"Trump Probably Picked the Worst Time to Propose a Giant Tax Cut"

"Not to worry, says Secretary Mnuchin. Trump’s economic plan “will grow the economy and will create massive amounts of revenues, trillions of dollars in additional revenues.” In reality, a plan like this would give the economy a short-run boost, but rising federal debt would eventually push up interest rates, crowding out investment and discouraging purchase of homes, cars, and other big-ticket items. The drag on the economy from the debt would more than offset the positive effects of lower interest rates."

http://fortune.com/2017/04/28/trump-tax-plan-national-debt/

If the President has bought all this economic prosperity
that he continuously boasts, why do we need a tax cut, especially since the strongest tax cut proponents who will be responsible for the tax cut are also the same people who for decades have told us that the deficit was thier greatest concern?

 

And history has proven that premise not to be true
When Reagan has his tax cuts the economy boomed interest rates increased and the economy continued to grow and did so for a decade

 

That is debatable, but not here, however the tax cuts in the 1980's occurred when the economy was in dire straits, and if you listen to the President, he's told us he has rescued the economy and everything is looking good today

Outside of that, a deficit financed tax cut in a time of relatively economic stability is unwise, in 1984 the debt was at 33% of the GDP, today it it stands at 77%, all you are going to accomplish is a sugar high which you will pay for later.

They are just interjecting trillions of unpaid funds into the economy just when money was beginning to circulate on its' own

 

It stands at 77% because of just the opposite policies of the Democrats starting in 2007 when they took the Congress. Previous to that the 1996 tax rate reductions helped to produce the budget surpluses we had the and the 2001 tax rate reductions, when fully implemented helped to produce the rapidly falling deficits of the mid 2000's down to a paltry $161B with 15% record tax revenue increase in one year.

 

As I said, "not here," but if I'm not mistaken that 2001 surplus came off of the Clinton Administration and those "rapidly falling deficits" of the mid 2000's didn't account for two unpaid wars nor a new drug prescription program, all of which the Democrat Congress and Obama Administration inherited in addition to a historical recession

 

The bush cuts produced a short term boost to the economy, but it didn't last. I know you like to blame democrats for it not lasting, but they didn't raise taxes.

 

we didnt have a 20.5 trillion dollar boat anchor back then http://www.usdebtclock.org

 

Hmmmm, sounds just like what most economists said when Reagan proposed his first tax cut. And they were right. The only difference is that Trumps plan is upfront, about making individuals make it up by paying more, and putting that in the same bill.

Reagan on the other had waited 2 years to make the bottom pay via more tax increases.

 

BTW the us dollar has been tanking DIVE DIVE !over the past few days

 

Privatized gains versus socialized losses for the Wall Street bankster class
Internalized profits versus externalized risk and expense for the "job creator" class
Socialism for the aristocracy versus laissez-faire capitalism for the masses

 

No, it didn't rebound until Reagans tax INCREASE on the middle class took place 2 years AFTER his cuts to the top

AND....as every economist has pointed out since Reagans "Trickle Down Theory" was implemented...."trickle down" is a good in the short term, but VERY destructive when left in place.

 

Dear lord......did you cut and paste that directly from Grover Norquest twitter feed ?

Please explain how decreasing taxes, lowers deficits ? How does taking in less money, while increasing spending lower deficits.......go ahead...I can't wait for this one

 

After he raised taxes.

After Reagan's first year in office, the annual deficit was 2.6% of gross domestic product. But it hit a high of 6% in 1983, stayed in the 5% range for the next three years, and fell to 3.1% by 1988. (By comparison, this year it's projected to be 9% but is expected to drop considerably thereafter.)

So, despite his public opposition to higher taxes, Reagan ended up signing off on several measures intended to raise more revenue.

"Reagan was certainly a tax cutter legislatively, emotionally and ideologically. But for a variety of political reasons, it was hard for him to ignore the cost of his tax cuts," said tax historian Joseph Thorndike.

Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together "constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime," Thorndike said.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/index.htm

 

Spending like a drunken sailor while reducing income is a recipe for disaster. Oh, wait, 2008 crash based on this. Yep, true.

 

Never underestimate the hypocracy of conservatives.

After eight years of ranting about federal spending and debt, they stand poised to try and enact a tax cut (few bother to refer to it as reform anymore) that will blow a $1.5 trillion hole in the national debt (assuming their own rosy predictions).

I have been predicting this for years. I was never in any doubt that the next Republican President would go right back to the borrow and spend tactics of Ronald Reagan and George W Bush.

I also predicted that when that happened, every right wing poster on this forum would shut up about debt and fall in line cheering for the tiny bit of something for nothing their new heroes offered them.

Alas, my prediction has been validated.

 

Yep, and Reagan had to do it 2X. 82 and 84. Biggest peace time tax increase in history.

 

Not to worry, that's what socialism for Wall Street and the "job creator" class wrung from the middle and under class is for.

 

What is especially comical and hypocritical about that is that in the right wing rewrite of American history that right wing media is now peddling, it was Gingrich and the GOP Congress that actually created the budget surpluses of the late 1990's.

Which makes one wonder why they would all pat themselves on the back for such financial prudence and then turn right around and blow it up as soon as the Republican arrives at the White House!

 

Like this.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/index.htm

 

No 2008 was based entirely on a recession and huge Democrat spending increases. Are you denying there was a 15% revenue increase in 2007? And do explain how you claim that caused a crash in 2008.

 

and Reagan requested LESS spending every year than Congress authorized.

And as a percent of GDP is not the measure, actual tax revenues is the measure

1982 3%
1983 -3%
1984 11%
1985 10%
1986 5%
1987 11%
1988 6%
1989 9%

 

Glad you finally got it correct, Clinton's tax rate increases actually slowed down tax revenue growth.

You wouldn't want to be back in the economy of 1996-2000 and 2003-2007? Why not? Was it better under Democrat policies 2008-2012?

 

The ATM machine, housing, busted.

 

No. It's always per GDP. You know a $$$ to George Washington means more to him than to Reagan. The size of the economy was much different.

 

Allow Cuzin Brucie to enlighten you, TR...

...
Moreover, GOP tax mythology usually leaves out other factors that also contributed to growth in the 1980s: First was the sharp reduction in interest rates by the
Federal Reserve. The fed funds rate fell by more than half, from about 19 percent in July 1981 to about 9 percent in November 1982. Second, Reagan’s defense buildup
and highway construction programs greatly increased the federal government’s purchases of goods and services. This is textbook Keynesian economics.
...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...uts-dont-equal-growth/?utm_term=.f71bc10f52d7