Please watch this video and then tell me what you think...

[Geo]

For anyone who is a fan of Ronald Reagan or who supports tax cuts as an answer to our nation's current economic problems-

I respectfully request that you please watch this video.

It is not a pure opinion piece. It presents an argument based on economic data.

Please don't comment on the thread unless you have watched the video. The thread is about the content of the video.

Thanks.

[ame="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/40501142#40501142"]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/40501142#40501142[/ame]

 

[Matt J]

Well there is no video, and I don't have to watch it to know that this is just more liberal tripe. You just can admit that Ronald Reagan was the one true messiah and American savior. One day you will understand your folly.

 

[30ashopper]

For anyone who is a fan of Ronald Reagan or who supports tax cuts as an answer to our nation's current economic problems-

I respectfully request that you please watch this video.

It is not a pure opinion piece. It presents an argument based on economic data.

Please don't comment on the thread unless you have watched the video. The thread is about the content of the video.

Thanks.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/40501142#40501142

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa261.pdf

A rebuttle, circa 1996 from the CATO Institute.

 

[idlewind]

Yea, yea, we need more taxes to creat more revenue. WRONG!

Look at what happened in the 1980's Federal government revenue after the Reagan tax cuts:

Government Taxes and Revenue Chart in United States 1980-1990 - Federal State Local

More than double the revenue. The government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

The Bush tax cuts have created more revenue as well, in spite of the recession.

Government Taxes and Revenue Chart in United States 2000-2010 - Federal State Local

 

[Matt J]

She doesn't even mention the gutting of the Federal Government by the Reagan and Bush administrations. They effectively destroyed any reasons for a government employee to work hard or produce results by slashing pay grades and incentive programs.

 

[Geo]

Yea, yea, we need more taxes to creat more revenue. WRONG!

Look at what happened in the 1980's Federal government revenue after the Reagan tax cuts:

Government Taxes and Revenue Chart in United States 1980-1990 - Federal State Local

More than double the revenue. The government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

The Bush tax cuts have created more revenue as well, in spite of the recession.

Government Taxes and Revenue Chart in United States 2000-2010 - Federal State Local

I will look at your data. But did you watch the video? RM didn't make the argument that we need more taxes for more revenue.

 

[Geo]

idlewind,

I took the underlying data from the chart. I added every year's revenue from 2000-2010 and then divided by 11 to get an average.

Year 2000's revenue was $2025 B. The average for those 11 years was $2132 B.

So even if we were talking about revenue (Maddow isn't) I don't get your argument that then Bush tax cuts did much to it. The spikes in years 2005 and 2006 are cancelled out by the drops in years 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. Please let me know what I am missing because it is not my intent to counter your argument. It is my intent to understand it.

Here is the raw data in case you want to check my math-

Year GDP-US $ billion
2000 9951.5 2025.46 a
2001 10286.2 1991.43 a
2002 10642.3 1853.40 a
2003 11142.1 1782.53 a
2004 11867.8 1880.28 a
2005 12638.4 2153.86 a
2006 13398.9 2407.25 a
2007 14077.6 2568.00 a
2008 14441.4 2524.00 a
2009 14258.2 2105.00 a
2010 14623.9 2165.12 b

Legend:
a - actual reported
g - 'guesstimated' projection by usgovernmentspending.com
b - budgeted estimate in US fy11 budget

 

[Geo]

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa261.pdf

A rebuttle, circa 1996 from the CATO Institute.

My laptop is citing Adobe errors and won't open the PDF file. Any ideas how I can have a look at this?

 

[idlewind]

idlewind,

I took the underlying data from the chart. I added every year's revenue from 2000-2010 and then divided by 11 to get an average.

Year 2000's revenue was $2025 B. The average for those 11 years was $2132 B.

So even if we were talking about revenue (Maddow isn't) I don't get your argument that then Bush tax cuts did much to it. The spikes in years 2005 and 2006 are cancelled out by the drops in years 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. Please let me know what I am missing because it is not my intent to counter your argument. It is my intent to understand it.

Here is the raw data in case you want to check my math-

Year GDP-US $ billion
2000 9951.5 2025.46 a
2001 10286.2 1991.43 a
2002 10642.3 1853.40 a
2003 11142.1 1782.53 a
2004 11867.8 1880.28 a
2005 12638.4 2153.86 a
2006 13398.9 2407.25 a
2007 14077.6 2568.00 a
2008 14441.4 2524.00 a
2009 14258.2 2105.00 a
2010 14623.9 2165.12 b

Legend:
a - actual reported
g - 'guesstimated' projection by usgovernmentspending.com
b - budgeted estimate in US fy11 budget

I forgot the Kennedy tax cuts:

Government Taxes and Revenue Chart in United States 1960-1970 - Federal State Local

The point I am making is that if you want to increase government revenue historically the means to achieve this goal is to cut taxes.

I did watch the video and it is clear that Maddow does not care about properly financing the government. Her goal is to pit one group against the other and fuel a battle between the rich and the poor.

I think the entire tax code is a disaster and needs drastic overhaul. But my goal is to properly finance the government, not screw the rich, the poor or any other group.

 

[Geo]

Why do I feel like you are completely ignoring my posts addressed directly to you (or not reading them)?

Maddow isn't presenting a thesis on how to increase revenue or how to properly fund gov't. She is showing the parallels between the rationale Republicans used to gain support for tax cuts then and now. And she is showing the harm done to our economy in the past and making the case that we will meet with the same outcome.