Nearly two-thirds say they've seen no increase in take-home pay from GOP tax cuts: Gallup

*LOL*

Then why are they called "tax cuts"?

Prove it.

Meanwhile, the "fiscally conservative" GOP just blew the Hell out of our budget deficit. Nice work, guys.

 

Another person who claims supply side economics doesn’t work ?? Joe Stiglitz claims they worked for Clinton.

 

No, he wasn't. In fact, the OPPOSITE is true. Do some research, my koolaid chugging chum:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

The Bill Clinton years represent a counter-example to supply side economics as tax increases coincided with record job creation. President Clinton presided over the budgets for fiscal years 1994–2001. From 1998 to 2001, the budget was in a surplus for the first time since 1969.

Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 into law, which raised income taxes rates on incomes above $115,000, created additional higher tax brackets for corporate income over $335,000, removed the cap on Medicare taxes, raised fuel taxes and increased the portion of Social Security income subject to tax, among other tax increases. Income tax revenues nearly doubled in dollar terms, from $510B in 1993 (7.5% GDP) to $994B in 2001 (9.4% GDP).[51]

More jobs were created during the Clinton era than the Reagan era in both relative and absolute terms and the rate of GDP growth was higher.[52][53] Defense spending was held roughly flat in dollar terms at $282B in 1994 (3.9% GDP) and ending at $306B in 2001 (2.9% GDP). Likewise, non-defense discretionary spending fell from 3.6% of GDP in 1994 to 3.2% of GDP in 2001. The combination of increasing tax revenues and falling spending relative to GDP moved the budget from a 2.8% GDP deficit in 1994 to a 1.2% GDP surplus in 2001.[51]

 

I just shake my head at the claim that supply side economics doesn’t provide maximal economic growth when Reagan through W clearly show that they do. The CBO predicts $150B per year added to the national debt based on static analysis. Obamanomics added ~ $10T in 8 years.

 

Look above. Quit making shi'ite up and do some cursory, simple research for a change. Sheesh.

Even Harvard and and Dubya's economic consultants laugh at the absurdity of your claims:

"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.[22] Greg Mankiw, former chairman of President President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, offered similarly sharp criticism of the school in the early editions of his introductory economics textbook.[23] Mankiw wrote in June 2017:

Tax cuts rarely pay for themselves. My reading of the academic literature leads me to believe that about one-third of the cost of a typical tax cut is recouped with faster economic growth."

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 [...][25]

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 and Ray Fair, Principles of Economics (2007), p. 695[26]

 

Your neck must be pretty sore. Nobody but a few lonely ideologues make that claim. Your own conclusory and ideological assertions carry no weight, my friend. Please do some research.

 

[/QUOTE]

I didnt mention hating Trump... thats a given. I asked: Why do you hate admitting working folks will get a break at tax time?

Question still stands.

Or do you claim doubling the standard deduction won't benefit middle class America?

 

BTW, WTF is "Obamanomics"? *LOL* The poor bastard inherited the second worst economy we've had in modern times!

 

Wikipedia ?? Too funny. Who wrote that ?? Clinton’s second term was supply side. He triangulated with Newt. His tax cuts were to cap gains and he reduced the rate of increase of government spending. Who said the era of big government is over ?? Why would Stiglitz so claim ??

 

Wikipedia isn't the source, my lazy amigo.

It uses its own sources--you know, real dummies like Harvard and actual economists.

But I'm sure your down-home musings about economics--with zero freaking sourcing--are much more reliable.

 

It removes deductions for wealthy homeowners in high tax states like CA. A cut should be for everyone.

As far as the budget, guess what?: It doesn't matter if there is a D or an R by their name, there is zero respect for our tax dollars. They spend like a thief with a stolen credit card. This is one issue that should unite us, but we would rather fight among each other and keep paying. Nice work guys on both sides!

 

Obamanomics is ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, dumba$$ energy regulations, and increasing the tax rate on small businesses which employ ~ half of US workers by 10%. All that resulted in a pathetic ~ 1% real productivity growth and the only Presidency to never produce a real annual growth of 3%.

 

Yes, because we're gonna do all that "infrastructure" stuff with no damned money to do it now that the tax cuts are draining the coffers.

 

Who are the sources ?? Which actual economists ??

Do your homework. Look up Stiglitz. It will be a learning experience.

 

Uh, no. The "Great Recession" did that. You're blaming "regulations" ? Which "regulations"?

You guys have the shortest memories I've witnessed.

BTW, the "Presidency" has almost nothing to do with the economy. Do you think they're sitting in the Oval Office pulling economic switches and pushing buttons, or something?

 

I can't force you to read the sources, like Bush's advisors and the good folks from Harvard. But you should instead of making that crap up.

There are 84 freaking sources in that piece. You really aren't trying to tell me that Wiki made all of hat up, are you?

 

They should show up in lower withholding instantly.

 

The GW passed all that legislation and regulations which killed economic growth ??

 

If the conclusion of the Wikipedia piece is that Clinton was not a supply sider in his second term (and it is) the sources are incompetent.

 

Uh, this guy is plainly NOT a supply-side nutball:

http://evonomics.com/joseph-stiglitz-inequality-unearned-income/

"The economic policies required to change this are not difficult to identify. We need more investment in public goods; better corporate governance, antitrust and anti-discrimination laws; a better regulated financial system; stronger workers’ rights; and more progressive tax and transfer policies. By ‘rewriting the rules’ governing the market economy in these ways, it is possible to achieve greater equality in both the pre- and post-tax and transfer distribution of income, and thereby stronger economic performance.

Unless you meant Hugo Stiglitz from "Inglorious Basterds"

 

Was that supposed to be responsive to my question? Because it's not remotely close to a reply, dude..

But we should take your word for that instead of 84 real sources? Uh, no thanks,

 

He was when he worked for Clinton in the 90’s.

 

Your question is meaningless. The facts are clear. Clinton’s economic policies were supply side in his second term.

 

Hugo Stiglitz

Source? I’ve cited loads of sources. You’ve cited to, uh, you.

 

If you can’t be bothered to use facts, actual sources beyond your own uninformed self, just don’t address me. I’m done stomping you.