The Reaganomics Fraud:

[Mr. dB]

The ruin of Reaganomics | Cover Stories | Arkansas news, politics, opinion, restaurants, music, movies and art

For three decades we have conducted a massive economic experiment, testing a theory known as supply-side economics. The theory goes like this: Lower tax rates will encourage more investment, which in turn will mean more jobs and greater prosperity—so much so that tax revenues will go up, despite lower rates. The late Milton Friedman, the libertarian economist who wanted to shut down public parks because he considered them socialism, promoted this strategy. Ronald Reagan embraced Friedman's ideas and made them into policy when he was elected president in 1980.

For the past decade, we have doubled down on this theory of supply-side economics with the tax cuts sponsored by President George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003, which President Obama has agreed to continue for two years.

You would think that whether this grand experiment worked would be settled after three decades. You would think the practitioners of the dismal science of economics would look at their demand curves and the data on incomes and taxes and pronounce a verdict, the way Galileo and Copernicus did when they showed that geocentrism was a fantasy because Earth revolves around the sun (known as heliocentrism). But economics is not like that. It is not like physics with its laws and arithmetic with its absolute values.

Tax policy is something the Framers left to politics. And in politics, the facts often matter less then who has the biggest bullhorn.

The Mad Men who once ran campaigns featuring doctors extolling the health benefits of smoking are now busy marketing the dogma that tax cuts mean broad prosperity, no matter what the facts show.

...

 

[bigpokey]

that and reagan imported all that coc to destroy black communities

 

[-SD-]

Plunkey will not be pleased at this.

 

[75th]

*with

 

[-SD-]

*with

*pot induced fog

 

[mrplunkey]

*pot induced fog

I believe the writer quoted in the OP is the one in a pot-induced fog.

Let's tax ourselves into prosperity! There's no way that won't work. Maybe we can start by adding a flat 20% to every bracket.

 

[Mr. dB]

Yeah, subsidizing the ultra-wealthy has really worked well.

For them. Too bad the rest of us are downwardly mobile.

 

[mrplunkey]

Yeah, subsidizing the ultra-wealthy has really worked well.

For them. Too bad the rest of us are downwardly mobile.

Yeah, the top 1% of earners pay 40% of all taxes of the and the top 10% pay 70% of the taxes. Oh, and 47% of Americans pay zero taxes.

And how is that a subsidization of the ultra-wealthy? How much of a burden should the top 1% carry? 50%? 60%? 90%?

And I've asked this of you before: How many years did you spend in that top tax bracket? As someone whose career may be winding down, have you been part of that 1% locomotive that's pulling the load? Did you make it into the top 10% maybe?

 

[PICK3]

Super-rich have seen their tax liability tumble - Business - Tax Tactics - msnbc.com

 

[b0und]

http://funtimeshad.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/reaganomics.png
















b0und (^^^)