RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Will Democrats Cooperate With Trump's Tax Cuts? - RightNation.US

Jump to content

-----
It's amazing to hear people talk about the Reagan tax cuts. Evidently, he unilaterally cut taxes on the day he was elected, causing a massive recession and enormous deficits. And not a single Democrat supported him. His hair, his ability to read cue cards on TV, and the gullibility of the American people thwarted the Democrats' valiant efforts to stop him.

Of course none of this is true. In reality, the Democrats in 1981 knew they had to do something about the tax system simply because hard working middle class Americans were suffering from the double whammy of high inflation and high taxes. Cost of living increases were eaten up as blue collar workers entered higher tax brackets. Reagan's 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 was introduced not by a Republican congressman but that crook, Dan Rostenkowski, a powerful Chicago Democrat.

Moreover, the tax cuts had solid Democrat support. The House was dominated by the Dems 241-192 in 1981. The vote on the ERTA was 282-95. 113 Democrats voted for the tax cuts while 35 abstained. Only 93 Democrats voted against the ERTA.

Contrast this with the partisan breakdown on Obamacare. Not a single Republican voted for it.

Fast forward to the Tax Reform Act of 1986. It had even more Democrat support. The House vote was 292-136. Only 74 Democrats voted against it while 62 Republicans voted against it. In fact, a higher percentage of Democrats voted for it than Republicans. It was about as bipartisan as you can get.

The narrative since then has been to blame the deficits of the 1980s on these tax cuts and to pin all the blame for the tax cuts on Reagan. The lesson to learn, for Trump, is to stay on the rhetorical offensive. The Democrats won't tell the truth about their roll in the tax cuts just as they won't admit to their roll in creating the permanent deficit in 1973 with the passage of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

The facts don't matter. Instead, come up with effective phrases and slogans.

"A Tax Cut for Workers!"

"Tax Relief for Those Who Shower AFTER Work!"

"Lower Taxes, More Jobs!"

You get the idea. Whatever you do, don't try to explain anything in detail. You're just wasting your time.

My Mind is Clean
0
  Like

7 Comments On This Entry

It's ALL smoke-and-mirrors, and Reagan got Snookered by the Democrats BIG TIME.

TEFRA '82 and TRA '86 were sold as "tax cuts". And yes, MANY did get a tax break, especially those at the lower/lower-middle that already (relative to top end) weren't paying all that much to begin with. But if you were at the top end - and as I recall the cutover point was something like top 10% - you ended up paying more... WAY more than those in the lower quintiles got in reductions. YES, the top marginal rates went down - ON PAPER - but sufficient deductions were taken away to more than make up for it.

Where Reagan got snookered was, what should have been win-win from a tax standpoint turned out to be lose-lose from a PR standpoint: The Dems got the Real-World™ tax increases they wanted, AND could point to the lower marginal rates and blame Reagan for "favoring the Rich" even though the reality was exactly the opposite. YES, OF COURSE, The Dems loved this.

I don't really blame Reagan personally as much as it might sound sometimes. I think he meant to do the right thing. And I honestly don't thing he intended to raise taxes on the top 10%. I honestly believe he intended the lower marginal rates to be taken at face value and that "closing loopholes" meant merely weeding out the occasional chiseler. He got snookered.
0

Adam Smithee, on 22 November 2016 - 05:10 PM, said:

It's ALL smoke-and-mirrors, and Reagan got Snookered by the Democrats BIG TIME.TEFRA '82 and TRA '86 were sold as "tax cuts". And yes, MANY did get a tax break, especially those at the lower/lower-middle that already (relative to top end) weren't paying all that much to begin with. But if you were at the top end - and as I recall the cutover point was something like top 10% - you ended up paying more... WAY more than those in the lower quintiles got in reductions. YES, the top marginal rates went down - ON PAPER - but sufficient deductions were taken away to more than make up for it. Where Reagan got snookered was, what should have been win-win from a tax standpoint turned out to be lose-lose from a PR standpoint: The Dems got the Real-World™ tax increases they wanted, AND could point to the lower marginal rates and blame Reagan for "favoring the Rich" even though the reality was exactly the opposite. YES, OF COURSE, The Dems loved this.I don't really blame Reagan personally as much as it might sound sometimes. I think he meant to do the right thing. And I honestly don't thing he intended to raise taxes on the top 10%. I honestly believe he intended the lower marginal rates to be taken at face value and that "closing loopholes" meant merely weeding out the occasional chiseler. He got snookered.

He knew a heck of a lot more about it than you think.
0
I think the question should be, "will the idiot republicans cooperate with Trump's tax cuts?"

I keep reading about stupid establishment republicans who are bucking the Trump agenda.
0

Wag-a-Muffin (D), on 22 November 2016 - 07:25 PM, said:

I think the question should be, "will the idiot republicans cooperate with Trump's tax cuts?" I keep reading about stupid establishment republicans who are bucking the Trump agenda.


A rational rebuttal to that would be to point out the political insanity of doing so. But we are talking about the GOPe.
0
Kevin Brady, R-Tx. and head of the House Approrpriations Committee, has said that tax reform will make any tax cuts revenue neutral. That is, rates will be cut, but deductions will be eliminated such that the wealthy won't see much of a cut.

The Tax Policy Institute, a conservative think tank, estimates Trump's cuts would raise the debt $3 trillion over 10 years. Does the debt not matter any longer because Trump is in charge?
0

sinkspur, on 22 November 2016 - 10:12 PM, said:

Kevin Brady, R-Tx. and head of the House Approrpriations Committee, has said that tax reform will make any tax cuts revenue neutral. That is, rates will be cut, but deductions will be eliminated such that the wealthy won't see much of a cut. The Tax Policy Institute, a conservative think tank, estimates Trump's cuts would raise the debt $3 trillion over 10 years. Does the debt not matter any longer because Trump is in charge?

Who cares about 10 year predictions? I've yet to see even a 1 year prediction actually take hold. Heck, back during the Bush years, I remember some 10 year prediction about the deficit going to $0... look how well that's turned out.
0

sinkspur, on 22 November 2016 - 10:12 PM, said:

Kevin Brady, R-Tx. and head of the House Approrpriations Committee, has said that tax reform will make any tax cuts revenue neutral. That is, rates will be cut, but deductions will be eliminated such that the wealthy won't see much of a cut. The Tax Policy Institute, a conservative think tank, estimates Trump's cuts would raise the debt $3 trillion over 10 years. Does the debt not matter any longer because Trump is in charge?


If Trump raises the debt $3 trillion over ten years, he will go down as the greatest president in the history of fiscal policy given that the last two have more than doubled it over eight years respective. Anything less than ten trillion would be an improvement.
0
Page 1 of 1

7 user(s) viewing

7 Guests
0 member(s)
0 anonymous member(s)

Search My Blog

Recent Entries

New Blogroll! And...World's Shortest Movie Reviews

Blog Roll
Ace of Spades
National Review
Got News
RealClearPolitics
ZeroHedge
The Federalist
African American Conservatives
Instapundit


World's Shortest Movie Reviews
American Sniper: Bradly Cooper=Best Actor
The Arroyo: Had a Pureflix feel to the acting, but well shot. Great conservative movie.
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies: As usual, the third installment is the best--having an ending really helped.
The Maze Runner: The perfect metaphor for moving to Detroit.
Dumb and Dumber To: More jokes. Cruder jokes. Someone gets hooked on crack.
Snowpiercer: Joe Biden's idea of heaven. Everyone on the Earth living on a train. Captain America admits he was going to eat Billy Elliot.
Hunger Games: Catching Fire: This is what the world would look like without college football.
Interstellar 2001:A Space Odyssey with a soul. You will get very thirsty, so hydrate before viewing.
When the Game Stands Tall Proves my theory that it's worse when you win.
Guardians of the Galaxy Make a fun adventure movie about space and make a ton of money. Who knew? I mean, besides that Lucas guy.
Blended I don't get the "Billy Madison is genius, Blended is crap" review. It's as good as any other Sandler movie.
Mom's Night Out Hilarious. You will laugh unless you drive a black BMW and watch sunsets at the golf course.
The Amazing Spiderman 2 This series is still better than the Toby McGuire one. I actually cared if Gwen Stacy died.
Odd Thomas I understand the critics who didn't like the uneven tone. Way uneven. Still worth watching on Netflix.
Star Trek Into DarknessGood movie. Please, for the love of tribbles, let old Spock die.
Grown Ups 2 Critics, attack. Whatever you want to say about this one, I'm okay with it.
Thor: The Dark World Still very, very good. But I'd like an entire Thor movie set just in Asgard.