Chris Matthews Asks Ron Reagan 'Did Your Father Really Believe Cutting Taxes Raised Revenues?'
Chris Matthews Wednesday actually asked Ron Reagan, "Did [your father] really believe if you lowered the tax rates the government made more money?"
Frankly, I'm not sure which was more absurd - the question or the answer (video follows with transcript and commentary):
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Ron, I got to get back to you and then to Doug. Did he really believe if you lowered the tax rates the government made more money? I mean, really believe it?
RON REAGAN: You know, I think he actually -- honestly, I think he did. All evidence to the contrary, I know, find me a time when that actually happened, but I think he believed somehow that that would happen.
Well, let's see. In Jimmy Carter's last budget (fiscal 1981), total tax receipts were $599 billion. In Reagan's last budget (fiscal 1989), they were $991 billion, a 65 percent increase.
Any questions, Ron, or is this too tough for you?
(H/T NBer David)
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
It's revisionists like this...
Submitted by Order270 on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 2:01am.
...that make me wonder if I can really believe any of written history is true. Reagan's tax cuts increased revenue by around 75% but Congress increased spending by around 300% in his first year. How hard is that to see? It proved taxes were too high.
It made me think of the old joke punchline
Submitted by TheHistorian on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 5:59am.
"Who you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes?"
The real truth is that what Reagan did was also done by Warren Harding, except that Harding also cut what the government was spending. That caused the Wilson panic of 1920 to be transformed into the "Roaring 20's".
What does Ronnie think doubled the Government revenues? Tip O'Neil's sparking personality?
This was an interview by Tweedledum of Tweedledumber.
Dennis Prager
Which Reagan would you listen to?
Submitted by KC Mulville on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 2:31am.
Only a liberal would laugh off the opinion of the president and refer, instead, to the opinion of his son who only has two achievements: being the son of a president and failing at ballet.
Remember that Chris Matthews was a member of the Carter team
Submitted by TheHistorian on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 6:58am.
as it was laughingly called.
Carter's tax intake from individual and corporate went from $211 billion in 1977 to $316 billion in 1980 with total inflation about 37% in his four years (effective increase of about 15%). At the end of Reagan's FIRST term, it was $354 billion (12% increase) with inflation about the same. Then Reagan's SECOND term surged the tax receipts
Dennis Prager
Yea, and a bbl of oil was under 20 bucks barrel .
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 2:23pm.
Fun graph, oil was 70 bucks in 1869
Everybody and their brother went wildcatting and the price fell a few years later.
Drill oil now and save the whales.
During the decade preceding Confederation, the Canadian oil industry was born. The high cost of whale oil as a luminant, $2.50 per gallon or thereabout (in the mid 1800s), prompted the search for a cheaper substitute. The early work of Abraham Gesner and others directed attention to crude oil obtained from seepages and from the so-called "gum" beds which were fairly common in New York, Pennsylvania, Ontario and other eastern regions.
You Didn't Build That.
Ron Jr is the best argument for Pro Choice I know.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 4:49pm.
I wonder if Crissy has ever considered naming his show something like "Gay Economics," or "Let's Play Butt Buddies?" Actually "No Ball" would be better than Hardball.
I'm beginning to think the only masculine friend he has is Maddow!
Don't worry, Ronnie. If Chrisy gets booted off the air, he promises not to leave his buddy's behind.
And Matthews retakes the lead...
Submitted by Bill Brasky on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 2:33am.
... in the race against Ed Schultz for stupidest man on television.
Obamavision channel
Submitted by adamsmith on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 10:23am.
I think that's like a ten way tie over at Obamavision/Soros Central...Reagan Jr. can't get an interview anywhere else. Who knew he was working for Soros as well. Damn, he really has purchased the entire Democrat Party.......
Ron Reagan Jr. The Media Appointed Idiot.
Submitted by Avitar on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 2:59am.
It is a wonder that a son could be so stupid that his father gave up on him and never taught him about the times when cutting taxes raised revenue.
Warren G Harding
Coolidge
Truman/ Eisenhower
Kennedy
Reagan
George W, Bush
This assumes that the thesis is not proved by the use of the reverse strategy trying to raise government revenues in the long run by raising taxes.
Generally debasing the currency has been used at the same time as taxes are raised. This masks how mush less Revenue is produced by Tax hikes and the Class warfare mantra allowed them to raise taxes on only one group at a time. That you can raise money by raising taxes on the rich for one year then it falls off, In Clinton's case he taxed the rich with retroactive taxes and the revenues were falling off from the rich before Gingrich even with the stratagem to make tax avoidance impossible.
Woodrow Wilson
Herbert Hoover
FDR
LBJ
Carter
Clinton before Gingrich
When I read the exchange between Matthews and . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 8:55am.
. . . Reagan Jr., I was struck by the ignorance. Matthews -- who worships "Jack" Kennedy -- should've known that JFK lowered rates and raised the revenue.
The MSM still hates Ronald Reagan, and they love to ask lib Reagan Jr. to speak for his old man's legacy -- questions obviously attempting to draw some evidence that President Reagan regretted his "wrongful" decisions.
You'll never see them get Chelsea Clinton on TV and ask her about her father's miscreant behavior.
Two clueless fags flapping
Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 3:55am.
Two clueless fags flapping their delusional gums.......................
Killa.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 4:52pm.
I think these two "flap" each others gums! (Oh, I shouldn't say that! Too late!)
The Family embarrassment speaks . . . .
Submitted by Gat New York on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 5:42am.
This from a man who dropped out of college after only one year to become a ballet dancer and is an avowed atheist.
And what part of atheism
Submitted by TheHistorian on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 6:05am.
are we discussing? Or ballet? The only part of your comment that is important is that Ron Reagan dropped out of college. However, he got the normal four years of idiocy in one year is very apparent. Listening to Ron Reagan on economics is like listening t Barbra Streisand on the subject. Neither one has a clue on the subject, but that doesn't stop the formation of opinion.
Dennis Prager
We're discussing Ron Reagan Jr.
Submitted by Gat New York on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 8:58am.
While he is entitled to his opinion, he is not entitled to abuse the fact that his father was President Reagan and use that to revise history or speak for his father who can no longer speak for himself. He is a useful idiot for the far left and he plays into that, including his statement that his father had Alzheimer while being President. He seems to be making a career of trying to revise the history if his father.
GMTA, Gat!
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 9:06am.
See my comment immediately below.
Who cares what this idiot "thinks" his father believed??
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 6:40am.
Wasn't Ron estranged from his father for most of his adult life?
And now, suddenly, he's an expert on what the man thought and did???
Why don't any of his interviewers mention that? And why should we believe anything he says or wrote about his father. Because he wrote a book? Oh, well that changes things.
Mrs. Matthews?
Submitted by jdripper on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 6:47am.
Did any of your children live?
Jack
When morons meet...
Submitted by Red Jeep on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 7:15am.
...stupidity happens.
Jeep.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 4:58pm.
What do you think would be born if Megan McCain and, like Ronnie Reagan, Jr, whateverrrrrr, had sex (like Ronnie is down for dat, yo.).
I'm betting the world's next Barack Hussein Obama, mmm, mmm, MMM would appear!
Did Ron
Submitted by Airforce_5_O on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 7:26am.
Did Ron get any DNA from his Father? I mean, come you can't be that stupid about revenue and taxes chuckle head? I think the next time I want to waste my time with something I will turn on Opra's interview with Cher's daughter/son or what ever that is!
This interview
Submitted by HockeyKid on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 8:41am.
was a live demonstration of a supercollider loaded with weapons-grade stupid.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
To paraphrase LTG Honre . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 8:58am.
. . . these two are stuck on stupid.
Ron Reagan stupid
Submitted by ohio granny on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 9:04am.
The stupid Reagan speaks and only the stupid (talking about you Chris) think he has something important to say!!
Logical Disconnect
Submitted by RickTx on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 9:05am.
It just amazes me that the left so often wants to use the tax code for social engineering (to change the way people behave), but cannot vaguely comprehend that lowering taxes might change the way people behave.
Exactly. I'm always amused by
Submitted by amyshulk on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 7:03pm.
Exactly. I'm always amused by how truly similar the R's and D's thinking is *until* the get to cause and effect. Then they are completely different roads. Common sense vs. magical thinking. Which is which? Depends.
Ronald Reagan
The toothless sniveller never gives up
Submitted by lgeubank on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 9:15am.
Liberals never accept the truth. They continue to repeat a lie for decades after the truth has been proved.
The truth in this case is the Laffer Curve, or the fact that, as JFK said, "A rising tide lifts all boats" --- the economic activity that results when government gets off everybody's neck, benefits everyone and results in more tax revenue. It's proven fact. But Sniffles, the original post-nasal drip, refuses to admit the truth.
Matthews just can't get his
Submitted by Chris Norman on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 9:53am.
Matthews just can't get his fevered liberal brain around the fact that true conservatism is good policy and true conservatives are successful presidents.
Hard to know who is dumber...
Submitted by notinstl on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 9:58am.
Matthews for posing a stupid question to a stupid person.....or Reagan for not knowing how stupid he really is....only thing he knows is how to spend dad's money.
Gee, Chrissie, the numbers
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 11:00am.
Gee, Chrissie, the numbers prove conclusively that lowing taxes increases government revenue. Get yer head outta the sand, bubba. And Ron, this question from Chrissie was a no-brainer which assumes you have a somewhat functioning brain to begin with.
And Ron Reagan is now an
Submitted by tampamom25 on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 11:05am.
And Ron Reagan is now an expert in economics? I don't think so. His only goal is to tarnish his father's record, a sad, pathetic quest for any son. His ignorance is absolutely staggering and his lack of loyalty to his father is disgusting.
I think Ronald Reagan must
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 12:59pm.
I think Ronald Reagan must have failed to get a sufficient toe-hold.
LOL - I mean, how else do you explain Ron, Jr?
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
This just goes to show...
Submitted by Dbak61 on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 1:19pm.
...that comedian Ron White is correct: "You can't fix stupid."
Here's your card, Ron.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 2:30pm.
Here's your card, Chris.
It is unfortunate that stupidity does hurt or kill.
My favoite saying on this subject is
Submitted by IdahoJim on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 4:26pm.
Some forms of stupidity carry their own death penalty.
IdahoJim
http://idahoandy.net
And those are usually
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 5:01pm.
And those are usually nominees and eventual winners of the "Darwin Awards."
that word "belive" again
Submitted by wizardjr on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 3:21pm.
Someone pointed out in another thread that with libtards it's always about belief, not about fact. The proper question would be, "Did the Treasury intake actually increase after lowering the tax rates?" We get the same garbage about Global Warming and all the other scams.
When you hear 'believe', 'belief', and words like it unless it is about a recognized religion you know you are getting lied to.
When they say, "The data show that..." then first of all go to the source of the data. That's the second big lie. Libtards add zeros as needed in order to get your attention. If 100 people a year dying of something is kind of a, "Meh...?" moment then lets say '100 million' instead. It's gotten to the point that you can't trust a damn thing said in the public forums today.
This goes to show that the
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 3:44pm.
This goes to show that the phrase "there are no dumb questions" is false.
Mankiw's View of the Laffer Curve
Submitted by TheGreatHatman on Tue, 05/17/2011 - 10:38pm.
While the Laffer Curve enamored Reagan, "history failed to confirm Laffer's conjecture that lower tax rates would raise tax revenue. When Reagan cut taxes after he was elected, the result was less tax revenue, not more."
Laffer's point isn't COMPLETELY without merit, though - there are individual circumstances ("in Sweden in the early 1980s...the typical worker faced a marginal tax rate of 80 percent"; "the [WWII] wartime income surtax hit 90 percent") where tax rates are on the right side of the Laffer curve and reducing them will result in a gain of revenue. However, America in the 1980s was clearly on the left side of the curve, and tax receipts took a hit.
You may be left with two questions regarding the information above:
1.) How does that explain the increase in tax receipts Sheppard mentions?
2.) Where is he getting this information about the Laffer Curve?
Answers:
1.) The tax receipts fail to adjust for inflation (http://centristblog.com/?p=45) and include Reagan's tax increases (http://old.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp)
2.) I directly quoted from pages 172-174 from "Principles of Economics: 2nd Edition", written by N. Gregory Mankiw, George W. Bush's former Chair of Economic Advisors. I used Mankiw and National Review's Bruce Bartlett as sources to obviate any ad hominem attacks.
Welcome to NewsBusters, troll
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 05/18/2011 - 12:41am.
"When Reagan cut taxes after he was elected, the result was less tax revenue, not more."
So much for your credibility.
Nice try, though.
Be sure not to not let the door hit you in the ass on the way out as you slink (slither?) your way back to Kosland.
And you better get a move on, too, because I think George Soros is anxiously awaiting that Wendy's double with cheese that he sent you out for in the first place.
And you did remember to order the biggie fries, right?
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Dave - this troll doesn't
Submitted by Free Stinker on Wed, 05/18/2011 - 10:47am.
Dave - this troll doesn't order fries, he serves them. ;-)
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Hmmm....
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 05/18/2011 - 10:41am.
"TheGreatHatman" posts similarly to another troll who was rather recently removed by NB management.
TheGreatHatman's view of the Laffer curve ...
Submitted by NL207 on Wed, 05/18/2011 - 11:34am.
You postulate, without proofs, that America was on on the left of the Laffer curve peak. Your sole piece of evidence is a claim that tax receipts fell when adjusted for inflation. Your link refutes this very claim: Tax receipts by year adjusted for inflation:
1980 517.1 1981 599.3 1982 617.8 1983 600.6 1984 666.4 1985 734.0 1986 769.2 1987 854.3 1988 909.2 1989 991.1
Receipts went down 82-83 and increased monotonically thereafter. I don't include the Bush 41 fiscal years because he increased taxes.
You further falsely claim Reagan increased taxes. This is a matter of historical record.
Applicable Year Income brackets First bracket Top bracket Source
1971-1981 15 brackets 14% 70% IRS
1982-1986 12 brackets 12% 50% IRS
1987 5 brackets 11% 38.5% IRS
1988-1990 3 brackets 15% 28% IRS
Finally, you make no arguments about increased income tax receipts caused by economic growth. One of the principal points of supply-side economic theory is that lower taxation yields greater economic expansion rates and consequently greater tax revenues from the same tax rates and the data support this claim.
@ Dave The headline for this
Submitted by TheGreatHatman on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 11:42am.
@ Dave The headline for this blog entry reads, "Chris Matthews Asks Ron Reagan 'Did Your Father Really Believe Cutting Taxes Raised Revenues?', and Noel Sheppard concluded, "Well, let's see. In Jimmy Carter's last budget (fiscal 1981), total tax receipts were $599 billion. In Reagan's last budget (fiscal 1989), they were $991 billion, a 65 percent increase." It was pretty clear this blog's topic was "Does lowering taxes increase government revenue?" I remembered information that contradicted that conclusion - from Mankiw, Centristblog, and Bartlett - so I quoted it in my response.
I also noted at the end how I quoted Mankiw and Bartlett "as sources to obviate any ad hominem attack". You then replied by calling me a "troll".
@NL207 I agree - Reagan undoubtedly cut INCOME taxes. However, according to both my links, you'll read that he increased taxes in OTHER areas - Social Security taxes, the gasoline tax, etc. I will echo Bruce Bartlett's findings witIh his personal blog: http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/2154/reagans-for... In that blog, he quotes Reagan as saying the tax increases were "the price we have to pay to get the budget cuts".
That said, NL207 was right - the OMB numbers Centristblog cited WERE indexed for inflation. I think the blogger puts those numbers into its proper context - the population increased, and more people were paying taxes - but I made a mistake on that particular point.
Hatman fans again.
Submitted by NL207 on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 3:01pm.
Persistence does not make you right.
Below is an extraction from this CBO report detailing the effective tax rates by quintile. The top quintile is broken out by percentiles.
As is clear, Reagan did not increase effective tax rates even when all taxes are considered, so you can drop this fallacious 'Reagan raised taxes' argument. It simply isn't so.
Blogs don't contain findings, they contain opinions, which is why we call them 'blogs' and not 'Academic Journals'. In this case, you quote Bruce Bartlett's opinions. Your 'quotation' is incomplete: "Reagan as saying the tax increases were "the price we have to pay to get the budget cuts" " Your editing is misleading if not outright dishonest. This is the full quote : "Reagan had little to say about them afterwards. In his diary, he says only that the 1982 TEFRA bill “is the price we have to pay to get the budget cuts.”"
The immediate questions are what is the TEFRA bill and who demanded this 'price'? It was a Tax Increase originated in the Democrat controlled House of Representatives. The Democrats demanded this. Reagan agreed only under the condition there would be $3 of spending cuts for ever dollar of tax increase. So we see that Reagan did not want to increase taxes at all. He wanted to cut spending. These tax increases were products of the Democrats and this Bartlett you are quoting is just another inside-the-beltway big government hack busily revising history. Reagan's compromise was what used to be called 'bi-partisan governance' back when Democrats were capable of some sort of compromise.
NL,
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 3:53pm.
I can't believe he actually came back for more.
LOL - Sometimes I think some of them like getting spanked.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Nah...they're just too stupid
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 4:26pm.
Nah...they're just too stupid to realize that they're just too stupid.
They do make gratifying ....
Submitted by NL207 on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 4:58pm.
target practice. If these libs weren't so darn full of misinformation, they might last more than one or two posts. Of course, if they actually knew what was going on around them, they wouldn't be libs.
Hmm. The CBO data
Submitted by TheGreatHatman on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 3:54am.
Hmm. The CBO data contradicts what I read in Mankiw's textbook, which he doesn't address. I have some more research to do - fair enough point!