Why do conservatives lie about tax cuts working?

Question

The facts show Keynesian economics works much better then voodoo tax cuts for the rich Reaganomics. Examples:

1) Percent increase in real GDP for various presidents:

FDR 177.51% (from 32' to 45')
FDR 88.14% (from 32' to 41', w/o WWII)
KEN/LBJ 46.00%
CLINTON 33.81%
REAGAN 30.63%
BUSH JR 16.55% (from 00' to 06')
http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls

2) Percent increase in inflation adjusted tax revenues:

CLINTON 57.91%
KEN/LBJ 37.63%
REAGAN 20.16%
BUSH JR 4.44% (assuming predictions up to 2008 hold)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/sheets/hist01z3.xls

3) Percent point change in poverty for various presidents:

KEN/LBJ -9.40
CLINTON -3.50
REAGAN +0.00
BUSH SR +1.80 (88' to 92')
BUSH JR +1.30 (00' to 05')
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html

4) Percent change in inflation adjusted median wage.

CLINTON +13.94%
REAGAN +8.62%
BUSH JR -2.67% (00' to 05')
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/

Answer 1

Cutting taxes and spending in deficit is a suicidal combination, and we will pay dearly for it. We need to cut spending. A LOT of spending.

Answer 2

JFK never signed a tax cut into law. It was LBJ who did it in 1964, three months after JFK was killed. And if you look at the tax receipts from 1964 to 1965, there wasn't even a drop in tax revenues because the tax cuts were so small. The drop in tax receipts under Bush Jr and Reagan, on the other hand, were huge. Plot them in excel to see for yourself.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/hist.html

To the poster who said my numbers show tax cuts work, bullshit. My numbers show Keynesian economics works much better then tax cuts for the rich voodoo economics. Keynesian economics is the complete opposite of laisez-faire economics. Keynesians believe in using the government to promote economic growth through social spending in education, job training, and other social programs.

You believe tax cuts work from my numbers just because you saw a positive (albeit smaller) GDP increase under Reagan and Bush Jr. 1) Those numbers are smaller then under FDR, JFK, LBJ, and Clinton. 2) Even if you cut taxes you would expect GDP and tax revenues to EVENTUALLY grow larger because of natural population increase and because technology advances with time and that technology leads to more markets. You see even greater growth under presidents who did not cut taxes and instead increased social spending.

Answer 3

I think some of your data is a bit flawed in that you don't mention that under FDR we were coming out of the worst depression our country has ever seen. This, along with WW2 (wars tend to stimulate economic growth, actually) makes the data more clear on FDR. He was coming out of the bottom of bottoms.
As for real and sustainable economic expansion, this occurred after each and every tax cut via JFK, Reagan, and Bush 2. Also note that Bush inherited a Clinton recession and 9/11, which meant the data is a bit off, although we have come back almost to pre 9/11 levels now and unemployment is lower than under Clinton.
Clinton also had the internet .com bubble, which could have happened under any president, and inherited a surging economy. He did little to aid this, but simply went along for the ride. The economy was self destructing when he left office.

I would also compare any industrialized country with higher tax rates for comparison. Much of Europe has double digit unemployment and rather stagnant economies coming from socialist policies.

Answer 4

You own posted number show that it can work. No one has lied about it. We conservatives believe in the people of America keeping as much as there own money as possible. We always will.

Answer 5

It's not a lie. Tax cuts work.

Let's ask the big question, WHY DO YOU LIBS THINK WE NEED MORE TAXES? Just so you can give more money away? Why do hard-working Americans have to give up more of their earned income to you so that you can waste it on your stupid social welfare programs? How is that fair?