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

There's your drunken sailor spending again. How does that work out? Boom, then Crash.
Meanwhile, the slow steady growth of the last 7 yrs has been working pretty good.

 

Actually, it was '81 and '86.

The '81 tax cuts set the blueprint for American tax policy ever since. The wealthy got huge tax breaks and the bill was especially generous to passive investors (which eventually created a boom in commercial real estate) and passive income. Passive income still remains the best way to earn low tax income in the United States (the Trump bill continues that tradition, including the notorious carried interest deduction, which is retained without debate, even!).

But the ''81 bill produced no boom. At the end of 1984, unemployment remained stubbornly high. Growth was low, and interest rates, while lower, were still prohibitively high. Housing remained at a standstill, and the auto industry languished.

One thing did grow. The federal debt, which was well on its way to tripling in the Reagan years.

In the spring of 1985, Saudi Arabia decided to stop reducing production in order to prop up the OPEC posted price for oil. When they did that, oil prices prompty collapsed, and the 80's boom that people remember was off to the races. So was the collapse of the Soviet Union, which had been importing food for a decade and a half and paying for it with hard currency from oil exports.

The 1986 bill moved the deck chairs, and briefly suspended discounts on capital gains. But they came back and are now "permanent"

There have been two lasting effects of the Reagan tax revolution. Overall government debt exploded. And the wholesale transfer of both wealth and earnings away from the middle class, which can be dated almost to the day Reagan's first bill was passed, has reversed the American economic miracle and brought a new generation of robber barons to the fore.

 

How do you attribute the recession and housing bubble to the tax rate cuts and be specific. And the drunken sailors were the Democrats who increased spending 9% in 2008 and then 18% in 2009 taking the last Republican deficit of just $161B to $1,400B in just two years. So who was drunk back then?

And as I said Reagan requested LESS spending than Congress authorized and they failed to pass all the spending rescissions he sent to them

WHOSE FREE LUNCH?

The Truth About The “Reagan Deficits”

...........One of the most persistent claims about the 1980s is that Ronald Reagan and George Bush were responsible for the large budget deficits of that decade and the resultant national debt.

In reality, of course, both Congress and the administration share the responsibility. The problem is that the role that Congress played in deficit spending over 1982-93 is usually ignored. Congress often revises or entirely ignores White House budget requests, as with Reagan’s “dead on arrival” budgets. Because of the persistance of this charge, we examine the question: Who was most responsible for the increase in the national debt, Reagan or the Congress?

Comparing the Reagan budget requests with the amount of spending Congress actually approved, we conclude:

• Tax cuts had little to do with the explosion of the deficit.
The deficits of the 1980s are often blamed on the Reagan tax cuts of 1981. But the problem was not government income. Government receipts had almost doubled, rising from $517 billion in 1980 to $1.031 trillion in 1990.

• Congress outspent Reagan in every year.
Congress typically savaged Reagan’s spending requests as draconian and heartless. Then, the appropriators rewrote the budget for their priorities and spent a cumulative $209 billion above Reagan’s requests from 1982-1989.

• Congress spent substantially more on entitlements than Reagan requested.
Reagan routinely asked for money-saving entitlement reforms. Congress ignored the reforms and increased benefits and eligibility for entitlements.

• Reagan’s budget requests for the military were consistently higher than the levels Congress appropriated.
Congress spent about $80 billion less than Reagan requested on the military, but still spent around $390 billion more on domestic programs.

• Reagan recission requests were ignored. Reagan asked that $43.4 billion of appropriated funds not be spent.
Congress approved only $16.5 billion, leaving $26.8 billion spent. These frustrations have also plagued almost all recent presidents. Congress spent almost a half-trillion dollars of deficit spending above the requests of presidents from 1976 - 1993. • Bill Clinton, on the other hand, is the first president in over twenty years who has outspent Congress. During Clinton’s first two years, the 103rd Congress spent $54 billion less than Clinton requested. The 104th Congress spent $58 billion less than Clinton asked.
http://www.ipi.org/docLib/reagandf.pdf-OpenElement.pdf

 

Didn't they try this in Kansas recently and it was a Disaster ?

 

Yeah, I'm a big fan of massive, unprecedented spending cuts, followed by whatever tax cuts balance the budget (in a regressive manner of course given the rises are progressive).

 

Uh... why the hell not?

Why have any more of your money go to a bureaucracy that has no incentive to spend it with value/quality in mind?

If you want, the IRS does take donations.

 

They cut taxes, without cutting spending. Naturally, the instant (read static) result would be a disaster.

 

Your post makes no sense.

There were no huge Democatic spending increases in 2007. You made that up.

 

Which is precisely what the GOP Congress and Trump are trying to do.

 

With over 100 years of modern economic practices and over 190 countries' tax policies to evaluate you would think that even a dummy could spend a month looking at the results and come up with a good tax policy.

The thing is America claims to be a superpower so it should act and behave as if that's true. Instead our infrastructure is a disaster, our cities look like crap, and there are homeless people from border to border and from coast to coast.

Cutting taxes does nothing to reduce the national debt. It will only grow because the government will have to borrow more money to pay the bills. And because the government won't be getting enough tax revenue it will eliminate critical programs that help maintain our overall high quality of life. Eventually millions of more people will become homeless and the country will become pitiful.

 

Reagan also had to raise taxes.

 

Your spins means nothing. Most of us here were alive for the Bush crash.
Bush had to sign off on the spending, and it was needed just to keep money flowing. Else the disaster you love so much would've been much worse.
Since Bush didn't pay for any of his 2 wars or is tax cuts.

 

That's not my spin those are the facts the spin has been in your post. And while Bush was able to hold the Democrat congress to just 9% in 2008 with veto threats they cut him out for 2009 and their 18% increase with one of their own being elected and getting his additional spending including and signing that budget bill.

 

In 2007 for FY2008 where soending increased 9% setting up their 18% on 2008 for FY2009 taking the last Republican deficit of $161B to $1,400B.

 

Don't forget that George "Read My Lips" Bush said there would absolutely be no new taxes, yet he had to raise taxes or face an economic downturn.

 

The funny thing about the OP is that there is never a good time for tax cuts according to Democrats.

 

Bush signed off on the spending increase. You spin it like he wasn't involved. He signed off because he needed to stop the free fall he and the R's put the country for the previous 6 yrs.

Your spinning does not work. Ever.

 

Yes there is. When the economy needs a boost. Duh. Every intelligent human knows this.

 

"Trump Probably Picked the Worst Time to Propose a Giant Tax Cut"
the tax cuts for the rich are permanent
the tax cuts for the working class are temporary

they plan to reuse the working class tax cut later when it expires to get more tax cuts for the rich

talk about reusing a carrot

make the tax cuts for the rich temporary too republicans.... you think the people are stupid?

 

the left is all for a middle class and small to medium size business tax cuts
just not all the goodies the right wants for the rich on top of that (which is the majority of this tax cut plan)

and to make the rich tax cuts permanent and the middle class tax cuts temporary is a slap in the face to the average American

 

maybe a stimulus would be better, give every tax payer a 5000 tax credit

the right would never go for that as the rich woudl get the same 5000 as everyone else rather then the huge $$$ with their tax plan

 

And just know you would have supported a government shutdown. And how absurd you try to criticize him for not stopping YOUR guys, the Democrat congress. It was a negotiated budget and the increase was ONLY 9% because of his veto threats the 2009 he was completely cut out so the Democrats could have a Democrat President not stand in their way.

Just the facts but if you want to look foolish claiming the Pelosi and Reid and the Democrats took control of the congress in 2007 and then passed Bush budgets feel free but here are the facts

"In FY2009, Congress did not complete work by September 30, 2008. President Bush did sign some appropriations bills and a continuing resolution to keep the government running into President Obama’s first term, yet a Democrat controlled Congress purposely held off on the big spending portions of the appropriations bills until Obama took office. They did so for the purposes of jacking up spending. President Obama signed the final FY2009 spending bills on March 11, 2009.

The Democrats purposely held off on the appropriations process because they hoped they could come into 2009 with a new Democrat-friendly Congress and a President who would sign bloated spending bills. Remember, President Obama was in the Senate when these bills were crafted and he was part of this process to craft bloated spending bills. CQ reported that “in delaying the nine remaining bills until 2009, Democrats gambled that they would come out of the November 2008 elections with bigger majorities in both chambers and a Democrat in the White House who would support more funding for domestic programs.” And they did.
The Truth about President Obama's Skyrocketing Spending


"Unlike last year, when Bush forced Democrats to accept lower spending figures, this year could prove more difficult for the president. The fiscal year begins Oct. 1, less than four months before he leaves office.

"He doesn't have us over a barrel this year, because either a President Clinton or a President Obama will have to deal with us next year," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "We are not going to be held hostage to the unreasonableness of this president."

Much of the president's plan has little chance of passage, lawmakers and budget experts say. Nearly $200 billion in Medicare and Medicaid savings need congressional approval, which Democrats are unlikely to provide. "Dead on arrival," vowed Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-03-bush-budget_N.htm

 

Why not $10,000? Why not $100,000? Let's just give everyone $100,000 every year and then watch how great will be the economy.

 

bottom up economics?

 

This is how I know you make stuff up.
My guys in congress is a R senator and a R representative I voted for.
I also know Bush did everything in power and so did the R congress to push the housing bubble, everyone knew was a wreck coming, to make it a bigger bubble.
And you always like to point to that huge bubble as a great thing bush did.

Anyways, it's 10 yrs after the fact. And it's beating a dead horse with you.
At least, after the crash, we've had 7 or so years of slow steady growth and now the economy is humming along at near full capacity.
Help wanted signs are showing up everywhere.