Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why the GOP Won't Admit Supply-Side Econ Has Failed
The Fiscal Times ^ | 12/4/2012 | Mark Thoma

Posted on 12/04/2012 8:25:22 AM PST by ksen

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-152 next last
To: ksen

You're welcome.

51 posted on 12/04/2012 9:24:11 AM PST by StAnDeliver (Own It.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ksen

And for those watching but don’t want to follow the links, here’s the money quote:

Based on Bush fiscal policies, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected budget deficits of 0.7% to 1.5% of GDP for the years 2008 through 2011. The CBO even predicted surpluses for the subsequent years through 2018.

Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/113012-635352-bush-tax-cuts-did-not-cause-deficits.htm#ixzz2E6Y9FYUN


52 posted on 12/04/2012 9:24:54 AM PST by Lee'sGhost (Johnny Rico picked the wrong girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
Since when was supply-side ever really in place? Sure, Reagan talked about it, but was it ever really implemented properly?

Reagan came the closest, so it's been over 20 years. Almost all politicians including most Republicans hate supply side economics, because it generally benefits the private sector and makes people less dependent on government.

Cutting tax rates to propel the economy is the cornerstone of supply-side economics, a discipline with which Dole, to put it mildly, has never been identified. In the 1980s, he used to joke that he had good news and bad news. The good news: A bus carrying supply-siders had gone over a cliff. The bad news? "There were three empty seats." Ha ha.

53 posted on 12/04/2012 9:25:27 AM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ksen

The point of “tax cuts” is a kind of judo to limit government by limiting the income. It doesn’t work, because no one has the political will to actually limit government. So all of our quibbling about tax rates is just eye-wash when the budget is in full-on deficit year after year.

If your government costs twice the money you bring in, your government is twice the size you are willing to pay for and you have to admit it or go bankrupt. No tax increase is every going to make up two trillion dollar deficits, but no one has the nerve to actually reduce the size and scope of the government.

Even our present arguments about the “fiscal cliff” are bogus. Tax increases they propose only cover maybe a tenth of the deficit, which means we continue to print money. We passed the fiscal cliff the same time we passed the real debt ceiling, which is when we issued debt and no one would buy it. That was a couple of years ago, we’ve been printing money ever since and still no one has had the nerve to cut anything.


54 posted on 12/04/2012 9:27:12 AM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ksen; darkwing104

IBTZ


55 posted on 12/04/2012 9:27:43 AM PST by piytar (The predator-class is furious that their prey are shooting back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ksen
This piece is nothing but an disgusting attack on our free-enterprise system.

It it written by someone who is very envious of others success.

I strongly suggest you tell the author to study the works of Milton Friedman, Hayek, Ludwig von Mises and Sowell among others.

Your thinking has an anti-capitalist, anti-Libety streak.

Whoever wrote this garbage sees our hard earned income as first belonging to the State, with scraps to be passed back to the producers.

Whoever wrote this garbage is trying to hide their jealously and hatred of the successful.

Whoever wrote this garbage has a mindset more suited to the DUmp.

Our Federal Imperial government is in the final stages of destroying what remains of our Free Enterprise system. It is debasing our currency, regulating every aspect of our lives. Those in power crave absolute control yet know they can't yet achieve it. The evil of sadistic government at all levels is enveloping us all.

And you have the gall to show us this garbage as if somehow taxing the rich a little more, or adjusting these rates a little more will solve anything?

Get Real.

56 posted on 12/04/2012 9:29:15 AM PST by sand88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

“This is like blaming free markets for poverty when we haven’t had free markets since the Civil War”

While holding the definition of poverty as the lowest 20% of the incomes, therefore we always have them, regardless of their actual wealth.


57 posted on 12/04/2012 9:29:55 AM PST by CSM (Keeper of the Dave Ramsey Ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ksen

Laffer Curve? ever heard of it?

Also a recession or what we have now (slow GDP growth) is
when economic activity contracts because of risk aversion among other things,
Why risk money to make money if its going to be confiscated

The chart you want is probably out there somewhere, but most of this is common sense


58 posted on 12/04/2012 9:30:07 AM PST by woofie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: LS

Eventually the spending catches up to you. Because supply side means a lot of deficit spending, and that will always lead to disaster as the interest on your deficit keeps climbing and climbing and more and more of your spending is just paying off the past and less and less is actually is being supply side anymore. What makes supply side work is that it’s supposed to be temporary, eventually there are cuts, which as we both point out should have been done by Bush, but he didn’t. Now we’re entering our 4th decade of supply side spending, and it doesn’t work anymore. Now we’ve got to bite the bullet of major cuts to undo 25 years of over spending.


59 posted on 12/04/2012 9:30:25 AM PST by discostu (Not a part of anyone's well oiled machine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog
Could it be because at least half of our business community has built enterprises centered on the business model of sucking off the government teat?

Plenty of corporate welfare and crony capitalism being practiced around the nation at the federal, state and local levels, and it's engaged by libs and so-called conservatives alike. Texas, of all places, is rife with it.

60 posted on 12/04/2012 9:30:55 AM PST by TADSLOS (No need to watch the movie "Idiocracy". We're living it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: koraz

Your reply to my post is a non sequitur. Did you intend to reply to someone else?


61 posted on 12/04/2012 9:35:13 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

Comment #62 Removed by Moderator

To: CSM

bump


63 posted on 12/04/2012 9:36:24 AM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: CSM
America. Where the poor people are more likely to be fat than the well off, where they have air conditioning, electronic gizmos, TV, cars, leisure time, and disposable income to play the lottery.

What a country!

64 posted on 12/04/2012 9:40:57 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: ksen

“Suppy Side” is not a policy, it is a description of the only approach that actually works over the long term. US Governments never manage to collect much more than 18-19% of GDP so the only question is how much government revenue do you want. When Reagan took office the government was raking in about $500B; when he left office after serious tax cuts the government was collecting $975B.


65 posted on 12/04/2012 9:42:47 AM PST by muir_redwoods (Don't fire until you see the blue of their helmets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StAnDeliver

And if it’s shown that the top of the laffer curve for high income earners is 76%?


66 posted on 12/04/2012 9:43:35 AM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Behind the Blue Wall

I’ve never seen anything indicating causality between the 2007-2009 Pelosi Comgress and the recession. Correlation yes, but not causation.

The recession was caused by the CRA poison pill pushed through by Dems years before and the massive over leveraging of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. There was a massive, unsustainable bubble in housing, made worse by It being the sector investors fled to when the dot com bubble popped.

The recession really had little to do, directly, with the Bush tax cuts or whatever level of supply side was in effect when the housing bubble popped. This article is just Monday morning quarterbacking by someone seeking to point fingers and push an ideological agenda.


67 posted on 12/04/2012 9:47:10 AM PST by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ksen

“It’s the spending, stupid!”


68 posted on 12/04/2012 9:53:37 AM PST by rfp1234 (Arguing with a liberal is like playing chess with a pigeon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ksen

If capitalism doesn’t work then how can they tax everyone so much?


69 posted on 12/04/2012 9:56:16 AM PST by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: koraz

Actually the people that have all those material goods are the American “Poor”!


70 posted on 12/04/2012 10:01:21 AM PST by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: StAnDeliver

StAn, you want to put a Variable Atlas Shrugged pointer on that? I don’t want to wait for a 100% Tax Rate before I say “Bleep it”.


71 posted on 12/04/2012 10:04:14 AM PST by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: ksen
"And if it’s shown that the top of the laffer curve for high income earners is 76%?"

*sigh*

You just said you've 'been able to find no empirical evidence that shows a statistically significant link between tax rates and GDP growth'.

Presumably had you found a cite that says Laffer +76% yields -- well you haven't revealed any supposed corresponding tax revenue yield, unless you're suggesting +76% is the apex of the Laffer curve, and I can't LOL enough at that -- so cite your cite.

72 posted on 12/04/2012 10:04:30 AM PST by StAnDeliver (Own It.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: ksen

“And it is true that since supply-side became ascendant the fruits of additional GDP growth have become more and more concentrated in the upper income levels.”

Concentration of capital and production facilities into fewer hands is a thoroughly predictable outcome of recessions and depressions. It never fails to occur.


73 posted on 12/04/2012 10:14:15 AM PST by buffaloguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS

The historical evidence of the 20s, 60s, 80s, and 2000s is that whatever happens to the rich, cutting their taxes is the fastest route to increase the SHARE of taxes paid by the rich. That’s why rich libs are ALWAYS in favor of increasing tax RATES, because they know the TAX REALITY and REVENUE will go down if rates go up.

_____________________________________________________________

Yep this makes perfect sense because when they pay a lower rate they expose more of their money to taxation instead of funneling it into shelters and when they use their money for investments in capital they create jobs and that means more taxpayers on the margins and less people on welfare and unemployment.


74 posted on 12/04/2012 10:19:53 AM PST by albionin (Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: LS
As for GDP, I suggest you look at Warren Brookes, "The Economy in Mind" for an assessment of the JFK tax cuts (which sparked significant growth). On the Reagan tax cuts, try "The Supply Side Revolution." Reagan's economy created 14 million (!!!!!~!) NET new jobs.

Funny how the liberals never mention JFK's 1963 tax cuts when they want to slam supply side tax cuts, or as they like to say, "trickle down economics." That's probably why Reagan used JFK as an example when he was selling his own tax cuts and economic policy.

75 posted on 12/04/2012 10:24:45 AM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: StAnDeliver
You just said you've 'been able to find no empirical evidence that shows a statistically significant link between tax rates and GDP growth'

What's the Laffer Curve have to do with GDP growth?

Presumably had you found a cite that says Laffer +76% yields -- well you haven't revealed any supposed corresponding tax revenue yield, unless you're suggesting +76% is the apex of the Laffer curve, and I can't LOL enough at that -- so cite your cite.

Just remember that you asked me to post this. ;)

The Case for a Progressive Tax: From Basic Research to Policy Recommendations

76 posted on 12/04/2012 10:25:24 AM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter

There are obviously a trillion and one different inputs into the economy, so one particular cause or another of a recession will always be hard to establish, but I don’t think it’s pure coincidence that the economy started to head south soon after the Dem’s took over Congress and as polls began to make it increasingly clear that they would soon take over the White House as well. I think business owners, investors and consumers all make decisions based on the available information about what’s coming down the pipe, and socialism is what they saw coming in 2007 and 2008.


77 posted on 12/04/2012 10:31:57 AM PST by Behind the Blue Wall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Behind the Blue Wall

Then maybe it’s also not a coincidence that GDP growth has slowly been declining since marginal rates have been trending down.


78 posted on 12/04/2012 10:35:07 AM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: ksen
HOGWASH! There would be no such term as Supply Side if it were not for a Progressive Taxation system where innovators are punished for success. Proponents of Supply-Side merely want less than crippling tax rates for innovators.

Want to see where Supply-Side works? How about U.A.E? How about Russia where a Supply-Side Flax Tax brought them out of Depression! (Link Below)

http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2003/03/russias-flat-tax-miracle

More appropriate title for the so-called article:

Why the Supply-Side Econ fails to pay for Hyper-Spending


79 posted on 12/04/2012 11:33:23 AM PST by Jan_Sobieski (Sanctification)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jan_Sobieski

“innovators”

that’s a really dumb term especially when the vast majority of the wealthy got it by innovating getting born to wealthy parents.


80 posted on 12/04/2012 11:50:43 AM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: ksen
Then maybe it’s also not a coincidence that GDP growth has slowly been declining since marginal rates have been trending down.

Since when have marginal rates been trending down?

81 posted on 12/04/2012 12:53:11 PM PST by Behind the Blue Wall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Behind the Blue Wall
Since when have marginal rates been trending down?

Since at least the early 1940s.


82 posted on 12/04/2012 1:06:19 PM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: ksen

Doesn’t look like they’re trending down at all. Looks to me like they’ve been level or ticking slightly up for the past 25 years.


83 posted on 12/04/2012 1:24:34 PM PST by Behind the Blue Wall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: ksen
Ok, first of all, this is a Berkeley guy -- and what's even worse, a Kruggelite -- spitballing about +70 rates.

"For the U.S. economy, the current top income marginal tax rate on earnings is about 42.5 percent, combining the top federal marginal income tax bracket of 35 percent with the Medicare tax and average state taxes on income and sales."

Not once does he make a convincing argument that the above-described paradigm is not the apex of Laffer. His later paralogisms about elasticity are plowed with doubt precisely because he knows capital flight is a given past 50.

The Pareto coefficient chart from 2005 is as much bunk as the global swarming hockey stick graph from 7 years earlier. I find it deeply ironic that morons like Diamond & Mann embrace 'science' but then want everyone to put their 'faith' in absurd, spurious projections.

Flight will proceed in an ellipitical hybrid of lower tax rates traded off against preferred SoL/climate/lifestyle. Singapore, Oz and Korea are the most likely winners, noting Facebook's financial founder Saverin to the former.

Any further questions, look at France. Not an economic or political regime I'd care to emulate...

84 posted on 12/04/2012 1:28:28 PM PST by StAnDeliver (Own It.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: StAnDeliver

You mean the Singapore, Australia, and South Korea that manage to have a more universal healthcare system than the US does and still remain a haven for rich people fleeing the United States?


85 posted on 12/04/2012 1:39:52 PM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Behind the Blue Wall

I guess if you want to cherry pick the info than sure.


86 posted on 12/04/2012 1:41:20 PM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: LS; ksen; Darksheare
Wow, seriously? “like communism?” I smell a troll. At any rate, in the 1980s, the Reagan cuts MORE than paid for themselves. Revenue went up 40% (see my book, “American Entrepreneur”). But spending increased by 100%. If we just held spending constant in 1984 terms, the tax cuts not only would have paid for themselves but SOME additional spending as well. I think your sense of smell is right on.

I recently first ran across one of KSEN's article posts and I thought I smelled the hint of Troll when I read it and his comment posts.

I still smell it on every one of his posted articles since then, including this one.

His method is to post his article, agree with the article's author that "them rich guys are ripping off us poor folks" (communism 101), for a few posts, then when caught, either fade out, or give a few "I sort of agree with you, all I meant was ...." type of responses, then fade out. Only to return later to try again by posting another lefty article.

He/she is relying on his signup date for cover, but in the early days of FR, many, many leftists were signed on, and the Forum allowed many leftists to spew their socialist/communist propaganda, as part of the "discussion".

Jim finally clearly, and rightfully, stated that FR was not a place for lefties to spew, and as many lefties as were found were spanked, and sent back to DU.

Others simply went into Mole Troll mode, popping up periodically like KSEN does.

Reading through this thread, it appears that more and more FReepers are recognizing KSEN's stripes, and I suspect that it won't be long before he gets the ZOT.

87 posted on 12/04/2012 1:43:01 PM PST by Col Freeper (FR: A smorgasbord of Conservative Mindfood - dig in and enjoy it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Col Freeper; ksen
Looking at Ksen's posts here, it's hard to disagree with you.

He sounds very much like a liberal troll. He seems to be most interested in pushing higher taxes, more regulation, and economic servitude.

88 posted on 12/04/2012 1:48:32 PM PST by Lakeshark (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Col Freeper; LS; ksen

Anyone who wants to claim that supply side economics has failed doesn’t understand that government interventionism is the poison of economics.
And government HAS intervened, horribly and with malice aforthought.
We currently have the most anti-business administration EVER.
And higher taxes DO NOT equal higher growth.
LOWER taxes DO equal higher growth.
That HAS been proven, repeatedly.

Anyone who says otherwise IS trolling.


89 posted on 12/04/2012 1:56:52 PM PST by Darksheare (Try my coffee, first one's free.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark; Col Freeper; ksen

Is that the “Jaws” them I am hearing in the background?

Yes, I’d like to hear ksen tell us with a straight face how taxes grow the economy by taking money OUT of it.


90 posted on 12/04/2012 1:59:14 PM PST by Darksheare (Try my coffee, first one's free.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark; Col Freeper; ksen

“Theme”

Man, my typos are becoming weapons grade.


91 posted on 12/04/2012 2:01:21 PM PST by Darksheare (Try my coffee, first one's free.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Col Freeper

Hahaha Col, like I’ve been hiding what I believe. Jim can ban me if he wants, it’s his site. It’s no skin off my nose.


92 posted on 12/04/2012 2:03:17 PM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare; ksen
I don't think ksen will face you directly, but we'll see.

I doubt he can keep up a dialogue on this without admitting he's a full blown lib. Most of his posts on this thread are simple declarations, very leftist in nature, very wrong, and unsupportable in every way unless you're a leftist.

93 posted on 12/04/2012 2:05:32 PM PST by Lakeshark (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

((((Darksheare))))


94 posted on 12/04/2012 2:06:34 PM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare
And higher taxes DO NOT equal higher growth.

I've been quite clear that higher tax rates doesn't mean higher growth. In fact I've said a number of times that there is no statistically significant link between GDP growth and marginal tax rates.

LOWER taxes DO equal higher growth.

The data disagrees with you.


95 posted on 12/04/2012 2:12:26 PM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark
I doubt he can keep up a dialogue on this without admitting he's a full blown lib.

What's to admit? I've clearly stated that I'm a liberal/progressive since I started posting here again.

96 posted on 12/04/2012 2:14:59 PM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark
Most of his posts on this thread are simple declarations, very leftist in nature, very wrong, and unsupportable in every way unless you're a leftist.

I also use lots of colorful charts. ;)

97 posted on 12/04/2012 2:15:59 PM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare
Sorry that I seem to be jumping around instead of commenting on posts chronologically.

Yes, I’d like to hear ksen tell us with a straight face how taxes grow the economy by taking money OUT of it.

I've never claimed that taxes grow the economy. I've claimed that higher marginal rates have not been shown to hurt the economy.

Personally I think what people want is a steady tax rate whatever the rate. Tax uncertainty probably causes a lot more damage than whatever the rate is set at.

Oh, but I have claimed that lower tax rates leads to concentrations of capital and wealth, which I believe the data also bears out.

98 posted on 12/04/2012 2:19:16 PM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: ksen
I guess that means I'm a good judge of character......I caught that from the first post I read.

Too bad. For you. Brain dead is no way to live your life. I suppose you think our economic problem is not taxing the rich enough rather than spending our children's and grandchildren's money on nonsense that does no good for anyone.......

:-)

99 posted on 12/04/2012 2:20:41 PM PST by Lakeshark (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark
I don't think ksen will face you directly, but we'll see.

You're going to end up loving having me around. Just watch. :D

100 posted on 12/04/2012 2:23:23 PM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-152 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson