Why do cons keep promoting the tax cuts for the rich works lie?

Question

Cons believe that cutting taxes for the rich and programs for the poor leads to more economic growth. Liberals believe shifting the tax burden to those who can better afford it and creating economic programs to help people back on their feet leads to a larger middle class and more growth.

WHO IS RIGHT? WHY NOT LET THE FACTS ANSWER THAT QUESTION?

By the way, JFK/LBJ tax cut was next to nonexistent. Tax rates were lowered, but tax loopholes were closed resulting in actual increase in tax revenues. JFK and LBJ were better known for their "New Frontier" and "Great Society" social programs.

1) Here are the percent increase in real GDP for various presidents:

FDR 177.51% (from 32' to 45')
FDR 88.14% (from 32' to 41', without WWII)
JFK/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) Here is the percent increase in inflation adjusted tax revenues:

FDR N/A
CLINTON 57.91%
JFK/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) Here is the percentage point change in poverty for various presidents:

FDR N/A
JFK/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) Here is the change in inflation adjusted median wage in net dollars and percent:

NET DOLLARS

FDR N/A
JFK/LBJ N/A
CLINTON +5,825
REAGAN +3,429
BUSH JR -1,273 (00' to 05')
BUSH SR -1,394 (88' to 92')

PERCENT CHANGE

FDR N/A
JFK/LBJ N/A
CLINTON +13.94%
REAGAN +8.62%
BUSH JR -2.67% (00' to 05')
BUSH SR -3.23% (88' to 92')

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h06ar.html

5) Here are the jobs created in percent change and net millions:

PERCENT CHANGE

FDR 95.69% (32' to 45', NYT: DERIVED FROM AVERAGE ANNUAL RATE OF +5.3%)
FDR 40.04% (39' to 45', no pre-39'gov data found yet)
JFK/LBJ 29.35%
Clinton 20.73%
Reagan 17.69%
Carter 12.81% (76' to 80')
Bush Sr 2.42% (88' to 92')
Bush Jr 1.55% (00' to 06')

NET MILLIONS

Clinton 22.746
FDR 18.310 (32' to 45', NYT)
JFK/LBJ 15.755
Reagan 16.102
FDR 11.980 (39' to 45', no pre-39' gov data found yet)
Carter 10.339 (76' to 80')
Bush Sr 2.592 (88' to 92')
Bush Jr 2.059 (00' to 06')

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=CES0000000001
Go to "More Formatting Options" and then select "Table Format", *"Original Data Value", "Specify year range", and "Select one time period: January"
http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/07/02/business/03JOBSch450.gif

6) Here is the change in inflation adjusted national debt in net trillions and percent change:

IN AUGUST 2006 TRILLION DOLLARS

JFK/LBJ $0.071
FDR $0.387 (32' to 41' without WWII)
CLINTON $0.796
BUSH SR $1.436 (88' to 92')
BUSH JR $1.813 (00' to 06')
REAGAN $2.231
FDR $2.622 (32' to 45' with WWII included)

PERCENT CHANGE

JFK/LBJ 3.56%
CLINTON 13.57%
BUSH JR 27.21% (00' to 06')
BUSH SR 32.42% (88' to 92')
REAGAN 101.53%
FDR 132.45% (32' to 41' without WWII)
FDR 897.43% (32' to 45' with WWII included)

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm
http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/InflationCalculator.asp

Concerned,

On the long run, GDP goes up because of natural population growth and because of the all too expected increase in technology which leads to more markets.

HOWEVER, the economy does in fact do better with Keynesians then supply siders.

Castle,

You got nothing but excuses. If you like to give the previous guy credit, well then Reagan was responsible for the Bush Sr recession and Carter was responsible for the Reagan rebound.

You can't have it both ways.

Let me also add, that I included FDR stats that did not include WWII, and they still beat anything any other president have.

Let me also ask, why is it Reagan can claim credit for the growth due to the increase in military spending, but not FDR?

Answer 1

Interesting stats, it's good to see a breakdown of various economic issues under different Presidents. Keynesian economics vs. supply side is always a debate and your stats show that Keynes had it right....give money to the people, we will spend, which in turn will create a need for more jobs which will then bring money to the businesses and everyone will be happy. Supply-side erodes the middle-class and most Repubs. believe in that...they feel it is an issue of "personal responsibility", they have no clue. Things are so black and white to them without any room to think of the big picture.

Answer 2

the main reason is the huge disconnect between what is considered rich. Im buy no means rich, but then again most libtard would think making 60k a year is an overabundance. But most small businesses pull in 2-6 million a year and to most libtards this is some unfathomable about of income never acknowloging this as gross income and no were near the profit margin. On a business bringing in 5 million the owner probably does make 200 grand a year. when your dealing with that kind of money 200k is a razor thin profit margin and any hicup is going to throw you in the red. The owner isn't gonna take the hit, he's going to lay people off. you raise his taxes, he's gonna lay more people off and cut wages.

Answer 3

It doesn't matter how tax cuts affect government finance. They are the right thing to do. If government is worried about its financial status, I have an idea - spend less than you "earn"/steal/confiscate. Every family and most every corporation in America can live by this simple rule. Why can't they?

People get rich not because of some exploitation, but because they produce and please their fellow man. Every nicety of modern life comes from the pursuit of wealth. These actions should be rewarded, not punished and discouraged.

By taxing the rich for providing valuable products and services, providing employment, stimulating the growth of other sectors of industry by buying from them, creating returns for investors and shareholders (including everyone's 401k and union retirement accounts), and investing in other companies that will eventually do all of the above, all you're doing is discouraging this. And by doing that, you are costing humanity.

You can tax and tax and tax thinking you'll make more, but when the productive either leave or lose the drive to be
productive, nothing is produced in your country.

Economic programs don't help people back on their feat. They're wouldn't anybody opposing them if they were just a little help to get you going, but they're not.

They keep you on the edge of existence because you can never go back to hard work after somebody's given you a taste of laziness. So, in the end, your life will amount to nothing because you weren't able to use your individual strength to your full advantage because you weren't made to.

Why would you hit the ground running on some stupid job and work your butt off so you can eventually be something when it's easier for the government to cut you a check with somebody else's money that allows you to live on poverty's border for the rest of your life and teach your children that's what they should do too?

They take away your motivation, your self-reliance, and your work ethic - they take away everything that makes you an adult. You are a little kid again. You expect a handout without producing anything in return, and you are not driven to exceed and use your innate talent to better yourself. Your only drive is to the welfare office to pick up somebody else's cash.

And don't forget the moral side of the issue. Why is it right for the government to take what you earned through your many sacrifices and give it to somebody else because they think they deserve it more than you do?

Answer 4

When such a small percent of people actually pay taxes at all in America, there remains no one else to benefit from a tax cut.. The lower 66% would have to have an increase in the eitc to get a "tax cut".. Due to your analysis of matters, I must be rich; because, My tax burden the past 5 years has gone down and my income has risen.. dang , don't tell my kids I'm rich! they'll want bigger allowances.

Answer 5

Your statistics assume the only variable is the president in power. What if there is a lag time of a few years for a presidents tax policy to take effect? Bingo- most of these great democratic presidential numbers are the result of their republican predecessor's policies.

It is common knowledge that the growth under Clinton was due to Reagan/Bush policies, not anything he did.
And FDR's growth and positive numbers were because of the war, not anything he did.

Answer 6

Think about it this way. If you RAISE taxes on corporations ("rich folks"), what are they going to do? Why, they're going to raise prices! Who does this price increase impact the most ... rich or poor? Why, the poor, of course. If we raise prices on corporations, they'll also react by moving jobs overseas in order to maintain profits. And, it's the lower wage jobs that are moved first.

I'm in favor of cutting corporate taxes altogether, as long as they maintain jobs in the US.

By the way, you're wrong about the programs for the poor leading to economic growth. The only programs for the poor that will lead to growth is education and learning to take responsiblity for themselves.

Answer 7

Same question, different day. You fool. Your own sources contradict your assertion.

Look everyone, this is an excerpt from the askers source:

"However, unbeknownst to the Bush Administration and the Congress, the economy was already in a downturn as the Act was being debated. Thankfully, the downturn was brief and shallow, but it is already clear that the tax cuts that were enacted and went into effect in 2001 played a significant role in supporting the economy, shortening the duration of the downturn, and preparing the economy for a robust recovery".

Answer 8

the only lie is the libs lying and saying only rich people got a tax break when everybody that pays taxes got a tax break

Answer 9

Do you ever work for a poor person?


Thank you.

Answer 10

Tax cuts are good and so is personal responsibility.