crossed the Delaware.. I defy such statistcs and remain stable in the aftermath of the Laffer losers as led by Methusela Methodius. You remember him, AmVet? How he stood strong on the pass at Themopylae? Ah yes, a real Laffer, reaching his mighty moments of curvaceous courage. And he laffed!! .Then he died, like this blog.

    This bucket of worms is a bit too long, Bookman. As UsinUK said: borrriiiinnnngggg.!..

    @@

    September 15th, 2010
    5:40 pm

    It’s not you, it’s US…

    Look, let’s be civil adults and not let this descend into yelling. It’s really not you, it’s me. We both know you deserve a better democracy than me. I mean, let’s face it – you’re cool and urbane and Euro and sexy; I’m frumpy and overweight and not that bright. You’ve said so plenty of times yourself. And you’re probably right that I’ll never quite understand you. But I think I know you well enough now to understand you’d be happier with a different country to govern.

    Sniff…sniff…SCHNIRT!!!!!!!!!!!

    http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2010/09/barack-can-we-talk.html

    samuel

    September 15th, 2010
    5:41 pm

    In 1981 (when Jimmy Carter left office), the national debt was $995 billion, or 33% of GDP. By the time Ronald Reagan left office (1989), the national debt had almost tripled, to $2.9 trillion, or 53% of GDP.

    For 35 years, from the end of World War II until the early 1980’s, the national debt as a % of GDP fell constantly and consistently. But since Reagan shifted the country from Keynesian economics to supply-side economics, the national debt as a % of GDP has been rising for most of the last 30 years, with the exception of the Clinton years, when it fell from 66% (1993) to 56% (2001).

    Under Reagan, GDP outgrew national debt by $400 billion in 8 years.

    Under Bush 41, National debt outgrew GDP by $300 billion in 4 years.

    Under Bush 43, national debt outgrew GDP by $2.2 trillion in 8 years.

    On the other hand…

    Under Jimmy Carter, GDP outgrew national debt by $800 billion in 4 years.

    Under Bill Clinton, GDP outgrew national debt by $2.2 trillion in 8 years.

    As has been pointed out on this blog today, Eisenhower was the last Republican president to balance the budget, some 50 years ago. That was the heyday of Keynesian economics.

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    5:41 pm

    Pogo,

    “Socialists are like addicts; they are addicted to the easy money provided by government programs but when they are taken off of it, they raise hell.”

    Would these folks count as socialists?

    IBM Corporation, General Electric,Honeywell International,Xerox,Dow Chemical,Caterpillar,Motorola, 3M,United Technologies,Ford Motor,Science Applications Intl.,DuPont, General Motors, Corning, Goodrich Corporation, Advanced Micro Devices, Praxair, Air Products & Chemicals, Lucent, Technologies, General Dynamics, Danaher, Cummins, Northrop Grumman, Dana, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Inc., Rohm and Haas Company, Sealed Air Corporation, Texas Instruments
    Owens Corning, Engelhard, Chevron Phillips, Chevron Texaco, Raytheon, Monsanto, Baxter International

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa592.pdf

    tm

    September 15th, 2010
    5:46 pm

    jewcowboy
    How can the middle and lower classes complain if we return to Clinton’s tax brackets. He was their hero and Bush was the devil. All we have to tell them is that this is what Clinton wanted, Have you seen how much of our money the fed gets if we return to those brackets. Its two or three time the amount that doing away with only one, Jay’s numbers clearly shows that under Clinton’s tax rates life was good for all, both tax payer and the feds and that is the only way to fix all of our problems, so lets go back to the Clinton days..The problem is we know they will not use the money to lower deficits.

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    5:49 pm

    tm,

    I’ll do you one better..let’s return to the tax code under Nixon. He was a solid Republican right?

    AmVet

    September 15th, 2010
    5:49 pm

    Methinks we have a loser who probably really resides in South Fulton!

    Every once in awhile, one of the con’s true bigoted colors come out…

    http://tinyurl.com/25w8puo

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    5:52 pm

    Pogo,

    Of course we can’t leave out those socialists at ADM,now can we?

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html

    Mark from NYC

    September 15th, 2010
    5:53 pm

    Jay,

    In case you don’t realize it, the tax rates during Clinton’s 8 years were on average more supply-side in nature than for Reagan’s 8 years. That the economy did so well during Clinton’s 8 years is hardly a refutation of supply-side. Also, 1981 shouldn’t be the starting point for measuring the effectiveness of the supply-side tax cuts under Reagan.

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    5:53 pm

    AmVet @ 5.49,

    Opps! :)

    Doggone/GA

    September 15th, 2010
    5:53 pm

    “let’s return to the tax code under Nixon”

    I’m beginning to think we need to return to the tax code under Eisenhower

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    5:57 pm

    Doggone/GA,

    “I’m beginning to think we need to return to the tax code under Eisenhower”

    I could handle that ;)

    http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

    AmVet

    September 15th, 2010
    5:58 pm

    “I’m beginning to think we need to return to the tax code under Eisenhower.”

    You mean when corporations actually paid federal income taxes and weren’t the beneficiaries of endless giveaways and handouts?

    Oh perish the trickle-down thought!

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    5:59 pm

    Doggone/GA

    September 15th, 2010
    6:00 pm

    “You mean when corporations actually paid federal income taxes and weren’t the beneficiaries of endless giveaways and handouts?”

    Radical, isn’t it?

    Dusty

    September 15th, 2010
    6:02 pm

    Lets all sing together…..

    How many socialists can you count today? la la

    How many socialists can you count today? la la

    A hundred or so in Washington!

    Watch them blubber mo & mo!!

    How many socialists can you count today? la la

    tm

    September 15th, 2010
    6:07 pm

    jewcowboy
    I am all for the Nixon tax plan but you also have to do away with the lower income tax credits (give aways) that did nit existr at that time.

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    6:10 pm

    tm,

    “I am all for the Nixon tax plan but you also have to do away with the lower income tax credits (give aways) that did nit existr at that time.”

    Fine by me.

    getalife

    September 15th, 2010
    6:12 pm

    rove vs rush.

    Popcorn.

    Mmmm,mmm,mmm.

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    6:13 pm

    tm,

    One thing though…union membership was 32% under Nixon vs 7.5% now…meaning wages were actually living wages back then.

    So let’s restore the unions and wages…and do away with lower income tax credits. Fair enough?

    tm

    September 15th, 2010
    6:16 pm

    Jewcowboy
    You know this guy Jay better than I, would he pick Nixon or Clintons tax brackeets (policy) if that was all to pick from. We both agreee both would substantially increase the money the feds take from us.but what would they do with it?

    RW-(the original)

    September 15th, 2010
    6:21 pm

    You “progressives” sure are having a tough time settling on how far back in the past you want us to go.

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    6:21 pm

    tm,

    “but what would they do with it?”

    well…my opinion is to raise taxes in boom times to create a surplus to sustain you in down cycles so you can cut them…my opinion is to cut spending in good times to create a surplus in down cycles so you can increase spending in down cycles to spur growth.

    Unfortunately that means a continuity of leaderships economic thought…and that does not happen.

    Obama is doing what I would hope he would do during a down cycle…the problem is we didn’t save for a rainy day during the previous boom.

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    6:23 pm

    RW-(the original),

    Can’t we pick and choose?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjK9GJMBpt0

    Deep Throat, Part Deux

    September 15th, 2010
    6:27 pm

    MPercy,

    I think about the plight of the rich almost as much as they think of me. Screw ‘em. If they don’t like the opportunities to enrich themselves off the people here, they are more than welcome to pay up and leave. I could care less. It would just open up more slots for advancement. They can even take every dollar ever printed with them if they want and we’ll just declare bankruptcy and let them see how much they can buy with the tons of paper.

    tm

    September 15th, 2010
    6:29 pm

    jewcowbioy
    what exactly is Pres O during the downturn to cut spending as you suggest he has done during this down turn

    getalife

    September 15th, 2010
    6:30 pm

    “In an interview with CNN, Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina declared that,

    The Republican establishment is out!”

    It’s a civil war.

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    6:33 pm

    tm,

    “what exactly is Pres O during the downturn to cut spending as you suggest he has done during this down turn”

    I wrote:
    “my opinion is to cut spending in good times to create a surplus in down cycles so you can increase spending in down cycles to spur growth.”

    Last I checked this was a down cycle…and time to spend…the time to cut spending and raise taxes was 2001 – 2007….

    Paul

    September 15th, 2010
    6:36 pm

    jewcowboy 5:41

    ooohhhhhhh, that was goooooooood!

    I’m gonna steal that -

    Dusty

    September 15th, 2010
    6:36 pm

    tm…where have you been? Haven’t you heard about all the good projects we taxpayers are supporting.

    let’s see: How to lose weight!!! (For fatsos in the fog.!)
    How to analyze jazz and study the sounds at Ga Tech!! (Go toot your horn better!)
    How to instruct African gentlemen on errr “cleaning up” after fun with the ladies
    (No comment.)
    There’s great imagination in Washington as you see and we are paying for it. Put that on your Laffer curve.

    RW-(the original)

    September 15th, 2010
    6:39 pm

    jewcowboy,

    Sam Beckett didn’t exactly get to pick and choose, did he?

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    6:45 pm

    Hi Paul!

    Got the Audi back today…I think I’m going to keep it. I can’t justify the 13mph…or the insurance rates…but I did miss it.

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    6:47 pm

    RW-(the original),

    Well…you got me there ;)

    TaxPayer

    September 15th, 2010
    6:50 pm

    jewcowboy,

    At 13 mph, I would expect the insurance rates to be quite reasonable.

    Ninja

    September 15th, 2010
    6:50 pm

    Great article Jay. Too bad the “discussion” afterwords proved why this country is doomed.

    TaxPayer

    September 15th, 2010
    6:51 pm

    RIP, Red Neckerson.

    The Boner's Tan Line

    September 15th, 2010
    6:54 pm

    Tonight’s the night. The Boner’s taking Christine out on the town to celebrate her win, and finally getting her college degree. Then the Boner’s going to do a little deflowering. Going to make her realize what she’s been missing all these years. A tigress will be let loose. She’ll be screaming “Do it again, TAN MAN”! Whew!

    Paul

    September 15th, 2010
    6:54 pm

    jewcowboy

    Congratulations! It’s a really beautiful automobile. It’s rather nice to be cocooned like that and to enjoy all the touches you don’t find elsewhere. Worked with a guy once, saw me taking a cover off the car I drove, said ‘it’s just a car.’ Philistine…… but, to be fair, he just didn’t understand.

    Enjoy.

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    6:55 pm

    Taxpayer,

    “At 13 mph, I would expect the insurance rates to be quite reasonable.”

    Actually…in Atlanta…that probably is my average speed :) mpg is what I meant…damn fingers.

    Paul

    September 15th, 2010
    6:56 pm

    BTL 6:54

    You Progressives have some interesting pathologies….

    Paul

    September 15th, 2010
    6:58 pm

    jewcowboy

    Okay, take the miles you drive a year…. figure the difference in gallons consumed between 13 mpg and 20 mpg… then cost out the difference.

    Probably costs about the same as a couple dinners out. And for enjoyment day in, day out, throughout an entire year… it’s a flippin’ bargain!

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    6:59 pm

    The Boner’s Tan Line,

    As long as he doesn’t don’t spill the seed of Onan…

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rachel-maddow-plays-christine-odonnell-90s-no-masturbation-mtv-interview/

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    7:01 pm

    Paul,

    “Philistine…… but, to be fair, he just didn’t understand.”

    :) There is sentimental value, of course, and mr. nonjewcowboy never let me drive it…I’ve started realize why!

    Paul

    September 15th, 2010
    7:02 pm

    jewcowboy

    I wasn’t going to mention that part…. I’d bet nonjewcowboy’s smiling -

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    7:03 pm

    “A tigress will be let loose”

    Or a grizzly…is Boehner into bears? Oh my!

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    7:04 pm

    Paul,

    Knowing him…more likely cringing…

    Punxsutawney Phil

    September 15th, 2010
    7:06 pm

    Can you please “show your work” on the federal revenue numbers? I’m not the smartest person, but I thought revenues would be the numbers in the total receipts column. I’m assuming we multiplied the %s by GDP since the % of GDP looks to stay relatively constant. Or you could just use the table that gives actual dollars. Anyway,

    From 1981 (599.2 billion) to 1993 (1,152.8 billion), that’s a 92.4% increase.

    From 1993 (1,152.8 billion) to 2001 (1,993.9 billion), that’s an 84.1% increase.

    And from 2001 (1,993.9 billion) to 2008 (2,526.8 billion) or 2009 (2,107.1 billion) that’s either a 26.7% or 5.7% increase.

    I can’t figure out where your 20.7%, 46.6% or -13.9% came from. Am I missing something or did you just flat-out make this stuff up?

    Paul

    September 15th, 2010
    7:07 pm

    jewcowboy

    :-)

    Pleasant evening, all -

    RB from Gwinnett

    September 15th, 2010
    7:11 pm

    Here’s some more facts for you Jay. The AJC is losing customers at double the national average.

    To apply the same sort of attack logic Jay applies here every day to that fact, Jay works at the AJC, so Jay must be the cause of the AJC’s decline.

    I actually do think Jay is a factor in the AJC’s decline, but the point is, the simplistic garbage Jay has posted here only impresses people who aren’t able to think. There are far more factors that go into this nation’s economy than who was president at what peak in the cycles, which is all Jay has presented here. Nobody wants to acknowledge the incredible economy we had during Bush II’s term up to the point the dems took control of congress. Because it doesn’t fit their agenda.

    The other point is it IS the simplistic highly partisan garbage Jay and his cohorts spew here every day that’s driving the AJC out of business and I suspect the AJC’s customer surveys confirm that as fact.

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    7:12 pm

    Paul,

    Have a great evening!

    stands for decibels

    September 15th, 2010
    7:14 pm

    193 comments in 9½ hours = Jay is right and the right wingers have nothing to counter.

    Well played, Jay.

    Also:

    Could I not make the same statement about stimulus spending.

    Well no, you couldn’t. Because, you see, the recovery act spending? that is ongoing. This here’s historical data.

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    7:16 pm

    RB from Gwinnett,

    “The other point is it IS the simplistic highly partisan garbage Jay and his cohorts spew here every day that’s driving the AJC out of business ”

    Looking at the number of posts his column generate I highly doubt that. A more reasonable answer in that the way in which we receive our news is changing…much as the way in which we receive our music and entertainment is changing.

    Who actually reads a hard copy newspaper anymore? Speaking environmentally it does not make any sense to receive a paper copy. Yet people are reluctant to pay for content online…a conundrum the AJC, Sony, 20th Century Fox, etc. find themselves in.

    After all…you contribute here right..has it driven you away?

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    7:20 pm

    RB from Gwinnett,

    “Nobody wants to acknowledge the incredible economy we had during Bush II’s term up to the point the dems took control of congress.”

    Surely you are not so simple as to believe that something as complex as the economy is so dependent on Congress, it is immediately affected by a new members of Congress…

    By that line of reasoning….9/11 was entirely Bush’s fault and the Clinton, Bush I and Reagan admins had nothing to do with it…

    Hillbilly Deluxe

    September 15th, 2010
    7:20 pm

    Who actually reads a hard copy newspaper anymore?

    I do but not the AJC because it doesn’t “Cover Dixie Like The Dew” anymore.

    stands for decibels

    September 15th, 2010
    7:22 pm

    Speaking environmentally it does not make any sense to receive a paper copy.

    That’s more or less what did it for me. I had subscribed for eight-plus years. But I just didn’t spend much time with the dead-tree version any more. Really sealed the deal when I installed a wireless router at home; didn’t see the point of having the paper any more when a backup PC could do the work where we usually had breakfast with the AJC. Although I still kinda miss it.

    I’ve always been willing to pay for news content. I contribute to NPR every year, after all. If the AJC would do some stuff I’d like (like, say, force knuckle draggers to register to post at their blogs; provide a premium position for subscribers to comment on their blogs, etc.) I’d be all over that. But they’ve chosen not to.

    jewcowboy

    September 15th, 2010
    7:23 pm

    Hillbilly Deluxe,

    “I do…”

    I had to cancel my AJC and NYT subscriptions b/c they piled up in the driveway. I am almost all strictly digital now with my media content. I would be happy to pay a “premium” user fee (I did with the NYT) but evidently I am in the minority.

    @@

    September 15th, 2010
    7:25 pm

    The AJC covers Dixie Like Doo Doo?

    J/K, Hillbilly…just kidding.