• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Unemployment dips to 8.9 pct., 192K jobs added

you'd have to ask the thousands of individuals who are sitting on the trillions of dollars

but it might not be too far a reach to speculate that they are hesitating because of all the uncertainty clouding this economy---in obamacare, in the reg reform, in energy policy...

Again, those aspects of "ObamaCare" that affect businesses large and small don't take affect until 2012...2014? So, how does its implementation 1-3 yrs from now affect businesses today? If a business can't project its budget 1-yr out maybe it deserves to go out of business.

heck, this admin couldn't even come down on americans' precise 2012 relationship with the irs until almost new year's eve.

Bad planning by Congress, not the Obama Administration. The White House neither writes nor implements tax law. Those are issues to be taken up with either Congress or the IRS.

resentment may also play a role

perhaps some of our uber rich feel they've been demonized and villified at every turn by this woebegone white house, which has in actuality done a whole lot more to protect and reward the fatcats and toobigs while doing almost nothing for the normal nates and nells while especially neglecting our african american neighbors and friends (ask the cbc)

Huh? What does "demonizing and vilifying the uber rich" have to do with "neglecting African Americans"? Not only is this a foolish assessment, it's not even factual. Moreover, hasn't it been your side of the political divide who continue to make the claim that the President is too Black for his own good and that his policies have alienated the Wall Street elite? Your commentary makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
Again, those aspects of "ObamaCare" that affect businesses large and small don't take affect until 2012...2014? So, how does its implementation 1-3 yrs from now affect businesses today? If a business can't project its budget 1-yr out maybe it deserves to go out of business.



Bad planning by Congress, not the Obama Administration. The White House neither writes nor implements tax law. Those are issues to be taken up with either Congress or the IRS.



Huh? How does "demonizing and vilifying the uber rich" have to do with "neglecting African Americans"? Not only is this a foolish assessment, it's not even factual. Moreover, hasn't it been your side of the political divide who continue to make the claim that the President is too Black for his own good and that his policies have alienated the Wall Street elite? Your commentary makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

But his poetry is fun to read. :mrgreen:
 
The sad part is, this won't keep up. This is probably the best it will get.

Well, once again events in the Middle-East is having an impact on our economy. That happens when a nation is heavily dependent of foreign oil. And before you say it, I'm all for more domestic drilling; I just want it done responsibly. In fact, I'm one of a small hand full of advocates in support of the U.S. becoming an global oil exporter. We have more than enough to do so if we'd just change our domestic energy policies accordingly.
 
Work and school take about 90 hours of my week :2brickwal

That'll do it. I assume I'll be doing the same next week with finals coming up, a paper due, and a poster session next Thursday.

And ill retort with how this is still better than your alternative; once every 79 years as opposed to once every 5 seems more efficient to me!

The free market never produced anything like the Great Depression or this every 5 years, and any downturns were due to inflation either by the national bank or state banks.

Just like reading from a script.
 
The saddest part of this whole thing is they are fudging the numbers. The numbers of unemployed are not the actual number, it is the number of people on unemployment. If they are 99 weeks they fall off the rolls and are not counted anymore. The numbers are a lie.
 
The saddest part of this whole thing is they are fudging the numbers. The numbers of unemployed are not the actual number, it is the number of people on unemployment. If they are 99 weeks they fall off the rolls and are not counted anymore. The numbers are a lie.

Exactly, as I pointed out, if you eliminate a million people from the unemployment roles what does anyone think the unemployment rate is going to do? In February there were 1.020 million discouraged workers who dropped of the unemployment roles. those people are unemployed but not counted any more.
 
I place a lot of value on infrastructure and understand that it is paid for by excise taxes collected when you buy gasoline and/or diesel. You don't seem to have a clue on this or any other issue.

LOL! You think roads are our only infrastructure do you?
 
That was Iraq. That is one of two wars. He has continued to bring troops home from Iraq as per the agreement Bush made with the Iraqi government. Afghanistan he ran on a platform of concentrating on and winning.

Two years after he still hasn't brought the troops home from Iraq, take that to the bank .... was just an outright lie then ?? Now show us where he his winning in Afghanistan.
 
Originally Posted by rcart76
So why did Bush sign it if he didn't agree with it? He had the veto power right?

Okay then lets take that a step further, the tax cuts that will be up for discussion in 2012 will be call the Obama tax cuts for the rich …. passed by a democratic controlled house, senate, and signed by a democratic president. Right ??
Originally Posted by liblady
see redress's post. thanks so much. i see you're leaving bush's tarp out of the equation now, as well as blaming obama for having to cover bush's wars. partisan much?

Seeing as Obama ran on getting us out of the wars, two years later and we are still there and he has since added troops to Afghanistan. Then you are saying it's now Obama's war correct ?? Or are you partisan much?

Originally Posted by Redress
No, it projected a level of spending and revenue, neither of which was accurate.

So you are saying that the democratic controlled house and senate lied to the American people ?? Did they not review it, alter it, before sending it back ??
Givemethe facts

Your Absolutely right, I just finished reading "Decision Points" and Bush discussed how it was his administration that came out with TARP, and how it helped save the Economy.

Okay great, so now Bush saved the Economy, remember that in your future postings, the recovery is based on Bush's actions before leaving office, and not what Obama has done since.


Boy we have covered a lot in this thread, we have determined that Bush saved the economy, that the tax cuts for the rich are Obama's , and the that war we are left in is also Obama's and to top it off another poster just admitted that the democrats that control both houses lied to the American people in the 2009 budget ..

See those liberal aren't so bad .. they just admitted a bunch of things
 
Last edited:
If you believed that, it is only because you did not actually pay attention to what was said. The word "projection" has meaning. In point of fact, the document the numbers came from made numerous references to the fact that the numbers where projections and could change, possibly significantly.


Thank you for that explanation. Now just just remember to apply that to Obamacare as well, and if the projections of future costs are off by as much what happens to our national debt??
 
Thank you for that explanation. Now just just remember to apply that to Obamacare as well, and if the projections of future costs are off by as much what happens to our national debt??

Very little if we put into action efforts to reduce the debt. Almost all projections are off by some amount. This does not mean that we should never do anything.
 
Objective Voice
I will never understand an individual sticking to this same BS when the evidence in today's job market goes contrary to your mantra.

I'm sure you're seen the countless jobs reports that state employers (mostly in financial sectors, i.e., banks) have money to burn, but they're just sitting on it right now. And why? Please, don't come back with the line that it's about Obama's job killing policies because contrary to popular belief most of his financial policies have included tax cuts, not tax increases. Furthermore, the biggest so-called "job killer" - the PPAC - hasn't even gone into full swing yet. Nothing about its implementation currently has anything to do with the business sectors. It's all on the States currently to implement the high-risk pools under the law. So, explain to us how in our current economic environment if businesses have received tax cuts especially considering that the Bush Tax Cuts have been extended thru 2012 and businesses (banks mostly) are sitting on all this surplus cash - money you say if they are allowed to keep they'll reinvest it for the sake of job growth - why the hell aren't they doing it? (Or shall I say why aren't they doing it faster since we are seeing increased private sector job growth per the article in the OP.)

You know I can agree with much of what you are saying there. One of the reasons the banks are doing so well however, is the pure fact that they can borrow money from the fed at 0% interest, buy bonds, get 2 to 2.5% return, collect that and pay the fed back. It's a lock with no risk. If you want to get them loaning money again, don't let them borrow at 0%, Make them have to start loaning money to make their profits.

In my opinion the reason is two fold that business's aren't doing anything, first is the banks that aren't lending, and 2nd are the policies being put in place. One has been taken care of (for the time being) with the extension of the tax cuts, and since that happened, you have seen some improvement in the private sector.

Next is the new health care law, (not saying anything about being good or bad) it's tied up in the courts, and is going to be bounced around in the houses, businesses don't know if they should be preparing for the future costs of it or not. Heck there have been over 700 waivers for one part of this health care bill, what about those companies that can't afford to get lawyers to apply and get a wavier? So until all this is settled no company knows what they are going to have to do with their health care for employees.

Then you have the overall economy, despite some small gains being made, I don't think anyone is really to sure that we have turned the corner yet. Housing that was supposed to have bottomed, now looks like that might not be so. Inflation is beginning, much of it due to gas prices, and those are not going to stabilize any time soon. I guess what I'm saying is put yourself in place of a businessman, would you be confident of investing yet ?
 
Very little if we put into action efforts to reduce the debt. Almost all projections are off by some amount. This does not mean that we should never do anything.

Lets just hope it isn't off by as much as the projected price of Medicare, if it is we are done, no amount of cutting or taxing will offset it.

That is the problem I have with government, we do things all wrong in my opinion, yes we needed health care reform, but what would have been wrong in doing it in steps, implementing what would have helped and not cost anything first, say like the 500 billion they say there is in waste and fraud in Medicare. That would have zoomed through with probably no opposition. Allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines, some form of tort reform. These things would have cost no one anything, and been easy to pass. Then they could have moved on to the harder parts.

Now I know you and I are on opposing sides in this, but just think back, when Bush passed the tax cuts in much the same way the Dems passed this health care bill how much resentment it caused to people like yourself. Liberals have never been for that tax cut, never been behind it, and have spoken out against it every chance you have had, yet … now for some reason, you expect that conservatives are suppose to just accept this bill, and move on..... why is that?

Now seeing we do agree that projections never end up being very accurate, how about this, lets send that bill to an independent auditing firm, with no affiliation to either party, and see what they say about the numbers. Would that be acceptable?
 
Lets just hope it isn't off by as much as the projected price of Medicare, if it is we are done, no amount of cutting or taxing will offset it.

That is the problem I have with government, we do things all wrong in my opinion, yes we needed health care reform, but what would have been wrong in doing it in steps, implementing what would have helped and not cost anything first, say like the 500 billion they say there is in waste and fraud in Medicare. That would have zoomed through with probably no opposition. Allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines, some form of tort reform. These things would have cost no one anything, and been easy to pass. Then they could have moved on to the harder parts.

Now I know you and I are on opposing sides in this, but just think back, when Bush passed the tax cuts in much the same way the Dems passed this health care bill how much resentment it caused to people like yourself. Liberals have never been for that tax cut, never been behind it, and have spoken out against it every chance you have had, yet … now for some reason, you expect that conservatives are suppose to just accept this bill, and move on..... why is that?

Now seeing we do agree that projections never end up being very accurate, how about this, lets send that bill to an independent auditing firm, with no affiliation to either party, and see what they say about the numbers. Would that be acceptable?

That would be the CBO, which has done just that.

This thread is a good example of the tactics used by some of our right wing friends. If good news happens(and no matter how you spin it, the OP is good news), then make as many random complaints about anything to counter it. Let no bit of good news not be drowned out in random complaints.
 
That would be the CBO, which has done just that.

This thread is a good example of the tactics used by some of our right wing friends. If good news happens(and no matter how you spin it, the OP is good news), then make as many random complaints about anything to counter it. Let no bit of good news not be drowned out in random complaints.

I don't believe the CBO in as non partisan as you, and I doubt that you really believe it to be either.

I agree, but I have seen just as much of that partisanship from you as well.

I'll also agree that the improvement is a good thing, it's a start and needs to continue, will you agree, that are unemployment numbers ...(not just now but ever) have never been an accurate figure of those unemployed and that is true now as well?
 
So, how does its implementation 1-3 yrs from now affect businesses today?

you really have to ask?

bad planning by Congress, not the Obama Administration.

he's the head of the party, silly

what does "demonizing and vilifying the uber rich" have to do with "neglecting African Americans"?

in the abstract, not much, i spose

in reality, they are both things done by this woebegone white house

Moreover, hasn't it been your side of the political divide who continue to make the claim that the President is too Black for his own good and that his policies have alienated the Wall Street elite?

who knows, who cares
 
random...

what was it, again?

oh, yeah

random "complaints:"

housing---no bottom in sight, millions more out there

property tax revenues---thru the floor

fannie and fred---up to a HALF TRILLION

medicaid alone is NOW unsustainable at the state level

the muni market---buy!

TWO POINT FIVE TRILLION dollars of unfunded public pensions promised at the state level alone

TWO POINT SEVEN TRILLION dollars of qe---all UNDIVERSIFED junk

interest on the debt alone soon to reach ONE TRIL per year

THREE QUARTERS OF A TRILLION dollars of new taxes in obamacare

oil and food inflation---frightening

a HALF TRILLION dollars of pfft reported by the gao just this week

a president whose budget actually proposes to RAISE the deficit 30%, doesn't even recognize the seismic cracks in our foundation, ignores his own debt commission

yup, it's random complaints like the above that are just so darned capable of drowning out so much good news

party on, nonpartisans
 
LOL! You think roads are our only infrastructure do you?

What I think is you are a troll. You, like all other liberals, are out of touch with reality. For some reason you believe the govt. is the answer when the fact is that answer has created a 14.3 trillion dollar debt and never really solved a problem. I know what infrastructure is and I also know that like with any use tax today the Federal Govt. put that money ON budget and spent it mostly on everything other than the infrastructure. Now your answer is to throw more money at the problem. If you want infrastructure capital, take excise taxes off budget and put them where they belong, into a fund specifically for the infrastructure.
 
What I think is you are a troll. You, like all other liberals, are out of touch with reality. For some reason you believe the govt. is the answer when the fact is that answer has created a 14.3 trillion dollar debt and never really solved a problem. I know what infrastructure is and I also know that like with any use tax today the Federal Govt. put that money ON budget and spent it mostly on everything other than the infrastructure. Now your answer is to throw more money at the problem. If you want infrastructure capital, take excise taxes off budget and put them where they belong, into a fund specifically for the infrastructure.

No. I think the government should cut wasteful spending, now that we are no longer careening towards another great depression, that's why I am opposed to corporate welfare, and an imperialistic sized military, and giving the wealthy trillions of dollars in tax breaks. I have no problems with the money spent on infrastructure.
 
No. I think the government should cut wasteful spending, now that we are no longer careening towards another great depression, that's why I am opposed to corporate welfare, and an imperialistic sized military, and giving the wealthy trillions of dollars in tax breaks. I have no problems with the money spent on infrastructure.

Why don't you ever back up your claims with data? Trillions of dollars in tax breaks? Prove it? I want to see the data from now on for your claims and I offer proof of mine from the non partisan Bureau of Economic Analysis and Bureau of Labor Statistics. What exactly is corporate welfare? What do corporations do with their profits? So many questions yet your rants never answer them.
 
No. I think the government should cut wasteful spending, now that we are no longer careening towards another great depression, that's why I am opposed to corporate welfare, and an imperialistic sized military, and giving the wealthy trillions of dollars in tax breaks. I have no problems with the money spent on infrastructure.

Do you or anyone really believe the stuff in the post above? I hope you are not in favor of intervening in Libya while talking of our imperialistic military. Not sure what statistics you are looking at when saying that the wealthy get trillions of dollars of tax breaks. Perhaps you can start by your definition of what is wealthy?

It would also be helpful if you could show us how you helped create a single job in America.

Is this really the best level of political debate we can hope for?
 
You know I can agree with much of what you are saying there. One of the reasons the banks are doing so well however, is the pure fact that they can borrow money from the fed at 0% interest, buy bonds, get 2 to 2.5% return, collect that and pay the fed back. It's a lock with no risk. If you want to get them loaning money again, don't let them borrow at 0%, Make them have to start loaning money to make their profits.

In my opinion the reason is two fold that business's aren't doing anything, first is the banks that aren't lending, and 2nd are the policies being put in place. One has been taken care of (for the time being) with the extension of the tax cuts, and since that happened, you have seen some improvement in the private sector.

I agreed with you until you returned to the same flawed excuse every other Conservative has been using for some time...

Next is the new health care law, (not saying anything about being good or bad) it's tied up in the courts, and is going to be bounced around in the houses, businesses don't know if they should be preparing for the future costs of it or not. Heck there have been over 700 waivers for one part of this health care bill, what about those companies that can't afford to get lawyers to apply and get a wavier? So until all this is settled no company knows what they are going to have to do with their health care for employees.

...the same lie I just finished disproving concerning the relationship between businesses and the PPAC which once against HAS NOT come into full effect where the private business sector is concerned. Here's the truth of the matter:

As health costs soar, GOP and insurers differ on cause

Workers at a circuit-board factory here just saw their health insurance premiums rise 20 percent. At Buddy Zaremba’s print shop nearby, the increase was 37 percent. And for engineers at the Woodland Design Group, they rose 43 percent.

The new federal health care law may eventually “bend the cost curve” downward, as proponents argue. But for now, at many workplaces here, the rising cost of health care is prompting insurance premiums to skyrocket while coverage is shrinking.

....

Economists and state regulators say health insurance is expensive primarily because health care is expensive.

“You won’t really address the cost of health insurance unless you address the cost of health care itself,” New Hampshire’s insurance commissioner, Roger A. Sevigny, said.

In a letter explaining Mr. La Tourette’s new rate, Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield said it resulted, in part, from “an increase in medical trends, especially the utilization of services and the underlying cost of health care, for all small-group customers.”

...


Some insurance industry lobbyists say the new federal health care law is driving up premiums. But Vincent Capozzi, senior vice president for sales and customer service at Harvard Pilgrim, said that only one percentage point of the increases here was attributable to the federal law, mainly its requirement for free coverage of preventive services.

Another percentage point results from new state laws requiring coverage of hearing aids and certain treatments for autism, Mr. Capozzi said. Most of the remainder, he said, reflects increases in the use and cost of medical care by small-group customers, with adjustments for demographic characteristics like age.

In many cases, insurance coverage is shrinking as deductibles are increasing and choices of hospitals are more limited. Robert I. Woodland, the president of the Woodland Design Group, said his company had experienced double-digit increases in premiums for seven years, even as benefits were whittled back. Most recently, he was notified that the rates were being increased 43 percent, so the monthly premium for a single worker would be $550, up from $384.

“Essentially, we have been paying a lot more for a lot less,” Mr. Woodland said. “It’s outrageous. I cannot imagine charging my clients 43 percent more in a single year.”

Barely a mention of ObamaCare or any other new federal policy or mandate, but even when the PPAC is referenced, its effect is placed in its proper context where rising premium costs are concerned. Bottom line here is it's just "business as usual", the markets doing what the markets do. And in this case, it's the same fluxuations in medical treatments, procedures and services that are the root causes to insurance premium increases, not the PPAC itself.

Now, if you wish to argue that because the door has been opened to allow people with pre-existing conditions to now be covered or that young adults between the ages of 21-26 are now allowed to remain on their parent's insurance plans, I'd probably give some leeway except as I've reviewed these patient inclusions within the health care system these such individuals are NOT getting a free-ride; they have to pay insurance premiums like everyone else, i.e., child-care policies. Therefore, the argument that the PPAC is the root cause for rising health care cost is a total falsehood!

Then you have the overall economy, despite some small gains being made, I don't think anyone is really to sure that we have turned the corner yet. Housing that was supposed to have bottomed, now looks like that might not be so. Inflation is beginning, much of it due to gas prices, and those are not going to stabilize any time soon. I guess what I'm saying is put yourself in place of a businessman, would you be confident of investing yet ?

If the "businessman" is "investing" in growing his business, I'd say he/she would have to study the market that affects his business industry. A jewler, for example, might be making money right now IF he's buying or selling gold pieces. Realtors, on the other hand, may still be questioning the housing markets, but as the economy recovers realtors will start buying property for resell. Have you noticed the volumn of home loan and foreclosure advertisements being run lately? With so many homes available right now, it's a buyer's market. Realtors know this quite well. In time, the housing market will improve just as the stock market (DOW) did from its 9,000 point low. People will always need a place to stay whether they buy or rent or "lease to own". It's just a matter of time before the market stablizes, but if you're paying attention to what's happening in the housing market you know that time is coming sooner rather than later.
 
In time, the housing market will improve just as the stock market (DOW) did from its 9,000 point low. People will always need a place to stay whether they buy or rent or "lease to own". It's just a matter of time before the market stablizes, but if you're paying attention to what's happening in the housing market you know that time is coming sooner rather than later.

FWIW, on March 9, 2009, the Dow Jones Industrial Average hit a 12 year low at 6,547.05. It has since then increased by 86% to 12,169.88. Stock prices were not unbelievably over valued, instead it was real estate. It will take a few more years to see even a modest recovery, much less 86% :peace
 
Why don't you ever back up your claims with data? Trillions of dollars in tax breaks? Prove it? I want to see the data from now on for your claims and I offer proof of mine from the non partisan Bureau of Economic Analysis and Bureau of Labor Statistics. What exactly is corporate welfare? What do corporations do with their profits? So many questions yet your rants never answer them.

"The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that extending the Bush tax cuts of 2001-2003 beyond their 2010 expiration would increase deficits by $1.8 trillion dollars over the following decade.[44] The CBO also completed a study in 2005 analyzing a hypothetical 10% income tax cut and concluded that under various scenarios there would be minimal offsets to the loss of revenue. In other words, deficits would increase by nearly the same amount as the tax cut in the first five years, with limited feedback revenue thereafter."
Supply-side economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Many early proponents argued that the size of the economic growth would be significant enough that the increased government revenue from a faster growing economy would be sufficient to compensate completely for the short-term costs of a tax cut, and that tax cuts could, in fact, cause overall revenue to increase.[1] Some hold this was borne out during the 1980s when, advocates of supply-side economics claim, tax cuts ultimately led to an overall increase in governmental revenue due to stronger economic growth. Other economists, however, dispute this assertion.[18][19] Some contemporary economists do not consider supply-side economics a tenable economic theory, with Alan Blinder calling it an "ill-fated" and perhaps "silly" school on the pages of a 2006 textbook.[20] Greg Mankiw, former chairman of President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisors, offered similarly sharp criticism of the school in the early editions of his introductory economics textbook.[21] In a 1992 article for the Harvard International Review, James Tobin wrote, "[The] idea that tax cuts would actually increase revenues turned out to deserve the ridicule…"[22] While few modern economists claim that tax cuts will completely pay for themselves, some empirical and theoretical research suggests that tax cuts do help to pay for themselves through increased economic growth, though the end result, even conservative economists contend, will be a significant reduction in revenues.[6] The Reagan administration was the first to implement supply-side policies and call them that. Some maintain that they failed to deliver the promised benefits.[23]

"The extreme promises of supply-side economics did not materialize. President Reagan argued that because of the effect depicted in the Laffer curve, the government could maintain expenditures, cut tax rates, and balance the budget. This was not the case. Government revenues fell sharply from levels that would have been realized without the tax cuts.
- Karl Case & Ray Fair, Principles of Economics (2007), p. 695.[23]”


Supply-side economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
"The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that extending the Bush tax cuts of 2001-2003 beyond their 2010 expiration would increase deficits by $1.8 trillion dollars over the following decade.[44] The CBO also completed a study in 2005 analyzing a hypothetical 10% income tax cut and concluded that under various scenarios there would be minimal offsets to the loss of revenue. In other words, deficits would increase by nearly the same amount as the tax cut in the first five years, with limited feedback revenue thereafter."
Supply-side economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Many early proponents argued that the size of the economic growth would be significant enough that the increased government revenue from a faster growing economy would be sufficient to compensate completely for the short-term costs of a tax cut, and that tax cuts could, in fact, cause overall revenue to increase.[1] Some hold this was borne out during the 1980s when, advocates of supply-side economics claim, tax cuts ultimately led to an overall increase in governmental revenue due to stronger economic growth. Other economists, however, dispute this assertion.[18][19] Some contemporary economists do not consider supply-side economics a tenable economic theory, with Alan Blinder calling it an "ill-fated" and perhaps "silly" school on the pages of a 2006 textbook.[20] Greg Mankiw, former chairman of President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisors, offered similarly sharp criticism of the school in the early editions of his introductory economics textbook.[21] In a 1992 article for the Harvard International Review, James Tobin wrote, "[The] idea that tax cuts would actually increase revenues turned out to deserve the ridicule…"[22] While few modern economists claim that tax cuts will completely pay for themselves, some empirical and theoretical research suggests that tax cuts do help to pay for themselves through increased economic growth, though the end result, even conservative economists contend, will be a significant reduction in revenues.[6] The Reagan administration was the first to implement supply-side policies and call them that. Some maintain that they failed to deliver the promised benefits.[23]

"The extreme promises of supply-side economics did not materialize. President Reagan argued that because of the effect depicted in the Laffer curve, the government could maintain expenditures, cut tax rates, and balance the budget. This was not the case. Government revenues fell sharply from levels that would have been realized without the tax cuts.
- Karl Case & Ray Fair, Principles of Economics (2007), p. 695.[23]”


Supply-side economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Don't you just love CBO projections? Never right but often quoted. Interesting that the CBO scored the entire TAX cut program not just the tax on those evil rich people. You have to do better than this but like all other leftists keeping more of what one earns is always an expense to the govt. That is except of course the money you get to keep, right? Did you ever think that just maybe people keeping more of what they earn might just mean they need less of that 3.7 TRILLION Dollar govt?

All this hatred over people keeping more of what they earn! Says a lot about liberalism and liberals who cannot accept failure of their beloved agenda.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom