The Economic Lies From the GOP Debate

Actually, I didn't watch the debate. I haven't watched a debate yet and won't until we get down to two candidates. But I can tell you exactly what the Republicans said without seeing them.

Reagan's policies saved the country, tax cuts pay for themselves, and deficits don't matter.

So let's see the real record of Republicans, shall we?

First, above is a graph of the year over year percentage change in tax revenues. I have circled Reagan and Bush II. Notice one very important fact. There is no noticeable difference between the change in tax revenue increases under supply-side policies and non-supply-side policies. In addition, note that growth in tax revenue is as much a function of GDP growth as tax rate.

Bonddad 1. Supply-side 0.

The chart above demonstrates the Reagan never balanced a budget. The blue line is expenditures and the red is receipts. Also note the scale for receipts is lower than expenditures. Reagen never came close to balancing a budget. To inherit Reagan's mantel, one must spend more than one receives whenever possible. Reagan was not a limited government guy.

Bonddad 2. Supply-side 0

The chart above is of Bush II. The blue line is expenditures and the red is receipts. Also note the scale for receipts is lower than expenditures. He never balanced a budget. He won't even come close. Why? See chart 1 - the "tax revenue explosion" is a PR gimic not a reality. In addition, Bush spends more then he receives every chance he gets. I guess Laura balanced the check book (God knows how she did that with Bush's spending habits).

So, to undo what Bush did one must do what Reagan did.. no, wait, Reagan didn't balance anything did he?

Bonddad 3 Supply-Side 0.

The chart above is of total government debt outstanding. Notice a trend. Whenever a Republican gets into office, they charge the national credit card. Big time. They borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and borrow .... and then they borrow some more.

Bonddad 4, Supply-Side 0

Any questions?

Comments

[splashy]

When I watched the animated movie "Money as Debt" I actually started to understand why the very wealthy who don't work, produce, or actually do ANYTHING except push money around are scared to death that the debt will be gone. No debt, and they don't have anything to feed off of. They are parasites, and their funnel to feed off the body of the working economy is debt. On Democracy Now Greenspan talked about being AFRAID that Clinton would actually set things up so there would be no debt! Very telling.

I highly recommend everyone watch it! It is incredibly enlightening.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279

[swift goat pet for truth]

I really HOPE the Dems will challange the idea that Reagan cut taxes. Yes, but he also raised them at least twice.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/opinion/08KRUG.html?ex=1402027200&en=d7e99bfbc6b07590&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

The GOP is only for small government and balanced budgets when they are the minority. Look at the results.

[dadw5boys]

TAX CUTS ARE LOANS THAT ARE NEVER REPAID!

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Pithy, but worse: we really do pay the interest thereon.

[swift goat pet for truth]

Not true.

In fact, it is easy to pay this debt, and we have the technology. It is called the printing press.
(Ref: Ben Bernanke, Argentina, Weimar Republic, Mexico, Brazil, Asian Contation).

[cuchulain]

Going to repost the link, cuz it's slam dunk proof that supply-siders lie:

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

Again, go to page 21. Take a look at the receipts. They never fell during Clinton's entire presidency. They DID fall during Bush's first three years. That's extremely rare in our history. It just about never happens. Falling revenues for three years in a row.

Massive tax cuts is the biggest reason. Especially in a time of war, which is unprecedented.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Also, booming economy trumps tax tweaks any day.

[swift goat pet for truth]

What a shock.
Suppy-Side never worked in the Gilded Age, either. Or during Feudalism.

[cuchulain]

Here's an excellent link to the stats.

The Whitehouse's own website.

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

Go to page 21. Take a look at the receipts.

During Clinton's term in office, the receipts never declined. During Bush's first three years in office, they did.

Bush's tax cuts caused deficits and loss of revenue.

He has never come anywhere close to balancing a budget. His tax cuts forced him to BORROW an average of 400 BILLION dollars a year. No president has borrowed more.

If tax cuts did all voodoo Republicans say they do . . . we would see surpluses, not record deficits.

No way around it. Facts are facts. Tax cuts never pay for themselves, and they don't increase revenues. And Bush's own economists know this.

[kingsXrulz]

Hale Stewart wrote: "Actually, I didn't watch the debate. But I can tell you exactly what the Republicans said without seeing them. Reagan's policies saved the country, tax cuts pay for themselves, and deficits don't matter."

Reporting on something you didn't watch in a condescending, simplistic, 'talking points' manner; accusing candidates of lying, when you didn't listen to what they actually said ... and you get comments like this from DontSpin: "You do a better job of doing investigative reporting than any media news outlet I can name." Thankfully, people like that have YOU to tell them what to think.

For anyone who wants the truth, here is the ONE direct reference in the debate to supply-side economics, from Giuliani: "I believe in being a supply-sider."

Hale doesn't mention (how could he since he didn't watch?) what the candidates ACTUALLY talked about, which is decreased gov't spending. If you spend less you can get by with taxing less; if you flatten the blue line the red line will cross it. Of course the lines will also cross if you increase the angle of the red line; but, in a choice between a) giving the gov't more of my money to cover increased spending & the deficit, or b) giving the gov't less of my money and having the budget & deficit covered through decreased spending ... I'll choose "b" everytime. If, unlike Bush, the GOP nominee follows through on promises to cut spending, it will be better for all of us.

[thesimulacra]

I think you actually managed to get to the important part of the argument at the end there... Bush II promised to cut spending too, just like the current GOP props.

And it's really not a stretch to assume that the GOP candidates will support supply-side economics, since they couldn't wait to gush about Reagan last time. Why would they sing a different tune now?

[swift goat pet for truth]

Look at the results.

The GOP only wants to cut spending when they are NOT in power. The Party of Personal Responsibility when they are NOT in power.

Otherwise, it is Bridges to Nowhere and Rainforests in Iowa.

BTW, when the US budgets almost HALF of the WORLD'S defense spending, the US military problems are a MANAGEMENT problem, not a fiscal one.

[splashy]

As long as the budget cuts are to the war machine, and all the corporate welfare money that goes to the corporatists and the other wealthy people, I'm all for it.

The cuts to the benefits working people get, NO WAY. THEY are the ones PAYING THE TAXES on their income, unlike the wealthy that get away with paying a much smaller percentage in taxes.

[maddogbitesback]

KingsXrulz if you go back to slavery then you have cheap labor. If you go back to no tax supported schools you get [eople who don't know left from right which is the way it used to be in the States (literally). If you went back to the time befor Iraq was invaded you would have a hell of a lot less debt. Heck - why not go back to bread and circuses - oh sorry - I forgot. The US already has. The fact is Reagan never affected the fall of the wall in Berlin or the fall of the USSR. Try to deal with facts. You don't necessarily get facts on a presidential debate. I mean three Republican entrants said they believed the world was six thousand years old or some such thing. Definitely not a fact but who cares.

[BUSHsurvivor]

The nutty neocons hold Reagan in high esteem only because they needed someone or something to justify their party and their ridiculous policies. Tax cuts pay for themselves??? That's not true. To pay for those tax cuts, many important and needed domestic programs were either slashed or eliminated. That's a huge cost!

And as far as ignoring the deficits...isn't that what the rethugs are all about...it will cost our future generations big time. The rethugs come in and screw the nation, make their profits, get their greedy power, and then it's the dems who have to come in and clean up their mess, a lot of times with increasing taxes and they become the bad guys for their "tough love" policies. People are stupid..give them a $200 tax cut and right away they are bending over only to get screwed in the long run!

[cuchulain]

Actually, Reagan outspent all previous presidents. He didn't slash programs, and those tax cuts were never paid for. Hence, the record setting deficits.

Each time the supply siders gain power, they outspend the opposition. And they always set records for deficits.

By definition, if their tax cuts paid for themselves, there would be NO deficits.

It's remarkable that they can ever say with a straight face that "spending is to blame, not the tax cuts".

Thing is, they cut taxes and spend MORE than non-supply siders. As I mentioned before, it's kinda brilliant, as far as political strategies go. Cuz it's free lunch time. Spend more, sacrifice nothing. Postpone the day of reckoning. Let your grandkids pay for it.

[skewerstupidity]

You argue that the increase in tax revenues stems from growth in GDP. The right wing nuts will argue that the increase in GDP is due to the tax cut. Please refute

[thinkgra]

There is data that suggests that cutting the top bracket from, say, 90% to 50% will give investors more to invest with, and increase growth by providing more funds for investment in business. However, the gains drop off rapidly. Going from 50% to 25%, or even 10%, provides very little stimulus. There's also data, ignored by the supply siders, that shows that policies that encourage the movement of funds to the lower end of the economic spectrum (example, increasing the minimum wage) create more economic stimulus by increasing demand for products.
Ben Franklin had some interesting things to say on this subject. In addition to going from being a teenage runaway to one of the wealthiest Founding Fathers, co-writing the Declaration of Independence, discovering the Gulf Stream, and inventing bifocals, he understood that there is such thing as the "common good" so vilified by neo-cons. He created the colonies' first public library, the first volunteer fire company, the Postal Service, and founded the school that became the University of Pennsylvania.
He wrote, "Great wealth has never made a man happy. Instead of filling a vacuum, it creates one."
Warren Buffett and Bill Gates understand this. George Bush and his associates do not.

[janmB]

A bit of hypocrisy coming from the REPUBs when NOW these on stage are so deeply concerned about the middle class economy---when all I heard before this was the low unemployment rates and stock market and the growing economy.
Trickle-down economics that didn't trickle -- can be traced directly to conservative ideas and the conservative think tanks and ideologues that championed them. In every case, conservatism failed due to original conception. Actual existing conservatism fails because it gets the world wrong. And invoking Reagan offers not salvation but confirmation of that failure, for Reagan championed many of the same ideas and inflicted similar debacles on the nation.

[aspen]

There is one area where Republicans excel and that is marketing. They have demonstrated that they can't govern, but they sure can spin. With the help of propaganda radio all day all year, they keep enough Americans hoodwinked to maintain power.

[outnow]

"Forget the religious right - the economic right controls the GOP," or so says Jonathan Chiat in the NYT on October 9, 2007 Op Ed.

"The party's economic priorities are reinforced at Grover Norquist's weekly 'Wednesday Group' meetings, where conservative activists, politicians, business lobbyists, and pundits meet to hash out a common agenda."

The ventriloquist echo chamber is organized around building a strategy of building political capital on social issues while spending it on economic issues. "Republicans will advance the social conservative agenda, but will rarely risk their popularity to do so, says Chiat, a senior editor at the New Republic in his book, "The big Con; The True Story of How Washington got Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics."

Supply-side economics does not work. The marketing of it does!

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Bingo.

Reminds me about the debate over "subliminal" ads.

Do they make you buy more product? Probly not.

Do they make more revenue for ad agencies? Heck yeah.

Ergo, they're a HIT!

[bottomdwellah]

Indeed, Democrats are "Tax and spend" liberals. And ahh yes, Republicans are "Borrow and spend" conservatives. The difference is in WHO GETS THE MONEY! But, I seldom hear the Democratic talking heads refer to Repub's and "borrow and spenders".

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

And, in point of fact, on the spend side, Dems spend less.

[ChristinDemocrat]

59 trillion in welfare checks to every Repulican in office and campaign supporter and terrorist with a connection. 59 trillion man the largest hieghst in world history. man. and no jail time. Cheney to buy his own 3rd world nation. Pick one out old boy. Use the terrorist for your own personal army. You moved in with them.

[ChristinDemocrat]

Mac Daddy, Right On, The Truth Hurts and it Shines like a light.

Low lifes and welfare cases that is the Republican motto. The largest welfare project in American History, Republicans from 2001 to 2009. 59 trillion.

[radlib]

We, and more importantly the Democrats running for office, should call this what it is. Deficit spending equals tax increases. This "supply-side" "smaller government/lower taxes" garbage is a great trick that the repugs have used successfully for years, but it's a lie. They give tax breaks to the wealthiest 5% of the country and continue to spend ever increasing amounts of money by massive borrowing. Then they just add it to the tab of future tax payers along with all the interest that acrues--i.e.--TAX INCREASES"!!!! Notice I said "tax breaks" for the wealthiest--you can't have tax cuts when you have deficit spending. There are no excess revenues to cut and give to the rich. They have just been exempted from paying their fair share of taxes. The repugs, through deficit spending under reagan (and direct tax increases signed by reagan--look it up) and bushies 1&2, have raised taxes more, much more, than any political party in history. They are leaving us with the biggest and most expensive government in history. So if Democrats can't fight this label of "tax-and-spend-big-government", they don't deserve to be elected. Supply-side economics is a lie; the so-called "economics" has never been successful for the country as a whole, only for the wealthiest 5%. Only the lie has been successful.

[dolphy]

The worst part is the old balding rich white guys steal (through corporate welfare like no bid contracts, big oil incentives, and so on) the money now and then our kids, grandkids and great grand kids have to pay for what the old balding rich white guys stole.

[dolphy]

Oh, I forgot, I also have to pay for this until I die. ARGHHHHHH!!!!!

[argyle]

Dude, you ought to watch the debate. My favorite part was when Romney was asked about 1 in every 29 Michigan homes being foreclosed on and he started talking about an unfortunate "one state recession". It was the funniest thing I'd heard all day until somebody said "core inflation" and I passed out from the laughter.