Why do Republicans keep lying to the American people about their tax cuts?

Question

Supply side conservatives believe that tax cuts (mostly for the rich), deregulation, and cutting social programs lead to better economic growth. Liberals believe that shifting the tax burden to the rich, creating laws and programs that help workers, consumers, and citizens, and creating social programs to help people help themselves leads to a larger more educated middle class and better economic growth.

WHO'S RIGHT? WHY NOT LET THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES?

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 447.54% (40' to 44', only data available)
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

yupchage,

Reality has a liberal bias. Conservatives have become so paranoid they won't believe anything that doesn't come from the mouth of a right-wing pundit. I could have posted my list of well estalibshed SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS in their support of man made global warming and cons would be coming with conspiracy theories on those too.

open,

A few things, if you're going to make the argument that it takes 4, 8, or even more years for a president's policies to take place then:
- Carter was responsible for the Reagan economy
- Reagan was responsible for the Bush Sr recession
- Bush Sr was responsible for the economy under Clinton
and
- Clinton was responsible for the Bush Jr rebound

You can't have it both ways. A president doesn't even have to wait till he passes a budget. Read about FDR's first 100 days.

Heart,

Get over yourself. Notice how I said "Real GDP". That's inflation adjusted GDP as in "chained 2000 dollars." You point it to regular GDP.

Second of all, the reason I cited 2000 to 2006 is because 2000 is the base year. It is what real GDP was before Bush Jr stepped in and messed up everything.

Answer 1

Trooooooooooooveeee!?!?!?!?!?

You are lying again.

First, and this may be just a technicality, but citing in your GDP numbers:

"BUSH JR 16.55% (from 00' to 06')"

is not exactly correct, since Bush took office in 2001. But that aside, look at your numbers, from the link you provide:

GDP first quarter 2001: 10,021.5 billion
GDP first quarter 2007: 13,632.6 billion

maybe I do math differently than you, but my calculator says that this is a 36 percent increase.

Maybe you should go back and check your work.

Answer 2

U.S. growth will expire dude. If you have not understood it up until now, the wealthy pay the overwhelming share of taxes in this country and when they do well, so does this country (top 1% pay over 35% of ALL federal income taxes son). Strangle the goose that lays the golden eggs, and ALL will suffer. The wealthy CREATE wealth kid, not government. Government only consumes taxpayer cash (and almost 50% of the people have NO federal tax liability). That is dangerous territory, whether you know it, or not. Why do Liberals fail to comprehend this simple concept? They don't get it, and never will.

Answer 3

First of all, the terms 'republican' and 'conservative' are not typically used interchangeably.

Second, not all 'liberals' support the economic laws you have claimed they do. You are intentionally playing on the secondary connotations of the word 'liberal,' not to mention your liberal use of hard generalizations only further contributes to the vagueness of the term within the context you have placed it. (Haha, get it? I made a joke. Hint: I traded on equivocation in that last sentence.)

Third, the statistics you have chosen to illustrate your point do not support the premises outlined in your argument due to its hard generalizations. You've done a wonderful job of tossing deductive validity out the window, good sir. Perhaps you should have taken your own advice, and "LET THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES" rather than using them to support your argument.

Finally, you say you want a more 'educated' middle class? Well, how about you make sure your posts are bit more 'educated' in nature, rather than relying on blatant rhetoric to get your point across. Otherwise, as more people become educated, they'll begin to call you out on ridiculous arguments such as these.

Answer 4

I'm sorry. Pardon me if I don't quote a bunch of statistics. Next time save yourself the time and go to the only sourse BOTH sides hate. The IRS. Go to TAX Facts there. Now, it will require you to actually crunch some numbers. You can get these for the last 50 years. Then adjust them for inflation. And report back to me please.
Until then, keep studying. When is your Term Paper due???
In the mean time I will just look at my paychecks after tax and agree to disagree with you.
Do you have a copy of your taxes from 1996? Were you working? Just take those and compare them to your 2006 taxes. Then use your calculator to see the % you paid in 1996 vs. 2006. I have mine in front of me. Do you???

Short Dog and Wonka. Thank you. I ran out of energy on this kids earlier blogathon. Even offered to help with research. Thank you for picking up the ball. You guys are very cool. I fear, this is not the last blog.....

Joe, Please see my response from his first post. I ran out of energy. Well I know I can't believe my paycheck, because that didn't use statistics used out of context? Ah, forget it. Even when I try and make things simple enough for you to understand you still get mad...
Oh and by the way, I retired after 22 years of corporate banking and investments at the age of 47. This year got board, started a small company marketing Products for Injured Pets. After 5 months I have multiple employees, who I make part owners.
What did you do with your life?

Answer 5

Wow.. read most the answers and can't believe how stupid people are. I like the graduate of economics from UCLA the best. He has a degree in economics and he can't even explain what his argument is other than looking at his paycheck from 1996. Good way to prove your point! Probably made more money then and had to pay more and has lost his job to some dude named Bob in India.

Best answers are the people that just say you lied. Even though you pulled these stats off the US website that documents this stuff...but it was you that lied....wow.

Oh or the other guy that stated the economy is doing...let me get this right... "AMAZING"... as he is typing on his last day from his house that he just got foreclosed on....

Why do these people do this seriously.. Why not just admit it sucks...pull together as AMERICANS and fix the dang thing. Why say it is doing great when you know damn well it isnt. You make $20 more a week now because of taxes...yet again everything costs 20% more and gas for god sakes is 3x's the amount it was when Clinton was around. If no one noticed, prices of gas stayed stagnant for a long long time....when the Republicans took control after their 40 year drought, it started to rise at a steady pace...as soon as Bush took office it went through the roof. Yeah this war isnt about oil...
They don't like facts and science..it scares them. Don't worry I read a last post of yours earlier and enjoyed it as I did this. Even if it showed Bush being a great economist at least it is fact...fact I can handle unlike die hard god fearing Republicans. Thanks again and keep them coming.

Answer 6

A few things.

1. The economy takes time to shift. If you want to understand the effects on the economy during any presidency, you look at the next presidency...

2. Statistics can be skewed to show anything you want them to show. For example, my statistics professor proved statistically that he was a black woman (HE was Swiss).

3. Considering that GW was left a recession by Clinton, Sept. 11, corporate scandals (which are not to be blamed on any president, but did effect the economy) Katrina, the liberal press doing absolutely anything that they can to convince the American public that the economy is in the toilet...the economy is doing AMAZINGLY WELL!

4. You are in absolute denial based on extreme hatred for Bush.

Answer 7

Don't you ever get tired of posting these meaningless statistics? 70 years of experienca have shown that taxing people to the point of confiscation leads to economic decline. recession and all around misery.
If you take away the profits of successful business people by taxing them, just who in their right mind would bother starting a company which would employ workers.
My God but you people are stupid.

Answer 8

Great well prepared question.
I've only got one observation.
Somewhere in there China walked away with a part of our industrial base. buying entire companies.
It was also part of a concerted effort.

Answer 9

The Liberal perspective is right. Republicans are upside down hanging bloodsucking parasites who worship money and power.

Answer 10

its not just Republicans that lie, i think it comes from both sides not matter who it is.