"I helped create the GOP tax myth. Trump is wrong. Tax cuts don't equal growth."

Tax cuts can create growth, they also can be used to pay down debt. Corporate tax cuts can lead to higher wages or more employment, capital investment or stock buy backs. There are many factors beyond just hey here's a tax cut.

 

How is a tax cut paying down debt?

Not just increase rents? Where's your evidence in support of more specific comment? Where's the purpose?

 

If you are not paying as much in tax, there is disposable income. Pay down debt is an option.

As to your second response, try a more cogent one.

 

This isn't a cunning response. You should at least try a Laffer Curve comment (but you will be on a loser)

Not a cunning effort. It was an obvious reference to how corporate tax cuts merely increase inefficient profits.

 

Meet your own simple request. Learn the basics of supply side economic policies. Then you can critique your own argument.

 

I'm still waiting. Are you hamstrung by the reality that your heroes weren't actually supply side? The supply side experiment was forced on the UK (with Thatcher excited over Friedman and Hayek). The results couldn't be more negative. Thatcher arguably artificially achieved the worst ever recession that we've experienced

 

Reagan's first job was to get the inflation of the Carter economy resulting from policies based on the false Keynesian Phillips curve under control. The misery index under Carter was at 23. The result of Voelker's tight money policy was a recession in the early 80's. Reagan knew that he had to take the heat for that recession for supply side economics to work. Your entire argument is meaningless because you have no understanding of what actually occurred in the early 80's. Do some homework and report back with some truthful comments.

 

That's absurd. And still you continue in ignorance about supply side. Sad.

 

Happy for you to refer to one resource today that celebrates supply side economics. Choose wisely!

 

And again no initiative or curiosity. Sad. But the lib progs must stick to their false narratives.

 

I'm not a liberal, so don't make very basic political economic error. Why is my request (i.e. refer to one resource today that celebrates supply side economics) too much for you?

 

It's apparently too much for you. But then again this is not unexpected judging from your absurd comments on the Thatcher economic policies. Economic performance mirrors that of the Reagan success.

 

Thatcher quadrupled unemployment and destroyed the industrial base. Amazing you see that as positive!

 

You were talking about Bush 41.

 

And your post showed a complete lack of understanding about what preceded 41's Presidency and what occurred during the time that 41 was VP. Announcing a tax increase has an immediate and negative economic effect as people become more conservative in preparation for the increased tax burden.

 

That's completely ridiculous.

 

Facts are ridiculous? Each to our own I suppose.

 

Fake interpretation of facts are ridiculous. Try a little honesty before embarrassing yourself.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-22070491

 

Since I was replying in that post to YOUR post, any failure to consider prior events was yours.

You persist in working to make a point of "complete lack of understanding" and such in order to bully and intimidate your way to a "win". I am not bullied nor intimidated but I am growing weary of your personal attacks and if you don't stop I will put you on "ignore". This is your only warning.

 

That's bizarre. I will continue to point out errors in analysis where ever I see them. I have no control over your choice to ignore

 

Please don't quote Pinker like you understand it. The nation states at the time faired no better, in fact even worse, when it came to violence.

The Indians were engaged mostly in skirmishes at that time while the Pope 200 years earlier were sending knights off to fight the crusades.

 

Unemployment did quadruple (they have to change the definition of unemployment multiple times to try and artificially reduce it). And Britain did experience negative deindustrialisation (cause by the monetarist experiment, where productive companies went to the wall). I appreciate it doesn't fit well with your market fundamentalism mind you.

 

That is not what the data shows. I believe the data.

 

Actually it does. Unemployment climbed from just over 1 million to well over 3 million. But there were also over a dozen definition changes such that the true figure was certainly over 4 million. It was a recession worse than the Great Depression, created through right wing stupidity

 

That's ridiculous as the link I posted shows. Unemployment doubled because of the Thatcher monetary policy required to bring inflation down from 25% in the UK. Reagan did the same thing in the US. That recession was the known result of that monetary policy action. Both Reagan and Thatcher knew that they would suffer political attacks (and still are) but that it was necessary for the overall good of their respective nations.