What good is supply side economics when cons always need to come up with excuses on why it didn't work?

Question

Conservatives believe that cutting taxes and social programs leads to more economic growth then somebody who leaves taxes alone (or raises them) and creates more social programs. In fact, doing the latter some cons would say, would lead to a recession.

What good is this theory if cons constantly need to come up with excuses on how it didn't work?

In 1932, the top income tax rate was raised from 25% to 63%. FDR continued the taxing trend. By 1936, the top income tax rate was 79%. All kinds of taxes went up including corporate taxes, estate taxes, and even "excess profit taxes." The social security tax was added in 1935. Taxes were raised again in 1940 and 1941. By the end of the war, the top tax rate was 94%! Not only did top tax rates grow, so did the lower tax brackets. In 1939, only 4 million people payed income taxes. By 1945, 43 million did. In addition (AND MOST IMPORTANTLY) FDR created an "alphabet soup" of "New Deal" social programs including the GI Bill, various work programs, & Social Security. The economy grew 177.51% from 32' to 45'. If you don't include WWII, it grew 88.14% from 32' to 41'.

JFK/LBJ similarly had high income tax rates (91% to 70%) for the ultra-wealthy. The often stated JFK/LBJ tax cut of 1964 was so small tax revenues didn't even go down. Tax rates went down, but tax loopholes were closed to more then make up the difference in tax revenue. JFK had his "New Frontier" & LBJ had his "Great Society" social programs including Medicare, various job training programs, and urban renewal projects. The economy grew 46.00% in 8 years.

Clinton with his Omnibus Budget Reconcilation Act of 1993 raised taxes on the top 2% of Americans by creating the 36% and 39.6% tax brackets. He increased taxes on corporations, repealed the cap on medicare taxes, and even raised taxes on fuel. Clinton also increased social spending on police, education, & job training. Republicans predicted recessions and deficits. The economy grew every month Clinton was president for a total of 33.81% growth in 8 years. Government surpluses were created from 1998 to 2001.

Reagan & Bush Jr on the other hand were supply siders. They cut taxes by so much (& created huge deficits) that tax revenues went down immediately afterward. They were HUGE tax cuts. They also deregulated industry & cut or atleast slowed down the growth of social programs. Under Reagan the economy grew by 30.63% in 8 years. For Bush Jr, it's 16.55% from 00' to 06'. BOTH saw/are seeing less growth then the Keynesian Democrats of the past.

HISTORICAL REAL GDP (WHICH INCLUDES INFLATION)
http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls

RECESSIONS AND EXPANSIONS
http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

TAX HISTORY
http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml

Answer 1

Supply side economics has always caused inflation with a recession following. I have lived trough Nixon's economic programs to date and every time a Republican President uses this theory the same things happen. I was really too young to understand economics when JFK was President, but I even know things were better then than they are now with Bush.

Answer 2

a) The economy in 1932 was in the toilet, so the " great growth" claims were no more than an illusion of growth from government spending.The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
,b) President Kennedy’s across-the-board tax rate reductions reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. The rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent. The 1960s, the decade liberals love to hate. Why? Because the path-breaking supply-side tax cuts of John F. Kennedy generated one of the greatest booms in economic history.
Actually, it was two big tax cuts. The first was a business tax cut put in place in 1962, and the second was an across-the-board personal tax cut that began in early 1964.
The result? An eight-year expansion from 1961 to 1969 saw growth of 48 percent a third more in an eight-year period than in the 16 years ending in 1960. So the postwar prosperity of 1944 to 1969 did exist at roughly 3 percent per year. But only because the 1960s lifted everything up. Kennedy cut the top tax rate from 91 percent to 70 percent, but all other tax rates were also reduced for top-to-bottom income earners. c) From 1986-2007, except for the short recession in 92-93 ( when Clinton raised taxes) the country was in essentially full employment, thanks to the Reagan policies, continued by the Republican Congress through the Clinton and most of the Bush presidencies. Obama and the Left never make the connection between the Kennedy tax cuts and the Reagan tax cuts 20 years later, which essentially copied the JFK model.

Answer 3

economic device grew from FDR for some motives-- each and each of the money that replaced into amassed replaced into placed precise decrease back into the commercial device with public works initiatives (like Hoover dam, etc.). It placed many human beings decrease back to artwork. The warfare also helped placed alot of human beings to artwork. Having the tax structure what it replaced into decrease back then replaced into mandatory (yet exhorbitant) for those circumstances. Reagan replaced into precise to simplify the tax code contained in the 80's. In cutting-edge many years, social courses and better taxes do not inevitably bring about extra inner most sector jobs. They bring about red meat barrel initiatives for particular pursuits. no longer sturdy for the commercial device. It also relies upon on what the social courses are. lowering taxes helps placed funds decrease back into the commercial device by technique of giving it decrease back to those who will spend or make investments it. Taxes now are not tall that undesirable and have not been oftentimes because the 80's. it really is, compared to different countries (e.g. contained in the ecu, canada, etc.). we ought to diminish spending no longer advance taxes. there's a stability and satisfied medium. too a lot taxing kills the commercial device and obviously taxes won't be able to be 0 both. and that i do not want to hearken to anymore of this "lowering taxes will advance sales crap". That unmarried project does no longer advance sales, the commercial device is a lot extra complicated than that. It takes sturdy economic coverage, tax coverage and different guidelines mixed to keep the commercial device turning out to be.

Answer 4

Supply side economics provides the voodoo which keeps this administration in power.

The tax rates paid in those early years look real scary. I'd add that almost no one paid the top rate; there were plenty of loopholes, and most of these encouraged reinvestment in the US economy.

Answer 5

The first time you posted this I just thought you were just misinformed so I answered it. But here you are again. This is not really a question seeking a reply but propaganda.

This is part of the socialist agenda. They really want you to turn over all of your assets to the government and they will dole out who gets what.

Well, Mr. Socialist, you can take that system and shove it where Karl Marx lies.




.