McCain: "If you cut people's taxes I think it stimulates the economy. We certainly found that out with President Reagan."

Nope.

GDP was a net NEGATIVE 9% over the six subsequent quarters after the 1981 federal income tax rate cuts under Reagan were enacted, and as David Stockman (Director of the OMB 1981-1985) stated, federal income tax revenues also plunged to 1940's levels. Both GDP and tax revenue only turned up again after Reagan started raising federal taxes.

One could compare John McCain's cranial containment facility to a gel-coated "Petri Dish" in a junior high school chemistry class, where all the oh-so-easily-impressionable proto-adolescents (in this particular case, teabaggers and the commercial-sponsor-craving media machine that caters to them) get to sit back and watch the amazing story of "How Mold Grows" unfold before their very eyes.

Apologies in advance, as mold is the only substance on the planet that I can even imagine successfully comparing John McCain's memory to---at least without facing the threat of being sued by that which is compared to the particular memory-in-question....

"When in doubt, attack Ronald Reagan" - the first line of attack in the liberal's arsenal.

If Reagan had never been president, our diplomats would still be prisonors in Iran, the USSR would still be a menace, and America would be in decline.

Notes of a political biology watcher

It's a nice argument Steve. Sweet in fact.
But human beings aren't rational.
We're social creatures. Think: Hive. Borg. The Collective...

And right now the USA ants are going around touching antennae and saying: "Reduce the debt. Reduce the debt. Reduce the debt."

Obama's spending freeze might not be smart economics but it is smart politics. He needed to get out in front of this to secure re-election. It is exactly what I would do. Especially when you consider that corporations own the messaging in this country. One has got to anticipate their message, and then steal their thunder...

Kudos to Obama for being a smart enough biont to game our gamed system.

Al, everyday I think Barack agrees more and more with you.

Somebody just shoot me.

I'll just never know why anyone takes these guys seriously on economic policy.

Because they say what a lot of people want to hear -- lower taxes -- and because there is a vague folk-wisdom logic to it: taxes are money taken "out," so lower taxes means more "in," which must be good for "growth."

What is more of a problem is when anyone serious takes these guys seriously -- what we might call the "Greenspan fallacy."

(As to Phil Gramm, he was certainly serious, but he was nothing more than a cynical liar.)

given all the time he spends in television interviews, it's tempting to think someone would ask him about these things.
-------------------------------------------------
He spent the campaign saying he had a secret plan to catch Osama. No one asked him why he didn't give it to Bush, and no one is asking him why he doesn't give it to Obama. Indeed, no one asks him about it all.

"I'll just never know why anyone takes these guys seriously on economic policy."

Because it feels good and most people don't want to think about this stuff.

But of course, the solution is to have a rational conversation with the public explaining the differences between macroeconomic and microeconomic principles -- honestly, someone here actually suggested it earlier!

Because the best way to deal with an intellectually lazy American public is to give them wonky policy details when all they want is an easy solution that feels good (even if it doesn't work).

I'll just never know why anyone takes these guys seriously on economic policy.

Because they're always on the teevee looking serious, and speaking in measured tones.

...and America would be in decline.

What American are you living in, Al? Because the one I live in has sure as shootin' been in decline for close to a decade. Which, strangely enough, happens to coincide with the time Dubya was in office. Fancy that.

"Imagine that"!

The fuzz on McCain's brain is enshrouding him prematurely, yet he remains a Corporate media dahlin'.

The fact of the matter is that John McCain and most Republicans are not very intelligent people, and can't grasp anything but the most basic(and often incorrect) slogans--in this case, "taxes baaaaad!", not to mention the even more idiotic "tax cuts increase revenue".

Regarding economic policy and what stimulates growth in today's economic environment, isn't a more salient question whether the unemployment has more to do with structural dislocations rather than the typical "business cycle?" If the former, wouldn't the Democratic/liberal/progressive response of supplanting private demand with public demand only forestall the repositioning of the labor pool into new industries, jobs, or even geographic areas? Sure, I get how reducing the negative impact on workers' individual economic situations might keep them from going bankrupt or falling under a mountain of debt that limits labor mobility, but little of what I've seen in terms of economic policy from either camp seems to do even that much.

You're making a mistake lots of people make. You're expecting Republicans to acknowledge facts.

"I'll just never know why anyone takes these guys seriously on economic policy." Steve

The crotchety old fool sure gets enough digital time on this site! How 'bout just ignoring this old bastard for a while?

The media cult of McCain is inexplicable. Talking to McCain is shitty, every time, and not in a good way, if that were somehow possible.

He's dumb, boring, the whole package. Why McCain?

"Conservatives believe Obama's stimulus didn't work, and as proof, they point to the unemployment numbers 11 months after the policy became law. But if that's the appropriate measure, wouldn't Republicans also have to believe that Reagan's 1981 tax-cut plan also failed, since unemployment went even higher the year after it passed?"

Since I live in the Deep South, I can tell you how republicans would respond to this point:

"Dur, you sound like a faggit, college-boy."

Reagan's 11th commandment- never speak ill of an R.

The First WaMo commandment: Ignore Al.

Unemployment is high because the banks took beaucoup taxpayer dollars and aren't lending it out.

Businesses have to close. People are unemployed. Their government unemployment benefit is barely enough to pay their health insurance. No money to spend, no one shops, no money goes INTO a business, businesses fail.

This vicious cycle is precisely WHY tax cuts are the most stupid so-called solution to failing business. No income/no income tax. Cutting income taxes means absolutely NOTHING to a person or a business with no income.

Once again, George S, came up short on his homework. I do believe his wife, who was one of the coffee klatch friends of the character played by Streep in "It's Complicated" could do a far better job than he. At least, her father was a reporter for the WaPo, when it was still a great paper.

Isn't that the same Reagan who, when faced with a future shortfall in Social Security, raised taxes to deal with said shortfall?

Riddle me that one, John-boy.

When are people going to realize that tax rates and economic growth are NOT correlated!!!

Top tax rate from 1951-1964 was 91%!!! Growth over that time averaged over 5%!!!

Top tax rate during the Bush admin was 39.6% (at the beginning and 35% at the end. Growth not so good!!

Tax-cuts are one thing, exemptions and write-offs are another.

The problem we face is that the wealthy have a brazillian ways of getting out of paying a lot of their taxes.

Corporations hide money.

Wall Street speculates and bonusfies using tax-dollars AND gets huge IRS tax-breaks (not a widely realized reality)

McCain is wealthy. He ain't interested in sane economic policy.

We need common folk on the airwaves, not lobbyfied legislators.

You have to forgive Stephanopoulos for not pressing McCain on his statement. Poor George is still trying to figure out if there were any terrorist attacks on the USA during W's reign.