Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

ECONOMY: Trickle down and tax cuts do work

Letter by Carol Mugleston, University Place on Sep. 11, 2012 at 11:57 am with 98 Comments »
September 11, 2012 12:45 pm

Before Ronald Reagan was elected, the media said, “Trickle down economics won’t work.” He was elected, and it worked fabulously. The disastrous economy we had under President Jimmy Carter was turned around in six months, and by the end of four years Reagan won by a landslide of Democrats and Republicans alike.

Redistribution of wealth does not work. Tax cuts and everything that supports true free enterprise do  work.

“Trickle down economics” is again being attacked by a biased media with the same disparaging comments. Don’t believe them. These economic policies worked before and they will work again.

Leave a comment Comments → 98
  1. Trickle down and tax cuts do work – to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

  2. Sonofwashington says:

    I surely don’t know where you get your information Carol, but “trickle down” economics has proven to be an abject failure and is the process of destroying this democracy. You might want to check out some basic facts to see how much of our total wealth has been sucked out of the middle class and is now so heavily concentrated in the 8 richest families in America. We have become a plutocracy, thanks to Reagan, who just by the by, also brought us to record level deficits.

    The “trickle-down, supply-side” economic policies have failed us miserably and will only fail us again.

  3. The middle and working-class have been doing just great since trickle down economics began in the 80’s, haven’t they. In the early 2000’s, trickle-down got a booster shot with further tax-cuts and deregulation of the financial industry. All that worked out just great too, didn’t it.

    And the incredible economic boom of the 1950’s, when the wealthy were taxed at a rate of 91%, could have been even bigger if trickle down had been in effect.

    Pot-head.

  4. Frankenchrist says:

    This letter is so profoundly stupid I checked to make sure it wasn’t April 1st. I think it’s just flame-bait.

  5. alindasue says:

    Ms. Mugleston,

    I don’t know where you got the idea that the economy was turned around in six months.

    Trickled down “worked” so well that in 1982, nearly midway in President Reagan’s first term, even the fast food restaurants like McDonald’s had signs posted saying that they weren’t accepting applications.

    I remember trying to find a job that year. It’s one thing to not be hired. It’s something else when people can’t even apply. That’s the situation we were in that year.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_1980s_recession

  6. menopaws says:

    Carol–the largest tax INCREASE in modern history occurred during Reagan’s presidency. Taxpayers used to be able to deduct ALL their interest:car loans, credit cards debt–it was all deductible…….So, were all health care costs—meds, insurance etc., with no 7.5% of adjusted gross income…..Now, I am sorry you didn’t know that, but those of us who were around, do remember when those deductions were removed from the tax code and rates were raised a bit. It was UNDER Reagan–it was the right thing to do……and Carol, that was when the economy began to expand……….Those “fact checkers” must be sleeping these days….the advantage of aging is being able to remember who did what……Reagan RAISED taxes—-Republicans cannot rewrite that piece of history………..It was the right thing to do and he would have been a RHINO in today’s party and thrown out……So, trickle away at that—-it was his increase that expanded our economy….didn’t anyone ever read a history book?????

  7. http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/m-the_trickle-down_hoax.html

    There is no economic principle known as “trickle down”.

    I have to laugh at the left’s rewrite of history. Reagan was bad for the economy and Obama has done well. What kind of alternate universe are you all living in?

  8. Fibonacci says:

    CT8
    Learn to read. It is the right-wing letter writer that say trickle down worked. Do you really read her letter and think she is a lefty?

  9. taxedenoughintacoma says:

    We can have a debate about “trickle down” economics but it is an absolute that whatever obummer is doing does not work. He has to go before this idiot destroys the economy and the country.

    All obama is good at is printing money and food stamps.

  10. There is no economic principle known as “trickle down”.

    Today, “trickle-down economics” is most closely identified with the economic policies known as Reaganomics or laissez-faire. David Stockman, who as Reagan’s budget director championed these cuts at first but then became skeptical of them, told journalist William Greider that the term “supply-side economics” was used to promote a trickle-down idea.[7]
    “ “It’s kind of hard to sell ‘trickle down,’ so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really ‘trickle down.’ Supply-side is ‘trickle-down’ theory.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

  11. ct – there is also no such thing as “Obamacare” but everyone knows exactly what you are referring to when you use that term. “Trickle Down” is to Supply Side as “Obamacare” is to the Affordable Care Act.

  12. taxedenough. Please explain the food stamps reference.

  13. Bb, as a professor I expect better than Wikipedia.

    But since you used it, why not post the rest of the article? Did you read it? It 100% backs the claim that economists, Reagan and Bush did not use a made up political term known as trickle down economics.

  14. klthompson says:

    I was an economics major in 1951 and cannot recall ever having heard of a “trickle down economics” theory. At the time it was generally thought that “Keynesian” economic theory was a colossal failure which FDR championed and has been credited with extending the great depression for many years. Whether or not it has a name it is an economic reality that if the wealthy are stripped of the incentive to invest in economic activity nothing good will result. Note the emphasis on the wealthy as opposed to the government.

  15. No, because trickle down implies a meaning that does not equal supply side.

    Are you really just another ehill? You know better then what you just posted. I have to assume so since the link you posted contradicts your intent.

  16. LeePHilI says:

    “CT8 says:
    Sep. 11, 2012 at 4:24 pm Bb, as a professor I expect better than Wikipedia.”

    Sayeth he who lives by American Thinker….

    LMAO

    “As a professor, I expect better….”

    Now CT is a professor? Couldn’t be. Especially when he was trying to say – “since you are a professor, I expect….”

    Maybe the physician should heal himself.

  17. aislander says:

    Keynesian “economics” is useful only as a rationale for left-wing governments to do what they are disposed to do anyway.

    As economic theory, it is arrant nonsense.

  18. menopaws says:

    I noticed that the usual righties did NOT comment on Reagan’s tax INCREASE….Truth is just like karma—a real bitch, right? Reagan did NOT cut taxes, repeat it over and over until you don’t feel like you are going to faint….then, take 2 aspirin and repeat, Reagan raised taxes, raised taxes, raised taxes…….When you finish that REALITY mantra—-go take a look at the stock market history for Republicans versus Democrats in the last 75 years…then call your Dr. for some xanax–you will need it!!

  19. aislander says:

    Someone mixed her Amberin with her Kool-Aid…

    What was the top marginal rate when Reagan was inaugurated and what was it when he left office as an honored two-term president?

  20. So Reagan lowered the income tax rate but removed deductions.

    What is your point? Go back to a thread on race and have your meltdown there.

  21. SwordofPerseus says:

    For those without an historical perspective to fall back on for truth, let it be known that Ronald Reagan raised income taxes six times in his two terms a President. Look it up.

    Conc. since you weren’t alive during the Reagan years, “trickle down” was a pejorative term given to “supply side” economics that the Reagan administration sold to the American people. When it was determined by his advisers that the policy was failing he was forced, by common sense to raise taxes, again, and again and again and again then once more.

  22. SwordofPerseus says:

    as President, not a President.

  23. LeePHilI says:

    “CT8 says:
    Sep. 11, 2012 at 4:37 pm So Reagan lowered the income tax rate but removed deductions.”

    Good gawd……the correct historial information is all over the internet. How can anyone remain so ignorant????

  24. SwordofPerseus says:

    LeeP – I have come to the conclusion that CT8 is not able to learn or comprehend. Perhaps it is FAS or some other malady he suffers from.

  25. aislander says:

    There were NO rate increases under Reagan, rather the TMR went from 69.125% down to 50% down to 38.5%, and finally down to 28%.

    The bottom rate went down from 13.825% to 11%. It rose to 15% in 1988, but the threshold of taxation also rose, effectively lowering the rate.

    The 1986 tax reform eliminated many deductions and shelters in return for the lowered rates.

  26. SwordofPerseus says:

    Rep. Gerry Connolly said Reagan raised taxes during five years of presidency “Many Republicans decried the use of additional revenue to help offset any increase in national debt,” Connolly said. “Apparently, they forgot that when faced with rising deficits, Ronald Reagan looked to revenue increases, broadening the tax base, closing loopholes and raising taxes. Yes, he raised taxes in 1982, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987.”

    In 1982, The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year, and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by $3.3 billion.

    In 1983, Reagan signed off on legislation to raise payroll taxes and tax Social Security benefits for some higher earners.

    In 1984, the Deficit Reduction Act included increases in taxes on estates and distilled spirits and ended some business tax breaks, to the tune of $18 billion per year.

    In 1985, Reagan signed legislation making permanent a 16-cent federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes, then worth about $2.4 billion a year.

    In 1986, the Tax Reform Act lowered the top income tax bracket from 50 percent to 28 percent. To pay for the reductions, however, the legislation closed a number of tax loopholes.

    In 1987, Reagan signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act that extended the telephone excise tax and eliminated a real estate tax deduction loophole.

    http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2012/jun/25/gerry-connolly/rep-gerry-connolly-says-reagan-raised-taxes-during/

  27. Raised some taxes while lowering THE INCOME TAX RATE. He took away loopholes.

    Cute spin, he taxed some smokers and booze. He worked to make SS solvent, requiring people to pay just a little bit more toward an entitlement they will take more out of then they ever put in.

    You are ignoring the big picture to focus on what is politically convenient.

  28. took14theteam says:

    Isn’t xring the king of let’s remove the tax loopholes?

    He should be proud of Reagan.

  29. aislander says:

    It should also be said that Reagan agreed to the FEW increases in return for promised spending cuts, but, Dems being Dems, the cuts never happened…

  30. menopaws says:

    CT8—Go find someone to explain FACTS to you….all you’ve got is spin…He raised taxes, you moron…….Some of us deal with reality, some of us deny, deny, deny………..This letter writer was WRONG, you are WRONG……The subject is this letter, not racism…but, you are wrong about that and Politico had two articles about Republican racism over the weekend…do you read or do you count on Fox and rush to tell you what to think???????Get a clue—don’t blog the same old crap…..Bring something to prove your opinion to the table…Reagan RAISED taxes……..Can’t reason with someone who can’t face reality……

  31. “And reality. Rather than raising the capital-gains tax on successful investors or punishing wealthy people — which are Obama’s priorities — Reagan wanted full-bore pro-growth tax reform that would slash rates for everyone, simplify the tax system with only two brackets, and eliminate tax shelters that allowed people to avoid paying any taxes at all.”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/296001/obama-s-misleading-reagan-reference-larry-kudlow#

    “The bills didn’t raise more revenue by hiking individual income tax rates though. Instead they did it largely through making it tougher to evade taxes, and through “base broadening” — that is, reducing various federal tax breaks and closing tax loopholes. ”

    http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/index.htm

    second link has some pre-made talking points for you leftists.

  32. aislander says:

    So…menopaws: exactly how much did Reagan allegedly raise income tax rates? I provided above a history of rates during his two terms.

    The capital gains tax rate went from 28% to 20% in 1981 and from 20% to 28% with the advent of tax reform in 1986, but in return for supposed spending cuts.

    It IS accurate to say that any tax increases didn’t come close to offsetting tax cuts during the Reagan administration.

    YOU are the one who seems to have a problem with reality…

  33. natomony says:

    Ronald Reagan was a communist. He broke up Ma Bell because nobody else could compete with them. Ma Bell built all those telephone lines with their own money and were forced to give it to other companies.

    He also forced free enterprise hospital emergency rooms to accept anyone irregardless of ability to pay including illegal immigrants. This meant people who had the ability to pay had to pay more which is nothing more than wealth redistribution.

  34. natomony says:

    It is high time that corporate taxes were lowered. The last time corporate taxes were altered was in 1986 when ronald reagan raised them.
    Ronald reagan was aghast that companies such as GE were able to not pay any taxes.

  35. Carol,

    ” The disastrous economy we had under President Jimmy Carter was turned around in six months”

    That’s a lie. Unemployment went up for sixteen straight months following the Reagan tax cuts. http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbymonth.aspx?type=UR Do you just make this crap up and expect people to believe you?

  36. aislander says:

    I see the lefties are trying to muddy the waters again.

    Reagan’s first goal was to kill the rampant inflation of the Carter years, and this necessitated tight-money policies that actually caused the recession of the early ’80s.

    After that came 92 months of economic expansion beginning in Nov. ’82 and lasting until the tax increases of 1990 put an end to it (as well as George H. W. Bush’s presidency)…

    Civilian employment increased by 20% as 20 million jobs were created, not by government but by the private sector economy…

  37. natomony says:

    The jobs in the telecomunnication sector were created from the forced breakup of ma bell aislander.
    Ronald Reagan increased the government jobs to record levels. Military, police and prisons were the biggest gainers.

  38. aislander says:

    Citations, please (with links)…

  39. aislander says:

    I missed the part in which you through military “employment” in with police and “prisons.” I wasn’t aware that prisons carried a lunch bucket and went to work, but never mind that. Of course Reagan had to restore the military after it had been weakened by Carter. Every Republican president whose term follows a Dem has to do that.

    NON-military discretionary spending fell rapidly and never returned to 1981 levels during the remainder of Reagan’s tenure.

    Including defense spending, total federal spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989. That’s a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%.

    The lawsuit challenging AT&T’s status as a government-sanctioned monopoly was filed in 1974, when Reagan was California’s governor…

  40. aislander says:

    That should have read: “…threw in military employment…”

  41. natomony says:

    Who do the prisons employ aislander? Robots? No, they employ guards employed at fed or state levels. They employ health care workers. They employ maintenance workers. They employ food service workers. They employ cleaners. They employ teachers. They employ managers such as wardens.
    And all these workers get benefits in addition to their salaries.

    So Reagan strengthened our military? Like all those worthless projects such as the b-2 bomber. You don’t know much about war do you? Al Qaeda possessed absolutely no airplanes, warships, tanks, nuclear capabilities or missiles and we’ve spent trillions fighting this group.
    God forbid if we fight a war with a country like china or russia, it will cost us hundreds of trillions of dollars.

    If you want a good investment it would be FDR’s Manhattan project which saved the world as we know it. And yes the government built that. Thank God.

  42. Carol Mugleston, University Place You might want to google your subject next time you decided to write a letter to the editor. I did poorly in school and even I know that the trickle down didn’t work.

  43. MyBandito says:

    Carol- Tax cuts for the overly wealthy and trickle down economics are redistribution of wealth. Trickle down works if your goal is to insure that those with the most wealth are the recipients of middle class wealth during this redistribution.

    Follow the money.

  44. MyBandito says:

    Oh, And tax cuts guarantee that the overly wealthy won’t lose any of that wealth anytime soon.

    Who needs money to circulate? Doesn’t it trickle down naturally?

    Don’t hold your breath.

    Besides, if the middle class had more wealth, they would only go out and spend it.

  45. An excellent, well researched article about how Romney created his wealth through saddling acquired companies with massive debts made possible by deregulation and tax loopholes:

    Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital
    How the GOP presidential candidate and his private equity firm staged an epic wealth grab, destroyed jobs – and stuck others with the bill

    Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829#ixzz26GA5cmOr

  46. “Reagan…caused the recession of the early ’80s.”

    Exactly. Despite all those “job-creating, economy-stimulating” tax cuts.

  47. menopaws says:

    Aislander—this letter writer said Reagan lowered taxes…Wrong…….Also, I complimented Reagan for doing what was the RIGHT thing to kickstart an economy in recession. I was right about both of those things and was pointing out to all of you that Reagan was much SMARTER than the current crop of Republicans….I was also right about that. So, the letter writer claimed he lowered taxes, she was wrong…….What Reagan did was correct and helped the economy….Why are you people clinging to this stupid idea that raising revenue is bad or evil???? The man the Republican party reveres did it….it was the correct thing…….This letter writer says he saved the economy after Carter…about that she is correct…But, how he did it is as important as her statement….No smoke or mirrors…..It WORKED. That is what sticks in your craw…You can’t lie about what he did and it is what Obama and Democrats want to do…..Making the argument using Reagan as the Republican example is simply untrue. Deal with that……

  48. Bain operates legally. They have “saved or created” a ton of jobs. They created wealth leading to taxes paid.

    I know you are upset they saved businesses, stopping thousand of workers from unemployment and their govt checks.

  49. LeePHilI says:

    “CT8 says:
    Sep. 12, 2012 at 6:59 am Bain operates legally.”

    Oh well, now thousands of people who lost their jobs, health care and pensions feel much better. It’s good to know that our laws take care of companies like Bain who will pay executives millions will closing companies and raiding pension funds.

    I’ll bet you will say that DEMOCRATS created the laws that allow Bain to operate.

    Your second paragraph is too stupid to address.

    Funny how we are not hearing from the people whose companies Bain saved. You’d think that the Romney campaign would be full of those success stories, just waiting to jump out and bury Obama on “job creation”. They don’t exist.

  50. They have “saved or created” a ton of jobs.

    Nope. A balance sheet of jobs lost through Bain acquisitions compared to jobs saved or created will demonstrate a net loss.

    Bain operates legally

    Which is exactly why the regulations need to be changed.

    btw – Bain’s first acquistions were financed through dirty money from Michael Milken (who was convicted of felony charges). So the origins of Bain are illegal.

  51. They created wealth leading to taxes paid.

    The vast majority of the wealth “created” (actually redistributed) was in massive bonuses paid to executives and qualified as capital gains so it was taxed at a minimal rate. This was all made possible due to them taking advantage to the waiver on interests that us normal folks utilize to deduct mortgage interest. So Mitt’s wealth was accumulated due to tax loopholes/rules both coming and going.

    The laid-off workers otoh stopped paying taxes…..

  52. MyBandito says:

    Actually our wealth is now being accumulated, and not by the middle class. Trickle down does that to an economy. Not much trickles down.

    That’s why it’s referred to as a trickle.

  53. your buddy Slick Willie thinks Bain is on the up an up. Is he wrong?

    And the guy the Obama camp found as their anti-Bain spokesman is a total disaster. He worker there for years after Romney left, and Bain extended the life of his dying parent company.

    Nice try.

    Ask any Staples or Baskin Robins employee if they like their paycheck.

  54. tellnolies says:

    “Capitalism has destroyed our belief in any effective power but that of self interest backed by force.”
    George Bernard Shaw

    Laissez Faire is Lousy Fare.

  55. aislander says:

    GBS was a socialist and a fan of eugenics. Of course he was opposed to a system that provides wealth without regard to political connections…

  56. MrCarleone says:

    Carol Mugleston !

    Your letter exhibits an absolutely stunningly level of ignorance and history !

    You should be absolutely embarrassed for writing this !

  57. your buddy Slick Willie thinks Bain is on the up an up. Is he wrong?

    Former President Clinton isn’t “my buddy” – this both out of respect for the office of the President AND the reality that – as I have written many times before – The primary engines for the worldwide collapse of the Markets were Reagan, Clinton and W Bush. Of course Clinton “thinks Bain is on the up an(d) up” – his policies enabled them to engage in a perversion of capitalism based upon manufacturing, and then manipulating, nothing but debt.

  58. GBS was a socialist and a fan of eugenics.

    Henry Ford was a fan of Eugenics. Lucky Lindy was a fan of Eugenics AND the Nazis, so were a whole lot of “captains of industry”…….and your point is?

  59. ct8 – the exceptions aren’t the rule. Read the article I linked.

  60. aislander says:

    menopaws: Reagan lowered MOST federal taxes and acquiesced to the raising of SOME (in exchange for spending cuts that never materialized). Sheesh! Why is this so important to you? It was what it was.

    Tax RATES and tax REVENUES are two different things, and I have no problem with increasing revenues. It’s just that the increased revenues during the Reagan era were not the result of what you say they were.

    You want to use that shaky foundation to make the argument that increasing some rates not only caused the improvement in revenues but caused the ninety-two month economic expansion.

    It did neither, and you are attributing causation to coincidence, a favorite logical fallacy of lefties…

  61. aislander says:

    beerBoy writes: “…….and your point is?”

    That they weren’t socialists and Shaw was?

    Seriously, though: have you seen the film in which Shaw argues for euthanizing the unproductive?

  62. “GBS was a socialist and a fan of eugenics”

    Ahem. Message. Messenger. Ring any bells?

  63. aislander says:

    Get outta here, ya knucklehead…

  64. “Get outta here, ya knucklehead…”

    Wow, you truly are a genius.

  65. Menopaws wrote: “Aislander—this letter writer said Reagan lowered taxes…Wrong…….Also, I complimented Reagan for doing what was the RIGHT thing to kickstart an economy in recession. I was right about both of those things and was pointing out to all of you that Reagan was much SMARTER than the current crop of Republicans….I was also right about that. So, the letter writer claimed he lowered taxes, she was wrong…….”
    __________________________________________________________

    Meno, I have no idea where you get all of your information. I am sure that you diligently check available informed resources before committing your ideas to print but the letter writer was not wrong.

    Please read the CNNMoney article that I have linked and you will gain a better understanding of President Reagan’s record regarding tax increases and tax cuts.

    http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/index.htm

  66. The LTE stated: ” The disastrous economy we had under President Jimmy Carter was turned around in six months”
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Ehill screamed: That’s a lie. Unemployment went up for sixteen straight months following the Reagan tax cuts.

    http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbymonth.aspx?type=UR

    Do you just make this crap up and expect people to believe you?
    ____________________________________________________________________

    And that is also a lie. Unemployment did not go up for sixteen straight months following the Reagan tax cuts.

    http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbymonth.aspx?type=UR

    Do you just make this crap up and expect people to believe you?

  67. Tax cuts and everything that supports true free enterprise do work.

    My version:

    Targeted tax cuts that support the creation of American jobs will help make our economy work.

  68. BeerBoy, I like your version.

  69. AmusedReader says:

    Reagan came into double digit unemployment & inflation. Interest rates were in the 20’s, the housing market was in free fall & the world was on alert for a nuclear war with the USSR. He smiled, joked, and worked across the aisle with Tip O’Neill to pass legislation that boosted our economy and put people back to work. This, in spite of a FED strangle-hold on monetary policy that snuffed out jobs during the 1st 18 months.

    How quickly we forget. Getting out of the way & letting business create jobs works–isn’t that a no-brainer?

    http://investmentwatchblog.com/president-reagan-1983-84-vs-obama-2011-12-on-job-creation/

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/the-obama-recovery-vs-the-reagan-recovery-in-charts/article/2506026

  70. LeePHilI says:

    “However, unemployment was reasonably stable, with the overall jobless rate at 7 .4 percent in each of the first two quarters of 1981, not much different from the 7.5-percent rate in the last half
    of 1980.” – Bureau of Labor Statistics

    “Reagan came into double digit unemployment”

    Ahem….I think you need to start over. Try avoiding the Washington Examiner for openers.

    “the housing market was in free fall & the world was on alert for a nuclear war with the USSR.”

    The home I bought in 1978 for $40,000 was appraised at $60,000 in 1981 and I didn’t build a bomb shelter because of fear of nuclear war.

    Someone is writing fiction.

  71. MyBandito says:

    Carol- May the bird of paradise trickle down on you and those of you who support this backward theory.

  72. LeePHilI says:

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
    1981 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.9 8.3 8.5
    1982 8.6 8.9 9.0 9.3 9.4 9.6 9.8 9.8 10.1 10.4 10.8 10.8

    There is the first 24 months of Reagan’s Administration.

    Reagan’s tax bill passed Congress on August 4, 1981 and was signed into law on August 13, 1981

    If you look at Sep 81 – you see 7.6% and a fairly steady growth to Dec 82 which was 10.8%….which would be 16 months

    Whoever said “Unemployment went up for sixteen straight months following the Reagan tax cuts” was correct, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    Granted, it’s not the “misery index” but it looks pretty authentic to me.

  73. Your fool buddy E cried. ” That’s a lie. Unemployment went up for sixteen straight months following the Reagan tax cuts” and cited
    http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbymonth.aspx?type=UR as his information source. The Misery index proves him wrong. At least he he provided a link….where is yours?

  74. “Unemployment did not go up for sixteen straight months following the Reagan tax cuts.”

    Here are the facts, according to your own cited website:

    1981-01 … 7.50 Reagan inaugurated Min. Wage = $3.35
    1981-02 … 7.40
    1981-03 … 7.40
    1981-04 … 7.20
    1981-05 … 7.50
    1981-06 … 7.50
    1981-07 … 7.20
    1981-08 … 7.40 Month 1 Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981
    1981-09 … 7.60 Month 2
    1981-10 … 7.90 Month 3
    1981-11 … 8.30 Month 4
    1981-12 … 8.50 Month 5
    1982-01 … 8.60 Month 6
    1982-02 … 8.90 Month 7
    1982-03 … 9.00 Month 8
    1982-04 … 9.30 Month 9
    1982-05 … 9.40 Month 10
    1982-06 … 9.60 Month 11
    1982-07 … 9.80 Month 12
    1982-08 … 9.80 Month 13
    1982-09 … 10.10 Month 14
    1982-10 … 10.40 Month 15
    1982-11 … 10.80 Month 16

    Unemployment didn’t completely recover until Sept 1984, three years after the tax cuts.

  75. took14theteam says:

    this both out of respect for the office of the President

    LMAO

    I don’t recall any chastising of the lefties here for their lack of respect for the President that served PRIOR to the individual that occupies the White House now.

    In fact, I am sure we could search and find comments where an Idaho man called him Shrub a few times.

    But I will leave that up to others if they so choose to do that.

    :-)

  76. aislander says:

    It was already stipulated that tight-money policies that were required to rein in the runaway inflation of the Carter “administration” (using the word loosely) caused the recession of the early ’80s. Recessions normally come with unemployment.

    But the Hills are alive with the sound of mendacity by omission when they conveniently ignore the 92 straight months of economic growth that followed that recession, and the 20% increase in civilian employment (20 million jobs created), and the size of government relative to the economy declined by 10%…

  77. Wait a minute, unemployment went up due to his tax INCREASES! It took a few years for his income tax cuts to have an effect on employment.

  78. The LTE stated: ” The disastrous economy we had under President Jimmy Carter was turned around in six months”
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Ehill screamed: That’s a lie. Unemployment went up for sixteen straight months following the Reagan tax cuts.

    http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbymonth.aspx?type=UR

    Do you just make this crap up and expect people to believe you?
    ____________________________________________________________________

    And I wrote: And that is also a lie. Unemployment did not go up for sixteen straight months following the Reagan tax cuts.

    http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbymonth.aspx?type=UR

    Do you just make this crap up and expect people to believe you?
    ________________________________________________________

    Ehill covering his tracks says: Here are the facts, according to your own cited website:

    1982-07 … 9.80 Month 12
    1982-08 … 9.80 Month 13 (16 straight months?????? Not really!!!)
    ________________________________________________________

    You called Carol Mugleston a liar for maintaining that the “disastrous economy” of President Carter was turned around by President Reagan in six months. Then in your next sentence said, “unemployment went up for sixteen straight months following the Reagan tax cuts”. You then added, “Do you just make this crap up and expect people to believe you?”

    After calling someone a liar, you then make a false statement yourself.
    You are famous for calling out others as liars but equally renowned for whoppers of your own. Tone down the rhetoric. An opinion contrary to yours is not a lie.

    By the way, the link that you ascribe to me is actually the same link that you used in support of your original “sixteen straight months” fiction.

  79. In fact, I am sure we could search and find comments where an Idaho man called him Shrub a few times.

    But I will leave that up to others if they so choose to do that.

    :-)

    Very happy to see that you have given up the pretense that youaren’tAveragejimm.

  80. averageJose says:

    LOL… he called him a “the chimp”.

    … and there he goes again being all hypocrite again about who is who.

  81. “the runaway inflation of the Carter “administration””

    Which Carter inherited from the Ford administration.

  82. “1982-07 … 9.80 Month 12
    1982-08 … 9.80 Month 13 (16 straight months?????? Not really!!!”

    I stand corrected. Unemplyment went up for fifteen out of the sixteen months. Wow, that makes Reagan’s record so much better.

  83. “It took a few years for his income tax cuts to have an effect on employment.”

    I see. You give Republicans a few yeears’ grace for their policies to have an effect, but you demand immediate improvement from Democrats.

  84. “economic growth that followed that recession”

    Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?

  85. aislander says:

    Fifteen months versus ninety-two months…Hmmm–which weighs more?

  86. Ehill wrote: “1982-07 … 9.80 Month 12
    1982-08 … 9.80 Month 13 (16 straight months?????? Not really!!!”

    I stand corrected. Unemplyment went up for fifteen out of the sixteen months. Wow, that makes Reagan’s record so much better.
    _____________________________________________________

    I accept your explaination. Now if everyone called you a liar because of your simple 4 month error, that wouldn’t be fair would it? You owe Carol Mugleston an apology for calling her a liar for voicing an opinion.

  87. “Fifteen months versus ninety-two months…Hmmm–which weighs more?”

    Hmmmmmmmmm. I don’t seem to recall you urging anyone to give Obama fifteen months.

  88. You owe Carol Mugleston an apology for calling her a liar for voicing an opinion.”

    I called her a liar for making a statement of fact (“The disastrous economy we had under President Jimmy Carter was turned around in six months”) that’s proven to be a falsehood, and which she could have verified had she bothered to check her facts.

  89. aislander says:

    Obama’s has had–what?–forty-three plus, months?

    Let’s make sure he doesn’t have more than four more to continue to screw up…

  90. aislander says:

    Should have read: “Obama has had…”

  91. Deflection.

  92. aislander says:

    Macro.

  93. Wow, it took you five minutes to come up with that? You aren’t the brightest bulb in the socket, are tou?

  94. I wrote: “You owe Carol Mugleston an apology for calling her a liar for voicing an opinion.”
    ___________________________________________________

    Ehill huffedd: I called her a liar for making a statement of fact (“The disastrous economy we had under President Jimmy Carter was turned around in six months”) that’s proven to be a falsehood, and which she could have verified had she bothered to check her facts.
    ____________________________________________________

    Is it really necessary for you to call her a liar? Do call President Obama a liar because he hasn’t halved the Federal budget deficit during his first term of office? I certainly won’t. You consistently view all things Republican or Conservation in stark black and white terms while you reserve gray for all things Democrat and Liberal. Step off your progressive pulpit for a moment and afford to others just a bit of the verbal latitude you seem to think is your exclusive province.

  95. “Is it really necessary for you to call her a liar?”

    OK, I won’t call her her a liar. I’ll say instead that she repeated a disproven falsehood and showed a reckless disregard for the truth.

    Now, I’ll await your apology for accusing me of telling a lie.

  96. Still waiting.

  97. Sorry to keep you waiting. I have other things to do. My life does not revolve around political blogs.

    Ok, you are not a liar just one who makes claims that are later proven to be misrepresentations of fact. I’m sure that Carol will be pleased with your apology.

  98. aislander says:

    So…is a “disproven falsehood” a…truth?

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0